Why do people hate Wal-Mart?

[white dove]

I've been meaning to watch the documentaries, but the people who've worked there speak enough for me to take their word on it. However, we do have to keep in mind that many people feel the same way about the companies they work for (with regard to fairness in hours and benefits).

Honestly, I don't tend to shop there. The prices aren't low enough for me to go that route. In my own opinion, they tend to say their prices are the lowest or that you're getting such a good deal by going there. I can't remember the last (or only time) I went there and felt as though I got an amazing deal on something.

 

[MacFall]

The prices aren't low enough for me to go that route. In my own opinion, they tend to say their prices are the lowest or that you're getting such a good deal by going there. I can't remember the last (or only time) I went there and felt as though I got an amazing deal on something.

Putting aside what I said earlier about their low prices being illusory, the low prices they offer are partly for convenience. You pay for the convenience of going to Wal-Mart and buy lots of different stuff at the same time; you might pay more to go to a few different places and buy a lot of the same stuff at one time. Even so, the claim is arguable.

 

[ImperialPhantom]

I've never lived in a place where Wal-Mart was the best or cheapest option. For groceries there was Winco (when I lived in CA) and Fresh and Easy, and here there's Publix and the Commissary. For cheap furniture Target has better quality for equally low prices, and craigslist and various small businesses provide excellent used furniture. For baby diapers and electronics there is amazon.com.

 

[Edwards1984]

Blind post!

Wal-Mart does not have much that I find to be worth purchasing, but that does not make me hate the company.

I suppose that Wal-Mart played a role in the demise of some of the retail chains that I miss (see [thread=6951244]this thread[/thread]), but that leaves me sighing over people's behavior, not hating anybody.

Maybe Wal-Mart has abused its power and done things like, say, open stores in cities and states that do not want a Wal-Mart store (didn't the state of Vermont fight to keep Wal-Mart out?). Maybe Wal-Mart has expanded via unethical business practices. I don't know. But I do know that even if it is true it is not unique to Wal-Mart. Why is Wal-Mart singled out as public enemy number one?

Maybe people just don't like those who are extremely successful. I have heard at least one person in the world of sports say that nobody likes anybody who wins all of the time.

I never go to Walmart - ever - though not necessarily for most reasons people might say. For me, it's just such a trashy place - I've never had a good experience there. It seems like the lowest common denominator goes to shop there, everything is disorganized (which I'm sure the customers are to blame for) and many times the service is way below par. I've just never had a good experience there. It makes me sick to even think of going.

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

I've never lived in a place where Wal-Mart was the best or cheapest option. For groceries there was Winco (when I lived in CA) and Fresh and Easy, and here there's Publix and the Commissary. For cheap furniture Target has better quality for equally low prices, and craigslist and various small businesses provide excellent used furniture. For baby diapers and electronics there is amazon.com.

Exactly.

In the past I've noticed that Wal-mart tended to be not the cheapest or the quality option, rather it was the most convenient option. In the last few years this has proven to not be true any longer for me because Wal-mart has proven itself to be notoriously bad at restocking (if I'm looking to buy something there's no guarantee that it will be in stock) and because of their silly policy of using ONE FREAKING CASHIER for a huge store.... No I do not want to wait in line for 15 minutes for a 3 minutes shopping trip. Because of this, I usually go to Meijer or Krogers for general shopping. As far as price, Aldis and Save-a-lot completely beat Wal-mart's price for groceries.

 

[SneakerPimp53]

Personally I don't like Wal-Mart. The stores are usually not very clean, and merchandise is often flung about the isles by customers. The legions of part-time, high turn over employees often can't even answer basic questions about where items are located in the store. I can't really seem to find where Wally world is actually much cheaper than Target on most things. There seems to be legitimate concerns with their labor practices that should be addressed. I also don't like Wal-Mart's practice of opening too many stores in a location to hurt competition and once the damage is done they abandon the redundant stores. These quickly become eye sores, and even dangers, to the community. Though I think that could be addressed by local government making Wal-Mart demolish abandoned stores.

But Wal-Mart doesn't have a monopoly and any complaint with Wal-Mart's business model always seems to be applied selectively to Wal-Mart. There have been lot's of mentions of Wal-Mart's competitors right in this thread. As for their business model, sure it's killed a lot of local independent retailers. But you know no one complains about supermarkets. Time was you had to go to a butcher, a baker, a produce stand, and a general store to get household items. Then all those were put under one roof and the supermarket was born. Even at that though it didn't kill off all the bakers, butchers, and produce stands. It just changed the way they do business. Instead of a wide consumer base they service specialty and niche markets.
Small independent retail is an inefficient business model, and just like Wal-Mart, all the big box stores have played a role in the death of independent retail. At least as it applies to a wide consumer base, much like the butchers and bakers, small independent retail will survive and work in specialty markets. I can remember when there were tons of mom and pop movie rental places, grocery stores had movie rentals, and even saw a 7-11 or two with them. Then came Blockbuster with a better model that came from a databasing system which allowed them to cater to the local markets of their stores better. The independent places dried up and went out of business. Then came Netflix with an even better model and now Blockbuster is in bankruptcy. It's normal to wax a little nostalgic about the whole thing, I certainly have fond memories as a kid of going into Blockbuster and getting movies for Friday nights. The death of the brick and mortar movie rental place means that I won't be able to do with with my kids. I would certainly imagine people have similar feelings tied up with independent retailers. But if you step outside of that for minute there's just the reality that Netflix isn't an evil company bent on depriving me of recreating my nostalgic moments with future children. It's just a company that offers a better service, more services, and in a more convenient format at lower prices. When people are waxing nostalgic we tend to overlook the downsides of our fond memories. Such as having to take movies back when you don't feel like it, pay late fees, or having to deal with a much more limited selection.

What it really comes down to is if you don't like what Wal-Mart does, or how they do it, then don't shop there. You have lots of other choices, I take advantage of them every time I shop.

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

Netflix is awesome! Good post Sneakerpimp.

 

[CrusaderKing]

Get to the root of all the problems you think were caused by Wal-Mart and you find out it's a lot more complicated than what you think it is. While the documentaries are enlightening, they're biased to make you think a certain way. It's must like a carefully crafted argument presents a thought provoking point of view that could

1) challenge what you previously thought,
2) make sense of why you felt a certain way, or
3) force you to do your own investigation.

Wal-Mart is indeed worthy of contempt for reasons outlined by MacFall, who I think had one of the best posts in this thread.

 

[GoodNewsJim]

No they don't. That is a myth. They might want to, but the thing is, so would their competition. Because if they raise their prices, in comes the competition to get a piece of the high profits indicated by the high prices.

By saying it is a "myth" they jack up prices after eliminating competition just shows how very ill-informed you are on this subject. You claim I'm wrong, but you're the one living in fantasy land. Listen up:

You say,"So would their competition raise prices." Don't you understand how Walmart works? They come into a rural area with local buisnesses. Then they offer very low prices until businesses go under. When no one competes with them for good x, they raise the price. The local buisness cannot also raise the price too because Mom and Pop are no longer open.

Maybe squashing all your competition and reigning over a monopoly doesn't qualify as evil in your book, but that is what they do, and they're deadly efficient at it too.

I've seen Walmarts charging more for certain goods than the places they put under. They have selective low prices, based on which business they're trying to kill. I bet if you do even the most basic of web crawling you could find dozens of documented situations. I won't do that because people who like to argue like to discredit anything on the web anyway.

 

[Steffenfield]

IJWTS that I'm wishing for a deeply wise, funny, tragic, snot free, honest love guru mentor and spiritual advisor thingamabobbyperson who could me lend sound advice with my current crush.

And yes, I'm posting this in the appropriate thread.

 

[crishmael]

IJWTS that I'm wishing for a deeply wise, funny, tragic, snot free, honest love guru mentor and spiritual advisor thingamabobbyperson who could me lend sound advice with my current crush.

And yes, I'm posting this in the appropriate thread.

Okay, here goes. The Wal-Mart smilie face is inanimate. It can only roll back your heart's expectations.

Feel better?

 

[Steffenfield]

Yes. This makes me feel so much better. Thank you.

Now everytime I see a smiley sign there filled with unrelenting, inanimate joy of happiness, I have an excuse to punch it directly in the face all while being constantly "redirected" by security during my shopping spree.

Also, when I typed "could me lend" in my previous post, that was intentional.

I enjoy writing as if I lived in bizarro world.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Small independent retail is an inefficient business model, and just like Wal-Mart, all the big box stores have played a role in the death of independent retail. At least as it applies to a wide consumer base, much like the butchers and bakers, small independent retail will survive and work in specialty markets. I can remember when there were tons of mom and pop movie rental places, grocery stores had movie rentals, and even saw a 7-11 or two with them. Then came Blockbuster with a better model that came from a databasing system which allowed them to cater to the local markets of their stores better. The independent places dried up and went out of business. Then came Netflix with an even better model and now Blockbuster is in bankruptcy. It's normal to wax a little nostalgic about the whole thing, I certainly have fond memories as a kid of going into Blockbuster and getting movies for Friday nights. The death of the brick and mortar movie rental place means that I won't be able to do with with my kids. I would certainly imagine people have similar feelings tied up with independent retailers. But if you step outside of that for minute there's just the reality that Netflix isn't an evil company bent on depriving me of recreating my nostalgic moments with future children. It's just a company that offers a better service, more services, and in a more convenient format at lower prices. When people are waxing nostalgic we tend to overlook the downsides of our fond memories. Such as having to take movies back when you don't feel like it, pay late fees, or having to deal with a much more limited selection...

But is it always nostalgia? And is it always about better products at lower prices?

I have heard at least one social scientist point out that in theory capitalism produces the best possible product at the lowest possible price but in practice outcomes in business have often been about who is best able, through advertising, to influence the decision making of consumers.

I suppose that if a product is no good it eventually is replaced. But that turnaround can take a long time--decades--and in the meantime consumers are robbed of good products. And even if the predecessors make a comeback they will probably never be the same as they once were.

I am sure that I can think of plenty of companies that produce horrible products but have been praised as huge success stories. Sure, they gave consumers what consumers thought they needed and wanted. But as people have started to see past the expensive advertising/marketing campaigns and looked under the veneer suddenly such companies have been vilified.

Economic thinking is marginal, we are taught. Well, in the short term such behavior may yield benefits. But in the long term people see that while they may have saved money in an accounting sense they lost so much more in a true economic sense.

We can't make up our minds about what we like and want. Consequently, a lot of good things are lost forever.

Businesses capitalize on the fickleness, impulsiveness, short attention spans and gullibility of consumers. The results may look good in an accounting sense and may produce immediate feelings of gratification, but--and I think that this is well-documented by the social sciences--after the rush wears off people are left feeling empty, their lives are not improved, and they are left with obesity, a bunch of useless junk in the attic, etc.

Alas, we can't go back. And we know it.

Several decades ago cities replaced traditional football and baseball venues with multi-purpose "cookie cutter" stadiums--usually in the suburbs. Such changes probably looked good in an accounting sense. But people grew tired of such dull convenience and longed for the venues of the past. Consequently, cities started building new stadiums--back downtown--that are reminiscent of the classic venues. But I think that every purist will tell you that these attempts at bringing back the past do not even come close to what we lost to the cookie cutters. And we will never have it back.

It is not nostalgia. It is knowing that foolishness has robbed us of good things that we will likely never get back.

 

[SneakerPimp53]

But is it always nostalgia? And is it always about better products at lower prices?

I have heard at least one social scientist point out that in theory capitalism produces the best possible product at the lowest possible price but in practice outcomes in business have often been about who is best able, through advertising, to influence the decision making of consumers.

I suppose that if a product is no good it eventually is replaced. But that turnaround can take a long time--decades--and in the meantime consumers are robbed of good products. And even if the predecessors make a comeback they will probably never be the same as they once were.

I am sure that I can think of plenty of companies that produce horrible products but have been praised as huge success stories. Sure, they gave consumers what consumers thought they needed and wanted. But as people have started to see past the expensive advertising/marketing campaigns and looked under the veneer suddenly such companies have been vilified.

Economic thinking is marginal, we are taught. Well, in the short term such behavior may yield benefits. But in the long term people see that while they may have saved money in an accounting sense they lost so much more in a true economic sense.

We can't make up our minds about what we like and want. Consequently, a lot of good things are lost forever.

Businesses capitalize on the fickleness, impulsiveness, short attention spans and gullibility of consumers. The results may look good in an accounting sense and may produce immediate feelings of gratification, but--and I think that this is well-documented by the social sciences--after the rush wears off people are left feeling empty, their lives are not improved, and they are left with obesity, a bunch of useless junk in the attic, etc.

Alas, we can't go back. And we know it.

Several decades ago cities replaced traditional football and baseball venues with multi-purpose "cookie cutter" stadiums--usually in the suburbs. Such changes probably looked good in an accounting sense. But people grew tired of such dull convenience and longed for the venues of the past. Consequently, cities started building new stadiums--back downtown--that are reminiscent of the classic venues. But I think that every purist will tell you that these attempts at bringing back the past do not even come close to what we lost to the cookie cutters. And we will never have it back.

It is not nostalgia. It is knowing that foolishness has robbed us of good things that we will likely never get back.

The free market has proven time and time again that bad products will fail because they will be beaten by good ones. The profit motive forces efficient use of resources. The USSR was using 5 pound blocks of steel to turn out one AK-47 receiver, in a capitalist country such gross inefficiency would never last.

Ads certainly play a role in consumer decisions, but it's usually when fact gives way into subjective opinions. Coke's ad campaigns work because Coke being better than Pepsi is a matter of subjective opinion. Even at large promoting a product is part of selling it. People that do well at promotion should be rewarded for doing well. That is the spirit of competition after all.

The stadiums are exactly what I'm talking about. You're being nostalgic, not rational. A lot of cities have replaced aging undersized stadiums and arenas in urban areas that often were often seedy and/or lack adequate parking/infrastructure with new larger venues. These larger venues have been moved to locations where adequate parking and road ways can be provided, and out of dangerous neighborhoods. Offering the community more seats in a venue that is designed for multi-purpose use. In every objective sense the new stadiums are superior, and it's only in a nostalgic and sentimental light that someone can say they're lacking.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

The free market has proven time and time again that bad products will fail because they will be beaten by good ones...

But often those bad products supplanted good products. And then, often it takes a long time--decades--for the bad products to be replaced. At that point we can't go back to the original products. In the meantime, consumers are robbed of good products.

Therefore, when people talk about the original products they are expressing anger, frustration, etc. over losing good products to foolishness and losing them forever.

Not anything that I had not already written.

The profit motive forces efficient use of resources. The USSR was using 5 pound blocks of steel to turn out one AK-47 receiver, in a capitalist country such gross inefficiency would never last...

And do you know what an accounting profit often yields? If often yields very unhappy consumers.

That's why we don't make all of our decisions based on figures that accountants can report.

Things like, say, privatizing national parks might yield better numbers in an accounting sense. But things that accountants can't track and report, such as the civic pride that public ownership gives people, often play a bigger role in decision making.

Ads certainly play a role in consumer decisions, but it's usually when fact gives way into subjective opinions. Coke's ad campaigns work because Coke being better than Pepsi is a matter of subjective opinion. Even at large promoting a product is part of selling it. People that do well at promotion should be rewarded for doing well. That is the spirit of competition after all...

I have noticed a pattern. It goes like this:

After decades--sometimes centuries--of steadily consuming a product to the point that it is glorified as a huge capitalist success story the public decides that they had been consuming a horrible product that never should have been produced in the first place. "How was this company so successful for so long with this horrible product?", we ask. Close analysis then yields several variables that played a role. However, what most people conclude was the biggest factor is the advertising/marketing campaigns that the company used.

It would not surprise me to find that market research and advertising made up a disproportionate chunk of the budgets of such companies.

It's not about making a good product. It's about making people believe that they are getting a good product and that they need it.

The stadiums are exactly what I'm talking about. You're being nostalgic, not rational...

I described actual decisions that people have made. Please leave me and my thought process out of this.

A lot of cities have replaced aging undersized stadiums and arenas in urban areas that often were often seedy and/or lack adequate parking/infrastructure with new larger venues. These larger venues have been moved to locations where adequate parking and road ways can be provided, and out of dangerous neighborhoods. Offering the community more seats in a venue that is designed for multi-purpose use. In every objective sense the new stadiums are superior, and it's only in a nostalgic and sentimental light that someone can say they're lacking.

I'll try this again. In the 1960s and and 1970s many cities in the U.S. replaced traditional sports venues with multi-purpose facilities that later came to be known as "cookie cutters". In some--if not many--cases, the new facilities were out in the suburbs rather than downtown. That could have been due to many variables. Cheaper land, maybe. Greater accessibility to interstate highways, maybe. Closer to airports, maybe. But, as economists like to remind us, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Such changes in venues had costs. The biggest cost was that the "cookie cutters" did not have the atmosphere--the feel--of a traditional day at the ballpark. Consequently, the cookie cutters were vilified for replacing substance and character with convenience. Therefore, cities started demolishing the cookie cutters and building expensive new venues that were reminiscent of the original, traditional venues. Nonetheless, I think that it is safe to say that any purist will tell you that this third generation of stadiums does not give us back what we lost to the cookie cutters. You can build a new stadium that is similar to Forbes Field and you can name it Forbes Field, but it is not Forbes Field. We now only have Forbes Field in our memories and in photographs.

As some people like to say, if it ain't broke don't fix it. Alas, in the end we are left with having gone through losing something special, suffering through a horrible replacement, and then being reminded of what we lost--and lost forever--as we attempt to restore what never should have been destroyed.

When people express their dissatisfaction with what they are left with, they are not being "nostalgic". What they are doing is making sure that nobody in any way underestimates how much we have lost.

Obviously I can't speak for the critics of Wal-Mart. But I suspect that the above-described process can be applied to the way that people think about Wal-Mart and what Wal-Mart has cost us. It is far from being "nostalgic".

 

[MacFall]

A static world is impossible, and I wouldn't want one if it were.

 

[Blackguard_]

A static world is impossible, and I wouldn't want one if it were.

This is true, but it's also true not all change is good. LTI reminds us that the 20th century had some pretty bad architecture for example.

Thanks Le Corbusier and the International school of architecture for all the soulless buildings.

 

[SneakerPimp53]

But often those bad products supplanted good products. And then, often it takes a long time--decades--for the bad products to be replaced. At that point we can't go back to the original products. In the meantime, consumers are robbed of good products.

Therefore, when people talk about the original products they are expressing anger, frustration, etc. over losing good products to foolishness and losing them forever.

Not anything that I had not already written.

Care to provide an example of this?

And do you know what an accounting profit often yields? If often yields very unhappy consumers.

That's why we don't make all of our decisions based on figures that accountants can report.

That's simply not true. Part of the profit motive is having customers in the first place, and that means giving people what they want. If you can't do that then you won't have a profit at all. If you had any experience in customer service you'd know the lengths that companies go to in order to provide customer satisfaction, even if it produces short term loss in the bottom line. Happy customers are the only means to sustain a business in the long term.

Things like, say, privatizing national parks might yield better numbers in an accounting sense. But things that accountants can't track and report, such as the civic pride that public ownership gives people, often play a bigger role in decision making.

There's a reason why there's a difference between the public and private sector. But we're talking about business, not the public sector.

I have noticed a pattern. It goes like this:

After decades--sometimes centuries--of steadily consuming a product to the point that it is glorified as a huge capitalist success story the public decides that they had been consuming a horrible product that never should have been produced in the first place. "How was this company so successful for so long with this horrible product?", we ask. Close analysis then yields several variables that played a role. However, what most people conclude was the biggest factor is the advertising/marketing campaigns that the company used.

It would not surprise me to find that market research and advertising made up a disproportionate chunk of the budgets of such companies.

Market research and advertising make up a huge chunk of the budget of every large corporation. The reality is people tend to view an old product through the lens of what a new product can do. If you suggested in any way that VHS tapes were better than DVD's people would laugh, and recall a "stone age" period of low quality picture, rewinding, and fighting with the tracking on their VCR. The negatives of an old product only become apparent

It's not about making a good product. It's about making people believe that they are getting a good product and that they need it.

That only works if you actually believe people are complete idiots.

I described actual decisions that people have made. Please leave me and my thought process out of this.

No, you're describing your opinions that are based on nostalgic feelings.

I'll try this again. In the 1960s and and 1970s many cities in the U.S. replaced traditional sports venues with multi-purpose facilities that later came to be known as "cookie cutters". In some--if not many--cases, the new facilities were out in the suburbs rather than downtown. That could have been due to many variables. Cheaper land, maybe. Greater accessibility to interstate highways, maybe. Closer to airports, maybe. But, as economists like to remind us, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Such changes in venues had costs. The biggest cost was that the "cookie cutters" did not have the atmosphere--the feel--of a traditional day at the ballpark. Consequently, the cookie cutters were vilified for replacing substance and character with convenience. Therefore, cities started demolishing the cookie cutters and building expensive new venues that were reminiscent of the original, traditional venues. Nonetheless, I think that it is safe to say that any purist will tell you that this third generation of stadiums does not give us back what we lost to the cookie cutters. You can build a new stadium that is similar to Forbes Field and you can name it Forbes Field, but it is not Forbes Field. We now only have Forbes Field in our memories and in photographs.

And this is a nostalgic knee jerk reaction to progress that a lot of people have. That's the thing about "atmosphere" and nostalgia: it all tends to come completely sanitized of the negatives. If we're being objective in the 1960's when the first wave of stadium replacements started the venues being replaced were aging, undersized, and outdated. Just like in the 1990's when those stadium starting being replaced they were, again, undersized, aging, and outdated. If people had to actually deal with tiny stadiums they couldn't get tickets for, or horrible seating, or poor concessions choices, the nostalgia and atmosphere wouldn't be such a big deal.
If you want to get all bent out of shape that a nod to an old stadium via architectural features isn't good enough that's up to you. I'll take a new stadium with all the modern amenities that's actually big enough to meet seating demands.

As some people like to say, if it ain't broke don't fix it. Alas, in the end we are left with having gone through losing something special, suffering through a horrible replacement, and then being reminded of what we lost--and lost forever--as we attempt to restore what never should have been destroyed.

The problem with this is the stadiums being replaced were broke. They were too small, the building structures were aging, and they lacked amenities consumers demanded. Missing the old ones is purely a function of nostalgia, and nostalgic memories are the ones we white wash the most.

Obviously I can't speak for the critics of Wal-Mart. But I suspect that the above-described process can be applied to the way that people think about Wal-Mart and what Wal-Mart has cost us. It is far from being "nostalgic".

But that's the perfect example of what I'm talking about. People like to criticize Wal-Mart, but nostalgia is never more than talk. They could go out and shop at what's left of the tiny overpriced independent retailers. But that's just it, when it comes time to put the money down they recognize the superiority of the big box model and end up shopping at Wal-Mart, Target, or whatever other big box store is in the area. It's just nostalgia.

It's just like those hamburger places that do a 50's look-a-like theme. It's a fun little look at the past, but it's completely white washed. No one would want to go to one that was accurate to the period, complete with a "whites only" dining section. So you take the ascetics of the period, and throw out what you don't want to remember. That's what people are doing with small retail: they're remembering what they want and forgetting the higher prices and limited selection.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

No, you're describing your opinions that are based on nostalgic feelings...

I asked you to leave me out of this.

If you can't respect me and my words then you could at least have the decency to say nothing.

And this is a nostalgic knee jerk reaction to progress that a lot of people have...

They are not reacting to "progress". They don't even see it as progress. They see it as a step backwards.

That's the thing about "atmosphere" and nostalgia: it all tends to come completely sanitized of the negatives...

The "negatives" are either part of the atmosphere or irrelevant to the atmosphere. No "sanitizing" needed.

The original Yankee Stadium may have been falling apart and smelling like sewage, but it will only be remembered for the aura and lore of "The House That Ruth Built". Buildings falling apart and smelling like sewage is reality in the urban landscape, not a defining feature of particular structures. The only time that it is a defining feature is when a building was poorly designed and/or poorly built.

The wind at Candlestick Park was a "negative". But I think that most people will tell you that that was part of the atmosphere and they would not have changed it.

If we're being objective in the 1960's when the first wave of stadium replacements started the venues being replaced were aging, undersized, and outdated...

It had very little to do with the condition, size or amenities of "the stadiums being replaced". It was to accommodate football. If the NFL did not grow in popularity and seek expansion, and if cities did not want to keep or attain a piece of the NFL pie, the "stadiums being replaced" probably would not have been replaced. That's the defining feature of the cookie cutters: they were "multi-purpose" stadiums.

Baseball purists got sick of stadiums that accommodated football at the expense of the traditional ballpark experience. And unlike, say, Lambeau Field, they were forgettable as football venues. Therefore, the third generation of stadiums has mostly been separate baseball-only and football-only stadiums with the design of the baseball stadiums trying to bring back the traditional ballpark.

Just like in the 1990's when those stadium starting being replaced they were, again, undersized, aging, and outdated. If people had to actually deal with tiny stadiums they couldn't get tickets for, or horrible seating, or poor concessions choices, the nostalgia and atmosphere wouldn't be such a big deal.

The third generation of stadiums, with some exceptions, have not resulted in more seats for the average fan. When franchises like the Cincinnati Bengals threatened to move if they did not get a new stadium they weren't saying, "We need more seats". Seats for the general public is not where the money is to be made. What they were saying was, "We need luxury suites to lease to people and businesses".

Better seats? Here is what Wikipedia tells us: "Some have commented that the rise of the luxury box, along with club seating, has degraded the game-day experience for the average fan, because placement of the boxes has moved the upper decks higher and farther away from the playing surface."

Poor concessions choices? Well, traditionally a day at the ballpark means a hot dog and a beer. I was listening yesterday on ESPN Radio to discussions about the poor attendance figures from the first week of Major League Baseball. One of those discussions went into detail about the stadium experience in the newer stadiums. What did people bring up? Hot dogs and beer. Same choices as before. The problem now is, if you listen to people analyze it, that hot dog and beer is now priced so high that a day at the ballpark is no longer affordable for families.

If you want to get all bent out of shape that a nod to an old stadium via architectural features isn't good enough that's up to you...

I asked you to leave me out of this.

This is what happens when people don't listen.

You said that people are being "nostalgic". I made the case that they are not being nostalgic. And what is your response? Something about me getting "all bent out of shape".

I would love to have a productive conversation and learn from everybody, but you are not cooperating.

I'll take a new stadium with all the modern amenities that's actually big enough to meet seating demands...

Again, this "big enough to meet seating demands" business is a myth.

And even if "modern amenities" are what people want it does not necessarily mean giving up a special place. Soldier Field was falling apart, unsafe and probably lacking a lot of "modern amenities". So the people of Chicago demolished it and built a new stadium out in the suburbs, right? No, they rebuilt it--for the second time in its history.

The problem with this is the stadiums being replaced were broke. They were too small, the building structures were aging, and they lacked amenities consumers demanded. Missing the old ones is purely a function of nostalgia, and nostalgic memories are the ones we white wash the most...

Believe it or not, people know the difference between a stadium that is unsafe and outdated and a stadium that does not serve the interests of people other than the average fan.

Therefore, when something special is hastily, carelessly destroyed and replaced with something with other than the average fan's interests in mind, people don't like having their intelligence insulted.

I don't know if the same thing is going on when people talk about losing their neighborhood hardware store to Wal-Mart, but when people talk about "missing the old ones" they are talking about what we have lost. They are talking about how much we lost when something special was destroyed and the net loss we are left with after we get not-so-special replacements.

If you think that people are being "nostalgic" then you are not talking about the same people that I am talking about.

 

[Leetposter]

because they dont like for me to get stuff for the cheap