3 ms·

But wasn't this because first people decided they wanted to purchase larger amounts of goods per trip, so they needed a car to transport that? In Europe's old c

But wasn't this because first people decided they wanted to purchase larger amounts of goods per trip, so they needed a car to transport that? In Europe's old cities, people often go shopping every day even if they're single. It's annoying to me, as the infrastructure is mostly built for lugging around as much as you can carry home on your feet and even all the packaged foods come in very small sizes (2 servings). US stores, like malls, seem much more convenient for families. What I don't understand is the number of restaurants built in a similar way, i.e. far away from residential areas and with huge parking lots. But I guess that's more family-friendly as well, especially with 2 or more kids.

wool_gather 8y ago
> What I don't understand is the number of restaurants built [...] far away from residential areas This is probably zoning; in many non-urban places mixed zoning is considered to lower the quality of residential living. So you end up with subdivision mazes without so much as a convenience store in walking range. > wasn't this because first people decided they wanted to purchase larger amounts of goods per trip My impression is that it's the other way around: because trips take so long, you maximize the amount you fetch on each.
UncleEntity 8y ago
> What I don't understand is the number of restaurants built in a similar way, i.e. far away from residential areas and with huge parking lots. Ironically, where I live (one of the oldest neighborhoods in Phoenix), they're taking the exact opposite approach -- building restaurants with absolutely zero consideration for parking and it's having a negative impact. They had to put up "resident only parking with permit" signs on my street because it got so bad. The apartments across the street went so far as to designate parking spots on the street -- totally illegal but it seems to work. The ones next door to them leave their trashcans out 24/7 for the same effect.
- wool_gather 8y ago
  Out of curiosity, do you have a sense for whether the restaurant's patrons are driving from other parts of the city, or from the suburbs?
  - UncleEntity 8y ago
    My guess is most of them work downtown and stop in the restaurant/bar to wait out traffic before driving home. And all the employees seem to drive to work. Plus the multitude of (baseball, basketball, arts & entertainment, convention center) venues around. At first I just considered the parking hassles a "free-wifi tax" but then they added a second popular sandwich shop/bar next door and it just snowballed from there. Oh, and I lost the free-wifi benefit so now it's all just pure hassle.
- CalRobert 8y ago
  Are you unable to pay a business for a place to store your car? What's the problem, exactly?
- stefan_ 8y ago
  You're enraged because other people park on the same public land you and your neighbors do? Do you own it? I'm sure if you want to pay market rate for that land you can get your very own parking spot.
  - UncleEntity 8y ago
    Enraged? no... Observant? perhaps... I believe this is what people like to call "the tragedy of the commons." There's only like two other neighborhoods in all of Phoenix where there's a residents only parking restriction codified into law so apparently the bureaucrats also think maybe there's an overgrazing problem. > I'm sure if you want to pay market rate for that land you can get your very own parking spot. Or I could just pay my landlord and get my very own parking spot?
    - CalRobert 8y ago
      I think myself and the flagged comment (which was pretty reasonable, really) were trying to point out the oddity in thinking it's a problem that you can't use taxpayer land (so funds) for your private car storage. You can buy land where you can put your car, or if there's a shortage an entropreneur can do so and start a lot, but it's not a "problem" that nonresidents are parking there unless you feel a special right to what is a public asset. If there's a shortage of places for people to sleep we don't demand free houses (well, the US doesn't) but once your car has nowhere to sleep that's somehow the taxpayer's problem?
      - UncleEntity 8y ago
        You know, I totally agree. I think everyone missed that the whole point was to provide a counter-example to "far-away restaurants with large parking lots" by describing my personal experiences with the exact opposite. Just because someone thought it was a big enough problem to get the city involved doesn't mean that I personally felt the same way, I simply quit giving them my money and called it a day. Well, also got rid of my truck (that I didn't drive for six years) so I had somewhere to park the work car that wasn't on the street because I didn't want to go get a resident parking permit -- problem solved without involving taxpayer funds...
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> people decided they wanted to purchase larger amounts of goods per trip, so they needed a car to transport that The distance is related to the shopping habit. It’s neat watching people move to New York. At first, they continue their big, irregular shopping trips. Slowly, though, they switch to quick daily or every-other-day trips (+ delivery), and walkig to a store around the corner.

wool_gather 8y ago

> What I don't understand is the number of restaurants built [...] far away from residential areas This is probably zoning; in many non-urban places mixed zoning is considered to lower the quality of residential living. So you end up with subdivision mazes without so much as a convenience store in walking range. > wasn't this because first people decided they wanted to purchase larger amounts of goods per trip My impression is that it's the other way around: because trips take so long, you maximize the amount you fetch on each.

UncleEntity 8y ago

> What I don't understand is the number of restaurants built in a similar way, i.e. far away from residential areas and with huge parking lots. Ironically, where I live (one of the oldest neighborhoods in Phoenix), they're taking the exact opposite approach -- building restaurants with absolutely zero consideration for parking and it's having a negative impact. They had to put up "resident only parking with permit" signs on my street because it got so bad. The apartments across the street went so far as to designate parking spots on the street -- totally illegal but it seems to work. The ones next door to them leave their trashcans out 24/7 for the same effect.

wool_gather 8y ago
Out of curiosity, do you have a sense for whether the restaurant's patrons are driving from other parts of the city, or from the suburbs?
- UncleEntity 8y ago
  My guess is most of them work downtown and stop in the restaurant/bar to wait out traffic before driving home. And all the employees seem to drive to work. Plus the multitude of (baseball, basketball, arts & entertainment, convention center) venues around. At first I just considered the parking hassles a "free-wifi tax" but then they added a second popular sandwich shop/bar next door and it just snowballed from there. Oh, and I lost the free-wifi benefit so now it's all just pure hassle.
CalRobert 8y ago
Are you unable to pay a business for a place to store your car? What's the problem, exactly?
stefan_ 8y ago
You're enraged because other people park on the same public land you and your neighbors do? Do you own it? I'm sure if you want to pay market rate for that land you can get your very own parking spot.
- UncleEntity 8y ago
  Enraged? no... Observant? perhaps... I believe this is what people like to call "the tragedy of the commons." There's only like two other neighborhoods in all of Phoenix where there's a residents only parking restriction codified into law so apparently the bureaucrats also think maybe there's an overgrazing problem. > I'm sure if you want to pay market rate for that land you can get your very own parking spot. Or I could just pay my landlord and get my very own parking spot?
  - CalRobert 8y ago
    I think myself and the flagged comment (which was pretty reasonable, really) were trying to point out the oddity in thinking it's a problem that you can't use taxpayer land (so funds) for your private car storage. You can buy land where you can put your car, or if there's a shortage an entropreneur can do so and start a lot, but it's not a "problem" that nonresidents are parking there unless you feel a special right to what is a public asset. If there's a shortage of places for people to sleep we don't demand free houses (well, the US doesn't) but once your car has nowhere to sleep that's somehow the taxpayer's problem?
    - UncleEntity 8y ago
      You know, I totally agree. I think everyone missed that the whole point was to provide a counter-example to "far-away restaurants with large parking lots" by describing my personal experiences with the exact opposite. Just because someone thought it was a big enough problem to get the city involved doesn't mean that I personally felt the same way, I simply quit giving them my money and called it a day. Well, also got rid of my truck (that I didn't drive for six years) so I had somewhere to park the work car that wasn't on the street because I didn't want to go get a resident parking permit -- problem solved without involving taxpayer funds...

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> people decided they wanted to purchase larger amounts of goods per trip, so they needed a car to transport that The distance is related to the shopping habit. It’s neat watching people move to New York. At first, they continue their big, irregular shopping trips. Slowly, though, they switch to quick daily or every-other-day trips (+ delivery), and walkig to a store around the corner.