Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 40

Thread: How do we create active uses at street level when retail is largely overbuilt?

  1. #1
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    611

    How do we create active uses at street level when retail is largely overbuilt?

    This is a question that I pose to the group because I think it deserves some brain power.

  2. #2
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    225
    Here are a couple of ideas for discussion:

    1. Convertible frontage – These are units that are built as street-related units with the commercial design characteristics (high ceilings, no steps to front door etc.), but which can also be used as residential units. Normally the commercial uses that would locate in these units would be offices, medical or dental offices, personal services (hairdressers) or other lower intensity retail uses. This allows the commercial market to expand at required without planners having to artificially limit its growth or force retail uses where they are not economically feasible. The City of Mississauga has some great examples of this.

    2. Provide wide and attractive sidewalks in all locations. I’ve come across many communities built in the 70’s and 80’s where people have told us that they would love to walk more but they can’t because sidewalks and connections to larger networks don’t exist, or where they do exist they are hostile or unsafe. Engineer’s will tell you there is no observable demand so there is no need to improve the sidewalks and connecting trails, but if they were made attractive and effective the demand would likely appear. If you want people to walk you have to make public space inviting for them. Trees are an important element that should be included.

  3. #3
    OH....IO Hink's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hang on Sloopy...land
    Posts
    9,739
    I feel that the question is posed backwards. It should be how do we create places that have thriving street level active uses that attract retail-like businesses.

    To me the question isn't so much how to deal with the saturation of retail, but how to detail with the aesthetic and design quality that we are looking for. If a streetscape has strong pedestrian traffic, proper building scale, and good amenities, the retail and similar uses will want to be there.

    Retail is like housing. There is only so much of it - the overbuilt portion of the question is apt, but successful places will create successful businesses. I believe that if we create places we create an incubator for needed uses.
    A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

  4. #4
    Cyburbian Raf's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2007
    Location
    America's Happiest City
    Posts
    4,907
    HP is right. The question is backwards.To create street level uses, you need a few things:

    1) roadways that contribute to Pedestrian Safety, or at least make a pedestrian feel safe. This involved large sidewalks (typically larger than 6 feet), on-street parking to separates pedestrians from the roadway, and finally a roadway that is built to a smaller scale, hence, smaller lanes such as 11 to 12 feet per lane, no more than 4 lanes going either one-way or 2 lanes both way. Anything larger, and well, you lack pedestrians.. durr.

    2) Can't really do anything about overlybuilt retail, but having housing that is walkable helps out a lot. i.e. a variety of units that make it comfortable to walk to. I walk everywhere (except to work, i take transit ). I live in downtown. Reasons? I just love it, even with 2 kids. I am an exception to the mainstream america. Why do I walk everywhere, it is just pedestrian friendly that's why.

    3) What does overbuilt retail have to do with active uses at the street? Seriously? You really can't overbuild retail, unless of course your talking strips centers that are empty or huge big boxes, but that is a different discussion when it comes to active uses at the street level.
    Men do dumb $hit... it is what they do to correct the problem that counts.

  5. #5
    Cyburbian ColoGI's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Colo Front Range
    Posts
    2,395
    Quote Originally posted by Hink_Planner View post
    I feel that the question is posed backwards. It should be how do we create places that have thriving street level active uses that attract retail-like businesses.

    To me the question isn't so much how to deal with the saturation of retail, but how to detail with the aesthetic and design quality that we are looking for. If a streetscape has strong pedestrian traffic, proper building scale, and good amenities, the retail and similar uses will want to be there.

    Retail is like housing. There is only so much of it - the overbuilt portion of the question is apt, but successful places will create successful businesses. I believe that if we create places we create an incubator for needed uses.
    Yes, exactly. We create places and the uses then people come to them. The soul-sucking tracts of cookie-cutter SFD were created because we thought of uses first and forgot about places.

    Big picture.

  6. #6
    Cyburbian JimPlans's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Gone to a better place (in my mind)
    Posts
    407
    Quote Originally posted by CPSURaf View post
    You really can't overbuild retail, unless of course your talking strips centers that are empty or huge big boxes, but that is a different discussion when it comes to active uses at the street level.
    Agreed. There is nothing wrong with pedestrian-friendly retail environments that are embedded in residential areas siphoning away retail sales from strip centers or big-box stores. Yes, the end result would be more abandoned auto-dependent retail structures located away from residential areas, but I think this is the point of the exercise. Eventually, population growth would cause those abandoned areas to be redeveloped into more pedestrian-friendly retail/residential areas.

    Well, it would if I ran the world, anyway.

    One thing I would like to see is pedestrian-friendly mixed-income retail environments. So many of the pleasant downtown areas that I know of consist solely of expensive, high-end stores. Low-end stores locate where there is cheap rent, and nowadays the cheapest rent seems to be in older, obsolete strip malls (in areas that I am familiar with, anyway). This sometimes creates a situation where the well-off can walk everywhere they need to while the poor have to own a car to drive to stores than they can afford.

  7. #7
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Oct 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    744
    I think having things like porches and stoops help, as well as Chinese-style intermediated sidewalks (sidewalks with built-in street furniture).

    Stephen Yablon's Jefferson Art Walk project under development in Orange, NJ is a good example.

    The important thing to bear in mind (as I commented on the smartcode thread) is that (in the US) each resident only generates between 15 and 40 sq ft of retail space (15 sq ft for a long-income community, 40 sq ft for a young, hip, affluent area). Most community-level ratios sit at an average of 20-24 sq ft/capita. This means that, at best, 10,000 people can support approximately a 200,000 sq ft community retail center. If you think about 45 du/dua as a target multi-unit density (what in SoCal would be that peculiar monstrousity - 4-5 story double-loaded p-block.. basically the densest you can get without going highrise), then you might be able to support a single 2,000 sq ft storefront for each 1 acre building, or one community-level strip mall in 182 acres gross of total development (about a half mile square). The consequences of exceeding these parameters is retail distress or simply lots and lots of unleased space, as happened in Cambridge, MA after they instituted their groundfloor retail requirement. There is never enough retail demand for the type of continuous ground floor retail that best urban design practices demand, really at below the minimum threshhold for podium-type highrises (say 100 du/dua).
    Last edited by Cismontane; 06 Dec 2010 at 12:00 PM.

  8. #8
    Cyburbian ursus's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Northern Utah
    Posts
    3,817
    Quote Originally posted by CPSURaf View post

    2) Can't really do anything about overlybuilt retail, but having housing that is walkable helps out a lot. i.e. a variety of units that make it comfortable to walk to.
    This is absolutely right by my own experience. I live within a ten minute walk of groceries, a small restuarant, all of my children's schools, a convenience store, and now (very happily) a family-practice doctor's office. Yet my street itself feels very suburban. I think the single most important factor is the proximity of business areas and residential areas.
    "...I would never try to tick Hink off. He kinda intimidates me. He's quite butch, you know." - Maister

  9. #9
    Cyburbian boiker's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2001
    Location
    West Valley, AZ
    Posts
    3,894
    Quote Originally posted by ursus View post
    This is absolutely right by my own experience. I live within a ten minute walk of groceries, a small restuarant, all of my children's schools, a convenience store, and now (very happily) a family-practice doctor's office. Yet my street itself feels very suburban. I think the single most important factor is the proximity of business areas and residential areas.

    I used to live in this neighborhood prototype. It wasn't urban, but "street-car suburban." I happily walked to my doctor's office as well.
    Dude, I'm cheesing so hard right now.

  10. #10
    Cyburbian ColoGI's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Colo Front Range
    Posts
    2,395
    Quote Originally posted by Cismontane View post
    The important thing to bear in mind ... is that (in the US) each resident only generates between 15 and 40 sq ft of retail space (15 sq ft for a long-income community, 40 sq ft for a young, hip, affluent area). ...
    Which is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay higher than any other country on the planet. This is not sustainable and we almost certainly cannot use these numbers in the near or mid-term future for planning purposes. Maybe not ever again if the "new normal" continues.

  11. #11
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Oct 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally posted by ColoGI View post
    Which is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay higher than any other country on the planet. This is not sustainable and we almost certainly cannot use these numbers in the near or mid-term future for planning purposes. Maybe not ever again if the "new normal" continues.
    yep.. and yet the SmartCode and other new-fangled planning assumes implicit ratios even higher than those ranges. IMO, the short-term sustainable reality is probably already closely to 2.0 m2/household, not per person... of course, people will eat out more once average unit sizes shrink, which they inevitably will. America's "new normal" future in urban areas (say, for 2020) is probably 700 sq/person residential space (1,400 sq ft per household) and 0.8 m2/person (1.6 m2/household) retail... or should be. And yes, that assumes household sizes will fall...

    People love to talk about the brilliance of Dutch planning in places like Borneo Sporenberg, north of Amsterdam. I challenge you to find some retail around all that superb 20 unit/acre housing. You won't find any.. 'cept for a few tiny supermarkets (<1,000 m2 stuff) and the like (I know, because the last time I was there I was dying of thirst and had to walk about a mile to get the nearest open shop from the west end of the of the middle pier). It's nothing like what the New Urbies tell us we're gonna get with smartgrowth mixed-use. Not even 10% of what we're supposed to get with it...

  12. #12
    Quote Originally posted by Cismontane View post
    I think having things like porches and stoops help, as well as Chinese-style intermediated sidewalks (sidewalks with built-in street furniture).

    Stephen Yablon's Jefferson Art Walk project under development in Orange, NJ is a good example.

    The important thing to bear in mind (as I commented on the smartcode thread) is that (in the US) each resident only generates between 15 and 40 sq ft of retail space (15 sq ft for a long-income community, 40 sq ft for a young, hip, affluent area). Most community-level ratios sit at an average of 20-24 sq ft/capita. This means that, at best, 10,000 people can support approximately a 200,000 sq ft community retail center. If you think about 45 du/dua as a target multi-unit density (what in SoCal would be that peculiar monstrousity - 4-5 story double-loaded p-block.. basically the densest you can get without going highrise), then you might be able to support a single 2,000 sq ft storefront for each 1 acre building, or one community-level strip mall in 182 acres gross of total development (about a half mile square). The consequences of exceeding these parameters is retail distress or simply lots and lots of unleased space, as happened in Cambridge, MA after they instituted their groundfloor retail requirement. There is never enough retail demand for the type of continuous ground floor retail that best urban design practices demand, really at below the minimum threshhold for podium-type highrises (say 100 du/dua).
    I agree with most of this, but Cambridge seems to have very little vacant ground floor retail, except for a stretch that once had a lot of furniture stores. that area might be better explained by the shift of this district into Boston.

  13. #13
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Oct 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally posted by Gotta Speakup View post
    I agree with most of this, but Cambridge seems to have very little vacant ground floor retail, except for a stretch that once had a lot of furniture stores. that area might be better explained by the shift of this district into Boston.
    The impact of the new policy applies almost exclusively to Tech Park and East Cambridge, where there is massive vacancy along with a lot of new commercial and multi-unit residential development. The zoning ordinance in question was a fairly recent thing..
    Last edited by Cismontane; 06 Dec 2010 at 3:15 PM.

  14. #14
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    225
    How do people feel about preventing large retail uses from being built in highway locations in order to force retail into existing built-up, walkable areas? In other words, if a retailer wants to open in your community they have to locate in your downtown.


    Quote Originally posted by Cismontane View post
    The important thing to bear in mind (as I commented on the smartcode thread) is that (in the US) each resident only generates between 15 and 40 sq ft of retail space (15 sq ft for a long-income community, 40 sq ft for a young, hip, affluent area). Most community-level ratios sit at an average of 20-24 sq ft/capita. This means that, at best, 10,000 people can support approximately a 200,000 sq ft community retail center. If you think about 45 du/dua as a target multi-unit density (what in SoCal would be that peculiar monstrousity - 4-5 story double-loaded p-block.. basically the densest you can get without going highrise), then you might be able to support a single 2,000 sq ft storefront for each 1 acre building, or one community-level strip mall in 182 acres gross of total development (about a half mile square). The consequences of exceeding these parameters is retail distress or simply lots and lots of unleased space, as happened in Cambridge, MA after they instituted their groundfloor retail requirement. There is never enough retail demand for the type of continuous ground floor retail that best urban design practices demand, really at below the minimum threshhold for podium-type highrises (say 100 du/dua).
    Those are interesting numbers, but how do you factor in distance? There are some shops that rely almost entirely on local neighbourhood people for business and others that rely on much larger catchment areas. Some retail areas attract people from all over the community and even from out-of-town, particularly if they are attractive, desirable places with some natural or architectural draw. Grouping similar uses together to form a specific shopping district can also sometimes increase the success of a particular area. There is one section of Bloor Street in Toronto where there are five or six bicycle shops all competing for sales. They survive because people from all over the City know they can go there to compare prices and they’ll always get the best deal.

    Notwithstanding the special districts, I suspect retail uses are much more affected by the volume of people passing their door than the residential density in the immediate area (although the two numbers may go hand-in-hand in many cases). For pedestrian-format retail locations that means how many people are walking along the street, along with how many people can see the shop from surface transit and passing automobiles. A street with a major transit system running along it should be able to sustain a much more robust retail environment than a non-transit street simply because people are walking to the transit stops or are transferring between lines and can take the opportunity to pick up a few things as they are waiting.

  15. #15
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Oct 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally posted by Howl View post
    How do people feel about preventing large retail uses from being built in highway locations in order to force retail into existing built-up, walkable areas? In other words, if a retailer wants to open in your community they have to locate in your downtown.

    Those are interesting numbers, but how do you factor in distance? There are some shops that rely almost entirely on local neighbourhood people for business and others that rely on much larger catchment areas. Some retail areas attract people from all over the community and even from out-of-town, particularly if they are attractive, desirable places with some natural or architectural draw. Grouping similar uses together to form a specific shopping district can also sometimes increase the success of a particular area. There is one section of Bloor Street in Toronto where there are five or six bicycle shops all competing for sales. They survive because people from all over the City know they can go there to compare prices and they’ll always get the best deal.

    Notwithstanding the special districts, I suspect retail uses are much more affected by the volume of people passing their door than the residential density in the immediate area (although the two numbers may go hand-in-hand in many cases). For pedestrian-format retail locations that means how many people are walking along the street, along with how many people can see the shop from surface transit and passing automobiles. A street with a major transit system running along it should be able to sustain a much more robust retail environment than a non-transit street simply because people are walking to the transit stops or are transferring between lines and can take the opportunity to pick up a few things as they are waiting.
    To your first point, I think some of that is possible, but then you're making a political decision to suppress big boxes (which, for both traffic and logistics reasons, like those highway interchange sites). Fine if you can get away with it. This is being debated in San Diego now, whose City Council has just passed a law that will make it virtually impossible to build a super center within city limits (and overrode a mayoral veto to do it). Wal Mart is threatening to write a ballot initiative to override the law.. or as one councillor put it: "The largest business in the world is trying to bully the city of San Diego." Interestingly, the council members who opposed the law (and lost) comprised the council's resident teabagger (Pete deMaio) and those from the poorest minority inner city districts. Those areas would love to attract a super-center as an economic growth prospect, as well as to provide their retail-starved residents with affordable groceries and other amenities.. at one point, I read that the Council President had to threaten to remove a disruptive inner city pastor from the room, who was protesting the lack of retail of his neighborhood. The law's most gungho supporters (other than existing greengrocers and their unions) were, predictably, those from gentrified or gentrifying areas with a good balance of healthy traditional "main street" corridor retail (such as Mid-city and Uptown and the beach communities)..

    To your second point, those figures are averages and thus include neighborhood, community and regional level retail together. There is some fungibility between neighborhood and community retail and between community and regional, in terms of their relative distribution. Retail, however, is a zero sum game in the sense that, yes, you can (as you suggest) zone for greater than the regional average for your particular area by concentrating locations and generating traffic, but than, by definition, you're cannibalizing retail from another area.You're making a conscious decision, with your project, to try to take away somebody else's customer flow, somewhere else (or your retail project will fail). The total amount of retail space in a city as a whole is governed by how much consumers spend in aggregate, not by location or concentration.
    Last edited by Cismontane; 06 Dec 2010 at 3:28 PM.

  16. #16
    Cyburbian Cardinal's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    The Cheese State
    Posts
    9,920
    Quote Originally posted by Howl View post
    How do people feel about preventing large retail uses from being built in highway locations in order to force retail into existing built-up, walkable areas? In other words, if a retailer wants to open in your community they have to locate in your downtown.
    We have to deal with a reality about the way in which people shop, and how these retailers build. People want to shop at Costco, Walmart, Target and the like. Communities have tried to keep them out. What happens is they end up building in the neighborhing community, and residents still get in their cars to shop their stores. Only, they are not in their community and any of the benefits, such as sales taxes, go elsewhere. Boulder, the over-hyped "planning mecca" is a perfect example of this.

    As for forcing these uses into the downtown, it often will not work. Yes, Target and others have opened a handful of urban stores, but look at the demographics of these areas. They are intensely developed. The same is not true for, say, cities like St. Louis, Sacramento, or Davenport. Another factor to consider is the size. Some chains, especially Walmart, are experimenting with smaller formats. Still, would you want to level a couple acres of downtown Billings or Savanna to place a discount store there? Interestingly, some small cities (North Platte, NE or Mason City, IA, for instance) have found ways to incorporate large grocery stores, discount stores, or even enclosed malls into their downtowns. So it can work, it just takes a very unique set of circumstances that you will not find in most places.



    Quote Originally posted by Howl View post
    Those are interesting numbers, but how do you factor in distance? There are some shops that rely almost entirely on local neighbourhood people for business and others that rely on much larger catchment areas. Some retail areas attract people from all over the community and even from out-of-town, particularly if they are attractive, desirable places with some natural or architectural draw. Grouping similar uses together to form a specific shopping district can also sometimes increase the success of a particular area. There is one section of Bloor Street in Toronto where there are five or six bicycle shops all competing for sales. They survive because people from all over the City know they can go there to compare prices and they’ll always get the best deal.

    Notwithstanding the special districts, I suspect retail uses are much more affected by the volume of people passing their door than the residential density in the immediate area (although the two numbers may go hand-in-hand in many cases). For pedestrian-format retail locations that means how many people are walking along the street, along with how many people can see the shop from surface transit and passing automobiles. A street with a major transit system running along it should be able to sustain a much more robust retail environment than a non-transit street simply because people are walking to the transit stops or are transferring between lines and can take the opportunity to pick up a few things as they are waiting.
    A few years ago I developed a calculator that I use in planning projects. Invariably, communities want to incporporate commercial into their plans because of the myth that commercial land is worth more. We use one of the first public sessions to explore potential build-out, translate that into total demand for commercial space from new development, and then ask whether people think we can capture all, more, or less of that in the district. Especially when we use comparisons (area Walmarts average 120,000 square feet and have sales of $65 million, or something like that) people begin to get realistic. Instead of forty acres of commercial that will never be built, we plan for 50,000 square feet in a neighborhood node.
    Anyone want to adopt a dog?

  17. #17
    Cyburbian Linda_D's avatar
    Registered
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Jamestown, New York
    Posts
    1,681
    Quote Originally posted by Cismontane View post
    To your first point, I think some of that is possible, but then you're making a political decision to suppress big boxes (which, for both traffic and logistics reasons, like those highway interchange sites). Fine if you can get away with it. This is being debated in San Diego now, whose City Council has just passed a law that will make it virtually impossible to build a super center within city limits (and overrode a mayoral veto to do it). Wal Mart is threatening to write a ballot initiative to override the law.. or as one councillor put it: "The largest business in the world is trying to bully the city of San Diego." Interestingly, the council members who opposed the law (and lost) comprised the council's resident teabagger (Pete deMaio) and those from the poorest minority inner city districts. Those areas would love to attract a super-center as an economic growth prospect, as well as to provide their retail-starved residents with affordable groceries and other amenities.. at one point, I read that the Council President had to threaten to remove a disruptive inner city pastor from the room, who was protesting the lack of retail of his neighborhood. The law's most gungho supporters (other than existing greengrocers and their unions) were, predictably, those from gentrified or gentrifying areas with a good balance of healthy traditional "main street" corridor retail (such as Mid-city and Uptown and the beach communities).
    I'm not surprised. I think that this is a big issue that many of the "urban boosters" (my term) who wax glowingly about their versions of urban living gloss over. Most lower income city dwellers don't have access to affordable retail unless they are willing to travel to the outer edges of the cities or into the suburbs -- which makes it unaffordable.

    Many people, especially lower income people, want to shop at Target and Walmart and Costco, and they want those stores near where they live, which is in cities. Their voices should be heard as well as well as those who have a lot more money, if for no other reason than that there are probably much more lower income people in cities than higher income people.

  18. #18
    Cyburbian ColoGI's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Colo Front Range
    Posts
    2,395
    Quote Originally posted by Cismontane View post
    People love to talk about the brilliance of Dutch planning in places like Borneo Sporenberg, north of Amsterdam. I challenge you to find some retail around all that superb 20 unit/acre housing. You won't find any.. 'cept for a few tiny supermarkets (<1,000 m2 stuff) and the like (I know, because the last time I was there I was dying of thirst and had to walk about a mile to get the nearest open shop from the west end of the of the middle pier). It's nothing like what the New Urbies tell us we're gonna get with smartgrowth mixed-use. Not even 10% of what we're supposed to get with it...
    I lived in Europe over two decades ago. It is like this in many places, but the difference is the ease of non-auto transport.

    Nonetheless, the prevalence of BigBox retail is going to make a lot of NU dreams problematic. I would like to see more neighborhood eateries and British-style pubs and they'll work in NU, but purchasing other products? Gonna be tough.

  19. #19
    Cyburbian cng's avatar
    Registered
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Greater Los Angeles
    Posts
    207
    Quote Originally posted by Cardinal View post
    We have to deal with a reality about the way in which people shop, and how these retailers build. People want to shop at Costco, Walmart, Target and the like.

    As for forcing these uses into the downtown, it often will not work. node.
    Agreed. There are appropriate scales for various products and services. I've seen big box stores located in urbanized areas, even as multi-storied structures, but ultimately, but I find the circulation and parking configuration a bit awkward. After shopping at Costco, I prefer not to push my cart full of bulk items across some congested main street aisle and take an elevator up a parking garage.

    Keep the boutiques, restaurants, bars, coffee shops, banks, offices, theaters, cultural and civic institutions in downtown. That's plenty to keep a downtown vibrant.

  20. #20
    Cyburbian ColoGI's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Colo Front Range
    Posts
    2,395
    Quote Originally posted by Linda_D View post
    Most lower income city dwellers don't have access to affordable retail unless they are willing to travel to the outer edges of the cities or into the suburbs -- which makes it unaffordable.

    Many people, especially lower income people, want to shop at Target and Walmart and Costco, and they want those stores near where they live, which is in cities. Their voices should be heard as well as well as those who have a lot more money, if for no other reason than that there are probably much more lower income people in cities than higher income people.
    Excellent point.

    Was at a Christmas....ermm...holiday party this past Saturday and there was a long discussion about this very thing. The working class folks in the neighborhood resented having to drive to the stores where we lived, and we liked the housing stock, and many (non-planners) commented intelligently on the mismatch.

  21. #21
    Cyburbian cng's avatar
    Registered
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Greater Los Angeles
    Posts
    207
    Quote Originally posted by ColoGI View post
    Excellent point.

    Was at a Christmas....ermm...holiday party this past Saturday and there was a long discussion about this very thing. The working class folks in the neighborhood resented having to drive to the stores where we lived, and we liked the housing stock, and many (non-planners) commented intelligently on the mismatch.
    This is a good observation more so in metropolitan cities. (Side note: There are many poor suburban communities in my area, especially those areas hit hard by the housing downturn. There are folks on Section 8 housing that have rented 3,000 sq. ft. McMansions as their home.)

    Anyway, how much of the lack of affordable retail in inner cities is the result of:
    1) Lack of large, vacant properties to build larger, discount type shopping centers.
    2) A decision of tenants based on market and demographic studies, with no malicious intent.
    3) A decision of tenants based on market and demographic studies, with an intent to stay out blighted communities that might tarnish their store brand.
    4) Safety or security reasons.
    5) Circulation or access issues.
    6) Lack of other commercial tenants in the area. (Nobody wants to be first mentality. Related to reason #2.)
    7) Other, or a combination of above.

    Or, governmental reasons... say, zoning.

  22. #22
    Quote Originally posted by Cismontane View post
    The impact of the new policy applies almost exclusively to Tech Park and East Cambridge, where there is massive vacancy along with a lot of new commercial and multi-unit residential development. The zoning ordinance in question was a fairly recent thing..
    The problem over there is that no one lives out there. Maybe a thousand housing units were built? That was not enough to sustain retail (as per all the other comments here)

  23. #23
    Cyburbian Linda_D's avatar
    Registered
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Jamestown, New York
    Posts
    1,681
    Quote Originally posted by cng View post
    This is a good observation more so in metropolitan cities. (Side note: There are many poor suburban communities in my area, especially those areas hit hard by the housing downturn. There are folks on Section 8 housing that have rented 3,000 sq. ft. McMansions as their home.)

    Anyway, how much of the lack of affordable retail in inner cities is the result of:
    1) Lack of large, vacant properties to build larger, discount type shopping centers.
    2) A decision of tenants based on market and demographic studies, with no malicious intent.
    3) A decision of tenants based on market and demographic studies, with an intent to stay out blighted communities that might tarnish their store brand.
    4) Safety or security reasons.
    5) Circulation or access issues.
    6) Lack of other commercial tenants in the area. (Nobody wants to be first mentality. Related to reason #2.)
    7) Other, or a combination of above.

    Or, governmental reasons... say, zoning.
    These are valid reasons why there's not affordable retail in inner cities, but my post and Cismontane's were about the tension between upper and middle income urbanists' antipathy to big box stores locating in cities and lower income city residents' (and many other residents as well) desire to have them. IMO, cities should and can have both, but too often the "urban boosters" cannot/will not understand/accept that not everybody shares their "vision" of what a city should be.

  24. #24
    Cyburbian ColoGI's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Colo Front Range
    Posts
    2,395
    Quote Originally posted by Linda_D View post
    but too often the "urban boosters" cannot/will not understand/accept that not everybody shares their "vision" of what a city should be.
    BigBoxes are inadequate density on the transect, don'tcha know.

  25. #25
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Oct 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally posted by Linda_D View post
    These are valid reasons why there's not affordable retail in inner cities, but my post and Cismontane's were about the tension between upper and middle income urbanists' antipathy to big box stores locating in cities and lower income city residents' (and many other residents as well) desire to have them. IMO, cities should and can have both, but too often the "urban boosters" cannot/will not understand/accept that not everybody shares their "vision" of what a city should be.
    I thought that a better way to handle this would've been to develop an overlay zone with retail coverage and FAR limitations that would preclude big boxes, which individual community plan areas could choose to accept or reject. Call it a Main Street Protection contextual overlay or something like that.

    In San Diego's case, Centre City and the 17-odd inner city neighborhoods around the park and west of Division Street, plus the college area, could've all adopted the overlay, along with, say, a dozen beach communities (collectively, white urban San Diego). The various City Heights neighborhoods (although impoverished and primarily minority, they seem to have very dynamic retail corridors that've been able to coexist with the two big box redevelopment sites already there) and some of the ethnic inner burbs north of the river but south of Miramar and the factory belts might've thrown in with them as well. That would've provided a contiguous no-big-box area for, say, 500,000 residents - and extending over 80 square miles - more than sufficient to protect their main streets from big box parasitism at its edges. The Barrio and Southeast would've been left free to court Wal Mart and other big boxes (to be blunt, it's not like those west of Division Street and north of the river would've shopped there anyway.. unfortunately). Also, DeMaio's suburban annex, extending up the 15, north of Miramar - where there are no viable main streets to preserve - would've been free to embrace Big Boxes too. Watching his insular white and asian constituents collaborate on something with Dems in the southeast would've been worth it, in and of itself. Goodness knows which way other outlying areas like the lakes and NCW annexes would've gone, but, in any event, this would've left two or three huge areas of up to some 700,000 residents outside of the overlay zone, fit for big box devevelopment.

    I suppose this would've been too complicated, politically. But it points to the issues with implementing smartcode and NU on a citywide scale. Not all neighborhoods will want it.. the post-war 'burban cul-de-sac areas would debateably have no use for that sort of thing, since they seem to like their lifestyles and would be extremely difficult to retrofit anyway. Many minority inner city areas would have more important things to worry about than aesthetically-driven reprogramming and don't have sufficient market-driven redevelopment in any case. I'm not even sure many of the gentrifying inner city areas would want NU.. many of them seem more interested in preservation combined with targetted infilling, not necessarily in a manner consistent with the smartcode.

+ Reply to thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 4
    Last post: 09 Nov 2012, 1:51 PM
  2. Active adult retail
    Economic and Community Development
    Replies: 9
    Last post: 26 Jun 2008, 9:40 PM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last post: 27 Sep 2007, 10:52 PM
  4. create a band
    Friday Afternoon Club
    Replies: 3
    Last post: 15 Jul 2003, 11:05 AM
  5. Chicago - street level photos.
    Cities and Places
    Replies: 2
    Last post: 11 Sep 2002, 4:59 PM