DUDE i just LOVE the hustle and bustle of the big city, it’s so DYNAMIC and makes me feel like i’m in one of my favourite TV SHOWS. you should totally come on down to my studio apartment, it’s above a freakin’ COSTCO, it’s got EXPOSED RED BRICK walls and everything, we can crack open a nice hoppy ipa or three and get crazy watching some cartoons on adult swim! and dude, dude, DUDE, we have GOTTA go down to the COSTCO barcade- listen here, right, it’s a BAR where us ADULTS who do ADULTING can go DRINK in a COSTCO. BUT!!!! it’s also an ARCADE like when we were kids, so we can play awesome VIDEO GAMES, without dumb kids bothering us. speaking of which megan and i have finally decided to tie the knot- literally -we’re both getting snipped tomorrow at the hospital, that way we can save money to spent more on ourselves and our COSTCO GOLD MEMBERSHIPS. i’m fuckin JACKED man, i’m gonna SLAM this craft beer and pop open another one!!!
The great reset in action: you get to live in stacked containers owned by corporations.
That's all you're allowed to have. Well, not have have. You just rent so they continually extract money and keep you down.
Once every 4 years they'll let you out for a day so you vote for them. And don't you dare vote wrong or we'll take it all away from you! After all: thanks to rent and inflation you won't be able to afford anything but a corporate, government-sponsored living container.
I get the innate revulsion to corporations becoming more involved in our lives, really I do, but what's the problem here? It's efficient use of space and puts downward pressure on housing demand.
Are you suggesting it's part of a bigger push for corporations to take over the rental market and force out independent landlords? That would be a problem, yeah. But on its own it's fine. You could even say that using their space to provide housing opportunities for the community shows a sense of civic responsibility.
I don't have a problem per se with it, but I do question the choice of retailer. Costco's target market is small business owners and families but the people who would be interested in living in those apartments are all yuppie DINKs.
I see it as a further dehumanizing of the suburban landscape.
Retail stores on ground floors of apartment buildings makes sense in really densely populated cities like SF or NYC, but elsewhere such a setup discourages going anywhere but those places you drive to.
A Megalomart on the ground floor of my apartment building? With all the traffic it attracts? No thanks.
Mixed-use buildings aren't new - look around New York in Google Maps' Street View and you'll see a lot of buildings with retail on the ground floor and apartments on the upper floors.
Do you know how busy the costco parking lots are at all hours of the day? Do you know how angry people can get over parking spots? You wanna hear all that noise all day?
The single, solitary advantage of this is that by having a shop on the ground floor you don't get people gawping into the windows of ground-floor residential properties, because there aren't any.
Most people would solve this with a revolutionary product: curtains.
The advantage of this is that it's free real estate: there is less of a barrier to providing the working class accommodation a city needs when said working class accommodation doesn't have to bear the brunt of high land prices in such a premium location.
San Francisco could use a lot more of those, if the NIMBY shitheads already there didn't use every zoning and building code hurdle they can think of to prevent it.
There are several apartment complexes that have gone up in the greater Seattle area that are essentially this. Except most of the ones I've seen have some sort of "family doctor/urgent care" on the ground floor, which I find to be extremely creepy.
One of them is actually right across the street from a Costco, coincidentally enough.
this only seems weird because you're used to living in an abnormally sparse country. mixed buildings are a fact of life in more densely-packed countries
I for one think it's a great idea! Sell the condos above and make it part of the contract that the residents collectively own the space downstairs and collect rent from Costco or whatever business that occupies the space downstairs.
What? The big business (or a firm representing their interests) will own the building and overcharge the wagies that live upstairs? Nevermind....
This is less soybeard and more like I'm going to move in my entire extended family above Costco and never consoom a non-Kirkland product again.
Send your kid down for samples every morning -
“See if they have breakfast sausages this time!”
I think they only do that on the weekends.
If you’re truly Kirkland-Pilled you’ll get them to write it into the condo contract
Thank you for this comment, it caught me off guard and I laughed my ass off.
kek
Please god let these types of people, who are real despite this parody, neuter themselves.
There's a Target and Whole Foods like this in Austin.
The great reset in action: you get to live in stacked containers owned by corporations.
That's all you're allowed to have. Well, not have have. You just rent so they continually extract money and keep you down.
Once every 4 years they'll let you out for a day so you vote for them. And don't you dare vote wrong or we'll take it all away from you! After all: thanks to rent and inflation you won't be able to afford anything but a corporate, government-sponsored living container.
A lot of apartments have convenience stores in their first floor.
This is a bit overkill, though.
I get the innate revulsion to corporations becoming more involved in our lives, really I do, but what's the problem here? It's efficient use of space and puts downward pressure on housing demand.
Are you suggesting it's part of a bigger push for corporations to take over the rental market and force out independent landlords? That would be a problem, yeah. But on its own it's fine. You could even say that using their space to provide housing opportunities for the community shows a sense of civic responsibility.
I agree. Ground floor housing in the city is silly. It makes far more sense to have a store on the first level.
I don't have a problem per se with it, but I do question the choice of retailer. Costco's target market is small business owners and families but the people who would be interested in living in those apartments are all yuppie DINKs.
They're probably not trying to sell to those people, just trying to make money off of the flat space they developed on top of the sales.
I see it as a further dehumanizing of the suburban landscape.
Retail stores on ground floors of apartment buildings makes sense in really densely populated cities like SF or NYC, but elsewhere such a setup discourages going anywhere but those places you drive to.
A Megalomart on the ground floor of my apartment building? With all the traffic it attracts? No thanks.
"Guess what, my precious cattle! We got you a new feedlot! Isn't that exciting?"
Mixed-use buildings aren't new - look around New York in Google Maps' Street View and you'll see a lot of buildings with retail on the ground floor and apartments on the upper floors.
My small town in Iowa has stores with apartments above them. This is weird only because it's Costco
"Welcome to Costco. I love you."
Oh good, someone posted it.
I was waiting for that!
Do you know how busy the costco parking lots are at all hours of the day? Do you know how angry people can get over parking spots? You wanna hear all that noise all day?
Enjoy that as your front lawn.
i mean, it's not a bad idea.
This is fairly normal in European cities. Not saying it's good. I wouldn't want to live there, but to each his own, I guess.
Never seen this in Germany
I mean, if people want it why not.
burn it to the ground
The single, solitary advantage of this is that by having a shop on the ground floor you don't get people gawping into the windows of ground-floor residential properties, because there aren't any.
Most people would solve this with a revolutionary product: curtains.
The advantage of this is that it's free real estate: there is less of a barrier to providing the working class accommodation a city needs when said working class accommodation doesn't have to bear the brunt of high land prices in such a premium location.
San Francisco could use a lot more of those, if the NIMBY shitheads already there didn't use every zoning and building code hurdle they can think of to prevent it.
There are several apartment complexes that have gone up in the greater Seattle area that are essentially this. Except most of the ones I've seen have some sort of "family doctor/urgent care" on the ground floor, which I find to be extremely creepy.
One of them is actually right across the street from a Costco, coincidentally enough.
this only seems weird because you're used to living in an abnormally sparse country. mixed buildings are a fact of life in more densely-packed countries
I for one think it's a great idea! Sell the condos above and make it part of the contract that the residents collectively own the space downstairs and collect rent from Costco or whatever business that occupies the space downstairs.
What? The big business (or a firm representing their interests) will own the building and overcharge the wagies that live upstairs? Nevermind....
Nothing wrong with mixed use buildings. The problem is land is too expensive.
Last time I went to Italy, which was pre-pandemic at this point, they had a block of apartments above the supermarket. This isn't a new thing.