« February 4, 2007 - February 10, 2007 | Main | February 18, 2007 - February 24, 2007 »
Don't shoot the messenger because I can't disagree more, but this is one chain-oriented retail consultant's take on why real estate developers choose chains over independent businesses: small retailers are lazy, will not work evenings and weekends, do not pay their rent on time, whine all the time, blame others for their failures, offer poor service, have low sales, do not update, clean or maintain their store interiors, and thus cannot pay market rate rent, but the exceptions are welcome.
First response: This is like saying you typically hire the first employee that applies for the job, and you found many of them lazy, late, whiny, etc. Unfortunately, building owners often take the first retailer who can pay the lease.
Second response: Then just focus on those 'exceptions', which often not only outperform the chains, but add much more to the local culture, economy and community.
One fundamental asset to a successful independent-oriented retail cluster is a retail/restaurant development expert who knows how to identify 'the exceptions'. This is who they have at Storrs Center in Mansfield CT at the University of CT, and they use a 'casting call' to find the best tenants. A chain is essentially a successful independent that's been replicated, so what their casting call does is find successful entrepreneurs who know how to replicate, but as other unique independents rather than pure 'replicas.' These skilled entrepreneurs are known as VIBEs (variegated independent-business entrepreneurs). Another developer with such talent in-house is Goldman Properties.
The key to an effective casting call is that the City assists in attracting more and better candidates to the call, (Austin is doing that and providing $ as well!) rather than letting the building owner go it alone via a classified ad and 'For Lease' sign in the window.
As far as results, in my own neighborhood where the retail (at least 100,000 s.f.) is over 90% independent and thriving (image), the local coffeehouse gets at the very least three times as much traffic as the Starbucks one block away, which pretty much attracts only 'bridge and tunnel' patrons. In fact, the most successful indie businesses were started by VIBEs, but you'd never know it, and even less so if/when they sell it.
Posted by Neil | Link to Article | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Should rural universities even think about going urban? In our customer-driven economy based on you, that question may be best answered by the students themselves, such as Cleo Szmygiel, a University of Connecticut freshman, “This would make it easier for them to attract students.”
That's a quote from a NY Times article on how students who want a more urban vibe when going to a university 'in the middle of nowhere' are finally getting what they want. Just listen to these University presidents:
“You can’t market yourself as bucolic. Students graduating from high school these days seem particularly attracted to urban settings. I think students crave the kind of vitality you have in an urban space. The images that reveal an active social life are urban-based,” says J. Timothy Cloyd, president of Hendrix College, whose college is investing land and $8-$10 million toward that vision.
”The distinctive marks of many of these campuses are shops, restaurants, offices and housing that, together, create a destination. The idea is to produce street life and to promote social interaction." Ralph J. Hexter, president of Hampshire College.
“When you picture a global university, you picture urban. You picture restaurants, art galleries, you picture day and night, taking in movies, live performances.” Amy Gutmann, president of University of Pennsylvania.
Other rural universities going urban: University of Connecticut in Storrs (see CoolTown profile on Storrs Center; the University of Notre Dame; Furman University in Greenville, SC; and Hampshire College in Amherst, MA.
Image: The Village at Hendrix College by TND Partners.
Posted by Neil | Link to Article | Comments (1) | TrackBack
The Grand Rapids, MI area lost 27,000 jobs between 2000 and 2004, but is it looking to regain them by 'stealing companies from other cities' like most economic development programs prioritize?
Not so. In BusinessWeek's Towns Chasing Workers, Not Just Jobs, Greg Northrup, president of the West Michigan Strategic Alliance states, "The old model, where you used to chase people to invest in real estate [ie office parks] might not be the most effective way to be successful. There's recognition that if I can retain the intellectual capital of people doing work for companies in other locations, it brings value to our region."
Why the emphasis on people as virtual workers rather than corporate employees? The article states that, for instance, 10% of a Colorado county's households have at least one virtual worker, and about 86% of those virtual-worker households bring in more than $100,000 a year.
So what is Western Michigan investing in to attract them? Among the examples you typically see on this site, they're looking at third place work centers:
"In late 2005, they came up with the idea to create business community centers that are inviting to people who may need to work outside their homes anywhere from a few hours to a few days per week. These work centers, still in the conceptual phase, are company-neutral locations where a mobile worker can, say, have a serious [or not so serious] business meeting away from home and the office.
Such locales are known in industry parlance as "third places" and they can include coffee shops and bookstores - but they also range to the more professional community centers that Western Michigan envisions. "You've got to invent a different place for people to work - the coffee shop gets really old after a while," says Richard Florida, author of The Rise of the Creative Class".
...like the Affinity Lab (pictured) in Adams Morgan, Washington DC (which has workspaces available, by the way...)
Click here for more examples of creative class workplaces.
Posted by Neil | Link to Article | Comments (0) | TrackBack
So how did Boulder Housing Partners (BHP) bring together seven different developers to work together on a common vision for the Holiday Neighborhood in Boulder? Mind you, developers rarely partner with other developers, much less six others.
The key is that BHP had a very clear vision for the 27-acre former drive-in theater site, one that resulted from extensive citizen participation. The vision's focus on people and community also greatly appealed to the 45 interested parties that responded to a request for letters of interest. It's also no coincidence whatsoever that BHP had someone like Cindy Brown, the co-executive director for development, who was essentially the project manager for the Holiday neighborhood from beginning to end.
She recognized what kinds of interested tenants were good matches for interested developers and introduced them to one another, such as artists/creatives with live/work, mews, and studio developers, or even Habitat for Humanity with a co-housing group. She also ensured that 138 of the 333 housing units were attainable, an especially important asset in attracting the creative class.
The good news is that Cindy, through BHP, is available to consult other cities that are interested in multi-developer, even multi-site development, with a keen interest in urban infill and redevelopment.
Posted by Neil | Link to Article | Comments (0) | TrackBack
If you're familiar with the open-source form of business development that's becoming the standard for the fastest growing companies, and read the entry introducing the Holiday Neighborhood's application of such in Boulder, CO, you may be interested in the story behind it all.
Here's a brief timeline, with a more detailed summary in the American Planning Association article, They're Bolder in Boulder:
- 1969-1989: Drive-in theater operates on 27-acre site.
- 1990: Drive-in owners' plans for big-box development clashes with City's vision for mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented development. City wins out and begins working with the Boulder Housing Authority (BHA) to plan an affordable neighborhood, led by Cindy Brown, co-executor for development.
- 1995: City completes citizen-driven community plan for area, detailing the vision for mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods.
- 1997: City purchases the site from the owners.
- 1998: BHA purchases the site from the City and commences with development plans, incorporating extensive public participation and a goal to catalyze what would appear as a diverse neighborhood and not a 'project'.
- 1999: BHA first sends out a request for letters of intent (LOI) targeting developers, commercial tenants.
- 2001: Boulder Housing Authority changes its name to Boulder Housing Partners (BHP), to focus on a public-private partnership to develop the site as that diverse neighborhood, with attainable housing, neighborhood park, community garden, and small blocks and buildings oriented to the street.
- 2002: After BHP's request for LOIs attracts 45 letters of interest from developers and commercial tenants who share the community vision, seven developers are selected.
- 2003: Holiday Neighborhood breaks ground.
- 2007: Development is finalized, the ~500 residents are fully engaged in improving their community and hosting events, and the surrounding areas start to follow their lead with similar investments.
Image: The restored Holiday drive-in theater sign, and the new surrounding developments inspired by Holiday - Greater Holiday you could say.
How did Boulder Housing Partners put it all together? More tomorrow...
Posted by Neil | Link to Article | Comments (0) | TrackBack