The loss of specialty stores shows the writing is on the urban diversity wall

One of the most famous writers on cities, Jane Jacobs, once summarized how this happens in a book called The Death and Life of America’s Big Cities.

She pointed out that cities first start to die slowly and often unnoticed – until it’s too late.

She seriously described how “enhancers” are too often the unintended cause of this decline.

Writing in the 1960s, she drew attention to how the clumsiness of road engineers and the intimidation of so-called “urban visionaries” were responsible for the disruptions that had caused the social and economic decline of large cities in the past.

One of his findings that has echoes in nature is how a loss of urban diversity – of businesses and building types – harms a city.

The loss of specialty stores that only sell one type of item is equivalent to a loss of biodiversity in nature. Jacobs noted these losses as a key symptom that warns that a city is in fatal decline.

The supply of specialized shops is one of the main differences that distinguishes a city center from a large city or a shopping centre, creating and supporting the attractiveness and character of the whole.

What does a dying town or village look like? Two sets of symptoms offer an extremely reliable bill of health. The former is easier to spot. If the main streets start to become overly dominated by a small number of similar shops, trouble is not far behind.

In affluent areas, these will be franchise stores for phones, shoes and gifts. In poorer areas, these will be units for bookmakers, charity shops, discount stores and fast food outlets.

The second set of symptoms – the loss of specialty stores – is more subtle, as at first it may be more difficult to notice their absence.

It takes little expertise to know that an urban area is already in deep trouble when the main street loses basic specializations – like Butcher, Newsagent, Pharmacy, or Post Office. But that’s usually not noticeable until long after the street has lost its florist, bookstore, bakery and hardware store.

But by the time you can see these two sets of symptoms coexisting, urban decay is well established.

There is a third and final stage of decomposition. This involves an increase in vacant premises, as well as a growth in poorly maintained surfaces and storefronts – often showing signs of graffiti and anti-social behaviour.

These are usually followed by abandonment, often accompanied by stigma as the neighborhood develops a reputation as a “bad address”.

There are solutions to this problem. This first and most important is surprisingly simple. We must understand and accept that all urban centers are first and foremost places of commerce. No trade, no town.

This means there must be secondary supports – traffic access, parking, pathways, lighting, policing, street cleaning.

This simple truth can often be overlooked by officials, advisers and planners. Many assume that zoning an area for “downtown” use is a “fire and forget” device that will automatically preserve the beating heart of an urban area.

Ironically, many urban areas are forced to struggle for survival under pressure from the same local planning office – as it pursues other no less laudable goals such as architectural conservation and walking and cycling schemes, as well as urban housing and amenities. (not to mention the rates and inconsistency of planning and execution decisions).

The second solution belongs to citizens who need vigilance to notice and measure these changes in the types of businesses, and who are ready to demand that the viability of their urban centers be the top priority and that all other projects take second place.

Each small decision must ask the question: does it bring or distance the territory from urban diversity?

If another cafe is the answer to replace a lost specialty store, then we are asking the wrong question.

The rapid acceleration of myopic trends in urban planning – such as favoring only food and drink outlets – is part of a well-known pattern that always precedes urban decay. Making a territory attractive only to tourists and foreigners to the detriment of local residents always ends badly.

It is essential to avoid oversimplification. Cities are complex places full of businesses that are born, thrive for a while, and eventually die, just like trees in a forest.

There will always be a need for cheap space available for new entrants, such as tattoo parlors, hair salons and nail salons, as well as new trendy cafes and pubs. There will also always be businesses that society needs less or more, such as knife sharpeners, corset makers and saddlers.

But you still need space and favorable conditions for specialty stores.

Recently, there seems to be a surge in specialty business closures, with many complaining about how public domain initiatives are a big contributor to the closure.

What is needed is balance and planning to avoid any unintended drift under these circumstances – or worse, that these enthusiastic new policies may unwittingly accelerate this type of decline through lack of awareness. We must be vigilant.

No change. No city.