You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
-Short Attention Span Theater-
Trendy Village Seeks To Banish The Pleasingly Plump
2006-09-01
According to reports, a trendy Chicago suburb voted "the sexiest suburb in America" may be on the verge of banishing from its venues of commerce those not conforming to arbitrarily contrived body aesthetics. Lane Bryant, a retailer known for marketing clothing to full-sized women, has been denied the opportunity to open a store in a development called "The Village Of Oak Park".

Before the hypercapitalists decide to slit my throat as they are wont to do whenever anyone dares to question a decision made by big business, it must be noted that the decision to deny Lane Bryant the retail space was not made by a private sector firm or entrepreneur but rather by the committee managing the village, an entity quasigovernmental in nature.

The bureaucratic mouthpiece for the community association told the press that, "Lane Bryant is not the kind or quality of shop that is desire for development," and, "We want a more broad based retailer benefiting the village, rather than a niche market."
Posted by:mcsegeek1

#24  After all, it is Oak Park not Oak Pork!
Posted by: Sgt. D.T.   2006-09-01 22:51  

#23  --For example, in Hyattsville, Maryland, subsidized housing is being set aside for so-called "struggling-artists" even though hardly anyone else either can afford the dilapidated housing ranging from $300,000 to $500,000 with tax bills over $3000 a year--

That's cheap!
Posted by: anonymous2u   2006-09-01 21:25  

#22  I have been told by an electrician who lives around there that property taxes are outrageous.

5 figures before the decimal point - the housing stock is older and some of it's not so big.

OP has some Frank Lloyd Wright homes.
Posted by: anonymous2u   2006-09-01 21:24  

#21  Maybe they're holding out for a Catherine's?
Posted by: Swamp Blondie   2006-09-01 19:14  

#20  Doesn't Lane-Bryant sell to women who are "broad based"?

Hey, even 5-7-9 Shops are broad-based.
Posted by: Angie Schultz   2006-09-01 18:19  

#19  Heh, pink and gray are the hot combination colors this year.
Posted by: 6   2006-09-01 18:16  

#18  We want a more broad based retailer

Doesn't Lane-Bryant sell to women who are "broad based"? [ducks]
Posted by: Zenster   2006-09-01 16:53  

#17  Steve White
Now they're trying to get chic big-box stores without the big-box problems. Lane Bryant doesn't fit. They'd love a Nordstrom's, a Needless Markup Neiman Marcus, etc. They'd love chic stores but the chic stores won't come -- there's a reason why they go to the big malls (e.g., Oakbrook). And they're afraid that if they go 'down-market' now that the chic stores won't ever come.

It's isn't fat people. It's just that Lane Bryant is down-market.

They're not bigots. They're just snobs. What a relief!


I think I'll open a nakid wimmins store, Big-medium and/or little boxes.
Posted by: Piggy Human   2006-09-01 14:27  

#16  I didn't realize Lane Bryant was "downmarket"...have you seen their prices?

Maybe they mean, "They sell clothes designed for small, cutesy teenagers to large women and the result is an aesthetic nightmare." That's why I don't shop there anymore. They hardly have anything simple and dignified, it's all Britneyfied. (And the simple, dignified stuff they have is in hideous colors. So there.)
Posted by: Angie Schultz   2006-09-01 13:23  

#15  "We want a more broad based retailer benefiting the village, rather than a niche market."

I take that to mean they want a Walmart :)
Posted by: Ulumble Angeck2580   2006-09-01 13:07  

#14  ""Lane Bryant is not the kind or quality of shop that is desire for development," and, "We want a more broad based retailer benefiting the village, rather than a niche market.""

Con scholars: equal protection argument?
Posted by: Mark E.   2006-09-01 12:55  

#13  I didn't realize Lane Bryant was "downmarket"...have you seen their prices? They are equivalent to Nordstrom, Field's, and Carson Pirie Scott -- since when does the fact that so-called, big name-small initialed designers like DK and CK don't make "fat" clothes, and therefore can't be found in this particular store make Lane Bryant "downmarket"?

It's this whole "covenented community" ideal that the entire world of suburbia is moving toward, in order to "protect their families" (from....? diversity? the real world? *gasp* above ground swimming pools???) that is to the detriment of the actual spirit of community in the first place. Stop telling me where to shop; how high I can build my fence; and what color flowers I can plant... but I angrily digress...
Posted by: Vickerina   2006-09-01 12:11  

#12  They're not bigots. They're just snobs. What a relief!

There's a difference?
Posted by: Abdominal Snowman   2006-09-01 11:41  

#11  Been to Chicago. There are way too many corn fed women there for anyone to turn their noses up at Lane Bryant.

I think its just your typical urban planner type who prefers the plan to the reality of who's will to pay for the space.
Posted by: Sceptic   2006-09-01 11:21  

#10  Thanks for the info Steve. It does eeem a bit of a stretch to go from snob to fatty hater. But don't you think that influences their thinking at least a little?
Posted by: mcsegeek1   2006-09-01 11:17  

#9  Just what I needed. One more reason not to go to Flatland.
Posted by: Cheaderhead   2006-09-01 11:12  

#8  I live in Oak Park. That's my village. It's one of the bluest suburbs in a very blue state.

This entire article is crap.

Lane Bryant and other retailers aren't being denied entry into the village because of some 'discrimination' against plump people (if it were true, I would have been evicted). The problem is much more basic: a village board thinks that it has the 'right' to decide what sort of retailing experiences we should have.

Background: 30 years ago we had a thriving small downtown, though people at the time said was better 30 years before that (and no doubt people then thought it was better long before that). We had some major retailers pull out and the downtown went into the semi-dumpster. So they mall'd it to eliminate cars. Then they de-mall'd it to bring cars back. Then they built parking. Then they moved the parking. The village next door put in an upscale strip mall across the street. So we did the same (didn't realize we needed all those cell phone stores). The village has been buying out old buildings, abandoned lots, etc., and trying to repackage them. One such lot was turned into the building in question. I've walked past it, it's pretty nice.

Now they're trying to get chic big-box stores without the big-box problems. Lane Bryant doesn't fit. They'd love a Nordstrom's, a Needless Markup Neiman Marcus, etc. They'd love chic stores but the chic stores won't come -- there's a reason why they go to the big malls (e.g., Oakbrook). And they're afraid that if they go 'down-market' now that the chic stores won't ever come.

It's isn't fat people. It's just that Lane Bryant is down-market.

They're not bigots. They're just snobs. What a relief!
Posted by: Steve White   2006-09-01 11:09  

#7  "Isn't Hillary from Oak Park?"

Well that might explain "It Takes A Village".
Posted by: mcsegeek1   2006-09-01 11:05  

#6  Jules - Hilly's from Park Ridge, I think. Not all that far away - geographically or philosophically.
Posted by: Bobby   2006-09-01 11:03  

#5  Just another attack on the definition of private property.
Posted by: BrerRabbit   2006-09-01 11:02  

#4  If obesity is not a 'choice' then it is an affliction. If you play the victimhood game then it's not their fault. Therefore it appears someone is in direct violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Sic a dog on a dog. Lawyers at 50 meters in the court of first filing.
Posted by: Thock Crirong5905   2006-09-01 10:49  

#3  Isn't Hillary from Oak Park?
Posted by: Jules in the Hinterlands   2006-09-01 10:41  

#2  I'd expect this from California, but a Chicago suburb? Don't tell me the Chicago area is also being Californicated....ugh.
Posted by: Vickerina   2006-09-01 10:35  

#1  Tempest in a D-cup?
Posted by: Thinemp Whimble2412   2006-09-01 10:18  

00:00