An interesting battle among various stakeholders over a proposed Walgreens store in the Highland neighborhood of St. Paul took an unusual twist recently when, after the local business and neighborhood associations and the city planning commission approved the plan, the city council unanimously rejected it.

The plan calls for a 9,000-plus square foot Walgreens store to be built fronting Ford Parkway, the primary street in the core of the Highland commerical district, a relatively dense mini downtown that includes a variety of restaurants and shops, a medical clinic, banks, two bookstores, a movie theater and a full-service grocery store. It also contains three existing pharmacies.

Some question why the area needs another pharmacy. Surely Walgreens understands this and is banking on luring away a percentage of customers from the existing competition. In fact, the primary reason cited by the city council was opposition by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, which represents employees at the Snyders drug store located next door to the proposed Walgreens.

The Union is a powerful lobby. Of course, their argument is to protect jobs at the Snyders drug store from competition from Walgreens. However, I suspect a large number of the signatures they gathered from area residents was not so much sympathy for the plight of workers but rather the perceived (or real) threat of an “evil” national chain coming to their neighborhood. In fact, I spoke to a woman in the grocery store checkout line (across the street from the proposed Walgreens) whose argument was essentially that. Having recently shopped at the adjacent Snyders, the store is tired and in need of a remodel. I’d have to guess a new Walgreens would lead to the Snyder store being closed and sold for a higher and better use.

(The argument against increased traffic doesn’t hold water – the Walgreens would replace a gas station, so you tell me which generates more traffic!)

Anyone interested in the effect of big national retailers coming in to new markets and driving out the local, family-owned competition should read Big-Box Swindle by Stacy Mitchell. It happens, and Walgreens is one such company that does it. So those opposed to Walgreens have a point, but it is important to note the difficulty of outlawing Walgreens simply because they are trying to make money.

The other argument against Walgreens is that it goes against local plans and the city’s comprehensive plan for the Highland neighborhood. I have no doubt this is true, and I happen to agree that over time the area should develop in a way that is more urban and pedestrian-friendly in form. That of course doesn’t preclude pharmacies, which serve a very real need among residents. A new retail store that dedicates more than half of its land area to surface parking does not set a good precedent for these principles.

But here’s the rub. The Walgreens team (rightly so) points out that the proposed store did not require any rezoning or variances, regardless of what any comp plans say. And there is the crux of so many cities trying to encourage better urbanism – a zoning code that allows bad urbanism. Something has to give – either city councils have to approve proposed development if it is indeed legal, or the code must change. I don’t know enough about planning to understand why this disconnect exists, but it is a conversation I want to have.

I shop in the area and enjoy visiting Highland because of its mix of uses and walkability. Having done market research for the future redevelopment of the nearby Ford Plant, I know there is untapped retail demand there, but also housing demand. Ideally, the neighborhood densifies over time to allow more of each, along with improved transit connections.

In a perfect world, a family-run, independent pharmacy would be present in the neighborhood and stave off advances from “evil” national and multinational corporations. And that pharmacy would be in the ground floor of a mixed-use building because single-use zoning was illegal under the zoning code. Alas, the world isn’t perfect, and Walgreens seems to have the right to purchase the site and build a store. I’d like to think that the zoning code could be changed so that single-use, automobile intensive development is no longer legal in the Highland neighborhood.

Getting to good urbanism is a delicate act of balancing better design and an improved public realm with market realities while not stifling economic investment opportunities.