brookings retail revitalization
TRANSCRIPT
Retail Trade as a Route to Neighborhood Revitalization
[Photo of Richmond]
IRON TRIANGLE, RICHMOND, CA
Retail development challenges
Lack of large sites
Development costs
Crime and cleanliness
Management factors
Access to capital
The retail gap
Porter brought attention to untapped spending power of urban neighborhoods in 1995
Potential overlooked by traditional market analysis
Higher density and concentrated buying power
Inner cities represent a $122 billion retail market
1/3 of retail spending ($40 billion) spent out of area
Can retail growth lead to neighborhood revitalization?
Defining “revitalization”
Retail growth is relatively easy to measure.
“Neighborhood revitalization” is harder to define
Do lower income residents necessarily benefit?
Who benefits from retail growth?
Or help them by creating jobs, and economic opportunities and promoting more mixed income neighborhoods
Increased retail activity could harm low-income residents by contributing to displacement
How might retail benefit residents?Improved access to goods and services
More jobs
Strengthened social norms and networks
Improved self-perception/identity
Increased neighborhood competitiveness
Changed neighborhood residential composition
Meeting basic needs
Improved access to retail goods and services is a frequent goal for low-income residents
Freeman showed that low-income residents saw new stores as a benefit even in in the face of rising rents and displacement
There must be more to it than jobs!
Retail generally does not offer great jobs
People vs. Place
People: Neighborhood economic development may be irrelevant because participation in the regional economy matters more
Place: Neighborhood development creates social norms and networks key to success in regional economy
Retail as anti-poverty strategySeidman: Commercial revitalization addresses poverty by:
Creating a more positive environment
Improving social interaction
Changing resident self-perceptions and norms
The “excluded consumer”
Individuals are aware of social exclusion when they can’t purchase basic goods
Even whose who can afford goods experience exclusion based on the mode through which they purchase
New retail can alleviate this sense of exclusion
New retail can alleviate this sense of exclusion
New retail can exacerbate this sense of exclusion
Retail as a “signal change”
More important than the actual convenience of nearby shops may be the “signal” that retail development sends
Competitive position
Neighborhoods compete for resources
Retail development may improve a neighborhood’s competitive position
This neighborhood is getting better
This neighborhood is getting better
Safer
This neighborhood is safer
This is a better place to invest
Residential Composition: Chicken or Egg?
More higher income residents, improve spending power and should support more stores
Residents with economic options may prefer to locate in neighborhoods with more retail opportunities
Does population growth drive retail growth?
Koebel and Immergluck found that growth in neighborhood spending power didn’t explain retail growth
Non economic factors had a bigger impact
Does retail growth drive residential change?
Retail growth may change who chooses to live in a neighborhood
Retail development can be a tool to influence the character of changing neighborhoods
Mixed income neighborhoodsPotential benefits for low-income residents
Improved resources and services
Better mechanisms for informal social control
Social interaction with higher income residents could lead to improved economic opportunities
The difficult bind
If we make the place better, won’t wealthier people outbid existing residents for the right to live here?
Doesn’t any improvement eventually contribute to displacement?
There is more than one kind of change
Low income growth
Middle income growth
Upper income growth
“Bi-polar” growth (Galster)
“Gentrification” (Freeman)
Retail development strategies
Three retail development strategies
Public-led commercial development
“Market-led” business attraction
Commercial district revitalization
Defining successRetail as a route to revitalization
1. Do programs lead to retail growth?
2. Do residents receive direct economic benefits?
3. Do perceptions of the neighborhood change?
4. Does other investment follow?
5. Does neighborhood composition change?
6. How does population change impact residents?
Impact measures
Job creation
Vacancy rates
Private investment/Public investment
Tax revenue/property values
Crime and safety
Community Identity
Public led commercial developmentAttempt to “catalyze” market activity by subsidizing new real estate projects
Projects developed by Community Development Corporations or private developers
Key funding provided by local government
New Horizons Center
• MBD Development Corporation – The Bronx
• 134,000 square foot shopping center
Pathmark Supermarket
Athlete's Foot
Blockbuster Video
Paramount Home Decorators
Radio Shack
Rent-A-Center
New Horizons Center Outcomes400 jobs; 85% neighborhood hires
Most hires through MBD Job Center
22 national and regional credit tenants
No local small businesses
Access to healthy food
Brought back life on the street
Sources of public capitalUrban Development Action Grants
Community Development Block Grants
Tax Increment Financing
EZ/EC Programs
Historic Preservation Tax Credits
New Markets Tax Credits
Public led commercial development•Job creation
Jobs in construction and operationsMay require higher subsidy per job than other job programsNo data on multiplier effects
•Vacancy rateNo evidence
•Tax revenueDirect impact of new storesLittle tracking of indirect impact
InvestmentHigh leverage of
private investment in projectsNo data on
investment in surrounding areas
Crime and safetyNo data
Community identityNo data
“Market led” business attraction
“Creating a favorable environment for business” in place of direct government involvement
Research to document the real spending power/market opportunity in urban neighborhoods
Social Compact and MetroEdge
Retail Chicago
Program of City of Chicago
Assists retailers with finding sites and developing new retail in targeted neighborhoods
Neighborhood economic profiles
New metrics to identify untapped spending power
Retail Chicago
“Market led” business attraction
•Job creationAnecdotal evidence of private projects creating jobsNo data on multiplier effects
•Vacancy rateNo data
•Tax revenueNo data
•InvestmentAnecdotal evidence of privately financed projects
Often accompanied by significant public investment
No data on investment in surrounding areas
•Crime and safetyNo data
•Community identityIncreased positive attention to urban market opportunities
Commercial district revitalization
(Urban) Main Street programs
(Neighborhood) Business Improvement Districts
CDC Revitalization Programs (LISC)
Revitalization programs
“Soft” changes
Neighborhood organizing
Crime reduction/sense of safety
Marketing and promotional events
Facade/streetscape improvements
Fruitvale Main StreetEstablished in 1996
LISC pilot site
CDC led
Committee Structure
Design
Promotion
Safety and Cleanliness
• Economic Restructuring
Fruitvale Main Street Design Façade Improvements
•Matching Grants•Design Assistance
Public Improvements•Fruitvale Plaza Park •Cultural Arts Banners •Antique Street Lights •Bus Shelters •Historic Preservation•Historic Markers
Fruitvale Main Street Promotion
•Special Events• Dia de los
Muertos Fruitvale Festival
•Image Enhancement• Business
Directory
•Retail Events• Christmas
Posada
Fruitvale Main Street Economic Restructuring•Market Analysis
•Annual Economic Impact Study
•Leakage Study
•Training
•Shoplifting Workshop
•Taxes & Loans Workshop
•“It’s Your Business” Seminar
Fruitvale Main Street Safety and Cleanliness
Cleanliness•Anti-Litter Campaign•Improved Trash Cans•Ambassadors
Safety •Relationship with Police•Pay phones ordinance
Fruitvale Main Street Results – First 5 Years
• 140+ participants on Main Street committees
• 133 net new jobs
• 51 new business start-ups, 8 expansions
• 110 facades completed
• $2.7 million private sector investment
• $2.1 million public sector investment
• Adopted Business Improvement District
Fruitvale Village
Revitalization programs
•Job creation•Average program generates steady job growth•Wide variation between programs
•High percentage filled by residents
•Vacancy rate•Documented declines in vacancy rates
•Tax revenue•Documented increases faster than citywide average
•Investment•Limited public investment leverages private capital
•Most neighborhoods experience increased public investment
•Crime and safety•Documented declines in crime rates•May relocate to nearby areas
•Community identity•Documented change in perception of neighborhoods
Defining successRetail as a route to revitalization
1. Do programs lead to retail growth?
2. Do residents receive direct economic benefits?
3. Do perceptions of the neighborhood change?
4. Does other investment follow?
5. Does neighborhood composition change?
6. How does population change impact residents?
Researching link between retail and neighborhood revitalization
• Overall picture
• Effects of specific programs
Data and methodology
• Data to measure revitalization
• Geolytics
• National Establishment Time Series (D&B)
• Units of analysis: tracts and zips
• Defining neighborhood change types based on income categories (Berube & Tiffany)
Diversity Index = 1
< 50% 50-80% 80-100% 100-120% 120-150% 150% +
AREA MEDIAN INCOME
PERFECT DIVERSITY
Neighborhood Change Types
• More low income • Share in bottom two groups • 2000 > 1990 • > 25% by 2000
• More middle income • Share in middle two groups• 2000 > 1990• > 25% by 2000
• More upper income • Share in highest two groups• 2000 > 1990• > 25% by 2000
Methodology: Increasing Bipolarity
• Bipolarity index measuring income distribution and diversity (1990-2000) (Galster & Booza, 2007)
• Nominal entropy index (0 to 1)
• Ordinal entropy index (1 if bimodal)
• Ratio of nominal/ordinal (>1 = bipolar)
Ratio of ordinal/nominal entropy > 1
INCREASING CONCENTRATION OF HOUSEHOLDS BELOW 50% AMI AND ABOVE 150% AMI
• Housing price appreciation > regional average
• Increase in educational attainment > regional average
• Income at 40th percentile in starting year; and
• Central city location
Gentrification: Modified Freeman (2005) Definition
Bay Area Neighborhood Change by Census Tract, 1990-2000
Neighborhood change typology
San Francisco Bay Area, 1990-2000
Retail Change by Neighborhood Change Type
Chain Stores by Neighborhood Change Type, 1990 and 2005
Startup Businesses by Neighborhood Change Type
Did retail respond to existing middle-income residents or newcomers?
Neighborhood Case Studies
• Increasing bipolarity: Menlo Park
• Gentrifying: Tenderloin, SF
• Becoming more low-income: Richmond
• Becoming more upper-income: Berkeley
• Becoming more middle-income: Alameda vs. San Leandro
Increasing Bipolarity: El Camino Real, Menlo Park
• Income diversity declined while bipolarity increased
• In 1990 18% <50% AMI, 36% >150% AMI
• In 2000 18% <50% AMI, 44% > 150%
• 5% increase in estabs 1990-2005 (vs.18% in region)
• 5% increase in sales (vs. 34% in region)
• -3% change in employment (vs. +12% regionwide)
• 10% chains (vs. 12% in region)
• 5% startups (vs. 10% in region)
Gentrifying: Tenderloin, San Francisco
• Gain in income diversity by losing low-income• <80% AMI decreases from 57% to 50%
• Median home price increase above regional average, educational attainment increase above regional average
• 1% decrease in estabs 1990-2005 (vs. 18% in region)
• 7% increase in sales (vs. 34% in region)• 11% decrease in employment (vs. +12%
regionwide)• 10% chains (vs. 12% in region)• 4% startups (vs. 10% in region)
Becoming more low income: MacDonald Avenue, Richmond
• Low income diversity with gain in low-income• <80% AMI increases from 65% to 69%
• 16% increase in estabs 1990-2005 (vs. 18% in region)
• 65% increase in sales (vs. 34% in region)• 23% increase in employment (vs. +12%
regionwide)• 6% chains (vs. 12% in region)• 8% startups (vs. 10% in region)
Becoming more upper income: Gourmet Ghetto, Berkeley
• Declining income diversity with gain in upper-income
• >120% AMI increases from 25% to 30%
• Stable establishments, employment, sales 1990-2005
• 6% chains (vs. 12% in region)
• 8% startups (vs. 10% in region)
Becoming more middle income: Park Street, Alameda
• Increasing income diversity with gain in middle-income– 80%-120% AMI increases from 20% to 25%
• 18% increase in estabs 1990-2005 (vs. 18% in region)
• 7% increase in sales (vs. 34% in region)• 0% increase in employment (vs. +12%
regionwide)• 7% chains (vs. 12% in region)• 7% startups (vs. 10% in region)
Becoming more middle income: San Leandro
• Increasing income diversity with gain in middle-income• 80%-120% AMI increases from 25% to 28%
• 1% decrease in estabs 1990-2005 (vs. 18% in region)
• 37% increase in sales (vs. 34% in region)• 2% increase in employment (vs. +12%
regionwide)• 16% chains (vs. 12% in region)• 9% startups (vs. 10% in region)
Conclusions and Next Steps
• Different strategies different impacts
• Commercial district revitalization most demonstrable impact on neighborhood revitalization
• Neighborhood composition matters:
• Retail revitalization associated with increase in middle income groups
• Retail composition matters:
• Chains stores may help fortify income diversity
• Further research on chicken/egg question needed