There’s certainly inertia to tradition, change is difficult for most people. There’s more to it too- let’s hit practical first quickly. Velcro in consumer shoes has mechanical limitations and compromises. Simply put, cheap shoe laces well cared for can last lifetimes. Velcro if used has a far more limited useful life generally.
This is compounded by the fact that Velcro is generally prone to picking up environmental debris of certain types and trapping them, which at the least impede its appearance and function.
Velcro of course also has a limited holding power, and there are compromises to stronger Velcro generally which hinder its use in most consumer shoes. These factors do combine to create cases where Velcro may not be the top choice, but they probably aren’t strong enough reasons alone to have detailed Velcro for shoes. Though if you stop and think about it, Velcro is seldom used for fastening jackets or clothing made of heavy materials (like shoes usually are).
More than anything there is often push back and “gate keeping” involved with new technologies that make things easier or simpler for a wide range of people. This has been the case with many inventions of convenience through history, especially in the Industrial age. The precision results machines can get often dwarf “hand made”, but in an age where “hand made” items are artisanal goods often worth more than mass machine made goods, relying on older methods can be a way to signal money or status. Simply having the time to prepare foods from “scratch” versus using many “instant” foods (another technology heavily influenced by space travel…) can signal status. Beyond socioeconomics is pride. Technologies like Velcro enable people with various abilities to do tasks they couldn’t otherwise or would be more difficult. Velcro is often associated with children and the elderly because of reduced motor skills and cognitive ability or coordination making Velcro often associated with…
.. not being able to tie your shoes.” If we stop and think about it, in many cultures but especially western cultures, there are parallels between complexity or inconvenience and style/formality (and thus status.) Not being able to tie a neck tie traditionally identified someone from more provincial or “blue collar” roots. Not being able to tie a bow tie or know how to wear a tuxedo correctly are traditional signs of someone who doesn’t “come from” or associate with money- as that is often the garb of “high society” affairs. Certain styles etc. for womens clothes, makeup, hair, jewelry are likewise often used as a sign of her pedigree and social exposure. Specific to childishness, certain hair cuts like “pig tails” or “bowl cuts” are often seen as childish as are some styles like coveralls and such. It’s a long list but dressing “mature” or “like a kid” or “matriarchal/patriarchal” are all widespread concepts.
“Adults don’t watch cartoons…” “adults don’t listen to music like that..” “adults don’t do that…” etc. etc. these are perceptions like “acting like an old person…” most people will try, at least out of some social pressure, to stay inside “age appropriate” likes for their age group- people tend to notice when a 60yo “dresses like a college kid” or vice versa. So Velcro is often associated with elderly or immature people. With the socioeconomic gate keeping of culture which tends to use ritual and additional expenses and such to easily separate people into the groups they are “in,” and the technical stuff- Velcro just didn’t catch on big to replace other traditional fasteners. As for Velcro being space technology- lord of things are used for space travel that aren’t better for most things on earth. So being advanced technology doesn’t make something inherently “better.”
The problem with Velcro is that it gets worn out and stops sticking over time. And if you want to replace it, you have to re-sew it on, which let me tell ya is a major pain in the ass. I recently fixed some old boxing gloves from the gym I go to, and because of the way the gloves were constructed and stuffed, I couldn't just take the Velcro off, I had to make a whole new panel with elastic and Velcro at the end. Whereas lacing is easy to replace and doesn't get worn out over time.
Honestly, the more I get into sewing the more I appreciate the old methods. Zippers get stuck and break and you have to replace the whole thing, elastic gets irreversibly stretched out, Velcro loses its potency, but lacing, hooks and eyes, buttons, those will last you for decades because they're so easily fixable unless you literally tear the fabric they're sewn on. Lace snapped or got worn out? Buy a new one. Button popped off? Sew it back on (oh, and don't you dare do the loop around trick! It puts stress on the fabric and you can tear it! You can replace a loose button but not a hole in fabric.) Hook and eye bent out of shape? Bend it back or replace it. Ah, it's so much more convenient and eco-friendly because you can just replace one small part rather than having to buy a new thing or reconstruct your whole garment.
True. There is so much waste in the clothing industry and everything supporting and steering from “cheap disposable fashion” etc. I’ll give SOME leeway to the kids and elderly- motor skills that may necessitate easily donned attire, often times relatively short expected use cycles from garments (kids grow fast, old people die, some elderly and most kids tend to stain, rip, or otherwise easily damage garments etc. and generally require assistance to fix them… etc.) In general though it might be nice to see clothing, shoes etc. move back to a more longevity based model and serviceability over replacement. Of course those decisions are largely driven by our behaviors- cheap flip flops on vacation you don’t care for/dry out when wet and toss after use, fashions to suit moods and whims, a non stop lifestyle where one can’t be without their shoes a week while they are repaired or be troubled to bother etc.
Of course our current economy is so reliant on waste that a philosophy of lower production and consumption of higher quality serviceable goods with higher costs would fundamentally alter the world and as things stand- cause mass unemployment and likely destroy the economies and household finances of homes world wide. Needing more skilled workers and less unskilled workers, creating more local spending on things like repairs and cottage production, destroying many of the supply chain positions like warehousing and delivery as well as the raw materials production industries staffing needs and the sales side of most consumer goods. It would literally be a while different world than most of us are used to.
Absolutely! The production cycle of fast fashion companies is two weeks. Two freaking weeks! After two weeks, your clothing isn't fashionable anymore and you're supposed to get something from the new collection. This, along with a billion other marketing tricks of course, keeps people buying more clothing they don't wear and it just rots in their closets, and later on in landfills. A slower world with things that last longer would ultimately be a better world (IF coupled with decentralization and local, small business support. It wouldn't do anyone any good if it was all monopolies.) but the transition would definitely be hard.
Oh yeah. And it goes even deeper. If a persons ever been in a very old house, there usually aren’t many closets, and they are small. People had less stuff. Not just general. possessions and furniture that exists to dress things up and little else, less clothes etc. they didn’t need giant closets. The good news and bad news is that most of us can already choose to make the change, or at least transition a bit. The bad is that most don’t want to give up the novelty and escapism and ease or familiarity of a largely “disposable” life style where cheap goods allow us to make decisions on a whim as suits us and shop “cheap buffer style” where we can have sooo much of so many different things that are all pretty crappy vs. having much less but being able to get more out of it. I’m a fan of cheap buffets on occasion- but eating at them all the time is a questionable choice and certainly not healthy, in this case not healthy for society or the planet vs. one’s own body I suppose.
This is compounded by the fact that Velcro is generally prone to picking up environmental debris of certain types and trapping them, which at the least impede its appearance and function.
Velcro of course also has a limited holding power, and there are compromises to stronger Velcro generally which hinder its use in most consumer shoes. These factors do combine to create cases where Velcro may not be the top choice, but they probably aren’t strong enough reasons alone to have detailed Velcro for shoes. Though if you stop and think about it, Velcro is seldom used for fastening jackets or clothing made of heavy materials (like shoes usually are).