Pamela asked: "Have you thought about what you would have preferred to have in the old K-Mart space other than Wal-Mart?"
Actually, I thought about this a lot. My first premise is that no big box is preferable to a big box. So, tear down the Kmart building? I wish the University Avenue corridor was so vibrant that land values would demand a multi-story, multi-use, pedestrian-friendly, right-up-to-the sidewalk-parking-lot-in-back structure at that prime site. But, alas, that will have to wait for light rail.
My second premise is that a filled big box is better than an empty big box. This is a big issue nationwide as many big box retailers either go belly up, change locations as demographics change, etc. In this case, I would have much preferred filling the Kmart box with stalls for local merchants, farmers, craftspeople, antiques dealers, etc. Similar to the African market at University/Franklin/280, and similar to the new venture slated for the Shaw Lumber site on Como. Brilliant reuses for old buildings! But, alas, I'm not a real estate developer.
So, Walmart goes in to the Kmart site. Someone else also asked why those of us who oppose a new Home Depot on the bus garage site aren't also irate about a new Walmart? See premise #1: Just because a few big boxes are in the Midway now doesn't mean more are better. See premise #2: Accepting the "lesser of two evils" (Walmart vs. an empty box) doesn't mean we need more boxes that will likely be empty in ten or fewer years.
Don Ludemann
Snelling Hamline
