My thoughts turn to a subject that has caught my attention in a two-fold manner.

The company I work for has been working with a client that is building a HUGE movie theater/dinner entertainment regional-draw site. It calls for 1,000+ spaces of parking, has a bowling alley, etc. The site is also trying to incorporate "good" planing with an envisioned with a faux-main street within the site. Anyhow, this description is meant to paint a picture of the newest, latest, and greatest thing in movie theater entertainment land use that will be available at this site. Additoinally, accessibility is only by car (though provisions for bicycle facilities are included) and its being built next to interstate, away from the vibrant downtown.

Then, in my childhood hometown area, another "latest and greatest" movie theater complex from a by-gone era is closing its doors after 43 years of service. This site was not located in a traditional downtown, but along a major road way in the region. Suburban strip malls and commercial development grew around it from the 1970 - 1990s. At one point the largest movie theater in the country, now, technology and other newer, competing theaters have driven one into the ground. This place was an emotional and economical landmark in the larger region. (See the article here: )

A point to ponder: why do developers, planners, and cities allow such developments to occur that are economically, environmentally, and socially unsustainable? Is 10 or 20 years worth of tax increases worth the longer-term tax burden that will come when this land, it's improvements, and its use, are no longer desired by the public? I could go into more detail about the project, but that's not the point I wanted to hit home. This is: As we strive to add improvements to land's value to increase tax revenue, how long-term are we willing to look (or settle for) when it comes to real estate development?

Comments and responses are welcome.