4 ms·

It feels like entirely the wrong trade-off to me to make retail much cheaper and significantly increase it when housing is already so painfully expensive in the

It feels like entirely the wrong trade-off to me to make retail much cheaper and significantly increase it when housing is already so painfully expensive in the kinds of places where you could consider doing that. It's obviously a much harder transition physically, but I think the right thing is to turn much of this commercial space into residential.

redwall_hp 3y ago
There's no reason it can't be a mix of both, even in the same buildings. The single-purpose zoning in the US is a curse, and the lack of that is one of the elements that make a city like Tokyo so walkable. Sure, you can take a train to a shopping oriented area, but day to day you might have essentials close by. Even antipatterns like delivery for everything are less appealing if you can just walk a little bit down the street and pick up groceries or whatever.
- potatolicious 3y ago
  Exactly this. For many reasons that are already well-trod, some commercial buildings are effectively unconvertible to residential. This is a potentially good adaptation for those buildings. In fact the specific properties that make them unsuitable for residential conversion (deep floorplates with low access to sunlight) are non-issues for many types of retail.
kevinmchugh 3y ago
The two go together, of course. In places where rent is cheap, more kinds of businesses are viable, because surviving is easier. Also I suspect a lot of places have really loose ideas about zoning, so a person might live in the back or above their store. Don't see much of that in the US.
- munificent 3y ago
  > In places where rent is cheap, more kinds of businesses are viable, because surviving is easier. Rent goes down, but so does income when there are fewer people nearby to visit the business. It's not clear to me which factor dominates. My impression is that often the lack of customers is the main factor: small towns rarely have lots of quirky niche stores unless they happen to be a satellite to a larger metro area. I suspect specifics of zoning laws or other factors (demographics of nearby metro areas, taxes, etc.) end up determining which effect matters more. > Don't see much of that in the US. I think that depends a lot on where you are. I see a ton of 5-over-1s here in Seattle [1] and those often have retail on the bottom floor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-over-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-over-1
  - kevinmchugh 3y ago
    Yeah, if you want quirky stores you need density and low rent. I think this happens in lots of urban Asia as talked about above, if I understand correctly? What I'm thinking of fellas pretty different from 5 over 1s. Three retail on a 5 over 1 is like, a chipotle or a Starbucks. In Mexico and Ecuador I've seen a little restaurant or convenience store where the owner lives upstairs, opens when she wants, closes when she wants, may or may not employee anyone. Or I've got a friend here in Chicago whose apartment used to have an extra wall separating the front room from the rest of the floor. It had been a doctor's offic in front and residence in back, a hundred years ago. That's illegal these days.

redwall_hp 3y ago

There's no reason it can't be a mix of both, even in the same buildings. The single-purpose zoning in the US is a curse, and the lack of that is one of the elements that make a city like Tokyo so walkable. Sure, you can take a train to a shopping oriented area, but day to day you might have essentials close by. Even antipatterns like delivery for everything are less appealing if you can just walk a little bit down the street and pick up groceries or whatever.

potatolicious 3y ago
Exactly this. For many reasons that are already well-trod, some commercial buildings are effectively unconvertible to residential. This is a potentially good adaptation for those buildings. In fact the specific properties that make them unsuitable for residential conversion (deep floorplates with low access to sunlight) are non-issues for many types of retail.

kevinmchugh 3y ago

The two go together, of course. In places where rent is cheap, more kinds of businesses are viable, because surviving is easier. Also I suspect a lot of places have really loose ideas about zoning, so a person might live in the back or above their store. Don't see much of that in the US.

munificent 3y ago
> In places where rent is cheap, more kinds of businesses are viable, because surviving is easier. Rent goes down, but so does income when there are fewer people nearby to visit the business. It's not clear to me which factor dominates. My impression is that often the lack of customers is the main factor: small towns rarely have lots of quirky niche stores unless they happen to be a satellite to a larger metro area. I suspect specifics of zoning laws or other factors (demographics of nearby metro areas, taxes, etc.) end up determining which effect matters more. > Don't see much of that in the US. I think that depends a lot on where you are. I see a ton of 5-over-1s here in Seattle [1] and those often have retail on the bottom floor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-over-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-over-1
- kevinmchugh 3y ago
  Yeah, if you want quirky stores you need density and low rent. I think this happens in lots of urban Asia as talked about above, if I understand correctly? What I'm thinking of fellas pretty different from 5 over 1s. Three retail on a 5 over 1 is like, a chipotle or a Starbucks. In Mexico and Ecuador I've seen a little restaurant or convenience store where the owner lives upstairs, opens when she wants, closes when she wants, may or may not employee anyone. Or I've got a friend here in Chicago whose apartment used to have an extra wall separating the front room from the rest of the floor. It had been a doctor's offic in front and residence in back, a hundred years ago. That's illegal these days.