|
|
|
|
|
by haroldp
557 days ago
|
|
Disagree. If most people lived in dense mixed-use neighborhoods where they could walk from home to 90% of the destinations they needed (work, school, groceries, restaurants, entertainment, dentist, etc) they wouldn't need to own a car, and the nominal difference in price between a small corner grocery and a distant chain mega-chain store wouldn't be enough to compel they to buy, park, fuel and maintain one. Restrictive single-use zoning makes this type of community effectively illegal, despite it being a big consumer choice winner in places where it is allowed. Perhaps instead of a coercive fix for a problem caused by a coercive fix, we should strike at the root and allow people to buy what they want in the first place? |
|
When I need something quickly I just pop by the nearest grocer, they also have a different variety than the larger one further away. If I need to buy some more expensive items then I know it's worth it to bike further away.
It's a good balance, I have options and both grocers seem to be doing fine (the independent one is even expanding, new freezers/fridges, opened a whole new section for cheese, etc.).
Even though it's a suburb it's quite compact, and well planned. There are some 3000 apartments around the station (walking distance no longer than 10 min), while I live further out closer to the forest and lake (about 20 min walking) in a town house, there are many other town houses and some 5-10 min away from me there are some villas. Population of this suburb is around 13-14k people.