Don’t buy into lifestyle center mentality, get a ‘real’ life instead

I’ve been hearing lately about these new “lifestyle centers.” Maybe it’s just me, but I just don’t find the concept appealing.
Lifestyle centers are supposed to be these really great new places where you can live, work, play and shop all in one place. The concept is sort of like any decent downtown used to be in the “old days,” but without the inconvenient aspect of having neighbors who don’t share your economic class or status. Since they’re brand new, everything is perfect, modern, and squeaky clean and designed down to the millimeter.
It sounds a lot to me like getting permanently trapped in a mall, or perhaps like one deciding to permanently reside in Disney World and moving in next door to Mickey and Minnie.
In times past, most people lived, worked, shopped and played in the places that they lived. It was convenient and practical, but over time, the glamour of travel combined with wider accessibility to transportation made it possible for the suburban commuter mentality to take over. Urban flight contributed heartily to the rise of the suburban commuting lifestyle as well.
Now, people often live one place, commute to work in another, shop in their favorite mall (unlikely to be in their home town—we want malls, just not in our backyards, it seems, unless they’re called lifestyle centers!) and often travel to new places for recreation. One’s gym may be half an hour from home, weekend getaway trips to a neighboring state are frequent (or were, until the price of gasoline skyrocketed) and visiting a club an hour away on a Saturday night is not unheard of.
The breakneck speed of the modern pace does often leave one looking to catch one’s breath. The idea of doing it all in one place really is appealing, at least in concept. What used to be “don’t leave home without it,” could easily turn into a refrain of “why leave home at all?” if the concept were to take off. If nothing else, doing it all in one place could save gasoline, not to mention travel time and the possible headache of getting stuck in traffic. That’s the selling point of lifestyle centers.
From what I hear, there are residences, typically condos. Just next-door is a handpicked selection of shops and stores, usually of the expensive, exclusive variety. Presumably, this bevy of mercantile opportunity also includes the practical, such as a grocery, deli, pizza, dry cleaners, drug store, etc. Most likely though, since this is a universally high rent district, they are also of the expensive, exclusive variety. Restaurants, too, are supposed to be part of the package. Presumably a “corner bar” will be included as well. Gyms and movie theaters are nearly universal, and some have added novelties, such as theme park rides, etc.
While it sounds convenient, don’t forget, the retail end of a lifestyle center is open to the public as well. So, while every aspect of life is right outside the lifestyle resident’s door, so is the hustle and bustle of the mall. It’s sort of like residing in suburbia, just with more traffic and strangers, and chain store consumerism literally at your finger tips.
This cookie cutter solution to the problem of commuter’s fatigue seems doomed to failure in the long run. The problem is, whose lifestyle are we talking about here anyway? Do all people of similar upper economic status have the same taste? Won’t residents get tired of the same scene at home, and often strike out anyway, to find something new to explore anyway? I hope so.
For me, I’ve got a “lifestyle center”—I live in downtown Easton. Unlike the planned variety, though, I have my choice of a wide array of restaurants and services all within a short walk from my residence. My “lifestyle center” includes the real world and people of all colors and economic classes, and we’re all members of the club. We may not currently have a working movie theatre, and we need a full-fledged grocery store downtown one can walk to, but this “lifestyle center” was incorporated in 1752. How many of these new centers will be able to boast that they are still around in 254 years?

(Originally published in The Easton News, June 22, 2006)