Milwaukee's Mayor Johnson wants 1 million residents

[iheartthed]

These are all from different areas of Brooklyn:

Park Slope:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/7wTXbBjd83hqBhUz8
https://maps.app.goo.gl/zXfL1xp1Gq8BUAUs5
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Rw7Hp6PYbH8NsgpU6

Bensonhurst:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/kBHFegfDc2ujta6W8
https://maps.app.goo.gl/9uGpt45aEZvmE2XK9

Sheapshead Bay:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/jd69PDcuNm3b5qhKA
https://maps.app.goo.gl/dxa6N9NJWoB3Fune8

Crown Heights:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/4ApxhxHvot4cMbYz8
https://maps.app.goo.gl/1mrpQTFa7qjMLan38

[mhays]

Think "not Brooklyn" or at least the parts that aren't generally 40k/sm. Here's a target: areas that are broadly 20-30k/sm at most.

Plus, even Brooklyn has stores with parking, even of the suburban type. Here are some obvious ones from a few minutes on google maps.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5871...!1e3?entry=ttu
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5817...!1e3?entry=ttu
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5906...!1e3?entry=ttu
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6526...!1e3?entry=ttu
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6687...!1e3?entry=ttu

[iheartthed]

My point is that it is possible to create neighborhoods where driving to buy groceries is not the norm. Personally, I don't get why anyone would want to live in a dense area and still have to drive for all of their regular errands. It negates the point of living in a dense area by choice. Creating choice pedestrians should be part of Milwaukee's goal.

[mhays]

No disagreement there. But it'll be gradual, messy, and limited in us tweener cities.

[edale]

What works in New York doesn't necessarily work everywhere. New Yorkers live in much smaller spaces than most Americans, even those who live in urban environments. As a result, they don't have as much room to store tons of groceries and bulk goods, and they probably buy fewer goods at the grocery store, but make more frequent visits. Totally different lifestyle than someone who goes to the grocery store once a week to make a big haul. That type of shopping is very hard without a car. New York also has enough people who live there without cars that even if a grocery store had to rely 100% on the carless demographic, they'd be totally fine. That's not the case in most cities...only the usual handful of urban standouts, and even in those cities, only in pockets.

I live a few blocks from 2 grocery stores here in LA. One is a small natural foods store that has the tiniest, most chaotic parking lot. I have never driven there, as I'm normally only getting 1-2 bags worth of stuff there, and navigating the parking lot is nowhere near worth the stress and anxiety. Across the street is a bigger supermarket with a very large parking lot. I walk there about half the time. Living alone, and in a fairly small apartment, I rarely have to get more than 2 tote bags worth of stuff at a time. So grocery trips can be done on foot. But if I know I'm getting heavy stuff, like a case of sparkling water and big bag of dog food, I'll drive. Also will drive on rainy days or if I'm going to the store late at night. It's nice to have the option to drive when I need to, but not have to rely on driving every time.

[Steely Dan]

^ EDIT: this guy gets it.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

My point is that it is possible to create neighborhoods where driving to buy groceries is not the norm.

No one is denying that it's possible, we're just pushing back against the notion that such a future is remotely realistic, at scale, for a city like Milwaukee in any of our lifetimes.

Brooklyn scale density (40 - 50K ppsm across dozens of contiguous sq. miles) is simply setting the bar too high for a city who's core 50 sq. miles currently averages about 8,500 ppsm.

A far more realistic goal for the cream city would be to target an "urban Chicago" average density of ~20,000 ppsm across a broad area.

At that density, most large supermarkets will still have parking.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Personally, I don't get why anyone would want to live in a dense area and still have to drive for all of their regular errands.

You seem not to grasp how middle ground urbanism (such as my neighborhood of Lincoln Square) functions.

It's not that you have to drive everywhere for regular errands, it's more that ownership of a car is not terribly onerous/expensive, such that you can drive to some things if you want to, and also walk/bike/transit to lots of other things as well.

It's a both/and kind of world that would likely be foreign to many urban core NYers, though probably familiar to folks in outter queens, or wherever in New York people live where they can both walk/transit to stuff, and also own a car (that they might not use on a daily basis).

Example from my world, there are two grocery stores within easy walking distance of our home (an Aldi's and local independent that focuses on "real" food (produce, butcher, deli, bakery, etc.). Both have small parking lots. I still walk to them the vast majority of the time because it's simply easier than getting in the car and dealing with their small ass parking lots (that are often at full capacity). However, if the weather sucks, or I know I'm getting a bunch of heavy shit (milk, juice, water, other liquids), I will infrequently drive and utilize their parking lots.

both/and.



Most of the urbanism found in the second tier US cities outside of NYC functions like middle ground urbanism outside of a few rarified pockets of very high density. NYC is the only place in the country where you have very high density at scale across 100+ sq. miles of land.

As I said earlier in the tread: NYC is a CRAZY outlier.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

You seem not to grasp how middle ground urbanism (such as my neighborhood of Lincoln Square) functions.

It's not that you have to drive everywhere for regular errands, it's more that ownership of a car is not terribly onerous/expensive, such that you can drive to some things if you want to, and also walk/bike/transit to lots of other things as well.

It's a both/and kind of world that would likely be foreign to many urban core NYers, though probably familiar to folks in outter queens, or wherever in New York people live where they can both walk/transit to stuff, and also own a car (that they might not use on a daily basis).

Example from my world, there are two grocery stores within easy walking distance of our home (an Aldi's and local independent that focuses on "real" food (produce, butcher, deli, bakery, etc.). Both have small parking lots. I still walk to them the vast majority of the time because it's simply easier than getting in the car and dealing with their small ass parking lots (that are often at full capacity). However, if the weather sucks, or I know I'm getting a bunch of heavy shit (milk, juice, water, other liquids), I will infrequently drive and utilize their parking lots.

both/and.



Most of the urbanism found in the second tier US cities outside of NYC functions like middle ground urbanism outside of a few rarified pockets of very high density. NYC is the only place in the country where you have very high density at scale across over 100+ sq. miles of land.

As I said earlier in the tread: NYC is a CRAZY outlier.

I think you misread what I wrote.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Personally, I don't get why anyone would want to live in a dense area and still have to drive for all of their regular errands.

Driving to the store every now and then is not a regular errand run. In fact, your car isn't a necessity here because you could easily live without it. Your car is a luxury item.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Driving to the store every now and then is not a regular errand run. In fact, your car isn't a necessity here because you could easily live without it. Your car is a luxury item.

"Easily" is a tricky word.

We could certainly get by without our family car here in Lincoln Square.

But there are times when it does make life A LOT easier/less complicated.

As the father of a family of four, I've grown to love the middle ground urbanism that Chicago excels at. You can totally have a car, but you won't use it much, and you sure as hell won't need more than one of them.

Creamy middle ground urbanism in the middle of the country for the middle class all propped up by one of the largest concentrations of missing middle housing in the nation.

Middle!


Milwaukee would do well to encourage more of this middle ground urbanism with its planned upzonings,

But the grocery stores will still have parking, so.....

It ain't gonna be Brooklyn

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I actually think the Milwaukee mayor is hitting on a key cause of population decline in the Rust Belt. Most of the Rust Belt cities are built out but they haven't transitioned to upzoning already developed areas for density.

I think there's some truth to the build it and they will come attitude.

For years, there was no new construction in Philadelphia, particularly of multi-family buildings. So, if you were a new graduate moving to the city and you wanted an apartment, you had to live in some old converted building (either from manufacturing or pre-war offices) or a rickety old townhome. For a lot of people, that just doesn't work. A lot of people want new, shiny...even generic.

Fast forward 20 years later and there's multi-family construction in nearly every corner of the city and they just keep on filling up these buildings with who I don't know...but they keep on coming. If you're considering moving to a place and you go look at a few apartments and they're all swanky with nice finishes and amenities, for your typical aspirational American, that becomes a draw in and of itself.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

My zip code in Chicago has an average density of ~20K ppsm.

Which places it in like the 95th percentile of US zip codes for population density.

(And like 98th percentile if you exclude NYC)

Every supermarket I can think of around me has accessory parking.

Sometimes the lots are rather small, like 20 cars or less.

And In a few cases, they've even put the parking up on the roof.

But they all have some parking, as do the VAST majority of supermarkets all across "neighborhood Chicago".



NYC is a CRAZY outlier within the US when it comes to all things urban.

Milwaukee is never going to have Brooklyn levels of density at scale at any point in our lives.

It won't ever even get close.

Same in Philly. Most super markets (TJs, Whole Foods, Sprouts, local chains) have parking. It's not parking in a lot sprawling out in front of the market like the burbs. Typically it's that the market is in a building with a parking garage and you can validate your parking ticket if you happen to be using the market.

Plenty of people don't use it and walk to get their groceries, but it is there for people who need it.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

The suburbs of DFW have all kinds of modern 21st century chains of bowling alley entertainment complex type places, so it still exists here too and people still do it for fun. The other big thing here is pickle ball complexes where you can suck at it while getting drunk. We are going to one for a work gathering soon.

I think the absence of bowling alleys and other things in expensive coastal cities is probably just indicative of some kind of grim real estate market thing and nothing else.

To an extent, yeah, but I don't think bowling is a big cultural thing locally. At least in NYC, I've rarely heard of bowling except in an ironic sense, where they have hipster-type bowling venues or niche pursuits like feather bowling. The old school bowling venues have basically all disappeared.

There was a bowling alley in Bensonhurst, but it was torn down and replaced with high density condos for the Ultra-Orthodox. There was another in Sunset Park and it was replaced with a public school. There was a third in Flushing and it's about to be a highrise condo tower.

Pickle ball, yes, is a big thing, and expanding everywhere, even in very urban areas.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Very few supermarkets here have parking and a lot of chains with mostly suburban footprints get this wrong when they try to enter the NYC market:

Yeah, I've noticed this. In Manhattan, there's no retail parking for anything, but in the Outer Boroughs, you often have non-local grocery chains build weird setups with parking, and then the parking isn't used, and the local chains, which never build with parking, outcompete them, bc they have the good locations (if you have parking, you typically aren't well-located in NYC context).

Whole Foods first Brooklyn location is really oddly located, in an industrial area, nowhere near where people live, presumably bc they wanted parking. But their customers aren't driving, so you see all these people walking or biking past the warehouses to WF, and the parking lot is half empty. Thankfully their newer locations have no parking, and are the typical multilevel urban arrangements on major high streets.

I think the lesson is that the big chains are inflexible and uneasy going outside their templates. They should really strive for some more nuance. They're prolly paying millions to consultants to find nationwide locations, and they could just save that money locally by finding the highest trafficked transit hubs and starting from there.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yeah, I've noticed this. In Manhattan, there's no retail parking for anything, but in the Outer Boroughs, you often have non-local grocery chains build weird setups with parking, and then the parking isn't used, and the local chains, which never build with parking, outcompete them, bc they have the good locations (if you have parking, you typically aren't well-located in NYC context).

Whole Foods first Brooklyn location is really oddly located, in an industrial area, nowhere near where people live, presumably bc they wanted parking. But their customers aren't driving, so you see all these people walking or biking past the warehouses to WF, and the parking lot is half empty. Thankfully their newer locations have no parking, and are the typical multilevel urban arrangements on major high streets.

I think the lesson is that the big chains are inflexible and uneasy going outside their templates. They should really strive for some more nuance. They're prolly paying millions to consultants to find nationwide locations, and they could just save that money locally by finding the highest trafficked transit hubs and starting from there.

Yes, 100% to all of this. The Gowanus Whole Foods is nice but I wouldn't be surprised if that location closes in the next 5 years unless there is massive residential development around there. The other Brooklyn locations must be lapping the Gowanus location in revenue per square foot.

Once you get past medium-low density (around 15k ppsm), I doubt that surface parking lots are really that impactful to a grocery store's bottom line. Cities in other rich countries seem to be able to support grocery stores without parking at those densities.

[Tom In Chicago]

Fairway is another example. . .

. . .

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

Fairway is another example. . .

Yup, Fairway is a good example. And Wegman's. Both built major stores in odd industrial locations, presumably for parking. Meanwhile the smaller local competitors are on the high streets with no parking.

Thankfully the big chains seem to be learning. Trader Joe's just opened a new location pretty far out in Queens with no parking. I don't think they would have done this 10-15 years ago.

[iheartthed]

Yeah, Fairway is a great example. Ironically, Whole Foods building a location in the middle of Harlem was probably the final nail in the coffin for the Fairway in Manhattanville.

[Tom In Chicago]

I actually liked Fairway. . . but when I was at the one in Red Hook, I was like, "oh this ain't gonna last. . . "

. . .

[mhays]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Once you get past medium-low density (around 15k ppsm), I doubt that surface parking lots are really that impactful to a grocery store's bottom line. Cities in other rich countries seem to be able to support grocery stores without parking at those densities.

This is fantasy unless you mean corner groceries. At 15k/sm, real supermarkets will be too far apart, and a lot of people will be outside easily-walkable radii. People with cars tend to refuse to walk far with cargo.

That's all the more true because a percentage of people will refuse to shop at the closest store. If it's all Kraft-type shit, some people who want quality won't go there. If it's all posh, much of the rest will be lost. Others go to their ethnic outlets even if they're miles away. Others do their monthly Costco trips, despite (as someone noted above) urban residents often not having room for pallets of stuff.

Further, even if most people are ok with walking for most grocery trips, the drivers often represent a large percentage of the big, high-value sales.

This is why in the real world you have to be Brooklyn or a reasonable facsimile for supermarkets to skip the parking.

[Steely Dan]

I'd be curious to know what % of full-service super-markets (ie. the real full-array-of-everything deal, not little corner stores/convenience stores/bodegas/etc.) nationwide have zero accessory parking and rely solely on foot traffic.

Outside of NYC, I'd bet a decent chunk of cash that it's less than 1%.

[mhays]

If you mean greater than 20,000 sf, I'd guess only a handful of cities would have even one. Seattle wouldn't be one of them. (Suburban supermarkets are often over 60,000 sf btw.)