Comments on: The Daily Dig - ‘America’s Sickest Malls’ Edition

By: admin

admin — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:12:08 +0000

I think we linked that in the item, didn’t we? If not, meant to…

-Jebediah

By: admin

admin — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:11:55 +0000

I think we linked that in the item, didn’t we? If not, we meant to…

-Jebediah

By: Bob Davis

Bob Davis — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:49:47 +0000

For a whole website devoted to shopping centers on the skids, go to “Deadmalls.com”–yep there’s a website for darn near anything.

By: цarьchitect

цarьchitect — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:14:46 +0000

Carl, that’s true, but it’s always good to hear about it again. Keeps it in mind.

By: Linkpile

Linkpile — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 11:38:15 +0000

[...] Most Endangered Malls: Via Infrastructurist. Earlier Consumed on dead retail reuse [...]

By: Leaderboard for week of 6-29-2009: Good link journalism edition | BeatBlogging.Org

Wed, 01 Jul 2009 03:25:24 +0000

[...] The Daily Dig continues to be one of our favorite daily link journalism roundups and not just because everyday has a new “edition” like our Leaderboards. [...]

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:00:20 +0000

On my base in Iraq last year we didn’t have license plates either. You could build your own car out of scrap parts if you were savvy enough, and toodle around the base with it in your spare time. You couldn’t sell it, however, because all the scrap belonged to the US government.

By: Carl

Carl — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:47:06 +0000

The addition of cellulose fibers to asphalt is nothing new. In fact, states in the US have been using it as a stabilizer for porous surface layers.

By: admin

admin — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:34:29 +0000

Yes, thanks — fixed. I’d read something about the writer Thomas Bernhard this morning and apparently the first name got stuck in my head.

-JR

By: Paz

Paz — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:22:02 +0000

We’re #1! We’re #1! How sad that the pictures of my youth with Santa Claus were taken at the sickest mall in America.

By: HHF3

HHF3 — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:57:32 +0000

Isn’t it Daniel Burnham, not Thomas Burnham?