Re:The Cost of Safetyism
by AnthonyMouse on Tuesday May 26, 2026 @11:57PM
(#48289444)
> However everybody needs many different shops
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 whenever they need one. 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.
> 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.
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 whenever they need one. 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.
> 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.