The Instigator
verma.sukriti
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Goonfodder
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

are out of city hypermalls and shopping malls a positive development?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Goonfodder
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/2/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,968 times Debate No: 18586
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

verma.sukriti

Con

They are not a positive development as
1) it takes up valuable land of the farmers which would have been used for agriculuture
2) causes pollution in d comparatively cleaner air
3) expands our industrial and residential area

Goonfodder

Pro


Many thanks to con for providing the opportunity to defend the virtue of the out of city shopping mall.I shall do my best.

As con hasn't specified how to treat round 1,I'll simply follow suite and provide a summary
of my argument,of which will be based on cons three points.

Summary of Argument

As pro I'll be arguing that out of city shopping malls are a positive development in that they:

1)Free up land in built up areas.This space could be used in a manner by which the benefits to society
would out-weigh the negative impacts of the mall development.

2)Reduce pollution by reducing the total distance travelled in the transportation of goods,as well as
making the use of public transport easier,therefore more likely.

3) Help limit the urban sprawl. By concentrating new retail space in one area,traditional spaces can
be used for higher-density developments,including residential.



Over to con....
Debate Round No. 1
verma.sukriti

Con

I am sorry but i am new and so i did not know the necessary procedure to be followed.. :-P
i would like to say that when we build malls outside the city, we are actually adding on to the tally of malls already present within the city.
This is totally unnecessary and thereby, increases wasteful consumption of raw materials.
further if we build out of city malls, some or the other residential schemes are bound to come up near the area, this will thus increase the radius of the cities and eventually they will expand..
Also,referring to point one of yours, if we do free up land in the city, we will be wasting a lot of labour and raw materials, by a) breaking the structures down, b) building stuff in two areas rather than one..
Referring to point 2,we cannot reduce pollution by reducing the distance travelled as the malls have to be located a bit further to be OUT-OF-City...
please enlighten me...
Goonfodder

Pro


Thanks again con for the debate.As time is of the essence,I'll get straight into it.


REBUTTALS;
Con;- "i would like to say that when we build malls outside the city, we are actually adding on to the tally of malls
already present within the city.This is totally unnecessary and thereby, increases wasteful consumption of raw materials."

We may be adding to malls,however if they all remain well patronized,then their presence is justified.If not,then the space will soon be used for something else.As a general rule,consumer demand will dictate the wheres and hows involved with the things we all buy.Therefore It's not a given there'll remain two malls.

1)Con;-,"referring to point one of yours, if we do free up land in the city, we will be wasting a lot of labour and raw materials, by a) breaking the structures down, b) building stuff in two areas rather than one."

1a) Even if a structure had to be broken down in order to create a new one,which I doubt would always be the case,then it wouldn't amount to nil.As many construction materials are recycled,it could be seen as actually reducing the need for raw materials,by providing recycled materials for future constructions.Also there is money to be made in the construction recycling industry,so that in itself justifies what con refers to as "wasting a lot of labour",it's actually called a job,it's how most people earn money to live and can hardly be seen as a waste.

1b)In many cases this "building stuff" con refers to is simply unavoidable.All buildings have a life span,and at some point need to be either replaced or continually maintained and repaired.There comes a time when it's better to replace it,or at least re-utilize the space.Also given the issues today with an ever increasing population,with more and more migration from rural to urban areas,not building at all just isn't an option,therefore it's about how things get built,not whether they do or not.

2)Con;-"Referring to point 2,we cannot reduce pollution by reducing the distance travelled as the malls have to be
located a bit further to be OUT-OF-City..."

Because you said please,I'll be happy to enlighten you.

Would seem cons not considering the supply chain side of the equation.By condensing retail in one area,it reduces
the over-all drop off points for a delivery vehicle,thus reducing distance travelled.For example,if a delivery
vehicle leaves a depot at the start of the day with 10 deliveries to make,to 10 different stores,which are all located
at 10 different addresses,then obviously the vehicle needs to travel between these locations.However,if all 10 stores were to condense into one actual address,(ie;in a mall,)then the delivery vehicle can deliver to all 10 stores at the one
address.Thus reducing the over-all distance travelled.

Another point on this front is that as many delivery vehicles are quite large,and trying to operate such vehicles
around cities,that in many cases had the blue print of their road systems devised and implemented in the age of the
horse and cart,can be very challenging.So re-directing such vehicles more often to outer lying areas,would be very
helpful for those doing such jobs.Out of city malls certainly help on that front.

Also,By condensing retail outlets it means more of peoples retail needs are to be found in the one location.Therefore
although one may travel a little further from point A to point B,it reduces alot of the point C,to D,to E,etc; that comes with having to go to multiple locations to aquire ones retail needs,and may well reduce over-all travel distance.It also makes car pooling,or the sharing of transport more likely.If mum,dad and the three kids can all have there retail needs met in one location,It Reduces the need to use a second vehicle,or for the same vehicle having to travel all over the place to various retail locations.

Along with reducing the amount of transport usage,it also diverts at least some traffic flow away from existing
urban centres,therefore helping to ease some of the traffic congestion many cities suffer from.

I'll have to leave it there for this round.It would seem intent trumped ability yet again and now I've plum run out of time. So over to con for the last round,I can only hope your at least a little enlightened,if not completely,and good luck with the last round.
Debate Round No. 2
verma.sukriti

Con

1) when we build out of city malls, we are spreading pollution, as the waste generated there will have to be disposed of too....so that results in an increased amount of waste...
2) we are causing an urban sprawl in the sense that we are using up land space out side the city and increasing the radius of the city..(referring to.(3) Help limit the urban sprawl. By concentrating new retail space in one area,traditional spaces can
be used for higher-density developments,including residential.)
3) out of city malls will disturb any wildlife present in that area...animal habits may be disturbed
4)we will be causing an ecological imbalance as we will need to cut trees for the space we require to build these malls...
i guess that is just about it......hope you see things from my point of view...
:-)
Goonfodder

Pro

OK then,just made it.Hi con,readers and any other classification of person that may well be present.
No time to waste so here we go.

Con;-"we are causing an urban sprawl in the sense that we are using up land space out side the city and increasing the radius of the city..(referring to.(3) Help limit the urban sprawl. By concentrating new retail space in one area,traditional spaces can be used for higher-density developments,including residential.)"

One way to stop expanding city limits is to expand upward.Having said that,removing part of the retail sector to out of city locations can only help reduce some of the pressures that come with densely populated areas.It also makes it possible to re-develop any areas with a low population density,that were previously occupied by retail outlets without impeding on anyones livelyhood.In the sense that any re-development of an area could well require any shops there to close,at least for the period of any construction.

Also as the name given to out-of-city malls suggests,there out of the city,therefore not part of the city,people leave
the city to visit them,so these malls themselves don't expanded the city.


Con-;"out of city malls will disturb any wildlife present in that area...animal habits may be disturbed"


Con-;"we will be causing an ecological imbalance as we will need to cut trees for the space we require to build these
malls..."

I think this is something of a mute point.In the first round con stated "it takes up valuable land of the farmers which would have been used for agriculuture". That being the case,then the trees were doomed anyway. The land would need to be cleared to provide the space for crops, or whatever it is they use the land for.I think this also applies to any wild animals residing there.I imagine all the things that come with a working farm would possibly "disturb" them.Therefore not building a mall will not save the trees,and the animals will still be disturbed.

Thats it then,thanks con for instigating the debate.It's been nothing short of a blast.Well not quite,but fun all
the same.


Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 6 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
verma.sukritiGoonfodderTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: All of Con's points were negated. Con never follows through on his first argument. Pro negates the second one by showing how pollution will actually decline due to the decrease in drop off points. The third point "expands our industrial and residential area" - how is that even a bad thing? Con was now arguing for the Pro side. Both might do well to back up their claim with statistics on how exactly malls affect the environment or supply routes.
Vote Placed by seraine 6 years ago
seraine
verma.sukritiGoonfodderTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: SG is obvious. Wildlife and pollution aren't magically fine with agriculture, and concentrating malls does help limit urban sprawl.