this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2024
1367 points (96.5% liked)
Greentext
4482 readers
2309 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I would if I could. But I can't beat Walmart prices an hour away on Transit.
That's why you don't see 15 minute cities anymore. Capitalism already figured out that a few large stores allow you to hire more efficient numbers of employees, buy more for less, stock better variety, pass along some of the savings to customers and still make more profit than building lots and lots of repeated commercial infrastructure throughout residential areas. A return to that model would require more employees in low paying service jobs, and would sacrifice lower prices and better variety. Ironically, it would be far faster to use a car to skip from store to store to look for the best deals and the specific brands you want. I suppose we could also get rid of capitalism at the same time, but I'm not holding my breath. As much as I like the idea of walkable infrastructure, it comes at a cost that I am not sure many would be willing to pay.
It's very weird that it works all over Europe, but for some reason it's too expansive for America. It's almost like it's not an inevitable course of actions really actually.
Might have a wee something to do with the cost and availability of large parcels of land in and around cities in Europe versus North America. If Walmart thought this was a cost-effective approach, they'd be doing it, else they would likely be sued by their shareholders. To be clear, I am not making a value judgement on whether this should be the case.
Yeah, it is indeed a good approach for Walmart. They get to crush the competition due to their size and the economy of scale, be effectively a monopoly, and convince everyone that it's not only logical and inevitable, and the result of something normal, but good actually.
The question is, is it good for people who aren't Walmart shareholders?
If transit gets dense enough then isn't it walkable in an indirect manner?
I suppose, but then it isn't really any different than what we have now in the best of our cities worldwide. Unfortunately, it seems very few cities actually have the resources and the political capital to make that work.
Yeah. But until we deal with the affordability problem walkable cities aren't going to be a thing because it will be too expensive.
It's the other way around. Cities in US are expensive now because there is not a lot of those compared to the amount of people who would like to live in them. If you allow builders to build more walkable cities they will become more affordable. And the scale is only part of it, the fact that city brings revenue to the government and suburbia isn't is a big part too.
I agree that we need to keep going on walkable cities. I just don't think we're going to see the investment in small business we need until we properly regulate corporations.