Minneapolis moves to ban new drive-throughs

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Well of course that's the ultimate goal, but, baby steps, man, freaking baby steps.

Gotta make that slope all slippery and shit first.

Many McDonald's have been downsizing their footprint, while keeping the drive-thru. They're focusing more on drive thrus, mobile order, food delivery services, rather than the dine in folks and therefore do not require much surface parking.

I've seen numerous McD's where the seating capacity is about 12.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Many McDonald's have been downsizing their footprint, while keeping the drive-thru. They're focusing more on drive thrus, mobile order, food delivery services, rather than the dine in folks and therefore do not require much surface parking.

I've seen numerous McD's where the seating capacity is about 12.

I will say that sitting down and eating at a McDonald’s seems oxymoronic at best. The whole point to the place, if there is one, is that it’s fast. It’s not exactly the type of thing you want to sit down and linger over though. Just stick the disgusting fake burger in your face and move on.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

cities could make even more tax revenue if these stupid fucking suburban-style fast food shit-boxes that were so obnoxiously imposed upon city neighborhoods in the 70s/80s were blown to smithereens and replaced with proper urban development that would actually make the land pay and increase property tax revenue 10-fold.

take a look at this utterly shitacular train-wreck of unmitigated suburban awfulness 3 blocks from our house. it's a full block site (0.75 acres) fronting a major commercial city street with one lone stupid little fast food restaurant w/ drive-up and 40 parking spaces. in all the times i've walked past it, i can't ever remember seeing the parking lot even 25% filled, it's usually more like 10% (it's burger king, which is terrible, so of course nobody actually goes there). it's such a monumental waste of space and potential. the owner is almost certainly just landbanking the site until they can get a big payday for it, but for the decades that may take, the neighborhood must suffer its wretched presence.

if i were king of the universe, i would not only make it illegal to build such terrible crap in urban neighborhoods to begin with, i would also rain hellfire missiles down upon all such existing locations in our cities.

Not disagreeing, but this basically is the fault of the land-owner, NOT the fast food place. And yes, cities should have the right to do something about this kind of crap, such as, perhaps, an automatic upzoning of these properties as conditions in the area densify/otherwise improve.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Yes, it was "a" skid row area (not quite as bad as the West Loop Skid Row) full of SRO hotels and last-gasp industrial businesses. Not a place you wanted to hang out at night.

McDonald's saw an opportunity to buy cheap land and build a suburban-style store to lure suburbanites and school groups heading back to the expressway from Navy Pier or Michigan Avenue. Even now, this is their bread-and-butter clientele, so I understand why they didn't want to ditch the drive-thru when they renovated last year.

Still, the pavers and curbless "auto plaza" design are far more inviting to pedestrians than a standard suburban drive-thru, and the huge overhangs and glass windows lure people in pretty well. The scale of the new building fits the surroundings much better...

I agree with all of this, ardecila. While the new "flagship" McDonald's is still too car-centric, it's infinitely better than the cheesy, downright awful "Rock and Roll" version that was there previously. And at least the pedestrian experience has been much improved.

Quite frankly, I've eaten at that location a few times (mainly because I do love their bacon egg and cheese biscuit sandwich), and it's pretty damned nice inside. Interesting architecture, and an overall vast improvement over the previous. That being said, it really SHOULD be used for a midrise to highrise tower at this point in time, given the insane land values in River North.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[JManc]

Originally Posted by 10023

I will say that sitting down and eating at a McDonald’s seems oxymoronic at best.

To you. There's nothing oxymoronic about it. People who want fast food don't want the hour-plus long dining experience but want to sit and chill for a few minutes.

[RCDC]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

take a look at this utterly shitacular train-wreck of unmitigated suburban awfulness 3 blocks from our house.

TBH that street isn't anything to write home about. It's similar to upper Georgia Ave here, a hodgepodge of strip malls, parking lots, faceless buildings and remnants of the historic stock in varying degrees of continuity. Just on the next block this was constructed recently:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9685...7i16384!8i8192

There's an alley behind the building which could have been the parking entrance, while a retail component could have been included. The zoning regulations in my city now require zero lot line frontage and parking access from the alley if feasible.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8931...7i16384!8i8192

As others have mentioned that's not that bad. Could be an Apple Store...the nice paving softens the blow. On two other corners are surface parking lots which are way worse and combined kind of kill that intersection.

So anyway, banning drive-thrus seems a token gesture at best. Are there that many of them being built? Are they impeding development in some way? They're still allowed here...

[RCDC]

Originally Posted by 10023

I will say that sitting down and eating at a McDonald’s seems oxymoronic at best. The whole point to the place, if there is one, is that it’s fast.

Yeah, well so are delis and buffets. Ramen and sushi shops are fast, aren't they?

[10023]

Originally Posted by RCDC

Yeah, well so are delis and buffets. Ramen and sushi shops are fast, aren't they?

Ramen is sort of, but sushi done properly is a pretty long, drawn out ceremony and experience. Those places that serve fridge-cold rolls where the only fish is salmon or tuna aren’t really sushi. They’re a healthier version of fast food than McDonald’s, but I still wouldn’t sit down to eat at one. That stuff is made to be taken back to your desk.

Originally Posted by JManc

To you. There's nothing oxymoronic about it. People who want fast food don't want the hour-plus long dining experience but want to sit and chill for a few minutes.

On top of everything else, I’d be afraid that someone I know would see me.

[JManc]

I remember those days when i used to give a shit how people might think of me...

[pdxtex]

what is this going to accomplish aside from just making people who go to fast food restaurants get out of their car and place an order?? its not going to lessen the footprint of the restaurant if its out in the suburbs. seems goofy....but hey, go you guys!

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by JManc

I remember those days when i used to give a shit how people might think of me...

Ah yes, me too — High school was a blast!!!

I also remember being afraid to wear shorts in public, wait no I don’t.

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by JManc

To you. There's nothing oxymoronic about it. People who want fast food don't want the hour-plus long dining experience but want to sit and chill for a few minutes.

I have less issue w/people 'dining' in McDs than I do with McDs being considered 'food' by so many.

I may be a food snob in some respects; but to be clear, I have nothing against a burger and fries.

It doesn't need to come w/lobster or truffle on it either.

But it does need to taste like beef; be properly seared, on a 1/2 way decent bun, with condiments that are appealing (tomato that's ripe!)

In my judgement McDs rarely, if ever, passes that test.

I consider most of its other products equally dubious from eggs shaped like hockey pucks, to bacon that tastes old/stale, to sausage that is actually too fatty and salty, to a dubious concoction of dairy-like stuff billed as ice cream.

I get that some people aren't chefs ( I love cooking) and others have a tight budget.

But I feel confident you could either whip something up at home in under 10m for less $ or go find better tasting and healthier street food in most towns/cities for about the same cost.

To me removing drive-thrus is partly about good urban planning/land use, partly about aesthetics, partly about traffic/pedestrian safety, partly about reducing pollution, partly about reducing obesity and partly about shrinking the customer base of any chain that relies on a drive-thru as a selling feature in lieu of serving good food.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Northern Light

To me removing drive-thrus is partly about good urban planning/land use, partly about aesthetics, partly about traffic/pedestrian safety, partly about reducing pollution, partly about reducing obesity and partly about shrinking the customer base of any chain that relies on a drive-thru as a selling feature in lieu of serving good food.

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!

This guy gets it.

The move to ban drive-thrus will not solve all of the world's problems, but it is indicative of the fact that Minneapolis is on the right track.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Northern Light

I have less issue w/people 'dining' in McDs than I do with McDs being considered 'food' by so many.

I may be a food snob in some respects; but to be clear, I have nothing against a burger and fries.

It doesn't need to come w/lobster or truffle on it either.

But it does need to taste like beef; be properly seared, on a 1/2 way decent bun, with condiments that are appealing (tomato that's ripe!)

In my judgement McDs rarely, if ever, passes that test.

I consider most of its other products equally dubious from eggs shaped like hockey pucks, to bacon that tastes old/stale, to sausage that is actually too fatty and salty, to a dubious concoction of dairy-like stuff billed as ice cream.

I get that some people aren't chefs ( I love cooking) and others have a tight budget.

But I feel confident you could either whip something up at home in under 10m for less $ or go find better tasting and healthier street food in most towns/cities for about the same cost.

Seriously. Who cares? McDonald's is not my choice either but where others choose to eat is their business.

[10023]

Originally Posted by JManc

Seriously. Who cares? McDonald's is not my choice either but where others choose to eat is their business.

You’re a Republican I suppose, or at least would be in a world where the party wasn’t run by Donald Trump. Nonetheless that is the traditionally conservative view of “to each their own”.

The problem is that this presumes that 1) there isn’t a broader societal cost to the health problems (obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc) that these people give themselves; and 2) that they are informed and capable of making the best decisions for themselves (as opposed to simply not knowing any better).

This traditional conservative view of the world tends to overlook the impact that one’s decisions and choices have on others, whether it’s stuffing one’s face with McDonald’s everyday, or something more obvious like driving around in an unnecessarily large truck belching exhaust fumes all day.

The way to deal with both of these issues is by providing “nudges” (with varying degrees of directness) in order to influence people toward making better decisions. Sugar taxes are an example (but unpopular because they’re a “tax”). This ban on drive-throughs is another.

[JManc]

Stick to your day job because I'm neither republican nor conservative. I simply don't believe in telling people where/what they can or cannot eat or how they live their lives.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Northern Light

To me removing drive-thrus is partly about good urban planning/land use, partly about aesthetics, partly about traffic/pedestrian safety, partly about reducing pollution, partly about reducing obesity and partly about shrinking the customer base of any chain that relies on a drive-thru as a selling feature in lieu of serving good food.

Drive thrus don't make people obese, lol. They don't.

-Food delivery services don't make people fat either. - No need to even walk to your car, drive to the drive thru - let DoorDash do that for you. Then you can pat yourself on your back for not contributing to air pollution. Peace of mind. Let somebody else do it, therefore you can sit back, eat and judge other people that drive to pick up food!
-The USPS service doesn't make people fat - mail delivered to your door!
-Online banking doesn't make people fat. - no need to go to the bank!
-Amazon Prime doesn't make people fat. - click and wait a day or two!

Pedestrian safety, in a drive thru lane? Pedestrians aren't endangered in the McDonald's parking lot any more than they would be walking to a 5 star restaurant in Manhattan.

Aesthetics, that's entirely subjective. Most people aren't concerned with a corner coffee drive thru. They view it as a convenience, kind of like 3 minute loading zones throughout the city. Drive thrus exist in areas where customers use their cars. It doesn't make sense to tear down the Empire State Building and build a drive-thru.

There are downtown Starbucks [no drive thru, no parking] and there are non-downtown Starbucks, with parking and a drive-thru.

[RCDC]

Originally Posted by 10023

Ramen is sort of, but sushi done properly is a pretty long, drawn out ceremony and experience.

Both are fast but that depends on how busy and what you order. Simple rolls are quick but more complex ones take longer and elaborate artistic ones take even longer. Fast food is somewhat the same, some items are already there, just need to put on a tray. Others items are made to order, and items that people don't order often can take even more time.

Originally Posted by 10023

Those places that serve fridge-cold rolls where the only fish is salmon or tuna aren’t really sushi.

Yes, avoid that, there's nothing worse than bad sushi.

Originally Posted by 10023

On top of everything else, I’d be afraid that someone I know would see me.

You mean walking in or from another table? Anyway, just use the drive-thru.

Originally Posted by Northern Light

To me removing drive-thrus is partly about good urban planning/land use, partly about aesthetics, partly about traffic/pedestrian safety,

Agree, if in a small way.

Originally Posted by Northern Light

partly about reducing pollution,

Idling cars. Well, they should ban stoplights and (what the hell) bus stops as well.

Originally Posted by Northern Light

partly about reducing obesity

Hmm, Minneapolis is a common appearance on those "fittest US cities" lists.

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by 10023

You’re a Republican I suppose, or at least would be in a world where the party wasn’t run by Donald Trump. Nonetheless that is the traditionally conservative view of “to each their own”.

The problem is that this presumes that 1) there isn’t a broader societal cost to the health problems (obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc) that these people give themselves; and 2) that they are informed and capable of making the best decisions for themselves (as opposed to simply not knowing any better).

This traditional conservative view of the world tends to overlook the impact that one’s decisions and choices have on others, whether it’s stuffing one’s face with McDonald’s everyday, or something more obvious like driving around in an unnecessarily large truck belching exhaust fumes all day.

The way to deal with both of these issues is by providing “nudges” (with varying degrees of directness) in order to influence people toward making better decisions. Sugar taxes are an example (but unpopular because they’re a “tax”). This ban on drive-throughs is another.

^^^^ Excellent post!

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Drive thrus don't make people obese, lol. They don't.

-Food delivery services don't make people fat either. - No need to even walk to your car, drive to the drive thru - let DoorDash do that for you. Then you can pat yourself on your back for not contributing to air pollution. Peace of mind. Let somebody else do it, therefore you can sit back, eat and judge other people that drive to pick up food!
-The USPS service doesn't make people fat - mail delivered to your door!
-Online banking doesn't make people fat. - no need to go to the bank!
-Amazon Prime doesn't make people fat. - click and wait a day or two!

Actually all of those things do contribute to obesity.

Particularly when taken cumulatively.

On a personal level, I have never ordered from Amazon, nor a food delivery service...I do online bank...but w/e

The point is to provide nudges towards greater physical activity rather than less.

In routine, every day life, such that you don't need a gym membership, or a personal trainer. You just live, in a physically fit manner.

No one is suggesting that eliminating drive-thrus, by itself, will accomplish this.

Its one step among many.

Its about encouraging people to use the stairs instead of the elevator, by having glass doors, windows if possible, security cameras, seats on lands, art work etc.

Its about encouraging people to walk to the store, by having a sidewalk, lined with trees as a wind break in the winter, and a source of shade on a hot summer's day.

Its about encouraging people to cycle by providing a separated bike lane that gives them a perception and reality of greater safety, and then sheltered bike parking at their destination, be that a store or a work place.

Its not about forcing anyone to do anything, its about making it easier and more pleasant to do that which is best for you personally (fitness/health, lower cost) and for society (fewer accidents, less pollution, lower health costs, more productivity at work, less crime as streets are more animated)

Drive-thrus produce no societal benefit.

They most certainly produce social ills; above and beyond those mentioned above they increase car accidents as they encourage people to eat while driving, which means one hand is not on the steering wheel, and distractions abound.

That you don't care about these things is fine. Its your right to believe in being obese, having diabetes, polluting the environment, promoting climate change, having more car accidents, higher levels of crime and shorter life expectancy.

Just don't pretend that those effects aren't real; or that drive-thrus are justified by anything other than bad habits and peculiar preferences.