I was reading this article this morning, and it got me to thinking ...
Like many people, I've always been attracted to 'eclectic','small scale', 'walkable' neighborhoods. We hear those buzzwords ad nauseam in project proposals, etc. To some degree, I think this is because of an inherent psychological need for familiarity. That is, it's easy to wrap your head around the idea of an owner/operator business, anyone who's frequented a small business will undoubtedly tell you it's a much more personal transaction. Communities that actually are considered 'vibrant' typically share some form of these personal interactions.
Less discussed is the economic context that brought these places into existence in the first place. In an era of globalization, it has become increasingly difficult for these types of businesses to compete, particularly as economic forces rapidly change the demographics of neighborhoods. Given that real-estate development is a for-profit venture, and model of constant growth dictates projects must become larger and larger in scale, how do you avoid pricing out the little guy?
These two principles almost seem diametrically opposed. How can you expect to build small scale commerce (which leads to the aforementioned social cohesion, guitar circles, etc.) when macro economics dictate larger, less personal types of development?
This isn't necessarily a new or profound topic, there's tons of reading on this subject, but I'm curious as to what the community's may thoughts may be.
I don't think that macro economics is dictating larger, less personal types of development nor has it priced out the little guy.
What I think has happened is:
1. The economy is global - even small business need to adapt to that or die.
2. Small scale developments only work if you have an established neighborhood surrounding it. With the evolution of the suburbs and it's segregation of residential and business uses large scale retail has become dominant.
3. For small scale retail development to succeed we need to propose suburb developments as communities with mixed use. For that to happen a lot has to change in terms of zoning, planning, density, housing types, and of course cost of construction.
Adapt or die: True, but couldn't the fact that small businesses are dying out be a symptom of a larger problem? Individual 'mom and pop' businesses can't compete on a the global scale, doesn't this model inevitably concentrate capital and lead to the social degradation described?
Agree that quite a bit would need to change (in terms on public policy, etc.) for that to happen. Which, given my experience of what that looks like (especially here in CA), it is long and difficult process that requires A LOT of political will power.
Good news is that I do think political sentiment is beginning to shift, but I'm not sure what you do about entrenched, self-reinforcing policies that favor that type of development.
Back in the day one shopped at small specialty shops - bakery, butcher, vegetable market - that were locally supplied. A cobbler repaired your shoes, the local gas station provided basic maintenance services, and so on.
So called 'economies of scale' do not benefit sustainable communities, they enslave them to corporate interests that can be defined by a single word: profit.
Big box stores kill mom and pops with 'economies of scale' that destroy communites. A few benefit at the expense of many because people are conditioned to believe that it is better to save $.50 on a purchase than it is to keep your neighbors employed and your community alive. I know people who will drive 45 minutes to pay essentially the same price for some crap because they think it is cheaper while ignoring the cost of transportation, environmental consequences, and even one's own time. All so that they can have more mass-produced disposable shit from the other side of the world.
Sustainable communites are socialist and anathema to capitalism and the corporate mentality. Money is an awful value system - the only thing it is capable of measuring is itself. The power associated with wealth facilitates crimes against humanity.
Small Businesses, Urban Planning and Economic Displacement
I was reading this article this morning, and it got me to thinking ...
Like many people, I've always been attracted to 'eclectic','small scale', 'walkable' neighborhoods. We hear those buzzwords ad nauseam in project proposals, etc. To some degree, I think this is because of an inherent psychological need for familiarity. That is, it's easy to wrap your head around the idea of an owner/operator business, anyone who's frequented a small business will undoubtedly tell you it's a much more personal transaction. Communities that actually are considered 'vibrant' typically share some form of these personal interactions.
Less discussed is the economic context that brought these places into existence in the first place. In an era of globalization, it has become increasingly difficult for these types of businesses to compete, particularly as economic forces rapidly change the demographics of neighborhoods. Given that real-estate development is a for-profit venture, and model of constant growth dictates projects must become larger and larger in scale, how do you avoid pricing out the little guy?
These two principles almost seem diametrically opposed. How can you expect to build small scale commerce (which leads to the aforementioned social cohesion, guitar circles, etc.) when macro economics dictate larger, less personal types of development?
This isn't necessarily a new or profound topic, there's tons of reading on this subject, but I'm curious as to what the community's may thoughts may be.
I don't think that macro economics is dictating larger, less personal types of development nor has it priced out the little guy.
What I think has happened is:
1. The economy is global - even small business need to adapt to that or die.
2. Small scale developments only work if you have an established neighborhood surrounding it. With the evolution of the suburbs and it's segregation of residential and business uses large scale retail has become dominant.
3. For small scale retail development to succeed we need to propose suburb developments as communities with mixed use. For that to happen a lot has to change in terms of zoning, planning, density, housing types, and of course cost of construction.
Adapt or die: True, but couldn't the fact that small businesses are dying out be a symptom of a larger problem? Individual 'mom and pop' businesses can't compete on a the global scale, doesn't this model inevitably concentrate capital and lead to the social degradation described?
Agree that quite a bit would need to change (in terms on public policy, etc.) for that to happen. Which, given my experience of what that looks like (especially here in CA), it is long and difficult process that requires A LOT of political will power.
Good news is that I do think political sentiment is beginning to shift, but I'm not sure what you do about entrenched, self-reinforcing policies that favor that type of development.
Back in the day one shopped at small specialty shops - bakery, butcher, vegetable market - that were locally supplied. A cobbler repaired your shoes, the local gas station provided basic maintenance services, and so on.
So called 'economies of scale' do not benefit sustainable communities, they enslave them to corporate interests that can be defined by a single word: profit.
Big box stores kill mom and pops with 'economies of scale' that destroy communites. A few benefit at the expense of many because people are conditioned to believe that it is better to save $.50 on a purchase than it is to keep your neighbors employed and your community alive. I know people who will drive 45 minutes to pay essentially the same price for some crap because they think it is cheaper while ignoring the cost of transportation, environmental consequences, and even one's own time. All so that they can have more mass-produced disposable shit from the other side of the world.
Sustainable communites are socialist and anathema to capitalism and the corporate mentality. Money is an awful value system - the only thing it is capable of measuring is itself. The power associated with wealth facilitates crimes against humanity.
In other words, it's all economics.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.