Grocery stores would be better served by not being giant chains with optimization problems, at least in North America.
Better zoning laws that allow mixed-use zoning would enable more, smaller grocers embedded in neighbourhoods. Personalized service would be much easier on a smaller scale. And you wouldn't have to travel far to pick it up.
Aside from specialty shops, I'm not sure there's any great virtue in smaller markets, often with higher prices and less selection, other than there are probably more of them you can walk to if you live in a denser urban area. And my observation at least in the UK is that most of those smaller grocers are giant chains like Tesco and Sainsbury.
Not smaller markets, just operating under a large one in a more decentralized fashion. Small grocers sourcing and selling local-first will of course be more responsive to local needs and more resilient against large supply chain shocks. Not to mention cut out a lot of traffic on trucking and shipping lanes.
Being the giant chain is the optimization. Grocery stores have razor thin margins; operating at scale is the only way to keep prices reasonable.
This is also one of the few domains where people are very price sensitive, and they regularly see and think about costs. I couldn't tell you what my local automotive guy charges for an oil change, but I can absolutely tell you the price of flour and cheese.
No one is going to pay $10 for a single apple, and if you raise prices hard enough people are going to start gardening.
It's ironic that low food prices are not for ensuring equitable access to food.
Update: Go buy an apple in a food desert and I guarantee that if they have one you will pay more than a dollar for one. Grocery chains are optimized for maximizing profit not distribution.
I’d beg to differ. The current system optimizes for large grocery trips for bulk items that require long shelf stability.
Most people would agree that produce should make up the bulk of ones diet, yet it’s pretty plain to see that the footprint of the produce section doesn’t scale with the size of the store.
Produce is something best shopped for frequently, and is something I’d personally be willing to pay a higher upfront cost for the convenience of closer smaller stores where I can get in and out quickly. Because while we may pay a lower sticker price, the elephant in the room with the massive hidden cost that we pay but rarely account for: food waste.
You're also likely someone with a higher than average income, and general closeness to potential store locations. If you were poorer, or had to drive farther it's less likely you'd use those as optimization points.
Also fresh food is great for the diet and health, but when some even occurs that interrupts things like distribution of fuel, food, or power just having it around may lead you to getting hungry really quickly. This is something you have to look at on both a personal and national level. Food security can quickly lead to destabilization.
Conversely buying in bulk implies having enough room in your house to store food items.
It’s not like the typical Costco shopper is low income. Our grocery system is optimized for moderately well to do suburbanites with SUVs and large houses. Low income people tend to live in “food deserts”.
Consider the experience of shopping for food in America if you’re dependent on public transit, which a much larger proportion of the low income population are. Requiring a car to get groceries is extremely expensive.
"... this is just the rise of this new general store, and how all specialty stores look the same now, so none of them are actually really that special."
Better zoning laws that allow mixed-use zoning would enable more, smaller grocers embedded in neighbourhoods. Personalized service would be much easier on a smaller scale. And you wouldn't have to travel far to pick it up.