Brandon Donnelly
Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly.
Brandon Donnelly
Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly.
Earlier this year, Salt Lake City enacted new policy called the Downtown Heights and Street Activation Ordinance. As the name suggests, the ordinance addresses building heights, allows for taller buildings in the city, and works to improve ground floor animation. This is among other things.
If you'd like to read through the ordinance (because why not),
Earlier this year, Salt Lake City enacted new policy called the Downtown Heights and Street Activation Ordinance. As the name suggests, the ordinance addresses building heights, allows for taller buildings in the city, and works to improve ground floor animation. This is among other things.
If you'd like to read through the ordinance (because why not),
We all recognize that blank walls (at street level) are suboptimal for urban vibrancy. But the thing about retail is that it doesn't work everywhere. Even if we really want it everywhere, that may not be possible, at least in the short-term. Retail is usually a lagging indicator. The demand typically needs to be already in place for it to do well.
That said, in really central areas, the correct decision could be to just mandate it everywhere. And that is what SLC has done in its central business district:
However, things get trickier in transitional or emerging areas where you're kind of just hoping that retail might someday work. From a development perspective, if we weren't convinced that the retail would work and if we were being forced to build it, we would underwrite it very conservatively. This might mean applying zero (or even negative) value to it. This way if we can't lease the space and it remains empty, at least it isn't fatal. But it does mean that the rest of the project needs to carry this loss.
Of course, now you still have a ground floor animation problem. You have empty storefronts. Though one argument might be that at least you've provisioned for a future where retail does eventually work. And if this does happen, then somebody was clairvoyant and you're happy that you built it. But if the area doesn't ever support good retail, well then you're stuck with an underperforming ground floor.
One alternative solution that can work on non-obvious retail streets is live/work. This way you build in some flexibility for the spaces to move toward retail (or other non-residential uses) if/when it becomes viable. But it's not a perfect solution. It's hard to make live/work suites entirely interchangeable. The ideal design parameters for retail are usually different than that of a home. Still, it can work reasonably well and provide needed flexibility.
It’s all very tricky. But at the end of the day, I think we can all agree that the objective is to limit blank and non-active faces on our principal urban streets. How we do that is the question. And sometimes it's more art than science.
The New York Post has some interesting articles, here and here, on the growing retail vacancy problem in NYC. (Thank you Michael for the link in the comments this week.)
The vacancy rate on Amsterdam Avenue in the Upper West Side is said to be around 27% and it is said to be around 20% on a stretch of Broadway in Soho. It has become such a problem that Mayor Bill de Blasio wants to implement some sort of retail vacancy tax:
“I am very interested in fighting for a vacancy fee or a vacancy tax that would penalize landlords who leave their storefronts vacant for long periods of time in neighborhoods because they are looking for some top-dollar rent but they blight neighborhoods by doing it,” he said on WNYC. “That is something we could get done through Albany.”
But this is based on the assumption that greedy landlords are simply holding out for exorbitant rents. It doesn’t consider the fact that, maybe, there is simply too much retail space:
Only a few grasp the true scope of the problem. Vornado Realty Trust titan Steven Roth said we can only cure the national plague through “the closing and evaporation” of up to 30 percent of the weakest space — which would take five years.
All of this, of course, has me thinking about the future of ground floor main street retail. What are your thoughts?
We all recognize that blank walls (at street level) are suboptimal for urban vibrancy. But the thing about retail is that it doesn't work everywhere. Even if we really want it everywhere, that may not be possible, at least in the short-term. Retail is usually a lagging indicator. The demand typically needs to be already in place for it to do well.
That said, in really central areas, the correct decision could be to just mandate it everywhere. And that is what SLC has done in its central business district:
However, things get trickier in transitional or emerging areas where you're kind of just hoping that retail might someday work. From a development perspective, if we weren't convinced that the retail would work and if we were being forced to build it, we would underwrite it very conservatively. This might mean applying zero (or even negative) value to it. This way if we can't lease the space and it remains empty, at least it isn't fatal. But it does mean that the rest of the project needs to carry this loss.
Of course, now you still have a ground floor animation problem. You have empty storefronts. Though one argument might be that at least you've provisioned for a future where retail does eventually work. And if this does happen, then somebody was clairvoyant and you're happy that you built it. But if the area doesn't ever support good retail, well then you're stuck with an underperforming ground floor.
One alternative solution that can work on non-obvious retail streets is live/work. This way you build in some flexibility for the spaces to move toward retail (or other non-residential uses) if/when it becomes viable. But it's not a perfect solution. It's hard to make live/work suites entirely interchangeable. The ideal design parameters for retail are usually different than that of a home. Still, it can work reasonably well and provide needed flexibility.
It’s all very tricky. But at the end of the day, I think we can all agree that the objective is to limit blank and non-active faces on our principal urban streets. How we do that is the question. And sometimes it's more art than science.
The New York Post has some interesting articles, here and here, on the growing retail vacancy problem in NYC. (Thank you Michael for the link in the comments this week.)
The vacancy rate on Amsterdam Avenue in the Upper West Side is said to be around 27% and it is said to be around 20% on a stretch of Broadway in Soho. It has become such a problem that Mayor Bill de Blasio wants to implement some sort of retail vacancy tax:
“I am very interested in fighting for a vacancy fee or a vacancy tax that would penalize landlords who leave their storefronts vacant for long periods of time in neighborhoods because they are looking for some top-dollar rent but they blight neighborhoods by doing it,” he said on WNYC. “That is something we could get done through Albany.”
But this is based on the assumption that greedy landlords are simply holding out for exorbitant rents. It doesn’t consider the fact that, maybe, there is simply too much retail space:
Only a few grasp the true scope of the problem. Vornado Realty Trust titan Steven Roth said we can only cure the national plague through “the closing and evaporation” of up to 30 percent of the weakest space — which would take five years.
All of this, of course, has me thinking about the future of ground floor main street retail. What are your thoughts?
Swiss running brand On recently opened up a new flagship store in NYC's NoHo district. It was designed by the Swedish architect and designer Andreas Bozarth Fornell (whose firm is called Specific Generic), and I think it's a good example of the whole push toward "experiential retail." Before Zappos there was a belief that nobody was prepared to buy shoes online. Surely shoes are something that you need to try on to make sure that they fit properly. But then Zappos and Tony Hsieh came along and decided to offer free returns so that you could just order a few different sizes to try on at home and return the ones that don't fit. And then just like magic, we're now living in a world where I myself couldn't tell you the last time I bought a pair of shoes offline.
What is obvious at this point is that people will buy pretty much anything online -- everything from boats and real estate to shoes and tires -- and so, in many cases, the physical retail experience needs to be exactly that -- an experience. Something special. What On has done with their flagship store in NYC is try and create a space that, among other things, tells their brand story, acts as a hub for the local running community, and offers up a unique technological experience that is likely pretty difficult to replicate online. One of the key features is a "magic wall" that analyses your technique and scans your feet as you run past it (pictured below). The invisible foot scanner is supposed to help you find the perfect shoe size, accurate to within 1.25mm.
If you're a serious runner, I could imagine this being a pretty appealing in-store experience. (And if you're not a runner, I guess you could just take a selfie in front of the magic wall. People seem to like pink walls). Whatever the case may be, I think On has done a great job trying to rethink the retail experience around its brand story and philosophy. But it leads me to a bunch of questions. Which brands and/or products are suitable for a new retail experience? (Does toilet paper, for example, want a new high-tech warehouse space in NoHo?) Assuming we continue down this path toward experiences, does this ultimately lead to less retail space per capita? Probably. And if we're destined for less space, what does that ultimately mean for the ground floor experience of our cities? What should these spaces become? How does street life evolve?
Cities aren't going anywhere. But change is inevitable.
Images: On
Swiss running brand On recently opened up a new flagship store in NYC's NoHo district. It was designed by the Swedish architect and designer Andreas Bozarth Fornell (whose firm is called Specific Generic), and I think it's a good example of the whole push toward "experiential retail." Before Zappos there was a belief that nobody was prepared to buy shoes online. Surely shoes are something that you need to try on to make sure that they fit properly. But then Zappos and Tony Hsieh came along and decided to offer free returns so that you could just order a few different sizes to try on at home and return the ones that don't fit. And then just like magic, we're now living in a world where I myself couldn't tell you the last time I bought a pair of shoes offline.
What is obvious at this point is that people will buy pretty much anything online -- everything from boats and real estate to shoes and tires -- and so, in many cases, the physical retail experience needs to be exactly that -- an experience. Something special. What On has done with their flagship store in NYC is try and create a space that, among other things, tells their brand story, acts as a hub for the local running community, and offers up a unique technological experience that is likely pretty difficult to replicate online. One of the key features is a "magic wall" that analyses your technique and scans your feet as you run past it (pictured below). The invisible foot scanner is supposed to help you find the perfect shoe size, accurate to within 1.25mm.
If you're a serious runner, I could imagine this being a pretty appealing in-store experience. (And if you're not a runner, I guess you could just take a selfie in front of the magic wall. People seem to like pink walls). Whatever the case may be, I think On has done a great job trying to rethink the retail experience around its brand story and philosophy. But it leads me to a bunch of questions. Which brands and/or products are suitable for a new retail experience? (Does toilet paper, for example, want a new high-tech warehouse space in NoHo?) Assuming we continue down this path toward experiences, does this ultimately lead to less retail space per capita? Probably. And if we're destined for less space, what does that ultimately mean for the ground floor experience of our cities? What should these spaces become? How does street life evolve?
Cities aren't going anywhere. But change is inevitable.
Images: On
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
