A bit of a background: a struggling country club in South Euclid, Ohio, the home of yours truly for about five years, closed down a couple of years ago. (They merged with another country club on the other side of South Euclid.) The land was sold to a developer after an unsuccessful effort to preserve it as open space, and after a referendum, rezoned for commercial development. Although there was some opposition, the project had moderate support among residents, and was eagerly embraced by city officials. South Euclid is a middle class suburb with fairly high property taxes for the Cleveland area, and a much lower ratio of commercial to residential uses than neighboring communities. There was a lot of retail leakage, and a sense that the city wasn't getting its fair share of the benefits of commercial development; mainly, tax revenue from land uses that use few city services compared to single family houses.
The developer promised a project that was green, sustainable, environmentally friendly, and so on; all the buzzwords.
This is the result. A vehicle-oriented power center in an otherwise dense, pedestrian-friendly although not always pedestrian-oriented inner ring suburb.
But ... it's sustainable!
The merits of Wal-Mart aside, I wonder if any citizens or stakeholders really believe a power center can be "green", "sustainable", and the like. Oakwood Commons, like it or not, seems like the most egregious case of greenwashing I've encountered.
Is it possible for a vehicle-oriented, big box-anchored power center to be "green?"