Round Up: Neighborhood Renaming Prohibition, India Retail Expansion, Urban Lifestyle Centers, "CityTrees", Too Much Parking

New York Senator Wants Realtors to Stop Renaming Neighborhoods

This Next City story questions the right of the real estate industry to change neighborhood names to their likely benefit. I remember the BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens) debacle a few years ago in South Brooklyn as residents vehemently resisted this name change. How enforceable could the Neighborhood Integrity Act be?

Over 50 global retailers to enter India in 6 months, likely to open about 3,000 stores

Small and mid-sized brands look to expand in India, now a very promising market on the rise with an "open retail policy and huge gap in the market for branded products." 

Making the move from the regional mall to the urban lifestyle center

The move marks an ongoing shift from enclosed regional mall or large suburban-style retail center to more urban lifestyle-focused mixed-use. National chains are adjusting to a smaller-format and community engagement.

Moss-covered CityTree has the same air-purifying effect as 275 regular trees

Not just good for the air we breath, but the CityTree could be a commercial corridor marketing tool. 

Downtown Akron is one-third parking lots: Akron Downtown Vision & Redevelopment plan asks for ideas on challenges

One-third is high but not unusual for the Midwest. Akron saw a high level of community engagement in response to an input seeking session and follows their Phase 1 session last year. 

ICSC tells us there is "Nothing Eco about E-tail"

This month’s Shopping Centers Today reported on new research by Deloitte and Simon that offered a comparison between e-shopping and in-person purchases at brick and mortar stores. The takeaway? As the cover probably makes clear, the results don’t favor e-tailing. When fuel, electricity and packaging for bricks-and-mortar and online sales are compared side by side, purchasing the same set of goods at a mall would create 37,710 metric tons of emission versus 40,295 for an online purchase. We offer the additional insight that the differential is likely more favorable for mixed-use downtown environments. Unlike a mall environment where the majority of shoppers arrive by car, office workers who grab a quick lunch or residents who spend in the immediate vicinity of their apartments do not generate additional automobile trips. 

While this seems like it would be good news and offer an opportunity for marketing downtown as a “green” solution, some argue that in the final analysis a customer’s desire for the convenience of delivery will trump a desire to decrease their environmental footprint. One marketing expert who specializes on sustainability who was quoted in the article said “Sustainability was big in the 90’s and 2000s. After the recession hit, it dropped to like 19th or 20th on people’s priority list.” That may be the case for an individual customer, but cities that have policies and benchmarks to reduce their overall carbon footprint, like New York, will be encouraged by these findings. This analysis will only serve to further enhance the argument in favor of downtown mixed-use environments. While this is something that many of us know, it bears repeating with hard data in hand. 

What does a burned out and looted CVS have to do with upward mobility?

The Baltimore riots came to be exemplified by a looted CVS 

I have been fascinated by the recent coverage of upward mobility in the New York Times ["In Climbing Income Ladder, Location Matters"]. This topic is of interest to me because our firm is often engaged in improving retail environments in under served urban communities. Consider the CVS that was looted during the recent Baltimore riots. Did you ever stop to wonder how long it took to attract a CVS pharmacy to that neighborhood? And do you think that CVS or any other retailer will be eager to return as things settle down, regardless of how much demand and need there might be? In the end, the politics of place matters quite a bit when it comes to improving the retail environment for local residents.

Neighborhood Environments Impact Outcomes
This is why I found the research that the NYTimes covered quite riveting. Two Harvard economists conducted a time series analysis on the impact of neighborhood environment on the outcomes of poor children. In short, they found that the neighborhood environment in which a child is raised is one of the most important determinants of income (by age 26). From the standpoint of a low-income family living in a low-income community and looking to meet the needs of their children TODAY, not tomorrow, the news is not good. Basically, the research suggests that mobility is the answer. Get the hell out, basically. But the authors acknowledge that this solution is not scalable, and I agree. Moving every family out of poverty stricken neighborhoods is not a long term solution. It’s a band aid fix for an intractable problem. The real problem is the quality of the neighborhood in which they live. Addressing that problem is where the future of public policy SHOULD be if we are truly interested in improving the outcomes of poor children over time.

So what kinds of neighborhoods produce better outcomes? If we can answer that question, we can begin to craft policy solutions that will support these conditions in low-income communities. The study found the following, places that had higher rates of upward mobility demonstrated five key characteristics:

- less segregation by income and race
- lower levels of income inequality
- better schools
- lower rates of violent crime, and
- a larger share of two-parent households

Policy Solutions?
According to the authors, “our findings provide support for policies that reduce segregation and concentrated poverty in cities (e.g., affordable housing subsidies or changes in zoning laws) as well as efforts to improve public schools.”

In the short term, we must, must, must find ways to do the following:

• REDUCE the concentration of poverty and INCREASE racial diversity. This means encouraging economically integrated neighborhoods by combining efforts to attract higher-income families WITHOUT involuntarily displacing existing residents. That means building – yes, building – NEW housing. This in turn means that some communities will need to be rezoned for density. But while that happens, we must ensure that existing families have the opportunity to remain as a neighborhood improves. Some potential policies include strengthening landlord-tenant laws that prevent harassment of tenants, helping tenants with the right of first refusal and provide financing to enable them to buy their properties and stay in place, and providing incentives or loans to landlords that allow them to rehab their buildings in return for maintaining affordability. These are just some interesting ideas advanced by The Center for Community Progress.
• Make these neighborhoods “communities of choice” by addressing the quality of schools, the quality of the physical environment, access and transportation to jobs, and the retail offerings and cultural amenities that make a neighborhood a compelling place to live. By doing that, we create an environment that is not only better for the people who live there, but is also attractive to people of all incomes and races who are necessary to ensure diversity.
• Reduce violent crime. The impact of crime over time on the lives of children living in a community is significant. The study found that 20 years of exposure to high violent crime rates causes a reduction in average income. Not only that, but children get caught up in crime, paying a steep price through incarceration and shortened life span. Addressing crime is critical not just for people living in a community, but its common sense that crime has a strong negative impact on people’s residential decision making. Residential sorting – where people CHOOSE to live – is directly impacted by the crime rates in a particular neighborhood. So if we are trying to reduce poverty and encourage economic integration, we have to address crime too, otherwise those with a choice to move somewhere else will do so. 

While this is only the beginning of a conversation, I am extremely hopeful that this research will drive fact-based decision making and help change the dialogue public policy dialogue. 

Why is gentrification a bad word?

We hear alot about gentrification - but what does that term really mean? Not even the New York Times has a firm definition, sometimes wielding the term recklessly and inflaming passions in the process. Over the years, I have come to define it as residential and commercial displacement as a result of an increase in prices that eventually make a community less affordable for the people who were there "first". Like most people, I agree that displacement is a problem that we would like to avoid.

By that definition, however, new, higher-income residents in a community don't always result in gentrification. In fact, if new, wealthier residents do NOT displace existing residents and instead reside in newly constructed residential units, then is there really a problem? If existing residents benefit from the new services and offerings that result from the influx of new residents, and their quality of life improves as a result, isn't this a good thing? If we could find a way to keep poorer residents in these improving neighborhoods, by guaranteeing affordable housing so they can remain as the environment improves, wouldn't we want that? And in communities dotted by abandoned lots and vacant retail space, isn't new development a welcome thing that results in less trash strewn vacant lots and a safer environment for children? Pockets of concentrated poverty are no good for people who live in them, so why are we demonizing efforts to create a healthier balance? What we are left with if you take this argument to its logical conclusion is the suggestion that the urban poor should live in communities marked by disinvestment and physical decay, because the moment you start improving things, you are setting the stage for their eventual displacement. It is a sad commentary for those of us who have dedicated our lives to improving urban neighborhoods.

I recently came across the Dynamic Neighborhood Taxonomy (DNT) project, a research project funded by Living Cities - a partnership of financial institutions, national foundations and the federal government in an effort to advance urban communities. The analysis, led by Bob Weissbourd of RW Ventures, considered four cities in an effort to understand what makes neighborhoods change over time and how to use this information to guide improvements and neighborhood stabilization in the most effective way possible. So, what does the DNT project have to do with gentrification? Well, if we can identify the kinds of neighborhoods most prone to displacement, we can design targeted interventions that maintain neighborhood stability and prevent displacement overtime.

In reviewing the research, the piece of information that I found most interesting was the finding that regional economic trends account for 35% of neighborhood change. That means a little over 1/3 of neighborhood change has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with anything that any of us do to improve neighborhoods. This is a powerful thing to absorb (and a bit depressing, honestly). But it also suggests that one of the most significant things we can do to improve the lives of people living in lower income communities is to connect them to the local economy, rather than maintain their isolation.

The good news is that the flip side of that data point means that 65% of neighborhood change is related to other factors. The DNT project found that additional drivers of change include neighborhood characteristics that include access to transit and the ability to more easily get to and from jobs easily, the presence of existing services and offerings, including police stations, supermarkets, and cultural amenities like art galleries. Communities that offer these amenities are next in line for rapid neighborhood change. If we can identify these places, we can design policy that creates a win-win - a great neighborhood for new and old residents alike.

In the end, I think we have to stop making judgement calls about "gentrification". Neighborhoods thrive when they have a mix of incomes, and those at the bottom rung of the ladder benefit substantially too.

Considering a Downtown Mural? Great! But first educate yourself on the Visual Artists Rights Act

Downtown murals are a popular commercial revitalization technique. They help build community pride, reduce the incidence of graffiti-tagging, and help communicate to shoppers that an area is improving and as a result safer, more attractive place to shop. (See a white paper I wrote for LISC a few years ago entitled “New and definitive evidence on what works to revitalize urban commercial corridors”). But did you know that the federal government confers rights to artists that protect their works of art from modification, destruction or removal? In some cases that is the right thing to do as it allows the artist to maintain the integrity of the original artwork, but in other cases it may impede new projects or development. I will leave that moral judgment for others, but what is important to know is that the federal Visual Artists Rights Act, also known as VARA, gives artists rights to their artwork and prevents the destruction of their art without the artist’s consent.

5Pointz, a former industrial building in Long Island City, Queens, NY,
is well known for the graffiti art that adorns the facade. 

Take for example the famous “Graffiti Building” in Long Island City known as 5Pointz. The building is slated for demolition and redevelopment by the owner, but a number of artists whose artwork adorns the building now claim that the Visual Artists Rights Act means that that the art (and therefore the buildings) “cannot be altered, modified, damaged or destroyed without the artists’ permission,” according to 5Pointz attorney Jeannine Chanes. (Read more: “Graffiti artists of5Pointz go to court to save building”). The case is still pending. 

Ken Twitchell's "Ed Ruscha" mural in the early year

The facade had deteriorated and been vandalized

Another frequently cited example is Kent Twitchell’s famous ‘Ed Ruscha’ mural in Los Angeles. The mural took nine years to paint during the late 1970’s and 80’s. Since then, the mural had fallen prey to some vandalism and lack of maintenance, but the amazing image was still there lording over a parking lot. In 2006, the mural was unceremoniously painted over, without any attempt to ask permission of the artist, as required by law. Twitchell later settled a lawsuit for $1.1 million dollars, the largest VARA settlement to date.

According to Wikipedia, VARA exclusively grants authors of works that fall under the protection of the Act the following rights:

• right to claim authorship
• right to prevent the use of one's name on any work the author did not create
• right to prevent use of one's name on any work that has been distorted, mutilated, or modified in a way that would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation
• right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation

Painted over in 2006

The courts however have found that artist’ rights are not absolute, and must also be tempered against commercial realities.

Anyone considering a mural should educate themselves on VARA, and know that VARA waivers are frequently employed to avoid confusion about rights at a later date. VARA waivers "must be very specific: the creator must consent in a written and signed instrument specifically identifying the artwork, the uses of that work, and with a clause limiting the waiver to both aspects. Where the artwork is created by more than one author, any one creator's waiver binds the group.” (From “A Guide to the Visual ArtistsRights Act”).

So by all means, plan for that amazing mural, but be sure to educate yourself, the property owner and the artist on their rights and obligations. An ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cure...

The roads (and trains) to downtown are crumbling

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal chronicled the infrastructure challenges facing our cities and suburbs (“Slow Road to Recovery", WSJ, 10/14). This is a real problem for urban communities, as the majority of the aging infrastructure is located in our urban centers. As the article mentions, 42% of urban highways are congested. And it’s not just our highway infrastructure that is at risk, our mass transit infrastructure is also deteriorating with no major reinvestment in sight. New York may be an outlier in its dependence on mass transit – at least for an American city – but the challenges here are no less acute than elsewhere.

Why should transportation matter to those of us working to improve downtown and neighborhood commercial districts? Because commercial districts function first and foremost when they are convenient. This is why we often hear merchants say parking is critical. But the truth is, it is often less about parking than it is about plain old access. Businesses in dense urban communities often lack parking, but they are doing just fine thank you. As a visiting assistant professor at Pratt Institute, I often talk to my students about the importance of access. Whether by car, bike, bus, train or two legs, one of the things we can do to support commercial districts to ensure that are easy and convenient for people to visit, work and shop in. 

One particular issue that came up in the recent Mayoral primary here in New York was the long commute that many New Yorker's face. In fact, mayoral candidate Christine Quinn made a case for public policy that would, by the year 2023, ensure that no New Yorker commute more than an hour to and from work. In a city like New York, which is really a collection of cities, these distances matter. Young professionals priced out of Manhattan and increasingly Brooklyn – and whose jobs are downtown or in other boroughs – will increasingly choose other cities where life is just well, easier. In fact, a few years ago the City of Philadelphia built an entire marketing campaign around attracting these young professionals, calling on them to “Stop Paying Someone Else’s Mortgage”. They might as well have added, “decrease your commute by half and live in a decent apartment you can afford while you are at it!”

I guess public transportation access
to Philly has greatly improved.

I often joke with my friends in Brooklyn (I live in Queens) that they might as well live in Philadelphia, because sometimes that is how long it takes me to get there by public transit. By car, with no traffic (which as we now know is rare) the commute can easily be three times as long. The long commute also disproportionately affects lower income people – of the 750,000 commuters in New York who travel more than an hour a day, ¾ of them earn less than $35,000/year. The lost productivity, not to mention the incredible waste and pollution created by this congestion is a shame. When Quinn mentioned during the mayoral primaries that “our transportation infrastructure hasn’t kept pace” – she might as well have been talking about all major American cities.

One of the glimmers of hope, however, is the growing bicycle infrastructure that is being built. I recently wrote about a panel I attended at the International Downtown Association conference on “bike friendly business districts”. Improving access to our business districts by ensuring that biking is convenient and safe is probably one of the smartest moves we can make to support our local commercial districts - particularly in dense urban areas. That, and investing in our overall urban infrastructure before it undermines continued economic growth. 

Small businesses and the digital divide

A few years ago I was doing work in a New Jersey commercial district known for its community of mostly immigrant small business owners. The local economic development corporation had spent at least a year convincing one particular local restaurant owner that he needed to computerize - until then you would catch him pulling out wads of hundred dollar bills whenever he had to pay a vendor. Not only did the failure to maintain proper accounting controls likely affect his profit margin, making it more difficult to manage costs, it had another significant downside. When the business owner wanted to renovate and approached a local bank for a loan, he was soundly rejected. Without proof of income, banks were unwilling to lend to the business owner for a much needed renovation and expansion. Not only was his business growth stymied, the renovations would have turned a trash-filled empty lot into nice outdoor dining. This improvement would have signaled a real change for the district - and perhaps helped other businesses as well.

A new report out by the Center for an Urban Future entitled "Smarter Small Businesses" confirms the depth of this problem - one that is particularly acute many lower-income, minority communities. While nearly 9 out of 10 respondents report having a computer, as many as one in five low- to moderate-income proprietors did not. Getting bank loans is one thing, but the failure to embrace technology is hurting these proprietors in ways that they may not even understand. As more and more people look to the internet for shopping, dining and entertainment recommendations, the failure to have a website, or to engage with social media in strategic ways means missed opportunities to grow a clientele. What can commercial district practitioners do to reverse this trend? Here are a few ideas culled from the report as well as my own experience:

• Greater education is key. Connect with resource providers who can offer classes in the basics, like Quickbooks or marketing through social media. For commercial districts with large non-english speaking populations, see if its possible to offer instruction in the languages spoken by local business owners. Get these providers to come to your district to offer these classes - making attendance for busy business owners a bit easier. 
• Offer access to direct technical assistance. Considering hiring a professional technology consultant to help businesses develop and maintain basic websites, or to set up accounting in Quickbooks. As the report notes, not every business needs a website, but for many district businesses a website will help draw customers. Some businesses can by-pass a traditional website entirely and just go for a Facebook page...an increasingly popular option. 
• If your businesses don't have an on-line presence, create one for them. Use your district website. Make sure you have a district directory where their businesses are listed. If you have a twitter feed, offer to tweet their specials or sales to your followers.
• Support peer-to-peer networking among your local businesses. Host mixers and invite speakers to meetings and breakfasts. Business owners are more likely to adopt tools if they see their peers using them. 

I encourage everyone to read this report - it is chock full of good data and insights, and many of you will likely find the stories and anecdotes extremely familiar. 

Shame on Cisneros! Don’t use the term “village” if you don't mean it



 Really now. Is this a village?
Brandford Village, a gated community in Pacoima, CA.

This week, former HUD Secretary Henry Cisnero and Executive Chairman of CityView, an institutional investment firm focused on “urban real estate” (their terminology, not mine), will lead a media tour of Brandford Village, a for-sale new home community in Pacoima, CA. Here is the problem. The 62 single-family homes that comprise Brandford Village are in fact the furthest thing from “urban” or “village” humanly possible. A village is a place that both businesses and residents call home. A real village is someplace where a child can walk to a corner store and buy a pack of gum or an ice cream cone. Where Main Street (aka the commercial district) is integral to “Elm Street” (the residential district). I mean, c’mon, this “village” doesn’t even have sidewalks! And it only gets worse. It’s a GATED community. Wow.
Frankly, I’m surprised that the Honorable Henry Cisneros, whose track record supporting urban communities is unrivaled, is letting his name and organization be used to promote a development that violates so many basic principles of urbanity. So I ask only this: Cisnero’s, please...use your influence and position to instead invest in communities that truly honor the term village, the traditional mixed-use downtown and neighborhood commercial districts, often surrounded by residential housing, that dot the American landscape. There is no shortage of these communities in need of your investment.

Five Reasons Why Business Improvement Districts are Good Public Policy

These days, it seems that Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) are increasingly under attack. While I can only speak anecdotally, I continue to come across communities facing challenges to BID formation, challenges that would have seemed unlikely just a few years ago.

It stands to reason that in the current economic climate, BID formation inevitably slows down as property and business owners express justifiable concern about their bottom line. Yet a wholesale rejection of BIDs is a short-sighted effort to staunch losses that only results in a deeper hole by reducing the resources available to stabilize and enhance downtown communities. Like any asset, downtown requires on-going improvements and investments to compete against newer, shinier shopping environments. Moreover, consumers continue to keep close track of discretionary spending, which means more competition for fewer dollars. It is precisely this cut-throat competitive environment that makes BIDs an extremely valuable tool for downtown in their efforts to attract shoppers.

Here are five reasons why BIDs remain a good option for downtown revitalization.

1. BIDs leverage additional monies for commercial district revitalization. BID staff become advocates for their districts, able to make compelling arguments on behalf of business and property owners for additional investment. They often set the stage for investment by doing the planning and consensus building often needed to attract public funding. 'Shovel-ready' projects that have public support are in the best position to attract limited public dollars. BIDs can also submit grant proposals, and the BID structure allows for the receipt and distribution of grant dollars that otherwise might go to other communities.

2. BIDs provide a mechanism for collaboration by local merchants. BIDs provide a valuable forum for merchants and property owners to discuss ways to work together more closely for their mutual benefit. Collaborative marketing and district-wide events are mainstays of many  BID programs - and good marketing can only happen with the input of local business owners.

3. BIDs help stabilize and can help increase property values. And don't just take my word for it. In 2006, Philadelphia LISC and the William Penn foundation funded an econometric study of 265 commercial corridors in Philadelphia. The goal was to provide a quantifiable measure of the impact of various activities on the commercial district environment. The findings provide hard data to support the conclusion that BIDs are good for property values. What they found was that there was a consistent and strong relationship between real estate values and the formation of BIDs. In fact, a well managed corridor is a positive amenity, resulting in up to a 30% price premium for properties located within the district.

4. BIDs help drive overall retail sales for the district and retail sales growth for individual businesses. Another finding from the 2006 LISC/Penn study was the "strong relationship" between BIDs and retail sales for both the district and individual businesses as compared to districts without BIDs.

5. BIDs prevent the the free-rider syndrome. Downtowns are unlike single-owner shopping centers. In shopping centers, businesses pay Common Area Maintenance (CAM) charges for things like security, maintenance and upgrades overtime. This mandatory charge ensures that every beneficiary contributes contributes. As we know, many property owners, acting independently and in their own self-interest, often choose to forgo common contributions anticipating that their neighborhoods will pick up their slack - this is the quintessential 'free-rider' problem which can be avoided under the BID structure.

While BIDs are certainly not the panacea for all downtown ills, they provide a structure that is critical to both on-going management and accountability from all sectors. Even when times are bad - and perhaps particularly when times are bad - we cannot ignore the need for management and investment in our downtowns.

Grocery Store Attraction Gains National Prominence

The need for grocery store and fresh food access has found a champion at the national level. New York State Senator Gillibrand is asking for $1 billion in loans and grants for grocery stores nationwide to building 2,100 grocery stores in communities that lack them nationwide. Gillibrand Asking for 2,100 New Grocery Stores (Crain's NY, April 12, 2010)

Non-profits have been prioritizing grocery store access for years - so this news is very exciting. In 2008, the Bay Area office of the Local Initiative Support Corporation (LISC has been championing grocery store access in underserved urban areas now for over a decade) sponsored a day-long symposium on this subject. A manual was created for that symposium, called "Grocery Store Attraction Strategies" that is an excellent primer for communities looking to attract grocery stores.

Another good resource comes from LISC's now-defunct Commercial Markets Advisory Service (where I served as Director for almost two years). While there we published a newsletter dedicated to urban supermarkets that can be downloaded here: Inner-City Grocery Stores, Myths versus Reality.

Grocery store attaction is also a growing priority for the City of New York (see my previous blog: New York City to Promote Grocery Store Development).

It looks like lots of communities are ready to jump on the bandwagon!

Why Commercial District Revitalization will Reduce our Energy Dependence

Everyone is talking sustainability these days - but what does that mean for our commercial districts? For me, being 'green' is more than simply using fewer resources in my everyday life, it is about supporting the redevelopment of places that epitomize what sustainability really means. The compact land use patterns of our mixed-use commercial districts not only help reduce driving, particularly when housing is part of the mix, they also create the kind of density that supports alternative transportation. Simply put, people who live close to their work, or near shopping options, don't need to drive there. Finding ways to support investment in these communities is part and parcel of the larger sustainability discussion, not to mention the upcoming urban infrastructure discussion.

Public policy can either help or hinder the revitalization of our commercial districts, through incentives for mixed-use development projects that create density and bring residents (who are then captive customers), or infrastructure investments, such as streetscape improvements and public transit, that make the district a more attractive place to live, work and shop. As the debate continues - and it will as the discussion of public sector infrastructure investment continues - let's not forget to include commercial district revitalization as a key component of that discussion.

Image: Fruitvale Village, an often cited mixed-use developement project in Oakland, CA incorporates mixed-use development at the site of a transit station.