Talk:Southdale Center

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Arcade, Providence, RI. Built in 1828 is the oldest indoor mall. Not Minnesota's Southdale Mall (1958)[edit]

The Arcade is the country's oldest indoor shopping mall. Built entirely of granite in 1828 (when Providence's population numbered only 14,000), it was the first commercial venture established on the west side of the Providence River.

The 216-foot structure, which fronts on both Westminster and Weybosset Streets, was originally owned by two separate groups whose architects argued over the building's design. This resulted in a structure with mismatched entrances: The Weybosset Street entrance is topped off by a stepped parapet, while the Westminster Street side is topped by a pediment. The Arcade's twelve massive 21-foot granite columns, which were quarried in Johnston and dragged to the construction site by a team of 30 oxen, were the largest monolithic columns in the country at the time, weighing in at 13 tons a piece. The total cost of the building was $145,000 ($2,128,100 in today's money—cheap!).

The building was once named by the Metropolitan Museum of Art as one of the finest commercial buildings in the history of American architecture, and it has also been designated a National Historic Landmark. In addition to its impressive exterior, it boasts a huge glass skylight, supported by wooden beams, that runs the length of the building and floods the open area between the three floors with natural light. Shops on the second and third levels are connected by long, open balconies overlooking the ground-floor. The building has survived a fire, three hurricanes, the threat of demolition, and a $3 million refurbishment.

Incidentally, Cleveland, Ohio's Old Arcade (1894), Seattle, Washington's Northgate Mall (1950), Appleton, Wisconsin's Valley Fair shopping mall (1954), and Edina, Minnesota's Southdale Center (1958) all claim to be the country's oldest/first indoor/enclosed shopping mall. Losers. http://www.quahog.org/attractions/index.php?id=1

Southdale was the brainchild of Victor Gruen, an Austrian emigrant who moved to the United States. Gruen was a European style socialist; he hated the suburban lifestyle of 1950s America, and wanted to design a building that would bring people together into a community, by providing a meeting place that American towns lacked. They would come together to shop, drink coffee, and socialize. It was never his intention to design what some consider an icon of capitalism. He modeled the design of Southdale on the arcades of European cities, although his original version was never achieved. Gruen also saw the mall as the center of a community. When he first drew up the plans for Southdale, he placed the shopping center at the heart of a 463-acre (1.9 km²) development, complete with apartment buildings, houses, schools, a medical center, a park, and a lake. Southdale, in Gruen's opinion, was not a suburban alternative to downtown Minneapolis. It was the Minneapolis downtown you would get if you started over and corrected all the mistakes that were made the first time around. Gruen planned for an atmosphere of leisure, excitement, and intimacy to be created. To achieve this he placed works of art, decorative lighting, fountains, tropical plants, and flowers throughout the mall.

Groundbreaking for Southdale took place on October 29, 1954. 800 construction workers were needed to construct the 4-story, 800,000 ft² (74,000 m²) center, complete with 5,200 parking spaces and 72 spaces for tenants. The mall was originally developed by the Dayton Company, owners of Dayton's department store in Minneapolis and predecessor to the Target Corporation. A branch of Dayton's would anchor the mall along with Donaldson's, Walgreens Pharmacy and Woolworth.

It was envisioned that Southdale would become the central gathering place not only for the residents of the city of Edina, but also for the greater Twin Cities area. Southdale was designed from the viewpoint of the future. The creators of the center understood that in the future, consumers would demand convenience and variety; as a result, the mall was designed to provide many useful services all under one roof. These services included everything from a Post Office, to a grocery store, to an upscale apparel store and even a small zoo. Other intentions would take hold, though, and the construction of the IDS Center and its attached Crystal Court would shift attention back to downtown Minneapolis.

When Southdale opened, it became a gathering place for area residents, just as was envisioned. Over the years, Southdale hosted gem, boat, and fine art shows, and also served as host for charity and community events. Southdale was even the host-site for an episode of the popular game show Truth or Consequences. However, the full scale of the original plan was never realized. There were no parks or schools or apartment buildings - just a big box in a sea of parking. With a few exceptions, no one else planned a shopping mall as the centerpiece of a tidy, dense, multi-use development.

Southdale was the site for many firsts in shopping mall history. Besides being completely enclosed and climate-controlled, Southdale was also the first United States shopping mall to feature two competing department stores under the same roof, as well as the first to feature original works of art hanging on the walls. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.118.124.228 (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Oldest mall?[edit]

The Appleton, Wisconsin article claims that "Valley Fair Mall, recognized as the first enclosed shopping mall in the United States, was built in Appleton in 1954." As Tex Williams once sang, somethin' somewhere's cockeyed.

Well, southdale is the first fully enclosed climate controlled shopping mall. Thats the offical title, and that is what todays malls are based off of, thats why it is significant. But it doesnt necessarily make it the first mall, take the Northgate Mall in seattle for example. All the sources i find have southdale as the first of its kind, so unless there is sincere validy to the other statement i would disregard it. Danke--Gephart 04:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has edited the Southdale article to 'remove the unsupported claim' of first fully enclosed, climate controlled shopping mall. Because they did not provide any evidence that indicates otherwise I'm going to revert the edit. To whom it may concern: the mall claim is that it is the first completely enclosed and climate controlled mall. Certainly nothing from the 19th century will qualify as climate controlled and I have not seen any evidence to suggest that any others were first. If that is the case please provide a reference. --BenFranske 07:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't remove it because I thought it was false; I removed it because it was unsourced. Put it back if you can find a source. WP policy is assume things are not true until proven otherwise. If we wrote unsupported things in wikipedia and didn't remove them until we had proof otherwise, George W. Bush would still be a Columbian-born midget with leprosy.--Loodog 12:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean he's not? Better find a source for that. Actually, I think Southdale themselves make that claim. Even if they do, that doesn't make it so. However, if they do, the article could say "Southdale claims to be..." and we're on semi-safe ground. Wahkeenah 15:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which they do: "The doors to a new era in retail opened on October 7, 1956, when Southdale Center became the nation's first fully enclosed, climate-controlled regional shopping center." Wahkeenah 15:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have now reworded the article's intro accordingly, minus the sales hype prefix. Wahkeenah 15:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Southdale claims to be..." would be a prime example of weasel words anyway. I see what you've done with the source at the top. I can't find that particular statement on their website, it'd probably be best to throw an in-text citation to the exact page. wait... just found this on UCSD's site: http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/soc/shoppingcenter.html, which could be considered a less tenuous source than the mall's own website (as the latter has incentive for self-aggrandizing).--Loodog 19:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look here. [1] Wahkeenah 01:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might also look here. [2] This city published magazine includes an extensive article about the history of the Southdale development. --BenFranske 06:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still more sources: The books "From Settlement to Suburb: The History of Edina, Minnesota" by Paul D. Hesterman (1988) and "Shopping Towns, USA: The Planning of Shopping Centers" by Victor Gruen and Larry Smith (1960) state that "Southdale was the nation's first enclosed regional shopping center and became a model for similar developments nationally." --BenFranske 06:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I would argue that it's the most important mall ever built," said St. Olaf College history professor Jim Farrell, who wrote a book on malls, "One Nation Under Goods." He said Southdale was the prototype for the modern mall. 2006 Article from Minnesota Public Radio : http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2006/10/04/southdale/ -- Gary.Vollink@GM41L.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.148.241 (talk) 04:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there's only one oldest mall[edit]

As has been pointed out by our well-researched anonymous friend, this is not the only mall to lay claim to oldest mall. Northgate Mall (Seattle, Washington 1950) and Valley Fair Shopping Center (Appleton, Wisconsin's 1954) claim this too. I've put "dubious" tags on their pages and will put this up for discussion there.--Loodog 23:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Valley Fair only has sources saying that it "billed itself" as the oldest mall. Northgate had no sources whatsoever. This page explains that Northgate was noteworthy, but that Southdale was the oldest fully-enclosed.--Loodog 00:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Gate Mall is the oldest mall in the USA. It was opened in early 1950. There are building records, however I do not have them and North Gate Mall is and has always been "Fully Enclosed"....--Airwaysim (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Westminster Arcade is the oldest mall in America (1828).--Loodog (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, source, shows this mall to be built in 1956, 6 years after Northgate.--Loodog (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the way to clarify things is to note that major sources all agree that Southdale was the first "modern" mall in the world. That takes into account the Westminster Arcade, as well as its predecessors in Europe, and the proto-modern malls that were seen in the years preceding Southdale. --Bobak (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has noticed 1950 is before 1956 in almost 10 years? Northgate in Seattle was fully enclosed from 1950. It's a large suburban (at the time) modern mall. I assume a fully enclosed building in 1950 in a northern climate had to be "climate-controlled" at least shortly after it opened to stay in business but that I don't know, but either way I don't think that's an important distinction people mentally call up when they hear the word mall. Old Burlington Arcade sort of places are a very different beast and aren't in the running, but Southdale and Northgate are virtually identical, so I can't see how this first mall claim is justified at all on some sort of technicality. It's simply 1950 vs 1956 and one date is clearly older than the other one.

References from main article on oldest issue[edit]

User:Piano non troppo

I fixed the above because it had an open ref tag without a close. It still lists the correct links and now doesn't require a ref section in the talk page. --Bobak (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree on the description of the above links as spam problems. I know there are a lot of references, but they are to credible, non-commercial sources like the MN State Historical Society, MPR, the Edina City gov't website and then two books (thus are not serving as advertisements). I can understand situations where this might be a problem (e.g. "There are a lot of car dealers in Edina" followed by refs to each dealer page), but this is a situation where we have credible sources on a factual comment that has and could still be disputed for whatever reason. Obviously, its possible to go overboard on refs, but this was a contentious issue (surprisingly) over who had the first modern mall. As an example of where having a number of refs can be permissible see the end of the second paragraph of this Feature Article. In that case its also a statement that could be construed as POV if it weren't for all the refs. Looking at the spirit of WP:SPAM, which doesn't address ref issues, I think this isn't a problem. --Bobak (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of two minds. And neither opinion is particularly strong, in this case, so I'm just going to let the existing consensus ride.
For the sake of a possibly useful discussion, briefly:
1) Agree this isn't a "car dealers in Edina" situation. (That wasn't clear to me, when making my original edit.)
2) I'm not convinced that seven references are necessary for a simple statement of fact. But, whatever. Nobody's going to die.
3) The main reason for my edit is that marketing departments know that Wikipedia has a policy weakness that they can capitalize on. They actually discuss it in marketing seminars. External links are closely monitored, but in-line references are not. So marketing people cite all kinds of things that aren't really in question.
4) More philosophically, I'm not overwhelmingly convinced that the issue of "oldest mall" is important in an encyclopedic sense. In what way was it important? Was it a technological innovation? An architectural statement? Or...maybe it was just cheaper than the alternatives. Did the mall influence any other malls? Or was it just an idea whose time had come? The information on Victor Gruen is worthy of an encyclopedia, but his idea to creat a "community" is not directly linked to being fully-enclosed and climate controlled.
Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that normally this would be overkill but with this particular article it has been an ongoing issue and the only way to quell it has been to have an obscene number of sources. In this case the issue of "oldest mall" is important for a few reasons. First, it makes this particular mall notable, which it is, protecting it from deletion requests as non-notable (which have also been made in the past). Second, the advent of the modern shopping mall (indoor, climate-controlled) have had a significant cultural impact in the United States. Gruen and Southdale (as the first recognizable modern mall) obviously started that ball rolling and it's success undoubtedly influenced the further development of malls across the country (if not further). I would argue that the first of something which has influenced culture as much as the modern shopping mall is as encyclopedic as the first printing press, computer or any other invention. --BenFranske (talk) 06:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia?[edit]

This is probably just trivia, but I remember a brass(?) donkey (perhaps 3 feet tall) inside the north entrance to Southdale in the 1960s. This was a common location to rendezvous after shopping at the mall. 136.162.34.1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Southdale Center/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 11:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria[edit]

  • Well-written:

    • The article now complies with all MOS policies on grammar, layout and structure. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 08:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation
  • Verifiable with no original research:

    • The article holds a considerably-sized bibliography of reliable sources, and all information is well-cited by way of these. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 08:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)
    (c) it contains no original research
  • Broad in its coverage:

    • The article seems to include all aspects of its topic which have been covered by reputable sources. No signs of irrelevancy within the content. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)
  • Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

    • The article's text maintains a neutral approach to its subject. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 08:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

    • For at least six years the article has not suffered from edit warring or similar disruptive behaviour, according to the revision history. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 09:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

    • All files used in this article are suitably licensed to be accepted by the Wikimedia Commons, so there is no concern over fair use compliance. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

    Comments[edit]

    • Intro: The line "Victor Gruen, the center's architect, designed to challenge..." ought to specify that he designed "the mall" outlined in this article.

     Done

    • 1991–2008: What's covered in "On June 30, 1997, Southdale Center was sold to the O'Connor Group, a New York-based real estate company for $125 million. General Growth Properties, a firm that owns several properties in the Twin Cities, also placed a bid for the mall, but the mall was given to the highest bidder", could more efficiently be covered worded as "On June 30, 1997, Southdale Center was sold to the O'Connor Group, a New York-based real estate company for $125 million, beating out a bid placed by General Growth Properties, a firm that owns several properties in the Twin Cities." It is generally a given that the highest bidder wins the purchase.

     Done

    • 2009-present: In the line, "However, the new food court would cause one of Southdale's oldest tenants, Ralph's Shoe Service, to close; the tenant, which originally opened at the mall in 1957,[35] was forced to close after Simon announced their plans", the same thing is basically stated twice. To say "However, the new food court forced the closure of one of Southdale's oldest tenants, Ralph's Shoe Service, which originally opened at the mall in 1957" ought to suffice.

     Done

     Done

    • @Wilhelmina Will: I have changed the article according to your suggestions. Take a look at it when you get the chance; thank you for your review! Carbrera (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, very much! Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 08:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The article qualifies as GA. Congratulations! Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 08:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    External links modified[edit]

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just modified one external link on Southdale Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

    This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Erroneous attribution to "Star Tribune"[edit]

    The text says: "In a joint statement to the Star Tribune…." and a corresponding footnote [14] attributes an article to the "Star Tribune" of 7 October 1956. This is a mistake; the "Star Tribune" didn't exist as such in 1956. (The "Minneapolis Daily Star" and the "Minneapolis Tribune" were then separate newspapers; they merged in 1982 to form the "Star and Tribune" which was renamed the "Star Tribune" in 1987. See [[3]].)

    The mistake apparently originated at newspapers.com, where the cited article resides with the misattribution "Star Tribune." After following the link, it takes a couple more clicks to see that the article actually appeared in the "Minneapolis Sunday Tribune" according to the top of its page. It may well be that the Star Tribune Media Company now owns the copyright for the 1956 article.

    Will someone else either make this edit or tell me how to make it (or tell me why it shouldn't be made)? I am new to this and rather intimidated by the complicated formatting rules and markup.

    --Jim Dixon 55104 (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your help! That was an oversight on my part, I think I'll just correct it by putting "now known as the Star Tribune". Thanks again Windyshadow32 (talk) 05:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Southdale_Center&oldid=1210470494"