Defending the Big Box

In December's Atlantic Monthly Virginia Postrel has an absolutely brilliant argument "In Praise of Chain Stores." I have tried to find one perfect representative paragraph that sums up her argument and makes it more enticing for you to read, but it seems as if every paragraph is better than the last. If forced to choose one to give you a flavor of her argument, I would choose the following:

Stores don’t give places their character. Terrain and weather and culture do. Familiar retailers may take some of the discovery out of travel—to the consternation of journalists looking for obvious local color—but by holding some of the commercial background constant, chains make it easier to discern the real differences that define a place: the way, for instance, that people in Chandler come out to enjoy the summer twilight, when the sky glows purple and the dry air cools.

Now I do not find chain stores to provide an unmitigated benefit, but I somewhat tire of arguments hearkening to a romantic era of bustling downtowns in which Mom and Pop served the greater good with their wholly unique, homegrown stores. In a rather astringent critique of an article on Starbucks and music a little while back, I argued as much in reference to Starbucks' alleged nefariousness:

This is a clever conceit, albeit not the most original one -- we are seeing the Wal Marticization of coffee shops, a sort of Starbucksification of the country (and some might say the world, though apparently having not left New York, Hajdu might not know that one can find Starbucks in Hong Kong and England and many points in between). And no one can doubt that Starbucks has done a hell of a job of becoming ubiquitous in American cities. Though one also has to wonder about the peculiar jolt in coffee consumption that has arisen concomitant with the rise of Starbucks. Has Starbucks in fact fueled demand? And many of us live nowhere near New York. In fact, for all of New York's size, most of us don't live there, and so the question becomes, has Starbucks replaced little Mom and Pop coffee shops all over the country, or has it merely brought coffee shops to places where, in the Starbucks cafe format, they simply never existed? I cannot help but wonder if Starbucks has not in many places created demand rather than destroy a subculture. Not that Hajdu asks such questions -- such curiousity would not much help his burgeoning thesis.

The reality is that for the vast number of Americans in flyover country, and outside of a select number of metropolitan areas that might produce a (romanticized and overstated?) sui generis homegrown culture, such as New York, Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco, many of these box stores have increased access to goods and products by a thousandfold. More Americans can access more books, cd's, and electronic goods than ever before. And not just mainstream fare. If you want a book, and it is in print, or if you have heard of an obscure band and want their cd, the odds are better than good that Barnes & Noble or Best Buy will have them or, if you don't want to do the internet shoping on your own, they can make sure you get what you want. I love Postrel's argument that "stores don't give places their character." It is an important argument from a wonderful and thought provoking piece.

Now if you'll excuse me, the fiancee and I are going to deal with wedding registration at Target (bourgies though we are, we find it nice that we can register at a place that is both affordable and accessible for the proles) and I think I might be in the mood for a caramel macchiato. Gauche, I know, but we rubes gotta get by too.