Daily Gazette

Editorials: Let Walgreens walk if it won't conform
Sunday, November 23, 2008

Text Size: A | A | A

The buildings at the intersection of State Street and Brandywine Avenue — specifically, the two suburban-style drugstore buildings on diagonally opposite corners — provide a terrific argument for the design standards that the city of Schenectady passed with its new comprehensive plan in March. The buildings are not just ugly, but impractical for urban use — set back well off their corners, with a sea of asphalt (for driving, parking and drive-up-window idling) on all sides: the definition of pedestrian-unfriendly.

So city officials, who have thus far refused to accommodate developers seeking to build yet another suburban-style drugstore on a third corner of the intersection — a Walgreens — are to be congratulated for sticking to their guns.

Even if there weren’t already two of those monstrosities at the intersection — the Rite Aid on the southeast corner and the long-vacant-Eckerd’s-now-Aarons-rental-center on the northwest — caving in to Walgreens’ demands would be ill-advised. The city surely needs new businesses, but it needs the kind that are going to help it prosper as a city — leading to more new development. That’s what the design standards were for — to ensure a relatively uniform, urban look that will attract foot traffic as well as cars. That’s especially important in a neighborhood like this, where not everyone drives.

Why did the former Eckerd’s building sit vacant for so long (four years)? That it wasn’t particularly attractive, or easily adaptable to other kinds of use undoubtedly had something to do with it. Also, the type of lease that developers of these drugstores typically sign still provide them with rent if the parent company closes the store, thus they have less impetus to find new tenants when that happens.

Schenectady doesn’t need buildings — even ugly ones — on key corridors sitting vacant for long periods of time. It also has a surfeit of ugly chain drugstores. So it should make sure that if Walgreens comes, it does so on the city’s terms. The presence of two wrongs on that corner doesn’t justify a third.


Get ALL of our news...Click here to subscribe to our online edition, a complete replica of our print edition.

Share story:   print   email +digg
+fark
+reddit
+facebook
+del.icio.us
+stumbleupon

comments


November 23, 2008
3:57 a.m.

[ Suggest removal ]
schdy ( no real name given ) says...

"That’s what the design standards were for — to ensure a relatively uniform, urban look that will attract foot traffic as well as cars. That’s especially important in a neighborhood like this, where not everyone drives."

The real problem is that intersection is way to busy with vehicle traffic for heavy pedestrian use. Have you ever tried crossing there?

We could use a Walgreens and a affordable supermarket like Price Rite on the West side of the city. West of Nott Terrace.

November 23, 2008
7:46 a.m.

[ Suggest removal ]
KeepingItReal4u ( no real name given ) says...

That corner should be dedicated to green space and a 911 monument. There is nothing attractive in that area.

Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)

In Today's Gazette...
July 4, 2009

Poll
Do you fly an American flag at your home?


See the results





Services




101 Things

Ask A Doctor