This is probably zoning; in many non-urban places mixed zoning is considered to lower the quality of residential living. So you end up with subdivision mazes without so much as a convenience store in walking range.
> wasn't this because first people decided they wanted to purchase larger amounts of goods per trip
My impression is that it's the other way around: because trips take so long, you maximize the amount you fetch on each.
The distance is related to the shopping habit. It’s neat watching people move to New York. At first, they continue their big, irregular shopping trips. Slowly, though, they switch to quick daily or every-other-day trips (+ delivery), and walkig to a store around the corner.
Ironically, where I live (one of the oldest neighborhoods in Phoenix), they're taking the exact opposite approach -- building restaurants with absolutely zero consideration for parking and it's having a negative impact. They had to put up "resident only parking with permit" signs on my street because it got so bad. The apartments across the street went so far as to designate parking spots on the street -- totally illegal but it seems to work. The ones next door to them leave their trashcans out 24/7 for the same effect.
At first I just considered the parking hassles a "free-wifi tax" but then they added a second popular sandwich shop/bar next door and it just snowballed from there. Oh, and I lost the free-wifi benefit so now it's all just pure hassle.
I believe this is what people like to call "the tragedy of the commons."
There's only like two other neighborhoods in all of Phoenix where there's a residents only parking restriction codified into law so apparently the bureaucrats also think maybe there's an overgrazing problem.
> I'm sure if you want to pay market rate for that land you can get your very own parking spot.
Or I could just pay my landlord and get my very own parking spot?
If there's a shortage of places for people to sleep we don't demand free houses (well, the US doesn't) but once your car has nowhere to sleep that's somehow the taxpayer's problem?
I think everyone missed that the whole point was to provide a counter-example to "far-away restaurants with large parking lots" by describing my personal experiences with the exact opposite. Just because someone thought it was a big enough problem to get the city involved doesn't mean that I personally felt the same way, I simply quit giving them my money and called it a day. Well, also got rid of my truck (that I didn't drive for six years) so I had somewhere to park the work car that wasn't on the street because I didn't want to go get a resident parking permit -- problem solved without involving taxpayer funds...
What I don't understand is the number of restaurants built in a similar way, i.e. far away from residential areas and with huge parking lots. But I guess that's more family-friendly as well, especially with 2 or more kids.