In Athens, a very beautiful Catholic Church on Prince Avenue, near downtown, is debating whether to sell its property and move the congregation elsewhere. I'm not at all surprised that some people are already beginning to debate what new uses the lot should go for. What bugs me so much about new urbanism is perfectly captured by this article. If you read through it, you may be surprised (but maybe not) by how ridiculous the people sound. They actually start saying what needs to go in that new spot - as though they, and not markets, had the magic ability to simply point their fingers at something and make it appear. So what do they think should go there? A neighborhood grocery store. They write:
"A grocery doesn't have to take the shape of a Kwik-E-Mart or a traditional suburban Kroger. Picture this: a tasteful four-story building with its front door right on the sidewalk and big display windows inviting you to look in as you pass by. The store itself might be two stories, with the top two floors of the building used as apartments or offices for rent; as for parking, it could be stowed behind the building."
The picture they paint, and that most New Urbanists paint, is very beautiful. That is, it's beautiful to me. I tend to share their love for workable, urban-like environments where commerce and residential uses are allowed to overlap, and neighborhoods begin to feel like real communities. But there's something about the method that they use to achieve this that seems so naive.
For one, as I read the article, I began to wonder if the authors had given much thought as to why small neighborhood groceries disappeared in the first place. Lower prices and better variety are at Super Wal-mart and Kroger, and while some of us might say we prefer our cozy neighborhood grocer, the marginal benefits of going there must outweight the marginal costs otherwise we'd see more of them. Operating a neighborhood grocery doesn't strike me as the most profitable business to run. The margins are probably low, and the competition extremely stiff. Without subsidies or specially-designed tax breaks, I doubt a grocer could make it in this town. At equilibrium, small, individually owned grocers just aren't supported by consumers.
But what troubles me more about these two authors' approach to New Urbanism is what I think has been the problem with New Urbanism here and there. Namely, there don't seem to be any restraints built-in which might keep a New Urbanist from moving into centralizing control of the local market. I get the sense that all decisions need to be made through democratic means - even the decision as to what kind of shop should go into a plot of land. Yet, economically, we already know what will tend to go there. It will go to its most valued, most productive use - whatever that is. Now to what degree that should be the normative goals of a city planner is another matter, but I do want to point that Athens does have some delusions of grandeur. We are not the most welcoming environment to commerce. What I find to be the case is that what tends to happen the more involved politics get in deciding what should and should not go into a specific location is that it helps those with political leverage, and hurts those without it. Furthermore, I wonder if it widens the gap between the rich and the poor, as the middle class finds fewer and fewer jobs in town, as well as the lower class. The upper class, of course, can do whatever they want.
Posted by scott at November 12, 2003 11:13 PM | TrackBackAmen to the New Urbanist argument ... coming from a reformed, yet still sympathetic to some New Urbanist ideals soul.
The problem, as you pointed out, is sure they want a grocery store ... but not a Kroger or Publix. A small neighborhood store is fine in theory - and if it makes money, then more power to it, the market works - but more often that not the theory doesn't translate into reality.
Wouldn't a Publix or Kroger - one that fit the exterior standards the community required (see the incoming GameDay condos in downtown) - do exceptional business? And draw from more than just the immediate community? And provide a boost to the area, much more so than a 'small, locally-owned mart.'
The thing that irks me so much, mostly about Athenians, is the level of hypocrisy over such issues like this. A few years ago, the Five Points community rallied against a proposed Eckerd's to be built in that area. The area was all locally owned businesses and very rich with tradition and culture, and such was the counter-argument.
I didn't agree with that, especially since Eckerd's agreed to conform to local building and exterior standards and provide for local merchants if they wanted to sell goods there, etc. But, hey, the local community didn't want it and bound together to defeat the 'intruder.' So what the heck, good for them.
But their consistency in such issues is what fails them. Earlier this year, a local Five Points businessman agreed to buy the A1 Insurance building and plans to turn it into a mixed-use development complete with national merchants.
Now, I'm all for that plan, but what the heck? Didn't you rally together to defeat such a plan just two or three years earlier based solely on the principle of halting 'big business' and protecting the little man?
This kind of thing happens all the time in this town....
Posted by: Jmac at November 16, 2003 08:30 PM