Benedict Evans asks some great questions in this recent post about ecommerce penetration. Instead of just looking at the product itself and/or the way in which we buy it (online versus offline, for example), he focuses on the logistics model that accompanies the transaction.

What can be parceled and shipped via Amazon? What can be delivered using a bicycle? What requires some sort of special delivery or collection method?

The point he is making is that different things need to happen for a new fridge to make it to your home, compared to say a Chipotle burrito. And these differences matter when it comes to how we should be thinking about ecommerce and the real estate in our cities.

Personally, I find it helpful to reframe the questions in this way.

Here's an excerpt from the post:

But if I buy online and then drive to the store to collect it, is that different to phoning and reserving it? We didn’t have a statistics category for ‘telephone ordering’. If I use an app to order pizza instead of phoning the restaurant, has that become ‘ecommerce’ or is it still pizza delivery? 30 years ago, if I drove to Walmart instead of walking to a neighbourhood store, or drove to Best Buy instead of going to a department store, we didn’t call that ‘car-based commerce’. So is this a tech question, or a retailing question, or an urbanism question?

For the full thing, click here.

Chart: Benedict Evans

This past July, the Apple Piazza Liberty opened in Milan. Above is a photo from the opening via Apple. There’s a band playing in the middle of the piazza.

The store is central to Apple’s vision of transforming its retail locations into “town squares.” And in this case, the store is quite literally an Italian piazza.

There’s a lot that is interesting about this store and this strategic move, as well as what this could signal about the future retail. (Curbed discusses that here.)

The urbanists who read this blog will likely lament the privatization of public space. Because at the end of the day, it is a gray area. Can I hang out an Apple Town Square all day and just read a book?

But at the same time, this is not necessarily a new idea. From the very beginning, the modern shopping mall was intended to be a new kind of town square. Or at least that’s how Victor Gruen saw it.

However, what is perhaps new is this appropriation of public spaces for the purposes of what is arguably a new kind of retailing experience – one that almost feels paradoxical. 

In the case of Apple Piazza Liberty, as well as in some of its other town squares, the actual retailing space is mostly hidden. Here it is underground. (How much to rent the basement?)

And yet, Apple’s presence feels monumental and almost sublime. Glass box, waterfall, and subtle Apple logo sitting in the middle of a beautiful Milanese piazza.

What a statement.

Image: Apple

Earlier this week, Apple let us know that it is now calling its stores “town squares.” Not surprisingly, this elicited more than a few reactions. The Verge called it a “pretentious farce.” Others called it arrogant. Who is Apple to think that its stores could ever come close to a real town square?

It also raised important questions around the actual “publicness” of the spaces within our cities. Traditionally, town squares have indeed been public. But our cities are now also filled with many privately owned public spaces (POPS). Most of the time you don’t know the difference. Though sometimes you do. 

The reality is that there is a longstanding tradition of private retail-oriented spaces trying to simulate the experience of a town square, and certainly of a gathering space. The creator of the modern mall, Victor Gruen, always thought of his “garden courts” as a kind of substitute for traditional urban spaces. This was him trying to nobly urbanize the suburbs.

What is perhaps unique about Apple’s town square nomenclature is that – beyond simply wanting to be a Starbucks-esque “third place” – they seem to be telling us that they want to usurp the public nucleus away from the proverbial “garden court” and place it in their individual stores. 

And the reactions we have seen are because that feels far fetched.

However this plays out, this is a very clear acknowledgement by Apple that in today’s world being a store simply isn’t enough. That’s no longer interesting. Consumers have far easier options at their disposable. You need to give us more of a reason to visit you in your store or, dare I say, your town square.