THE AMERICAN DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION REVIEW (THE ADRR)

Posted on April 7, 2020 by DANTH

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Online version available at: www.theadrr.com

Contact:
N. David Milder, Editor
The ADRR — The American Downtown Revitalization Review
718-805-9507 [email protected]

THE CREATION OF THE AMERICAN DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION REVIEW (THE ADRR)

There currently is no real professional journal for the downtown revitalization field. For many years, that has been strongly lamented by many of the field’s best thinkers. To remedy that situation, a band of accomplished downtown revitalization professionals are creating The ADRR. It will be a free online publication, appearing four times each year. The target date for the debut issue is now set for the June 1-15, 2020 timeframe, with the second issue aimed for the Sept 7-14, 2020 timeframe.

This ADRR is intended to be a lean and mean operation, based totally on the availability of free online resources and the time, energy and elan contributed by its authors, advisory and editorial board members, and its editor.

How to Subscribe to The ADRR

Those interested can now visit The ADRR’s website, www.theadrr.com , where, on the home page, they can sign up to become subscribers. This enrollment places the subscriber on a MailChimp mailing list so that they can receive New Issue Alerts (see below).

How Issues of The ADRR Will Be Distributed.

New Issue Alerts, containing the Tables of Contents of issues and links to their downloadable pdfs of articles are sent to subscribers via a MailChimp email blast and posted to the ADRR’s website. Each issue’s pdf files initially will be stored in a folder in ND Milder’s Dropbox account from which they can be downloaded. Subscribers can download only those articles they want to read and whenever they want to read them. The ADRR also can be found via Google searches.

The Content We Are Aiming For.
Only manuscripts about major downtown needs, issues and trends will be considered for publication. They will be thought pieces and not just reports about a downtown’s programs and policies that its leaders want to brag about. Articles must have broad salience and their recommendations broad applicability within the field. The “voice” of The ADRR will be anti-puff, and very factual, evidence driven, though not dully academic. Discussions of problems and failures will be considered as relevant as success stories if, as so often is the case, something substantial can be learned from them. The ADRR will not avoid controversial issues.

Also, the focus of The ADRR will not be overwhelmingly on our largest most urban downtowns, but also provide a lot of content and relevant assistance to those in our small and medium sized communities, be they in suburban or rural areas.

Who Will Write the Articles?

Hopefully, they will be from people in a broad range of occupations – downtown managers and leaders, municipal officials, academics, developers, landlords, businesspeople, consultants, etc. — who have significant downtown related knowledge and experience.

Curated Articles and Wildflowers. Initially, the ADRR will solicit articles to prime the content pump. Once The ADRR is up and running some articles will continue to be solicited on topics deemed a high priority by the editorial board members. Each board member can select a topic to curate an article on and seek the author(s) to write them. However, there still will be a continual traditional general call for submissions (wildflowers) focused on subjects selected by their authors. All submissions, curated or wildflower, must demonstrate sufficient merit to warrant publication in The ADRR. All submitted articles will be reviewed by board members. We hope to see many submissions!

Article Length and Author Responsibilities.

There will be short reads and long reads. Articles of 1,500 to 5,000 words will be considered. Multi-part articles of exceptional merit and salience will also be considered. What counts is their quality, not their length. Authors must have their articles thoroughly proofread prior to submission. Poorly proofed manuscripts will be rejected. Guidelines for submissions may be found on The ADRR website.

Publication Schedule:

Published four times per year, with a minimum of 5 articles in each issue. Given that this is an online publication, from a production perspective, the number and length of the articles is not a particular problem. However, from an editorial and content management perspective, the number of articles and their lengths can quickly become burdensome.

How It Will Be Organized.

The ADRR will be published by an informal group for its first year, with no person or group having ownership.

Editor. During the ADRR’s first year, N. David Milder has volunteered to serve as its editor.

The Advisory/Editorial Board :

Jerome Barth, Fifth Avenue Association
Michael J Berne, MJB Consulting
Laurel Brown, UpIncoming Ventures
Katherine Correll, Downtown Colorado, Inc.
Dave Feehan, Civitas Consulting
Bob Goldsmith, Downtown NJ, and Greenbaum Rowe
Stephen Goldsmith, Center for the Living City
Nicholas Kalogeresis, The Lakota Group
Kris Larson, Hollywood Property Owners Alliance.
Paul R. Levy, Center City District, Philadelphia
Beth Anne Macdonald, Commercial District Services
Andrew M. Manshel, author
N. David Milder, DANTH, Inc
John Shapiro, Pratt Institute
Norman Walzer, Northern Illinois University

Articles in our first issue that will be published in June 2020

Michael Berne, MJB Consulting, Working Title, ” Bringing Downtown Retail Back After COVID-19”
Roberta Brandes Gratz, “Malls of Culture.”
Andrew M. Manshel, “Is ED Really a Problem?”
N. David Milder, DANTH, Inc., “Developing a New Approach to Downtown Market Research Projects – Part 1.”
Aaron M. Renn, Heartland Intelligence, “Bus vs. Light Rail.”
Michael Stumpf, Place Dynamics, “Using Cellphone Data to Identify Downtown User Sheds”.
The Spotlight: “Keeping Our Small Merchants Open Through the COVID-19 Crisis”
- Katherine Correll, Downtown Colorado, Inc.
- David Feehan, Civitas Consulting
- Isaac Kremer, Metuchen Downtown Alliance
- Errin Welty, Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation.

The Affordable Rents Problem: A Sign of the Fragile Success of Many of Our Largest Cities and Downtowns

Posted on March 18, 2020 by DANTH

By N. David Milder

Introduction

Many of our most successful large cities are also ailing and fragile in very essential ways, whether or not their leaders and stakeholders are open to acknowledging that reality.

Yes, by many economic measures, lots of our major cities such as NYC, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington, DC,, and especially their CBDs, are more successful than ever. The value of their real estate continues to soar. As do their employment levels and their ability to attract large numbers of the creative/knowledge workers that are so essential to economic growth and success. Affluent people are eager to live in and near their flourishing downtowns. Pedestrian flows are strong. Tourist are flocking to their arts, entertainment and cultural venues as well as their hotels, restaurants and shops. Their streets are active at least 18 hours a day.

Yet, in 2017, Richard Florida published a book with a very revealing title: ” The New Urban Crisis: How Our Cities Are Increasing Inequality, Deepening Segregation, and Failing the Middle Class—and What We Can Do about It.” Increasingly, the core areas of our major cities have become places where only the very wealthy can live and play. The middle class can still work there, but even those with $1 million to spend on housing too often cannot find desirable units. Affordable housing is a major issue in these cities. Dinners for two in their restaurants can easily cost hundreds of dollars. While movie tickets may cost about $9 to $13, admission at their museums can run about $25, and tickets to prime arts event venues can run over $125 in the primary market, and over a thousand in the secondary market. Their downtowns are no longer everyone’s neighborhood, but devoted to very wealthy locals and affluent tourists. If NYC is any indicator, half of the most expensive new residential units are unsold, and the other half of the units are occupied by part-time residents, and usually vacant.¹ For most city residents, their city’s downtown is no longer really theirs.

**Some signs of disorder, sure to evoke disgust if not fea**r.

Added to the financial and spatial equity issues are the very significant return of problems of public disorder, such as homeless vagrancy and aggressive panhandling. The situation in downtown San Francisco has grown quite out of hand, with many sidewalks being blocked and pedestrians forced to run a narrow gauntlet of aggressive panhandlers, reclining/sitting vagrants, litter and human feces.² Similar, if less egregious situations can be found in several other large West Coast cities. Closer to home, one BID manager in Manhattan recently told me that dealing with problems of disorder was now his organization’s highest priority and that this also is the case with many other BIDs in the borough. Center City in Philadelphia is also making a renewed effort to deal with the problems of disorder.³Those of us who were around to see how the problems of disorder strangled downtowns during the 1970s and 1980s are very concerned about these flare ups of the problems of disorder. Will their resurgence strengthen? Have the tools we used to successfully cope with them in the recent past now lost their efficacy? Do local politicians and public at large have the required political will to do what must be done?

Also, the very success of our downtowns is causing several other problems. One that goes unnoticed until it isn’t, is that our pedestrian densities often have reached such high levels that they have significant adverse impacts on the pleasure of walking, i.e., they diminish an area’s walkability. Measures to relieve auto congestion have in some places, e.g., Midtown Manhattan, provided some pedestrian decompression by converting traffic lanes to pedestrian use. The potentially disruptive impacts of small vehicles – e-scooters, e-bikes, delivery robots, etc. — and AVs are on a rapidly closing-in horizon. For all their wealth, many downtown retail corridors in these superstar downtowns have surprisingly high vacancy rates reaching sometimes over 30%.

Creative Job Growth and Affordable Housing.

For some time now, economic development professionals have known that affordable housing is a serious and growing problem, especially those active in our large and successful cities – see table above.

Nationally, the relationship between the strong growth of high paying high tech employment and the seriousness of the affordable housing problem was also well-known. Large increases in highly paid creative workers leads to rising housing prices. The new housing products sparked by that increased demand will be largely upscale market rate. The emergence of the affordability issue suggests that one way or another the demand of upscale creatives is pushing up the costs of housing in what were middle income units.

The situation in San Francisco has already reached such severity that $1 million might buy you a home constructed from a former cargo shipping crate. An attempt even was made to smother office growth in the city in order to shift more resources to housing development. Several high tech firms have committed billions to solving this problem: Google will invest $1billion, as will Facebook, and Apple recently said it would commit $2.5 billion to the issue.⁴ I doubt they would be making these investments if the problem was not very serious.

Seattle shows what can happen to the housing market when there is a very large infusion of creative jobs by just one firm. By 2017 Amazon had eight million square feet of office space, occupying 19% of Seattle’s office space, and tens of thousands of office workers. While other major national high tech firms were also adding employees, an article by Mike Rosenberg and Ángel González in the Settle Times proclaimed: “Thanks to Amazon, Seattle is now America’s biggest company town.”⁵ It’s huge presence and growing workforce had fostered the following conditions:

By 2017, apartment rents were 63 percent higher than in 2010, and Seattle became the fastest-growing city in the country.
Home costs rose faster in Seattle than anywhere in the nation, doubling in five years, and pushing the middle class to surrounding, less expensive towns.
Seattle had the nation’s third-highest concentration of mega-commuters — people traveling at least 90 minutes each way to work. Their numbers grew 72 percent in five years.
Buses were more packed than ever, and lines running along the Amazon campus often were standing-room-only during rush hour. Metro drivers at times have to leave commuters waiting outside an Amazon office because their buses were full. Local officials even added buses to accommodate the crush of Amazon interns that arrived during the summer.⁶

Even the mere announcement of a big development project that will bring thousands of new creative workers into an area can raise prices by attracting real estate speculators and convincing homeowners to keep their homes off of the market so they can benefit more fully from the rising values of their homes. For example, Amazon’s impact on the housing market in and around Arlington, VA, it’s remaining HQ2 town, was swift, starting with the announcement of the deal. A year after the deal, with no construction completed and much not even started, Redfin reported home prices in Arlington were up nearly 18% year-over-year. That far outpaced the 2.7% price change in the D.C. metro area.⁷

Will New Expensive Housing for the New Creative Workers Help Make Housing More Affordable for Middle and Lower Income Households? One possible counter argument that has been offered by some colleagues is that the expensive new housing triggered by the new creative job holders will increase overall supply and thus help lower housing costs throughout the city. That has the prima facie validity of reflecting very basic economic principles, and there are some recent economic studies that at first blush seem to support that argument. However, I think that when you look more closely at their analyses and conclusions, their ability to really support this top down path to housing affordability becomes far less certain.

Evan Mast, in an interesting recent study using migration data found that:

Migrants “to new central city multifamily buildings come from neighborhoods with slightly lower incomes, and migrants into these neighborhoods come from areas with still lower incomes, and so forth.”
“Using a simulation model, (he found) that 100 new market-rate units ultimately create 70 vacancies in middle-income neighborhoods. New construction opens the housing market in low-income areas by reducing demand. A simulation model suggests that building 100 new market-rate units sparks a chain of moves that eventually leads 70 people to move out of neighborhoods from the bottom half of the income distribution, and 39 people to move out of neighborhoods from the bottom fifth. This effect should occur within five years of the new units’ completion.
These openings should lower prices, but the effect may be small in the least expensive areas where prices are close to the marginal cost of providing housing” (Italics added).⁸

Looking at Mast’s findings from the perspective of cities with severe housing affordability problems, the issue of the marginal cost of providing housing raises questions. In these cities the problem is precisely that the marginal cost of providing housing is beyond what middle income households can afford, not just the lowest income households. Moreover, the new units are not just market rate, but relatively high market rate. Consequently, one might reasonably ask if these cities were looked at separately, would “the effect” also be found weaker further up on the income scale? My reasoning suggests the answer is very probably yes.

In another very interesting recent study, Liyi Liu, Doug McManus, and Elias Yannopoulos at Freddie Mac looked at filtering, “the process by which properties, as they age, depreciate in quality and hence price and thus tend to be purchased by lower-income households. This is the primary mechanism by which competitive markets supply low-income housing.”⁹ They found that:

“(T)here is a wide range of filtering rates both across and within metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) for owner-occupied properties. Notably, in some markets, properties ‘filter up’ to higher-income households”
“After 40 years, average real incomes increased by 12% for Washington, DC (implying an average annual increase of 0.28%) and by 14.5% for Los Angeles (implying an average annual increase of 0.34%). Thus, properties in these markets were filtering up to higher- income households as homes aged. It is not surprising that these markets are ones with affordable housing challenges (italics added). In contrast, Detroit and Chicago show rapid downward filtering rates. For Detroit, the income index level drops 34.5% over 40 years (implying a rate of filtering of -1.1% per year). In Chicago the income index level drops by 23.7% over 40 years (implying a rate of filtering of -0.67% per year).” ¹⁰

These findings suggest the dynamics of residential real estate in markets with affordable housing challenges diverge from what basic economic theory might suggest. The size of the upper income housing deficit then is an important determinant of the degree to which new upscale housing just goes to upscale residents or does add to units filtering down to less affluent households. If the deficit is large, then there are more units filtering up, not down. If the deficit is small, and more easily met by new construction, additional units can filter down. Reducing large deficits require comparably large amounts of appropriate new housing, and until that is achieved, unit filtration will be upward in direction. It is reasonable to conclude that the entry of 25,000 new high income workers into an area probably will significantly increase the upscale housing deficit. It is sort of like a garter snake trying to swallow a bullfrog – it can be digwested, but the snake is literally stretched to the breaking point and very exposed to its predators. What happened in Seattle and Arlington provides some evidence to support that conclusion. In Arlington. just Amazon’s announcement significantly raised housing prices and reduced the number of units for sale.

Another more general relevant national trend is the fact that while the number of middle-income households has shrunk over the past decade, the number of more affluent households has increased (the number of low income households also increased).

To my mind, the above suggests that in our cities where affordability is a serious problem, a very large amount of new upscale housing is needed for them to reduce price pressures in less expensive areas and reduce the upward filtration of units. Moreover, the constant recruitment/creation of new highly paid creative workers only adds to the amount of new upscale housing that must be built in order to foster general housing affordability. Large upscale housing deficits, by reversing the normal downward filtration of units, creates a significant demand for the construction of so-called “affordable” units. That demand is real and felt, and politically can take on a life if its own. Local citizens may not want to wait, at best, five years for affordability to trickle down from the top, or even much longer when the upscale housing deficit is large and not quickly being reduced.

Billionaire Row type housing projects that are at the top of the price ladder with units that are either largely unsold or usually unoccupied do not help reduce the upscale housing deficit. They are not targeted to be purchased by the creative/knowledge workers. To the contrary, they make it more difficult by absorbing desirable development sites and diverting investment funds and entrepreneurial talents from the construction of the more needed “normal” upscale units.

The situation in Seattle suggests there is some merit to my analysis. After Amazon shifted its office growth to Bellevue, 15,000 new jobs, the growth of housing costs in the city plateaued, though costs did not decline. Successful downtowns and their nearby neighborhoods may need to be sure that they, like the snake eating the bullfrog, have fully digested any large influx of highly paid workers so they can move on again to ingest more creative/knowledge workers.

Furthermore, this is perhaps the regional creative job growth path that other ailing successful cities should follow until their upscale housing deficits are sufficiently reduced.

Also, while the top down, trickle down approach may sound good to economic theorists, from a politician’s point of view it’s probably useless. It has no immediate concrete visibility. It’s more like mumbo jumbo economics for a whole lot of their voters. It takes too much time to produce real, observable affordable housing units on a sufficient scale.

ENDNOTES

1. Derek Thompson. “Why Manhattan’s Skyscrapers Are Empty.” The Atlantic, January 16, 2020https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/american-housing-has-gone-insane/605005/

2. Heather Mac Donald, “San Francisco, Hostage to the Homeless.” City Journal, Autumn 2019.https://www.city-journal.org/san-francisco-homelessness

3. Paul Levy. “Two-Handed Solutions,: Center City Digest. Winter 2019. https://centercityphila.org/uploads/attachments/ck3op2c300jze01qd29bjoghw-ccdigest-winter-2019-web-2.pdf

4. Natalie Sherman. “Why US tech giants are putting billions into housing.” BBC News, 17 November 2019, https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50295130

5. Mike Rosenberg and Ángel González. Thanks to Amazon, Seattle is now America’s biggest company town Seattle Times. August 23, 2017 at 5:00 am Updated November 30, 2017https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon/thanks-to-amazon-seattle-is-now-americas-biggest-company-town/

6. ibid.

7. David McCabe, Erica Pandey, “Arlington sees housing boom before Amazon HQ2 even arrives AXIOS May 24, 2019 https://www.axios.com/arlington-virginia-sees-housing-boom-ahead-of-amazon-hq2-cf7bfffc-9ea7-4c76-ade4-b12355cbd463.html

8. Evan Mast, “The Effect of New Market-Rate Housing Construction on the Low-Income Housing Market.” Policy Brief. July 2019. W.E. Upjohn Institute. Pp 51. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3426103

9. Liyi Liu, Doug McManus, and Elias Yannopoulos. “Geographic and Temporal Variation in Housing Filtering Rates.” Freddie Mac, January 2020. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3527800

10. ibid.

About the Dynamics Within the New Normal for Our Downtowns — in about 1,525 words

Posted on August 5, 2018 by DANTH

By N. David Milder

Introduction

I have been working in the field of downtown and urban revitalization since 1974. Back then, the riots of 1968 had brought considerable attention to our urban distress. Many civic and business leaders became much more aware of the cascading erosion their downtowns were facing. The white flight of shoppers and residents living in the downtown and close-in neighborhoods, disinvestment by landlords and businesses, spreading physical decay, soaring fear of crime, badly tarnished public images, and widespread frustration about not knowing how to reverse this situation were common problems in downtowns across the nation. Today, many of our downtowns have been thoroughly revitalized and become very popular places for people to live, play and work. Scads of other downtowns are in the process of doing so. These days, the expectation that downtowns can and will be revitalized has replaced the fears of the 60s, 70s, 80s and early 90s that downtowns were doomed to be places of failure, despair and decay. Downtown leaders now can tap a large and growing knowledge base that includes an array of tools and techniques they can use to solve the problems that had previously plagued our downtowns. Among them are: place-making, improving walkability, transit-oriented development, mixed-use residential development, niche marketing, BIDs, TIF, PILOTs, community policing, etc. This success — both actual and expected — and the knowledge base and leadership pool that support it, are some of the defining characteristics of the New Normal for Our Downtowns.

The Downtown Residents – CSD Connection

Successful downtowns, however, are not stagnant socio/economic/geographic organisms. Indeed, some of the factors that explain their success have also both changed the way they operate and generated a new set of problems that now need attention and solutions. For example, though it is generally agreed among downtown revitalization experts that the significant growth of housing in and near our downtowns has been a primary engine for their recent rejuvenations, questions recently have emerged about downtowns being turned into ghettos for the affluent. Still, the significant presence of these residential units are themselves an important and new phenomenon. Moreover, these new residents have created a significant new demand for services, amenities and merchandise that are not typically associated with the Central Business District (CBD) functions and venues that dominated our downtowns in decades past. These CBD functions and venues also have long dominated our understanding of how successful downtowns should operate and been the focus of most downtown revitalization strategies (e.g., retail growth, office development, job creation, transportation improvements). While many of these new downtown residents may also work in the district, their demand for and consumption of opportunities to socialize, relax and be entertained has driven the development and/or use of strong restaurant and bar niches, public spaces and parks, libraries and community centers, movie theaters, museums, PACs, churches, senior centers, etc. These venues are associated with a downtown’s Central Social District (CSD) functions.

Another defining characteristic of the New Normal is that successful downtowns have very strong CSD venues and, with increasing frequency, they are as important or even outshine those associated with its CBD functions. Some types of CSD venues have long been present in some downtowns, but the appearance of a bolus of downtown residents has generally sparked their significant growth while broadening the kinds of venues present. In turn, by strengthening these venues, the downtown residents have helped them be stronger magnets for people working in the district as well as daytime visitors from the district’s largest trade areas and for tourists from even more distant places.

The presence of these residents and the strength of these CSD venues also has changed the way a downtown operates. Most importantly, they widen the range of a downtown’s multi-functionality, increasing the reasons why people will use the downtown. By doing so, they also provide a steady and significant flow of pedestrians and customers that helps assure the district does not close down on weekends or weekdays after 6:00 pm. Strong CSD venues also make the downtown “stickier,” keeping visitors in the district for longer periods of time.

Strong CSD venues also make working in a downtown more appealing. In a labor market where many job offers now find no takers, firms located in strong CSDs are likely to find it easier to recruit quality employees. Moreover, many of the quality of life needs of creatives/knowledge workers are met by strong CSD assets. In smaller towns, strong CSDs can help attract quality independent retailers and Lone Eagle business operators.

But CSD Development Can Be Very Bumpy

Nevertheless, CSD development and growth does not always have clear sailing. Many communities may opt for CSD development projects that are ill-suited for their demographics, geographic locations, or industry trends, while they could have instead undertaken projects that were cheaper to build and operate and capable of attracting many more users. For example, advocates for new arts events venues such as PACs, theaters, and museums as well as for arenas and stadiums often badly over-estimate their potential economic impacts on the downtown, while underestimating construction and operating costs. In larger cities, major organizations in the opera, ballet, symphony orchestra and nonprofit theater fields are badly stressed having to cope with significant declines in paid attendance and financial contributions. In smaller communities, the impacts of new arts events venues on their downtowns are too often grossly exaggerated, and operating costs badly underestimated. Consistently, between 40% and 50% of arts nonprofits are financially in the red.

The most effective strategic path is to first focus on the strengthening and/or development of well-activated parks and public spaces, restaurants and watering holes, and movie theaters. They are usually the easiest to create and operate and have the fewest user frictions or are asset treasures that need to be improved and saved.

Though a lot of strategic planning is done for CBD functions and venues, strategic plans for CSDs are rare, but equally needed. While attention may be given to individual CSD projects, too many of such studies are marred by advocacy induced puffery. Very unfortunately, little attention is being paid to the CSD as whole entity.

Technology Is Creating a New Set of Problems

The impacts of technology are also strongly defining the New Normal. This is most apparent in the way the Internet is forcing the whole retail industry to search for a new operating paradigm and electronic consumption has reduced the brick and mortar consumption of the arts. How and when people shop is consequently changing in significant ways. They first research online and then shop the store for the targeted item(s). Strolling and browsing shoppers subsequently are on the decline. Many Americans are time-stressed, so many shoppers want quick, convenient retail transactions. Yet, many others want more interesting, more meaningful and more socially appealing shopping experiences. Shoppers have also become much more careful and deliberate when making purchases. While this is most strongly apparent among middle-income consumers, affluent shoppers are also showing signs of greater caution.

Changed consumer behavior, combined with growing online sales, have reduced the demand for downtown store locations and the amount of space retailers want for their new stores.

While downtown retail shops will not disappear, they almost certainly will change in the way they operate, the amounts of space they each need, as well as the types of locations they will want.

Yet, as my discussions with potential clients demonstrate, many downtown organizations still see retail as a key element in their downtown’s future, while largely disregarding improvements to their CSDs.

The appearance of app-driven car services such as Uber and Lyft have already impacted on traffic congestion and the use of public transportation in several large downtowns. The imminent use of automated vehicles – e.g., by Waymo soon in Phoenix – will likely have important impacts on traffic congestion in a host of additional downtowns. What these impacts will be remains uncertain- as do the possible remedies to those that are harmful. The transition to automated vehicles will probably take 20 to 40 years, with different issues dominating downtowners’ concerns at each stage of its progression.

Success Can Create Problems

The very success of our downtowns also has created its own set of problems. For example:

High housing demand has created a very serious affordability problem for many downtowns and their nearby neighborhoods.
Downtown success usually means more pedestrian traffic. For example, from 2009 to 2015, pedestrian growth in Manhattan’s economically healthy central business district grew by about 18 to 24 percent. At what point does the density of downtown pedestrian traffic become uncomfortable and unappealing for pedestrians and detrimental to an area’s image and popularity? The uncomfortable density of users is already occasionally being felt in such famed public spaces in NYC as Times Square, Bryant Park and Central Park. Will those instances of pedestrian congestion increase? Some of the managers of these public spaces seem unconcerned about pedestrian congestion. Indeed, they seem to be committed to having the largest number of visitors possible.
As a recent study of Center City in Philadelphia has shown, greater downtown development density increases traffic congestion.

Postscript.

This is part of book proposal I am writing. I’d appreciate hearing if you would be interested in a book that expanded upon the above content. Please let me know at [email protected] .

The New Normal For Our Downtowns Cheat Sheet

Posted on February 1, 2017 by DANTH

By N. David Milder

Since 2008, I have been writing about the New Normal for our downtowns. Recently, I have been asked on several occasions if I had a relatively brief summary article. I didn’t, so it seemed the time to write this one.

Downtowns Are Now Expected To Succeed

Success stories abound everywhere you look. Not every downtown has made it, but many have, and many more are well on their way. Today, laggard downtowns really stand out.

Downtowns Are The Place To Be

Today, lots and lots of people seem to want to be downtown, not to flee or avoid it. They are easily attracting people to visit, work and, especially, live. Importantly, this is increasingly happening organically. That’s a significant paradigm shift from a few decades ago.

In fact, downtowns have become so popular that many are now facing problems of high pedestrian congestion and how to get all these people in and out of the downtown quickly, comfortably and affordably via mass transit, vehicles, bikes and on foot. Success does not always mean the end of all problems; sometimes it brings along its own set of new ones.

The Negative Impacts of the Fear Of Crime And Actual Crime Rates Have Diminished Significantly

Downtown streets at night are less likely to be empty and fear-inducing.

In most large cities, crime and the fear of crime have fallen so significantly that they have fallen out of sight as an issue. There are several strategies that appear to be effective. However, drug use and drug trade induced crime has increased dramatically in many smaller and more rural communities.

Our Ability To Revitalize Downtowns Has Vastly Improved Since The 1980s

We may not be able to solve every problem, but we have a lot of real knowledge about how to revitalize and manage downtowns. Moreover, we now have in many places the professionally staffed organizations to use that knowledge, e.g., BIDs, SIDs, Main Street organizations.

Downtown Housing

Most downtown leaders and experts would agree that the development of significant amounts of market rate housing has been the most important force in successful downtown revitalization efforts. Housing placed in walkable urban contexts, especially near downtown workplaces, has sparked large district revivals. Housing near commuter rail and subway stations also have helped power suburban downtown and neighborhood district revivals away from the urban core.

Mixed use housing in downtown Cranford, NJ

Since the Great Recession, new condo and coop projects have been eclipsed by new rental projects in many downtowns as a result of changing consumer preferences and the impacts of “deliberate consumer” behaviors.

In many medium-sized downtowns, retail has become a less viable component for mixed-use projects because of the reduced demand for retail space and the retail chains’ greater preference for proven locations.

Market rate downtown housing seems more and more to be only for the affluent and very wealthy. As a result, projects with “micro-units” are being built to provide an affordable solution.

Will downtowns stop being everyone’s neighborhood? In the 1970s and 1980s, many feared downtowns were destined to house only our poorest, most disadvantaged residents. Now, will they be ghettos of the wealthy? Should policies be put in place to assure economic diversity in our downtowns?

Nevertheless, the value and viability of downtown housing as a growth engine continues.

Deliberate Consumers

These consumers display much more deliberation about their expenditures than their pre-2008 counterparts, are much more liable to be concerned about needs than wants and tend to focus on a product’s price, quality and/or value. Many have come to expect steep discounts.

They include the vast majority of middle income households, especially those whose incomes have not increased meaningfully for many, many years. Also, this behavior pattern is seen even in customers of luxury markets, where about 30% of the sales are “off-price.” Economic recovery seems to have increased consumer expenditures somewhat, but the cautious consumer decision-making seems to have continued on in full force.

These consumers are everywhere, careful, want their money’s worth, and are here to stay.

E-commerce

Though more than 90% of all retail sales are still in traditional brick and mortar stores, e-retail sales for specific lines of GAFO merchandise have passed 25% to 50%. If current trends hold, they will pass those levels in several other merchandise lines within a few years. But, e-retailing’s biggest impact comes through how it has changed consumer behavior. Most Americans now make an online product and store search before shopping in traditional shops. They browse less inside shops and more often go directly to the merchandise they want and then leave after a purchase. They use smartphones inside stores to find competitive prices online. Some pay with their phones.

It is highly unlikely that brick and mortar shops will disappear. The vast majority of Americans still prefer shopping in them to shopping online. Even online born retailers – e.g., Amazon, Warby Parker — are also opening brick and mortar stores because they see potential benefits resulting from customers being able to use both channels together.

Nonetheless, traditional retailers have to change their business formulae to better integrate the internet into their brick and mortar operations. This probably means that their legacy stores will become less important in the initial stages of the retail sales transaction process, though often more important in the later stages. They will have to take on new functions like pick up points for online orders, storage for quick local deliveries of online purchases or the venues for special attention and pampering for customers filtered out by retailers for making significant online purchases and how they navigated the store’s website.

Retailing In Various Types Of Downtowns

The emergence of deliberate consumers, the growing power and influence of e-commerce and the prior building of too much of retail space have combined to create large upheavals in the retail industry. Retailers are looking for fewer and smaller new spaces in very low risk locations where other retailers are doing really well.

Different kinds of downtowns have been impacted in different ways and to varying extents by the Great Recession. Here are some examples:

Districts with large luxury markets came through the Great Recession the least scathed and recovered the fastest. Their wealthy shoppers had the best recovery to pre-recession spending levels. Their luxury retail chains benefited from a growing global luxury market and were consequently financially better able to absorb any sales downturn in the US market
Very small towns with populations less than about 2,500, were among the least hurt downtowns because they had few if any national chain stores. Their retail prospects improved as the incomes of their deliberate consumers recovered
Many towns in the 15,000 to 35,000 population range have seen their malls badly falter or completely fail as their anchor department stores (e.g., Sears, Kmart, JCPenny) and specialty retail chain tenants closed.
These retail failures have created an opportunity for many small GAFO merchants to open and do well. The e-retailers and the local mass market merchants like Walmart, Target and Best Buy did not capture all of the market share that the closing department stores and specialty retailers had disgorged. The mass market retailers are typically also ignoring that disgorged share for the small retailers to capture by not increasing their presence in these towns, .
GAFO retailers in towns in the 2,500 to 15,000 population range also seemed to benefit from these closings. Their local trade area residents previously typically outshopped for GAFO merchandise in the struggling/closed malls
As many commercial districts in The Bronx, NY, have shown, moderate income ethnic downtowns and neighborhoods are attracting retailers under the new normal to the degree that they can accommodate the often very large space needs of the value oriented and off-price retailers, e.g., Target, Best Buy, Marshall’s and TJ Maxx. Sometimes this means the “factory store” or “outlet” formats of some very highly regarded chains such as GAP, Banana Republic, Ann Taylor and Nine West. Fitting the large format value retailers into these downtowns so as to retain their walkability and scale is a critical urban design issue. Unfortunately, too often the project solutions have been damaging or half-thought through.
Many downtowns in affluent suburban communities with large numbers of well-regarded specialty retailers, have seen many of them close. Among them were chains such as Chico’s, Coach, Eileen Fisher, Gap, Talbot’s and Ann Taylor. In many instances, the closed stores had under average sales for their chains. This made them vulnerable when their brand encountered strong sales headwinds nationally. In some instances, the stores’ subpar sales were due to more cautious spending by local shoppers. In others, the chain’s merchandise did not mesh with local lifestyles. For example, one expert has noted that Chico’s shoppers nationally had basically “aged out.” In any case, these downtowns are now faced with an unusually large number of vacancies of relatively large spaces that are located in highly desirable locations. They need a strategy to fill those space that will also maintain the strength and attractiveness of the downtown. A viable strategy for maintaining the downtown’s strength may have to look at non-retail uses, as well as subdividing large spaces.

Office Functions and Development

How firms now use office space has drastically changed, influenced by practices at successful high tech firms. With that change, many firms, large and small, are now looking for open spaces for “hot desks.” They have few if any private offices and are configured to stimulate worker interaction and cooperation. They are also using less office space per worker, because the workers are spending more time telecommuting from home or being out with clients.

Consequently, overall demand for office space is being constrained, while on the supply side many of the older downtown buildings are badly out of date and unmarketable. New or adaptively rebuilt downtown office buildings are needed that are configured for the no-office, hot-desk, interactive work environment. Many of the dated office building are either being torn down or converted into residential buildings.

Here and there, usually organically, but sometimes according to a plan, downtown office spaces are being used to stimulate new businesses. This trend is manifested in business incubators, co-worker spaces and buildings geared for start ups. Given the steady growth of the nation’s contingent workforce, many downtowns – be they urban or rural — may find significant economic growth if they can attract and nurture local contingent workers. However, to do that will likely require the presence of several kinds of county or regional level support programs.

Central Social Districts

Since antiquity, successful communities have had vibrant central meeting places that bring residents together and facilitate their interactions, such as the Greek agoras and the Roman forums. Our downtowns long have had venues that performed these central meeting place functions, e.g., churches, parks and public spaces, museums, theaters, arenas, stadiums, multi-unit housing, etc. They are all essential elements of the downtown’s Central Social District (CSD).

Greatly strengthened CSDs have been another important factor associated with the emergence of strong and popular downtowns. In an increasing number of downtowns, their CSD functions have become more important than their traditional CBD functions, e.g., retail and office based activities. Today, for most downtowns, be they large or small, their revitalization strategies must focus on strengthening and growing their CSD’s elements.

The housing element has been discussed above; here are some comments about other important CSD elements:

Formal Entertainment Venues. These include such venues as museums, PACs, concert halls, stadiums, and arenas. They often are held in great esteem within their communities and especially among the local social, business and political elites. However, they also tend to be relatively expensive to build, maintain and operate. Many are venues for types of arts events that have suffered significantly decreased attendance in recent years. There have been a substantial number of failures among these venues and a much larger number that struggle financially each year because their true costs for each admission cannot be sustained by their ticket prices. They consequently need to constantly ask for lots of donations and grants to remain solvent. Too often, it is not a sustainable business model.

Many of them are seriously underutilized: closed during the days and only “lit” some of the evenings. Most performance venues in medium-sized downtowns probably will have under 80 events a year. They can have positive impacts on local eateries and watering holes to the degree that they are active. Their impacts on retail, if any, have an overwhelmingly indirect and contingent route – through the new residents they might attract. Conversely, dark cultural centers can actually be detrimental to a downtown’s sense of vitality.

Ticket prices for these venues are usually relatively expensive – far above the price of local movie tickets, for example – so a substantial portion of middle income households are discouraged from attending their events.

There is little doubt that formal entertainment venues can be wonderful assets for a community. However, they demand a lot of resources and management expertise. Before a downtown decides to build one of these venues, local leaders must realistically assess whether they have the resources and management skills to not only build it, but also to maintain it and to run its programs without continued financial stress well into the future.

Restaurants. Restaurants are particularly important for downtowns not only because they are places where people can obtain needed nourishment, but also because they are places where folks go to have fun, be entertained and, most importantly, enjoy the company of other people. They are the essential driver of downtown vitality.

The growth of strong downtown restaurant niches and clusters has been another strong characteristic of successful downtowns of all sizes. They help bring downtowns alive after dark. Even though independent merchants are unlikely to be open during dinner hours and thus benefit from the restaurants’ customer traffic, they do benefit from the restaurant patrons’ lunchtime visits and their improved image of the district. Retail chains, with longer operating hours, are more likely to benefit directly from the restaurants’ customer traffic.

In small and medium sized communities, restaurants are relatively easy to start-up because of the relatively small market share they have to win to be viable as well as their districts’ comparatively low rents and labor costs.

The consumer market for restaurant fare is enormous: households in America spend relatively similar amounts for eating out as they do for meals prepared at home.

Any community that wants to build a strong CSD should first focus on strengthening its restaurant niche through recruitment and start-up assistance.

Movie Theaters. Though they have passed the digital projection/distribution divide that threatened to put many of them out of business, downtown movie theaters remain vulnerable. They are still threatened by home and electronic device movie watching – that is how most movies now are viewed. More importantly, they are vulnerable to some influential Hollywood execs who, because theaters provide such a small slice of their overall revenues, want same day release of new films through the theater and purely electronic distribution channels. Goodbye first run theaters.

Cinemart Theater in Forest Hills, NY,, its restaurant’s outdoor dining, with Eddie’s Ice Cream shop in background

For most downtowns and neighborhood commercial districts, cinemas are important parts of their CSDs. They have fewer user frictions than many other kinds of entertainment venues. They have comparatively reasonable prices; are open afternoons and evenings almost every day, and present frequent showings through the day. They also occupy large spaces, usually in highly visible locations. Failed cinemas are hard to redevelop and can be terrible eyesores.

When they get in trouble, there is usually not a lot of time available to save them. Savvy downtown EDOs should have an action plan ready to go, should their cinema face closure. In dealing with the digital divide many communities used new tools such as community based businesses and crowdfunding to save their theaters. These tools can be used readily by other downtowns should the need arise.

Parks and Public Spaces. These are not just green or open urban spaces where people can retreat for quiet relaxation. They are also places that are great for that most fundamental of entertainments, people-watching.

Bryant Park, once a festering venue for drug use and drug sale is now an exemplar engine of economic growth

Great parks and public spaces also usually have infrastructures and equipment that allow guests, at little or no cost, to engage in a range of leisure behaviors. Among them are a pond for sailing model boats; a boules court; a ping pong table; chess and checkers tables; a carrousel and an ice rink. The resulting activities constitute performances that other people-watching visitors can observe and enjoy.

Ice skating rink in Central Park Plaza in Valparaiso, IN.

Great parks and public spaces also often have performance spaces for events such as movies, plays, dance recitals, concerts, lectures, etc. The smart ones use temporary stages, so the same spaces can be used for multiple purposes over the year. For many small and medium-sized communities, this is the most cost effective venue they can have for entertainment and arts performances. But public space programming is not (at least initially) self-generating and government or some other entity must have the capacity to book and produce public events.

DANTH, Inc.’s research has shown that well-activated parks and public spaces are usually much cheaper to build, maintain and operate than any of the formal entertainment venues. Most communities already have them in key locations. Even where they are absent, the cost of a new build is generally far less that of a new enclosed venue. They have, by far, a lower ratio of operating costs per visitor/user. They also have the fewest user frictions. Access is free. Use of their infrastructure and equipment is either free or very affordably priced. They are open all day and often well into the evenings almost all year. No one has to make an appointment to use them or buy a ticket in advance of their visit. Visitors can stay 10 minutes or several hours.

Furthermore, successful parks and public spaces have a proven ability to increase values for properties from which they can be seen – even those 480 to 800 feet high and about 0.25 miles away. They also have a proven ability to improve adjacent property values to levels equaling the costs of initial construction or later renovation.

Downtowns of all sizes can have such successful parks and public spaces.

Downtowns that want to strengthen their CSD functions should make sure, early on, that they have an attractive, well activated park or public space. They can be very popular and produce the best bang for the buck of any type of downtown entertainment venue.

One note of caution. The success of a park or public space has far less to do with how beautiful it is – though it definitely should be attractive – than with how it is programmed by its infrastructure, equipment and events and the people it attracts. Unfortunately, this is not widely recognized.

Posted on December 1, 2013 by DANTH

Article 1

N. David Milder

Author’s Note for Downtown Curmudgeon Blog and Newsletter Readers

A number of readers of the Downtown Curmudgeon blog have asked me to write an article on the new normal for downtowns that I have referred to in many of my blog postings in recent years. In response, I have planned a series of articles that will be posted over the coming six to eight months.

This is the first in that series and focuses on providing a description of the critical characteristics of the new normal and some of the emerging challenges downtown organizations now may face under it. Proper treatment of this subject requires sufficient space and cannot be done within the usual short take format of most blog posts and email blasts. While I have tried to be economical in my use of words, this article is almost 12,000 words long, even when I have skimped on examples and skipped using data tables and other illustrations. I have divided it into two parts. Each part will be posted to my blog and emailed separately.

Later articles in this series will cover such topics as the arc of downtown revitalization, the potential implications of the new normal for downtown development projects and BID programs.

Part 1 – What’s Now Normal for Downtowns: The Good News

1. The Expectation and Ability of Downtowns to Prosper. When I first became involved in downtown revitalization issues back in the mid 1970s, downtowns across the nation were weakening and often visibly decayed because of the impacts of business and residential flight, suburban residential growth, suburban sprawl, the rise of shopping malls, the creation of suburban office clusters, the fear of downtown crime, business flight, reduced investment, etc. (1). Civic and business leaders often despaired that their downtowns were literally going to hell, with few prospects of salvation in sight.

While these declines were most easily noted in cities after the urban riots of the late 1960s, the decay soon also was being found in many non-rioting big cities as well as in many of our older and well-established suburbs, large and small.

Early downtown revitalization efforts that used urban renewal, office growth or physical improvement (“beautification”) strategies were almost complete and disheartening failures. In too many instances they created sterile fortress dominated environments that were antithetical to pedestrian activity and multi-purpose downtown trips – and very hard to rectify – or “decorated coffins,” prettier, but still devoid of activity and growth.

However, about 15 to 20 years ago, our downtowns started to tell a far different story, one that has grown stronger and stronger with each passing year. More downtowns appeared to have bottomed out and then established an upward thrust on their revitalization arcs. Today, the increased flows of pedestrian traffic, the after five o’clock activity levels, the new or rehabilitated buildings, the shops and entertainment venues, the influx of businesses and jobs, and the growing numbers of downtown residents all signal that many of our downtowns have advanced quite far on their revitalization arcs and are doing quite well. Still other downtowns, often inspired by and following the best practices of their more successful brethren, are rapidly improving.

These prospering downtowns are large (e.g., Midtown Manhattan, Center City Philadelphia, downtown Chicago), suburban (e.g., Wellesley MA, Old Pasadena CA, Englewood NJ) and even relatively small (e.g., Cedarburg WI, Galena IL, Durango CO, Brattleboro, VT).

The new prosperity of our downtowns is powerfully described by Paul Levy and Lauren Gilchrist in a recent publication they prepared for the International Downtown Association:

“Downtowns across the United States are thriving. From Boston to San Diego, Seattle to Miami, cities are diversifying their economies and land use, restoring and enlivening public spaces. During the last three decades, city centers have been adding arts, culture, dining, education, medical, and research institutions, along with hospitality, leisure, and sports venues. Simultaneously, there has been a dramatic and sustained increase in residents, living both within business districts and adjacent neighborhoods.

Places once shunned as empty and unsafe at night are being redeveloped at higher density and are thriving after dark. They have become preferred places for work, entertainment, and living. Patrons of downtown regional destinations mingle with office workers, resident young professionals, empty-nesters, and, in many cities, an expanding number of families with children. The trends of diversification, animation, and residential revival are occurring as well on and around urban colleges, universities, medical centers, research parks, and other urban commercial zones” (2).

This trend of resurgence has been accompanied by the appearance of a capable cadre of downtown leaders, managers and professionals. If all the answers to our downtown problems are not yet known, today’s downtown leaders seem confident they can develop viable solutions to them as they emerge in their districts. The 1,000+ BIDs and numerous local Main Street operations provide these leaders with the needed organizational vehicles.

We certainly have come a long way, and it is important that the progress that has been made be amply recognized and celebrated. However, there is still a way for our downtowns to go. While downtowns overall have been strengthening, the pattern is understandably uneven. Downtowns started their revitalization arcs in different places, with some facing many more serious problems than others. Furthermore, downtowns also differed in the types and levels of redevelopment assets and financial resources they could mobilize. Finally, if a downtown’s revitalization is to really take hold and last it must be viewed as a perpetual process.

Bottom line: in the new normal for downtowns, they prosper!

2. Significantly Reduced Fear of Crime. For several years I have been writing about the apparent significant reduction in the fear of crime or its effects on our downtowns. However, the “crime problem” still exists in some districts, usually those where nighttime activities are not well established or that have problems associated with gangs or the use and sale of methamphetamine.

I came to this conclusion not on the basis of any series of systematic research or solid opinion surveys, since I could not find any to analyze, but because my visits to many downtowns indicated that consumers, investors and businesses no longer seem to be engaging in the downtown injurious behavior patterns that the fear of crime previously caused. The thriving downtowns with vibrant after dark activities noted by Levy and Gilchrist above are consistent with this conclusion.

The crime problem did not cause the post WWII decline of our downtowns. That was the result of greater auto use, the move to the suburbs by residents and shoppers, followed by the move of retailers and office based businesses and the consequent downtown disinvestments. However, for about three decades, crime did make downtown revitalization extremely difficult. Crime became one of the most important factors corporations looked at when considering new locations for offices, retail stores, restaurants and entertainment facilities, and all too often downtowns were deemed too dangerous and undesirable. The fact that Levy and Gilchrist can state that downtowns “have become preferred places for work, entertainment, and living” means that the avoidance behaviors of shoppers, residents and businesses are no longer occurring, making the crime problem moot.

It is important to understand why the downtown crime problem has diminished so substantially, because it can shed light on the effectiveness of the policies and programs of our municipalities and downtown organizations and the processes by which they were formulated and implemented. Nationally, since about 1993 or 1994, FBI statistics have famously shown a continuing decline in the number of criminal acts normalized by population, i.e. the crime rate. Its abeyance in our large cities has received much media attention because it has been so significant, though it also has been uneven, with our poorer cities showing fewer declines. Statistics on the number of crimes occurring in and around our downtowns, when available, reflect that trend. However, our downtown crime problem was less a result of the number of crimes perpetrated in a district or its crime rate, but more about downtown users’ fears of becoming victims of criminal acts while in the district. For example, in the 1970’s, 80s and most of the 90’s, the leaders in many of the large downtowns I visited reported their frustration that the fear of crime was a very damaging problem, although their crime rates were average or even low compared to other parts of their communities.

Academic research findings supported this disconnect: statistically the fear of becoming a crime victim in the downtown is not strongly associated with how many criminal acts occur within the district:

“Evidence provided by many studies suggests that the relationship between the fear of crime and actual crime rates is very loose and indirect. One study, for example, found that although the likelihood of being robbed was actually 20 times greater in Washington, D.C. than in Milwaukee, the residents of Milwaukee only felt slightly safer than did the residents of Washington. Another study concluded: ‘the patterning of fear across areas does not match the patterning of crime levels. Although some studies do find that actual victims of crime are more fearful than non-victims, it is not the case that areas with higher crime or victimization rates have residents who are more fearful.’ There is a weak correlation between fear levels and crime rates” (3).

The fear of crime hurt downtowns by causing the residential, worker and visitor avoidance behaviors and lack of investment described above that strangled the economic and social life out of these commercial districts — even when crime rates were low. For example, a study I did of three outer borough downtowns in NYC showed that how safe trade area residents felt in their downtown during the day had a stronger impact on their visitation rates than how they felt about the merchandise they could buy there, the physical attractiveness of the downtown or the ease of getting there (4). The fear of crime also impacted on those who did visit their downtowns by influencing where and when they would walk and how many destinations they would visit. That diminished a key competitive advantage of downtowns: multifunctional multi-destination visitor trips.

The programs needed to reduce the number of crimes can be quite different from those that can effectively reduce fear. Our downtowns most needed programs that could reduce fear and such programs were not easy to fund, design or implement.

In a later article in this series, I will present an analysis of the causal factors I think best explain the reduced fear of crime problem in our downtowns. Because of limitations on the existence or availability of needed data, this analysis will not claim to be definitive, but it hopefully will be received as thoughtful and provoke discussions and research on this topic within the downtown revitalization community. At this time, as “teasers,” here are some of the points I will expand upon in the upcoming article:

— What the cities and BIDs did definitely had strong impacts on reducing the fear of crime, but some programs were probably not as important as many might think, while other effective actions may have gone unnoticed or under appreciated

–Jane Jacobs was very probably correct when she argued that more pedestrians on the streets would help reduce the fear of crime and that, in effect, successful urban revitalizations self-heal their fear of crime problems. But, how were the crime problem’s impacts overcome in the initial revitalization stages before the pedestrian flows were sufficiently strong to heal the fear of crime problem?
— Much anecdotal evidence suggests a destination’s magnetism can offset fear of being a crime victim in a downtown user’s decision-making calculations. With revitalization, a downtown gains numerous destinations with stronger magnetism, so the impacts of fear may be meaningfully offset by them
— In 1970s and 1980s, a lot of the fear of becoming a victim of a downtown crime among the downtown’s trade area residents was generated and/or validated by downtown residents, workers, merchants, etc. or those who had fled their downtowns, who sent negative messages through their personal social networks. By now, they have either died off, shut up, or been drowned out by the new downtown users who instead are sending very positive messages through their personal social networks
— Today’s downtown users are often wealthier, better educated and younger than those in the 1970s and 1980s. These characteristics tend to make people feel more empowered and less likely to be fearful.

Bottom line: in the new normal, in downtowns well along on their revitalization arcs, during daytime or after dark, downtown users do not frequently engage in avoidance behaviors associated with the fear of becoming crime victims.

3. The Emergence of Downtowns As Their Communities’ Central Social District. For decades, the terms Central Business District, CBD and downtown were used almost interchangeably because, functionally, downtowns were dominated by retail stores, office based businesses, professionals and government agencies, along with some hotels and maybe entertainment venues. Early downtown revitalization efforts were able to attract office tenants and –aside from the impacts of fluctuations in our economy — downtowns have continued to grow office-based activities. Retailing was far more difficult. By the late 1970s and through the 1980s, national retailers might locate in enclosed downtown shopping centers or off-street networks, though these centers seldom met expectations and did little to liven downtown sidewalks. By the late 1980s major retail chains began to again consider downtown street level storefronts, and this interest picked up considerably over the 1990s.

Levy and Gilchrist have argued convincingly about the importance of people working downtown wanting to live in or near the downtown. However, to my mind, equally important to the resurgence of downtowns has been the emergence of a group of interrelated functions focused around the downtown being the community’s Central Social District (CSD): housing, restaurants and watering holes, vibrant public spaces and other locations for informal entertainments, and formal cultural and entertainment venues (5). These CSD functions establish a downtown as a place to relate to and play with significant others and makes living and playing variables as important as working, selling and buying in any viable formula for downtown success. The interrelatedness, the “dynamics,” among the CSD functions is important. For example, living downtown would be far less attractive without these other CSD functions being present. Conversely, without the downtown residents many of these CSD functions would have far fewer customers and less pedestrian traffic after dark to help reduce the fear of crime.

Underlying all of these CSD functions is the ability to spend quality time with loved ones and significant others. For example, a recent report on participation in cultural events found that: “The level of enjoyment and the opportunity to spend time with loved ones play the most influential roles in deciding whether to attend a cultural event (6).

Below are a few comments on some of these CSD functions that I believe are most important.

Housing. Without a doubt, housing in and very near to downtowns has had a huge beneficial impact. Its importance has been noted by countless others in recent years. The strength of downtown housing was amply demonstrated by how well it did, comparatively, during the Great Recession.

As Eugenie Birch noted in her seminal study, in the 1970s and 1980s, downtown residential populations declined in America’s larger cities. But, in the 1990s, downtown populations grew by 10 percent, a marked resurgence. Furthermore, in these downtowns homeownership rates more than doubled during the thirty-year period, reaching 22 percent by 2000 (7). Since then this growth has continued.

Overall, these new downtown residents contain higher percentages of young adults (Millennials), empty nesters, and the college-educated than other communities in their regions (8). They often have created subcultures characterized by creativity, hipness, tolerance and a sense of being empowered in downtowns and nearby neighborhoods.

The growth of downtown housing is not restricted to large cities. In New Jersey, for example, significant downtown housing projects have been constructed in such communities as Cranford, Englewood, Hoboken, Livingston, Morristown, New Brunswick, Rahway, Somerville and South Orange. Much of this also has been stimulated by a work connection: the downtown housing’s proximity to a commuter rail station.

While the demand for downtown residential units is substantial, and downtown living has its ardent fans, not everyone wants to live in a big city downtown. For example, a national survey done for the National Association of Realtors found that only 8% of the respondents preferred a city downtown residential location, while 11% preferred living in city residential areas. Another survey found that Millennials preferred living in a suburb (43%) to living in a city (17%) by almost a three to one margin (9). Creative Millennials, however, may well have a greater preference for urban living than their non-creative brethren. Whatever the situation, there plainly are a sufficient number of them living in and near our downtowns to have an undeniably positive impact on housing and other functions. The same point is true looking at the overall demand for downtown housing: most people may not want to live in a downtown, but the demand has sufficient numerical strength and emotional depth to continue to be a very viable engine for downtown economic growth. Indeed, the demand is strong enough that in many downtowns only those who are fairly well off or able to share rents can now afford downtown residences.

Restaurants. Restaurants not only provide food, but also entertainment in the forms of people watching and observing restaurant operations as well as providing felicitous opportunities for social interactions. If clustered, they also can help bring downtown streets to life after dark. Furthermore, they bring in a lot of customers that retailers can benefit from if they are open for business and sufficiently proximate.

Developing restaurant niches has become an essential, if too often underappreciated, ingredient in the revitalization strategies of most downtowns, especially those that are of comparatively small or medium size. They can be especially important in suburban downtowns, e.g., Cranford, Englewood, Hoboken, Morristown, Ridgewood and Teaneck in NJ, where niches of 20 to 35 restaurants are not uncommon. There is usually strong demand in suburbs with affluent, time-stressed residents. They also often play important roles in small rural or metro fringe communities, e.g., Sherwood, WI. One reason is that it is often possible for some type of downtown eatery or watering hole to be economically viable in communities with populations in the 1,000 to 5,000 range, where a GAFO retail operation would likely have far less viability (10). Restaurants also are often urban pioneers. Drawn by lower rents, they may succeed because, as research has shown, “a poor (restaurant) location can be overcome by a great product and operation” (11). Restaurant niches can also be large and extremely important assets in downtowns where retail is not very strong, e.g. downtown Austin, TX and downtown Morristown, NJ.

Downtown merchants can benefit from lunchtime restaurant customer traffic, but from the eateries’ dinner traffic only if they are open after 6:00 p.m. The stores of retail chains are more likely to be open in the evenings than the small merchants.

Vibrant Public Spaces and Informal Entertainments. Formal entertainment venues such as museums, theaters, movie houses, concert halls have long been located in or very near their downtowns. Our national downtown resurgence has witnessed countless successful projects that have created or strengthened formal entertainment venues, such as:

The refurbishment of grand old theaters, e.g., the Pantages and El Capitan in Hollywood; the Paramount in Rutland, VT; the Ohio Theater in Columbus, OH;
The revitalization of theater districts, e.g., Cleveland OH, Houstoun TX, New Brunswick NJ
The creation of performing arts centers, e.g., Newark NJ; Raleigh NC; Englewood NJ; White Plains NY; Carmel IN; Greenville SC;
New or expanded art museums, e.g., Berkeley CA; Los Angeles CA; Chicago IL; New York, NY; Roanoke VA; Seattle WA; San Antonio TX;
The revival of small town movie theaters, e.g. Crosby ND; Bucksport ME; Clayton NM; Old Forge NY.

While the contributions of such projects to their downtowns’ economic health is undeniable, it strikes me that the emergence and strength of what I have come to call “informal entertainments” is of equal and possibly greater importance.

During the decades of our downtown “troubles,” countless pedestrian malls were built and closed, and many of the public plazas built by office developers in exchange for greater building densities turned into playgrounds for drug dealers and sleeping places for the homeless. Other plazas were so badly designed or located that absolutely no one used them. Also, during the “troubles,” many of our parks were vandalized and/or badly maintained.

Today, our downtowns increasingly have attractive, well-activated public spaces, be they parks, public squares, building plazas and even some pedestrian malls. Here are some examples of the places I have recently visited that quickly come to mind: Bryant Park, Central Park, The Highline, Paley Park, Herald Square, Times Square and Madison Square in Manhattan; Millennium Park in Chicago; Discovery Green in Houston; Rittenhouse Square in Philadelphia; Mitchell Park in Greenport, NY; Brooklyn Bridge Park, Brooklyn; Division Street in Somerville, NJ.

A lot of this is due to the influence of William H. Whyte and his numerous apostles (12). The emergence of organizations such as the Central Park Conservancy and the BIDs and municipal agencies that placed a high value on the creation and/or maintenance of vibrant public spaces also stoked this movement.

Great public spaces are not just attractive; they also broaden and strengthen a downtown’s entertainment niche (13). They do so by providing opportunities for people to engage in activities that they enjoy and that also interest and amuse nearby people-watchers. Think of the ice skaters drawing the ever-present crowds above the rink in Manhattan’s Rockefeller Center. Similarly, in Manhattan’s Bryant Park, you’ll find young men and women seated and watching each other and chess players, who always attract an audience. Greenport, NY, a much smaller community, has used a carousel and waterfront location to create a wonderful public space where people can watch and be watched by other people. Other downtowns have fostered entertainment with facilities such as:

A model boat pond
A children’s pony ride
Tables where people can play chess, checkers, or dominoes
A Wi-Fi hotspot to access and cruise the Internet on a laptop
A place to catch the sun — a favorite pastime for office workers and young tourists in the spring and summer
Places to buy food and eat lunch alfresco
Outdoor cafes for sipping coffee and eating snacks
Slot car racing for kids
An interactive surface that passersby can not resist looking at to see their reflections – and how people next to them react when they see their own.

Visitors will “perform,” if the opportunities are there. To sail a model boat, a suitable pond or pool is required. To sit in the sun and people watch requires an attractive place with benches and chairs to sit on.

Sometimes an informal entertainment requires special personnel. For example, in Meredith, NH, local residents, hotel guests and second homeowners are really into bird watching; birding tours for them of the Meredith area might require a knowledgeable and experienced “birder” to guide them.

Nationally, households in the top income quintile account for about 50% of consumer entertainment expenditures, while long term forces have been reducing the ability of middle-income households to afford formal entertainments. In contrast, Informal entertainments are usually public and priced right – either free or, when there are fees (e.g., to ride a carousel), affordable. They are also “sticky” activities. Retailers can feed off of the traffic the informal entertainments bring in, as demonstrated by the busy pedestrian traffic on the street next to Mitchell park in Greenport, NY and the hotel that was built next to it. Informal entertainments are also liable to be open when the public would want to use them as opposed to theaters, concert halls etc. Most often they are children friendly – and therefore mommy friendly, too.

The Creatives Connection. Richard Florida has made the “Creative Class” and its association with dense urban environments so well known and widely accepted that there is no need to expand upon it in this article. However, it is mentioned here because the interrelated CSD functions are what draws creatives so strongly to downtowns and their nearby neighborhoods. Of course, a downtown’s density and compactness also facilitate the social networking, interactions and collaborations that have become so essential in the innovation process.

Bottom line: in the new normal, downtowns are great places to live and to play as well as work.

4. There Are Behavioral and Attitudinal Trends That Now Support Strong Downtowns. Besides the increasing numbers of downtown residents, the growing pedestrian counts and popularity of downtown venues, etc., here are just some of the societal level behaviors and preferences that are making more people increasingly eager to live, work and play in our downtowns:

Americans are very time pressured and this has heightened their appreciation of such things as: short and easy commutes and living close to their work places; having lots of shops, restaurants, parks and entertainment venues within a reasonable walk of their abodes and being close to mass transit (14)
Most households in the US do not have children. Such households are much more likely to prefer urban living than households with children as demonstrated by the numbers of singles and empty nesters who now live in downtowns or nearby neighborhoods. However, if cities cannot improve their educational systems, then the outflow of young parents to the suburbs will likely continue (15). Their perceived alternative choices are unpalatable: either paying $20,000 to $30,000 in after tax dollars a year per child for a private school or risking their children being badly educated in a public school
America’s infatuation with the auto, which helped fuel the post WWII population flight to the suburbs and suburban sprawl, appears to be on the decline. Recently the U.S. Pirg reported that, after 60 years of annual increases in driving, in the middle of the 2000s, the number of miles Americans drove began to drop. Part of this is caused by retiring Baby Boomers who are no longer commuting, but more influential are the Millennials who “aren’t driving cars” and soon will be our largest age cohort. Moreover, another study at the Transportation Research Institute at the University of Michigan found that these young people are getting driver’s licenses in smaller numbers than previous generations (16).
Conversely, a 2013 study done by APTA found that:
- “Millennials are multimodal, they choose the best transportation mode (driving, transit, bike, or walk) based on the trip they are planning to take.
- Communities that attract Millennials have a multitude of transportation choices, as proven by Millennial hotspots, popular zip codes where residents have self-selected into a multi-modal lifestyle” (17).
The end of suburban sprawl? Our cities are now growing faster than our suburbs. Furthermore, John K. McIlwain, an ULI senior resident fellow, has argued that the Great Recession just may have triggered the demise of sprawl: “Suburban sprawl, that seemingly inexorable, inevitable spreading of the population to the outer edges of metropolitan areas, may well be over in the United States.” The major thrust of his argument is that: 1) there is no large demographic group to drive suburban housing demand; 2) there is a large supply of available suburban housing, and 3) consequently, these factors were more causally responsible for was the recent low rate of single-family home production than the recession’s housing crash (18). While the end of sprawl may be debated – some argue that the pivotal behavior of the Millennials will alter as they age, nest and procreate – it seems safe to conclude that, minimally, it probably has been substantially weakened.

Bottom Line: In the new normal there now are strong behavioral and preference patterns within our population that support successful downtowns.

Endnotes

1. Small rural downtowns also went into decline, but because of other economic factors.
2. Paul R. Levy and Lauren M. Gilchrist , DOWNTOWN REBIRTH: DOCUMENTING The LIVE-WORK DYNAMIC IN 21ST CENTURY U.S. CITIES. Prepared for the International Downtown Association By the Philadelphia Center City District. October 2013 – pp. 57, p.8
3. N. David Milder, “Crime and Downtown Revitalization,” Urban Land, Sept. 1987, pp. 16-19 https://www.ndavidmilder.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/dt_crime_article.pdf
4. N. David Milder, et al. Downtown Safety Security and Economic Development. New York: Downtown Research and Development Center. 1985 – pp. 141, pp.38-39.
5. I first came across the term Central Social District in a paper by Richard Rosan some years ago. Unfortunately, I cannot find it either in my files or on the Internet, so I cannot say that my use here concurs with his. Borrowing from factor analysis in statistics, I see the central social district as the underlying dimension or factor and housing, restaurants, public spaces, etc., as the constituent strongly inter-related and measurable variables
6. LaPlaca Cohen /AMS Planning & Research Corp, Culture Track 2011 Market Research Report, pp.87, p.7. Italic emphasis added in quote.
7. Eugenie L. Birch, Who Lives Downtown, November 2005, Washington, DC, The Brookings Institution, Living Cities Census Series. pp. 20
8. See Birch above and Richard Florida, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/the-boom-towns-and- ghost-towns-of-the-new-economy/309460/
9. Belden Russonello & Stewart LLC, “The 2011 Community Preference Survey: What Americans are looking for when deciding where to live”, Analysis of a survey of 2,071 American adults nationally conducted for the National Association of Realtors. March 2011, p. 16; Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais, “The Millennial Metropolis” 04/19/2010 http://www.newgeography.com/content/001511-the-millennial-metropolis .
10. Bill Ryan, Beverly Stencel, and Jangik Jin, “Retail and Service Business Mix Analysis of Wisconsin’s Downtowns,” Center for Community & Economic Development, University of Wisconsin – Extension Staff Paper, Sept. 1, 2010.
11. H. G. Parsa, John T. Self, David Njite and Tiffany King, *Why Restaurants Fail,” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Quarterly, August 2005.
12. William H. Whyte, “The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces”. Conservation Foundation. 1980.
13. This section on informal entertainments is taken from: N. David Milder, “Rethinking Downtown Entertainment Niches,” Downtown Trends 2008: Part II https://www.ndavidmilder.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/rethinking_downtown_entertainment_niches.pdf
14. N. David Milder, “The Nexus of Time Pressure, Downtown Proximity, Convenience And Customer Service: downtown retailing’s best friend,” Downtown Trends 2008: Part II https://www.ndavidmilder.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/time_pressure.pdf
15. See: Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais, “The Millennial Metropolis” 04/19/2010 http://www.newgeography.com/content/001511-the-millennial-metropolis and William Sander and William A. Testa, “Children And Cities,” 08/23/2013 http://www.newgeography.com/content/003889-children-and-cities
16. John Schwartz, “Young Americans Lead Trend to Less Driving,” New York Times, May 13, 2013 ww.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/us/report-finds-americans-are-driving-less-led-by-youth.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&hp&pagewanted=print
17. APTA, Millennials & Mobility: Understanding the Millenial Mindset, 2013 –pp.47 http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/APTA-Millennials-and-Mobility.pdf
18. John K. McIlwain, “The Great Recession: A Slayer of Sprawl,” Urban Land, April 5, 2012, http://urbanland.uli.org/Articles/2012/April/McIlwainSprawl?utm_source=uli&utm_medium=eblast&utm_campaign=040912

N. David Milder at DANTH, Inc.

Downtown Revitalization Specialist

Category Archives: fear of crime

Some Key Aspects of the New Normal for Downtowns: the “good news” ©