4 ms·
I can empathize a bit with the feeling of loss surrounding changes in ones culture. I grew up in the Hamptons (Southampton to be precise). When I was a kid near
by dopamean 10y ago
I can empathize a bit with the feeling of loss surrounding changes in ones culture. I grew up in the Hamptons (Southampton to be precise). When I was a kid nearly every store on the two main streets in town (Main Street and Jobs Lane) were owned by local people. The ice cream shop was (and AFAIK still is) owned by the parents of a kid in my first grade class, the clothing boutiques were owned by friends of my family, my favorite restaurant was owned by the father of a kid in my Boy Scout troupe. It was all familiar. It was all local.
The town has rules in place limiting the ability of franchises to expand and so we never got a Starbucks on either of those roads though there is one on Highway 27 near a McDonalds and Burger King, rather close to the village. One thing that did change though was the money. There seems to be a lot more of it there now than when I was a kid and as a result there are about half a dozen Ralph Lauren stores between Southampton, Bridgehampton, and East Hampton. There used to be just one. The influx of the larger brands has made Main Street and Jobs lane feel somewhat soulless. The situation in East Hampton is even worse.
I'm not really sure what I'm trying to say here. Commerce happens and it has pros and cons. One of the cons is that it jacks up rents and makes it hard for local businesses to stay put. Only the well monied corporations can afford a storefront on Main Street these days and it kind of sucks. I'd be willing to bet that of the local businesses that still exist there all of them own the buildings that they are located in.
- m1sta_ 10y agoYou can blame the consumers who still flock to the chain stores. You can blame the landlords for choosing money over culture. You can't really blame the chain stores in this instance, they're just meeting demand.
- DanAndersen 10y ago"Blame" is such a distracting word in all of this. It leads to this weird punching back and forth between which group can be looked at as unfortunate victims of social forces and influences or economics or "just trying their best to maximize shareholder value", and which groups are consciously "at fault." We somehow need to develop a language where we can talk about priorities that also include the unquantifiable, the fuzzy, and the hard-to-articulate. If all that enters the political calculus is purchasing power for consumers (and people only being consumers), and companies only being about making money without also being about building and maintaining communities and cultures, then society turns into a paperclip-maximizing GDP-chasing hideous machine where we end up losing things that we valued yet did not realize we valued.
- dopamean 10y agoI wasn't really trying to "blame" anyone.