5 ms·

>> ...despite living walking distance to 3 grocery stores, I still typically drive a mile away to a larger store because... A mobile consumer base, people with

>> ...despite living walking distance to 3 grocery stores, I still typically drive a mile away to a larger store because... A mobile consumer base, people with cars that can travel to potentially hundreds of retail options, is a backbone of American competition. Like cars or not, they empower consumers to defeat local monopolies. The next stage, pickup trucks, then empowers retailers to sell large products (appliances) to an enormous consumer base from a central location without dealing with transport companies and/or teamsters for local delivery.

Zagill 4y ago
Nothing about cars specifically enables this. Building cities so that you have to drive to travel any significant distance, however, guarantees that you need a car to take advantage of competitive pricing. But that's self-apparent... Building dense cities that can be accessed by bike and on foot would have the same effect. Spreading out your city so that what could be a 15 minute walk is now a 15 minute drive isn't an improvement.
- com2kid 4y ago
  > Building dense cities that can be accessed by bike and on foot would have the same effect. I love density, but, in my experience this is not true. London doesn't have a large competitive market of grocery stores. Neither does Boston or New York City. Density means higher real estate prices, that means grocery store sizes go down, and the barrier to entry goes up. Yes you can get more small specialty shops (which is great!) but I've had times where I've had to go to 3 different large supermarkets to find some oddball item I needed, and density would make that even harder on me since stores would have a smaller variety of stock. Of course the 2 largest grocery store chains in America are trying to merge, so very soon American cities won't have much competition either. I'm not saying density isn't good, it is, and it makes lots of shopping easier, but certain types of (uniquely) American retail experiences fall apart when cities become more dense. Heck Seattle already is dense enough that there is only 1 Costco within the city limits, the density of Costco's in the suburbs surrounding Seattle is actually quite high! Prior to living in the city proper, I was a 15 minute drive from two Costcos! Now I am a 30 minute drive from one Costco. Since I don't have the time to go that far on a frequent basis for groceries, I am paying more for food living in a city that has more grocery stores around me, than I was when I lived in the suburbs.
  - sandworm101 4y ago
    The Costco's are a result of bulk buying, which relies on motorized transport and easy at-home refrigeration, both very American things. The more European tradition of buying food multiple times per week is odd in America outside of a few downtown cores.
  - fineIllregister 4y ago
    That doesn't match my experience in Boston. Multiple neighborhoods I lived in had walking access to Stop & Shop, Star Market, Trader Joe's, Whole Foods, Target, bfresh, cheap overstock/clearance stores, a farmers market, and other independent grocers, many catering to nationalities/ethnicities with large subcommunities in the area. Just a train or bus ride away I could go to Market Basket, Roche Brothers, Wegmans, a worker owned-co-op, and more farmers markets and independent grocers. Costco was a longer train ride away, but accessible if you wanted something specifically from there. Delivery is more economical because of the shorter distances involved. You can see this yourself by doing a map search. In rural areas I've lived, one is common, sometimes zero within a fifteen minute drive. Suburban areas might have two or three regional supermarkets, plus Walmart, Target, Costco and/or Sam's, but always way fewer within the area covered by the same travel time.
    - com2kid 4y ago
      May depend on the part of Boston, my wife used to live there and her area didn't have much, she was either walking a mile or taking the train to a different area. Different parts of Boston is incredibly varied though, I shouldn't have made a general statement.
      - fineIllregister 4y ago
        The only area where that isn't true is basically West Roxbury, which is the most car-oriented area of Boston.
  - Symbiote 4y ago
    Huh? London has Tesco, Sainsbury's, Waitrose, Morrisons, Aldi, Lidl, Asda, Co-op Food, Iceland and Marks & Spencer Food. Here's a map of all of them: https://maps.walkingclub.org.uk/shops/ https://maps.walkingclub.org.uk/shops/ Alternative map: https://www.toptiplondon.com/food-drink/london-supermarkets-map https://www.toptiplondon.com/food-drink/london-supermarkets-...
- sandworm101 4y ago
  But where is the calculation for all the effort to distribute food to all those tiny shops? It is comes in via truck/van often at night. Central large stores, with customers buying in bulk, means fewer trips. The total carbon/energy in the system isn't as simple as saying "walking is better". It may be that a monthly trip to fill a pickup with food is more green than thirty daily trips to the corner shop by foot. Environmental concerns and modern lifestyle trends don't always line up nicely. I Costco baker told me once that they used less preservative in bread than small bakers. Costco has such a high turnover that they don't need bread that can survive a whole day on the shelf. Same too with their vegetables that spend far less time in transit than they would getting to a tiny farmers market.
  - Zagill 4y ago
    100s of people driving individual cars to get to a grocery store is absolutely less efficient than a couple dozen box trucks delivering food to smaller localized stores. Not to mention, we can electrify those delivery trucks and negate a lot of the carbon emissions. Even if you electrify all of those cars you still have the massive environmental impact of building and maintaining the roads and parking lots they have to use. Individualized auto transit is a blight. "Modern lifestyle trends" not lining up with environmental concerns is usually more of an issue of modern lifestyle trends being unsustainable.
  - vineyardmike 4y ago
    > It may be that a monthly trip to fill a pickup with food is more green than thirty daily trips to the corner shop by foot Not if that family uses that same truck for commuting every day or for trips to the pharmacy or movie theater or whatever.
dullcrisp 4y ago
I look forward to the day when we all drive semi trucks to work so that we can journey cross country to stock up on goods and not have to deal with the corrupt long-haul trucking industry.
- WeylandYutani 4y ago
  I have a weakness for fresh food so stocking up once a month doesn't appeal to me.
  - sandworm101 4y ago
    Depends on definition of fresh. I like fresh bread and so make it at home. One can definitely bulk-buy ingredients for fresh bread.
  - dullcrisp 4y ago
    Your food will be flash frozen to preserve taste and nutrition!
ryukafalz 4y ago
Reminder that it only takes about 6 minutes to bike a mile, or 8 if you go at a leisurely Dutch pace. You don't need cars to go far enough to have quite a few options, you just need the infrastructure to let you do so.
- sandworm101 4y ago
  Lol. Maybe is Seattle or SF. Biking in unplowed snow/ice is far slower, when it is even possible.
  - ryukafalz 4y ago
    Unplowed? Sure, but cities should be plowing. Driving on unplowed snow/ice is also far slower. :)
    - sandworm101 4y ago
      The city doesn't plow the sidewalks and bike trails, at least not until the roads are passable. First priority is emergency services and highway connections to the outside world, not shovelling out bike trails through the woods. Even then, we drive on compact snow for 1/3 the year.
      - ryukafalz 4y ago
        Then this goes back to what I said initially: > you just need the infrastructure to let you do so Yes, if your city treats cycling as an afterthought, it will be less practical to cycle. If your city treated driving as an afterthought, it would be less practical to drive. You get what you build for and what you prioritize. > Even then, we drive on compact snow for 1/3 the year. Oulu has snow for half of the year and still has a substantial cycling mode share, because they prioritize it: https://youtu.be/s3Sx_OH_wok https://youtu.be/s3Sx_OH_wok
        sandworm101 4y ago
        Lots of alternative transport things are possible in cities with 10x the population and 4x the urban density. And little farming/agra business. In a country one can drive across in a day. There is no comparison to the middle parts of North America.
WeylandYutani 4y ago
I can choose between 5 supermarkets in a walking distance. And they are all busy. America is just not denselly populated enough to really make it worth your while to build a supermarket ever 3 miles. Too much empty space so people refuse to live efficiently.
vineyardmike 4y ago
> The next stage, pickup trucks, then empowers retailers to sell large products (appliances) Most people buy appliance at most once a decade. There’s a reason the bed of trucks have shrunk while cabs have grow over the years: most people don’t need trucks. The harm pickup trucks cause society has to be worse than this empowerment. Pickups are way more dangerous in an accident, way more likely to get in an accident, and require way more fuel to power. You’d have to empower a lot of appliance sales before this can even come close to balancing out.

Zagill 4y ago

Nothing about cars specifically enables this. Building cities so that you have to drive to travel any significant distance, however, guarantees that you need a car to take advantage of competitive pricing. But that's self-apparent... Building dense cities that can be accessed by bike and on foot would have the same effect. Spreading out your city so that what could be a 15 minute walk is now a 15 minute drive isn't an improvement.

com2kid 4y ago
> Building dense cities that can be accessed by bike and on foot would have the same effect. I love density, but, in my experience this is not true. London doesn't have a large competitive market of grocery stores. Neither does Boston or New York City. Density means higher real estate prices, that means grocery store sizes go down, and the barrier to entry goes up. Yes you can get more small specialty shops (which is great!) but I've had times where I've had to go to 3 different large supermarkets to find some oddball item I needed, and density would make that even harder on me since stores would have a smaller variety of stock. Of course the 2 largest grocery store chains in America are trying to merge, so very soon American cities won't have much competition either. I'm not saying density isn't good, it is, and it makes lots of shopping easier, but certain types of (uniquely) American retail experiences fall apart when cities become more dense. Heck Seattle already is dense enough that there is only 1 Costco within the city limits, the density of Costco's in the suburbs surrounding Seattle is actually quite high! Prior to living in the city proper, I was a 15 minute drive from two Costcos! Now I am a 30 minute drive from one Costco. Since I don't have the time to go that far on a frequent basis for groceries, I am paying more for food living in a city that has more grocery stores around me, than I was when I lived in the suburbs.
- sandworm101 4y ago
  The Costco's are a result of bulk buying, which relies on motorized transport and easy at-home refrigeration, both very American things. The more European tradition of buying food multiple times per week is odd in America outside of a few downtown cores.
- fineIllregister 4y ago
  That doesn't match my experience in Boston. Multiple neighborhoods I lived in had walking access to Stop & Shop, Star Market, Trader Joe's, Whole Foods, Target, bfresh, cheap overstock/clearance stores, a farmers market, and other independent grocers, many catering to nationalities/ethnicities with large subcommunities in the area. Just a train or bus ride away I could go to Market Basket, Roche Brothers, Wegmans, a worker owned-co-op, and more farmers markets and independent grocers. Costco was a longer train ride away, but accessible if you wanted something specifically from there. Delivery is more economical because of the shorter distances involved. You can see this yourself by doing a map search. In rural areas I've lived, one is common, sometimes zero within a fifteen minute drive. Suburban areas might have two or three regional supermarkets, plus Walmart, Target, Costco and/or Sam's, but always way fewer within the area covered by the same travel time.
  - com2kid 4y ago
    May depend on the part of Boston, my wife used to live there and her area didn't have much, she was either walking a mile or taking the train to a different area. Different parts of Boston is incredibly varied though, I shouldn't have made a general statement.
    - fineIllregister 4y ago
      The only area where that isn't true is basically West Roxbury, which is the most car-oriented area of Boston.
- Symbiote 4y ago
  Huh? London has Tesco, Sainsbury's, Waitrose, Morrisons, Aldi, Lidl, Asda, Co-op Food, Iceland and Marks & Spencer Food. Here's a map of all of them: https://maps.walkingclub.org.uk/shops/ https://maps.walkingclub.org.uk/shops/ Alternative map: https://www.toptiplondon.com/food-drink/london-supermarkets-map https://www.toptiplondon.com/food-drink/london-supermarkets-...
sandworm101 4y ago
But where is the calculation for all the effort to distribute food to all those tiny shops? It is comes in via truck/van often at night. Central large stores, with customers buying in bulk, means fewer trips. The total carbon/energy in the system isn't as simple as saying "walking is better". It may be that a monthly trip to fill a pickup with food is more green than thirty daily trips to the corner shop by foot. Environmental concerns and modern lifestyle trends don't always line up nicely. I Costco baker told me once that they used less preservative in bread than small bakers. Costco has such a high turnover that they don't need bread that can survive a whole day on the shelf. Same too with their vegetables that spend far less time in transit than they would getting to a tiny farmers market.
- Zagill 4y ago
  100s of people driving individual cars to get to a grocery store is absolutely less efficient than a couple dozen box trucks delivering food to smaller localized stores. Not to mention, we can electrify those delivery trucks and negate a lot of the carbon emissions. Even if you electrify all of those cars you still have the massive environmental impact of building and maintaining the roads and parking lots they have to use. Individualized auto transit is a blight. "Modern lifestyle trends" not lining up with environmental concerns is usually more of an issue of modern lifestyle trends being unsustainable.
- vineyardmike 4y ago
  > It may be that a monthly trip to fill a pickup with food is more green than thirty daily trips to the corner shop by foot Not if that family uses that same truck for commuting every day or for trips to the pharmacy or movie theater or whatever.

dullcrisp 4y ago

I look forward to the day when we all drive semi trucks to work so that we can journey cross country to stock up on goods and not have to deal with the corrupt long-haul trucking industry.

WeylandYutani 4y ago
I have a weakness for fresh food so stocking up once a month doesn't appeal to me.
- sandworm101 4y ago
  Depends on definition of fresh. I like fresh bread and so make it at home. One can definitely bulk-buy ingredients for fresh bread.
- dullcrisp 4y ago
  Your food will be flash frozen to preserve taste and nutrition!

ryukafalz 4y ago

Reminder that it only takes about 6 minutes to bike a mile, or 8 if you go at a leisurely Dutch pace. You don't need cars to go far enough to have quite a few options, you just need the infrastructure to let you do so.

sandworm101 4y ago
Lol. Maybe is Seattle or SF. Biking in unplowed snow/ice is far slower, when it is even possible.
- ryukafalz 4y ago
  Unplowed? Sure, but cities should be plowing. Driving on unplowed snow/ice is also far slower. :)
  - sandworm101 4y ago
    The city doesn't plow the sidewalks and bike trails, at least not until the roads are passable. First priority is emergency services and highway connections to the outside world, not shovelling out bike trails through the woods. Even then, we drive on compact snow for 1/3 the year.
    - ryukafalz 4y ago
      Then this goes back to what I said initially: > you just need the infrastructure to let you do so Yes, if your city treats cycling as an afterthought, it will be less practical to cycle. If your city treated driving as an afterthought, it would be less practical to drive. You get what you build for and what you prioritize. > Even then, we drive on compact snow for 1/3 the year. Oulu has snow for half of the year and still has a substantial cycling mode share, because they prioritize it: https://youtu.be/s3Sx_OH_wok https://youtu.be/s3Sx_OH_wok
      - sandworm101 4y ago
        Lots of alternative transport things are possible in cities with 10x the population and 4x the urban density. And little farming/agra business. In a country one can drive across in a day. There is no comparison to the middle parts of North America.

WeylandYutani 4y ago

I can choose between 5 supermarkets in a walking distance. And they are all busy. America is just not denselly populated enough to really make it worth your while to build a supermarket ever 3 miles. Too much empty space so people refuse to live efficiently.

vineyardmike 4y ago

> The next stage, pickup trucks, then empowers retailers to sell large products (appliances) Most people buy appliance at most once a decade. There’s a reason the bed of trucks have shrunk while cabs have grow over the years: most people don’t need trucks. The harm pickup trucks cause society has to be worse than this empowerment. Pickups are way more dangerous in an accident, way more likely to get in an accident, and require way more fuel to power. You’d have to empower a lot of appliance sales before this can even come close to balancing out.