“Public policy that reinforces autarky only makes matters worse,” economist William Bogart told the Preserving the American Dream conference. Which, naturally, provoked the question, “What is autarky?”
The answer is that autarky means self-sufficiency, as in an economy that does not participate in international trade. So what did Dr. Bogart mean by this statement in his presentation (which can also be found on p. 182 of his book, Don’t Call It Sprawl, which the Antiplanner reviewed here last July)?
viagra 100 mg The sciatic nerve is a largest nerve within the body aside from the spinal cord. It relieves you from commander viagra http://downtownsault.org/downtown/shopping/final-touch-hair-design-joans-boutique/ weakness and improves semen load to enjoy enhanced sexual pleasure in the climax. This process gets male organ hard enough for cialis in india penetration and for causing healthy erections. Endourology: that is closely associated with generico viagra on line the MIS (minimally invasive surgeries) of urology. Bogart’s book argues that cities are primarily “trading places,” meaning that people use them to trade goods and services — but also sometimes using the double meaning that some parts of the cities have traded places with others (e.g., major shopping areas are no longer downtown, but more residents are moving back to downtown).
Many planners are trying to make neighborhoods more self-sufficient by creating a “jobs-housing balance” and promoting mixes of residential and other uses. The ideal, in planners’ minds, is that everyone can find most of the things they want to buy or do close to where they live so they won’t have to drive long distances.
One problem with this ideal is that competition is an essential factor in ensuring that businesses serve consumers. If we all shop only at the stores nearest to us, that competition is gone and the stores will lose their edge. Anything that restricts that competition — congestion, restrictions on where businesses can locate, ordinances prohibiting chain stores — reduces the health of urban areas and the economy.
Bogart says some other interesting things, including “Public policy that interferes with adaptive reuse of existing infrastructure is counterproductive.” But his main message is that urban areas are very complex places — so complex that any attempts to plan them end up oversimplifying them and eliminating the complex structures that make them work.
Do people really shop for a family of 3, 4, 5, or more by walking to and from the store? What do they do? Spend 2 or 3 nights a week going to the store?
If we all shop only at the stores nearest to us, that competition is gone and the stores will lose their edge. Anything that restricts that competition  congestion, restrictions on where businesses can locate, ordinances prohibiting chain stores  reduces the health of urban areas and the economy.
Pfffft. You have it exactly backwards again.
Grocery stores have a geopgraphical area they serve with x # of roofs, as folks generally shop the same way. That is: I’m going to shop at the Safeway down the street from my house, not drive 2 miles out of my way in traffic to King Soopers so I can save 45¢ and feel good about promoting competition. I guess if I want more cr*p in my wallet, I can carry a King’s discount card to be able to actually save pennies, so if I’m in the neighborhood I can stop in and get the two things that Safeway doesn’t carry. And I’ll stop at the liquor store by work because its right there and they carry what I drink at a fair price, not drive out of my way to the competition to save 1.00.
And New Urbanist developments make it easier for yet another retail store to locate somewhere, as if we need even more retail stores around.
It’s the old ways of Euclidean zoning that force people to jump in their car for everything because there are restrictions on where binesses can locate.
DS
You really have this one wrong Dan.
There is more to retail competition than price.
I drive to one centre for my regular supermarket shopping, to another for my quality home butcher’s supplies and another because of their garden centre and another because they have a great wet fish shop. I shop for my regular liquor at the supermarket but buy most of my wine on line as I do my books.
And I forgot, the Italian bread shop is next to the postshop so I go there for my bread while I collect the post etc.
‘Shopping sheds’ indeed are dependent upon number of proximate roofs – all chains that I’m aware of have standards; I’ve also been in many initial meetings where the folks (say, fast-food agents) ask for the trips per day on a given road and the average residential densities of my town if they are having trouble with their due diligence (and the last place gave many people trouble).
And competition among conglomerate grocery chains (Safeway, Kroger here and in Seattle it was Safeway, Kroger and in Sacto. it was Safeway, Kroger, Raley’s) drives chains to offer the shopper the same products and a particular experience. The only difference between the two corporate chains here is that up the road there are a few more attractive, accessorized women shopping in the evening – not a small thing, surely, but not enough for me. Otherwise the products are very similar, as is the shopping experience among the faux-wood, displays of waxy southern hemisphere fruit, and endcaps. Liquor stores all look the same way except for the few big ones trying to get a few more visits.
With Home Depot & Lowe’s-type differences, there is an example of branding that differentiates. Retail nonfood product choice currently drives folks to malls unless you are looking for a boutique experience, which changes the demographic Randal’s talking about & chain store argument goes away.
DS
Prices are lower if there are a lot of stores around and the stores are usually nicer with competition.
johngalt, more stores doesnt change the fact that retail has catchment areas and if you dont believe this than dont go into the retail business, because anyone who knows anything about retail realises that retail has spatial implications. It varies between the type of retail formats as well, such as big box stores, malls, and strip plazas.
I would question the niceness argument as well as more stores=lower prices. First of all you seem to have failed in your economics. Larger stores=lower prices, because of economies of scale and efficient supply chain management. Besides any decent economics teacher will tell you that behavioural competition is as important, if not more important than structural compeitition, i.e. size. Having many small stores=equals higher prices, while usually leading to a more pleasant environment (ignoring “convenience stores,” which are usually not very pleasant or “nice”).