|
|
|
|
|
by bluGill
21 days ago
|
|
You need about 10 houses per shop (anyone with better numbers? this works for discussion but it is likely wrong). However everybody needs many different shops and so it isn't a case of 10 houses 1 shop - since you always need to go elsewhere anyway wouldn't even think of the local shop when it would do and so they fail. Even in dense cities it is common to see one street of ground for retail then several streets of no retail. Shops do better when clustered together. People combine trips and so if they need to go one place for any reason that will often enough "drop in" to a different one. All this is to say, in most cases a shop is worth less than a house on those developments even though a shop would get higher rent when it is rented! |
|
That doesn't matter to any given one because they rarely need multiple types at the same time, so they just go to the nearest one of whatever they currently need. If you could build them in the suburbs then for many people in the suburbs, that would be the nearest one and it would get enough business to be sustainable. While reducing traffic because now some subset of the customers can walk to it instead of 100% of them needing to drive.
> Even in dense cities it is common to see one street of ground for retail then several streets of no retail.
Isn't that mainly because of zoning? The area with all the shops is the area where shops are allowed, or the area where something that pays higher prices for space than shops isn't.
> All this is to say, in most cases a shop is worth less than a house on those developments even though a shop would get higher rent when it is rented!
You should be able to have the shop and a housing unit or three on the same piece of land, which not only allows you to make more valuable use of the land, it also puts more people (i.e. customers) near the shop.