Originally Posted by WilliamTheArtist
This comment was interesting… "why can we build multimillion-dollar highway systems and multibillion-dollar stadiums, but not more grocery stores? If we can build a museum dedicated to a soft drink and one that celebrates college football and another that trumpets civil rights, can't we help our neighbours with what seems to be a most essential and basic right: putting an affordable and healthy dinner on the table?"
Seems to suggest that grocery stores should now be built by the government in a similar manner as highway systems?
Generally I would think most people would think of a grocery store as a business that should be built according to market forces and not something built by a government entity. Tax incentives, TIFF's, zoning regulations, etc. if the community see's a benefit to build a particular something, might be another matter.
Also as someone who is now in the retail business, year and a half in, I find you sell what sells, or you perish. Despite what I may like or want to sell, if you put your money into it and it doesn't sell, then you quit trying to sell it and go with those items that are selling.
If there is a demand for something and there is not someone in the area selling it…. that equals opportunity knocking for someone to make money. It is interesting that in similar types of neighborhoods in our city, similar design and housing stock, similar socio-economic class and poverty, that I see very different responses to these "food desert" issues. In the predominantly hispanic areas one can see food trucks, and I never see them in predominantly black areas… unless they are run by hispanics. Also you find small, locally run, grocery stores, often with a surprising amount of produce, in the hispanic areas, but then don't see a similar thing in the mostly black areas of town, that again have similar design and socio-economic levels.
Another possible example of "they sell what sells" is there is a McDonalds that is convenient to my trip downtown that I sometimes go to, and another one in a wealthier part of town that I sometimes go to when I work there. I usually order the same thing "grilled chicken sandwich with no mayo and an iced tea, unsweetened". Actually quite tasty and a fairly healthy option. Never have a problem ordering that in the wealthier area, but in the poorer area, I am constantly asked at the drive thru to pull off to the side and they will bring me my food shortly, and often told they do not have unsweetened tea would I like sweetened tea instead. Finally asked why one time and they told me that it was because people rarely order unsweetened tea, and that they have to go to the back and get the grilled chicken because people don't often order that either. Couple of times I have driven off to find that I have sweetened tea and the breaded chicken sandwich with mayo lol. Definitely NOT a healthy option. Purely anecdotal I know, but interesting regardless.
As for urban design sometimes being an impediment to the poor, I agree. It's been very frustrating to watch a certain poor, food desert, area of our city that has been targeted as one to incentivise with new redevelopment. Everything new that has gone in around this one corner has been auto centric… in an area with one of the lowest ratios of car ownership and highest percentage of people using transit! A health clinic was put in nearby and it was set far back from the road and surrounded by large parking lots. A new grocery store was built, yes given special financing and tax incentives by the city to go in, again, it was put far back from the corner with parking in front. Sadly the store went out of business. Right across from that a nice looking strip mall went in having special assistance from the city and other sources, again, instead of being up to the sidewalk and pedestrian friendly it was a typical, auto centric design with a parking lot in front, large drainage ditch/grassy berm in front of that, then the street. Even the people in the black community seemed to not realize the folly of this for they would be on TV all excited about getting this new shopping center and the jobs it would bring and opportunity it would bring to local business owners to be there, etc. But not a peep about how awful the "un-pedestrian friendly" design was from anyone. They were excited to be getting a strip mall that looked just like the ones in the wealthier parts of town.
There were numerous new developments around this intersection. I kept watching in frustration as each, hard fought to materialize, project came to fruition. Frustration because of the missed opportunity to create a pedestrian/transit friendly, truly desirable and something to be proud of, development, instead became a blah, struggling, same ol same ol development. Other areas of town that are considered to be some of the "hottest" and most desirable ones are those that have a small strip of pedestrian friendly core (our Cherry Street and Brookside areas). Why someone in the city and development community, and the community at large in which all these new developments were going in, wanted a same ol same ol, auto centric development instead of what could have become something to be proud of and far more useful to that community, I don't for the life of me know. Frankly I think it was because of ignorance. The people who live nearby aren't going to enjoy walking to it, and those who take transit to the area will now find they are in a place that is not a pedestrian friendly one to get from one place to the next, to do various errands in.
|