The Real Impacts of Downtown Sporting Venues

Nur Asri is an Associate at Larisa Ortiz Associates.

The 2018 Major League Baseball season is upon us. Like every other major professional sport, the season reminds us of the vast impacts– both good and bad – that sport has on our cities and downtowns. Across the country, downtowns are becoming choice sites for sports arenas. In 2016, the Brookings Institution found that 45 stadiums and arenas for the four major professional sports — football, baseball, basketball, and hockey — were constructed/renovated in the United States from 2000 to 2014 with a large majority of these being built in urban centers.

This map shows a concentration of sports teams (and by extension, their stadiums) by city from 2012.

Communities around the country are often told by political leaders of the potential economic effects of building these stadia or arenas; however the reality is often a lot less rosy. Sure, these attractions are bringing in visitors downtown in large numbers like no other business might. Last year, the average attendance to any Major League Baseball game in the US was approximately 30,000. In 2016, the Yankee Stadium in the Bronx saw over 3.5 million spectators enter their doors.

As a result, local bars and restaurants might see hikes in foot traffic due to pre- and post- game crowds seeking replenishment. In Downtown Sacramento, pedestrian traffic in the immediate area of the NBA Kings stadium grew by 10%, according to the Downtown Sacramento Partnership. Many bars have even leveraged these pedestrian counts by hosting parties that coincide with game days and even hired special DJs or introduced sport-themed menu items to lure passing crowds. Unfortunately, the same impact is unlikely for retailers offering goods and services unrelated to entertainment, dining, or sports and wellness. So the jewelry store, hair salon or local book store aren’t naturally going to be the biggest fans of a stadium.

The No-Trickle Effect

In recent years, stadiums themselves have become increasingly mixed-use and entertainment-focused attractions. This means that the developments are inward-looking and offer amenities and attractions that responsive to what already exists in adjacent areas. In particular, the retail and food and beverage offerings found within stadiums are driving visitors with busier schedules to completely skip stopping by outside bars and restaurants before games and spending their dollars directly in these arenas.

In an anecdote from 2012, owner of the Yankee Tavern in the Bronx, Joe Bastone, stated that his business was not really making more money as a result of the new Yankee Stadium’s opening. He claimed that the stadium in fact killed local business because once inside, “visitors can choose from 444 souvenir shops, eateries and concession stands, nearly 50 percent more options than in the old stadium. From hot dogs to Cuban sandwiches and sushi, and from pennants to pinstriped jerseys, Yankees fans can find it all without setting foot outside the stadium.”

Photo: USA Today

Some stadiums have carefully curated concession stands to offer local fare and structured vendor deals with local restaurants. For example, the Barclays Center in the Prospect Heights neighborhood of Brooklyn, home to the Nets basketball team and Islanders hockey team, offers Brooklyn-based Williamsburg Pizza, Café Habana Cuban sandwiches, and of course Brooklyn Lager on tap. However, stadium and sports arena developments still have much more to do in terms of growing partnership with small businesses and downtown associations and to enhance cross-shopping opportunities outside the arenas to support adjacent economies.

Furthermore, having tens of thousands of bodies arrive all at once in a concentrated geography doesn’t always bode well for businesses and residents. The hordes of spectators entering and leaving the downtown can be noisy and disorganized, and will certainly impede the regular operations of a business. To mitigate the impacts of human and vehicular congestion on game days, downtown associations are taking a few precautionary measures:

Educating potential visitors on available parking options and street closures. Partner with local news outlets to publish day-of articles that include details on how to get to sporting venues by car or by public transit. This information helps visitors plan their trip ahead of time and reduces frustration on the day of the game.

Uber at Coors Fields, CO

Partnering with ride-share services to manage people and vehicle flow near the venue. Designated Uber pick-up and drop-off areas with clear signage and instructions should be made available to riders to reduce congestion near the stadium.

Detroit Tigers, for example, signed Uber as the official ride-sharing partner for Comerica Park in downtown Detroit. The partnership not only designates pick up areas but also offers first time riders promotional codes. The same deal was made with the Detroit Lions and Detroit Pistons.

Providing shuttle rides to and from transit stops or parking lots farther away. Nashville’s Bridgestone Arena partners with the Downtown Partnership to provide such a service during event days. Again, this helps reduce congestion near the arena and makes the experience downtown less stressful for visitors.

Photo: San Francisco Bicycle Coalition

Providing convenient, attended bike parking service. This strategy has in fact made driving to games the more inconvenient option for those in San Francisco. A regulation passed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1999 requires monitored bicycle parking if an event incurs a street closure and anticipates more than 2,000 participants. As a result, all San Francisco Giants games played at AT&T park now provide valet bike parking services to more than 200 spectators, thanks to an arrangement with local bike advocacy group, SF Bicycle Coalition.

So if you’re thinking of attracting a sports team to make its home downtown in a new arena to catalyze further investment in the area and attract visitors, think also about the potential impacts it will have on foot traffic diversion and vehicular congestion. Prepare small local businesses for game days and at the same time, make sure that the arena is responsive to and supportive of existing businesses in the area. 

Understanding Airport Retail

Nur is an Associate for Larisa Ortiz Associates

Dubai Airport Duty Free Shops.
Photo: Simon Chapman

The holiday season is upon us and many of us are taking trips home to spend time with family or vacationing on a beach somewhere. We join the millions of airline passengers around the world passing through airports and spending money on souvenirs, last-minute toiletries, and even food and drink while waiting for departure. The number of passengers flying has risen every year since 2009. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S.-based airlines carried a record 823 million passengers last year, up from 798 million in 2015. 

If you’ve only traveled to a handful of airports in the US and have only ever seen a Hudson News stand or Applebee’s restaurant, you’re likely wondering, “What’s so great about airport retail?” Well, on the whole, airport retail is doing much better than main street retail. Around the world, airport retail sales rose 4 percent in 2016 and is expected to reach $90 billion by 2023, according to Credence Research. In the US and Canada alone, airport retail is expected to rise to $10 billion by 2020 from $4.2 billion in 2015.

When we take a closer look at specific retail categories, some stores in airports appear to be experiencing better sales than their main street counterparts. The most obvious examples are of course the newsstands/ book stores, electronics/ gadgets, and specialty gifts/ souvenirs stores. These are all last-minute goods that travelers have often forgotten to pack or are looking for as gifts for loved ones back home, and have virtually no other option except to purchase right before boarding a flight at the airport.

High-end Harrods Department Store at London Heathrow
International Airport. Photo: Henry Burrows

Another retail category that is also doing very well in airports in recent years is ‘Clothing and Accessories’ – particularly that of luxury brands. Last year, clothing and accessories accounted for more than 50 percent of revenue share in the global airport retail market. The luxury lines of clothing and accessories, in particular, are meeting the preference and style of a large share of affluent travelers who are willing to spend more with their high disposable incomes. Today, luxury retail is booming in ‘hub airports’ that have a large number of connecting international flights. Terminal 3 at Singapore’s Changi Airport, for example, features a wide range of upscale boutiques and brands such as Bottega Venetta, Burberry, and Gucci. 

With such a large share of the retail market, it’s important that cities and governments (typical owners of airports) take time to understand airport retail and its various customers in order to enhance the experience of retail in these unique microclimates.

The Three Main Types of Airport Retail Customers

First, and most importantly, there’s the traveler. Travelers, as you might have already guessed from personal experience, are looking for a wide range of goods – from the unwieldy ‘replacement item’ to the seasonal and trendy souvenir or gift.

To make things even more complex for airport retailers, even within this customer segment of travelers, there are various subsets of travelers – the business traveler, the vacation traveler, the domestic traveler, and the international traveler – with wide-ranging needs, price points and consumer preferences.

The most lucrative consumer market, however, appears to be the growing group of travelers with high incomes, travelling for business and travelling internationally. These consumers are seeking exclusivity in products and are not heavily affected by price points.

Regardless of type of traveler, one thing remains constant – they all have limited time to browse and they are also captive foot traffic from post-security point on. Often, travelers dwell between 60 to 90 minutes in the airport from check-in to boarding and, according to a DKMA report, passengers who spend more than 60 minutes at the airport are +33% more likely to buy F&B, +27% more likely to buy retail and +13% more likely to buy duty free than passengers who spend fewer than 60 minutes at the airport. It is therefore important that airport retailers are strategic about merchandising and store layouts to maximize customer attention.

The second airport retail customer is the airline crew or airport staff. Growing up with both parents in aviation meant that I was always getting stuff purchased at airports – my mother would sometimes buy take-out dinner after work from the restaurant in the airport or get groceries from the convenience store at the airport – this was all regular to me. But think about the thousands of employees who come in and out of airports daily for work and need affordable and convenient meals throughout the day and last minute grocery!

Finally, the family member picking up and dropping off travelers make up the final key group of airport retail customers. These customers are looking for balloons and flowers to greet their loved ones or a final meal with friends before sending them off. Many airports in the US don’t offer more than a Starbucks and diner in the departure level and almost no retail at arrival level. This is a large chunk of airport customers whose needs are being ignored.

Best Practice: Asia-Pacific

In Asia- Pacific, the picture is different. Airports are already being designed with shopping as a key use for travelers, airport/airline staff, and for the general public. After all, retail accounts for approximately 30 percent of non-aviation revenues made by airports so why not maximize the benefits?

Today, Asia Pacific is leading the growth for airport retail, according to Bain & Company. In the region, it is common to see large international airports there with edutainment options, family-friendly restaurants, and even convenience/grocery stores for the families and friends waiting in departure or arrival halls. It is no wonder that it is the largest regional airport retail market accounting for 41 percent of revenue share in the 2015 global airport retail market.

The Slide at Terminal 3 Singapore Changi International Airport.
Photo: LittleDayOut.Com

In Singapore, Changi International Airport features two full-service Fairprice grocery stores and ‘Family Zones’ equipped with children’s playgrounds and giant slides. These amenities are used year round not just by families in transit to another destination but also families waiting on loved ones to return on a flight. With over 400 retail and service outlets and 140 food and dining options across approximately 979,515 square feet, the whole gamut of airport retail customers are easily able to find goods and services for any time of the day and year.

Hong Kong traditional street fare at the airport. Photo: Joe Allen

In Hong Kong, traditional Chinese and Hong Kong style coffee shop eateries are located across both terminals for both travelers to sample traditional cuisine on the way to their next destination and locals to enjoy a quick and affordable meal. Amongst their entertainment options, travelers and the general public can count on an aviation discovery center, IMAX Theater and simulation golf facility to pass their time at the airport.  

Challenges of Airport Retail

Getting airport retail to reap full benefits from its captive audience, however, requires a lot of upfront investment. Airport regulations requires that a lot of retail inventory may be subject to checks. There are also often no truck bays for easy delivery access, especially in older airports, which means retailers spend more time and money transporting their goods to the store. Not to mention the higher staff salaries that go into operating stores that must remain open at least between 7am and midnight. Alan Gluck, chairman of Airport Economic and Concession Consultants, reports that airport retailers have annual operating hours that are twice that of a similar storeoutside of an airport.

Tenant improvement costs are also often high as retailers are required to scrap all interior fit-outs at the end of each lease term, leaving new retailers with a new canvas to completely design and build from scratch.

Support Airport Retail

Airports play an important role in economic development. In a 2012 CityLab article, Richard Florida called out two studies that found associations between airport passengers and both metro population and employment growth, while controlling for other factors that would be expected to shape growth. In a study by economist Jan Brueckner, a 10 percent increase in passengers in a metro area was found to generate a one percent increase in regional employment. It is therefore incredibly important to boost the sources of revenues for airports in order to ensure their sustained performance and retail, as it turns out, is the leading or second biggest source of revenue for most airports.

Airport Express Train at Hong Kong International Airport.
Photo: Fabio Achilli

Firstly, the airports in the U.S. need to start competing with those in other regions like Europe and Asia-Pacific in terms of tenant mix, merchandising and price points. Travelers have wide-ranging needs and preferences, and airport retail needs to be able to cater to these various groups. In addition, the needs of the general public and staff working for airlines and the airport itself also need to be accounted for. In Singapore, the Changi International Airport sees its affordable food courts and eateries packed to the brim daily at lunchtime with employees working for various airlines or even families with children after school. This also likely due to the strong public transit connections between the airport and residential neighborhoods and downtown Singapore. Most residents across the country are able to get to Changi International Airport in less than an hour by public transit (cab, bus, mass rapid trains), and likewise in Hong Kong.

Secondly, like its counterparts on Main Street, airport retail also needs to up its omni-channel game in order to remain relevant and competitive amongst the traveler market. Many airports in Asia-Pacific are working on mobile apps with maps that help travelers navigate the building once they get there so that they can save time on browsing stores to visit and meals to purchase. Airport retailers are also allowing travelers to use their store apps to order food or items online before having them delivered directly to boarding gates, or partnering with airlines to enable click-and-collect service via inflight e-tail.

The airport is a truly complex micro-climate of retail that many cities and governments need to be more active in understanding. There is a large untapped potential in raising revenue for airports through retail and as owners of airports, municipalities are well poised to help bolster the retail environment for travelers, airline workforce, and the general public.

Distance decay and other reasons why planners overlook the obvious when planning for retail

There is a universal premise in retail - if people can’t get to stores, they can’t shop. It’s a very simple concept, yet time and again this principle fails to get considered during the planning process - especially when it comes to retail. Through our work at LOA, we have come across our fair share of projects that left us, let’s just say, confused. There was that 14,000 sf isolated retail in a mixed-use building located about .2 miles from a nearby shopping district. If that distance wasn’t bad enough, the space was located at the bottom of a hill on a street that dead-ended at a highway. Or what about that urban grocery store adjacent to a major expressway? While it was certainly visible, it was not accessible because there was no nearby exit ramp. So every day thousands of cars would see the big sign for the shopping center and drive right by because they couldn't get there. Let’s just say that the developer of that project skirted bankruptcy. 

Over twenty years we have witnessed our fair share of “don’ts”. Over time, our experience has led us to the conclusion that planning strategies are often based on an imaginary trade area, rather than a real trade area. Trade area is the area from which a store or district will pull (think "gravity" here) the majority of their customers. We take the question of trade area very seriously because it under girds every single piece of data a market research firm will provide to you about your district. Get this wrong and you might as well throw that report away.

At the most simplified level, the ability to predict a district's gravitation pull – or trade area – is directly related to two characteristics. One is the distance (or accessibility, but I'll get to that in a minute) of a district to its customer base. The other is the number and total square footage of retail offerings - what can also be referred to as mass. These two principles, mass and distance, are taken from science. In science we know that the greater the mass of an object, the more of a gravitational pull it has on other objects. The same goes for commercial districts. A district with a greater number of offerings (whether it be in the number of businesses or total SF) generally correlate to a larger trade area. I often say that people will travel 1 minute for every 4 minutes of activity. This 1:4 ratio means that if someone travels 30 minutes, they want at least two hours of activity to make the trip worth while. This is simply another way to discuss the relationship between mass and distance. 

120 linear feet of law office creates significant distance
decay between one end of Main Street and the other. 

Conversely, the shorter the distance between two objects, the greater the gravitational pull and higher interaction between those two objects. More recently we’ve been studying how these ideas relate to “distance decay”. Distance decay refers to the idea that the farther apart you pull two objects, the less interaction you are going to get between those two objects. Here are a few examples of distance decay in practice.

• The distance between a shopper and a store. The farther a customer has to travel, the less likely they are to patronize a business. We should also keep in mind that “distance” is a loaded term. Lots of things impact how far people perceive a place to be. If going somewhere requires driving around in circles looking for parking, there will be a perception that a distance is greater than if parking is easily available. 
• The distance between two stores. The further apart those two stores are located, the less likelihood a customer will shop at both during a single visit. 
• The distance between a parking lot and stores. If there are things to do and see along the way, this distance feels shorter. 

The perception of distance is important here too. More than a few things can make distance feel longer to the average shopper, including:

• Feelings of insecurity - loitering, trash that make a walk uncomfortable and therefore feel longer
• Lack of shade trees on a hot day
• A street pockmarked by parking lots 
• Nothing interesting to look at - blank walls along the sides of buildings
• Lack of transparency in storefronts - nothing to see as you walk down the street

The list goes on. 

Our work often centers around ways in which we can reduce distance decay - whether that distance is real or perceived by the customer. This might include way finding or storefront signage or mid-block crossings to name a few. 

Robert Gibbs, author of “Principles of Urban Retail Planning and Development” likes to say that people stop walking if there is 50 feet or more of a dead zone. Just 50’ can create significant distance decay such that two businesses will be unlikely to share the same customer. This distance is incredibly short – much shorter than most people realize. As you can imagine, this issue comes up extremely frequently in our work. We recently did some work in a community in North Carolina where a rapidly expanding law firm was taking over storefronts along the most vibrant stretch of Main Street – ultimately occupying 120’ linear feet of storefront(!) with office space. This precise issue came up for me many years ago when, as a Project Manager for the NYC Economic Development Corporation during the 125th Street rezoning (2008) we incorporated a restriction that would limit banks to 25 linear feet of store frontage. Since then other communities have followed suit, including Cambridge, MA where we recently completed a retail study. They too limited banks to 25' linear feet in some commercial districts. 

So while there are solutions to the very real problem of distance decay, many planners first have to recognize that this is a problem worth addressing. 

The Rise of Transit Retail

Bugis MRT Station.

Growing up in Singapore, transit stops were never simply places to catch a bus or get on the mass rapid transit. They were often also convenient places to pick up a quick sandwich, ice-cold bubble tea or even groceries. All across Asia, transit stations have been popular retail hubs for decades. Stations often offered a diverse mix of convenience retail and in some cases go so far as becoming shopping destinations in themselves.

The concept of transit retail, or retail at transit stations, is a “new frontier for retailers” in other parts of the world, particularly here in the U.S. Many chain retailers and commercial real estate brokers here are only beginning to view transit stations as viable locations for small format but high volume convenience stores. According to a recent report released by CBRE on retail expansion, one-fifth of brands from the Americas and the Middle East are targeting travel hubs as an emerging format for expansion, whether it be airports, commuter train stops, or railway stations.

Forms of Transit Retail

Transit retail does come in a variety of forms. They can be found:

Turnstyle Food Hall at Columbus Circle. Photo: Cristina U.

a) Before the turnstiles as in the case of Turnstyle at Columbus Circle, or

b) After the turnstiles like the newspaper kiosks on the platform of the West 4^th subway station here in New York City

West 4th Subway Newspaper Kiosk. Photo: Jens Schott Knudsen

They can also be found at-grade or below-grade, depending on the design and structure of the transit station. Personally, I have always had the greatest appreciation for the retail options found below-grade located just before the transit turnstiles. Thunderstorms during the monsoon seasons in Singapore were common so thousands of commuters like me would often seek shelter at these subterranean retail outlets, sometimes for up to an hour! This form of transit retail was also particularly useful on the hottest days of the year, and I would imagine will be equally functional during the extremely cold winters we face here.

While below-grade retail has the added benefit of providing shelter from extreme weather conditions, at-grade retail storefronts better serve surrounding neighborhoods and its residents. In London, the Earl’s Court Station served by both the Circle and District Lines best illustrates the opportunity that at-grade retail storefronts have to seamlessly connect transit to the rest of the neighborhood. The retail spaces that front Earls Court Road and that also mask the station from the high street, offer residents of the neighboring garden houses convenient retail and amenity including pharmacies, take-out restaurants, groceries, and financial services. While I was in college, I lived a block away from the transit station and always found myself picking up a couple of oranges or a bouquet of flowers from the local grocer situated by the station exit on my way home.

Designing at- grade and street-fronting retail bays however requires paying attention to local architecture. The retail-cum-station façade at Earl’s Court features buff glazed faience with green trimmings and all of the original windows of the station head house. This architecture allows the station to seamlessly weave itself into the old residential neighborhood with an ‘unbroken [historic] wall for pedestrians’.  

Tenant Mix at Transit Stations

In terms of tenant mix, transit retail mostly consists of grab-and-go items such as newspapers, magazines, coffee, packaged food, drugs and cosmetics. In a study by Yeates and Jones (1998), findings corroborated that retail tenants more likely to be located near commuter rail stations include coffee kiosks, quick food stands, and dry cleaners. Other typically observed tenants include banks, convenience stores, and pharmacies.

At more up-scale and new-build transit stations, the retail component is becoming more advanced, and is often transforming the stations themselves into retail and dining attractions or destinations. According to Robert Cervero, professor and chair of city and regional planning at the University of California Berkeley, this is very much like the Scandinavian model of TOD where the “transit station is not just a logistical node but also a place to go, in and of itself.” In some cases, transit retail outlets have also become hosts to special events and celebrations that bring in customers beyond just commuters.

The Oculus in New York City is a popular example of a transit station that has itself become an architectural centerpiece and also a shopping destination operated and managed by Westfield Corporation, the brand name of shopping centers worldwide. Oculus not only features the typical transit retail mix with its Starbucks and take-out restaurants, but also boasts European boutiques, jewelers, full-service restaurants and even an Apple store within its 365,000SF space. Pop-up retail merchandiser units or carts measuring about 48SF allow experiential and transactional retail concepts to change seasonally, encouraging fashion forward and trendy shoppers to visit. Likewise in Chicago, at the Ogilvie Transportation Center in the West Loop, MetraMarket is a 100,000sf street-level restaurant and retail development that offers neighborhood service and retail outlets such as CVS and CityFresh Market but also destination food hall, Chicago French Market.  

Benefits of Transit Retail

The mix of retail enables commuters and also neighboring residents the opportunity to have a one-stop shopping experience on the way home or on the way between places. As more people move from car-dependent locations to transit-served areas, the consolidation of trips—in other words, one-stop shopping—becomes a “sought-afterlifestyle factor” (CBRE, 2016).

Transit retail is also beneficial to transit authorities that are looking for an alternative revenue stream beyond just fares. In Hong Kong, the MTR rail corporation reported that in-station retail generates approximately $270 million annually. And in London, Transport for London, the city’s mass transit system operator, reported over $95 million in gross rental income in 2013 (NAIOP, 2015). As long as transit authorities negotiate leases on a triple-net basis and keep their role to the minimum of receiving checks and overseeing contract compliance, they will stand to gain form diversifying their revenue stream. While transit authorities may be concerned over littering and station cleanliness following transit retail, many testimonies have been given that counter that apprehension. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) and Chicago’s Metra affirm that customers and tenants have respected the cleanliness standards given by the transit agencies. In fact, according to Denise Whitfield, MARTA’s manager of concessions, “riders respect the cleanliness of the system” and there has been no litter impact since the first phase of MARTA’s retail program was introduced in 2010 (NAIOP, 2015).

Finally, retailers definitely stand to gain from ‘captive consumers’ who have no choice but to stay at transit stations while waiting for a train or bus to board, or until the weather subsides. The critical mass of daily customers and the highly-trafficked locations at transit stops ensures that an adequate amount of minimum daily traffic supports retailers. Of course, the minimums may differ by geography. Where minimum daily traffic is not sufficient near transit stations, then retailers and transit authorities must ensure that there are other activities generating even more traffic in the non-commute periods.

Designing for transit retail

All over the world, transit retail formats are growing rapidly whether in new station developments or in old retrofitted stations. Paris’ Metro and London’s Underground are leading the innovative rehab pack by converting old subterranean mezzanines and ticket booths into small but viable retail spaces. Other transit systems may also soon discover that there are similar opportunities in underused spaces that can be converted into retail spaces for lease. 

Other resources:

Yeates, M., & Jones, K. G. (1998). Rapid transit and commuter rail induced retail development. Centre for the Study of Commercial Activity, Ryerson Polytechnic University. Retrieved from http://173- 254-37-135.bluehost.com/JSCR/IndArticles/Yeates_N298.pdf

The Bike Effect on Retail

Lately, we've been busy conducting stakeholder interviews and focus groups with business owners in downtowns all over the region and a common complaint that often arises is a shortage of parking. No matter where we are, merchants argue that a large number of potential customers and visitors to downtown are not coming because there simply isn't enough parking spaces to meet demand. But will building more parking spaces really increase retail vibrancy downtown? What about alternative transportation options such as walking and biking that so many cities around the country are slowly turning their heads to, and what about building infrastructure for those modes instead?

Biking, as we all know by now, comes with a myriad of environmental and health benefits. However, more recently, it is also proving its worth in bringing economic benefits to commercial districts. Unfortunately, it's not yet intuitive that paying customers might arrive by bicycle so business owners remain the last supporters of bike infrastructure.

Bike lanes, as it appears, do not hurt businesses. In a study by the NYC Department of Transportation in 2012 that followed various street redesign projects, it was revealed that sales income at locally-based businesses along 9th Avenue, where a protected bike lane was installed, increased as much as 49% between 2006 and 2010, compared to 3% borough-wide. Although the better sales performance cannot directly be attributed to the installation of bike lanes, it is clear that the bike lanes did not negatively impact businesses. 


Some posit this phenomenon occurs because cyclists have fewer barriers to stopping at a local business than those driving on the same street (Just imagine the hassle of looking for a parking spot for a car versus a bike that can be locked to any old lamp post or corral). However, it is more important that we recognize the overall calming effect that bike lanes provide to our streets. With the presence of bike lanes, protected or otherwise, motorists are forced to be more aware of cyclists on the roads and therefore move at slower speeds. This traffic calming effect then in turn attracts more pedestrians who, like cyclists, have greater freedom to stop and notice storefronts compared to those in automobiles. 

Although the fear faced by business owners of reducing on-street parking spaces for bike infrastructure may sometimes be unfounded, it is important that commercial districts looking to install bike lanes and corrals, or bike programs downtown engage business owners from the very beginning of the process to maintain transparency and build support among these stakeholders.

The Bike Friendly Business District Program in Long Beach, California, for example, did an amazing job in getting business owners involved from the get-go. The program encourages local visitors to bike to the commercial district to shop and dine by growing the number of bike-related businesses downtown and providing bike racks and corrals, bike lanes and clear signage that bolster the pedestrian and cyclist experience of the corridor. In the beginning of the process, the District partnered with neighborhood groups to research how customers traveled to a particular business and shared that information publicly with business owners, reducing common misconceptions about who shops where and how they arrive. By also putting on neighborhood events that encourage people to arrive by bicycle and on foot, and encouraging businesses to offer discounts to customers who cycle, the program has built a bike-friendly business district that today continues to thrive. 

Narratives about the economic benefits of bike infrastructure downtown may differ from town to town but the key to success lies in involving business owners at all turns of the process and clearing up any unfounded fear of the bike lane. Polk Street in San Francisco, for example, revealed that merchants' fears of removing parking spaces for pedestrian and bike infrastructure were completely groundless when an intercept survey conducted in 2013 revealed that only 14% of visitors to the commercial street arrived by car. 

It is also important to note that not all businesses will benefit equally from a bike lane. Furniture stores, for example, may have to adapt more than a cafe because customers simply cannot bike home with a product purchased in-store. However, there are ways to cope. For example, making available cargo bikes for delivery may be one way of adapting - as carried out in Long Beach, CA. Ultimately, the flexibility of a business will determine its chances of survival no matter the change to the district's physical landscape. If the environmental and health benefits of biking weren't already enough to convince you that customers are slowly converting to this mode of transportation, consider the calming effect of bikes on your commercial street and its potential to drive greater foot traffic - a new bike corral in front of your store may not be such a bad idea after all!

Are we ready for a world where parking requirements decrease by 80%?

Density and car ownership are often at odds. We know density does great things for cities. The concentration of people, businesses and transportation all play a powerful role in economic growth. Yet cars - and the parking they require - undermine that growth every day in a variety of ways. Cars create the need for streets, parking lots, and circulation that do little to enhance the experience of urban living. As a society we further exacerbate that problem by requiring more parking through zoning than we might need if alternative transportation options were more readily available. The issue hit home for me the other day someone asked me how often I drive my car (I live in a very dense, walk able urban community in Queens, NY). I thought about it quickly and realized I only drive  about 2-3 times a month, and mostly to run errands, go grocery shopping at the local warehouse club, or visit family outside the City. The remainder of that time, my car sits unused in an on-street parking spot taking up valuable space in the urban environment.

So what happens when we acknowledge that cars are highly underutilized commodities that are parked 95% of the time? Are there solutions out there that would offer people the convenience of car ownership without the societal burden created by the need for parking?

Imagine yourself driving around in one of these cute BMWs.
This could be the future of  downtown car ownership. 

BMW is among those testing out new solutions through their DriveNow program. The program is already functional in a few European cities. And while the San Francisco program was stalled owing in part to an unfriendly regulatory environment, they are actively looking to expand in the New York market. The concept is this - what if you had access to a fleet of cars that were parked in your building? Assume these cars were at your disposal whenever you wanted - to pick up groceries, visit a friend, go on a day trip somewhere. Studies suggest that one car share vehicle displaces between 10 - 15 owned vehicles. This means that instead of parking, we could build more housing, support more retail, and develop more public space, all of which would make urban environments even more attractive places to live and work. Just think, instead of two lanes of parking, you could have just one lane parking, which would allow for wider sidewalks with more landscaping and amenities like outdoor dining, not to mention provide an additional buffer between the pedestrians and traffic. The impact on our downtown's would be nothing short of revolutionary. And what if these cars were electric cars - which is the BMW model? We could further improve air quality too. Win, win!

However, this solution is not without it's challenges. As they say, the devil is in the details. Part of the problem is that at peak times everyone wants to use the car (say Saturday afternoon), so you need the right volume of car share vehicles to make this work. There are many entrants in this market that are actively working to figure out these details. Besides BMW these include car2go and Enterprise.

For those of us working on downtown issues, we should prepare ourselves for the impact because we will among the first to experience these changes. Car sharing makes the most sense, of course, in dense, pedestrian friendly communities like the ones we serve. New residential development in urban places will provide downtown practitioners some of the earliest opportunities to partner with car share providers. Now the question is, will our cities be prepared with the right regulatory requirements and flexibility to allow for these new technologies? Will banks underwrite loans for buildings with reduced parking? And will retailers accept lower parking requirements when they have little experience with these new models? Clearly, these chapters remain to be written.

The most fundamental thing you need to know before you make your next downtown investment

What is the one most critical factor driving the success of your downtown economy? Getting this wrong could mean millions of dollars in wasted investment that fails to catalyze downtown - and could instead undermine it. Read on to learn more. 

Lessons learned the hard way

A few years ago I was working in a small waterfront community (name and places have been omitted to protect the innocent). To the north lay a large body of water (not many shoppers there!). To the south were certainly lots of people, but most were poised to travel away from the water and towards the malls that have located in more central locations. That said, the town had great bones. Main Street had a charming, pedestrian friendly feel. What’s more, walkable neighborhoods surrounded downtown. These homes, for the most part, had been well maintained and still evoked a feeling of small town living, where parents might send their kids downtown for ice cream with a few dollars in hand. This was the kind of place that many people might want to live.

Yet here we were – with a downtown that was struggling. The local movie theater was on the brink of closure. Vacancies were increasing. Downtown simply could not compete with the pull of nearby shopping malls, with their multiple offerings and centralized location. And even though there was more than enough parking downtown, much of it structured and behind the main street, the parking structures felt unsafe after having been neglected for years.  Dark corridors and broken elevators do not make for an inviting place to arrive for work or a downtown shopping trip.

Over the course of the project, I couldn’t help but notice that the community had also made infrastructure investments, some quite recently, that significantly undermined the downtown economy, and they probably did it without realizing it. Millions of dollars in infrastructure investment had recently gone towards street “improvements” around downtown that did very little for pedestrians, cyclists or those who use public transportation. The improvements were designed only with car owners in mind. It probably made sense at the time. I can imagine the conversation in City Hall … “most people drive, so let’s make sure we make driving through downtown fast and easy, and if they want to shop, let’s make sure they have more than enough parking.” Makes sense on some level. But what they also did was deprive residents of alternative options, options that might make a stroll or bike ride downtown part of an experience - an additive amenity that might make downtown an even more appealing place to visit. 

Unfortunately, poor decisions were made at many levels. The Mayor actively prevented bike lanes from being incorporated into a major streetscape improvement project. The rationale? The lanes would require maintenance and create a liability – costs the City could ill afford. In another instance, the recently reconstructed sidewalks connecting downtown to the surrounding neighborhoods strangely dead ended at major intersections, and often did not connect with existing crosswalks. Where crossings did exist, the crossing light offered barely enough time to cross the street before the light turned green. Everywhere we turned, we saw decisions that made OTHER places easier to access. Was it really a surprise that the downtown was suffering in light of the decisions made over the years? The slow chip, chip, chipping away of accessibility could be likened to the chipping away at the foundation of a house. At some point, the foundation fails and the house collapses.

Why you need to know about location theory
When thinking about access, it is important to understand fundamental economic theory, specifically “location theory”. Location theory states that businesses choose locations that will maximize profit. This theory is the basis of retail site selection as well. Being located in a place that is accessible and appealing to customers is critical to the bottom line. It is why Dunkin Donuts prefers the “inbound” side of the street – people buy coffee in the morning on the way to work. Or restaurants prefer to be on the “outbound” side of the street – people buy food on the way home from work. We also know that customers, especially in this day and age when time is a commodity, prefer to cross-shop, accomplishing a few shopping errands during a single visit. This is why retailers also prefer malls and shopping centers. These are often places designed for the time strapped shopper in mind. The concentration of stores draws more customers than a single store will on its own. (And on an aside, it is also why on-line shopping is so popular. What is more convenient than making a purchase from your home computer or smart phone? But I digress….)

Today I’m only going to tackle pedestrian and bike access....

Tips for taking stock of pedestrian and bike accessibility
When considering how accessible your downtown is, take stock of the following:

Bike access – Bike share programs and bike infrastructure are blossoming throughout the country. And where they have, local businesses seem to benefit. In New York’s Chelsea neighborhood, an NYC DOT study found a 49% increase in retail sales for locally based businesses after bike lanes were introduced compared to a 3% increase borough-wide. As biking becomes more popular as a mode of transit, local business districts, which are more accessible, are in a better position to draw customers from a larger trade area. As you assess your “bike friendliness”, ask yourself these basic questions:

• Does your district offer safe passage for those biking to the district? And are the lanes safe for cyclists of all ages?  In New York for instance, only children under 12 are allowed to ride on sidewalks. As a mother of a 6 year old – I would be thrilled if I could craft an afternoon of bike riding with my son, stopping to eat here or there. But the bike lanes in my neighborhood are shared with the road – not ideal for a little boy still learning to steer properly. So instead we leave our bikes at home, or load them into a car and leave the neighborhood.
• Are there sufficient locations to secure a bike when you reach your destination? If people have concerns about where they are going to lock up their bikes, it could deter their decision to visit your district. Consider that a single parking spot can support 10+ bike parking spaces. Wouldn’t businesses prefer ten shoppers over one who arrive by car?

Pedestrian access – There are two kinds of pedestrian access to consider – one that involves simply getting there and another that involves what happens once you arrive. Those are two different things. Lifestyle centers, for example thrive on the latter. Most customers arrive at these glorified malls - many of which attempt to mimic the Main Street environment – by car. Once they arrive, the quality of the common areas or “Main Street” is what they are there to experience. Like any mall, the owner tries hard to ensure a continuity of retail and an attractive environment. These places try very hard to achieve walkability.

The other kind of pedestrian access is about tapping the built in residential demand from people who living within walking distance of the shopping area. Here is where the “walk appeal” of all the streets and connections to downtown start to make a difference. Why is that? Because walk appeal is often psychological. A five-minute walk through a parking lot feels substantively different than a five-minute walk along a vibrant city street or leafy attractive sidewalk. A short walk on a hot day feels is much less appealing when there is no shade. A resident or office worker will walk further if the downtown environment is more appealing, when there is window shopping to be done or a cool spot to enjoy a nice view. In City’s like New York or London, walking a mile to one’s destination – a 15-minute walk – is not uncommon.

As you consider the pedestrian environment, ask yourself these basic questions:

• Is your downtown environment riddled with gaps in the pedestrian environment? Did you know that even 50 feet of a “poor” environment can keep people from walking past? In 2006 I was working at the New York City Economic Development Corporation, and as part of a rezoning along 125^th Street – which at that time was seeing lots of taking up ground floor retail space – creating dead zones in the evening. What we found was that even these minor breaks in continuity affected people’s perceptions and how far the were willing to walk. So take stock if your district. Is there a vacant lot that needs to be activated? A bank that shuts down at 5 pm? Retail that closes and pulls down roll down gates? All of these things make an environment less appealing to pedestrians. So the businesses located on the other side of that gap, whatever it is, will see fewer customers as a result. 
• Is the five-minute walk shed from your downtown comfortable to walk? Is it safe to walk? Is there proper lighting? Is there shade to protect pedestrians during hot days? I am working in a community right now with a great opportunity to connection a waterfront marina – with lots of visitors to downtown. The problem? A creek and bridge that are uncomfortable to cross lies between the marina and downtown. While most locals think the distance of ¼ mile is easy to walk, on a hot or even warm day, the is brutal.  The sidewalk is narrow and unprotected from car traffic.  Improving the bridge crossing for pedestrians, or even building a pedestrian only bridge across the river – not an insignificant undertaking – is necessary to seam these two assets together. 

Admittedly, every community is just a little bit different. Transportation habits and mores differ by location. Weather, land use patterns, income and demographics play a role in determining what these habits are in different places. While this mean that these principles should be tinkered with and customized for every place, at the end of the day a successful downtown will be easily accessible to as many people using as many forms of transportation as possible. The next time you look at your downtown - try looking at it from this new perspective.

Can ridesharing help reinvigorate downtowns?

Last night I got some grief from a yellow taxi cab driver as I got into his cab at LaGuardia Airport. Tired from a long flight, I just wanted to get home. Instead I was told my choice of destination – a mere 10 minute cab ride from the airport– was too short to be worthwhile. Understandably, he wanted to pick up someone going a longer distance which would obviously result in a higher fare. I get it. He had been waiting for a ride for quite some time and here I go with a fare at least 25% of what he was expecting. From my perspective, I just wanted to get home without feeling guilty. He then helpfully suggested that I take the bus next time. 

When I relayed this experience on Facebook, I was surprised to see how many people responded with similar experiences. One neighbor suggested that she and her husband now call Uber - and they haven’t looked back since. At least an Uber driver knows what they are agreeing to before accepting the ride. All this got me to thinking...as Uber and other ridesharing services like Lyft start replacing traditional cabs, is the impact a good or bad thing for our downtown communities?

I started looking around for research on this topic and realized there wasn't much out there. Most of the analysis concerns the impact on labor markets and downtown congestion, but I was wondering instead about the impact on parking requirements and car ownship rates. If downtown living is made easier by ride sharing apps – meaning that downtown residents could choose to forgo a car entirely – or if downtown visitors choose Uber over their private cars resulting in lower parking demand – isn’t that a good thing for the future of downtown?

I immediately recalled an article in the New York Times that peaked my interest a little over a year ago entitled “How Uber is Changing Night Life in Los Angeles” (NYTimes, 10/31/14). The article found a growing group of urban residents eschewing their cars – either only on weekends or entirely – and being “suddenly free to drink, party and walk places.” One artist who lives in Venice indicated that Uber had made a visit to downtown Hollywood on a weeknight an option that it hadn’t been before, saying “The prospect of going to Hollywood on a weekend night, if I was invited to a party or an art event, it just wouldn’t happen. I would just stay home.” For downtown advocates like myself, this is music to the ears. 

Could ride sharing change the fundamental
dynamics of the downtown core? 

For many thriving downtown, the visitor is increasingly looking for entertainment and dining, so it stands to reason that removing the challenges of driving (who wants to sit in traffic?) and finding parking, not to mention avoiding driving home drunk, would make downtown more appealing. Not only that, but if ride sharing makes car ownership less likely, then what follows is an opportunity to increase density without added parking. This would also serve to make downtown housing more affordable to build. And once that happens, could changes in land use regulations and parking requirements be far behind?

Another potential area of impact – and this one is mostly for folks outside of the downtown core – is the potential for ride sharing to bridge the gap between trains and buses by helping people in far flung neighborhoods get their local bus or rail stops. This is called the “first-mile/last-mile” challenge. Right now Uber is working in Dallas and Atlanta and is in discussions with Seattle and Tampa, to help make better connections between public transit and car sharing apps. All good news.

Ride sharing is also helping during peak demand times – such as special events. For downtowns that host major events, ride sharing can make attendance easier – by reducing the need to drive and park. Ultimately, the driving and parking experience, if it is not a positive one, undermines the overall experience and deters attendance. Perhaps ride sharing can mitigate against those outcomes?

Another potential positive is the need for parking near train stations. Would this also mean less parking would be needed near train stations if folks can take an Uber? Having lived in suburban New York, near a regional commuter line, I can tell you that being able to take Uber to the train station would have made a real difference in my ability to get to and from the train line - which was my link to "the City". In my case, the parking in and around the station was limited to residential permit holders, making it nearly impossible to get a spot when I needed one. And when I did find one it was often a long, cold, dark walk. Uber would have been a game changer for me.

I don’t think I am alone. Steve Lopez, a reporter for the LA Times tried out driving for Uber and wrote a fun piece a few days ago. (“After driving for Uber, he's keeping his day job”, LA Times, 1/13/16). One of his riders, Robecca Collins, is quoted as saying "I go out a fair amount with friends, and no one really drives anymore because no one wants to find parking". She went on to offer that she plans to sell her car because she isn’t driving it much anymore. She also said she was tired of getting grief from taxi drivers who hassled her about using a credit card.

None of this means that Uber isn’t having significant - maybe even negative - impact on taxi drivers and other competitors, who frequently complain to me about the loss in riders and income. It also doesn't speak to the increase of cars on the road from Uber (which is what some folks have argued, “Uber’s Own Numbers Show It’s Making Traffic Worse”, Streetsblog NYC, 7/22/15). But it does give us some food for thought about how new technology is changing the way we live our lives, and perhaps making downtown living and density a more appealing alternative than ever before. Now THAT is something I can get behind. 

Roundup: Surgeon General rare push for exercise, placemaking projects, transportation trends translating out of urban core, big box parking lot solutions for peds

Surgeon general pushes people to start walking, communities to step up

The surgeon general, Vivek Murthy, on September 9th encouraged Americans to take a walk, to combat sedentary America, but he asked communities to also step up to make neighborhoods easier and safer for foot traffic.

Photo: AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

4 Cities Get $3 Million Each for Placemaking Projects

ArtPlace America granted funding to see art and culture intertwined not at the end of the project but throughout, in an effort to make art and culture the focus of community projects. "The winners include Cook Inlet Housing Authority in Anchorage, Fairmount Park Conservancy in Philadelphia, Jackson Medical Mall Foundation in Jackson, Mississippi, and Little Tokyo Service Center in Los Angeles."    More coverage here.

Will Big City Transportation Trends Translate to Small Town USA?

With the rise of transportation options in urban core America - Uber, TaskRabbit, Lyft, Seamless, etc - to deliver people, food, and services, those in the periphery are at the cusp of figuring out how to make it useful for them as well but finding few options.

Photo: AP Photo/Mark Lennihan

How to Make Big Box Stores Less Terrible for Walking: 8 Expert Tips

Big Box stores are not going anywhere, especially in America, and the vast majority are not designed for the pedestrian but for the personal automobile making them a dangerous destination by foot.  This article gives guidance to the big boxes to help get their non-auto patrons safely to the door.

Photo: @fineplanner/Twitter

Busing our way out of the food desert conundrum

I really enjoyed this piece in City Commentary, entitled "Urban Residents aren't abandoning buses; buses are abandoning them" by Daniel Hertz. As a New York City resident living in the outer boroughs (where subways are not nearly as prevalent), I am often seeking other viable transportation options, like walking, busing or biking to get where I need to go. For communities that depend on buses to provide convenient access to residents customers, bus service can make or break some business districts.

The article reinforced a key observation that I have made over the years which is this: "service levels are still the number one predictor of bus ridership". Yes, yes and yes! If a bus doesn't come frequently enough, people develop other habits and patterns that only serve to further diminish bus ridership. However, if a bus came frequently enough that I could safely ensure a timely arrival to wherever I was going, I might take it.  Absent that, I'm personally unwilling to risk being 20 minutes late, or force myself to leave home twenty minutes early, just to make sure I am on time. In an age when we are all time starved, crappy bus service just doesn't cut it. So increasingly, the very poor and those with very limited options, are the only ones who take buses.

I recently completed work in two communities that are official "food deserts", defined as low-income places without ready access to fresh, healthy, and affordable food. Yet the term "access" is a tricky one. In both of these communities, viable full-service grocery stores exist within a few minutes drive. Grocery store operators typically look at short drive times - usually around 8 minutes - to determine their catchment area. In both cases, both neighborhoods were served by grocery stores within 8 minutes. Yet owing to low car ownership, the only options for residents were to walk many miles, take cabs, or take municipal buses. In both cases the municipal bus service was quite poor - coming infrequently and therefore making a quick trip to the grocery store nearly impossible. So again, instead of taking buses, residents often find expensive solutions (like cabs or the high cost convenience store on the corner) that further diminish their discretionary income.

Another interesting take away from the article was the fact that in many communities there is no correlation between falling ridership and bus service cuts. What that means is that cities are making bus service decisions without regard for the need for busing. The chart below shows that even in communities with positive ridership change the previous year, cuts to bus service were quite common.

At the end of the day, this is an important issue that drives to the heart of ensuring that communities with low-income and low rates of car ownership have access to the food and retail services they need to maintain basic nutritional standards and a decent quality of life. If we decrease bus service, we subsequently diminish access to these vital goods and services, creating avoidable havoc in the lives of the most vulnerable among us.

Poverty and the Pedal

Three times in the past year alone our firm has completed work in low-income communities and asked questions about alternative transportation options - one of them being - do people bike? In one bike-friendly west coast city, the response, from an African-American community organizer was "most of our folks consider that a hipster thing". And while there were lots of people biking through the historically African-American community, I had to admit that it was true, nearly every cyclist that past us by was Caucasian.

CityLab did some research on this issue last year and found that "while wealthier people increasingly reduce their car dependency, poor people still aspire to car ownership." Or as our West coast community organizer said, "people have the attitude that only losers ride bikes." Fortunately, this mindset is changing, and we should encourage a paradigm shift among minority communities through education, bike infrastructure (i.e. safe places to park your bike so it won't get stolen) and support (free bikes and helmets anyone?)

Would you walk this street with a bag of groceries?

More recently, we have been working in another low-income urban neighborhood on the outskirts of a major downtown in Connecticut. The neighborhood had been labeled a "food dessert" and our original scope was to help them attract a grocery store. But here was the problem. While there wasn't a grocery store within the specific boundaries of that neighborhood, there were multiple food stores within a five to eight minute drive - the trade area that most grocery stores consider when considering site selection.

The good news was that the area was poised to get a grocery store at a new development immediately adjacent to the neighborhood at a major highway interchange. So problem solved, right? Wrong. The street connections to the future grocery-anchored community shopping center could not have been less hospitable to residents coming by alternative transportation means. No sidewalks or bike lanes and desolate streetscapes all made what was only a few minute long walk both unpleasant and in some places dangerous. Yet in a community where 48% of households do not own a car (compared to the state average of 85%) and meager public transportation at best, improving access to the shopping center for residents without cars should be a driving priority. Hey, if you can't bring the supermarket to people you can at least do everything in your power to bring the people to the supermarket. This means bike infrastructure, dedicated bike lanes and safe places to park your bike once you get there. In this community, it also means slowing cars down on a one-way street that should be made two-way. And finally, it means education in the local public schools (bikes are cool, right!) and yes, maybe free bikes and helmets for kids and their parents.

Biking is not a panacea, but it should be a viable option for those who don't have other options. And right now, there is tons of room for improvement on that front.

As Baby Boomers age, are commercial districts poised to make a comeback?

The Shoppes of Avondale, Jacksonville, FL -
are walkable mixed use communities like these poised
to see an influx of Baby Boomer residents?

Is your downtown ready to take advantage of the downsizing Baby Boomer? Downtown Seattle, specifically the area surrounding Pike Place Market is one community seeing a growth in residential development fueled by aging Baby Boomers. In August of last year, the Wall Street Journal reported ("Hip, Urban, Middle Aged", WSJ, Aug. 2013) that a 34-unit condo with prices hovering over $1 million mostly went to Baby Boomers, many of whom were leaving their larger homes in suburban areas and heading to older, more walk-able urban neighborhoods. A recent study that LOA completed in Seattle found a similar trend - the projected Median HH Income growth rate in the downtown area over the next five years is 6.6% - significantly higher than that of Seattle as a whole, which is 4.39%. These "moneyed buyers [have] created a gold rush" according to Seattle realtor Dean Jones. In Denver, one resident quoted specifically mentioned the desire to "stop driving so much". The Washington Post went so far as to announce, "The kids gone, aging Baby Boomers opt for city life"(The Washington Post, July 2013)

This specific issue - what to do as Baby Boomers age and cannot drive - is increasingly fueling planning that must, by necessity, include downtown and mixed use districts. This week, the New York Times wrote about just this kind of retirement planning, "When Planning for Retirement, Consider Transportation", NYTimes, Oct. 2014. The couple profiled live in a San Diego neighborhood where "If you don't have a car, you're stranded". They are now exploring public transportation options that are weak at best, and are considered moving, but aren't quite ready to make the leap just yet. 

Another issue is the fact that transportation - specifically personal ownership of an automobile - eats up a huge percentage of income (25% according to the Federal Dept. of Transportation). As people age and move to fixed incomes, the need to reduce these costs become necessary, and the ability to live close to work, shopping, eating can reduce transportation costs to 9% of income.  

Moving to a more walk-able neighborhood seems like a great option as people age, but how do we reconcile the fact that, according to an AARP survey, 87% of people age 65 and older want to remain in their current communities? The good news is that the study found that this preference decreased with income.  ("Home and Community Preferences of the 45+ Population, AARP, Nov. 2010). 

Developers are also taking note. Toll Brothers, a home builder known more for their suburban tract housing than for their urban projects, has increasingly started developing in the urban core. Initially, they thought their projects would be filled with young people, but they sold a much larger than expected percentage to Baby Boomers. 

So it seems that yes, Boomers are creating a dynamic shift towards urban communities. Is your community seeing a similar demographic trend?