The Walgreens question
I've followed with interest the debate over a proposed Walgreens at the corner of Lawndale and Cornwallis.
I pass that intersection often and, frankly, agree, based on what I know at this point that it seems a poor use of that land. I can understand the neighbors' concern.
Commercial development already threatens to swallow the area. The nearby Target shopping center was a welcome addition and provided more convenient shopping. But isn't enough enough?
Then there is the issue of traffic congestion, which already is a challenge at that corner.
There may be some compelling reason to go forward with the project but I haven't seen it.
Comments (5)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
I would support a new Walgreens, but only it employed gothic architecture with inspiring flying buttresses and gargoyles.
Near my neighborhood, we have only one drug store, and I can assure it is not very pleasant, that.
Posted on December 13, 2007 2:17 PM
You should write for Letterman, Brian -- if you don't mind crossing picket lines.
As for your neighborhood, I don't recall seeing a drug store there.
Posted on December 13, 2007 3:16 PM
The CVS on Spring Garden is but a short walk from my house. With the new Walgreens on Aycock, we shall have two drugstores within walking distance.
Although my commitment to free-market, libertarian principles would certainly free me to cross picket lines, zoning is the one area where I am (honestly) skeptical of the market. As I've noted here before, I prefer the Wendover/downtown model where businesses are located in discrete areas more or less separate from residential areas (i.e. those not downtown).
Posted on December 14, 2007 12:43 PM
I like some mixed-use areas. They can be more self-contained, more walkable and less-reliant on car commutes.
Posted on December 14, 2007 12:49 PM
But not all of them make good sense.
Posted on December 14, 2007 12:50 PM