Is it really a fake downtown? I mean, if people are living there and retail is there, it is a real I guess... just, intentionally/artificially constructed (we can pick a adjective to fit whatever spin we want to put on it).

'Fake' in the sense of having been designed to be a sort of downtown-ish space, as compared to real downtown areas that evolved more organically. I've seen what your parent commenter is referring to; it looks a lot like like living at a mall.

Yeah, I get what you mean, I just think artificial is a better word.

Lots of "real" downtowns are also intentional -- they are just the product of zoning and lobbying by local businesses. That something has been designed doesn't make it fake. Places with dense population are attractive for shops, places with good shop access are attractive to live in, and there's a feedback loop there. The degree to which that feedback loop has been spurred on intentionally sits on a spectrum.

For example if the apartment were entirely for show (not actually lived in) I would call that fake.

Downtowns are usually central and towns organically formed around them. These are usually in random places and tend to be islands isolated from the rest of the city.

One thing that needs to be considered is these "fake downtowns" (or "lifestyle centers" as they like to call themselves) are generally owned by a corporation. So things that people might expect to be possible in a public neighborhood (hold a protest, hold a block party, etc.) may not be allowed because it's private property.

The malls out by me which are dying are slowly moving to this model.

I think it's a great idea. There are plenty of working examples of housing/retail where people never have to leave indoors to get all their basic needs taken care of.

There's of course megamalls out by me as well, which are doing just fine and don't need to evolve. One is in a wealthy suburb, and has a shopping tourism industry which props up the local hotels on the weekends when business travel is low.