Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods(fastcompany.com)
fastcompany.com
Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods
https://www.fastcompany.com/90530672/with-downtowns-staying-abandoned-put-tiny-businesses-back-into-residential-neighborhoods
426 comments
As far as I can tell, "zoning" is just a bad idea. There's no such thing in the UK [1] and it still surprises me that it's quite a common approach. (As a kid I thought it was a game device employed to make urban planning in Sim City manageable. I still wonder if that series of games hasn't increased its prevalence.)
Instead, in the UK you require 'planning permission' to change the land use of any building. This is discretionary and may refer to some overall plan realting to the feel, density, etc. of an area but is not prescriptive over specific types.
As a result I don't know anyone in this country, urban or rural dwelling, who can't walk to a shop or a pub, though I'm sure some such unlucky places exist.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoning#United_Kingdom
Instead, in the UK you require 'planning permission' to change the land use of any building. This is discretionary and may refer to some overall plan realting to the feel, density, etc. of an area but is not prescriptive over specific types.
As a result I don't know anyone in this country, urban or rural dwelling, who can't walk to a shop or a pub, though I'm sure some such unlucky places exist.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoning#United_Kingdom
> I don't know anyone in this country, urban or rural dwelling, who can't walk to a shop or a pub
The average walking distance to a pub has gone up a lot in recent years due to closure, and walking on rural roads at night where there is no footpath is horrendously dangerous even if you carry lights. It's a nice idyll but it's no longer really true.
What you say about Simcity is absolutely true though. It doesn't correspond to traditional UK or most European cities at all. Medieval mixed walkable core, maybe not driveable at all; industrialish area down by the wharves now repurposed as offices and residential; Simcity-ish bit on the outskirts where somebody decided to build a grand scheme, like La Défense.
Zoning is starting to leak into urban planning a bit more, when huge housing estates are built with no shops, pubs, or facilities. As far as I can tell demand for housing outstrips everything else.
The average walking distance to a pub has gone up a lot in recent years due to closure, and walking on rural roads at night where there is no footpath is horrendously dangerous even if you carry lights. It's a nice idyll but it's no longer really true.
What you say about Simcity is absolutely true though. It doesn't correspond to traditional UK or most European cities at all. Medieval mixed walkable core, maybe not driveable at all; industrialish area down by the wharves now repurposed as offices and residential; Simcity-ish bit on the outskirts where somebody decided to build a grand scheme, like La Défense.
Zoning is starting to leak into urban planning a bit more, when huge housing estates are built with no shops, pubs, or facilities. As far as I can tell demand for housing outstrips everything else.
AFAIK, there's no such thing in city planning as "Medieval mixed walkable". Rather, business of the same guild worked in close proximity, so that one wouldn't undercut the others (AKA a price cartel). It's why we have meatpacking districts etc. Maybe it's different in UK, though.
On similar shops operating in close proximity - it makes sense to cluster in order to maximise the number of customers you have access to.
Imagine two ice-cream vendors on the beach, selling identical ice-creams for the same price.
Since number of sales are a function of how far people have to walk to your stand (and price etc), you want to make sure you are as close to as many people as possible.
If your competitor is closer to them, they will go there instead, so you either need to be very far away or right next to the competitor. If a person could visit either of your stands, the competitor can 'steal' them by simply moving their stand closer to yours, so that the customer previously in the middle is now closer to them.
A discussion on the general case is here [0].
This principle obviously doesn't extend flawlessly to the real world, but is a significant contributor to, for example, the clustering of car dealerships today.
[0] https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/583157/ice-cream-ve...
Imagine two ice-cream vendors on the beach, selling identical ice-creams for the same price.
Since number of sales are a function of how far people have to walk to your stand (and price etc), you want to make sure you are as close to as many people as possible.
If your competitor is closer to them, they will go there instead, so you either need to be very far away or right next to the competitor. If a person could visit either of your stands, the competitor can 'steal' them by simply moving their stand closer to yours, so that the customer previously in the middle is now closer to them.
A discussion on the general case is here [0].
This principle obviously doesn't extend flawlessly to the real world, but is a significant contributor to, for example, the clustering of car dealerships today.
[0] https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/583157/ice-cream-ve...
What I had in mind was places like Dubrovnik as an extreme example, or York as a less extreme - walled cities in which all the old residential/commercial activity happened. Necessarily dense and walkable. Smaller versions can be seen in "market towns" e.g. Cambridge: central square with occasional street market, surrounded by 2-4 storey buildings with shops on the ground floor and apartments above. Some of which have been converted into offices.
There's a big split between European cities which decided to rebuild exactly as it was after they were bombed flat (or the few that largely escaped), versus those which decided to modernise and become car-oriented. Cambridge vs. Coventry.
There's a big split between European cities which decided to rebuild exactly as it was after they were bombed flat (or the few that largely escaped), versus those which decided to modernise and become car-oriented. Cambridge vs. Coventry.
> The average walking distance to a pub
This is commonly referred to as "Staggering distance" :-)
This is commonly referred to as "Staggering distance" :-)
Is it true that walking on rural roads at night is horrendously dangerous? I was thinking less traffic means its probably safer than the collisions that happen when pedestrians step off the pavement in town.
I found something that kind of supports this notion but isn’t really conclusive
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
Wonder if you have a link to share?
I found something that kind of supports this notion but isn’t really conclusive
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
Wonder if you have a link to share?
I think generally speaking people actively avoid walking on country lanes unless there's absolutely no other way of completing the journey. Some are extremely dangerous with sporadic, fast moving traffic (60mph limit on single lane roads with no pavements or usable siding whatsoever - and people will speed on top of that) and often extremely low visibility turns. 16% of pedestrian deaths sounds quite low until you factor in that most people simply don't use them as pedestrians - in a more extreme way, only 1% of pedestrian deaths occur on motorways but that in no way makes them suitable for walking on.
Not that I make a practice of walking on country lanes in the US either, but when I've been on long distance walks in the UK and had to walk on a road for a stretch, there does seem to be a disproportionate number where there's a hedge or a stone wall inches from some twisty turny road surface. I've definitely walked stretches of road where I've felt very exposed, especially if the light was starting to fade.
Interesting about the average walking distance to a pub going up. My rural friends and family must be lucky as they don't seem to have been affected (and here in London you're unlucky if it's more than two mninutes).
I'm not sure about the data for pedestrians being hit on rural roads, though the UK has very low rate of per capita pedestrian fatalities overall, among the lowest in the EU according to [1]. Anecdotally I have never felt unsafe walking on rural raods. I can see how some of the narrower "A" roads (major single carriageway roads with no central reservation, sometimes heavy lorry traffic) might be, though these usually but not always have pavements for pedestrians and if not there's generally an alternative.
Either way, compared to my (admittedly limited) experience of suburban and rural America there is still a big (and welcome) difference. I hope that any downward trend can be arrested/reversed.
[1] https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/sites/roadsafety/...
I'm not sure about the data for pedestrians being hit on rural roads, though the UK has very low rate of per capita pedestrian fatalities overall, among the lowest in the EU according to [1]. Anecdotally I have never felt unsafe walking on rural raods. I can see how some of the narrower "A" roads (major single carriageway roads with no central reservation, sometimes heavy lorry traffic) might be, though these usually but not always have pavements for pedestrians and if not there's generally an alternative.
Either way, compared to my (admittedly limited) experience of suburban and rural America there is still a big (and welcome) difference. I hope that any downward trend can be arrested/reversed.
[1] https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/sites/roadsafety/...
>Is it true that walking on rural roads at night is horrendously dangerous?
No. It's not. You just can't expect drivers to see you so you have to take care and step more or less off the road if there isn't a wide shoulder available for your use at that spot. It's not a big deal because cars aren't that frequent.
It's really no different than any industrial workplace where it is expected that the lighter traffic will make way for the heavier traffic.
No. It's not. You just can't expect drivers to see you so you have to take care and step more or less off the road if there isn't a wide shoulder available for your use at that spot. It's not a big deal because cars aren't that frequent.
It's really no different than any industrial workplace where it is expected that the lighter traffic will make way for the heavier traffic.
...walking on rural roads at night where there is no footpath is horrendously dangerous...
Do you have to walk on the road? One might have expected that in rural areas one could walk through fields and forests.
Do you have to walk on the road? One might have expected that in rural areas one could walk through fields and forests.
In truly rural areas you can, but I think the areas being referenced are more semi-rural, with single track roads, and fenced off private land or dwellings on the sides. I’ve done that sort of walk a few times and it’s terrifying, especially when you know half the locals are going to be charging round at 60mph because they know the roads.
The context here is UK rural areas which are not quite like other places. Imagine a road that can fit 1 car, with wider places every few hundred metres and 2m+ hedges on both sides, immediately next to the road. Apart from specific paths you can't really go into a field.
Random example https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/narrow-road-high-hedge-18153...
Not all counties will look like that, but quite a lot of them to. Imagine a network of this kind of roads going on for many miles. You really don't want to walk them at night.
Random example https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/narrow-road-high-hedge-18153...
Not all counties will look like that, but quite a lot of them to. Imagine a network of this kind of roads going on for many miles. You really don't want to walk them at night.
I found myself walking on one of these roads as the sun began to set last summer and it was actually quite terrifying.
We’d made a long loop walking through the hills in the Cotswolds, and the guidebook would have had us crossing a large pasture to get back to the start. At the gate we were confronted by a couple of rowdy young bulls who seemed to have little interest in letting us cross their field, so we took the road instead. Thankfully we could hear cars coming from far away and could position ourselves for maximum visibility in the curves, but it certainly felt like one of the more dangerous miles I’ve ever walked.
On the main topic of this thread, one thing I did note during our two weeks of touring the British countryside was that the network of walking paths and tiny villages made even rural places much more walkable than in the US. One fairly isolated farm we stayed at had a hand drawn guide to getting to multiple nearby-ish pubs via footpaths through the fields. A comparable place in the US would have been 100% car dependent.
We’d made a long loop walking through the hills in the Cotswolds, and the guidebook would have had us crossing a large pasture to get back to the start. At the gate we were confronted by a couple of rowdy young bulls who seemed to have little interest in letting us cross their field, so we took the road instead. Thankfully we could hear cars coming from far away and could position ourselves for maximum visibility in the curves, but it certainly felt like one of the more dangerous miles I’ve ever walked.
On the main topic of this thread, one thing I did note during our two weeks of touring the British countryside was that the network of walking paths and tiny villages made even rural places much more walkable than in the US. One fairly isolated farm we stayed at had a hand drawn guide to getting to multiple nearby-ish pubs via footpaths through the fields. A comparable place in the US would have been 100% car dependent.
I spent some time in the Dallas-Fort-Worth area, staying at a typical suburbian region. This was before I had a car or driver's license.
It was shocking to me how isolated I was. There was a gas station that I could walk to, but even getting to the fast food place that I could see from my house was dangerous because the neighborhood was surrounded by wide roads and fast cars. Whenever my hosts wanted to get fast food, they'd drive there even though it was literally a stone's throw away.
The wider area was even stranger. A high school that you could only really reach by car. A 'proper' city nearby (Fort Worth) where it seemed like nobody thought to make it accessible to pedestrians. multiple cut-and-paste neighborhoods just like the one I stayed at, completely isolated and only accessible by car. And consistently a Walmart/Kroger's/<random shops> area every 20 mins or so, with one 'bigger' shopping area that had no character or charm but at least it had a movie theater and restaurants.
After that experience I understood why having a car is so crucial in the US, but I also started respecting more how difficult it is to avoid things like obesity or pill addiction. it felt so eery and unnatural.
It was shocking to me how isolated I was. There was a gas station that I could walk to, but even getting to the fast food place that I could see from my house was dangerous because the neighborhood was surrounded by wide roads and fast cars. Whenever my hosts wanted to get fast food, they'd drive there even though it was literally a stone's throw away.
The wider area was even stranger. A high school that you could only really reach by car. A 'proper' city nearby (Fort Worth) where it seemed like nobody thought to make it accessible to pedestrians. multiple cut-and-paste neighborhoods just like the one I stayed at, completely isolated and only accessible by car. And consistently a Walmart/Kroger's/<random shops> area every 20 mins or so, with one 'bigger' shopping area that had no character or charm but at least it had a movie theater and restaurants.
After that experience I understood why having a car is so crucial in the US, but I also started respecting more how difficult it is to avoid things like obesity or pill addiction. it felt so eery and unnatural.
> You really don't want to walk them at night.
I used to walk such roads at night.
I was taught, to keep safe:
- Carry a torch (flashlight outside the UK ;-) with good batteries, and don't wear dark clothing. Turn on the torch when you see headlights in the distance, make sure it's pointing somewhere visible.
- Walk on the right-hand side of the road (cars drive on the left in the UK). It's marginal on single-lane country roads but cars still tend towards their normal driving side. Better if you can see surprise vehicles coming towards you rather than from behind you, and they can see you facing them.
- Wear retro-reflective clothing / strips if possible.
As long as cars can see you, they slow down to pass just as they will for a car driving in the opposite direction. Which at night they first recognise by headlights, from quite far away and around corners, so light is what they're looking out for.
Definitely don't be dark, as that makes you invisible to cars at night until very close.
I used to walk such roads at night.
I was taught, to keep safe:
- Carry a torch (flashlight outside the UK ;-) with good batteries, and don't wear dark clothing. Turn on the torch when you see headlights in the distance, make sure it's pointing somewhere visible.
- Walk on the right-hand side of the road (cars drive on the left in the UK). It's marginal on single-lane country roads but cars still tend towards their normal driving side. Better if you can see surprise vehicles coming towards you rather than from behind you, and they can see you facing them.
- Wear retro-reflective clothing / strips if possible.
As long as cars can see you, they slow down to pass just as they will for a car driving in the opposite direction. Which at night they first recognise by headlights, from quite far away and around corners, so light is what they're looking out for.
Definitely don't be dark, as that makes you invisible to cars at night until very close.
That is helpful context. Wow, they really don't want to see their neighbors. Safe roads require unobstructed sight lines.
For pedestrians, yes that type of road is fairly dangerous. But for cars it's not too bad, drivers know they need to pay attention and nobody is going at high speeds. It's also easier than you might think to see oncoming cars, especially when it's dark and their headlights are on.
Fortunately/unfortunately that type of road is becoming slightly less prevalent, as efficient modern farming means hedges are maintained less than they were historically and they either get chopped down or neglected and end up growing into larger trees that are much easier to see through.
Fortunately/unfortunately that type of road is becoming slightly less prevalent, as efficient modern farming means hedges are maintained less than they were historically and they either get chopped down or neglected and end up growing into larger trees that are much easier to see through.
TBH it doesn't seem too safe for cars either. You couldn't possibly see deer or other animals until they had already jumped into the road. Any normal hazard like a car stopped for a flat or lumber that fell off a truck is more hazardous in this situation.
Honestly, these are not common occurrences in England. Cars that are stopped like this are required to post a warning triangle ahead, and lumber just doesn't fall off trucks (lumber isn't very common anyway as the country is mostly devoid of forests).
There's usually nothing but fields or woodland behind the hedges. Have a poke about on google maps. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.0386913,-0.0888581,3a,90y,...
While I agree that they're bad for sightlines, they're also traditional and may be on private land, so getting rid of them from minor roads would be a hugely unpopular undertaking.
While I agree that they're bad for sightlines, they're also traditional and may be on private land, so getting rid of them from minor roads would be a hugely unpopular undertaking.
It's interesting to discover a seemingly avoidable hazard to which the British are sentimentally attached. Perhaps it's not quite comparable to our attachment to firearms.
> As far as I can tell, "zoning" is just a bad idea.
Spend a week in Houston, TX and see if you still hold that opinion after. That is one of the least walkable cities in the US and doesn’t utilize zoning as far as I’m aware.
Spend a week in Houston, TX and see if you still hold that opinion after. That is one of the least walkable cities in the US and doesn’t utilize zoning as far as I’m aware.
It's a myth that Houston doesn't have zoning. They don't have use based zoning but they still have plenty of requirements such as parking minimums and lot sizes that serve as de facto zoning.
Ah that's right, use-based zoning. I still don't see how removing all zoning would de facto make cities easier to get around in, particularly when the US has a long history of private interests working against public mobility projects. The reason Americans are so dependent on cars was largely influenced by big automakers.
I tend to think that the outcome of removing zoning in the US would be very case-by-case. In a desirable urban neighborhood with height restrictions and a historical building commission, it might be possible to add a lot more density and storefronts without zoning. On the other end, I don't think a developer would add a story to a suburban olive garden along a busy road. If anything it might be cheaper to build sprawl without zoning.
> On the other end, I don't think a developer would add a story to a suburban olive garden along a busy road. If anything it might be cheaper to build sprawl without zoning.
I think this is exactly Houston’s situation and why it is such a disaster from a walkability standpoint.
I think this is exactly Houston’s situation and why it is such a disaster from a walkability standpoint.
I remember being in mexico city, and in one neighborhood, they would talk about "las minas", which were mines, right next to and in a residential area. Most of the people in that area got their water for showers from groundwater.
be careful what you wish for.
be careful what you wish for.
In theory sure.
In reality, the financial system is oriented towards big capital. My aunt ran a coffee shop that was established by grandparents in 1939. It was in the lobby of a office building in he central business district of our little city. The building was bought by a Chinese investor. Like other similar stores, her rent went up 5x and she shuttered.
I live in a mixed use urban neighborhood. 50% of he storefronts are vacant or populated by death businesses like karate dojo’s.
In reality, the financial system is oriented towards big capital. My aunt ran a coffee shop that was established by grandparents in 1939. It was in the lobby of a office building in he central business district of our little city. The building was bought by a Chinese investor. Like other similar stores, her rent went up 5x and she shuttered.
I live in a mixed use urban neighborhood. 50% of he storefronts are vacant or populated by death businesses like karate dojo’s.
The problem is people want to call it "mixed zoning" but still have Karens on the central planning committee making stupid rules, e.g. they'll have "businesses" next to "residences" but a given plot will be explicitly designated as one or the other.
What you really want is the small businesses which start off being operated out of the proprietor's residence. A hair salon in a converted living room, a restaurant serving food from the owner's home kitchen. Something that can start off as a side business yet can advertise without getting into legal trouble and grow into more if it's successful.
You get a few of those in an area and someone decides it's a good place to knock down a house and put up a five story building with condos on top and a coffee shop and a bakery on the ground floor.
You have to let it grow organically like that or you just end up with abandoned "commercial" buildings because businesses fear moving in when they know their success would lead to increased rents as a result of the limited amount of designated-commercial real estate in the area.
What you really want is the small businesses which start off being operated out of the proprietor's residence. A hair salon in a converted living room, a restaurant serving food from the owner's home kitchen. Something that can start off as a side business yet can advertise without getting into legal trouble and grow into more if it's successful.
You get a few of those in an area and someone decides it's a good place to knock down a house and put up a five story building with condos on top and a coffee shop and a bakery on the ground floor.
You have to let it grow organically like that or you just end up with abandoned "commercial" buildings because businesses fear moving in when they know their success would lead to increased rents as a result of the limited amount of designated-commercial real estate in the area.
Yup see “shop houses” [1] in Southeast Asia for how it should be done.
Shop house is a flexible creature. It can be a business, but is also easily converted into living quarters, if necessarily, or a parking garage, or whatever you want. It’s just a flexible, convertible space.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shophouse
Shop house is a flexible creature. It can be a business, but is also easily converted into living quarters, if necessarily, or a parking garage, or whatever you want. It’s just a flexible, convertible space.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shophouse
Interestingly, in the area of Iowa and Minnesota where I grew up, where a lot of the towns were founded just after the Civil War, the shops on main street were mostly brick storefront on the ground level, with residence above. Very few shop owners live in the apartment these days, for more than the last 50 years the apartments were rented out, usually quite cheaply.
I did have one friend that ran a shop and lived above -- it seemed great -- but he owned the building and had done a lot of modernizing of the apartment. It doesn't fit the suburban dream, though. No yard -- the green space for my friend was the county court house square across main street from his shop.
I did have one friend that ran a shop and lived above -- it seemed great -- but he owned the building and had done a lot of modernizing of the apartment. It doesn't fit the suburban dream, though. No yard -- the green space for my friend was the county court house square across main street from his shop.
I think many older North American cities have these features
Ottawa, Canada has these too on Bank St. Toronto has many of these streets also, for example Queen West. These are generally the most vibrant neighborhoods.
The solution to having lack of backyard space is to have public parks. Montreal has this more right than any other city I’ve seen.
Ottawa, Canada has these too on Bank St. Toronto has many of these streets also, for example Queen West. These are generally the most vibrant neighborhoods.
The solution to having lack of backyard space is to have public parks. Montreal has this more right than any other city I’ve seen.
Exactly. That’s partly why I love living in Vietnam. The neighborhoods are so vibrant and full of life. Everyone is out on the stoop. Neighbors all know each other and buy from each other.
Of course, from my apartment I hear karaoke late at night, roosters early in the morning, and construction, always construction.
So there are drawbacks. It would be disruptive, especially in suburbia. But I would love some middle ground between crazy Saigon and cultural desert suburban Atlanta.
Of course, from my apartment I hear karaoke late at night, roosters early in the morning, and construction, always construction.
So there are drawbacks. It would be disruptive, especially in suburbia. But I would love some middle ground between crazy Saigon and cultural desert suburban Atlanta.
Even Tokyo works a lot more like this. It's a beautiful mess, but in addition it has some of the best public infrastructure.
Blame the writers of "Will & Grace".
Can anyone explain how the term "Karen" isn't both racist and sexist at the same time? I hadn't heard of it until a few months ago, and now it seems everyone is using it to refer to a certain kind of "middle class white woman". A term like that to describe a certain kind of middle class asian or black man would be very offensive. Are the days where we try to exercise civility and empathy gone? It feels like society has gone from "let's tolerate people" to "let's ridicule people we don't like, without logical argument".
Blaming the disappearance of tiny businesses in residential neighborhoods by saying "It's all those middle class white women" seems both very shallow and specious.
Blaming the disappearance of tiny businesses in residential neighborhoods by saying "It's all those middle class white women" seems both very shallow and specious.
It’s both racist and sexist but the people advocating it’s usage don’t actually care about either issue. I think it’s filed under the general hypocrisy that you cannot be racist against white people.
Using a name meant to paint a picture of a suburban white woman is no different than describing someone as a Jamal, Yousef, Goku, Carlucci, Vladimir, Shenequa, Herschel, or Juan. If a news outlet used any of those names to describe a person in a news story they’d be immediately flagged as racist. And yet we see the term used to describe white woman gracing articles on the front page of even the NY Times.
Using a name meant to paint a picture of a suburban white woman is no different than describing someone as a Jamal, Yousef, Goku, Carlucci, Vladimir, Shenequa, Herschel, or Juan. If a news outlet used any of those names to describe a person in a news story they’d be immediately flagged as racist. And yet we see the term used to describe white woman gracing articles on the front page of even the NY Times.
> Can anyone explain how the term "Karen" isn't both racist and sexist at the same time?
It is. There are plenty of decent people named Karen who do not deserve to have their name appropriated as an insult.
Better to say "entitled jerk" or something similar. That way, the only person you're insulting is whomever you're calling a jerk.
It is. There are plenty of decent people named Karen who do not deserve to have their name appropriated as an insult.
Better to say "entitled jerk" or something similar. That way, the only person you're insulting is whomever you're calling a jerk.
It's definitely sexist and racist. I think usage of the term shot up following the incident a couple months back where a white woman explicitly tried to use faked fear to weaponize police against a black man telling her to leash her dog in Central Park. Combined with the current prominence of Black Lives Matter and some older similar incidents of white women calling police on black people, the racist sexist meme has really taken off.
I've always seen it as referring to a certain kind of insufferable, entitled customer that demands to see the manager. Usually presumed to be a middle-aged white woman, yes, but the weight was on insufferable behavior, not demographics, at least originally. Suddenly people have started complaining about it as being heavily about race/sex and being bigoted, when the original was just codeword for asshole.
There are too many people named Karen for it not to become offensive to those people at least.
Amen. Childish name-calling like this and "ok boomer" are being used to dismiss anything a person says because they're older.
You are really tempting fate with this comment...
> Can anyone explain how the term "Karen" isn't both racist and sexist at the same time?
Because it’s tied to behaviour. Stop behaving like an a-hole and you stop being called a Karen.
You can’t stop being black or a woman.
That’s the key difference.
Because it’s tied to behaviour. Stop behaving like an a-hole and you stop being called a Karen.
You can’t stop being black or a woman.
That’s the key difference.
> Because it’s tied to behaviour.
We wouldn't call illegal gardeners a Hernandez, or terrorists from the middle east Mohammeds. Those are behaviors too.
What makes it wrong is picking an ethnic name to associate with that behavior. Karen is a euphemism for suburban, white, female.
We wouldn't call illegal gardeners a Hernandez, or terrorists from the middle east Mohammeds. Those are behaviors too.
What makes it wrong is picking an ethnic name to associate with that behavior. Karen is a euphemism for suburban, white, female.
Except for the second part: you’ve never been discriminated against for being white.
The sexist part doesn’t really fit for me either, as we generally reserve insults for genders too. Bitch vs bastard are prime examples.
By the way, the male version of “Karen” in my part of the world is much worse.
The sexist part doesn’t really fit for me either, as we generally reserve insults for genders too. Bitch vs bastard are prime examples.
By the way, the male version of “Karen” in my part of the world is much worse.
AnthonyMouse(2)
badgerigar(1)
Middle-class white women also suffer the Karens. They might suffer less on a per-encounter basis but they have lots more encounters with Karens so it might even out.
If you haven't suffered the Karens, you might be a Karen...
When could society ever be characterized by an ethos of "let's tolerate people"? ISTM that now anyone might receive for criticism for objectionable behavior, not just poor black young men.
If you haven't suffered the Karens, you might be a Karen...
When could society ever be characterized by an ethos of "let's tolerate people"? ISTM that now anyone might receive for criticism for objectionable behavior, not just poor black young men.
I don't disagree that this hazard is real, but I also see the term used in non-racist, non-sexist ways too, sometimes with disclaimers that "obviously this isn't just white women and not all white women are like this". I realize I am likely in the minority thinking that context matters, but I want to provide my sincere stance that I think it's sometimes reasonable to call someone a Karen, assuming proper care is taken not to imply anything sexist or racist. I understand the term as meaning "busybody" more than anything else; in fact, you can use it to describe a person of any race or sex but you cannot use it for a non-busybody.
The problem is, people used to have non-gender, non-racial terms for people. For example, a person might be called an 'asshole' or 'bonehead', and this could be a person of any colour, any sex, age, etc.
Yet now, it seems all sorts are labeling people based upon sex, colour, ethnic background, etc. It is, quite literally, the definition of sexual, racial, age discrimination. It is linking "external characteristic" with "way a person acts".
I don't care what anyone's political stance is, but if you are using terms like 'Karen', you are 100% contributing to sexism, racism, etc.
Just call someone what they are. "Asshole" has worked fine for millennia.
Yet now, it seems all sorts are labeling people based upon sex, colour, ethnic background, etc. It is, quite literally, the definition of sexual, racial, age discrimination. It is linking "external characteristic" with "way a person acts".
I don't care what anyone's political stance is, but if you are using terms like 'Karen', you are 100% contributing to sexism, racism, etc.
Just call someone what they are. "Asshole" has worked fine for millennia.
From what I understand the specific behavior is actually and intrinsically linked to the idea of a white woman in America and has historically existed for quite a while among black circles (from the 1800s at least). Discussing Karen as if it’s new belies the actual history of it. [0]
0. https://www.npr.org/2020/07/14/891177904/whats-in-a-karen
0. https://www.npr.org/2020/07/14/891177904/whats-in-a-karen
What a weird assertion, when you link to an article that asserts something entirely different.
The above NPR, states that a Karen is a new label, started in the 2010s (which is just last year, even). It also shows how the Karen label is different from other, prior labels.
It delineates how a Becky is different, a "Miss Ann" is different.
We've historically had labels like this for people, which are racially linked. But this is 2020, this is a NEW label, and other NEW labels keep popping up.
We need to collectively STOP this. No more racist, sexist, ageist, anything-ist labels. It's all wrong.
(Not saying you were defending label use... just clarifying my position)
The above NPR, states that a Karen is a new label, started in the 2010s (which is just last year, even). It also shows how the Karen label is different from other, prior labels.
It delineates how a Becky is different, a "Miss Ann" is different.
We've historically had labels like this for people, which are racially linked. But this is 2020, this is a NEW label, and other NEW labels keep popping up.
We need to collectively STOP this. No more racist, sexist, ageist, anything-ist labels. It's all wrong.
(Not saying you were defending label use... just clarifying my position)
I’m arguing that the idea of a karen is not new, sorry to be unclear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs
Slurs are not new. And as I mentioned, what you showed were not Karens, but 'white women who act poorly in certain ways'.
"Kaben" has unique connotations, a specific meaning. While I agree that "white women have had slurs" before 'Karen', I'm going to have to disagree that it's germane here.
Slurs are not new. And as I mentioned, what you showed were not Karens, but 'white women who act poorly in certain ways'.
"Kaben" has unique connotations, a specific meaning. While I agree that "white women have had slurs" before 'Karen', I'm going to have to disagree that it's germane here.
I agree that the term "Karen" has its genesis as an insult, and one designed to effectively aggravate the people it describes. It's not surprising to me that it's a word people reach for when they want the impact that words like "asshole" have lost. I don't know why you would call someone an "asshole" if you want to be genuinely mean.
"Asshole" is as common as salt in our everyday language, but "Karen" is the spice.
"Asshole" is as common as salt in our everyday language, but "Karen" is the spice.
> Just call someone what they are. "Asshole" has worked fine for millennia.
Except that Karens and assholes are different. Karens can be assholes, sure, but a Karen is a specific type of asshole. Football hooligans may be assholes but they're generally not Karens. It means something different, and there isn't another word that means the same thing.
Except that Karens and assholes are different. Karens can be assholes, sure, but a Karen is a specific type of asshole. Football hooligans may be assholes but they're generally not Karens. It means something different, and there isn't another word that means the same thing.
Unless a 'Karen' can be an elderly aging Asian man, it's sexist, ageish and racist. Here's a few other such terms:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs
A lot of these terms link specific behaviour, to specific ethnic/sex/cultural groups. I guess they're OK too?
I find it utterly disgusting, that some people think some things are 'one way'. That racism is OK, but only "one way". Sexism is OK, but only against men. The list goes on.
Let's see how long you last, if you see a lazy black person (they exist, like lazy people exist everywhere)... and you spout out "Bluegum!" Is that OK?
No?
Then why is it OK with 'Karen'?
You'd don't cure social ills by creating more of them.
"An eye for an eye, leaves the whole world blind." is highly accurate, I think.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs
A lot of these terms link specific behaviour, to specific ethnic/sex/cultural groups. I guess they're OK too?
I find it utterly disgusting, that some people think some things are 'one way'. That racism is OK, but only "one way". Sexism is OK, but only against men. The list goes on.
Let's see how long you last, if you see a lazy black person (they exist, like lazy people exist everywhere)... and you spout out "Bluegum!" Is that OK?
No?
Then why is it OK with 'Karen'?
You'd don't cure social ills by creating more of them.
"An eye for an eye, leaves the whole world blind." is highly accurate, I think.
For what it is worth I have seen Karen used as aggressively agender and aracially like referring to an obnoxious customer who was a black man as a "Karen".
https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/karen/
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Karen
Maybe you're seen this. I haven't, and many people seem to have the specific definitions listed above.
Maybe you're seen this. I haven't, and many people seem to have the specific definitions listed above.
An elderly Asian guy can totally be a Karen. We don't have another single word at the moment to convey the same behaviour in a different way. You can propose one and try to convert the usage though.
> Unless a 'Karen' can be an elderly aging Asian man, it's sexist, ageish and racist.
Well then it's a good thing that it can.
> Let's see how long you last, if you see a lazy black person (they exist, like lazy people exist everywhere)... and you spout out "Bluegum!" Is that OK?
That is a racial slur. Its meaning is defined by race.
A Karen is defined by behavior.
Well then it's a good thing that it can.
> Let's see how long you last, if you see a lazy black person (they exist, like lazy people exist everywhere)... and you spout out "Bluegum!" Is that OK?
That is a racial slur. Its meaning is defined by race.
A Karen is defined by behavior.
“Karen’s on the central planning committee”
cries in San Francisco
So apt.
cries in San Francisco
So apt.
It truly is the golden era of officious busybodies.
Tangentially related, but a colleague just got their replacement of kitchen cabinets shut down by the local government for not having a permit. It’s baffling to me that the government requires that you get permission to do significant modification to the inside of your own home, especially for non structural work.
What the heck? How would they even know? Neighbours reported seeing them carrying new cabinets in? The store reported it to the government? That's just weird.
Neighbours reported seeing them carrying new cabinets in?
Something like this actually happened to a former colleague of mine. They installed a safety rail on their front porch. Someone complained.
Something like this actually happened to a former colleague of mine. They installed a safety rail on their front porch. Someone complained.
That’s at least outdoors
True, but children can run much faster than a permitting process.
Maybe in the cabinetry case there was a giant van with a company logo parked out front.
Either way, permits shouldn't be required for non-disruptive (and a van being in someone's driveway is not disruptive), non-structural changes to a house.
Maybe in the cabinetry case there was a giant van with a company logo parked out front.
Either way, permits shouldn't be required for non-disruptive (and a van being in someone's driveway is not disruptive), non-structural changes to a house.
He gave the old cabinets away on Craigslist. Must’ve seen the posting and cross checked it against permits.
I’m aware that zoning and permitting laws have been an issue for a while (like a lot of Millenials I haven’t been able to afford to buy a home), but it does feel a bit authoritarian for the local permitting office to look for signs of “black market” modifications to one’s own property.
I’m aware that zoning and permitting laws have been an issue for a while (like a lot of Millenials I haven’t been able to afford to buy a home), but it does feel a bit authoritarian for the local permitting office to look for signs of “black market” modifications to one’s own property.
Where did that happen?
West LA, but after relaying this story to my family in the midwest I found out that my sister in law had to get permits to replace internal drywall. It seems like lots of local governments think they should have their nose in how one modifies one’s own property.
Welcome to home ownership. Location everywhere.
Most places like not places like Oakland, Berkeley and Santa Cruz County, this sort of thing depends on the neighbors. It's inane what neighbors will go running to the city for. Or not. Friend of mine in the east bay completely gutted and remodeled his house no problem. In San Jose neighbors complained to the city about a disused dishwasher in my garage.
Most places like not places like Oakland, Berkeley and Santa Cruz County, this sort of thing depends on the neighbors. It's inane what neighbors will go running to the city for. Or not. Friend of mine in the east bay completely gutted and remodeled his house no problem. In San Jose neighbors complained to the city about a disused dishwasher in my garage.
antonvs(2)
Outside of the parent's offensive sexist, and racist 'Karen' statement...
I really don't think people have perspective these days. You think this is the era of officious busybodies?! Seriously?
It's just that these days, things aren't covered up. Or, are seen more due to the Internet.
For example, you think cops are MORE violent now? MORE racist? HELL NO! No, no, no!
They're MUCH better than they were. Much. All of that needs to be stopped, of course, there's zero call for it. However in the past, you wouldn't even hear of it. A black man would be beaten to death, and it wouldn't even make the news!
Go find an older black gentleman from rural Alabama from the 50s, and ask him some questions. Compare that, and police treatment, to now.
So with respect to 'busybodies', I think you need to think back to small town American (and Canada, where I'm from), a mere 50 years ago. Canada is pretty much atheist now, and the US certainly is, compared to back then.
And along with all that religious baggage, came the 'holier than thou' lot. Said lot would always work to dominate committees, town councils, you name it. Religious groups would constantly rail on TV series, movies, even newspaper comics like the 'Far Side' would get hate mail, over crazy silly supposed slights.
The media was controlled, out of fear of retribution.
Oh no, nothing you complain about now even remotely compares to that. And while I say "You literally, clearly, have no idea.".. don't feel bad. Feel lucky you don't.
I really don't think people have perspective these days. You think this is the era of officious busybodies?! Seriously?
It's just that these days, things aren't covered up. Or, are seen more due to the Internet.
For example, you think cops are MORE violent now? MORE racist? HELL NO! No, no, no!
They're MUCH better than they were. Much. All of that needs to be stopped, of course, there's zero call for it. However in the past, you wouldn't even hear of it. A black man would be beaten to death, and it wouldn't even make the news!
Go find an older black gentleman from rural Alabama from the 50s, and ask him some questions. Compare that, and police treatment, to now.
So with respect to 'busybodies', I think you need to think back to small town American (and Canada, where I'm from), a mere 50 years ago. Canada is pretty much atheist now, and the US certainly is, compared to back then.
And along with all that religious baggage, came the 'holier than thou' lot. Said lot would always work to dominate committees, town councils, you name it. Religious groups would constantly rail on TV series, movies, even newspaper comics like the 'Far Side' would get hate mail, over crazy silly supposed slights.
The media was controlled, out of fear of retribution.
Oh no, nothing you complain about now even remotely compares to that. And while I say "You literally, clearly, have no idea.".. don't feel bad. Feel lucky you don't.
Investors have proven willing to keep homes and apartments empty as well. The behavior seems bizarre to me, but it seems you have to set tax policies to discourage it.
I think this happens more often in places like San Francisco where the gains from investing in property is mostly appreciation and it's hard to get rid of a tenant. In this case it makes little sense to deal with the hassle of having a tenant who might live there for a very long time to potentially increase your returns by 2-3% per year.
If you are big enough theres some weird accounting incentive to keep it vacant. You can keep claiming it as an asset that brings in 10x dollars, even though your cash flow is 0x, so actually renting for 8x really hurts your asset value or some nonsense that im probably getting the details wrong about.
The answer is more boring than financial conspiracy. Rents are sticky and both evictions and finding new tenants are a pain in the ass. Especially for a commercial space, better to wait a while for the 10x tenant than to settle for the 8x one.
It's not a conspiracy, just a murky business.
Real estate is the most "advantaged" businesses out there. They tend to support local political figures heavily and get heard.
Real estate is the most "advantaged" businesses out there. They tend to support local political figures heavily and get heard.
Right, which is why commercial lending is a farce in my opinion. It's more or less built on wishful thinking of future gains, leading to a lot of vacancy.
At least in residential lending the problem is that the FHA has specific rules on what it will and will not guarantee, distorting the market in favor of mostly single-use residential.
Really we should pull that and the mortgage deduction, because at this point both distort the market in favor of people who can afford to own property.
Really we should pull that and the mortgage deduction, because at this point both distort the market in favor of people who can afford to own property.
I suspect mortgage deduction will be gone in a few years. With Trump's tax reforms very few people take it, and so they won't be for it. If they eliminated it entirely now too many people remember it as good, but give it a few years to sink in that only the rich (or those living in California, which is itself a point against it elsewhere) take it, not you can get rid of it.
Let's hope!
Real estate is its own beast.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/03/how-kle...
tl;dr: post 9/11 criminal money laundering activity switched from banks to real estate
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/03/how-kle...
tl;dr: post 9/11 criminal money laundering activity switched from banks to real estate
Because the real estate is being used as a value store for people moving money from overseas, engaging in money laundering, or as a hedge against other bets. Once exchange value is given priority over use value in markets for things like housing, you run into all kinds of nonsensical arrangements and deleterious social consequences.
And that is why you need tax penalties such as long term unoccupied property taxes and non-resident investor taxes to counter incentivize such behavior.
I’m skeptical that taxes themselves can resolve the problem. The people who engage in these tactics are already quite good at gaming them. Housing would have to revert to circumstances like Japan, where homes are largely a depreciating asset.
Replace portion of income tax with simple property tax. No complicated stuff like "unoccupied property taxes and non-resident investor taxes".
Even better than property tax, land value tax.
Charging tax on property (building + land) mostly just disincentivizes more intensive buildings.
Charging tax on property (building + land) mostly just disincentivizes more intensive buildings.
The land value should be taxed, but it isn't a simple answer. Large buildings imply more people which mean more use of city services. I'm not sure what the right answer is, but I am sure simple answers that would fit into a comment box here are wrong.
If you want to tax things to cover the cost of more people then it makes more sense to tax the people.
You obviously need to tax enough to cover the costs somehow.
Tax is also incentive. You want to tax things you want to discourage more than things that you want to encourage.
Tax is also incentive. You want to tax things you want to discourage more than things that you want to encourage.
They should be, shouldn't they?
They're physical luxury goods that deteriorate as you use them, like cars. They appreciate largely because of nearby corporate and government investment (in office complices, schools, utilities).
That people make money off of them suggests that the government isn't being nearly aggressive enough about capturing the value it's creating here.
They're physical luxury goods that deteriorate as you use them, like cars. They appreciate largely because of nearby corporate and government investment (in office complices, schools, utilities).
That people make money off of them suggests that the government isn't being nearly aggressive enough about capturing the value it's creating here.
It is really weird. My home is a wood-frame house >100 years old. Although some aspects are better than new construction, it seems weird that the underwriting is basically the same as a new property given the term of the loan I just refinanced. Even insurance is almost the same!
I can travel a mile down the road and due to a "bad" neighborhood, many properties are literally negative value. They sit till they burn because demolition is more costly than the value of the land.
Markets don't price risk well. Housing markets definitely don't price capital investments or liabilities more than 5 years out well.
I can travel a mile down the road and due to a "bad" neighborhood, many properties are literally negative value. They sit till they burn because demolition is more costly than the value of the land.
Markets don't price risk well. Housing markets definitely don't price capital investments or liabilities more than 5 years out well.
Yes, I agree entirely. Removing socially necessary goods like food, housing, and healthcare from financialized speculation would resolve many that issues countries like the US face.
Well, in NL you were allowed to squat a property if it was vacant for more that a certain amount of time. Then the local Liberals (Mark Rutte) outlawed squatting and it’s basically like the parent comment described.
It’s also related to financing reality. Commercial real estate is refinances every 10 years or so based on the expected rent. The math works out such that it’s far more reasonable to leave a unit empty with a higher rent than occupied with a lower rent, since the refinancing terms dominate the amount of lost rent.
Pretty much. Modern mixed-use developments are basically born again shopping malls. We don't have the density for "real" mixed use, so it's just a development project like any other; I'm sure there are real, integrated, mixed-use projects, but the ones I see in small urban/suburban areas are detached from the surrounding area and often detached from public transport, basically to sell overpriced apartments to lifestyle-minded HENRYs.
Is that really a problem though? I'm imagining a mixed-use development surrounded by many blocks of single family homes and a large parking garage nearby, like a mall, that makes it easy for homeowners to access the development. (I think this is what you mean by born again shopping mall)
I live nearby one such development, and it's awesome (when there isn't a pandemic). There's a great variety of retail because they can rely on both local residents and homeowners who drive in, and it's thriving (when there isn't a pandemic).
More apartments have been built up around the development as it's grown, and while it's very detached from the urban center there is a bus route that connects it and the other apartments throughout the suburb to the light rail system.
I live nearby one such development, and it's awesome (when there isn't a pandemic). There's a great variety of retail because they can rely on both local residents and homeowners who drive in, and it's thriving (when there isn't a pandemic).
More apartments have been built up around the development as it's grown, and while it's very detached from the urban center there is a bus route that connects it and the other apartments throughout the suburb to the light rail system.
Mixed use neighborhoods of the past generally offer business diversity and lots of mom-and-pops.
A lot of the new mixed use developments where I live in Seattle are basically malls in how sterile and unvaried the commercial bits are. (New American upscale brunch restaurant? Check. Fad group fitness club? Check. Bank and starbucks? Check.)
A lot of the new mixed use developments where I live in Seattle are basically malls in how sterile and unvaried the commercial bits are. (New American upscale brunch restaurant? Check. Fad group fitness club? Check. Bank and starbucks? Check.)
while i agree that there is a trend in that direction, they are still better than the status quo of separated developments.
What is real mixed use vs fake mixed use?
> Like other similar stores, her rent went up 5x and she shuttered.
Want to know the best way to protect against exceedingly high prices? Increase supply. If the market had enough supply to meet its own demand, then that situation wouldn’t be possible. The number one thing that holds back the supply of real estate is insane zoning and planning regulation.
The idea that permanently preserving nonsense like the “character” of neighbourhood, at the cost of affordable housing and business rent has to be one of the most anti-social mobility, anti-equality, openly classist ideas we have in our society. “But what if somebody builds an apartment tower next to my expensive Victorian house?”, good! Maybe there’ll be less people sleeping on the streets and in their cars because of it.
Want to know the best way to protect against exceedingly high prices? Increase supply. If the market had enough supply to meet its own demand, then that situation wouldn’t be possible. The number one thing that holds back the supply of real estate is insane zoning and planning regulation.
The idea that permanently preserving nonsense like the “character” of neighbourhood, at the cost of affordable housing and business rent has to be one of the most anti-social mobility, anti-equality, openly classist ideas we have in our society. “But what if somebody builds an apartment tower next to my expensive Victorian house?”, good! Maybe there’ll be less people sleeping on the streets and in their cars because of it.
> The idea that permanently preserving nonsense like the “character” of neighbourhood, at the cost of affordable housing and business rent has to be one of the most anti-social mobility, anti-equality, openly classist ideas we have in our society. “But what if somebody builds an apartment tower next to my expensive Victorian house?”
I'm sure there's that too, but a lot of it is a result of an "unholy alliance" of democracy and economics. For most people their home is the single most valuable asset they have. So they have an interest in maximizing the value of it. One way of maximizing the value is by increasing scarcity. And thus you have the well off people (as in, the ones who already own property in the area) packing the local planning boards, preventing higher density development. Or home owner associations with all kinds of anal rules how your house and yard is supposed to look and what you can do there, etc.
Of course, these types of incentive problems are everywhere. E.g. in my country, like I suppose in many developed countries, there's an under-supply of medical doctors. So how many doctors do we need? Hmm, lets ask the experts, the national medical association. Who of course has no interest in inflating the wages and job opportunities of their members..
I'm sure there's that too, but a lot of it is a result of an "unholy alliance" of democracy and economics. For most people their home is the single most valuable asset they have. So they have an interest in maximizing the value of it. One way of maximizing the value is by increasing scarcity. And thus you have the well off people (as in, the ones who already own property in the area) packing the local planning boards, preventing higher density development. Or home owner associations with all kinds of anal rules how your house and yard is supposed to look and what you can do there, etc.
Of course, these types of incentive problems are everywhere. E.g. in my country, like I suppose in many developed countries, there's an under-supply of medical doctors. So how many doctors do we need? Hmm, lets ask the experts, the national medical association. Who of course has no interest in inflating the wages and job opportunities of their members..
I always thought it was explained by local government elections generally having a low voter turnout, and homeowners having the strongest incentive to vote. But I’m not really sure that’s it, if you look at places like LA, local elections generally have very poor turnout, but in SF its actually not that bad.
The cynic in me thinks it’s just run of the mill political corruption. The cities where these problems are the worst have essentially been run by the same group of politicians for quite a long time, and they’re generally elected on platforms of caring about societies less advantaged groups. But time after time they get elected and incrementally make things a bit worse before being elected again. Which could suggest that you win in politics by simply saying the right things rather than actually doing them. But I don’t find that sort of “people are just dumb” line of reasoning very compelling.
In any case, the problem has gotten so bad in many places that’s it’s not possible to fix over any reasonable period of time. If you too imagine the most extreme approach of simply abolishing all zoning and planning regulations over night, housing prices and rent would certainly sharply decline. But then you would have a new problem of millions of mortgages being underwater.
The cynic in me thinks it’s just run of the mill political corruption. The cities where these problems are the worst have essentially been run by the same group of politicians for quite a long time, and they’re generally elected on platforms of caring about societies less advantaged groups. But time after time they get elected and incrementally make things a bit worse before being elected again. Which could suggest that you win in politics by simply saying the right things rather than actually doing them. But I don’t find that sort of “people are just dumb” line of reasoning very compelling.
In any case, the problem has gotten so bad in many places that’s it’s not possible to fix over any reasonable period of time. If you too imagine the most extreme approach of simply abolishing all zoning and planning regulations over night, housing prices and rent would certainly sharply decline. But then you would have a new problem of millions of mortgages being underwater.
nti-social mobility, anti-equality, openly classist ideas we have in our society
But on the flip side, deciding that newcomers know better how to manage already occupied land is basically colonialism...
But on the flip side, deciding that newcomers know better how to manage already occupied land is basically colonialism...
I hope you’re being sarcastic because otherwise this is incredibly contrived. Colonization is one country taking over the governance of another, typically without providing any representation or property rights to said nation/tribe/country/people...
Building housing to support population growth is not even remotely similar to that. Permissive zoning laws (or even better, no zoning laws) don’t even prevent existing residents from using their property their property the way they always have. The restrictive regulations are about making sure that all nearby residents also continue to use their property in a particular way. The idea that buying a house in a particular area somehow entitles you to make sure nobody else who owns a house or property in that area does anything to change it just seems completely insane to me.
A neighbour saying “you can’t build affordable housing on your property, because I like your property the way it is” sounds a lot more similar to colonialism to me.
Building housing to support population growth is not even remotely similar to that. Permissive zoning laws (or even better, no zoning laws) don’t even prevent existing residents from using their property their property the way they always have. The restrictive regulations are about making sure that all nearby residents also continue to use their property in a particular way. The idea that buying a house in a particular area somehow entitles you to make sure nobody else who owns a house or property in that area does anything to change it just seems completely insane to me.
A neighbour saying “you can’t build affordable housing on your property, because I like your property the way it is” sounds a lot more similar to colonialism to me.
You accidentally described an even more practical solution than increasing the naturally limited (e.g. good commercial spots in the city center) supply: make neighbourhoods unattractive by building communist era style apartment blocks in beautiful areas to drive prices of victorian houses down...
Teaching karate is a death business? In my limited experience the martial arts are overwhelmingly about defense and fitness. Making them predominantly a life business. A donut shop would be a better example of a death business.
Sorry, if you see a development with any vacancy, a martial arts place, and a subway/Chinese joint, that’s usually a dying development.
Unless it also has a DVD copying or vacuum repair shop, in which case it's a front for money laundering, and the other businesses are window dressing.
so all of the suburbs
I think they meant a business that is destined to die. Could be wrong though.
The way I read it it was referring to the type of businesses that arise in already dying residential areas, due to the rent being cheap, etc. and individuals can start their yoga studio or karate doja and such. The businesses themselves aren't bad, but they are a symptom of a neighborhood in decline. Don't know if that is true, but that's how I understood it.
Also, these businesses don't need walls or public restrooms. If the floor is concrete, CVT, carpet, or whatever they still just roll out some padded mats. No one cares what the ceiling looks like or if the heat works. No remodeling required to get their tenancy started, and none required to replace them with a more lucrative business. Landlords are not afraid to sign up such tenants even if the rent they'll pay is low. A tenant like a dentist or coffee shop requires more complicated improvements, will be charged higher rent, and will signify that the strip mall in question is not dying.
The stoa was the ancient greek strip mall, and I suppose doing philosophy involves little to no remodelling. I can imagine the early stoics putting up resiliently with the misfortune of being moved on from each venue every time a better-paying tenant came along...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23767947
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23767947
Haha that's a funny image. I can't imagine that freelance philosophy pays much better now, so from now on I'll consider a professional philosopher to be another "death tenant"...
Assuming you're in America, most areas are not dense enough to accommodate mixed use zoning unless they start building up. The other half is getting priced out like your grandma.
Density is a function of zoning laws. They should just fix the zoning and make sure it has adequate density to support business.
I think citizens can vote with their dollar where they want to live. I hate suburbia, but I’m also not into super central downtown living. I want something in between. I’m ok with a townhouse and no backyard, as long as there’s a park nearby. I’m up for living with neighbours in a dense area, but only if I can get something for it, like shared neighbourhood amenities and small businesses in walking distance.
Montreal is a good example for North America. Not all of it is perfect, but a lot of it is mixed zoning.
I think citizens can vote with their dollar where they want to live. I hate suburbia, but I’m also not into super central downtown living. I want something in between. I’m ok with a townhouse and no backyard, as long as there’s a park nearby. I’m up for living with neighbours in a dense area, but only if I can get something for it, like shared neighbourhood amenities and small businesses in walking distance.
Montreal is a good example for North America. Not all of it is perfect, but a lot of it is mixed zoning.
You’re talking about the average European small town...
Why do you need high density for mixed use?
I live in Houston which is by no means very dense, and I love the lack of zoning laws.
I live in Houston which is by no means very dense, and I love the lack of zoning laws.
Houston doesn't have explicit land use zoning, but things like deed covenants that specifically limit land use and are enforced by the city, or extremely onerous parking regulations for high-density land uses, basically result in I Can't Believe It's Not Zoning.
The only way this story makes sense to me is if some other business took over the coffee shop space and paid the 5x rent.
It's also possible the new landlords internally drove out the tenant to not have to deal with the hassle of having a tenant. This could make sense if they wanted the building as a store of value and didn't care about the rental income. If nobody is there nobody will accidentally start a fire while cooking.
It would probably make sense for the city/whatever to incentivise against that.
It would probably make sense for the city/whatever to incentivise against that.
OK, that also seems possible.
You this kind of thing in San Francisco, where decades of regulations banning and mandating everything anyone has ever thought of, makes doing nothing with a building sometimes the only remaining strategy.
You this kind of thing in San Francisco, where decades of regulations banning and mandating everything anyone has ever thought of, makes doing nothing with a building sometimes the only remaining strategy.
Why is karate dojo death business? Do they kill a lot of people?
It's the kind of business that mops up empty commercial space, usually on a "until we find a better tenant" serial short-term rental agreement. See also kiosks, nail salons, vape shops, "outlets", pop-up shops etc.
In many US metro areas, these are the first types of tenants who move into small strip shopping centers along secondary roads running through smaller suburban towns and cities.
I'm in NE Atlanta metro; it seems that you can't pass a traffic light without seeing a nail salon, a gas station, a cell phone store, and Subway. And these have been there for years right from the building of the building.
I'm in NE Atlanta metro; it seems that you can't pass a traffic light without seeing a nail salon, a gas station, a cell phone store, and Subway. And these have been there for years right from the building of the building.
Perhaps the work required to convert a vacancy into/out of a dojo or similar is relatively simple? Sure you might need to put in a pair of locker rooms and/or and perhaps an office, but it's mostly empty space. Would something like that generally even have showers/plumbing needs?
Because a dojo needs lots of space. If it's not an elite dojo it means the prices for commercial space have crashed in this location.
It's not obvious why you have to call out the nationality of the investor.
There's some relevance in that investors like that are likely to have no ties to the community and no interest in anything other than profit. Of course many local investors are the same way.
Investors from outside of the community may not have interest in anything other than returns. “Investors” from an autocracy where future property rights can’t entirely be taken for granted may not be interested even in that; they could just want to hedge their government risk by parking some money in non-seizable assets located outside of the country, and then minimize any resulting management headache.
Do investors inside the community neccessarily care any more than ones outside it? It brings to mind the stupid xenophobia of thinking being oppressed by "their people" is better than having open elections where an immigrant can run.
Investors inside generally have different incentives. They are close enough to drive by and see how things are doing. Wreck the building and they will notice. Investors from outside can be fooled.
Also if the investor is just looking for a place to save money outside of their unstable country they may be better off losing money on the deal!
Also if the investor is just looking for a place to save money outside of their unstable country they may be better off losing money on the deal!
Generally, I like this a lot. The key is that for it to work, you must build taller, but it doesn't have to be all that tall. I've lived in several places that had great walkability, and they all had one thing in common: They were built before the invention of the automobile.
The best for walkability was Berlin, which, in the inner part, is mostly 5-6 story buildings. Within two blocks there were numerous stores and about 8 restaurants and a few bars. I also lived in an older suburb of mostly single family houses, but the lots weren't that big, and every house was two stories.
The key to walkability is that you need density. For a business to get much foot traffic, you need a good population in the walkable catchment area, and for that you need density. To get density, you need to build up. Unfortunately, building up is more expensive. Another thing that's helpful is alleys. If you put the garage behind the house, you don't need as much frontage width for driveways and garage doors.
The best for walkability was Berlin, which, in the inner part, is mostly 5-6 story buildings. Within two blocks there were numerous stores and about 8 restaurants and a few bars. I also lived in an older suburb of mostly single family houses, but the lots weren't that big, and every house was two stories.
The key to walkability is that you need density. For a business to get much foot traffic, you need a good population in the walkable catchment area, and for that you need density. To get density, you need to build up. Unfortunately, building up is more expensive. Another thing that's helpful is alleys. If you put the garage behind the house, you don't need as much frontage width for driveways and garage doors.
I’m not sure about your argument of “you have to build up”. Lot of places in Europe have strict limits regarding how high a building can be and they do have lot of small stores around, Berlin, that you mentioned, is very strict on this. A few examples: Hamburg residential areas seem to have ~4-5 floors max. Groningen has neighborhoods where apartment building are limited to only 2 floors (So just two apartments). They both have enough density to have small businesses around.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding the US situation you’re comparing to, and people there just build flat, so even a few floors is already building up? That would be strange though...
Maybe I’m misunderstanding the US situation you’re comparing to, and people there just build flat, so even a few floors is already building up? That would be strange though...
A very large portion of houses built in the past 70 years in the U.S. are single story. My point was that even going from single story, single family housing to two story, single family housing makes a big difference in density, and that can enable walkability.
I specifically don't mean that you have to build up to Manhattan levels to get walkability. Personally, I find the skyscraper jungle of Manhattan to be a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there, at least at my stage in life.
If anything, perhaps Manhattan levels of density are not great for nice retail businesses. If the average building is 8-10 stories, there is relatively little ground level space available, rents are high, and so there is little room for experimentation. The 5-6 story Berlin (and to some degree Paris) level of density is maybe a sweet spot.
Now, this doesn't necessarily work as well for families with children. However, Berlin manages to be decent for this by having very wide sidewalks, a lot of parks, and hinterhofen. Some parts of Chicago and Brooklyn manage to achieve a similar effect with single family housing by having tightly spaced three story row houses.
Like I said, ultimately a lot of cities that are nice to live in in this way are that way because they were built before the invention of the car, so people valued this much more than they do today when the alternative is to get in their car and go to some big box store with a huge parking lot that doesn't need to be very near by.
I specifically don't mean that you have to build up to Manhattan levels to get walkability. Personally, I find the skyscraper jungle of Manhattan to be a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there, at least at my stage in life.
If anything, perhaps Manhattan levels of density are not great for nice retail businesses. If the average building is 8-10 stories, there is relatively little ground level space available, rents are high, and so there is little room for experimentation. The 5-6 story Berlin (and to some degree Paris) level of density is maybe a sweet spot.
Now, this doesn't necessarily work as well for families with children. However, Berlin manages to be decent for this by having very wide sidewalks, a lot of parks, and hinterhofen. Some parts of Chicago and Brooklyn manage to achieve a similar effect with single family housing by having tightly spaced three story row houses.
Like I said, ultimately a lot of cities that are nice to live in in this way are that way because they were built before the invention of the car, so people valued this much more than they do today when the alternative is to get in their car and go to some big box store with a huge parking lot that doesn't need to be very near by.
I see, that makes sense, thanks for the additional details, I see that I was missing context to understand your initial comment.
~4-5 stories is totally sufficient to be "dense" compared to most of the US. Cities in the US sprawl absurdly flat. Consider that Paris is one of the densest cities in the world, and famously has almost no tall buildings.
Paris also has famously tiny, cramped and frankly unlivable appartments. Has had for ages. The three musketeers even contained references to it...
If Paris is a model for the world, I don't want this world.
If Paris is a model for the world, I don't want this world.
[deleted]
By curiosity I checked some numbers to compare. Paris density is just crazy! When compared, Berlin (mentioned by cameldrv) really has a low density for the huge capital it is, at around ~3.9k persons/km². London seems to have around 5.5k, New York around 10.2k, while Paris is at a crazy 20.7k!
Numbers from https://versus.com/en/berlin-vs-london-vs-new-york-vs-paris/....
Numbers from https://versus.com/en/berlin-vs-london-vs-new-york-vs-paris/....
It's a bit exaggerated because Paris proper is only a small part of the urban region. It's more appropriate to compare Paris to Manhattan. Both house around 2 million people at 20k people/km², and both are in sprawling metropolitan areas of 10-20 million depending where you stop counting.
Yes, but Paris proper is notable for achieving that density with only two tall buildings, both non-residential.
Edit: And a considerable amount of land given over to parks, museums, churches, and other non-residential spaces.
Edit: And a considerable amount of land given over to parks, museums, churches, and other non-residential spaces.
As dmurray commented there's differences in what is counted. Another difference is that Paris proper has relatively small parks, whereas Berlin has several huge ones as well as lakes.
So yeah, Paris is dense, but if you compare block by block the differences are smaller.
So yeah, Paris is dense, but if you compare block by block the differences are smaller.
Even the (by far) most dense borough of Berlin is only at 14,373/km²[1], though. That's considerably lower than almost all of the Parisian boroughs[2]. Even the whole city's average is 20,000/km². From the point of view of most American cities with some obvious exceptions, the difference is probably indeed not that noticeable though.
[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verwaltungsgliederung_Berlins
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrondissements_of_Paris
[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verwaltungsgliederung_Berlins
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrondissements_of_Paris
> Maybe I’m misunderstanding the US situation you’re comparing to, and people there just build flat, so even a few floors is already building up?
Yes, that's exactly the situation in most neighborhoods in the U.S. One or two story single-family homes with large setbacks on all sides.
Yes, that's exactly the situation in most neighborhoods in the U.S. One or two story single-family homes with large setbacks on all sides.
Single family detached housing on fully separated lots of 1-2 storeys, and very often only a ground floor, is typical through much of the US. That describes a startlingly large fraction of San Francisco, and even larger "dense" neighbourhoods (Richmond, Sunset) are typically 2-3 floors, where ground level is garage parking ("soft story" construction, a major earthquake concern. Only in NYC and environs do you find generally denser construction.
A 5-6 storey standard would likely more thaan double SF's housing capaacity.
A 5-6 storey standard would likely more thaan double SF's housing capaacity.
~5 floors is as high as you can go before needing an elevator.
I don't think I've seen a reasonably modern building around here (Vancouver, Canada) over 2 floors without an elevator. I expect we have accessibility rules that require them for anything other than individual private residences.
Much of Europes dense inner core multi-storey construction predates lifts.
At the time the buildings were constructed, 5-6 storeys was a practical limit.
Not just people, but food, water, and waste travelled by stair (or, in the latter case often, air).
At the time the buildings were constructed, 5-6 storeys was a practical limit.
Not just people, but food, water, and waste travelled by stair (or, in the latter case often, air).
5 floors is also about the limit for wood frame construction, you need a more expensive building style to go higher. Obviously consult a civil engineer for details.
What this means in practice is you don't build between 6 and 10 floor buildings because the numbers won't work out. (obviously there are exceptions)
What this means in practice is you don't build between 6 and 10 floor buildings because the numbers won't work out. (obviously there are exceptions)
You can do six, but the sunlight at the top really has to be great for it to be worth it...
Heck yeah, there used to be an amazing sandwich shop just up the street from me. Was super nice being able to walk half a block to pick up something from them. Unfortunately they relocated to a more densely-populated area, but it was good while it lasted. There are other food shops nearby though! Very cool having this :)
The idea of separating business and living into distant zones and forbidding trading within residential areas has always infuriated me with its absurdity. Who could possibly come up with it? It only makes sense when it's about noisy and air-polluting businesses, grocery/whatever stores and offices are absolutely great to be dispersed within residential areas!
> It only makes sense when it's about noisy and air-polluting businesses, grocery/whatever stores and offices are absolutely great to be dispersed within residential areas!
Grocery stores (even small ones) can be very noisy, especially with extended business hours these days. I used to live In an apartment above a grocery story with a small parking lot for a long time. This was also in a mixed zone area (mostly residential, a few shops, barber, etc).
At 6am, trucks start rolling up and delivering food (although they are only supposed to do that at 7am, on some days they’ll start at 6). That means very loud beeping from the trucks backing up and shouting to the grocery employees above engine noise. Throughout the day, there will be random noise (honking in the parking lot, people slamming their cart into the barrier, etc) and sometimes people get drunk in the parking lot and start shouting (usually until 11pm, the grocery store closed at 10). And once in a while, their security system went of and the police show up and make some noise at 4am. With an open window (which you had to have in the summer — air conditioning is an exception in the part of Europe where I lived) you can hear all that noise almost as if you are standing next to it.
I never minded it too much since I’m a very heavy sleeper but I can definitely see that some people would get very poor quality sleep. And no landlord ever wants a store to be built above their apartments because it lowers the value dramatically due to the mentioned reasons.
Grocery stores (even small ones) can be very noisy, especially with extended business hours these days. I used to live In an apartment above a grocery story with a small parking lot for a long time. This was also in a mixed zone area (mostly residential, a few shops, barber, etc).
At 6am, trucks start rolling up and delivering food (although they are only supposed to do that at 7am, on some days they’ll start at 6). That means very loud beeping from the trucks backing up and shouting to the grocery employees above engine noise. Throughout the day, there will be random noise (honking in the parking lot, people slamming their cart into the barrier, etc) and sometimes people get drunk in the parking lot and start shouting (usually until 11pm, the grocery store closed at 10). And once in a while, their security system went of and the police show up and make some noise at 4am. With an open window (which you had to have in the summer — air conditioning is an exception in the part of Europe where I lived) you can hear all that noise almost as if you are standing next to it.
I never minded it too much since I’m a very heavy sleeper but I can definitely see that some people would get very poor quality sleep. And no landlord ever wants a store to be built above their apartments because it lowers the value dramatically due to the mentioned reasons.
Parking lot, employees, carts.
Sounds like a small supermarket you're describing there
My nearby grocery store closed recently. Same with the baker and another grocery store before it. It was small was tended to by the owner and his wife and had one parking spot that wasn't just the regular street ones.
My nearby grocery store closed recently. Same with the baker and another grocery store before it. It was small was tended to by the owner and his wife and had one parking spot that wasn't just the regular street ones.
> At 6am, trucks start rolling up and delivering food (although they are only supposed to do that at 7am, on some days they’ll start at 6). That means very loud beeping from the trucks backing up and shouting to the grocery employees above engine noise.
Exactly the same takes place in purely residential areas anyway because of garbage trucks. That's no problem if you shut your window however, modern windows isolate noises pretty well.
Exactly the same takes place in purely residential areas anyway because of garbage trucks. That's no problem if you shut your window however, modern windows isolate noises pretty well.
Garbage trucks don't show up every morning, do they? The parent poster was describing a situation where multiple trucks roll up in the early morning every day. I think it's pretty clear the two scenarios aren't really comparable.
> Garbage trucks don't show up every morning, do they?
I'd say at least half of the mornings they do. One day the one which takes generic garbage, another day it's glass (obviously, the most noisy), another day it's plastic, then mixed garbage again etc. That's about 20 minutes of loud beeping + garbage noise. But that's fairly quiet if the windows are well-shut.
I'd say at least half of the mornings they do. One day the one which takes generic garbage, another day it's glass (obviously, the most noisy), another day it's plastic, then mixed garbage again etc. That's about 20 minutes of loud beeping + garbage noise. But that's fairly quiet if the windows are well-shut.
I lived directly behind the loading area for a large grocery store for a few years and personally I thought noise concerns were overblown. After the first week or so I was just used to those noises and slept right through them.
Granted, that might not be something everyone can deal with, but I imagine a lot of people can.
P.S.: It was great having a (24 hour!) grocery store that close. I thought of it as my personal walk-in pantry.
Granted, that might not be something everyone can deal with, but I imagine a lot of people can.
P.S.: It was great having a (24 hour!) grocery store that close. I thought of it as my personal walk-in pantry.
It's true; light sleepers are the bane of civilization. If they could just relax, we all could.
The corner store kinda sucks. We always used to go when I was commuting and my wife was pregnant because we were strapped for time.
But now that the governor says to go once a week she makes the trip out to the big, nice grocery store and we get better food for less money.
But now that the governor says to go once a week she makes the trip out to the big, nice grocery store and we get better food for less money.
Different strokes for different folks. The corner bodega in my old New York neighborhood was open late into the night and made a good bacon egg and cheese sandwich.
The important thing is that we should not legislate these out of existence.
The important thing is that we should not legislate these out of existence.
I don't totally understand the economics of how those work in NYC. Just sheer density and throughput? Family-run shops staffed by extended family working unofficially (avoiding payroll tax, minimum wage, etc.)? Some mixture?
In the "is DC a real city?" angst, people occasionally claim there aren't any such shops in DC. But there are, it's just that the sandwiches are priced at $10-14, so people don't think of them the same way. DC shopkeepers get defensive about it, and put together spreadsheets showing that with rent, labor, etc. you just can't break even selling $6-8 sandwiches in the DC market.
In the "is DC a real city?" angst, people occasionally claim there aren't any such shops in DC. But there are, it's just that the sandwiches are priced at $10-14, so people don't think of them the same way. DC shopkeepers get defensive about it, and put together spreadsheets showing that with rent, labor, etc. you just can't break even selling $6-8 sandwiches in the DC market.
1. High throughput
2. There is definitely some level of small-scale tax evasion/paying under the table in NYC. Grey market is a lot bigger, some places will not charge tax if you pay cash.
3. Small square footage. Most deli counter setups I've seen in New York, there's basically enough room for a person to swivel between a counter and a grill, and that's about it. Less square footage means less space to pay rent on. There's almost certainly no seating so you save even more.
4. Most places like this will probably make most of the margin on drinks and snacks that are also prominently displayed, most delis also sell lotto tickets, smokes, etc. I will say that I didn't have the healthiest snacking habits before moving out of New York.
This is all anecdotal growing up in New York in the '00s. Things have certainly changed since then, in some neighborhoods the deli is an endangered species due to increasing rents. And they have never been everywhere; a deli could not afford the rent on 5th Av next to Bergdorf Goodman.
2. There is definitely some level of small-scale tax evasion/paying under the table in NYC. Grey market is a lot bigger, some places will not charge tax if you pay cash.
3. Small square footage. Most deli counter setups I've seen in New York, there's basically enough room for a person to swivel between a counter and a grill, and that's about it. Less square footage means less space to pay rent on. There's almost certainly no seating so you save even more.
4. Most places like this will probably make most of the margin on drinks and snacks that are also prominently displayed, most delis also sell lotto tickets, smokes, etc. I will say that I didn't have the healthiest snacking habits before moving out of New York.
This is all anecdotal growing up in New York in the '00s. Things have certainly changed since then, in some neighborhoods the deli is an endangered species due to increasing rents. And they have never been everywhere; a deli could not afford the rent on 5th Av next to Bergdorf Goodman.
>I don't totally understand the economics of how those work in NYC. Just sheer density and throughput?
People like bodegas, they are everywhere and like someone else said: tax evasion. Bodegas love cash, and you learn to carry it otherwise you are going to have to meet a $5 - $10 min (which they aren't supposed to be doing, but do)
People like bodegas, they are everywhere and like someone else said: tax evasion. Bodegas love cash, and you learn to carry it otherwise you are going to have to meet a $5 - $10 min (which they aren't supposed to be doing, but do)
> which they aren't supposed to be doing
What is restricting them now? I knew it used to be part of the merchant-network agreement, and based on my quick searching that was due to US federal law. Then Dodd-Frank changed it to allow minimums up to $10 [0][1][2]
[0]: https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/merchant-minimu...
[1]: https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/merchants-who-v...
[2]: https://usa.visa.com/dam/VCOM/download/merchants/minimum-tra...
What is restricting them now? I knew it used to be part of the merchant-network agreement, and based on my quick searching that was due to US federal law. Then Dodd-Frank changed it to allow minimums up to $10 [0][1][2]
[0]: https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/merchant-minimu...
[1]: https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/merchants-who-v...
[2]: https://usa.visa.com/dam/VCOM/download/merchants/minimum-tra...
Some people actually like cars/driving, some people dont want random people walking in front of their house, and not everyone wants their city to turn into NYC
Sometimes it feels like the people on this site have only lived in SFBA/LA/NYC and nowhere else in the United States. Cars/suburbia work pretty well in most places
Sometimes it feels like the people on this site have only lived in SFBA/LA/NYC and nowhere else in the United States. Cars/suburbia work pretty well in most places
>Some people actually like cars/driving
I live in a small town but in a very spread out relatively densely populated country. Still with the closing of the old bakery and little grocery store due to the people who ran it retiring I have to go to a nearby city or supermarkets on the outskirts for stuff.
I'm not saying this out of spite or annoyance because of that. It's not that far. Hell i'm even moving soon. But I do see it for what it was. A good thing to have around. It made for local economic activity, it had locals meeting up and having talks there, not driving all the way out if they were missing something minor and very local events were advertised there. There's no reason, 0, nada to do spatial planning to purposefully have people driving more and longer. It's not good for the environment, it's not good for the people, economically, what have you. If you love driving you can do so without a reason. And no by advocating for having spatial planning that allows for local small stores people aren't pushing for everyone to live in a big city either.
I live in a small town but in a very spread out relatively densely populated country. Still with the closing of the old bakery and little grocery store due to the people who ran it retiring I have to go to a nearby city or supermarkets on the outskirts for stuff.
I'm not saying this out of spite or annoyance because of that. It's not that far. Hell i'm even moving soon. But I do see it for what it was. A good thing to have around. It made for local economic activity, it had locals meeting up and having talks there, not driving all the way out if they were missing something minor and very local events were advertised there. There's no reason, 0, nada to do spatial planning to purposefully have people driving more and longer. It's not good for the environment, it's not good for the people, economically, what have you. If you love driving you can do so without a reason. And no by advocating for having spatial planning that allows for local small stores people aren't pushing for everyone to live in a big city either.
Yeah I wouldn't like driving to another city to do my errands either. I think the OP meant having a grocery store literally right next door to you
I think you have to be a lot more specific, perhaps make a map with distances for walk/bicycle/car and a list of concrete things you find yourself doing in every day life. For me I always find the these too long/another city can mean so many different things.
Yeah gp. When I said "another city", I meant more than 20 min away by car
>If you love driving you can do so without a reason.
At least for the time being.
At least for the time being.
Suburbia straight doesn't work. Requiring a car for transit means kids have to continually be chauffeured by adults to anywhere meaningful. Lack of local business means there's limited economic potential for the city - it's all in one tax district and redistributed around. Sprawl increases the cost of providing services like fire and police. You're taking on some significant burdens in exchange for not having your neighbors walk past your house.
Canadian cities have suburbia, and public transit. Many have buses on main streets, which are typically a 2 or 3 block walk from side streets.
Suburbia doesn't mean "have to have a car", it is just many like having cars.
This sort of speaks to the prior poster, stating that many here are from big cities. Suburbia isn't low-density. It's only low-density compared to 'downtown'.
Try living in actual, real rural areas. Where I live, houses are a mile apart! Yet bizarrely, we have fire stations, police, high speed gigabit internet, and more.
And it isn't super expensive either.
Suburbia doesn't mean "have to have a car", it is just many like having cars.
This sort of speaks to the prior poster, stating that many here are from big cities. Suburbia isn't low-density. It's only low-density compared to 'downtown'.
Try living in actual, real rural areas. Where I live, houses are a mile apart! Yet bizarrely, we have fire stations, police, high speed gigabit internet, and more.
And it isn't super expensive either.
I grew up in a Texas town of 100,000, and it didn't have a single bus route until I was 14. The closest shop was a small bakery six blocks away, which was a godsend since that was the only shop within five miles. When half the usable space is parking, it's low-density. When you have houses plopped in the middle of a hundred-foot-to-a-side rectangle, it's low-density.
I acknowledge that it is, indeed, a gradient. But lots of points on that gradient are huge negatives to the people living there.
I acknowledge that it is, indeed, a gradient. But lots of points on that gradient are huge negatives to the people living there.
I think what you're describing is a lack of public transit, not the impossibility of it. And I'm not 100% sure why 1/2 the space would be parking, this seems like a fairly large exaggeration. More likely lots of the space, was lawn? Space between houses?
I've lived in lots of cities where minimum lot size was an acre, which is 200x200ft. Public transit all around, grocery stores all in walking distance (few blocks at most), with loads of corner stores, etc.
I think that as I mentioned in another comment, zoning laws are important. Too much? Too little? It becomes broken.
But for example, large-scale developers typically can't build here, without dedicating some space to park, to retail, without making an actual community out of the place.
And people in most rural areas I've lived, typically aren't bad off for it.
This may be a cultural thing, or a historical thing such as, how cities were build, and therefore, how they are now.
edit:
An added thought here.... when I visited the US, I noticed that a lot of grocery stores were often larger. I've seen some where it's literally a few minutes to walk end to end, when inside.
Maybe this is the difference?
Most of the grocery stores here are smaller. Maybe we just have smaller grocery stores, but more of them?
I've lived in lots of cities where minimum lot size was an acre, which is 200x200ft. Public transit all around, grocery stores all in walking distance (few blocks at most), with loads of corner stores, etc.
I think that as I mentioned in another comment, zoning laws are important. Too much? Too little? It becomes broken.
But for example, large-scale developers typically can't build here, without dedicating some space to park, to retail, without making an actual community out of the place.
And people in most rural areas I've lived, typically aren't bad off for it.
This may be a cultural thing, or a historical thing such as, how cities were build, and therefore, how they are now.
edit:
An added thought here.... when I visited the US, I noticed that a lot of grocery stores were often larger. I've seen some where it's literally a few minutes to walk end to end, when inside.
Maybe this is the difference?
Most of the grocery stores here are smaller. Maybe we just have smaller grocery stores, but more of them?
Yes, that's precisely the issue with American towns, and detailed in the article. Half parking is not an exaggeration - Walmart in my hometown is a three-acre store with 600 parking places. This is not unusual - the Home Depot is similar. burger king is similar - more parking than space inside. The houses bring down the average. Lawns are in addition to this. It's hard to overstate exactly how sprawled the median American town newer than 1950 is, where you do have entire subdivisions without a single store. Sometimes multiple subdivisions in a row. No thought is given to community.
The article is calling for the exact type of mixed zoning you're familiar with - occassional shops mixed in with the houses. It's not like that, but it should be.
The article is calling for the exact type of mixed zoning you're familiar with - occassional shops mixed in with the houses. It's not like that, but it should be.
Mixed use zoning isn't about becoming like NYC, it's about being able to walk to the cornershop at the end of the road to buy a pint of milk. Maybe there's a cafe and a accountant's office there too.
Or dense towns and more countryside and parkland.
Restaurants, accountants, lawyers, and such may do fine with mixed use zoning, but retail simply can't compete without economy of scale.
Mixed use zoning is good for specialty retail like niche/designer clothing. Also even for things like groceries people (like me) will be willing to pay a slight premium for being able to get those goods from a short walking distance.
Ah, but the more niche it is, the more likely they depend on car traffic to bring their customers in.
I'm fortunate to live within walking distance of a supermarket. It's nice to get fresh produce and things that we run out of or need on a whim. A little Ace Hardware store serves in a similar way. It seems like the fairly sizable population of retirees in the nearby apartments provide these stores with a lot of business.
I don't expect those stores to have everything, but they really reduce the number of car trips that I make.
I'm fortunate to live within walking distance of a supermarket. It's nice to get fresh produce and things that we run out of or need on a whim. A little Ace Hardware store serves in a similar way. It seems like the fairly sizable population of retirees in the nearby apartments provide these stores with a lot of business.
I don't expect those stores to have everything, but they really reduce the number of car trips that I make.
Here's a crazy idea: no zoning. Let people decide what they want to do.
That is crazy. I do not want a concrete plant to open next to my house. Or a Yoko Ono Scream Therapy franchise :)
But yeah, the insane detail that many cities have in their zoning plans is stifling.
The link[7] monkeypizza included elsewhere in this thread is what I'd like to see as the norm
[7] http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html
But yeah, the insane detail that many cities have in their zoning plans is stifling.
The link[7] monkeypizza included elsewhere in this thread is what I'd like to see as the norm
[7] http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html
Eh, I hate the city myself but people love Houston. Seems like 0 zoning isn't really an appreciable problem.
Houston is like this. I like it, but I grew up there, many people are so scared that it means a oil refinery or something could pop up next door one day but that stuff rarely happens. The market naturally seems to fill most of the voids in terms of demand, so it’s not like you have to go far to find a liquor store or something specific. That said, we built our cities in Texas for cars.
My adult life has mostly been in Dallas which is very different. I’ve attempted land development myself so know more than a layman but Dallas and especially surrounding suburbs have what feels like an insane level of zoning. I say “attempted” because there have been a couple dozen times where I see a building or raw land parcel and feel it would be perfect for some use. Do some research and find it wouldn’t be allowed. On some occasions I have a specific aesthetic (tasteful, but I like unique/artistic structures) that I’d like, only to find the town requires all buildings to be made/finished of no less than 80% red brick or paint 1 of 6 predetermined shades of brown. It’s killed my endeavors every time and honestly, makes the DFW area an architecturally soulless Place to be IMO. Just recently, maybe 2018, the state banned these local aesthetic requirements. But I think locally it’s still a fight to get something too far from the city planners vision built.
My adult life has mostly been in Dallas which is very different. I’ve attempted land development myself so know more than a layman but Dallas and especially surrounding suburbs have what feels like an insane level of zoning. I say “attempted” because there have been a couple dozen times where I see a building or raw land parcel and feel it would be perfect for some use. Do some research and find it wouldn’t be allowed. On some occasions I have a specific aesthetic (tasteful, but I like unique/artistic structures) that I’d like, only to find the town requires all buildings to be made/finished of no less than 80% red brick or paint 1 of 6 predetermined shades of brown. It’s killed my endeavors every time and honestly, makes the DFW area an architecturally soulless Place to be IMO. Just recently, maybe 2018, the state banned these local aesthetic requirements. But I think locally it’s still a fight to get something too far from the city planners vision built.
...paint 1 of 6 predetermined shades of brown.
You've answered some questions I've had about Dallas...
You've answered some questions I've had about Dallas...
What I wanted to do was move to a place that had rules which would keep the neighborhood the way I like.
If you're not paying neighbors to keep their land the way you like, why should you have any say in that?
Note that they have a say in what you do with your land, too.
Is it OK for someone to buy the house next door, and build a cafe? What about a night club, which has loud music and closes at 4am?
How about a rendering plant? Or installing a large propane storage facility?
Is there nothing you'd consider unsafe, unwanted, beside the house you just paid $500k for? Which is now worth $200k, and makes it horrid to live there?
These laws, like all laws, are necessary.
Where the problem sits, is when they go too far, or not far enough. There is a sweet spot for everything!
Is it OK for someone to buy the house next door, and build a cafe? What about a night club, which has loud music and closes at 4am?
How about a rendering plant? Or installing a large propane storage facility?
Is there nothing you'd consider unsafe, unwanted, beside the house you just paid $500k for? Which is now worth $200k, and makes it horrid to live there?
These laws, like all laws, are necessary.
Where the problem sits, is when they go too far, or not far enough. There is a sweet spot for everything!
That is a pathological way of thinking about it. You could also think of it as a collective pact.
Poking into peoples' property for minutiae is also pathological, and plenty of Americans have horror stories about HOAs fining them for silly things like the height of the lawn not meeting regulations.
It's one thing if you can opt out of a collective pact by picking another jurisdiction, but local busybodies are so widely spread that land legally allowed to be developed even in a short but dense, traditional American style, is so scarce that it fetches a premium, so now there is nothing between the extremes of "quiet cookie cutter suburb far from everything" and "busy noisy neighborhood of tower blocks."
It's one thing if you can opt out of a collective pact by picking another jurisdiction, but local busybodies are so widely spread that land legally allowed to be developed even in a short but dense, traditional American style, is so scarce that it fetches a premium, so now there is nothing between the extremes of "quiet cookie cutter suburb far from everything" and "busy noisy neighborhood of tower blocks."
If I moved into a neighborhood that had rules that I liked, and now you want to replace it with a free-for-all, should you have to pay me?
Europe is as you described.
Just had this conversation with an architect friend who lives in Palo Alto. The whole idea that there is a "residential zone", "commercial zone" etc needs to go away. Now with people leaving cities in droves there is an amazing opportunity to introduce mixed zoning into office areas by converting many of the empty offices into lofts. This will solve our urban housing problem. Despite what people are saying now about remote work I don't think the majority of people will leave cities long term. Cities offer facilities, infra, amenities, network and culture. We need to make cities livable and walkable.
The issue is that the residential density of suburbia (the vast majority of Australia, Canada, NZ and the US) precludes mixed use zoning.
Meh. There's plenty of density for "a strip mall every four blocks". And you can make that structure totally walkable instead of requiring cars. The important thing is not to jack the rent through the roof.
Most suburbs don't, for no obvious reason. I did complain to the Mayor a few years ago that the grocery store four blocks from my house has only street access and no sidewalk access.
I'm not at all sure why the author seems to think that converted garages are great business incubators. That's a terrible idea. It's what my uncle did for his cabinetry business, but that's largely solo. I can't imagine wanting significant business traffic on residential streets.
Most suburbs don't, for no obvious reason. I did complain to the Mayor a few years ago that the grocery store four blocks from my house has only street access and no sidewalk access.
I'm not at all sure why the author seems to think that converted garages are great business incubators. That's a terrible idea. It's what my uncle did for his cabinetry business, but that's largely solo. I can't imagine wanting significant business traffic on residential streets.
If you mean zoning that requires first floor retail or whatever, sure. But mixed use zoning also means zoning that just doesn't ban small business, multi-family housing, and single-family housing coexisting on the same block.
The causality in your statement is backwards, because the lack of the latter kind of zoning is exactly what prevents inner suburbs from densifying organically. The current zoning in most of (at least US) suburbia is what artificially caps density.
The causality in your statement is backwards, because the lack of the latter kind of zoning is exactly what prevents inner suburbs from densifying organically. The current zoning in most of (at least US) suburbia is what artificially caps density.
When I visited Japan, I went to an izakaya with room for maybe 9 people in it, it was smaller than my living room at home. I was hungry and I saw the sign lighting the alley about 40 yards off the main road. I was thinking at the time, if I lived in that area, you bet I'd be there a couple times a week to talk to my neighbors. I wanted to ask those inside if they were all neighbors, because they seemed to know each other and the barman well. It felt almost intimidating, since I don't know any Japanese, but of course Japanese hospitality is top-notch.
I had the exact same thoughts upon reading this article, having spent quite a bit of time in Japan. Businesses are liberally sprinkled all over residential neighborhoods, from bars, cafes and grocers to home electronics and repair shops. The density (and corresponding walkability) of Japanese cities is a big factor that supports this kind of development. The armchair economist in me wants to theorize that this might be a contributing factor in Japan’s exceptionally low unemployment rate: the ease of starting a micro business from your doorstep.
In Australia there'd be concerns about parking, neighbours would complain about customers dominating street parking, etc. Or if it was a small restaurant/bars there'd be fears of drunken louts as we collectively have an alcohol problem. It's a shame because there are lots of originally-corner-store-type properties which have been used as houses and shut off from the street. Ideally, they'd be quiet businesses like architects or studios or galleries or a classy deli or anything like that, but they're effectively boarded up and used as another living room by the occupants.
On the alcohol subject, the smaller the place, the fewer problems typically occur. Small bars rarely attract crowds big enough to have fights or get rolling as aggressive meat-markets.
On the alcohol subject, the smaller the place, the fewer problems typically occur. Small bars rarely attract crowds big enough to have fights or get rolling as aggressive meat-markets.
AUS did not seem to have a crazy bad alcohol problem to this US person. I've not seen the summerys though(? when all the HS grads go to the Surf Coast, etc?). We'd go out on Fridays to the pubs near Melbourne and it seemed pretty ok. There was a guy with a ram though, that was strange.
However, my basis of 'bad' is something more like State Street in Madison after a winning home game where hundreds of people literally cannot stand up straight.
However, my basis of 'bad' is something more like State Street in Madison after a winning home game where hundreds of people literally cannot stand up straight.
There is another quirk to Japan that seems to make this work so well, and that's how quiet it can be. I am sure there are exceptions, but for the most part even in packed areas with dozens of people walking the street, it is mostly quiet. I think low car density plays a pretty big role in lowering the the overall sound levels, but there must be more to it than that. It was surreal at times.
Cars are incredibly loud, as are delivery trucks. Both tend to be smaller in Japan, and there is a much lower car density in particular in most urban areas.
The cities in Japan are, of course, walkable in the extreme, but what really impressed me there was the suburbs and rural villages. Even deep in the countryside many people still can visit local businesses without a car. I think it is not a coincidence that it is so common there to see children walking or biking on their own to school.
Btw. the US is probably more of an exception when it comes to children being driven to school. Swiss kids tend to walk themselves from age 5 to 6 upward, schools are usually within 30min of a child's walk. But Japan is certainly special thanks to very liberal zoning laws. Even in rural areas it's common to find warehouses and small shops right next to or beneath homes. Europe's laws are somewhere between Japan and the US, and so is the walkability. Turns out, just allowing humans to try things will make markets solve this issue.
It is standard for kids to walk to school. Every elementary school student does it starting grade 1.
If there is a taiphoon passing or blizzard you can give your grade 1 kid a ride. Otherwise it is looked down upon
If there is a taiphoon passing or blizzard you can give your grade 1 kid a ride. Otherwise it is looked down upon
Yes, correlation is not causation and all that, but when I was there I was struck by how very little obesity there was. I later learned that Japan has the highest life expectancy in the world.
There was a stone carver, two tofu makers, a convenience store or two, a bath house with a tiny laundromat on the side (with HE units 20 years before we got them in the States), a pachinko parlor, and who knows how many other businesses my illiterate ass couldn't identify on, or just off, the route from the suburban Tokyo apartment I was a guest in and the train station.
If I got up at a decent hour, I would hear the plink plink of chisel on stone, and then the sound of the propane torch browning the tofu as I walked by.
If I got up at a decent hour, I would hear the plink plink of chisel on stone, and then the sound of the propane torch browning the tofu as I walked by.
[deleted]
Excellent blog about Japanese zoning: http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html
That's a good reference.
In adding to zoning, there are other factors that contribute to the large number of viable tiny businesses here in Japan. One is that small shops aren't bound by as strict accessibility and fire regulations as in some other countries. A restaurant or bar, for example, that seats no more than a dozen customers and is staffed by just one or two people will often have a correspondingly tiny restroom that could not be accessed by someone in a wheelchair; the shop itself might not be wheelchair accessible, either. And often there is only one exit, the front door, even for shops on upper floors of buildings. In many cases, I suspect, adding requirements for wheelchair accessibility and a separate fire exit would increase the construction costs and unproductive floor space so much that the shop would no longer be economically viable.
I was a freelancer here for twenty years. While I didn't run a shop, I did run my business out of my home, and my impression was that it was much easier to do that in Japan—in terms of taxes, relations with neighbors, etc.—than it would have been in the United States, where I was born.
In adding to zoning, there are other factors that contribute to the large number of viable tiny businesses here in Japan. One is that small shops aren't bound by as strict accessibility and fire regulations as in some other countries. A restaurant or bar, for example, that seats no more than a dozen customers and is staffed by just one or two people will often have a correspondingly tiny restroom that could not be accessed by someone in a wheelchair; the shop itself might not be wheelchair accessible, either. And often there is only one exit, the front door, even for shops on upper floors of buildings. In many cases, I suspect, adding requirements for wheelchair accessibility and a separate fire exit would increase the construction costs and unproductive floor space so much that the shop would no longer be economically viable.
I was a freelancer here for twenty years. While I didn't run a shop, I did run my business out of my home, and my impression was that it was much easier to do that in Japan—in terms of taxes, relations with neighbors, etc.—than it would have been in the United States, where I was born.
Obviously the specific implementation of accessibility within private home-front businesses is a complicated issue. However, I find your suggested solution of excluding disabled people from accessing small local shops rather asinine, especially considering how particularly beneficial such shops would be.
I am not here to debate or offer specific solutions, but I want to encourage able bodied folks to take the following axiom into account when discussing accessibility.
disregarding material constraints, disabled people should be able to access public spaces and attend public events.
I am not here to debate or offer specific solutions, but I want to encourage able bodied folks to take the following axiom into account when discussing accessibility.
disregarding material constraints, disabled people should be able to access public spaces and attend public events.
> I find your suggested solution of excluding disabled people from accessing small local shops rather asinine
I wasn't suggesting a solution. I was describing the situation in Japan and offering two explanations for why that situation might be as it is.
I wasn't suggesting a solution. I was describing the situation in Japan and offering two explanations for why that situation might be as it is.
> since I don't know any Japanese, but of course Japanese hospitality is top-notch
I'm actually really surprised you're saying this. Maybe your Asian? There were a few izakaya I wandered into and got welcomed with a harsh no gaijin. I loved most of my trip to Japan (Tokyo, Kyoto, Osaka) but that was jarring and off putting.
I'm actually really surprised you're saying this. Maybe your Asian? There were a few izakaya I wandered into and got welcomed with a harsh no gaijin. I loved most of my trip to Japan (Tokyo, Kyoto, Osaka) but that was jarring and off putting.
It is not Asian/non Asian thing. It is language thing.
Some shops do not want to serve you if they can’t speak language. Uncomfortable for them, you and other customers (that is their thinking), they might not even have menu you can understand and they speak no English except Hi bye
It is also possible you wondered into a snack shop which is kind of like hostess bar but not. Basically part of the service is a conversation which is hard to do if you do not speak the language.
Some shops do not want to serve you if they can’t speak language. Uncomfortable for them, you and other customers (that is their thinking), they might not even have menu you can understand and they speak no English except Hi bye
It is also possible you wondered into a snack shop which is kind of like hostess bar but not. Basically part of the service is a conversation which is hard to do if you do not speak the language.
Japan uses inclusive zoning, and most urban areas are zoned for high density residential/commercial. The only zoning that is truly exclusive is industrial
Japan is what made me realize how this is the answer. Zoning and making businesses possible inside neighborhoods makes areas much more walkable.
The worst part of visiting Japan is it spoils your enjoyment
of every other destination thereafter.
Lol, can’t talk about the NY subway with my New Yorker wife. “I mean, I guess if you consider it compared to the rest of the US, it’s a good system…”
Some that size in japan have earned 3 Michelin stars, as jiro dreams of sushi famously did, before the stars were withdrawn due to lack of public access.
Yes, this! This is one of the stupid-simple reasons I love traveling in Japan.
That happened to me in golden dai, I went on a rainy sad and sketchy night, and the people in the tiny restuarant were just the happiest and curious, they could have been tourists from another part of Japan though, who knows
I mean Japanese can keep to themselves too
But the point is that the intimidate, accessible nature has other redeeming qualities
I mean Japanese can keep to themselves too
But the point is that the intimidate, accessible nature has other redeeming qualities
Your description reminds me a lot of the restaurant in Midnight Diner.
This ends up being one of the biggest reasons I enjoy living in Thailand. The unplanned layouts of cities makes for a colorful and convenient experience everywhere you go. Most every building in towns is at least two stories with shops under the tenant's quarters. You also can't forget about the prevalence of street carts for food and other small things. It's usually worth exploring alleys as there will be some curious little shop or restaurant. It doesn't match my you-must-have-a-car, strip-mall experience in the US.
You can contrast this to Laos where the LPDR has focused on zoning on new development. One example was ປາກເຊ, Pakse, where multilane roads were built whigh probably not be fully utilized for another 50 years. When you go to a residential area, there's much less businesses. From what I gathered, the government there was looking across the Mekong at it's developing sister country and is trying to 'correct' her mistakes when trying to emulate growth. However, there's much more beauty in allowing the natural chaos.
You can contrast this to Laos where the LPDR has focused on zoning on new development. One example was ປາກເຊ, Pakse, where multilane roads were built whigh probably not be fully utilized for another 50 years. When you go to a residential area, there's much less businesses. From what I gathered, the government there was looking across the Mekong at it's developing sister country and is trying to 'correct' her mistakes when trying to emulate growth. However, there's much more beauty in allowing the natural chaos.
> Most every building in towns is at least two stories with shops under the tenant's quarters.
Compare this with modern (past five/ten years) architecture in Sweden: concrete, "modern" flats with zero expression that mostly are composed entirely of residential units. You might literally see a block of 8-10 buildings, maybe five stories high, that has one commercial unit at the very end of one of the buildings. It's ridiculous.
This type of architecture is killing newly produced areas completely unnecessarily, and I suspect it's because the one time income of selling a flat is preferred over the monthly income of renting to a business.
Compare this with modern (past five/ten years) architecture in Sweden: concrete, "modern" flats with zero expression that mostly are composed entirely of residential units. You might literally see a block of 8-10 buildings, maybe five stories high, that has one commercial unit at the very end of one of the buildings. It's ridiculous.
This type of architecture is killing newly produced areas completely unnecessarily, and I suspect it's because the one time income of selling a flat is preferred over the monthly income of renting to a business.
> This ends up being one of the biggest reasons I enjoy living in Thailand
Only visited briefly, but was going to post that they seem to get it right in Thailand. Some of the best restaurants are on the porch of someone's house, there's usually some kind of corner shop below most large buildings, most places are walkable or have adapted some kind of small persona transport.
Only visited briefly, but was going to post that they seem to get it right in Thailand. Some of the best restaurants are on the porch of someone's house, there's usually some kind of corner shop below most large buildings, most places are walkable or have adapted some kind of small persona transport.
How did we slip away so far from this being fairly obvious? Cities have worked well this way for hundreds of years.
Maybe the industrial revolution made cities too unpleasant? Were we too spoiled by the automobile industry and government roads? White flight from cities into the suburbs?
Maybe the industrial revolution made cities too unpleasant? Were we too spoiled by the automobile industry and government roads? White flight from cities into the suburbs?
The suburbs grew because of some legitimate reasons. In the mid-20th century cities were very crowded. It's one thing to live alone in a 1000 sq ft condo in a city now. 70 years ago that equivalent space was housing a family of five. More space for less money was enabled by automobiles, and it was a great improvement for many.
That said many suburbs botched their expansions with tract housing and poor urban design, because that made the most money for developers and appealed to a now diminishing taste for dispersed living.
However there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a sprawling urban area enabled by cars. You just need to take care to design it well enough.
That said many suburbs botched their expansions with tract housing and poor urban design, because that made the most money for developers and appealed to a now diminishing taste for dispersed living.
However there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a sprawling urban area enabled by cars. You just need to take care to design it well enough.
>However there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a sprawling urban area enabled by cars. You just need to take care to design it well enough.
Optimizing for individual transport in cars and public transport are not compatible goals. The first reason being that if individual transport is made available to most people, they will opt out of public transport and therefore all political will for maintaining and increasing quality of public transport will disappear.
And optimizing for cars means you can't optimizing for walking or other forms of transit.
Optimizing for individual transport in cars and public transport are not compatible goals. The first reason being that if individual transport is made available to most people, they will opt out of public transport and therefore all political will for maintaining and increasing quality of public transport will disappear.
And optimizing for cars means you can't optimizing for walking or other forms of transit.
There is also that whole thing about how suburbs were invented to escape "the city" (read: non-whites).
Look up Levittown.
Look up Levittown.
[deleted]
Never been to an US residential area and only "know" them from tv shows. Are they really pretty much completely devoid of businesses as this article indicates? No grocery / mom and pop stores, bars, restaurants, hair dressers etc.? That sounds very inconvenient. I always assumed you'd get some basic commercial everywhere.
I grew up in a wealthy American suburb, the nearest grocery store was a 40 minute walk from my home, and I would have looked like a madman for simply walking on any street in the entire city because literally only beggars don’t ride cars. I’m glad to be living in Tokyo now!
This. Occasionally whenever I would walk the mile to our nearest grocery store (at least there was a sidewalk) my neighbor would see my while he was driving and offer to give a ride. He was always totally perplexed why I was walking and ask if my car was broken. There's an attitude especially prevalent in the south (USA) that only poor people who can't afford a vehicle walk.
I'm glad to now live in a human-scale city in Eastern Europe. There are three "western style" grocery stores with a 5 min walk and (not including all the low-cost high-quality locally-grown fruit and vegetable kiosks). It's a bit difficult to convey how much better (or natural, rather) this way of living is to my suburb friends and family back home without experiencing it first hand.
I'm glad to now live in a human-scale city in Eastern Europe. There are three "western style" grocery stores with a 5 min walk and (not including all the low-cost high-quality locally-grown fruit and vegetable kiosks). It's a bit difficult to convey how much better (or natural, rather) this way of living is to my suburb friends and family back home without experiencing it first hand.
Some of the suburbs described here really baffle me, because of how unpractical it seems for a country that is otherwise quite focused on optimizing things for the "lazy" and businesses supposedly popping up and flourishing wherever there is opportunity.
I get that, if you have a car it probably doesn't bother you, but the amount of logistics to have your children and maybe elderly no longer able to drive shipped around for everything must be enormous? I don't have kids but just from remembering what me and my siblings did on ourselves (from getting hair cut to going to sport clubs) from kindergarten age onwards, by walking and later cycling. I'd have to hire a driver. I only remember ever been in the car as a kid when going to another city or weekend trips.
I get that, if you have a car it probably doesn't bother you, but the amount of logistics to have your children and maybe elderly no longer able to drive shipped around for everything must be enormous? I don't have kids but just from remembering what me and my siblings did on ourselves (from getting hair cut to going to sport clubs) from kindergarten age onwards, by walking and later cycling. I'd have to hire a driver. I only remember ever been in the car as a kid when going to another city or weekend trips.
I grew up in South Florida and when I visit my parents, they are horrified when I insist on walking the quarter mile to the Starbucks in the corner. It's definitely a part of the culture here.
You're lucky you have retail that close. Many US residential neighborhoods are planned in such a way that you can't buy a can of coke within a mile of where people sleep.
Do people not even walk for leisure/exercise?
Just reading this makes me feel kind of claustrophobic.
Just reading this makes me feel kind of claustrophobic.
Having lived in Japan, I get what you mean about the American suburbs sounding claustrophobic, but now that I live in a pretty typical, American suburban subdivision, ironically a lot of my neighbors would feel the same way about the idea of living in a dense city.
In terms of walking for leisure and exercise, some do, but not everyone. I see people walking/jogging/biking through the neighborhood throughout the day. But the rate at which people do is likely lower than those living in more urban areas. As mentioned by commenters above, just about the only reason to walk outside in the suburbs is leisure/exercise. The nearest non-residential area from me is about 1 mile away, and that's the city core, with some restaurants, dental offices, etc. The closest grocery is probably another half mile. And I'm far closer than most. I'd say the average distance to a non-residential area for most of the city's residents is closer to 2 miles, and the average distance to a grocery store is probably near 3.
But even strictly for leisure, there are likely fewer people walking here than other cities/countries. When I lived in Japan, I went walking because if you go outside, you are basically in the street. It incentivizes walking somewhere like a park, or a shop, or path, or somewhere interesting. In a neighborhood like mine, most people have large enough yards where they can easily relax there. You can throw a football or kick a soccer ball easily. Houses with kids will often have swing sets or trampolines in their backyards. I'm in Indiana, so I estimate no less than 40% of households have a basketball hoop in their driveway or on the street in front of their house. A lot of the things that drive you to walk places in denser cities simply don't exist. Walking outside becomes a decision to walk for the sake of walking, because most people already what they would be going to a park for at home (greenery, space, playground/sporting equipment, even pools are common), and you aren't going to be close enough to actually walk to many destinations.
In terms of walking for leisure and exercise, some do, but not everyone. I see people walking/jogging/biking through the neighborhood throughout the day. But the rate at which people do is likely lower than those living in more urban areas. As mentioned by commenters above, just about the only reason to walk outside in the suburbs is leisure/exercise. The nearest non-residential area from me is about 1 mile away, and that's the city core, with some restaurants, dental offices, etc. The closest grocery is probably another half mile. And I'm far closer than most. I'd say the average distance to a non-residential area for most of the city's residents is closer to 2 miles, and the average distance to a grocery store is probably near 3.
But even strictly for leisure, there are likely fewer people walking here than other cities/countries. When I lived in Japan, I went walking because if you go outside, you are basically in the street. It incentivizes walking somewhere like a park, or a shop, or path, or somewhere interesting. In a neighborhood like mine, most people have large enough yards where they can easily relax there. You can throw a football or kick a soccer ball easily. Houses with kids will often have swing sets or trampolines in their backyards. I'm in Indiana, so I estimate no less than 40% of households have a basketball hoop in their driveway or on the street in front of their house. A lot of the things that drive you to walk places in denser cities simply don't exist. Walking outside becomes a decision to walk for the sake of walking, because most people already what they would be going to a park for at home (greenery, space, playground/sporting equipment, even pools are common), and you aren't going to be close enough to actually walk to many destinations.
Well, we also have quite high obesity rates in the United States...
Yes for sure Americans walk for leisure and casual exercise.
It's popular to imply Americans don't walk. It's true the culture is more pragmatic (why walk when I could drive and get more done), but it's not true that it's unusual to see people out walking on sidewalks, parks, and lakes.
My neighborhood has a walking trail around a small lake (takes 45 minutes to do a lap). There are 20-50 people walking it at almost anytime of day.
It's popular to imply Americans don't walk. It's true the culture is more pragmatic (why walk when I could drive and get more done), but it's not true that it's unusual to see people out walking on sidewalks, parks, and lakes.
My neighborhood has a walking trail around a small lake (takes 45 minutes to do a lap). There are 20-50 people walking it at almost anytime of day.
Maybe in your region but in suburban Cleveland it certainly is freakish to see anybody on their legs outside of a shopping mall.
I grew up in a lower-middle-class American suburb and it was the same situation.
Hugely dependent on the region and age of the city, but yes. It is quite common to have to drive 5-10 minutes to get to the nearest shops, which are all concentrated in strip malls. Take a look at this satellite view of a Denver suburb: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9426077,-104.9504212,3545m/d...
I live about a mile from the middle of downtown in a mid-sized US city, in what is ostensibly one of that city's most walkable neighborhoods. I don't think there's a single mom and pop store within comfortable walking distance, the closest grocery store is about 3/4 mile away (though there's also a farmer's market about 3/4 mile away in the other direction), closest barbershop is about a mile away, etc. Lots of restaurants, bars, and breweries nearby though.
Yes. It's very normal to not have any business within a 30 minute walk (or more), and even if you did want to walk there... it's also normal for there to be kilometers of roads without sidewalks. They just don't bother.
Often the businesses get crammed together on some busy streets with fast-moving traffic, large parking lots, and few sidewalks.
Often the businesses get crammed together on some busy streets with fast-moving traffic, large parking lots, and few sidewalks.
Perfectly normal for there to be a thousand houses with no commercial.
Not a good idea, but still normal in many suburbs.
Not a good idea, but still normal in many suburbs.
It depends. There are different types of cities in the US. In general, if we're talking about suburbs, there are businesses but they are usually all centered at the same place. Usually referred to as the city center. This can be a smaller or big center, depending on the town. Then there are towns that have those big shopping plazas you usually have to drive to. The city center concept is much nicer in my opinion.
Businesses also tend to line the major roads (or at least be clustered at major intersections) whether it's city or suburb. And suburbs are apparently planned to have major roads running through them with fairly regular spacing.
A greater shock for many is the complete lack of footpaths/sidewalks virtually anywhere outside of commercial districts or inner-most metros.
The idea of walking anywhere is insane. To get from a typical suburb to the nearest business district or strip mall would usually require walking several miles along the shoulder, with frequent illegal crossing of arterial roads.
The idea of walking anywhere is insane. To get from a typical suburb to the nearest business district or strip mall would usually require walking several miles along the shoulder, with frequent illegal crossing of arterial roads.
Indeed, where I live, sidewalks are not obligatory with new construction, so it's up to the developer whether there's even a sidewalk at all. It's not uncommon to see a sidewalk out front of one building or development, then a segment with no sidewalk, then one where the sidewalk picks up again.
This isn't my experience. I lived in a few different suburbs and there were always sidewalks. The only place I've been to where I really noticed their absence is smaller cities in New England. I always assumed it was due to the fact that the weather precluding walking so much of the time anyway.
And of course in other places in the world where cities are old and streets are too small for sidewalks. Back streets in such places are comparable to alleys in the US.
And of course in other places in the world where cities are old and streets are too small for sidewalks. Back streets in such places are comparable to alleys in the US.
It's only due to the local governments not requiring developers to build sidewalks. Most modern cities require any new or modifications to implement sidewalks.
The Northeast has a lot of old places that you will see small strips of sidewalk and then no sidewalk, and then sidewalk again. Because they force the new construction to have it, but the stuff that was already there won't.
The Northeast has a lot of old places that you will see small strips of sidewalk and then no sidewalk, and then sidewalk again. Because they force the new construction to have it, but the stuff that was already there won't.
When I was consulting in Oaks PA I tried to walk from my hotel to the local pub. It wasn't particularly far, but walking along unlit and unpaved tracts of land wasn't particularly appealing.
I would have walked if there were any affordances at all, but ended up driving more often than not.
I would have walked if there were any affordances at all, but ended up driving more often than not.
You get all kinds, possibly depending on when the town was established. For many of the Chicago suburbs, there is a defined "business district" where most of the restaurants, bars, barbershops, etc are. This may very well be a couple of streets that run all the way across town. Frequently, every 4th or 8th street is "arterial", and the bulk of the businesses will be on those streets. So you have a few to several blocks of "internal" streets where there is indeed only residential housing.
No, as a US citizen, they are not anything like described above.
An American suburb is, basically by definition, never more than 15 minutes drive from a grocery store, a doctors office, a dental office, some sort of clothing store, at least one bar, at least one restaurant (usually 2+), at least one hair dresser, etc. It will usually all be ugly (strip malls are common), but it will be affordable and economically sustainable. You can walk or bike anywhere (sidewalks are usually nicer than in the UK), but usually only car-based public transit is actually convenient (mainly because suburbs prioritize saving cash, and car-based public transit is always the cheapest transit).
If you truly need to drive 40+ minutes to get to a grocery store, you don't live in a suburb. You are either in an exurb, or just plain rural area.
An American suburb is, basically by definition, never more than 15 minutes drive from a grocery store, a doctors office, a dental office, some sort of clothing store, at least one bar, at least one restaurant (usually 2+), at least one hair dresser, etc. It will usually all be ugly (strip malls are common), but it will be affordable and economically sustainable. You can walk or bike anywhere (sidewalks are usually nicer than in the UK), but usually only car-based public transit is actually convenient (mainly because suburbs prioritize saving cash, and car-based public transit is always the cheapest transit).
If you truly need to drive 40+ minutes to get to a grocery store, you don't live in a suburb. You are either in an exurb, or just plain rural area.
> An American suburb is, basically by definition, never more than 15 minutes drive ...
which to a lot of the rest of the world is a really, really long ways and essentially "not in the same area".
which to a lot of the rest of the world is a really, really long ways and essentially "not in the same area".
I'm not sure why. The drive for me in Michigan to get to the nearest grocery store, was not meaningfully different than it was from, say a random suburb in the UK to get to the nearest Tesco.
Again, in a lot of the ACTUAL world, a 15 minute drive isn't possible. That's a ... 5-10 mile walk?
Think beyond suburbia, which is really quite small in the scheme of things.
Think beyond suburbia, which is really quite small in the scheme of things.
The crucial point is that such a grocery trip basically requires a car. Meanwhile the rest of the world is used to having businesses within walkable reach.
15 minutes drive seems quite far away to get to anything. The residential area where I grew up in had all the basics within 10-15 minutes walk. From kindergarten age to finishing secondary school I could do almost everything on my own by walking or cycling there. I rarely had to have and adult driving me. Before turning 16 I was pretty much only ever in a car or public transport for weekend trips to the mountains or going to another city. While the car is certainly convenient, it takes someones time to drive it.
For any given population density how the suburbs looks varies WILDLY based on the specific area and the economic/demographic situation since 1950.
In some places you'll have continuous miles of nothing but housing. In others it's an organic "spread out and up" from a core area. It basically comes down to what the local economy can support and the level of development that happened between 1865 and 1945.
Having hard cutoffs from "most residences are apartments/duplexes/multi-family, businesses on every corner" to "residences and residences only, 99% single family" to "tractors commonly seen on the road" is pretty distinct to the areas surrounding major cities that were formerly sparsely populated until they were built out rapidly in the 1950s through 1970s.
In some places you'll have continuous miles of nothing but housing. In others it's an organic "spread out and up" from a core area. It basically comes down to what the local economy can support and the level of development that happened between 1865 and 1945.
Having hard cutoffs from "most residences are apartments/duplexes/multi-family, businesses on every corner" to "residences and residences only, 99% single family" to "tractors commonly seen on the road" is pretty distinct to the areas surrounding major cities that were formerly sparsely populated until they were built out rapidly in the 1950s through 1970s.
[deleted]
People wanted their children to be separate from people of other socioeconomic classes (and races), and the way to do that in the US is to move to a school district they others can’t afford.
Heck yes I want to move away from socioeconomic classes that could potentially put my daughter in harms way. We lived in a lower class neighborhood and while my two year old daughter was playing with a shovel in the front yard a drug deal went bad at the house across from us and the kid (he was maybe 16) started shooting his gun into the air. I’d stopped his mom from strangling him two years before that. Before that, I’d stopped his mother from being assaulted by her boyfriend a few years before. And until my daughter was born, I didn’t really care.
But thinking of my daughter getting hit by a stray bullet was terrifying, and we got a mortgage and moved to a house worth 6x the price a few months later. It was sad because our neighbors behind us were Venezuelan refugees with two kids and we got along really well.
I’m not ashamed of wanting to keep my children safe, and I’m not going to put them at risk so I can fulfill others vague notions of “inclusiveness”. The police took 45+ minutes to show up any time I called.
Funny thing is, the middle class neighborhood I live in now is much MORE diverse, not less. We have Africans, Southern Asians, East Asians, Spaniards, Russians, and all manner of professionals from all over the world. We bought the house from some Pakistanis. Heck, my neighbor is a convicted felon for dealing in his younger days but even him and his wife and six kids are okay.
But thinking of my daughter getting hit by a stray bullet was terrifying, and we got a mortgage and moved to a house worth 6x the price a few months later. It was sad because our neighbors behind us were Venezuelan refugees with two kids and we got along really well.
I’m not ashamed of wanting to keep my children safe, and I’m not going to put them at risk so I can fulfill others vague notions of “inclusiveness”. The police took 45+ minutes to show up any time I called.
Funny thing is, the middle class neighborhood I live in now is much MORE diverse, not less. We have Africans, Southern Asians, East Asians, Spaniards, Russians, and all manner of professionals from all over the world. We bought the house from some Pakistanis. Heck, my neighbor is a convicted felon for dealing in his younger days but even him and his wife and six kids are okay.
There are other options to stark neighborhood socioeconomic divisions. Imagine if everything was averaged out a bit more: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-07-15/the-desig...
Not just afford - often time those suburbs specifically barred non-whites from owning property. Additionally red-lining and racist loan practices forced that wealth gap to grow.
But I think that's separate from the car issue, mostly. Originally satellite communities had commercial services - local shops and the like. But those were phased out due to a lack of demand, I think due to societal shifts that were egged on by marketing "cool kids have cars" - and the like.
But I think that's separate from the car issue, mostly. Originally satellite communities had commercial services - local shops and the like. But those were phased out due to a lack of demand, I think due to societal shifts that were egged on by marketing "cool kids have cars" - and the like.
Are you speculating or do you have specific examples? It sounds far fetched. Not to mention that whites are not even a majority in many of the wealthy suburbs. Many of Asian and Indian families.
They haven't been legal for decades but yes, it's a real thing that had a massive impact, just like redlining. https://www.mappingprejudice.org/what-are-covenants/
Levittown, PA
St. Louis, MO.
Remember Ferguson? That's a 10 minute drive from the richest neighborhood in StL.
Look up North and South Delmar in St. Louis; the opposite sides of a single street. That's redlining.
St. Louis, MO.
Remember Ferguson? That's a 10 minute drive from the richest neighborhood in StL.
Look up North and South Delmar in St. Louis; the opposite sides of a single street. That's redlining.
Diversity in suburbs is a very recent development. Look at the historical demographics of the suburb you probably live in. It's great that it's changing but suburbs are not a product of seeking to preserve diversity.
https://sundown.tougaloo.edu/sundowntowns.php can give you many examples.
This has also been the case for hundreds of years though.
Not to the same extent. It wasn't until cars became a thing that it became practical for most rich people to live more than a (healthy) walking distance away from working class people. If they lived too far away, then you wouldn't be able to have them work for you.
They might not have had the means to do it though. Cheap fuel, cheap cars, 30 year fixed rate mortgages, widening income/wealth bands, etc.
I have no idea if this has always been the case, but people seem to look at their house as a bank account. They defend it and try and raise prices by blocking new development, keeping residents deemed undesirable out, and enforcing a consistent cookie cutter look with trimmed lawns and just the right number of cars in the driveway.
With that mindset a business could bring in outsiders and be bad for their property value.
With that mindset a business could bring in outsiders and be bad for their property value.
With aggressive reverse mortgage programs, many people use their house as a retirement account. A house is generally the most expensive thing the average person purchases, and is the most obvious source to convert into an income. With a finite amount of land, and lots of increasingly desperate retirees with excellent positions to relax a claim for some temporary relief, someone is always ready to point out their house is their paycheck.
No. It's an inferior solution to someone having a car and driving around for shopping. Most people here seems to draw from their experience traveling to a place for a short period of time. The reality is that living near a small business (especially restaurant/cafe/bar) is crappy. You'll have people walking around, being noisy, drunk people, people parking in front of your drive way because the didn't see the signs, garbage, etc...
Bars are a problem, but I live in an apartment and there's a bank, a few cafes, a liquor store, multiple drug stores, an optician's, an orthopedic shoe store, a pawn shop, a shop selling kitchen furniture and god knows what else in the same building. The biggest issue is public urination, but these people aren't the customers, but people leaving the subway.
It's a bit crappy for people living in the immediate vicinity but that's just a tiny fraction of the people who get value from nearby local businesses. The housing prices also reflect that and it's usually cheaper rent if you're above/next to a popular grocery store, bar or restaurant.
I am extremely biased as I'm in my mid twenties and don't even have a driver's license as the only time it comes in handy in Oslo is if you're moving furniture.
I am extremely biased as I'm in my mid twenties and don't even have a driver's license as the only time it comes in handy in Oslo is if you're moving furniture.
>How did we slip away so far from this being fairly obvious?
People got rich enough that the noise from the bar on the other side of the block or the mechanic shop across the street made their list of "big problems" and they complained to local government until government restricted everyone's property rights.
People got rich enough that the noise from the bar on the other side of the block or the mechanic shop across the street made their list of "big problems" and they complained to local government until government restricted everyone's property rights.
Because if you moved to a new town you were in a different school district.
The great migration to the suburbs happened right after schools were desegregated in the US.
White Americans moved to the suburbs to avoid their children from attending school with black children. Milliken v. Bradley was the last nail in the coffin.
The return to cities has coincided with white people having less children and children at older ages along with less racist views.
The great migration to the suburbs happened right after schools were desegregated in the US.
White Americans moved to the suburbs to avoid their children from attending school with black children. Milliken v. Bradley was the last nail in the coffin.
The return to cities has coincided with white people having less children and children at older ages along with less racist views.
This started happening already in the 1950s before desegregation. The rise of suburbs is directly related to the boom years after WWII and how much development happened outside of cities, where throwing up a new subdivision was much cheaper, and the booming auto industry absolutely loved new demand for commuting.
Also, the FHA and the GI Bill provided cheap loans to buy single use housing for veterans, which were a significant chunk of the population. You can't really get an FHA loan to buy an apartment in a mixed-use building.
(On paper Black people were also entitled to GI bill benefits, but in practice this didn't really happen.) From Wikipedia:
> In the New York and northern New Jersey suburbs about 67,000 mortgages were insured by the G.I. Bill, but fewer than 100 were taken out by non-white veterans.
(On paper Black people were also entitled to GI bill benefits, but in practice this didn't really happen.) From Wikipedia:
> In the New York and northern New Jersey suburbs about 67,000 mortgages were insured by the G.I. Bill, but fewer than 100 were taken out by non-white veterans.
> the rise of suburbs is directly related to the boom years after WWII
The idea of suburbs was created by Levitt & Sons when building Levittown, PA post-WWII. A neighborhood that had explicit terms that the owners would not sell or rent to non-white people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levittown,_New_York
The idea of suburbs was created by Levitt & Sons when building Levittown, PA post-WWII. A neighborhood that had explicit terms that the owners would not sell or rent to non-white people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levittown,_New_York
My first guess would be the car lobbyists doing.
They are powerful enough to tear down so many street-car rails all over America.
They are powerful enough to tear down so many street-car rails all over America.
Indeed - car lobbyists and marketing... and likely that torch was picked up and carried further by oil lobbyists. America has been slowly pushed toward viewing walking places as being abnormal so instead of cars being for trips and vacations they are seen as standard and necessary for commutes and runs to the store.
There is only a very small segment of the population that benefits from constantly driving everywhere and they aren't the ones in the cars.
There is only a very small segment of the population that benefits from constantly driving everywhere and they aren't the ones in the cars.
Makes for a nice conspiracy theory but from what I’ve read many of them were going under and consumers wanted cars, not street cars.
Not a conspiracy theory.
Look up the Koch Brothers. They fund PACs that pretend to be grassroots campaigns to shut down public transit expansion and successfully unfortunately.
Also the street cars collapse was very much due to automaker lobbying, like someone else said, you don't need to kill it directly; just make it unsustainable. Basically how Republicans govern; you don't kill it directly, you just choke it to death.
Look up the Koch Brothers. They fund PACs that pretend to be grassroots campaigns to shut down public transit expansion and successfully unfortunately.
Also the street cars collapse was very much due to automaker lobbying, like someone else said, you don't need to kill it directly; just make it unsustainable. Basically how Republicans govern; you don't kill it directly, you just choke it to death.
They went under because they were not allowed to raise fares to the level needed to support them this wasn't the market, it was the law.
> How did we slip away so far from this being fairly obvious? Cities have worked well this way for hundreds of years.
Capitalism. Economies of scale. Taxpayer subsidies for car infrastructure. Nowadays Amazon, Uber Eats, etc.
Try actually running a local dairy or restaurant or electronics store and see how long it takes for you to be crushed out of existence by people driving to the supermarket 5 km away, or just ordering from VC funded loss-making delivery companies, or the like.
Capitalism. Economies of scale. Taxpayer subsidies for car infrastructure. Nowadays Amazon, Uber Eats, etc.
Try actually running a local dairy or restaurant or electronics store and see how long it takes for you to be crushed out of existence by people driving to the supermarket 5 km away, or just ordering from VC funded loss-making delivery companies, or the like.
Yup. Currently live in a walkable neighborhood and yeah, it’s awesome to walk 2 min to buy some milk or grab a bite to eat.
My weekly grocery run? Grab the car and go to Costco, otherwise my grocery budget would double.
My weekly grocery run? Grab the car and go to Costco, otherwise my grocery budget would double.
Yes, basically it comes down to racism and classism, and a bit of the fight against communism.
There used to be racial covenants that ensures racial segregation. As soon as those were rendered illegal, people started zoning for "public safety" and such. The original decision (Euclid?) that rendered zoning legal explicitly states concerns about lower income people degrading neighborhoods if multi-family residences are allowed.
And as soon as you start allowing such restrictions on what sort of construction is allowed, you start outlawing small business next to residences. And home buyers appreciate these restrictions because there's chance of a business growing and causing more traffic and "outsiders" (those that can't afford to buy a huge parcel of land) coming into their bucolic suburban life.
Subsidized FHA loans were also envisioned as a strong anti-communist play; who would fall prey to the temptations of socialism if they own their own home and can use it to keep out non-whites? (Redlining restricted these subsidized mortgages from being used for any home that had a chance of becoming racially integrated.)
The rise of the automobile and destruction of commuter rail lead to a ton of land accessible to people who worked in cities. And in conjunction with the exclusionary zoning that was used to protect the capitalistic gains of property values, the idea of mixed-use zoning became antiquated and counter productive to financial and social interests.
So a century later, we are finally realizing the massive health costs, societal costs, and economic costs of our unsustainable suburbanization; infrastructure is aging out without the tax base to maintain and rebuild, and the suburbs--filled with wealthy residents paying lower taxes--have drained the economic centers of cities, while those wealthy suburbanites benefit from the commerce that high density cities enable, and which low-density suburbs disallow.
We have subsidized an unsustainable style of living for the white middle class, and as white middle class boomers have benefitted, they have declined to allow for basic investments in the future that would extend prosperity to future generation.
This, I think, is the story of the decline of the American empire, just as much as mismanagement by a fascist-leaning a factual political party. During the decline of the USSR, even with massive amounts of state propaganda and misinformation, at least they were able to muster state power to clean up Chernobyl. I'm the twilight of the US, we have hollowed our our scientific institutions like the CDC and FDA because they don't serve the political goals of the ruling political class, and we can't even muster a response to a pandemic that countries with widely-regarded corrupt governments such as Italy have dealt with handily. I think this rot comes from our racist segregation which lead to our poor century of city planning.
(This, of course, would need several books to fully justify my wild claims, but one book that starts to is The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein.
There used to be racial covenants that ensures racial segregation. As soon as those were rendered illegal, people started zoning for "public safety" and such. The original decision (Euclid?) that rendered zoning legal explicitly states concerns about lower income people degrading neighborhoods if multi-family residences are allowed.
And as soon as you start allowing such restrictions on what sort of construction is allowed, you start outlawing small business next to residences. And home buyers appreciate these restrictions because there's chance of a business growing and causing more traffic and "outsiders" (those that can't afford to buy a huge parcel of land) coming into their bucolic suburban life.
Subsidized FHA loans were also envisioned as a strong anti-communist play; who would fall prey to the temptations of socialism if they own their own home and can use it to keep out non-whites? (Redlining restricted these subsidized mortgages from being used for any home that had a chance of becoming racially integrated.)
The rise of the automobile and destruction of commuter rail lead to a ton of land accessible to people who worked in cities. And in conjunction with the exclusionary zoning that was used to protect the capitalistic gains of property values, the idea of mixed-use zoning became antiquated and counter productive to financial and social interests.
So a century later, we are finally realizing the massive health costs, societal costs, and economic costs of our unsustainable suburbanization; infrastructure is aging out without the tax base to maintain and rebuild, and the suburbs--filled with wealthy residents paying lower taxes--have drained the economic centers of cities, while those wealthy suburbanites benefit from the commerce that high density cities enable, and which low-density suburbs disallow.
We have subsidized an unsustainable style of living for the white middle class, and as white middle class boomers have benefitted, they have declined to allow for basic investments in the future that would extend prosperity to future generation.
This, I think, is the story of the decline of the American empire, just as much as mismanagement by a fascist-leaning a factual political party. During the decline of the USSR, even with massive amounts of state propaganda and misinformation, at least they were able to muster state power to clean up Chernobyl. I'm the twilight of the US, we have hollowed our our scientific institutions like the CDC and FDA because they don't serve the political goals of the ruling political class, and we can't even muster a response to a pandemic that countries with widely-regarded corrupt governments such as Italy have dealt with handily. I think this rot comes from our racist segregation which lead to our poor century of city planning.
(This, of course, would need several books to fully justify my wild claims, but one book that starts to is The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein.
I think that people underestimate the generational effects of the FHA loans being locked to suburbanized white neighborhoods. The rise of the automobile combined with the post-war FHA loan restrictions allowed one group of people to 'invest' in their homes and land, while excluding (mostly) another group. Check out https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history... for an overview of 'The Color of Law' mentioned above.
Thanks for linking this summary! This is by far the most controversial comment I've ever made here, it keeps on fluctuating in score. I hope it prompts some people to examine the history, but unfortunately I did not provide any scholarship to back up my views, which are heterodox in the general population but I think commonly held by those who investigate the boring subject of zoning.
Some other sources of how systemic racism in government has been used to further single-use suburban planning:
Segregation by Design by Jessica Trounstine https://urbanaffairsreview.com/2019/06/24/segregation-by-des...
Neighborhood Defenders by Einstein, Glick, and Palmer https://www.politicsofhousing.com/neighborhood_defenders/
A World More Concrete: Real Estate and the Remaking of Jim Crow in South Florida by NDB Connolly https://history.jhu.edu/2014/02/19/a-world-more-concrete-rea...
Every talk I've seen by NBD Connolly is outstanding but this is the first I saw and the one that really motivated me to find more sources on this topic: https://youtu.be/DjmUWfMEhfE
Some other sources of how systemic racism in government has been used to further single-use suburban planning:
Segregation by Design by Jessica Trounstine https://urbanaffairsreview.com/2019/06/24/segregation-by-des...
Neighborhood Defenders by Einstein, Glick, and Palmer https://www.politicsofhousing.com/neighborhood_defenders/
A World More Concrete: Real Estate and the Remaking of Jim Crow in South Florida by NDB Connolly https://history.jhu.edu/2014/02/19/a-world-more-concrete-rea...
Every talk I've seen by NBD Connolly is outstanding but this is the first I saw and the one that really motivated me to find more sources on this topic: https://youtu.be/DjmUWfMEhfE
Thank you for this. As an outsider it made me realize how much there is behind the claim of the echoes of racism still being felt today in the US. What a terrible disservice these people did to the future...
I share your view that we're seeing a large scale decline of the American empire btw. - Covid response lays this out quite clearly. It will remain to be seen whether it drags down Europe as well.
I share your view that we're seeing a large scale decline of the American empire btw. - Covid response lays this out quite clearly. It will remain to be seen whether it drags down Europe as well.
> The rise of the automobile and destruction of commuter rail lead to a ton of land accessible to people who worked in cities. And in conjunction with the exclusionary zoning that was used to protect the capitalistic gains of property values, the idea of mixed-use zoning became antiquated and counter productive to financial and social interests.
This is a solid argument, but I don't see the link between this and racism/classism.
Perhaps it implies a link to some kind of 'systemic classism', as when individual people make decisions to benefit themselves, those with money tend to have more agency.
It seems like everywhere cars and rail allowed suburbanisation people jumped at the chance to get a comfortable home on large lots at a cheap price. It turns out massive, exclusion-zoned suburbs were short-sighted, and many places are now pursuing a 'city of villages' planning strategy.
It's not obvious to me that, if you take out any explicit class or race biases, the world wouldn't have followed the same path with respect to businesses in these suburbs.
This is a solid argument, but I don't see the link between this and racism/classism.
Perhaps it implies a link to some kind of 'systemic classism', as when individual people make decisions to benefit themselves, those with money tend to have more agency.
It seems like everywhere cars and rail allowed suburbanisation people jumped at the chance to get a comfortable home on large lots at a cheap price. It turns out massive, exclusion-zoned suburbs were short-sighted, and many places are now pursuing a 'city of villages' planning strategy.
It's not obvious to me that, if you take out any explicit class or race biases, the world wouldn't have followed the same path with respect to businesses in these suburbs.
One missing link is that most highways in the US were plowed through "low value" land areas, usually either industrial areas or minority areas of any wealth bracket.
If racism and classism didn't exist, we probably would've built less highways because building them through any residential areas would've been politically impossible (indeed, the first successful freeway revolts were centered around rich, white areas.) Given that it would basically be impossible to draw a straight line through an urban area without hitting a residential area, it would've made highway travel for commuting much less feasible, making it much harder for suburbanization to spread widely due to longer road travel times.
As a comparison, Frankfurt in western Germany has a population of 5.8M and land area of 5,700 sq mi. Atlanta has a metro population of 6M and land area of 10,494 sq mi.
If racism and classism didn't exist, we probably would've built less highways because building them through any residential areas would've been politically impossible (indeed, the first successful freeway revolts were centered around rich, white areas.) Given that it would basically be impossible to draw a straight line through an urban area without hitting a residential area, it would've made highway travel for commuting much less feasible, making it much harder for suburbanization to spread widely due to longer road travel times.
As a comparison, Frankfurt in western Germany has a population of 5.8M and land area of 5,700 sq mi. Atlanta has a metro population of 6M and land area of 10,494 sq mi.
I think you are definitely right that classism could also produce the same effects! However, in the US most of our classism is motivated from racism, I think. Or perhaps, if we didn't have the racism, we'd still find reason to be classist. Here is the current US president being explicit about what is usually the quiet part of the Southern strategy:
> The Suburban Housewives of America must read this article. Biden will destroy your neighborhood and your American Dream. I will preserve it, and make it even better!
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/12863721751177912...
Fear-momgering about blacks being able to move into your neighborhood, like what's happening in this Tweet, is what shaped the single-use suburban dream. Levittowns, the first cookie-cutter suburbs lacking any sort of small commercial businesses, were very explicitly segregationist.
It may be possible to disentangle the racism from the classism, but in the specific example from the US, they are so tight that I have a lot of difficulty being able to find any space between them.
> The Suburban Housewives of America must read this article. Biden will destroy your neighborhood and your American Dream. I will preserve it, and make it even better!
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/12863721751177912...
Fear-momgering about blacks being able to move into your neighborhood, like what's happening in this Tweet, is what shaped the single-use suburban dream. Levittowns, the first cookie-cutter suburbs lacking any sort of small commercial businesses, were very explicitly segregationist.
It may be possible to disentangle the racism from the classism, but in the specific example from the US, they are so tight that I have a lot of difficulty being able to find any space between them.
I'm really coming from another direction.
I don't think you need racism or classism to describe the behaviours that lead to neighbourhood shops disappearing from suburbs, or not being planned for in the first place, though examples exist where those things are intertwined like you've illustrated.
What I don't see is the causal link. This phenomenon occurs in other places in the world, places that don't have the same interweaving of racial issues throughout society that the USA has, and it doesn't occur in some locations within the USA that does have those same issues.
It may be true that all suburbs in the USA were founded for racist reasons, or that the residents make all decisions about perceived house value and their community based on racist ideals, or that city planning policies are put in place to fulfil racist agendas, however;
It seems far more likely that the underlying causes are driven, like the rest of the world, by
- rational individual economic decisions, and
- policy informed by lobbyists
Now the effect of these decisions or policies may well be racist or classist - like I said above, people with money tend to have more agency, and it's definitely true that the USA has had and continues to have significant divides in wealth between various racial groups.
There are also examples of specific, explicit racism that have caused this effect, but those pale next to the impact that the widespread adoption of the car (and many other things!) had on decision making.
These decisions changed the way our world works, the true impact of them took decades to register, and we are only now adjusting for what we have learned. There are racial and classist components to these impacts, but that doesn't mean the decisions were (on the whole) motivated by race or class.
I don't think you need racism or classism to describe the behaviours that lead to neighbourhood shops disappearing from suburbs, or not being planned for in the first place, though examples exist where those things are intertwined like you've illustrated.
What I don't see is the causal link. This phenomenon occurs in other places in the world, places that don't have the same interweaving of racial issues throughout society that the USA has, and it doesn't occur in some locations within the USA that does have those same issues.
It may be true that all suburbs in the USA were founded for racist reasons, or that the residents make all decisions about perceived house value and their community based on racist ideals, or that city planning policies are put in place to fulfil racist agendas, however;
It seems far more likely that the underlying causes are driven, like the rest of the world, by
- rational individual economic decisions, and
- policy informed by lobbyists
Now the effect of these decisions or policies may well be racist or classist - like I said above, people with money tend to have more agency, and it's definitely true that the USA has had and continues to have significant divides in wealth between various racial groups.
There are also examples of specific, explicit racism that have caused this effect, but those pale next to the impact that the widespread adoption of the car (and many other things!) had on decision making.
These decisions changed the way our world works, the true impact of them took decades to register, and we are only now adjusting for what we have learned. There are racial and classist components to these impacts, but that doesn't mean the decisions were (on the whole) motivated by race or class.
That was really insightful, well-written and convincing. Thank you for sharing that.
(I've upvoted and favorated your comment.)
(I've upvoted and favorated your comment.)
nimish(1)
I could give a long, detailed answer, but basically, the 1950s happened.
I've found that it is typical for people who run these small types of businesses also live in the neighborhood, or close by.
Another improvement is that people who both live and work in the community have time for more community engagement, but it their children's schools, local government, or local volunteer efforts.
Local businesses improve the community.
Another improvement is that people who both live and work in the community have time for more community engagement, but it their children's schools, local government, or local volunteer efforts.
Local businesses improve the community.
The first chapter of The Death and Life of Great American Cities touches on this topic a lot. Community safety is enhanced by mixed use, because there are reasons for people to naturally be there at all hours of the day/night. This contrasts with single use areas, which are essentially ghost towns in their off-hours.
When people spend money at a locally-owned business, that money at least has a chance of staying in the community. When people spend money at a big national or multi-national chain store, a lot of that money is leaving the community, and never returns.
The more people within "walking distance" the less need for a parking lot. There are a number of successful businesses in my neighbourhood with zero parking or minimal parking. Many customers can arrive by foot (or bike or bus). Even a small scrap of land can be a prime location.
If you visit the outskirts of the city, there is a large difference. The parking lot is like an ocean. After all, every customer must arrive by car. You need a massive tract of land to have a successful business in such an environment.
Next time you visit a business, pop open your maps app on your phone and look at the satellite view. Note the size of the building in relation to its parking lot. It is not unusual for the parking lot to occupy more land than the actual store, even in urban areas.
If you visit the outskirts of the city, there is a large difference. The parking lot is like an ocean. After all, every customer must arrive by car. You need a massive tract of land to have a successful business in such an environment.
Next time you visit a business, pop open your maps app on your phone and look at the satellite view. Note the size of the building in relation to its parking lot. It is not unusual for the parking lot to occupy more land than the actual store, even in urban areas.
I currently live in New Orleans, which is very mixed-use if you're in the city proper. It's really, really nice. I bike everywhere. Groceries, bookstores, head shops, cafes, bars, hardware store (with a super nice housewares department on the second floor), plumbers, auto shops, restaurants, snoball stands, parks, schools[1], dentists, optometrists, lawyers, there's pretty much everything I need in a 20min cycling radius. A lot of these businesses are in buildings that are pretty much indistinguishable from the houses next to them; there's signs and various adaptations for whatever they're selling but so many of them started out as a house rather than something built from the ground up to be A Store.
Leave the actual city and it starts turning into suburbs, where every distance is designed for a car and all business is concentrated on one big road that's got giant parking lots and big boxy buildings all along it. I go out there when I absolutely must. There really aren't many reasons to do that.
1: sadly the city's schools have gone to hell in many ways since I was a kid, but hey, I ain't got kids so I only get to worry about that in the abstract...
Leave the actual city and it starts turning into suburbs, where every distance is designed for a car and all business is concentrated on one big road that's got giant parking lots and big boxy buildings all along it. I go out there when I absolutely must. There really aren't many reasons to do that.
1: sadly the city's schools have gone to hell in many ways since I was a kid, but hey, I ain't got kids so I only get to worry about that in the abstract...
Yeah the state government is too poor and devoid of tax dollars, so they can’t do anything about that unfortunately.
If you bike everywhere why are you going to the auto shop?
I don’t, it’s just one of the many businesses lurking in my neighborhood. I pass it regularly on my way elsewhere.
I'd guess for auto supplies. You can bike "everywhere" and still own a vehicle for visiting places outside a city proper.
I hate North America’s zoning laws with a passion. They just create dead zones and forces everyone to travel distances.
I love Europe and Southeast Asia so much for this very reason. You step out of your house and everything is nearby.
I’m sure there are parts of both Europe and SEA that have the same problems, but majority is mixed zoning.
I love Europe and Southeast Asia so much for this very reason. You step out of your house and everything is nearby.
I’m sure there are parts of both Europe and SEA that have the same problems, but majority is mixed zoning.
I have liquer store under my windows, it is open 24 hours and has outside benches. Basically loud nonstop pub with many junkies. I am going to move soon to get better sleep
Imagine how much better your life would be if one house on your suburban cul-de-sac was a sleepy pub.
I can't tell you any of my neighbor's names. I've been here ten years.
But if I could walk for 6 minutes and get a beer, we'd all know each other's names. We'd all have babysitter coverage, neighborhood watch, a reason to keep the car in the garage, and slightly bigger bellies, overnight.
I can't tell you any of my neighbor's names. I've been here ten years.
But if I could walk for 6 minutes and get a beer, we'd all know each other's names. We'd all have babysitter coverage, neighborhood watch, a reason to keep the car in the garage, and slightly bigger bellies, overnight.
Having lived in a dense suburb outside of Providence RI with a local pub just one large parking lot away, I can tell you: it sucks. Noise at all hours, drunks everywhere, broken glass, constant smell of cigarette smoke. Replace pub with "well maintained park with children's play area" and you might be on to something.
It might be a cultural thing but my home country Australia and the in the UK the local pub in smaller towns is often a much more family oriented place. Often there is outdoor seating and families go for dinner together, often there is live local music. People also go just to drink but it’s all mixed together, of course this varies depending on what part of a town or city you’re in, some are more family oriented than others. I think that kind of pub would fit well with OP’s description more than yours.
You might not have as big a belly if you need to walk a few minutes to get the beer and go home.
This was once common in the inner ring suburbs of Chicago. There used to be a small grocery store in the middle of a residential block near where I lived and a bar in the middle of another residential block close to my elementary school. There are houses whose former mixed use (shop in the front, house in the back) are still obvious.
Here's one surviving neighborhood grocery in Berwyn, IL:
https://goo.gl/maps/NCd45ghd6ajfPvLB6
Unfortunately, I'm drawing a blank on the locations of some of the surviving retail-to-residential conversions that I've spotted.
These are all largely a relic of an era in which housewives often didn't drive, or if they did, didn't have access to a car while their husband was at work so grocery shopping needed to be within easy walking distance of home. Many of the minor commercial streets in the inner ring suburbs have vanished as well, their customers having been consumed by larger supermarkets. It's somewhat miraculous, really, that there are still a handful of these neighborhood markets still in business.
Here's one surviving neighborhood grocery in Berwyn, IL:
https://goo.gl/maps/NCd45ghd6ajfPvLB6
Unfortunately, I'm drawing a blank on the locations of some of the surviving retail-to-residential conversions that I've spotted.
These are all largely a relic of an era in which housewives often didn't drive, or if they did, didn't have access to a car while their husband was at work so grocery shopping needed to be within easy walking distance of home. Many of the minor commercial streets in the inner ring suburbs have vanished as well, their customers having been consumed by larger supermarkets. It's somewhat miraculous, really, that there are still a handful of these neighborhood markets still in business.
The housewives aspect of it is a strange thing to focus on - this is a relic of a time when most people did not drive, i.e. this style of living was natural to everyone, housewife or no, prior to Eisenhower-era financial incentives to build highways everywhere[1], and especially in areas of "urban blight," which, of course, were also usually the densest parts of neighborhoods/cities since the poor did not have cars. Some cities, e.g. New York, succeeded in preventing the demolishing of some of their most historic places in the name of "cleaning up." Most other places were not as successful, though many tried[2]. Chicago's aptly named Eisenhower Expressway is a great example of activist efforts often not being enough[3].
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Jacobs#Struggle_for_Green... 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System#Urba...
3 - https://interactive.wbez.org/curiouscity/eisenhower/
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Jacobs#Struggle_for_Green... 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System#Urba...
3 - https://interactive.wbez.org/curiouscity/eisenhower/
Berwyn and Cicero weren't directly impacted by the Eisenhower (although Oak Park was—something that the local populace still resents which is evidenced by the fact that the exits for the Ike (much to my wife's confusion, I-290 goes by multiple names) exist only on the borders of the village and are the only left-side exits for the entirety of the Congress Expressway's (like I said...) run). More impactful was perhaps the replacement of streetcar lines with buses and the shortening of the Douglas Park "L" to end at 54th instead of its former terminus at Oak Park Avenue. Stickney, just south of Berwyn and Cicero, was still semi-rural into the 50s when my parents' house was built and, although it has had bus service from West Towns Bus Company (now Pace), it was never not a place where cars were essential (I suppose in its pre-incorporation days and first decade, one could have gotten by with a horse and wagon). This is not a Greenwich Village situation.
I mentioned housewives walking to the neighborhood store to do shopping because this was an aspect of the local culture that persisted into the 70s and early 80s. Most had their own little carts for hauling home their groceries (similar to these https://www.amazon.com/customerpicks/Explore-grocery-carts-f... it's interesting to see that these are still sold, although I've not seen one in use for 30 years or so).
I mentioned housewives walking to the neighborhood store to do shopping because this was an aspect of the local culture that persisted into the 70s and early 80s. Most had their own little carts for hauling home their groceries (similar to these https://www.amazon.com/customerpicks/Explore-grocery-carts-f... it's interesting to see that these are still sold, although I've not seen one in use for 30 years or so).
I see these little carts around San Francisco all the time! Especially used by a lot of people in Chinatown, and also by a lot of older people, but today I even saw a young lady using one!
Thank you for your input about the streetcars, Berwyn and Cicero, and Oak Park. I fell in love with Chicago during my time there and always enjoy getting to know more of its history. It is a powerful city (and I hope to maybe move back to it in a few years, pending my career alignment).
Thank you for your input about the streetcars, Berwyn and Cicero, and Oak Park. I fell in love with Chicago during my time there and always enjoy getting to know more of its history. It is a powerful city (and I hope to maybe move back to it in a few years, pending my career alignment).
I've always liked the fact that nearly every major street in Chicago is lined with small businesses and the residential streets are no more than 4-5 blocks away from a major street.
Its interesting that that neighborhood could be defined as low density, but it's at least twice a dense as my neighborhood, and I can quickly drive to neighborhoods that are half as dense as that without even hitting millionaire neighborhoods.
Just a block away from a 7-11.
When Americans talk about how great European cities are, they are often talking about exactly this. Mixed-use neighborhoods full of charming small businesses and dense housing within walking distance to daily needs.
So I've lived in a number of cities and seen many variations on this.
In Perth, Western Australia, there are pockets of this but the extraordinarily high cost of real estate (true across all of Australia since the early 2000s), which existing property owners are keen to protect, slowly kills local businesses. Particularly in popular cafe strips where all the businesses that made the area popular get priced out and commercial property owners would rather sit on empty property for years than notionally devalue that property by taking less rent.
Anecdotally I've heard all the WFH with Covid-19 has been a boon to local businesses.
London as a general rule was (it's been 10+ years since I've lived in London at this point) good for this. It never seemed like no matter where I was (within Zones 1-5 anyway), I was ever that far away from a Tesco and a high street.
NYC is of course excellent for this, at least the more central areas. The more outlying areas tend to resemble more typical Northeast suburbia with 2 car households and the like.
Northeast commuter towns tends to be good for this around the actual train stations although some stations weirdly have nothing around them at all (eg Manhasset).
Most US cities tend to be terrible for this to the point of not even having sidewalks and you might be 10 miles from the nearest shop, even in a large city (eg Las Vegas seems to be like this).
It does seem like public transportation really helps here because it seems like the northern suburbs of Dallas, for example (at least those on DART), have recognizable downtowns such that they more closely resemble tri-state commuter towns.
Large lots really seem to kill any of this. Like there are parts of the Greater Atlanta area where a "normal" lot is 1 or even 2 acres. This is an amount of space that is simply incomprehensible to any European. Even an Australian.
And of course the US has Walmart, which has been a pretty effective way of killing all the small businesses in local neighbourhoods.
In Perth, Western Australia, there are pockets of this but the extraordinarily high cost of real estate (true across all of Australia since the early 2000s), which existing property owners are keen to protect, slowly kills local businesses. Particularly in popular cafe strips where all the businesses that made the area popular get priced out and commercial property owners would rather sit on empty property for years than notionally devalue that property by taking less rent.
Anecdotally I've heard all the WFH with Covid-19 has been a boon to local businesses.
London as a general rule was (it's been 10+ years since I've lived in London at this point) good for this. It never seemed like no matter where I was (within Zones 1-5 anyway), I was ever that far away from a Tesco and a high street.
NYC is of course excellent for this, at least the more central areas. The more outlying areas tend to resemble more typical Northeast suburbia with 2 car households and the like.
Northeast commuter towns tends to be good for this around the actual train stations although some stations weirdly have nothing around them at all (eg Manhasset).
Most US cities tend to be terrible for this to the point of not even having sidewalks and you might be 10 miles from the nearest shop, even in a large city (eg Las Vegas seems to be like this).
It does seem like public transportation really helps here because it seems like the northern suburbs of Dallas, for example (at least those on DART), have recognizable downtowns such that they more closely resemble tri-state commuter towns.
Large lots really seem to kill any of this. Like there are parts of the Greater Atlanta area where a "normal" lot is 1 or even 2 acres. This is an amount of space that is simply incomprehensible to any European. Even an Australian.
And of course the US has Walmart, which has been a pretty effective way of killing all the small businesses in local neighbourhoods.
In the Boston area many of the nearby towns are what I call "urban suburbs". Very family friendly, many single- or two-family homes, but also very walkable and many shops throughout the town. I'm talking about towns such as Brookline, Cambridge and Arlington. They are really nice towns to live in and in very high demand.
> Cambridge
"Our fair city!" -Tom Magliozzi
"Our fair city!" -Tom Magliozzi
This kind of city planning design was popular in Sweden in the 1950/60s with close community mini centras torg, happy that its re surging. There would usually for example be a grocery store, a hair dresser and a flower shop, usually also a local restaurant.
With a good local community one does not need to use a car very often. There is also spontaneous social interactions with locals, this is something we do not get when buying online. We may also build repair centre for our things. This would be like a bike shop but for devices.
With a good local community one does not need to use a car very often. There is also spontaneous social interactions with locals, this is something we do not get when buying online. We may also build repair centre for our things. This would be like a bike shop but for devices.
I'm Swedish and while I'd love to take credit for this type of structure, surely this is much older and more widespread? If you travel to France you notice immediately that there's a bakery, a butcher etc. in every town, so some part of it is down to culture and political decisions (like Sweden in the 50's), but if we move back in time this was the absolute default for a very simple reason: any other setup than the "close community shops" was untenable until the introduction of the automobile.
So this model that we now consider exotic has actually been the standard for 99% of human history, but since the early 1900s we have been caught in a feedback loop of increased mobility -> lower real estate prices outside of the city -> cheaper goods which to this day is killing city centers commercially all across Sweden.
I absolutely welcome this change, but I think it's important to point out that the reason it now seems so attractive is because this mobility that fueled the entire change has now essentially disappeared. I can only hope that with increased environmental consciousness, it becomes even more outdated, because I really dislike it.
Here's to hoping we get a future composed of small local stores, and "big-box" corporations with excellent shipping options instead of expecting you to come to them. It can't happen soon enough.
So this model that we now consider exotic has actually been the standard for 99% of human history, but since the early 1900s we have been caught in a feedback loop of increased mobility -> lower real estate prices outside of the city -> cheaper goods which to this day is killing city centers commercially all across Sweden.
I absolutely welcome this change, but I think it's important to point out that the reason it now seems so attractive is because this mobility that fueled the entire change has now essentially disappeared. I can only hope that with increased environmental consciousness, it becomes even more outdated, because I really dislike it.
Here's to hoping we get a future composed of small local stores, and "big-box" corporations with excellent shipping options instead of expecting you to come to them. It can't happen soon enough.
I liked whistler village when I visited. All the cars are parked on the outside. Inside there is only walking, restaurants and shopping. Creates a really nice atmosphere.
Outdoor malls seem to be the closet thing to that. And are pretty great spaces to be in. Maybe will be more prevalent because of covid now. But they even work in cold places, there is one in Michigan that I know off.
I used to live across from a 3 story apartment building, maybe 20 apartments. Pretty run down place, with drug dealers, and just low income people.
Then the apartment building owner decided to do some landscaping. Planted a few trees, and put out some adirondack chairs on the front lawn. Which attracted a guy wanting to play his guitar outside. Which then attracted an audience. Which then turned into a nightly gathering of people on the front lawn playing music from the apartment building. People with drug and alcohol abuse problems still live in that building. But now that place has real sense of community. And actual happy moments are shared outside nightly. Where as before everyone would rush through the front door to their apartment, now they stop and say hi to each other.
Outdoor malls seem to be the closet thing to that. And are pretty great spaces to be in. Maybe will be more prevalent because of covid now. But they even work in cold places, there is one in Michigan that I know off.
I used to live across from a 3 story apartment building, maybe 20 apartments. Pretty run down place, with drug dealers, and just low income people.
Then the apartment building owner decided to do some landscaping. Planted a few trees, and put out some adirondack chairs on the front lawn. Which attracted a guy wanting to play his guitar outside. Which then attracted an audience. Which then turned into a nightly gathering of people on the front lawn playing music from the apartment building. People with drug and alcohol abuse problems still live in that building. But now that place has real sense of community. And actual happy moments are shared outside nightly. Where as before everyone would rush through the front door to their apartment, now they stop and say hi to each other.
Japan has "shopping arcades" which I really like. It is like a wide pedestrian-only alley with the retail density of a mall, but outdoors and the path is covered. Then side streets are local access only and often have small restaurants or izakayas
Of course the daunting obstacle is changing the mindset of suburban planners and nimbys. The zoning ordinances that have dominated planning in the USA since the 50's ban this in large swaths of America..
New Urbanism made progress creating denser planning in the last 30 years, but focused too much on high density mixed use. Adding small shops to residential streets is definitely the one area that they've really failed on in my opinion. It's the reason older towns and cities still trounce the 'burbs on walkability and will for a long time.
But while we're at it we should also think about other human-scale improvements, like narrow streets. Worth a read for anyone interested in retrofitting the suburbs: https://www.andrewalexanderprice.com/blog20130131.php#.Xxptm...
New Urbanism made progress creating denser planning in the last 30 years, but focused too much on high density mixed use. Adding small shops to residential streets is definitely the one area that they've really failed on in my opinion. It's the reason older towns and cities still trounce the 'burbs on walkability and will for a long time.
But while we're at it we should also think about other human-scale improvements, like narrow streets. Worth a read for anyone interested in retrofitting the suburbs: https://www.andrewalexanderprice.com/blog20130131.php#.Xxptm...
I live in Tokyo, and pretty much every neighborhood has some cafe/izakaya being run from the back of a home by a grandpa or grandma. Usually these places are extremely tiny and can seat max 4 people. I've seen some of them open all night. Not sure if they have to deal with some sort of licensing especially for liquor.
Vibrant downtowns of many American cities were built before the zoning laws. Their desirability is the most obvious proof that mixed zoning has benefits.
For a few years I’ve wondered how possible it would be for large neighborhood associations to own a neighborhood grocery store.
I haven’t bothered yet to run the numbers, but I would expect if the association was large enough it wouldn’t add much cost.
Residents could get a substantial discount while non-residents could pay normal prices. Residents could put in subscription style orders for things they would always regularly need. It would make it easier to order specialty things that normal groceries stores wouldn’t carry, etc...
I haven’t bothered yet to run the numbers, but I would expect if the association was large enough it wouldn’t add much cost.
Residents could get a substantial discount while non-residents could pay normal prices. Residents could put in subscription style orders for things they would always regularly need. It would make it easier to order specialty things that normal groceries stores wouldn’t carry, etc...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_cooperative ?
The problem here is that eventually rent-seeking becomes appealing, someone realizes there's skim/margin/"arbitrage" to be made, and so the capitalism progresses.
The problem here is that eventually rent-seeking becomes appealing, someone realizes there's skim/margin/"arbitrage" to be made, and so the capitalism progresses.
Yeah, food coops but strictly limited to a residents of neighborhood would be close to what I had in mind.
I wonder if you could put in the association bylaws that it must remain free of profits/margins/“arbitrage” to mitigate against something like this.
I haven’t looked into it closely though since I ultimately have a strong distaste for home owners associations anyway.
I wonder if you could put in the association bylaws that it must remain free of profits/margins/“arbitrage” to mitigate against something like this.
I haven’t looked into it closely though since I ultimately have a strong distaste for home owners associations anyway.
Tiny businesses aren't disappearing because of zoning, it's the economy of scale and heavy taxation/regulation that made them (or the lower-margin ones) unviable in places where they used to be common (like big European cities).
One of the more memorable stories about a tiny waxing studio giving up here in Vienna was them being required to have employees working in rooms with windows only and the only big enough window was the storefront one.
One of the more memorable stories about a tiny waxing studio giving up here in Vienna was them being required to have employees working in rooms with windows only and the only big enough window was the storefront one.
I would love to own a true neighborhood pub. A literal “public house”. Nothing fancy but a nice watering hole for the locals.
It's not viable unless they get an x amount of foot traffic, which is why these shops tend to be in city / commercial centers instead.
That said, back in my hometown we used to have multiple businesses on wheels visiting once a week; ice cream truck, fish, a grocery shop, a mail-order frozen-products guy, etc.
I've seen the same happen in a commercial district, mostly big office buildings with underground parking, but there was an ice cream and a coffee trike doing the rounds. The coffee one would set up shop at the local train station in the morning, then move to an urban park thing later in the day. The ice cream truck would move around, stand in front of the building and ring the bell.
That said, back in my hometown we used to have multiple businesses on wheels visiting once a week; ice cream truck, fish, a grocery shop, a mail-order frozen-products guy, etc.
I've seen the same happen in a commercial district, mostly big office buildings with underground parking, but there was an ice cream and a coffee trike doing the rounds. The coffee one would set up shop at the local train station in the morning, then move to an urban park thing later in the day. The ice cream truck would move around, stand in front of the building and ring the bell.
Yes! When I lived in an old house in the outskirts of Chico, there was a random little coffee shop right down the street. Seemed totally out of place but I loved it. I would really like small cafes and shops inside the Suberbs!
I like this idea mostly, except maybe the restaurant with outdoor seating.
Not sure I would want that to pop up next door / be loud late into the evening....
At least I wouldn't expect it to just pop up.
Not sure I would want that to pop up next door / be loud late into the evening....
At least I wouldn't expect it to just pop up.
In my experience, the licensing laws typically deal with this. If a restaurant or bar, they can't serve alcohol or have live music after 9pm, or similar rules.
Works pretty well, and I'd much rather have the small restaurant or bar next door than not!
Works pretty well, and I'd much rather have the small restaurant or bar next door than not!
The USA is the only place I know that doesn't have businesses in residential neighborhoods. I really don't understand why it is that way. We have mini-markets with a small stock of most commonly bought items, fridges with water iced tea etc, cigarettes newspapers on almost every corner. And it doesn't need to stop there. Why not laundry shops? Small cafes, etc.
99.99% of any potential issues can be taken care of with simple laws such as noise limits etc.
99.99% of any potential issues can be taken care of with simple laws such as noise limits etc.
This sounds great in a utopia where everybody is quiet and considerate, delivery drivers don't throw boxes and crates around, people don't get drunk and smash bottles in the street or have arguments.
Having lived next to and above commercial properties I can say it doesn't improve quality of life, it drastically impacts mental health, stress, and sleep. There's a reason that we have commercial districts and residential districts.
Having lived next to and above commercial properties I can say it doesn't improve quality of life, it drastically impacts mental health, stress, and sleep. There's a reason that we have commercial districts and residential districts.
I live somewhere that has tiny businesses like this. I still end up driving to my local discount grocery store because, despite having a very well paying for the area, I just can't bring myself to spend anywhere form 30% more to even double for 'the good stuff' when I can get generics for so much less.
So sorry, guess I'm part of the problem, but I'd rather spend money on stuff I actually want.
So sorry, guess I'm part of the problem, but I'd rather spend money on stuff I actually want.
When I lived in Chile, I really enjoyed the little tiendas everywhere, particularly the ones that were bakeries. I have a hard time imagining how well something similar would work in my suburban neighborhood where everyone has cars. Maybe a destination like a cafe, but it just makes more sense for people around here to get a bunch of shopping done at the grocery store 5 minutes away in their car.
Here in Zurich this is really well done - I just wished we did it more back home in the UK too.
Small businesses, e.g. coffee shops, hairdressers and florists occupy the bottom floors, and accountants and dentists the upper floors.
It keeps a nice mix of building use and means some services are nicely scattered throughout the city.
Small businesses, e.g. coffee shops, hairdressers and florists occupy the bottom floors, and accountants and dentists the upper floors.
It keeps a nice mix of building use and means some services are nicely scattered throughout the city.
I spent about 6 years in Poland when I was a kid. They had little kiosks (15'x15' ish?) all over, it's where you bought your daily stuff you didn't want to buy in bulk: bus tickets, gum, newspapers, bread, vegetables. This feels like a no brainer to me.
I suppose this would work very well for people with a particular outlook. I'm not one of them. My neighborhood is a refuge from commerce; I don't want stores within earshot of my front door. I don't want people I don't know walking past my yard at night.
Coming from Latin America,this was the best way for someone to get their business started and get some extra cash. From selling candies, to food and groceries. All that came to an end when Walmart and other chain companies such as 711 or Oxxo appeared..
Not totally on topic...
I have to admit the one thing I miss about moving out to the burbs from the relatively upscale apartments we lived in for awhile was that we had restaurant and major grocery stores within walking distance
I have to admit the one thing I miss about moving out to the burbs from the relatively upscale apartments we lived in for awhile was that we had restaurant and major grocery stores within walking distance
For whoever cares about this topic:
Strong Towns may be of interest. They address this topic, and put everything in a bigger picture.
https://www.strongtowns.org
Strong Towns may be of interest. They address this topic, and put everything in a bigger picture.
https://www.strongtowns.org
The fundamental problem is that we (in the US) live in a permission-based system, not a freedom-based one. In this example, you have to ask for permissions related to running a business and using land.
The system that you have to ask permission from has a particular vision about how things ought to be done, and does not handle change or non-conformity well - even seeing them as a threat.
One hallmark for identifying such a system is that when there is not a law about something, it is referred to in terms like "legal grey area" or "outside the law."
We need to change the system to allow for freedom and individual decision making, without asking permission from the system. Freedom is what is left outside the boundaries of the law.
The system that you have to ask permission from has a particular vision about how things ought to be done, and does not handle change or non-conformity well - even seeing them as a threat.
One hallmark for identifying such a system is that when there is not a law about something, it is referred to in terms like "legal grey area" or "outside the law."
We need to change the system to allow for freedom and individual decision making, without asking permission from the system. Freedom is what is left outside the boundaries of the law.
My parents ran a small business out of their home and the UPS truck came by for pick-ups every day.
They had a yes/no sign in the window to signal if he had to stop or not.
This was before the internet and easy scheduling.
They had a yes/no sign in the window to signal if he had to stop or not.
This was before the internet and easy scheduling.
This would be great to see, even if they were pop up spaces that could cycle through providing what a neighbourhood might need at any given time.
I live in the suburbs. In a radius of 200m from where I live, 2 minutes on foot, here are some of the businesses there are:
- Car accessory workshop for aftermarket accessories
- Car mechanic
- Car tire shop (they check, patch, and change your tires)
- Bycicle and bike repair shop
- Car electricians (3)
- Car wash (3)
- Carpenter
- House appliance shop
- Travel agencies
- Accountant
- RV home maker
- Shop to print motifs on shirts/clothes
- Opticians
- Sauna (3) one with a gym, a swimming pool, etc.
- Showers
- Bathroom
- Kitchenware shop
- Barbers (2)
- Bakeries (4)
- Pharmacists (2)
- Dentist (2)
- Pediatrician
- Generalist MD
- Gynaecologist
- Endocrinologist
- Medical analyses lab
- Insurance company
- Printing shop
- Children's clothes shops
- Adults' clothes shops
- Internet café
- Coffee shops
- Grocery shops
- Tailor
- Pastery shop
- Kiosques
- Jeweler
- Electronics shop
- A blacksmith
- A small theme park for kids
- Food joints (pizzerias, burgers, grills, others)
- Protective equipment shop
- Office supplies/Stationery/Chairs/Tables, etc.
- Electric motors repair shop
- Minimarkets (3)
- Gyms
Others:
- Primary school
- Middle school
- Police station
- A football stadium converted to a gymnasium
Bigger:
- Cheese factory
- Yogurt factory
- Other industrial stuff
- Car dealerships
Farther (300m): fresh produce market, pharmacy, and a bunch of other shops.
Farther (10 minutes):
- A green space of about 350 acres
The catch: a lot of them live there. By there I mean they own the house. The shops are on the street level, and they live in the upper levels. Some others live nearby, as in are either the owner's neighbor from a few houses away or 5 minutes down the road. But you can pretty much do a lot without moving.
- Car accessory workshop for aftermarket accessories
- Car mechanic
- Car tire shop (they check, patch, and change your tires)
- Bycicle and bike repair shop
- Car electricians (3)
- Car wash (3)
- Carpenter
- House appliance shop
- Travel agencies
- Accountant
- RV home maker
- Shop to print motifs on shirts/clothes
- Opticians
- Sauna (3) one with a gym, a swimming pool, etc.
- Showers
- Bathroom
- Kitchenware shop
- Barbers (2)
- Bakeries (4)
- Pharmacists (2)
- Dentist (2)
- Pediatrician
- Generalist MD
- Gynaecologist
- Endocrinologist
- Medical analyses lab
- Insurance company
- Printing shop
- Children's clothes shops
- Adults' clothes shops
- Internet café
- Coffee shops
- Grocery shops
- Tailor
- Pastery shop
- Kiosques
- Jeweler
- Electronics shop
- A blacksmith
- A small theme park for kids
- Food joints (pizzerias, burgers, grills, others)
- Protective equipment shop
- Office supplies/Stationery/Chairs/Tables, etc.
- Electric motors repair shop
- Minimarkets (3)
- Gyms
Others:
- Primary school
- Middle school
- Police station
- A football stadium converted to a gymnasium
Bigger:
- Cheese factory
- Yogurt factory
- Other industrial stuff
- Car dealerships
Farther (300m): fresh produce market, pharmacy, and a bunch of other shops.
Farther (10 minutes):
- A green space of about 350 acres
The catch: a lot of them live there. By there I mean they own the house. The shops are on the street level, and they live in the upper levels. Some others live nearby, as in are either the owner's neighbor from a few houses away or 5 minutes down the road. But you can pretty much do a lot without moving.
Downtowns may be abandoned, but the shopping malls aren't (where I live).
Local businesses still can't compete with big box stores.
Local businesses still can't compete with big box stores.
It's like having a convenience store in the lobby of an apartment building. Seems like a great idea, but it takes a huge apartment building, or a city block of modest ones, to support a convenience store. Vending machines, maybe.
We see this with all those "mixed use" buildings going up in Silicon Valley, with retail spaces on the ground floor. It's really hard to fill those retail spaces.
We see this with all those "mixed use" buildings going up in Silicon Valley, with retail spaces on the ground floor. It's really hard to fill those retail spaces.
> We see this with all those "mixed use" buildings going up in Silicon Valley, with retail spaces on the ground floor. It's really hard to fill those retail spaces.
Yeah, I think this is because (1) Silicon Valley's housing shortage far exceeds any retail shortage; (2) such retail is often added just to encourage NIMBY city councils skeptical of new housing to acquiesce as part of a "community benefits" package, not because there's any actual market demand for retail; (3) in places like San Francisco, there are so many bureaucratic roadblocks in the way of retail such as the formula retail restrictions, discretionary review, and hostile neighborhood organizations like Calle 24 that act as gatekeepers to opening, that a lot of potential small business owners just won't bother. In a healthy market, I suspect you'd see these spaces get used more.
Yeah, I think this is because (1) Silicon Valley's housing shortage far exceeds any retail shortage; (2) such retail is often added just to encourage NIMBY city councils skeptical of new housing to acquiesce as part of a "community benefits" package, not because there's any actual market demand for retail; (3) in places like San Francisco, there are so many bureaucratic roadblocks in the way of retail such as the formula retail restrictions, discretionary review, and hostile neighborhood organizations like Calle 24 that act as gatekeepers to opening, that a lot of potential small business owners just won't bother. In a healthy market, I suspect you'd see these spaces get used more.
The problem is that all of those places are planned. I get major 'Soviet Central Planning' vibes from the USA when it comes to zoning and planning out cities. Of course the people making the decisions on planning have no idea what will work. They only know what will work in the most rudimentary, scaled up, sense. Small shops need to be allowed everywhere, rules about minimum parking, lot sizes, use, etc need to be relaxed to allow those things to even be possible.
Suburbs are literally rooted in racism.
That sounds hyperbolic, but the first suburb in post-war US was a planned whites-only community to escape the city. (Levittown)
---
With that said, yes, the US purposefully planned blocks of cities to be dedicated to one purpose. This promotes car culture which, surprise surprise, car and oil companies were big into lobbying to shut down mixed use and public transit, and continue to be.
Mixed use areas are typically either big cities, have pre-war origins where it has basically always been mixed use or typically both.
That sounds hyperbolic, but the first suburb in post-war US was a planned whites-only community to escape the city. (Levittown)
---
With that said, yes, the US purposefully planned blocks of cities to be dedicated to one purpose. This promotes car culture which, surprise surprise, car and oil companies were big into lobbying to shut down mixed use and public transit, and continue to be.
Mixed use areas are typically either big cities, have pre-war origins where it has basically always been mixed use or typically both.
The mixed use buildings you're referring to are approaching from the wrong direction. They're 1960s style office parks - sometimes a modern reinvention of them, sometimes literally a redevelopment on the same land - and you can't get a meaningful mixed use space in an area where everyone drives in at 9 and drives out at 5.
Cities virtually everywhere in East Asia have convenience stores on almost every corner. They manage pretty well.
Well of course, who can afford the rent? It's not like a little four-employee computer repair shop can show up and fill the space.
Even if the rent was subsidized or more likely rent-controlled -- you still have to pay those four employees enough to live in commute range. That forces the margins you have to charge for computer repairs to shot up to a level that would make the Geek Squad blush.
Good idea, I like mixed zoning and supporting small local businesses rather than behemoths like Walmart.
good idea but we can do ever better than that by build co-ops in residential neighborhoods
what we need are goods and services where people are, but that doesn't necessarily mean provided by businesses when they could be provided to and by the people who are already there
what we need are goods and services where people are, but that doesn't necessarily mean provided by businesses when they could be provided to and by the people who are already there
Isn’t work from home basically putting business back into neighborhoods?
:: insert ancient aliens meme with 'americans' overlay ::
In Seattle this is prevalent, part of the charm.
Fellow Seattlite here. Seeing folks in this thread talking about grocery stores being 40+ minute walks away from grocery stores is making me sweat. I like the idea of moving somewhere cheaper, but I refuse the idea of being forced to drive everywhere.
Only in parts of it. There's a lot of the city that is just not suited to a walking lifestyle.
My wife and I got electric bikes about 8 weeks ago and they have been great for running errands in lieu of single-occupancy car trips. We live near the Interurban Trail/Aurora and the e-bikes enable much easier access to a variety of stores, restaurants, and parks, which are not easily walkable. We now appreciate the nearby bike lanes and quiet streets for making longer trips to bigger parks or neighboring downtowns like Edmonds. We recently had wanted to return to Capitol Hill to enjoy a more walkable neighborhood, but so far bikeabilty has been an excellent substitute. Plus, in four years there will be a light rail station near us to offer yet another alternative to car trips. We feel lucky to have these options in our "suburban" location.
love it. economic localization.
This would be an amazing solution to implement and would benefit so many who were hurt during this over reach over government into business and private lives.
Better yet, outlaw a business like amazon and create an instant market for tens of thousands of small local businesses.
Seems like an invitation for loitering among other nuisances. A great idea for some places, but I feel there are many who prefer their neighborhoods truly remain residential.
- Less reliance on cars, which results in less parking, which results in less traffic... it becomes self-perpetuating.
- Better walkability
- Knowing your corner store clerk or at least having a rapport with them
- Healthier citizens, due to them walking everywhere (Go to NYC and see how few overweight people you see... not many unless they're tourists. I gained like 10lbs after I moved out of NYC, you get exercise constantly in that city)
- Happier citizens, due to them walking everywhere, things are nearby, their life is more integrated...
etc etc.
I think basically all spaces should be residential / light business mixed. This idea of sprawling suburbs with light business being 10 - 30 minutes away is horrifying and bad for everyone health-wise, time-wise and economically.
---
Where I live, the city doesn't really hesitate to shut down sections of roads for festivals, farmer's markets, whatever.
Currently we have a bunch of one ways because all of the restaurants took over half the road for outdoor dining... and honestly, it's pretty nice. The traffic is slightly more congested, but meh... don't drive through the center of the city as a transit option, go around.