Although this article is from the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, I thought it brought up some interesting points - pertinent to all Ohio cities:

 

They built it... ...but they didn't come

 

Many condominium buyers have found their urban village dreams unfulfilled as developers have had a hard time finding and keeping merchants for the first-floor retail spaces.

 

By Chris Serres, Star Tribune

 

When Virel Kapadia moved into Laurel Village apartments in downtown Minneapolis nearly four years ago, the 26-year-old computer engineer thought he'd found a place where he could escape life's daily grind without climbing into his car.

Outside his apartment on Hennepin Avenue was virtually every retail amenity he could imagine, including a food market, two restaurants and a printing shop. On Thursday nights, he would go salsa dancing with other residents at one of the restaurants, and the Latin beat often would spill onto the street.

 

For more information, click below link.

 

Staff writer Susan Feyder contributed to this report. Chris Serres • 612-673-4308 • [email protected]

 

©2007 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.

 

http://www.startribune.com/535/story/1149130.html

 

Points well taken, but if I remember correctly this building looks like a dorm...a bad dorm.  I think it was bad marketing and the physical location of this property.

 

Edit:  I just spoke with the person that initially took me to this development, something not mentioned is the majority of housing in this "village" is for rent not for sale.  That could be part of the problem, as retailers might not feel comfortable with a non stable or permanent residents base.

Here's a link to a photo - http://i.pbase.com/v3/02/589102/2/51375627.DSC_6220_resize.jpg

 

 

Retail will obviously not thrive in a simple residential / retail mix.  A successful urban experience requires that there are shoppers/ restaurant goers all day and evening.  This requires offices or daytime workers in the mix.  Also helpful is some regional draw that brings in extra traffic such as a library, theater, museum, etc..

^Forbidden

 

Wonder what the retail rent is like.

Pretty sobering.

This article kind of reads like an I-told-you-so from the suburbs.  I don't know if the lessons that they imply are necessarily the right ones.  For example, there's this idiot.  "The problem is, too many of these condo projects are geared toward people who live in them -- that is, single people with plenty of time to walk around," said Kathy Doyle Thomas, executive vice president of Half Price Books, a Texas chain that has six stores in the Twin Cities -- none in mixed-use projects. "But the reality is, I've got a car with three screaming kids, and I'm not going to go there if there's a problem with parking."

 

Hmmm....I actually save a tremendous amount of time by being able to walk to work, the gym, a convenient store, a grocery, my bank, the library, the post office, restaurants, a mall, etc. in under 5 minutes.  And maybe if his brats got a little more exercise, they wouldn't be so ill behaved.

 

They say nothing about the retail in the ground floor of this building in relation to other retail.  They don't say how many people live and work within walking distance.  They don't mention the rent structure.  Instead it reads as "look at these idiots with their urban dreams, well now back to reality- everyone wants to drive and park easily!"  They didn't mention these possible lessons:

 

A retail base requires a very large population to support it- somewhere around 25,000 people for a grocery store, for example.  Downtown needs to greatly increase its housing population.

 

A corrolary to that is that not every building, even downtown, will be able to support ground floor retail.

 

Another corrolary is that what retail exists needs to be visible and accessible, for whatever the dominant mode of transportation in an area, and should be prioritized to be located along main corridors of that transportation.

without knowing the context of these residential projects, its really tough to comment on them.

 

I do think that this is applicable to Cleveland..I've always felt that the retail portion of the Avenue would struggle. Just because you have 300+ housing units does not mean that you will have successful retail. The Avenue is on the edge of downtown and there's not much beyond it until you hit St.Clair-Superior.

X, IIRC - and this is just my observation - the area was like a campus.  Picture building a community inside the Shaker Lakes or the south miles light industrial area or SYC with no retail.

 

Its not really near downtown, the majority of people were renters and they didn't build the retail or have it up and running before people moved in.  Its not like Cleveland or Philly where you have more and more for sale apartments going up in the heart of the city, with retail inquiring about needs.

without knowing the context of these residential projects, its really tough to comment on them.

 

I do think that this is applicable to Cleveland..I've always felt that the retail portion of the Avenue would struggle. Just because you have 300+ housing units does not mean that you will have successful retail. The Avenue is on the edge of downtown and there's not much beyond it until you hit St.Clair-Superior.

 

I dont think its the same.  The avenue district seems like they are partnering with others and there is the CSU are which will soon have residential and Reserve square is upgrading.

A retail base requires a very large population to support it- somewhere around 25,000 people for a grocery store, for example.  Downtown needs to greatly increase its housing population.

 

A corrolary to that is that not every building, even downtown, will be able to support ground floor retail.

 

Another corrolary is that what retail exists needs to be visible and accessible, for whatever the dominant mode of transportation in an area, and should be prioritized to be located along main corridors of that transportation.

 

X, I think you are right on- these are exactly the conclusions I drew.  Specifically, it's just a reminder that we're going to need a whole bunch of FEB, Avenue District and Park Bldg projects in order to really make downtown retail a slam dunk.  Suburban daytripper and office worker dollars sure help, but they are hardly enough at this point.

I still think that the principles behind mixed-use developments in theory are valid, but rarely executed appropriately. You probably need a much larger residential base than developers currently include in the mixed-use equation, you also need more places of employment included or nearby, some kind of tourist or visitor component (hotel, destination retail, museum/attraction, neighborhood uniqueness/ambiance), and public transit access to offset lack of parking. I also think it may help to design it somewhat seamlessly into the existing neighborhood to create more authenticity. Build into an existing street grid, eliminate the signage after the development is completed. People want to live in mixed-use neighborhoods not a faux commercial development. It may also help to include some kind of civic component; government building, community hall, theater, public park, etc.

X, IIRC - and this is just my observation - the area was like a campus.  Picture building a community inside the Shaker Lakes or the south miles light industrial area or SYC with no retail.

 

Its not really near downtown, the majority of people were renters and they didn't build the retail or have it up and running before people moved in.  Its not like Cleveland or Philly where you have more and more for sale apartments going up in the heart of the city, with retail inquiring about needs.

 

So you're saying this building or neighborhood was in something like a suburban subdivision or office park, yet still in the city? If so its obvious why the retail is failing. 

I understand that mixed-use projects and infill buildings cannot appease all retailers that want a cookie cutter store, but I do think that developers could do a better job at laying out the retail spaces.  For example many sit-down restaurants want about the same sf...so it would behoove you to build your retail spaces that would easily accommodate those types of places.  The same can be said for other retailers.  They have specific desires for a building...just try to accommodate as many of those desires as possible.

 

For example...Calhoun St Marketplace has been finished for over a year now, and only about half (maybe less) of the space is filled.  Now obviously there are several factors that play into this but there are some major flaws with the building design.

 

-there is no easy access for loading/unloading goods to the retailers

 

-there is not enough dumpster space, nor is the current space easily accessible for all retailers

 

-awkward retail spaces...the early retailers had no problem (since they defined their own space), but this has created awkward left over spaces that I would imagine will be hard to lease to ANY retailer.

The flip side of this is that because most retail sectors are dominated by large corporations with very specific, "cookie cutter" requirements for their retail space, it is difficult to get the sort of mom-and-pop retailers who can use the sorts of odd spaces that are often necessitated by dense infill development and the space challenges it often presents.