That is an incredibly privileged response to something like this. No one who is living in poverty or near the edge of poverty can even consider the additional cost associated with shipping or delivery, let alone on a weekly basis for core staples.
Reasonably priced fresh food access within walking distance should be a basic right. However, the people who need this most are those who are underserved.
But that’s my point. The case for retail increasingly only makes sense if a few extra dollars here and there matter to you and you need the savings it can provide.
So it makes sense that any increase in retail would be meant to serve that population.
I guess the point left to further discussion would be whether or not these stores truly server that population.
They clearly found a gap and a solid business model (for now) but is it a success from capitalism is concerned? or humanitarianism is concerned? I'd say the former and maybe a bandaid for the latter in some regions.
The natural conclusion of this is no retail at all, no malls and high streets reduced to cafes, hair salons and betting shops (where that’s legal). All retail goes through 2 or 3 big online suppliers with cavernous warehouses that deliver daily in vans or at a premium within the hours via bike or drone.
Repurpursing the enormous waste of land that does no longer have commercial value into cafes, hair salons, take away places and whatever else seems a more diverse, vibrant place. It also means that if you have some creative use for commercial real-estate you are likely to be charged a lower rent.
I don't think you are right about the takeaways: there will be some need to meet at places that have food at low cost, and those places will naturally want to do take away on top.
I also don't get why you think they will be converted into poor quality housing, since poor quality housing is mostly old housing that isn't maintained probably and/or is in a bad environment.
Otherwise you can just ship it from Amazon, Instacart, or a speciality store.