Not really. It is just a natural consequence of the global free market. If a government of a country will not intervene in the market to ensure the continuity & preservation of the indigenous assets then you do, in all senses of the word, get what you pay for.
If you want the cheapest, you will not necessarily get the best. Not the best for you and not the best for your community and not the best for the country.
As a country, we have been lazy and greedy. It takes effort and money to preserve things, things that you, when they are gone, realise you valued. This is true for many recent changes: local sub-post offices, corner shops, community policing, town centres reflecting choice and continuity.
Some countries have done a better job at resisting this free market erosion of our national identity. France, for example, has managed, to a much better degree than us, balance the local shops, with the out of town supermarket. They also are prepared to invest more in French products e.g. cars even though you might argue they are inferior in some cases to other products on the market.
The French have, in some senses, invested in France to preserve their national identity as best they can in this globalist world. We have not ..
I hope this is on topic enough? Took me ages to write this ..
