Thinking Outside the Box: A critical look at the cultural and economic effects of big box stores in American towns

"People love what's inside super-stores. The hate what's on the outside" states Edward McMahon, a notional expert on smart growth. [big box sprawl] Ed fairly well sums up consumer's love-hate relationship with box stores. Most Americans resent the idea of a box store on the edge of their town when it comes to the landscape, but appreciate the savings. What's the harm in going to a box store? The answer: plenty. Box stores assault the landscape, sense of place, existing shops, uniqueness of the area, good business practices, and idea of what it means to be an American. The big box store is the bane of any small town that lets their looming businesses within the city limits.

Throughout this paper, i will present a rather one sided view. It will probably appear to be a call for a national boycott of box stores. This is not my intention. The true message of the essay is to convince the reader to carefully consider box stores and their effects. The idea is balance, but the message is in favor of small stores. I leave the low prices, conveniences, and multi-million dollar ad campaigns to present the other half of the argument. The reader then, will hopefully think twice about where they open their wallet and the ramifications of doing so in a box store.

The cultural landscape of an area filled with box stores is, needless to say, quite different from the quintessential downtown. The two ideologies of the landscapes clash in some interesting ways and yet have some very interesting similarities. The connotations the first landscape brings to mind some very negative feelings. Images that spring to mind are large boxes that appear to be little more than walk-in billboards, vast & unused parking lots, and a very empty, flat, and distant sense of place. It is this sense of place which must take our interest. The definition of place, ideologically, is full of concepts which lend themselves to feeling out an area. The way a box store parking lot makes a shopper feel is not usually described with warm feelings. The place within the box, too, lends itself to a warehouse atmosphere. The fluorescent lights are strung up in the scaffolding of the high ceiling. Corporate logos and discount brands assault the eyes, and scowling workers wish you a nice day. It would be a very bold statement to say that all of these greetings are insincere, and yet not so bold a statement to assume that most are. All of these details paint a fairly grim picture and create a sense of place that might best be described as hollow.

The way that a small town shopping district is thought of, however, is quite different. Rather than a vacant parking lot surrounding a large square building, there are streets and sidewalks surrounding a small shop. This is worth noting. Does it serve a purpose for citizens to park in municipal spots and walk on the city paths as opposed to private ones? It is my belief that when parking and walking in the city, the pedestrian feels more like a pedestrian and less of a trespasser. The sidewalks are everyone’s sidewalks, and one seems to meet everyone on the way. A person walking from their car to Best Buy sees only fellow electronics consumers. The same person walking from their car to the fictional Keweenaw Electronics sees someone from each part of the community. The social connotations of this seemingly insignificant difference can be surprising. Let us continue to observe the place of the downtown shop. As the shopper approaches the business, he/she observes a handmade sign in the window “Support out troops”. The shopper enters the store, immediately seeing a small business stocked with a small yet selective variety of a specific category of goods. Many of the goods are national brand, a couple of off brand, and a few local brands sporting labels made on a home computer. At the counter is an older gentleman, who remembers most of his customers if not by name, than by face. He and his employees spend their wages locally. His profits are not reported to a national headquarters, his sign does not glow when the sun goes down. He does not air commercials on national TV. He is counting on the idea that you know his store is there, you know what his store sells, and you know him. The sense of place, which it is still our purpose to describe, is a very personal and accommodating atmosphere. The owner cares about his customers, and about his community. This brings to mind the shopkeepers of older times, in a very nostalgic sense, when national chains were few and far between. Though it is true that nostalgia is a double edged sword, one must still accept the notion that a small business retains some timeless value.

This contrast in places, between the box store landscape and the local shop throws a harsh light on the difference in feeling of the two places. How much value, then, is to be places into such feelings? How important is the purchaser’s sense of place? The answer depends on the individual. In my opinion the iciness and vacant feeling of the square corporate landscape is pretty disagreeable and to be avoided if at all possible. An individual, who sees value in terms of the dollar alone, will fail to see the difference in landscapes. The question therefore posed to the individual is what they value? If the consumer base as a whole values good prices, hometown & personal atmosphere, local products, fair trade, and local businesses, then let their spending habits reflect that, and they will provide a mandate for market shaping.

Thus far, we have left out of our discussion of cultural landscape and sense of place one of the most identifying and intrinsically important factors: uniqueness. Variety and individualism are two of the very hallmarks of American ideals. Citizens generally feel a very real sense of pride based on the area they reside in. There almost always exists a great deal of hometown pride, sometimes a regional pride, often a pride in state, a national region for citizens to be proud of, and a great deal of national patriotism. Such a sense of pride is founded on the idea that the area that the citizen may boast of is different and (dare they say) better than another region. Though it is seldom stated that one town is better than another, the citizens of a given town generally feel a greater affinity for their town. Yet, these differences that the citizens of these places are so proud of seem to be decreasing. While each town has small stores that no other city can boast of, box stores appear in similar groupings all over the United States, and are increasing their grip abroad as well. This spreading of national chains homogenizes the cultural and literal landscape of every city in the US. It is my feeling that a cookie cutter city, similar to every other city is a decidedly sad idea. It seems to contradict the ideas of American individuality and screams against the cultural ideals that we hold so dear. Yet it is tolerated, and America truly becomes the great melting pot, full of a bland stew, rather than an assembly of diverse ideas, people, and places. It is my belief that the assembly of such diversity is the strength of America, not a mashing together of ideas. An artist creates a beautiful image by arranging separate colors on a canvas, not by smearing his paints together once the picture is complete. Similarly, I believe that these box stores are a smudge on the great American landscape, and must not be allowed to smear further, or all the beauty that is America will be reduced to a homogeneous grouping of pale, square buildings amid black vacant expanses.

While it would be unfair to say that all box stores cause outsourcing and use bad business practices, it would not be untoward to state that a box store is more likely than a small business to use cheap labor, make shady trade agreements, and to buy products from unsafe and unethical businesses overseas. To avoid the aforementioned sort of blanket statement, we will use the example of the box store figurehead: Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart’s business practices are less than ideal and are to some degree emulated by numerous box stores. To enter into trade with Wal-Mart, a company must sign a contract guaranteeing that the price of the product would be lowered each year. This sort of long term contract can be detrimental to US businesses. Prices are consistently lower at box stores that more traditional stores. Levis jeans, for example, signed such a contract with Wal-Mart, causing their prices and profits to drop every year that the contract was valid. As a result, Levis was forced to outsource their labor and consequently saw a reduction in the quality of the product. Because the jeans no longer maintained their famous quality, sales plummeted and the company went bankrupt. Levis is not the only company to suffer this fate. Another detrimental effect of Wal-Mart business ethics is the complete reversal of conventional logic in economics. The example we use is the Vlasic Pickle co. Vlasic’s jar of ordinary pickles once had a concrete price of, for example, three dollars. Wal-Mart sells a larger version of the same jar of pickles. This large jar is roughly twice the size of the original jar. Conventional economics which are guided by logic, reason, and basic Smith-Keynesian ideas place the price of the larger jar at four dollars. The price was set at three dollars, however, for seemingly no reason at all. Wal-Mart could safely charge three dollars for this extra large jar of pickles, so no ill effects came to the company. Other stores, however, could only sell the small jar for three dollars or the large jar for four. The effects are obvious so let’s return to the cause. The reason that Wal-Mart decided on this seemingly hap-hazard pricing scheme is simple: neatness. A Wal-Mart executive decided on three dollars because he or she decided it would be neat for the small jar at the other stores to cost as much as the large jar at Wal-Mart. Hence we find ourselves in a new world of economics which quite frankly scares the crap out of modern economic theorists because it has no base in the logic conventionally applied to our current American free market. [Freakenomics] I would once again like to iterate that my intention is not to apply a blanket statement to all box stores. Certainly many of these companies engage in much more ethical practices than shown in these few examples. Wal-Mart, however, is not alone in these practices, and it is reasonable to assume that their accomplices in these hazy crimes are (for the most part) the very same companies who would rather build a 200 thousand square foot complex than an actual building.

The most heard argument is the idea that when a box store moves into an area, all the small stores will soon be out of business. While this is an overstatement of the reality, there is reality to it. Local businesses find it difficult to compete with such behemoths of retail. Dairy products are nationally averaged to be 5-15% lower priced at a box store than a traditional store. [USDA article] Such pricing offers stiff competition. This is especially true in the case of so called “category killers”. The local hardware store has a difficult time competing with Lowe’s Hardware. Kenneth Stone's research clearly indicates that building supply stores of towns where a Lowes or Home Depot opens will see drastically reduced business. This is negligble, however, compared to the effect on neighboring towns, where such loss of business is detrimental. He states "The single most important question to be asked by local officials concerning subsidies is; Is it fair to give taxpayer's money to big corporations that will then use it to hep put existing firms out of business?" [the impact of big box building stores] The price, selection, and convenience are too alluring for consumers going to the store in town. With this competition, many small stores are forced out of business. The worst case scenario of this vicious cycle is the hardware store sitting empty while a Home Depot goes up outside of town, employing many- including the previous owner of the small store that went out of business in the first place. Every small business owner becomes nervous when receiving competition from a box store. Large corporate resources, a recognized name, greater variety, lower cost, and convenient parking are something that small establishments have trouble offering. There are numerous online guides for small business owners who find themselves in just this position. Owners are encouraged to maintain a homely atmosphere, offer expertise, offer extra services, and carry some hard-to-find products that you won’t see in the “square and flat” version of the store. [what to do if a box store moves in thingy] These characteristics which focus on originality and personal experiences are really the only resource small stores have to compete with their corporate counterparts.

I am constantly surprised by the success of box stores in America due to the fact that they are completely un-American. What i mean is that all institutions operate under a system of principles and values. The American institution and the institution of the box store exist harmoniously though their respective principles and values contrast and, for the most part, conflict. Americans value entrepreneurship and independence, not conformity and large corporate campaigns. The very essence of the corporate institution is counter to the values which seem to drive American ideas. Why do Americans tolerate homogenization while valuing individualism? History is a highly regarded aspect of American culture, with special emphasis on the preservation of historic sites. Gettysburg, for example, has been meticulously preserved so as to retain all available history of the ground that influenced so greatly the history of the country. Why go to so much trouble to preserve these grounds as a historic park and then allow a McDonalds to build a fast food burger joint nearly in the middle of this revered site? Why is this behavior tolerated? It seems that corporations should be held to a greater standard of responsibility than the present. Many movements are pushing for greater corporate accountability, from total waste, to environmental, economic, and social effects of their boxy intrusions into the landscape.

There is hope for our American cityscapes; several movements are slowly taking place including a migration back into the cities and a shift in cultural values which mandates a shift in corporate values. For many reasons, suburbanites are migrating back into the cities, and box stores are following. The press for space causes big box stores to change their format. Multiple level department stores with glass facades and smaller logos are more agreeable to cultural centeres. Shopping cart movement and drive up parking is sacrificed, sure, but retailers are forced to re-design themselves to work in a smaller space. In city Circuit City stores are an average 42% smaller than their flat box format. More and more retailers are following suit. A decade ago, one percent of big-box stores were in cities, but today that figure is up to 5%.[archettectural record] A three level Home Depot recently opened in Manhattan. Instead of building a new complex, the company restored a building who's history stretches back to the early 1890's. [usatoday big apple] Signs that customers are demanding change can be seen across the marketscape. Organic products, fair trade, domestic products, recycled items, local products are all surfacing in stores across the country. The appearance of these products is a heartening sign that box stores are responding for customer demand for good products which do good things for the community and the planet. Some box stores in California are even covering their roofs with solar panels to utilize what was wasted space and help to generate their own energy.

The community, too, is taking a more critical look at the idea of box stores in their community. The most recent cities to ban big box stores are Kaua'i Hawaii on may 25th and San Diego on June 5th. The main reason citied for banning box stores by the city is the character of the community. [big box watch] Cities and citizens choosing character over savings and convenience shows a dedication to preservation of an individual sense of place which further distinguishes character. When Lake Placid's city council reviewed the effects of a Wal-Mart setting up shop it was decided that

"Such chronic vacancies...would almost inevitably result in fewer tourists visiting the area, which would in turn result in less sales overall, resulting in net downward spiral in the psychological, visual, and economic character and conditions of the...downtown....These potential impacts would have a significant transmittable adverse impact on the character and culture of the community by resulting in vacant storefronts [and] a loss of 'critical mass' in existing downtown areas..." [big box sprawl] Municipal measures go as far as forcing box stores to pay for their own demolition in the form of a tax per square foot upon the building of the structure. This tax, which can come to tens of thousands of dollars at 20 cents per square foot, either forces large corporations to re-evaluate their use of space or to pay the price. The tax helps the city deal with the aftermath of a box store moving and "leaving big boxy host-buildings behind". [Big Box stores pay for own demolition] This tax has been compared to a prenuptial agreement, which can scare retailers away. Advocates of the tax state that stores are committed to consider effects of the building and have more incentive to invest in the community by limiting their impact. In short, big box builders are forced to be conscious of their actions and the resulting effects.

"Can't we have stores with both low prices and community-friendly design? Of course we can. Communities have choices. They can put policies in place that will enhance their ability to negotiate for the kind of development they want tor they can adopt an 'anything goes' policy and e at the mercy of whatever comes along. Retail chains have choice, too. They can insist on look-alike, big-box sprawl wherever they build, or they can respect the desire of distinctive communities to preserve the scenic vistas, historic places, and downtowns that people love" [Municipal lawyer]

This excerpt from the Municipal Lawyer once again addresses choice of the consumer. While the quote pertains specifically to legislation, it can be applied in a broader sense. Once again the idea is choice. The article does not state that legislation should ban box stores, but hold them accountable for creating a store which is responsibly adapted to the character of the existing area. Our message today is not "dont go to box stores ever", our message is to think about where your money goes and what message your money sends regarding what and where you buy. Does that message agree with your values and the values of the area you inhabit? If the answer is no, then its time to find a different store. Try looking downtown, where the buildings are made of red sandstone instead of cinder blocks. The price may be a bit higher and the store will be a bit harder to find, you may have to walk a bit more and you might have to visit a few shops. But the person behind the counter will be polite, you may find something else of interest; be it a new product or a new place (or sense of place). But now think of this store, with the interesting wares, the unique location, the different people...isn't that a place worth investing in?

Rescources

Levett, Steven D. and Dubner, Stephen J. Freakonomics: a rogue economist explores the hidden side of everything. HarperCollins. 2005.

Sullivan, Tom. San Diego joins the big box fray. NBC San Diego. June 5. 2008.

Timbers, Amelia. Milwaukee journal sentinel. May 26, 2008

Beaumont, Constance E. and Tucker, Leslie. Big Box Sprawl (And how to control it) Municipal Lawyer. March/April 2002 Vol. 43, No. 2

Stone, Kenneth E and Artz, Georgeanne M. The impact of Big Box building materials stores on host towns and surrounding counties in a midwest state. Iowa State University. AAEA. 2001, Aug 5.

Waters, Shari. Competing with big box stores, tips for retail competition. About.com. The New York Times Company. 2007.

Leibtag, Ephraim. The impact of big-box stores on retail food prices and the consumer price index. Economic Reserch Service. United States Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Report Number 33. USA: HF5469.23.U62

Hughes, C.J. Big-Box stores slim down for urban settings. Architectural Record. The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. May 29. 2008.

Howard, Theresa. Big-box stores squeeze into the big apple. USA Today. Gannett Co. Inc. 2008. 2004-10-08

Nonspecific ideas from:

Bill Gale

Shopping at Wal-Mart

Shopping at Bookworld

Working at Meijer

Billy Joel’s “No Man’s Land”

Loose change, Really?

Appearently, there are still a significant number of Americans who believe that the events of 911 were a tactical operation perpetrated by the highest levels of our government.This begs the question: why would our government do that?

Their answer is that we "needed a reason to invade a middle eastern country". Well, cupcake I've got a newsflash for ya: we don't need a damn reason to invade a country, we just make them up!

*A reminder*: we didn't invade Iraq because they were tied in any way shape or form to 911. We just thought they had weapons. Remember when Powell was holding up the vial of white powder saying we need to invade? That wasn't freedom dust. Refer also to the Joe Brown scandal. The Executive office said the Niger was selling yellow cake uranium. They weren't and Joe said so. To get back at him they outed Valerie Plame.

So if the government is all hunky-dory with fabricating a reason to go to war, why didn't they just make up a reason to go to Afghanistan?

I think a better plan for getting support to go to war would be to "uncover" detailed plans laying out exactly how to pull 911 off and arresting several "suspects" who then later "voluntarily" go on camera and admit their guilt and hatred for America and promise that more will come. I would still be pretty damn galvanized to take action, but that's just what i think.

So my advice to all those impressionable turd spelunkers that think that the twin towers fell due to an executive order:

Either forget it or do some research. Everything in the events on 911 can be explained and what cant be explained can be fabricated. Here are some interesting links i think that everything here is very interesting. Below the links i will give a counter-point to one aspect of the "conspiracy". Why just one? if i dwell on the stupidity of these conspiracy theorists for too long, i will begin a process called "spontaneous cranial hemorrhaging". If you want more credible links, i can provide them, only two of these are meant to be serious, two are for entertainment.

"Loose change" video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE

Maddox's opinion (one of the few subjects in which i support him)
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

Boring government documentation
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf

South park episode
http://www.911blogger.com/node/3641

My opinion:
So one of the arguments is that the buildings collapsed in a controlled fashion as opposed to the kind of collapse you would see if a recking ball or an airplane hit it. This is true. Demolition experts spend weeks studying building structure, locating supports, and timing the collapse of those supports so that the building falls directly in upon itself, as you will remember the world trade centers did.

When a building is struck from the side, as the wtc towers were, it causes a weakening of that side creating compressive forces around the impact site and tension forces on the opposite side. The result is closer to what you see playing Jenga than what we saw on 911.

HOLY CRAP THAT MEANS THAT IT WAS PULLED OFF BY A HIGHLY TRAINED DEMOLITION TEAM WHO HAD BEEN PLANNING THIS FOR MONTHS!!!

No.

The towers were build in an ingenious fashion, with locking support plates which redistribute the weight externally and internally in independent and tandem systems. This is the purpose of redundancy. Kinetic energy did not bring down the towers, the problem was enthalpy. Heat caused a weakening of several bolts in the building. Now, these bolts were the one design flaw of the structure. I am referring to the connections between the floor beams and the internal structure. There were only 4 bolts per beam, and they were grossly undersized to handle those kinds of forces under that kind of heat. As a result, the floor structure remained intact, but detached from the external shell of the building as well as the central core. One of the geniuses of these towers was that there were no internal columns allowing for wide open office spaces with no pillars. The only supports were the central columns and the outer structure. So as this intact floor falls independent from its supporting structures, there is nothing to accept its force but the floor below, causing the tragic failure of the towers as a whole.

Ok, that's all the time and effort i can spend on this subject before i begin to leak cranial fluid. As always, feel free to disagree with me and leave a comment.

*http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/retarded

A few thoughts on voting...

Folks today dont seem to understand the idea of voting. Some choose not to, some choose to do so ignorantly. The way i see it, you have three options when it comes to voting. Lets look at them and why you may want to do each.

Don't Vote: Option one, you could just stay home. This is generally a bad idea. Although the election process is flawed and our democracy isn't a direct one, you should still vote. The 'ol "one vote wont make a difference" idea is also flawed. Guys, there's a reason that its a well known adage: lots of people say it. Be one less, it does matter. The only reason you shouldn't vote is if you have absolutely no knowledge of the issues at stake. If your education of the decision you have to make comes strictly from what you learned in the attack adds you saw on tv, please don't vote. Otherwise, do your civic duty.

Vote for the little guy: You may really agree with the policies of an independent or unpopular party, its perfectly acceptable to vote for them. It's not okay to vote for say, the green party, just because you disagree with the two major parties, but if there's an underdog that you feel represents you, by all means vote for him. Many people feel that to vote for a third party is to throw your vote away. This couldnt be further from the truth. To vote small gives mandate to that party or to the class of independants in general. The more we mandate these smaller groups, the less powerful these two large political machines become. Remember, though we are using a partially broken system, power still resides in a mandate from the masses.

Vote Dem or Rep: If your views coincide with one of these candidates, your vote should obviously reside with them. But what if you only agree partially (much like my bid for Obama)? I dont agree completely with Obama on his issues, but he still has my vote. Here is my though process:
1. Is there another candidate i would like to vote for? Yes.
2. Would that vote do any good? Yes.
3. Do i really dislike any of the two that are almost guaranteed to win? Yes.
4. Would my vote do more good defeating him that mandating my third party champion? Yes.
5. I will vote Obama.

This is the lesser of two evils approach, which is often quite valid. However, i feel that the two evils in the election are much brighter than candidates in the past. So whatever you decide to do in the ballot box, think about and research your choice. Do not remain ignorant about your decision, this is the information age. So please please please, learn, think, vote.