Docstoc

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Document Sample
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Powered By Docstoc
					                                      WHITE PAPER:

             RETAIL AND TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT
                           CASE STUDIES




                                            Prepared for

                                  East Bay Community Foundation




                                            Prepared by

                                        Brion & Associates


                                            March 2004




279 Vernon Street # 8 • Oakland, California 94610 • tel/fax 510.451.4168 • joanne@brionassociates.com
                                                                                                             White Paper:
                                                                                               Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                                              March 2004

                                                   Table of Contents

   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................... I
   LESSONS LEARNED ................................................................................................ I
      Parking is a Major Challenge............................................................................. ii
      Retail Support, Design, and Location .............................................................. iii
      Choice of Developer ............................................................................................. iv
      Retail Demand from BART Riders .................................................................... iv
      Applicability to Other TODs .............................................................................. iv
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 6
   BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 8
      Transit-Oriented Development ........................................................................... 8
      Retail Market Analysis ........................................................................................ 10
RETAIL LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................. 14
   TRENDS IN RETAILING....................................................................................... 14
      Design Trends of Shopping Centers ................................................................ 15
      Untapped Retail Markets ................................................................................... 17
      Challenges.............................................................................................................. 18
      Parking ................................................................................................................... 19
      Layout and Design ............................................................................................... 19
      Expectations of Retailers and Shoppers ......................................................... 20
TOD CASE STUDIES .................................................................................................... 21
   METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................... 21
   1. CITYCENTER ENGLEWOOD, ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO ............ 22
      About Englewood ................................................................................................. 22
      Project Overview .................................................................................................. 22
      Housing ................................................................................................................... 24
      Retail Tenants ....................................................................................................... 24
      Parking ................................................................................................................... 26
      Use of Transit ........................................................................................................ 27
      Retail Competition ............................................................................................... 28
      Civic Uses .............................................................................................................. 28
      Lessons Learned ................................................................................................... 28
   2. LINDBERGH STATION TOD, ATLANTA, GA ..................................... 33
      Project Overview .................................................................................................. 33
      Retail Space ........................................................................................................... 33


Prepared by Brion & Associates
                                                                                                              White Paper:
                                                                                                Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                                               March 2004

     Office Space ........................................................................................................... 34
     Residential.............................................................................................................. 34
     Parking ................................................................................................................... 35
     Ridership ................................................................................................................ 35
     Role of MARTA in Development ...................................................................... 35
     Lessons Learned ................................................................................................... 36
  3. UPTOWN DISTRICT, SAN DIEGO, CA ................................................... 39
     Project Overview .................................................................................................. 39
     Retail ....................................................................................................................... 39
     Housing ................................................................................................................... 40
     Parking ................................................................................................................... 40
     Lessons Learned ................................................................................................... 40
  4. PLEASANT HILL BART STATION ........................................................... 43
     Project Overview .................................................................................................. 43
     Housing ................................................................................................................... 44
     Retail Tenants ....................................................................................................... 44
     Parking ................................................................................................................... 45
     Lessons Learned ................................................................................................... 46
  5. RICHMOND TRANSIT VILLAGE ................................................................ 48
     Project Overview .................................................................................................. 48
     Housing ................................................................................................................... 49
     Retail Tenants ....................................................................................................... 49
     Transportation ...................................................................................................... 50
     Parking ................................................................................................................... 50
     Lessons Learned ................................................................................................... 50
  6. FRUITVALE TRANSIT VILLAGE ................................................................ 54
     Project Overview .................................................................................................. 54
     Housing ................................................................................................................... 55
     Retail Tenants ....................................................................................................... 55
     Parking ................................................................................................................... 56
     Lessons Learned ................................................................................................... 56
LESSONS LEARNED AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................ 59
  OVERALL LESSONS LEARNED ....................................................................... 59
     Neighborhood Serving Retail versus Destination Retail ........................... 59
     Realistic Parking Requirements for the Project ........................................... 61
     How Much Retail Can the Residential Development Support .................. 61
     Choosing a Developer that is willing to be Flexible ................................... 62
     Making sure that Retail is connected to the Transit Stop .......................... 62

Prepared by Brion & Associates
                                                                                                             White Paper:
                                                                                               Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                                              March 2004


   RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EAST DUBLIN.................................................. 62
   APPLICABILITY TO OTHER TODS ................................................................ 63
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 66
   INTERVIEWS ................................................................................................................... 68
APPENDIX A .................................................................................................................. 69




Prepared by Brion & Associates
                                                                                White Paper:
                                                                  Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                 March 2004


                        LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
                                                                                   Page

Table 1:        TOD Summary Matrix                                                  23
Table 2:        Englewood Land Use Program                                          24
Table 3:        List of CityCenter Englewood Retail Tenants                         27
Table 4:        Lindbergh Land Use Program                                          33
Table 5:        Uptown District Land Use Program                                    39
Table 6:        Pleasant Hill BART Station Land Use Program                         44
Table 7:        Richmond Transit Village Land Use Program                           49
Table 8:        Fruitvale Transit Village Land Use Program                          54
Table 9:        Comparison of Retail Square Footage and Housing Units               60


Figure 1:       CityCenter Englewood Site Map                                       31
Figure 2:       Parking Map for CityCenter Englewood                                32
Figure 3:       Site Map for Lindbergh Center                                       37
Figure 4:       District Area Map for Lindbergh Center                              38
Figure 5:       Site Map of Uptown District                                         41
Figure 6:       Images of Uptown District                                           42
Figure 7:       Current Pleasant Hill BART Station Site                             47
Figure 8:       Illustrative Birds-eye View of Pleasant Hill BART                   47
Figure 9:       Program and Site Map of Pleasant Hill BART                          48
Figure 10:      Photo of Richmond Site before Development                           51
Figure 11:      Site Plan for Richmond Transit Village                              52
Figure 12:      Renderings of Townhomes at Richmond Transit Village                 53
Figure 13:      One of the Buildings with Retail along the Pedestrian Plaza         57
Figure 14:      Renderings of Fruitvale Transit Village                             58




Prepared by Brion & Associates
                                                                                        White Paper:
                                                                          Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                         March 2004


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of the White Paper on Retail and Transit-Oriented Development is to
understand what kinds of retail are successful at transit-oriented development projects
(TODs), in terms of type, size, and layout. This paper has been prepared by Brion &
Associates for the Livable Communities Initiative (LCI) of the East Bay Community
Foundation (EBCF). This study addresses what factors make some TOD retail projects
flourish while others struggle. EBCF, via the Livable Communities project, is interested
in understanding what type and amount of retail best serves TOD project residents and
employees and subsequently diminishes automobile usage. EBCF is also interested in
understanding what types of retail services can be supported by transit-riding consumers.
The notion of including retail at TODs is to encourage people to stay out of their cars and
give them the option to walk for some of their retail needs. Retail at TODs also creates
diversity of use and pedestrian activity, which is a separate benefit but is equally
important in creating a dynamic environment.

The location and configuration of the retail are also key concerns of EBCF. Design,
location, and configuration can greatly affect the success and utility of the retail in terms
of meeting the needs of residents, employees, and transit riders. EBCF is currently
providing technical support and commentary to the City of Dublin (California) on the
planning and development of the Transit Center in East Dublin. A retail market analysis
of that project has been prepared for EBCF by Brion & Associates under separate cover. 1

For this study, six case studies on transit-oriented developments were conducted. The
TODs included were:

    1.   CityCenter in Englewood, Colorado
    2.   Lindbergh Station in Atlanta, Georgia
    3.   Uptown District in San Diego, California
    4.   Pleasant Hill BART Station in Pleasant Hill, CA
    5.   Richmond BART Station in Richmond, CA
    6.   Fruitvale Transit Center in Oakland, CA

A summary discussion of retail development trends and types of retail analysis is also
presented in the paper.


LESSONS LEARNED
The case studies in the White Paper present numerous ways in which TOD retail is
approached and developed. Some of the key factors to consider in developing a transit-
oriented development are:


1
 See separate Technical Memorandum “Retail Analysis of Dublin Transit Center Specific Plan” prepared
for East Bay Community Foundation by Brion & Associates, August 2003.


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                         i
                                                                                       White Paper:
                                                                         Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                        March 2004

            Will the project retail provide neighborhood-serving or destination retail?

            What are realistic parking requirements for the project, given the transit usage,
            culture of area, and type of retail planned?

            How much retail can the residential development support, particularly in
            relation to the timing of that development?

            Is the developer willing to work with and consider some non-traditional
            shopping/retail designs?

            Is there a connection between the actual transit stop and the retail area, and is
            the parking for transit and other uses clearly defined and enforced?

Parking is a Major Challenge

    1. Parking is perhaps one of the most challenging aspects of retail and TOD −
       most TODs have lower parking standards overall, and larger-scale retail
       demands higher parking ratios.

Parking seems to be the universal challenge at TODs. Developers and retailers want
revenues, and proponents of TODs typically want to allow for a denser and more tightly
knit urban fabric. As noted by Strategic Economics, who have looked at TODs in depth,
“Parking can become a political, financial, and design issue, and the goal of providing
parking conflicts with place-related goals in many ways” and “in this way parking,
whether it serves the transit station itself or the surrounding uses, reduces the efficacy of
transit-oriented development as place.”2 Even when retail is comprised of convenience-
oriented uses, some parking must be provided. When regional-serving, parking becomes
a huge issue and can conflict with the other goals of TODs.

One aspect and perhaps a myth of TOD development is the ability to diminish the
number of parking spaces based on the idea that more people will use transit to get to the
site. Depending on the type of TOD (neighborhood versus destination or big-box) their
caution may be justified. This issue has potentially negative consequences for the
retailers who might find customers avoiding their stores if they believe they will not find
parking. And time has shown that constrained parking does not get people out of their
cars and onto public transit. Light rail is, at least in Denver, considered as a means of
transportation to and from work, but shoppers do not use it nearly as often. Also, public
transit may not be available to the entire market base of the project, which requires
shoppers to get in their cars to travel to the site. Therefore, as discussed in the literature
and shown in practice, parking and its relationship to the type of retail provided is a key
planning factor to consider.

2
 See “Transit-Oriented Development: Moving from Rhetoric to Realty” prepared by Strategic Economics
for The Brookings Institute Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy and The Great American Station
Foundation (June 2002), page 21.


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                        ii
                                                                                 White Paper:
                                                                   Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                  March 2004



The needs of larger-scale retail in terms of parking make these uses problematic for TOD.
Retail that is convenience oriented and provides the goods and services that residents,
employees, and transit riders need can be successful. These types of retail uses can also
survive with lower parking ratios and take advantage of shared parking.

For example, Uptown District in San Diego, California, as a neighborhood-serving
project, is prospering with diminished parking (2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet versus
the regular 5 spaces), but would provide more parking spaces if they could. Because
many of its customers are able to travel by foot from their homes within the TOD and the
neighborhood, the parking demand is somewhat alleviated. This project shows that
diminished parking can work with the appropriate type of retail. Fruitvale, in Oakland,
California, is another example of a neighborhood-serving project that is succeeding with
greatly reduced parking. Again, it is an issue of how large an area the retail will draw
from and whether automobiles are going to be the primary means of transportation to and
from the site, regardless of the proximity of public transit.

Retail Support, Design, and Location

    2. The amount of retail needs to be linked to the type and amount of other uses in
       the plan, and needs to consider other retail competition in the area.

Our review of six TOD case studies found that none of them conducted a thorough
analysis of retail demand and supply in the area, and the pattern of retail to other uses is
not discernable. It is important to evaluate each TOD project individually to determine
the right amount and mix of retail. Each area will have its own unique retail supply and
demand conditions, including surrounding competition, planned projects, household
income, demand from other areas, and market segments, such as employees from office
and industrial uses. Projects that are planned to have neighborhood-serving retail should
especially take these factors into consideration and make sure market studies are
conducted well before the development of the project. For vertically mixed projects and
TOD buildings, it may be useful to allow other non-retail uses on the ground floor until
adequate demand is present for retail to flourish.

It is important that the transit stop is connected to the retail area physically, but also
through design. Just as the average shopper will not walk 100 yards from their
automobile to a store, one should not expect a passenger to walk across a parking lot or
residential area to get to the shops. If the retail is not adjacent to the transit stop,
landscaping and design must be used to connect one to the other, diminishing the
perceived distance and attracting potential shoppers.




Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                               iii
                                                                                        White Paper:
                                                                          Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                         March 2004

Choice of Developer

    3. TOD in general requires a developer that can work with a multitude of
       agencies, deal with added complexity of TOD, and embrace non-traditional
       forms of retail.

In all of the case studies, developers expressed their beliefs that TOD retail projects had
good potential for success despite the fact that these projects tended to be more costly
overall than traditional developments, and required straying from some of the traditional
retail rules-of-thumb. Many developers even incorporated some non-traditional aspects,
such as the “Main Street” model, into later non-TOD retail developments because they
saw how successful these components could be. Bringing on a developer who can be
flexible and open to new ideas is critical for TODs because they often require non-
standard and creative layout and design to meet the needs of pedestrians, transit users,
and automobile users. However, these characteristics are also true for developers
involved in developing town centers and new lifestyle centers, projects that are becoming
more standard and are considered less risky than in the past. They also take more time
and planning and usually require more collaboration than non-TOD projects.

Retail Demand from BART Riders

    4. Expenditure and retail demand from BART riders was found to be much lower
       than expected.

An interesting finding from this analysis is that currently BART riders do not generate
much retail demand. Black BART Inc. is the largest existing retail concessionaire within
the BART system. They have retail concessions at several BART stations and plans for
several more. Black BART reports that they capture about 3% of riders and the average
expenditure is about $3.50 per rider.3 It is not clear, however, whether poor retail
expenditure is a function of the poorly designed retail space and sea of parking around
most existing BART stations or whether this is just a function of lack of demand from
riders. Other areas of the country have retail near transit stations that do quite well, such
as in Manhattan and even in downtown San Francisco.

Applicability to Other TODs

    5. Standard models or formulas for predicting and sizing retail do not exist,
       although there are many types of retail analysis that can be conducted to inform
       planners and developers on the issue.

Retail, more so than any other type of land use, does not lend itself to formulas or simple
equations of supply and demand, such as residential development where one can easily

3
 See separate Technical Memorandum “Retail Analysis of Dublin Transit Center Specific Plan” prepared
for East Bay Community Foundation by Brion & Associates, August 2003.


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                     iv
                                                                                  White Paper:
                                                                    Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                   March 2004

assume that so many households will need so many housing units. Retail, more than any
other type of development, is subject to a wide range of demand factors and pressures,
including the shopping whims of customers, the general state of the economy, current
retail supply, and work and travel patterns. The list of types of retail analysis presented at
the beginning of this paper belay the complexity of retail. And then there are retail
projects, such as the new retail developed as part of the Fruitvale BART Station in East
Oakland that counter some widely held conventions about retail, i.e., it has very little
parking.

As noted by Strategic Economics, much more work is needed on how to truly achieve
“transit-oriented development, and along those lines more research is needed on how to
best site and configure retail within TOD projects.” Evidence suggests that each TOD
project will be unique and needs to be considered individually. One cannot extrapolate
the findings from one TOD and apply it to another TOD across town or in another city.
Additionally, other factors such as the political dynamics associated with the project can
totally change the nature of a project and render it having little to do with market
demand.




Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                               v
                                                                                        White Paper:
                                                                          Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                         March 2004



Introduction
The term transit-oriented development (TOD) is a common concept and term in the
planning and development field. In an era of increased congestion, air pollution, and
suburban sprawl there is a continuing effort to promote smart growth policies—one of
which is transit-oriented development. TODs have been defined as:

                 “A mixed use community within an average 2,000-foot
                 walking distance of a transit stop and a core commercial area.
                 TODs mix residential, retail, office, open space and public uses
                 in a walkable environment, making it convenient for residents
                 and employees to travel by transit, bicycle, foot, or car”4

The functional relationship between transit and development is to create a place that is
less auto-dependent and more transit-oriented than typical developments. Theoretically,
the reduction in auto usage reduces the need for land for parking, and other car-oriented
uses and thus, allows for much denser development than would occur in a non-TOD
project.

The purpose of this study is to understand what kinds of retail are successful at transit
oriented development projects (TODs), in terms of type, size, and layout. What factors
make some TOD retail projects flourish while others struggle? The East Bay Community
Foundation (EBCF), via the Livable Communities project, is interested in understanding
the type and amount of retail that serves project residents and employees and
subsequently diminishes automobile usage. EBCF is also interested in understanding
what types of retail services can be supported by transit riding consumers. The notion of
including retail at TODs is to encourage people to stay out of their cars by giving them
the option of walking to meet some of their retail needs. Retail at TODs also creates
diversity of use and pedestrian activity, which is a separate benefit but is equally
important in creating a dynamic place that is attractive to pedestrians and encourages
walking.

The location and configuration of the retail are also key concerns of EBCF. Design,
location and configuration can greatly affect the success and utility of the retail in terms
of meeting the needs of residents, employees, and transit riders. EBCF is currently
providing technical support and commentary to the City of Dublin (California) on the
planning and development of the Transit Center in East Dublin. A market analysis of that
project has been prepared for EBCF by Brion & Associates under separate cover. 5



4
  Calthorpe, Peter. “The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American Dream.”
Princeton Architectural Press. 1993.
5
  See separate Technical Memorandum “Retail Analysis of Dublin Transit Center Specific Plan” prepared
for East Bay Community Foundation by Brion & Associates, August 2003.


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                          6
                                                                                                 White Paper:
                                                                                   Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                                  March 2004


This White Paper is designed to address these broad questions and involves two distinct
tasks that include:

      1. A Literature Review of Retail Trends, discussion of type of retail analysis and
         retail at TODs from the planning and development field.

      2. Six detailed case studies of TOD projects that include retail and residential uses,
         and are serviced by some type of mass transit, i.e., rail, light rail, or buses.6

The first task provides a broader discussion of retail and TODs to set the context for the
case studies.

There is a common notion that retail at TODs is different than other types of retail.
However, overall retail at TODs is subject to the same market pressures as retail
anywhere. TODs can bear retail amounts similar to those supported by suburban
neighborhoods or other types of development. Of course, TOD retail design is distinctive
in that it has a stronger pedestrian orientation In some cases, tenant selection may
specifically target transit riders. The case studies included in this paper have been
selected based on multiple criteria. We chose case studies that were of comparable size
to the East Dublin Transit Center, and that had an appropriate mix of uses. We also
sought case studies that provided lessons learned which could help inform the
development of projects such as the East Dublin Transit Center as well as other future
TOD’s in the Bay Area..

The search for appropriate case studies started with the review of approximately a dozen
existing TOD projects and ended with the selection of the following six cases:

      1.   CityCenter in Englewood, Colorado
      2.   Lindbergh Station in Atlanta, Georgia
      3.   Uptown District in San Diego, California
      4.   Pleasant Hill BART Station in Pleasant Hill, CA
      5.   Richmond BART Station in Richmond, CA
      6.   Fruitvale Transit Center in Oakland, CA

While there is debate amongst the planning community about whether these particular
TODs represent good transit-oriented development, they are generally recognized by the
transportation and New Urbanist communities as TODs. Each of these projects includes
retail and residential uses; since the EBCF is interested in encouraging the City to include
a grocery store at the East Dublin site, two of the projects, CityCenter and Uptown, have
grocery stores (and Lindbergh Station will also have a grocery store). EBCF believes
that a grocery store at the site would reduce the number of necessary car trips, as grocery
shopping is the most frequent type of shopping. A grocery store also provides access to

6
    Two of the six case studies are in the planning stages and thus, less information is available for these two.



Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                                  7
                                                                                        White Paper:
                                                                          Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                         March 2004


fresh, healthy food, and it could serve as an anchor to the development. We selected the
other three TODs because they have (or propose to have) smaller-scale retail, both in
amount and type of tenants. The ability to attract and develop a successful grocery store
has been a long-standing question and challenge for all forms of TODs, town centers, and
neo-traditional or New Urbanist projects. The case study of Uptown in San Diego is
unique in that it is a TOD served by bus only; the station is not served by other forms of
mass transit. Only in recent years have there been serious discussions about bringing a
streetcar down an adjacent arterial main street. The TOD located in downtown
Richmond in the Bay Area is served by all types of transit including AMTRAK rail,
which is rare for California.

BACKGROUND
Transit-Oriented Development
Over the last several years, there has been increased interest in developing TODs and
numerous TODs have sprung up across the United States along light rail, heavy rail and
rapid bus lines. One of the major components of TOD is the financial investment in
older, decaying urban areas in order to revitalize and renew economic growth through
new jobs, tax revenues, vibrant street life, and new housing opportunities.7 The
California Statewide Report on TODs notes that improved quality of life and enhanced
mobility are among the benefits of TOD, along with reduced infrastructure costs (as
result of building at higher densities), and the provision of affordable housing.8 TODs
have also been cited as increasing public safety by creating areas that are active during
the day and in the evening.9

In a new book on TODs, the authors claim that there are three converging trends
happening in America: the resurgence of investment in downtowns, the continuing
growth and maturity of the suburbs, and a renewed interest in rail travel and rail
investment.10 They contend:

                 “At the convergence of these three trends is the potential for a
                 substantial market for a new form of walkable, mixed-use
                 urban development around new and existing rail or rapid bus
                 stations…these transit-oriented developments have the
                 potential to provide residents with improved quality of life and
                 reduced household transportation expenses, while providing
                 the region with stable mixed-income neighborhoods that
7
  Renne, John and Jan Wells. “A Literature Review: Transit-Oriented Development.” Rutgers University,
December 2002.
8
  California Department of Transportation. “Statewide Transit-Oriented Development Study: Factors for
Success in California.” Business, Transportation and Housing Agency. 2002.
9
  Ibid.
10
   Dittmar, Mark and Gloria Ohland. “The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit-Oriented
Development.” 2004.


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                          8
                                                                                        White Paper:
                                                                          Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                         March 2004


                 reduce environmental impacts and provide real alternatives to
                 traffic congestion.”11

As discussed by Strategic Economics in their study of TODs12, the term TOD often is
loosely defined and used to describe a variety of projects, many of which do not really
meet the stricter definition of a TOD in its pure form. Strategic Economics coined the
phrase “Transit-Related Development” (TRD), development that is adjacent to transit but
not explicitly designed to meet the needs of transit riders. Strategic Economics believes
that most TODs to date are in fact TRDs and not what they term transit-oriented
development in the functional sense. Ideally, TODs have two functions: to provide a
sense of place to those that live and work there, and to provide transit services and
connections to the community and often region. They further define TODs as projects
ideally serving as both transportation nodes as well as a place function. Often, however,
existing TODs serve only one or the other of these purposes or sometimes they fail to
serve either purpose very well. Node functions of a TOD relate to its purpose as a transit
station and connection point within the broader transit system.

This White Paper recommends that retail at TODs be evaluated like retail in any type of
development. Assuming retail at TODs can perform differently is unrealistic. This paper
notes that little research exists to assist planners on what is the most desirable mixture of
retail types for TODs. For those interested in TODs in general, the Strategic Economics
paper is an excellent resource and addresses broader issues related to TODs as well as
The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit-Oriented Development13, published in
2004. In general, planning TODs presents additional challenges since node and place
concerns must be integrated in the design and the planning of TODs. They also typically
involve a wider range of players, including transit agencies, than most other development
projects.

Each of the players involved in TOD development have different goals and objectives for
the project, have different political structures and issues of accountability, and are trying
to achieve different ends. Trying to balance these often competing goals and needs with
TOD development is challenging. For instance, developers typically secure traditional
financing for their projects and tend to want to develop freestanding buildings and use
suburban parking standards, particularly for retail. Transit agencies want parking that is
convenient for their riders, particularly when a transit station functions as a park-and-ride
station. In instances with BART projects, replacing BART parking lots with parking
structures is a huge cost that developments in lower income communities struggle to
financially support.


11
   Ibid.
12
   See “Transit Oriented Development: Moving from Rhetoric to Realty” prepared by Strategic Economics
for The Brookings Institute Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy and The Great American Station
Foundation (June 2002).
13
   Dittmar, Hank and Gloria Ohland. “The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit-Oriented
Development.” Island Press. 2004.


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                          9
                                                                                 White Paper:
                                                                   Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                  March 2004


In summary, compared to other types of development, TODs are more complex and time
consuming to create and often face special challenges. The case studies presented below
confirm all of the above and highlight key issues raised by Strategic Economics in their
paper.

Retail Market Analysis
As mentioned earlier and as noted by Strategic Economics, there is very little research on
retail and TODs; the purpose of this paper is to advance the literature on this topic. The
success of retail is based on complex relationships between location, supply, and demand,
and the fluidity of these dynamic market forces. Demand is the amount of retail buying
power a given area has based on the buying habits of its residents and employees. Supply
describes the retail selling capacity a given area has including existing and projected
retail development. Demand and supply are affected by fashion (fashion applies to both
goods and development in terms of how people shop), trends, and a retail project’s
location relative to transportation hubs, pedestrian-friendly zones, and other forms of
“traffic.”

Different types of retail have different location criteria and market areas based on the
types of goods and services offered. Starting with regional shopping malls and going
down to neighborhood centers or the corner store, each of the types of retail centers
discussed below have different market logics associated with them.

While predicting how people will spend their money and what retail is viable in a
particular location is not a science, a variety of systematic methods and approaches do
exist for modeling consumer behavior, which include measuring both supply and
demand. The method and approach depend on whether the analysis is done by a
developer, retailer, public agency (such as a planning department), or a neighborhood
organization. Strategic Economics recently developed a useful summary of the various
types of analyses and methods of analyzing retail for the Bay Area Local Initiatives
Support Corporation (LISC). These methods and approaches are standard in urban
economics and planning and are summarized below:

    1. Methods of Analyzing Place
          a. Walking Surveys and Regulatory Research
          b. Accessibility & Parking Surveys

    2. Methods for Estimating Demand
          a. Demographic Characteristics and Analysis
          b. Intercept Surveys of Consumers and Merchants
          c. Leakage or Void Analysis
          d. Buying Power Analysis




Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                             10
                                                                                       White Paper:
                                                                         Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                        March 2004




     3. Methods of Analyzing Supply
           a. Existing Competitive Supply (built retail)
           b. Pipeline Projects (proposed or approved retail)

     4. Secondary Analysis
           a. Trade Area Definition and Analysis
           b. License Plate Surveys (of shoppers)
           c. Gravity Model (relates demographics and distance to retail demand)
           d. SWOT Analysis (strengths and weaknesses)
           e. Stakeholders/Key Informant Interviews
           f. Case Studies of Comparable Retail Districts/Projects
           g. Targeted Retailers Needs Surveys

The conditions under which the above types of studies, analyses and surveys should be
conducted vary greatly and are often a function of how much funding is available, what
type of resources exist in terms of retail experts, and the time frame of the planning
effort, i.e., how quickly a decision needs to be made. In any given situation, only a few
of these methods would be undertaken.

Different retail centers and types of retail lead to widely varying “places” in terms of
functionality, pedestrian friendliness, and social interaction. For instance, shoppers’
experience at a Costco or Walmart is substantially different than their experience being at
a neighborhood shopping street with cafés and restaurants with outdoor seating and street
vendors. It is generally true that larger scale retail developments tend to be less human
scale, with a few exceptions. A large, well-planned town center or entertainment center
can offer human scale environments within the developments. A well-established retail
center such as Union Square in San Francisco is also pedestrian-oriented. But for the
most part, retail development today does not fit either of these formats or settings.

Based on a general review of the literature when it comes to the planning and
development of TODs, very little retail market analysis has been conducted or
considered. In addition, while there are ample studies of actual TODs and the concept of
TOD, very little of this literature discusses retail or retail analysis. Strategic Economics
puts the issue quite succinctly:

        In short, real estate investment decisions are made on the basis of many criteria,
        and although transit can help catalyze development, transit alone is not sufficient
        when market conditions are not supportive. Node − as defined by the connection
        to the transportation systems, − and place − as viewed by the market and defined
        by other qualities and policies – must work together to generate investment.14

14
  See “Transit Oriented Development: Moving from Rhetoric to Realty” prepared by Strategic Economics
for The Brookings Institute Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy and The Great American Station
Foundation (June 2002), page 27.


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                    11
                                                                                 White Paper:
                                                                   Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                  March 2004




The following summarizes key questions that must be addressed in evaluating any
project’s need for retail, including TODs. However, it should be noted that for most
TODs, the amount of retail that can be supported will be relatively small, and is a
function of the number of housing units, employees, and transit riders.

    1. What is the retail market area for the project?

        The size of a market area for retail is based on the type of retail considered. Large
        users often have formulas like wanting 100,000 people in a specific geographic
        area. A TOD will have a very small market area, depending on the size of the
        project and much smaller than even a grocery store which is typically one to two
        miles.

    2. What is the average income of the households in the TOD and surrounding
       area?

        Income is of key interest to retailers, but low-income neighborhoods should not
        be discounted as having opportunity, as evidenced by the new Fruitvale Station in
        East Oakland. Relating the price of the proposed housing to the potential income
        of new householders is important if new housing is expected to be significantly
        different than the surrounding community. For instance, if seniors, students, or
        single householders are the target population for a project, then it is important to
        look more closely at income. Otherwise census data can be collected on the
        defined market area and used to assess existing demand and future growth in
        demand.

    3. What is the current supply of retail in the area, by type and location? What
       competitive advantages or disadvantages exist with this existing supply?

        If an area is over-supplied with retail, then only a small amount of additional
        retail can be supported. In general, retail is of two types, convenience and
        comparison. “Convenience” is retail for which one will not travel more than 1-2
        miles for and can ideally walk to. “Comparison” retail is generally auto-oriented
        retail for which one will travel some distance. Retail is provided in a variety of
        formats, including neighborhood, community and regional centers, town centers,
        big-box center, entertainment centers, lifestyle centers, and traditional
        downtowns, and main streets. And today many retail goods are provided on-line
        and through mail order catalogs. TODs are just another type of development that
        can include a retail component. It is still subject to the issues of supply and
        demand like any other type of retail.




Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                             12
                                                                                  White Paper:
                                                                    Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                   March 2004


    4. What is the planned supply of retail in the area, particularly, if comparison
       type retail is being considered?

        While the consideration of the existing supply of retail is of utmost importance, it
        is also important to look at planned retail supply, particularly from a city
        perspective. Having too much retail planned in the pipeline may over-saturate the
        market and hurt existing neighborhoods or downtowns. A developer may not be
        overly concerned with this issue, but cities and planners should be.

    5. Retail Leakage Analysis can be useful in identifying particular retail niches
       that are not well served.

        This analysis compares the actual supply of retail and retail sales to the expected
        retail in an area, using standard formulas. The East Dublin analysis is an example
        of this type of research and it identified a shortage of food stores in Dublin that
        might be addressed at the Transit Center. On the surface, just looking at retail
        from a supply standpoint would have dismissed the need for any more retail in
        Dublin but the finer grained leakage analysis combined with a detailed review of
        existing food retailers (based on data provided by the City) identified this
        underserved market niche.

    6. Retail demand is a function of income, supply, and future and/or unmet
       demand.

        There are various types of retail demand models or approaches that generally
        focus on the expected expenditure patterns of new households. The Dublin
        analysis presents a method using existing buying pattern data and applies this data
        to the new development and income associated with new development. There is
        less information on the expenditure patterns of employees and transit riders.
        Estimating demand from these segments of the market is more difficult and
        challenging, but should not be dismissed. Further analysis should be careful not
        to double count employees and residents as transit riders.

It would be useful to have better data on the shopping habits of transit riders in a variety
of locations. For example, there is almost no data or information on the consumption
patterns of BART riders. Having a more detailed survey of residents, employees, and
transit riders associated with existing TODs as well as BART stations would add to the
literature on this topic. It would be helpful to know what they buy, how much they
spend, where they shop, and how often.

What this means is that a market, or demand, has to be present for any type of retail
development to succeed, irrespective of whether it is within a TOD project or not. TODs
present additional challenges and when competing needs for parking arise, retail can pose
additional issues that need to be resolved. The following literature review is more about
retail in general than retail at TOD projects or the relationship between retail and TOD


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                              13
                                                                                             White Paper:
                                                                               Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                              March 2004


development. This general information on retail is useful to better understand the retail
opportunities and constraints related to TOD development, which are discussed later in
the paper.


Retail Literature Review

TRENDS IN RETAILING
Over the last fifty years retailing has evolved significantly, becoming primarily suburban
with the exception of well-known large metropolitan downtowns like San Francisco, New
York, or Chicago. While retailers still want to provide convenience, quality, and desired
products and selection, as well as good prices, they are also faced with new market trends
such as the increase in female workforce participation, the purchasing power of children,
increased competition, and shorter retail cycles.15 Suburban shopping malls and big-
box16 retail have faced challenges with their original plans and tenants. With traditional
department store anchors, many shopping centers and malls are struggling economically
and would like to replace their original anchors with a big-box retailer to generate more
traffic for the center as a whole.17 Shoppers have proven that they will go out of their
way to frequent big-box retail, which generally offers lower prices, even when it is in
undesirable or inconvenient locations. And with the failure of many traditional stores and
chains, big-box retailers now have growing access to prime locations. The Walmarts and
Targets of the industry, which have become more attractive to the middle- and upper-
classes, and have been highly successful, can now locate closer to their expanding market
base.

One of the up-and-coming retail models is the anchorless town center, which is often
mixed-use and incorporates public uses, residential and commercial space in addition to
providing niche products through higher-end shops and services that provide more
amenities and a richer “retail experience” than pared down big-box retailers.18 Main
Streets are also incorporating some medium-sized big-box stores (i.e., stores on the
10,000 to 50,000 or so sqft), or locating big-box adjacent to Main Street shopping areas
and new “lifestyle” centers are being created that blend big-box uses like Ikea with other
smaller scale home furnishings and entertainment related retail, like bookstores, movie
theaters, and art supply stores.



15
   Linneman, Peter and Deborah Moy. “The Evolution of Retailing in the United States.” Wharton Real
Estate Review, Spring 2003.
16
   Big-box is a common format for retail today, and is represented by large, usually inexpensive, box like
buildings grouped on large parcels of land; the sizes of big-box uses and building range from 150,000 or
200,000 sqft to 10,000 or 20,000 sqft buildings; Walmart, Home Depot, Office Max, Pet Co, etc are
example of big box tenants.
17
   Ibid.
18
   Ibid.


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                               14
                                                                                       White Paper:
                                                                         Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                        March 2004


Design Trends of Shopping Centers
The environment and design of where we shop plays an important role in our retailing
decisions. For retailers, shopping place design is as crucial a tool for attracting customers
as the way that goods are marketed.19 For retailing, more than other aspects of
commercial real estate, design trends are always changing, and what may be appealing
one year may not be appealing the following year.20 The growth of suburban shopping
centers after World War II was the result of the merger between real estate development
and retailing.21 As the suburbs grew, so did the size of the shopping centers, also known
as shopping malls. These large (and growing) suburban shopping centers followed a
formula of being built on inexpensive land on the outskirts of the city (usually near a
highway, freeway interchange, or major intersection), they provided ample free parking,
and offered a combination of small shops and department stores or large anchors.22 Over
time, these outdoor malls evolved into indoor, two-level shopping malls. The large
department store anchors were offered extremely low rents that were offset by high rents
for the in-line smaller shops, which need the traffic generated by the large anchor to
survive. Developers had to attract large numbers of shoppers and figure out how to keep
them there, which led to the addition of restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs, and
other amenities inside the shopping mall. However, the suburban shopping mall model
has not been successful in more dense urban areas; one explanation being the lack of
convenient parking, lack of large tracts of land, and the high costs of land in central urban
areas, which make such projects financially infeasible.23

Big-box retailers and large scale specialty stores are descendants of the supermarket,
where the shopper uses a shopping cart to go up and down aisles, choosing from a variety
of goods, and then proceeds to a check-out counter, all with the intention of decreasing
shopping time for the shopper and increasing efficiency and volume. Also, there is a
wide variety of products sold at lower prices and with less customer attention than at
department stores. The design of these big-box retailers is considered a direct reaction to
the shopping mall; it is a big, plain box of warehouse proportions built inexpensively
with sparse ornamentation. This plain look is part of a marketing strategy that expresses
to the shopper that the business is doing all it can to keep its costs down and pass on the
savings to the consumer.24 Yet, big-box developers and retailers will apply design
elements to the facades of the buildings to create design themes, particularly if
communities require them as part of the project approvals process. The development of
several big-box retailers at one location is referred to as a power center. These are noted
for expansive parking lots where one might drive from one spot to another to be close to
the store they want, and the lack of any small in-line shops typical of shopping centers.

19
   Rybczynski, Witold. “The Changing Design of Shopping Places.” Wharton Real Estate Review, Spring
2003.
20
   Ibid.
21
   Ibid.
22
   Ibid.
23
   Ibid.
24
   Ibid.


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                    15
                                                                                          White Paper:
                                                                            Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                           March 2004




Sizes of these different auto-dependent traditional shopping venues vary greatly.
Regional shopping malls average from 500,000 to one million (or greater) square feet,
community shopping centers average 200,000 square feet, and neighborhood shopping
centers average 100,000 to 150,000 square feet. The big-box retail centers range
anywhere from 200,000 to 1.0 million square feet or more. All of these sizes depend on
local land and supply conditions. Very few new regional malls have been developed
recently and are being replaced by big-box shopping centers in many communities.

Entertainment centers use large multiplex theaters as “anchors” and combine chain
restaurants and other smaller retail stores, including music and bookstores, and other
leisure retail shopping. Entertainment centers, like regional shopping malls, also need a
lot of parking and large tracts of land. However, in some denser urban locations,
structured and/or underground parking is being used successfully. Power centers, which
blend theaters and other entertainment venues such as night clubs with retail, have also
become a popular retail concept.

In the last few years, new projects like Bay Street in Emeryville have been developed that
combine the concept of an “entertainment center” with the feel of main street shopping.
Some call these “lifestyle centers.” Downtown Walnut Creek has been successful in
merging and renovating an older shopping mall into a more main street format, with
higher density mixed-use development. The revitalization of downtown Walnut Creek
has taken over 20 years and included substantial public investment in infrastructure and
planning.

The newest fashion in retailing is the “town center.” These developments resemble
classic small city centers and American main streets, with buildings on a smaller scale
and storefronts along the sidewalks. Town centers often consist of ground floor retail
with offices or apartments above. They are characterized by short, walkable urban
blocks, narrow streets lined with shops and restaurants, trees, and formal squares, plazas,
and public spaces.25 Moreover, these retail areas are often a combination of small and
medium-sized buildings that are flexible in size to meet the needs of mainstream
retailers.26 One of the goals is to combine shopping with social and entertainment
activities.

The following provides a concise description of the town center, very different from the
big-box, suburban and other retail centers described above.

           A town center--which can take many forms, such as a main street, town
           square, or transit village--is not an outdoor shopping mall or so-called
           “lifestyle center.” The new suburban town centers have a full range of
           everyday uses and activities-such as office, retail, housing,

25
     Bohl, Charles. “The Return of the Town Center,” Wharton Real Estate Review, Spring 2003.
26
     Ibid.


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                      16
                                                                                       White Paper:
                                                                         Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                        March 2004


        entertainment, hotels, and civic institutions like public libraries-all
        integrated within a pedestrian-friendly environment. A true town center
        creates an active, 24/7 public realm.” –Charles Lockwood, “Raising the
        Bar”

The architecture of town centers is more elaborate (and thus, more expensive) than that of
power or big-box centers, and they are more complicated to develop given their mix of
uses. The facades are broken up on larger buildings, and there is more of a community-
oriented feeling as they not only provide public space and housing, but also often include
civic buildings and uses.27

Town centers can be seen as a cross between the early suburban shopping centers with
the management of a shopping mall, in that there is one developer who builds the town
center and leases out the space to retailers and other tenants.28 Additionally, these town
centers do not have large retail anchors although they do follow the same positioning
strategies as the shopping mall. While the shopping mall obliges people to pass a number
of stores in between anchors, providing for impulse purchases, town centers create cross-
shopping opportunities along their main streets by the way they position their most
attractive destinations. This is in addition to the open orientation that allows visitors to
find their destination, do their shopping and leave.29 The outdoor nature of town centers
is something to consider in colder climates. It is noteworthy that most of these new town
centers have been built in areas with milder climates like Florida and California.

The popularity of new town centers can be attributed to changing demographics and
lifestyle preferences, trends in retailing, apartment, and office projects, and a desire for a
stronger sense of community identity and sense of place, as well as policies that support
smart growth.30

Untapped Retail Markets
For many years, developers did not want to build in low-income communities, based on
the notion that they would not be able to make as great a profit as they would in higher-
income areas. Over the last several years, this trend has started to change, as some
retailers have recognized the buying power of low-income communities. While many of
the households may earn, on average, much less than those in neighboring communities,
low-income areas have much greater population density providing substantial and often
comparable buying power. In addition, suburban retail markets are over-saturated or
“over-retailed.” In a recent report, the Initiative for a Competitive Inner City (ICIC)
found that there is “enormous untapped potential in inner-city markets” and claims that
they are the last large domestic frontier for retail characterized by “high concentrations of

27
   Ibid.
28
   Rybczynski, Witold. “The Changing Design of Shopping Places.” Wharton Real Estate Review, Spring
29
   Bohl, Charles. “The Return of the Town Center,” Wharton Real Estate Review, Spring 2003.
30
   Ibid.


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                    17
                                                                                          White Paper:
                                                                            Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                           March 2004


income and limited competition.”31 Although they might have lower incomes, inner-city
areas concentrate more buying power into a square mile than many affluent suburbs and
they possess over $85 billion in annual retail spending power.32

Some of the key elements to success in lower-income markets include the ability to
understand increasingly diverse customers, flexibility, and a willingness to bend the rules,
building community relationships and gaining community support, understanding that
chains and independent stores can coexist, and realizing that inner-city markets represent
the future of retailing in the U.S as many immigrants start to move to the suburbs.33

Flexibility is a key factor in success because unlike suburban areas where land is more
available, inner city, lower-income areas are usually denser and do not have land or space
for large-scale grocery stores or big-box retail. There is a necessity to adapt to smaller
spaces and sites than in the suburbs. However, grocery markets in inner-city urban areas
that have opened with smaller retail footprints than the typical 40,000+ square foot store,
have been profitable. Similarly, small-scale groceries at TODs like Belmont Station in
Portland, Oregon have also successfully met the needs of their client base. These
locations with heavy foot traffic and good transportation also allow grocery retailers to
reduce their traditional parking requirements and thus, increase pedestrian traffic and get
people out of their cars.34

Serving lower-income retail markets is an issue for many potential TOD sites in the Bay
Area and is of particular interest to the Cities of Oakland, Richmond, and other inner-city
areas.

Challenges
Although American suburban homebuyers might like the idea of town centers and mixed-
use developments, most are not yet willing to relinquish the retailing conveniences they
have come to expect, such as ample parking and merchandise quality and selection
equivalent to what is available at big-box and other large-scale retail venues.35 The
general notion of developers and retailers is that shoppers demand lots of parking and yet
there are ample examples of successful retail districts with very little parking. Parking is
an issue because the finance industry often will not finance projects without standard
ratios of parking (approximately 5 parking spaces for every 1,000 square feet of retail)
and cities often have strict parking requirements based on suburban development
patterns. Many larger chains also have parking requirements that they are reluctant to
relax in more urban locations because they worry that there will be increased congestion
and that individuals will not frequent their retail if it is inconvenient to access.


31
   Initiative for a Competitive Inner City. “The Changing Models of Inner City Grocery Retailing.” 2002.
32
   Ibid.
33
   Ibid.
34
   Ibid.
35
   Bohl, Charles. “The Return of the Town Center,” Wharton Real Estate Review, Spring 2003.


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                         18
                                                                                         White Paper:
                                                                           Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                          March 2004


Parking
There is retail that is not appropriate for TOD development, such as large-scale retail
centers, large big-box uses, and other retail that requires significant amounts of parking.
The tendency is to buy in items that are too large or heavy to be carried home, making
automobile travel the most common way to travel to big-box retail centers. If it is the
goal of transit-oriented developments to keep people out of their automobile, than this
large-scale retail is not the best fit for TODs. Retail that is appropriate for TODs is
small-scale and convenience oriented and that, ideally, people can walk to. However, as
this study discusses, many different types of retail have been developed at TODs with
mixed results. TODs that are able to diminish the automobile usage of project residents
and employees should be considered successful. If they attract retail expenditures from
commuters and other public transit users, that is also a success. However, the literature at
this point reveals that for certain types of larger retail uses to be successful it must draw
from a regional base and because of that, parking must be provided for those who choose
a certain TOD as their shopping destination. This finding is based, in part, on analysis of
TODs with more regional serving retail establishments. Unfortunately, most of the
literature does not discuss convenience retail, the type of retail that is more appropriate
for TODs. More empirical research is needed on the parking requirements of various
types of retail. There seems to be a fine balance between creating a place that is both
transit-oriented and commercially successful, especially as related to parking.

CityCenter Englewood is a development that has won numerous awards, has been
recognized as a successful TOD, and has a high number of transit passengers. (See Case
Studies for more detail.) But because of its variety of big-box retailers that draws
shoppers from the greater region, they still experience tight parking situations even with 5
spaces per 1,000 square feet of retail, the traditional big-box parking ratio. Additionally,
drawing shoppers from a larger region may mean attracting customers that do not have
access to the public transit that serves the TOD. If retailers at TODs are dependent on a
regional consumer base, parking must be provided for them.

Layout and Design
Design and configuration is an important component of successful retail, and successful
TOD retail, particularly when that retail is trying to attract transit riders as shoppers.
Many TODs with regional retail uses that do not follow some type of town center model
are just big-box retailers that happen to be along transit lines or TRDs. TOD projects like
Pacific Court in Long Beach, CA are struggling due to a poorly conceived layout and
lack of retail visibility. The retail in this project is located along a central interior
courtyard that is both off the street and not adjacent to the movie theater at Pacific Court.
Retail signage has poor street visibility and pedestrians cannot easily view the shops on
the way to the theater or when passing.36 In this project retail was geared toward the

36
  California Department of Transportation. “Statewide Transit-Oriented Development Study: Factors for
Success in California, Final Report.” September 2002.


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                      19
                                                                                        White Paper:
                                                                          Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                         March 2004


project residents; however, the large amount of retail was out of scale with the
consumption of project residents. This project has 142 dwelling units, and 96,000 square
feet of retail, including the movie theater.

Uptown District, in San Diego, has seen incredible success with its grocery store and
some of its other ground floor retail stores (Trader Joe’s and a pet store), but second story
retail has suffered because of the reduced visibility and inconvenient access. The second
floor retail space was originally intended as office space, but given the lack of success in
leasing this space, an attempt was made to attract retail. Since opening, a yogurt shop,
women’s clothing store, coffeehouse, Italian restaurant, chicken rotisserie restaurant,
local clothing designers’ store, evening gown rental shop, and travel agency have all gone
out of business.37 One of the issues facing Uptown is the large supply of retail storefront
space available nearby along University Avenue. This is not a unique problem with TOD
retail but rather retail in general; second floor retail has only been successful in very
heavy traffic markets such as downtown San Francisco or Chicago. In retrospect, the
second story retail is considered a design flaw, according to a City of San Diego Senior
Planner.38 CityCenter Englewood planner Bob Simpson, who has seen incredible success
at their TOD, believes that TOD retail is better-off serving office employees and residents
rather than providing large-scale, regional-serving retail. And in fact, many TODs that
do not follow some type of town center model are just big-box retailers that happen to be
along transit lines.

Expectations of Retailers and Shoppers
It is not just the shoppers who have expectations. Chain retailers and commercial
establishments also have the expectation of highway visibility, large parking lots and
design characteristics traditionally associated with shopping malls, which are different
from the town center or TOD format.39 More progressive chains such as The Gap will
look at a variety of locations and some actually prefer to be in neighborhood shopping
districts. The struggle is to develop TODs and town centers that can serve suburban
communities and to get the larger chains to realize the benefits in order to deviate from
their standard formats and ratios. Now that suburban retail supply has exceeded demand,
simply being there is not enough, retailers must pay greater attention to cost controls and
design detail to be successful today and in the future.40

The challenges of retail at TODs, in general, is to overcome both retailers and shoppers
bias towards auto-oriented retail. This is no small challenge, as experience has shown.
The case studies included in this paper are meant to further inform the discussion of this
issue and to see how specific projects have addressed the issues discussed above.

37
   see www.terrain.org. “Unsprawl Case Study: San Diego’s Uptown District.” Summer 1998.
38
   Wilhoit, John. Interview. June 20, 2003.
39
   Bohl, Charles. “The Return of the Town Center,” Wharton Real Estate Review, Spring 2003.
40
   Linneman, Peter and Moy, Deborah. “The Evolution of Retailing in the United States.” Wharton Real
Estate Review, Spring 2003.



Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                         20
                                                                                       White Paper:
                                                                         Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                        March 2004



TOD Case Studies

METHODOLOGY
In an effort to understand what components have made the retail at TODs successful, we
have conducted case studies of six transit-oriented developments to see what has proven
successful, and what lessons can be learned to apply to new TOD development and
planning efforts, such as the East Dublin Transit Center. The EBCF is currently working
with the City of Dublin on refining aspects of the Specific Plan for the transit center,
which includes how much retail can be supported and what type of retail.41

As mentioned earlier in the paper, little research has been done on retail at TODs. As
was discovered in conducting these case studies, success was viewed differently by
planning departments, developers, retailers and communities. For some, success was
viewed in terms of revenues and for others it was design factors or the overall reduction
of automobile trips. In order to get different viewpoints, an effort was made to interview
individuals in the planning departments as well as developers and leasing agents (see
Appendix A). Publications, such as newspaper and magazine articles, were also
reviewed for information regarding the developments.

Another challenge, mentioned previously, is determining the shopping habits of transit
riders. None of the individuals interviewed for the project had information on this, and it
is another obstacle faced in designing retail at TODs if demand is to be generated by
transit riders.

TODs were chosen for their similarity in size to the East Dublin site, for the types of uses
present, and the availability of information and individuals’ willingness to discuss the
projects. The three projects initially chosen were: CityCenter Englewood in Englewood,
Colorado; Lindbergh Station in Atlanta, Georgia; and Uptown District in San Diego,
California. In addition to being spread out across the country, these projects are all at
different stages of completion. Uptown was an early TRD that opened in the early 1990s
although it is commonly referred to as a TOD; CityCenter is a recently occupied project;
and Lindbergh is still in the development phase. These three case studies offered
valuable insight into the development and operation of TODs, providing a basis for
making decisions as to what kinds of uses, quantities, and designs can be provided to
create successful TOD projects.

In addition to these three larger scale TODs, three other TODs are reviewed including
Fruitvale Transit Center in Oakland, Richmond Transit Village, and Pleasant Hill BART
Station. The review of the Richmond and Pleasant Hill Stations is more general as both of
these projects are in the planning stages and have not be constructed. In contrast to the
first three TODs, these other three are smaller scale overall and have a focus on
41
 See “Analysis of Dublin Transit Center Specific Plan” Technical Memorandum, prepared for East Bay
Community Foundation by Brion & Associates (August 2003).


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                       21
                                                                                      White Paper:
                                                                        Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                       March 2004


neighborhood serving retail rather than big-box retail or regional serving retail, which
appears to be better and create less conflicts. Table 1 summarizes the six TODs
reviewed for this effort and includes general project information.

1. CITYCENTER ENGLEWOOD, ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO
About Englewood
Englewood, Colorado is a working-class suburb just south of Denver. The city has a
population of 31,727 people, a household median income of $43,734, and median age of
39 years42. The daytime population within a three-mile radius is 74,553.43 Highways,
light rail and heavy rail provide a variety of transportation options for residents and serve
the city’s economy.

Project Overview
The CityCenter development is a Brownfield redevelopment project, originally planned
as a big-box retail center, without any transit-oriented development aspects. Requests for
Proposals (RFPs) for the original project went out in 1994, but as of mid-1995 little had
been done. There was no real direction to the project, and the community and city council
were divided over how to deal with the development. In 1995, the city council decided to
rethink the project and by 1997 the council agreed to develop a mixed-use, transit-
oriented development (TOD). The project completed its last phase of development and
the final development of the last freestanding retail pad in October 2003. The project is a
mix of residential apartments, retail/commercial/office space, and a civic center with a
courthouse, library, and museum.

The CityCenter development has been successful in meeting its original goals of creating
a transit-oriented development that has civic and residential uses, in addition to
successful retail. CityCenter has won numerous awards for economic development and
environmental planning (EPA’s Phoenix Award 2002). This 55-acre site was originally a
run-down shopping mall that saw major declines in revenue as suburban competition
grew and reuse was limited due to environmental issues such as asbestos, PCBs and
USTs. There were many barriers to redeveloping this area and much of the success is
due to the cost-sharing partnership between the City and the developers, as well as the aid
of local organizations. Total development costs are estimated at $160 million.44




42
   2000 Census Data.
43
   Miller Weingarten Realty, LLC.
44
   Bob Simpson, Community Development Director, City of Englewood. Phone interview, 6/27/03...


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                   22
                                                                                                                                                   White Paper:
                                                                                                                                     Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                                                                                    March 2004


Table 1
Summary of Six TODs Case Studies


                                          CityCenter                                                            Richmond Transit         Fruitvale Transit      Pleasant Hill BART
Project Components/Info                   Englewood           Lindbergh Station          Uptown District             Village                  Center                  Station

Location                             Englewood, CO           Atlanta, GA               San Diego, CA           Richmond, CA            Oakland, CA              Pleasant Hill, CA

                                                                                                                                      Planning since 1991;
Development Status/Year                                                                                                               groundbreaking 1999;
Started/Year Completed                                                                                         Planning since mid- Phase 1 complete         Planning since 1995;
                                                             Under construction                                1990s; In early        2004; Phase 2 not yet 2001 began
                                     Completed 2000          since Spring 2001         Completed 1990          construction currently started               construction

Total Land Size
                                     55 acres                51 acres                  14 acres                16 acres                5.3 acres                12 acres
Total Development Size               Over 800,000 sq ft      4.8 million sq. ft.       N/A                     N/A                     N/A                      N/A
                                                                                                                                                                Approximately $235
Total Development Cost
                                     $155 million            $81 million               $70 million             $100 million            $100 million             million
                                                                                                               rail (BART and
Type of Transit
                                     light rail, bus         rail, bus                 bus (5 lines)           Amtrak), bus, taxi      rail (BART), bus         rail (BART)
Type of Development                  Mixed-use TOD           Mixed-use TOD             Mixed-use TOD           Mixed-use TOD           Mixed-use TOD            Mixed-use TOD
                                                                                                                                       25,000 sq ft             Planned: 290,000 sq
                                     330,000 sq ft retail,                                                                             retail/commercial        ft office space; 42,000
                                     300,000 sq ft                                                                                     space; 25,000 sq ft      sq ft of
  -Retail/Commercial
                                     offices,50,000 sq ft     2.7 million sq ft office                                                 office space; a 40,000   retail/commercial
                                     restaurant space; inter- space/330,000 sq ft                              27,000 sq ft            sq ft health clinic; a   space; 7,000 sq ft
                                     modal transit station retail space,               145,000 sq ft           retail/commercial       library                  civic uses

                                                                                       318 units (some live-   231 of for-sale                                  Planned residential:
                                                             Planned residential:      work lofts, condos,     townhomes (50%          337 units of housing     450 apartments and
  -Residential
                                                             400 110                   etc) (52 units/net      affordable); 89 of      (including affordable    townhouses (54 for
                                                             condominiums, 190         acre) and 3,000 sq ft   these are live/work     senior housing); child   sale, the rest rental);
                                     440 units               hotel rooms               community center (5)    units                   care facility            child care facility
                                     Wal-Mart, Office
                                     Depot, Gant Sports,
                                     IHOP, Bally's Fitness
                                     Center (also a Civic
Anchor                               Center with City
                                     offices, library,
                                     cultural arts center
                                     and courts)           Bell South                  Ralph's Grocery         N/A                     N/A                      N/A

                                     Outdoor art museum,                               A central park, public
Open Space
                                     outdoor performance                               courtyards and                                                           Town square and
                                     space, courtyards                                 gardens                5 pocket-parks           Pedestrian plaza         community green


                                                             5,000 total spaces        All residential parking
                                                             (3.7 spaces per 1,000     underground (2.0
                                     4.5 spaces per 1,000    sq ft of retail; 2.33     paces for townhomes, 5-story, 800-space                                  3.3 spaces per 1,000
Parking                              sq ft of retail;        spaces per 1,000 sq ft    1,7 per apartment); no parking structure to                              sq ft of office space; 4
                                     CityCenter parking      for Bell South; 2.7       parking reductions;     be constructed; no                               spaces per 1,000 sq ft
                                     shared with             spaces per 1,000 sq ft    retail at one space per parking for retail; 2                            of retail; 1.35 spaces
                                     Park'N'Ride parking     for other office space)   270 sq ft retail        spaces per residence                             per housing unit

                                     1.5 million light rail                                                    4,000 BART
Passengers/day at station            passengers per year                                                       passengers/day
                                     and 1.0 million bus                                                       (numbers unavailable
                                     riders per year (2015                                                     for buses and Amtrak                             6,300 passengers/day
                                     projection)            26,000 passengers                                  passengers)                                      on average

Type of Destination                  Retail/Civic/           Residential/Retail/Em                                                     Residential/Retail/Em Residential/Retail/Em
                                     Residential             ployment              Residential/Retail          Residential/Retail      ployment              ployment

Land Use Before Development
                                                                                       Old 1950 Sears site                                                      BART parking lot

(1) Case Studies. www.dca.state.ga.us/toolkit/case2.asp?ID=6
(2) Perimeter Transportation Coalition. "MARTA Sticking with Sandy Springs Plans." March 6, 2002.
(3) Successful Infill Development.
(4) City of Spokane. "Focused Growth Alternatives Mixed-Use Case Studies."
(5) Terrain.org. "Unsprawl Case Study: San Diego's Uptown District." Summer 1998.




Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                                                                                                       23
                                                                                              White Paper:
                                                                                Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                               March 2004


Table 2
Englewood Land Use Program (55-acre site)
USE                                SIZE
Housing                            438 apartment units
Retail/Commercial                  330,000 square feet
Office Space                       33,700 square feet45
Civic Center                       160,000 square feet


One reason for the success of CityCenter is that it has become a special “place” in the
community. It is more appealing to the residents and families of the area than other retail
centers, with outdoor areas, a library, a fountain that kids can play in, and outdoor art, all
mixed with large- and small-scale retail. The City is very pleased with the outcome of
the project. They had anticipated the project would generate $2 million per year in sales
tax revenue, and it is meeting this expectation and achieving the City’s economic
development goals, bringing in the highest sales tax revenue from any project in the City.
This mixture of retail, residential, and civic uses might be considered a town center, as
discussed earlier. The major difference from a typical retail town center is the inclusion
of housing and its proximity to transit.

Housing
CityCenter has a total of 438 units of market-rate rental apartments, equally divided into
one, two, and three bedroom units (146 of each). Even in the softening residential market
of the greater Denver area, the apartments have an occupancy rate of 87%. The
apartments are at a density of 43 units per acre, and have their own separate parking
facilities. Due to the fact that the light rail line serves two universities, a significant
number of the apartments have been leased to the students. The City would have
preferred to see a greater mix in the residents and say that they would not build three-
bedroom units if they were to build this again, in order to lessen the number of college
student residents.46 Currently, one of the residential buildings is leased 100% and the
other is at 85%.47

Retail Tenants
The retail at CityCenter is both big-box and neighborhood-serving. It is anchored by
Wal-Mart (who owns the land on which they are located), and other big-box retail such as
Ross Dress-for-Less, Office Depot, Bally Total Fitness, Petco, and Gart Sports. The
Walmart is by far the largest retailer, with a total of 129,000 sq ft (serving a trade area of

45
   There is currently 33,700 square feet of second-story office space; an additional 16,200 square feet of
vacant retail space may become office space because of its inferior location, then totaling 49,700 square
feet of office space.
46
   Bob Simpson, Community Development Director, City of Englewood. Phone interview, 6/27/03.
47
   Greg Moran, Vice President of Leasing, Miller Weingarten Realty, LLC. Phone interview, 7/2/03.


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                               24
                                                                                           White Paper:
                                                                             Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                            March 2004


450,000 people). The other major retailers average about 25,000 sq ft each. The
remainder of inline retail varies from 1,000 to 4,000 sq ft, and is customized to the tenant.
Some of these smaller tenants include Supercuts, Quizno’s, I-HOP, a donut shop, a
Mexican food restaurant, GNC, a nail salon, dry cleaner, liquor store, game arcade,
Payless Shoes, an optometrist’s office and an MRI medical office (see attached table of
retail tenants).

The retail targets the community at large, not solely the tenants and employees of
CityCenter. It was planned to meet the retail needs of the trade area. The community
wanted a Walmart in their community, and not surprisingly, the Walmart has been
extremely successful. Within less than two years, CityCenter has seen the best revenue
production in Englewood compared to other shopping center destinations (see above).
(See “Retail Competition” below) While the stores are not high-end, they are solid and
appropriate for the market base, and have thus far been very successful. The population
density in the one-mile radius surrounding CityCenter is 12,500 persons.

Although retailers were interested in locating in the area, CityCenter had trouble
attracting some retailers because of its non-traditional features (see Site Map). Some
retailers approached the developer with great interest, while others had to be convinced to
locate at CityCenter due to the non-traditional layout of the stores (i.e., having two
entrances on opposite sides of the stores). While the big-box retailers are located in
prime locations near parking, the Main Street area with smaller retail requires walking 50
to 100 yards from the parking lot, which has been a challenge in lease-up. This is because
the average shopper typically does not want to walk to get to their store of choice.48
However, the small Main Street area is mostly occupied by the small retailers and
restaurants that have been successful and there has been little turnover. The mix of stores
meets the needs of the community and the stores are value-oriented retailers.

In addition to the development of the last retail pad, 16,000 sq ft of courtyard retail space
on the circle plaza is just starting to lease since it was delayed by a lawsuit with the
previous owners of the site. The City and developer believe that this retail will be the
most difficult to lease up because, although it is highly visible, it is furthest from the
parking structure and, therefore, requires people to walk further. The City believes that
because the zoning is flexible and permits for commercial non-retail uses, there is a
chance it will be better occupied by office/commercial space than by retail. The leasing
agent expects that this area will lease to non-traditional office uses, or service uses such
as a high-end salon, and possibly galleries. The developers do not think that restaurants
will locate here because of its distance from the parking structure (see Figure 2), which is
about 100 yards (further than the average American is willing to walk49).




48
     Greg Moran, Vice President of Leasing, Miller Weingarten Realty, LLC. Phone interview, 7/2/03.
49
     Ibid.


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                        25
                                                                                  White Paper:
                                                                    Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                   March 2004


Commercial Rental Rates and Vacancy Rates

All of the commercial spaces are renting well above the market rate. Smaller retailers are
paying $1.58-$1.66 per sqft per month, triple net. In the circle plaza (courtyard) area that
is currently leasing, the rents are slightly lower at $1.25-1.33 per square foot, triple net,
due to the inferior location. One of the larger retail spaces is located on the circle plaza
(discussed above) and is the only large retail space (16,000 square feet) still unoccupied.
This space has no road visibility to the major road arterial where 99% of the auto traffic
is located and has almost no parking in close proximity. This space is shallow in depth
and is on the first floor of the Western-most apartment building. The space has been
available and actively marketed since June 2003.

Parking
Parking is located in a large parking structure alongside the retail. The parking ratios, at
about 4.5 spaces per 1,000 sq ft of retail, are similar to those of big-box retail. The City
and the developers found themselves having to make a very balanced effort in order to
meet the market demand, balancing the issue of parking area with additional land uses
and possible revenues. Providing more parking was cost-prohibitive for the City and the
developers did not want to pay for more parking, so they agreed to leave parking at 4.5
spaces per 1,000 sqft, based on Urban Land Institute standards. The developers did not
agree with these standards but went along with them because of cost issues; both the
developers and the retailers definitely would have liked to see more parking. This level
of parking is not radically less than the parking provided at most retail centers; the
standard for a big-box center is 5 spaces per 1,000 sq ft.

In addition, the parking is shared with over 900 Park’N’Ride commuters each day as well
as people using the Civic Center. Overall, parking is tight, and the City says that if they
were to do this project again, they would require that Park’N’Ride eventually develop its
own separate parking structure in order to free up some of the retail parking for shoppers.
Another problem the city has had to address is students who drive to CityCenter, park for
the day, and catch the light rail to the university. By posting notes and signs, the situation
has improved slightly but is still difficult. It appears that the planners for the project did
not anticipate the level of demand from university students or the amount of demand
from “Park’N’Ride” commuters.




Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                              26
                                                                                               White Paper:
                                                                                 Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                                March 2004




Table 3: List of CityCenter Englewood Retail Tenants50

Tenants open for business51
 Name                                Size (SF)    Name                           Size (SF)
 Walmart                              129,000     Lamars Doughnuts                   2,200
 Ross Dress- for- Less                  30,186    Liquor Store                       2,411
 Gart Sports                            25,105    McMahon Cleaners                   1,537
 Petco                                  12,674    Cold Stone Creamery                1,440
 Bally Total Fitness                    28,270    Broadway Dental                    7,100
 Office Depot                           23,000    MMB Hearing                          567
 Supercuts                               1,215    Aonix Corporation                  1,662
 Quiznos                                 1,923    Graphic Dimensions                   548
 Game Force                              1,200    MP Hayutin                           811
 Qdoba Mexican Grill                     2,253    Payless Shoe Source                2,500
 IHOP                                    4,243    Midwest MRI                        2,303
 Gold Nails                              1,404    Dr. Newman, D.O.M.                 2,392
 GNC                                     1,426

Tenants with leases being negotiated:
Name                                Size (SF)
Hair Color Express                      1,224
Abos Pizza                              2,183
United Financial                        1,242
Jamba Juice                             1,500
Tokyo ’Joes                             2,700
Patriot & Loyalist Pub                  3,764
Wing Stop                               1,335
Airwalk International                   3,450



Use of Transit
CityCenter is located along a light rail line and has an inter-modal, eight-bay bus transit
station. Currently, there are over 3,000 light rail users per day and over 800 bus
passengers per day, and it is projected to serve over 4,000 light rail and 2,750 bus
passengers per day by 2015.52 To date, there have been no studies to determine whether
ridership on the light rail has increased as a result of the development, and whether
people are choosing to use transit instead of automobiles to come to the center. The light
rail itself has seen steadily increasing ridership because it is convenient for commuting to
central business districts in Denver as well as two major universities, but there is no data
supporting increased ridership in relation to this project. It appears that people still use

50
   This information is as of August 7, 2003 and was provided by Miller Weingarten. This list of tenants
will bring the project to 90% leased.
51
   Wal-Mart owns it own land, and is therefore not included on this list of tenants, as they do not lease their
retail space.
52
   “CityCenter Englewood,” Phoenix Awards article.


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                               27
                                                                                           White Paper:
                                                                             Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                            March 2004


automobiles to do their shopping, and that the light rail is used mostly for commuting.
However, anecdotal evidence shows that some individuals use the light rail to shop
because every morning 20 to 30 Wal-Mart shopping carts are found at the light rail stop.

Retail Competition
The nearest shopping center, Aspen Grove in Littletown, is about 4 miles from
CityCenter. While Apsen Grove is also along a light rail, it is nearly impossible to travel
from the light rail stop to the retail center, making it an automobile-oriented center. The
shopping at Aspen Grove is more high-end than the retail at CityCenter. There is no real
direct competition between CityCenter and Aspen Grove, as they serve different market
niches. Due to its proximity to Denver, Walmart is able to draw customers from the
urban area in addition to Englewood residents.

Civic Uses
CityCenter is home to the Englewood Civic Center, a 160,000 square foot structure that
includes city offices, a library, municipal courts, outdoor public performance space, a
cultural arts center, and the Colorado Outdoor Museum of Art.

Lessons Learned
Architecturally, the City would have liked to see more eclecticism and uniqueness,
instead of a highly controlled design. Additionally, as mentioned above, the City would
prefer to have separate parking for the Park’N’Ride commuters who currently share
parking with the entire CityCenter TOD, taking away from retail and civic center
parking.

On the development side, the developers learned that it is possible to make a project like
this work, although it is against the traditional retail model. Depending on a variety of
factors such as high density, lack of retail competition, proximity to residential areas and
public transit (such as the light rail), these types of projects can work financially.
However, the developer did note that there were some battles with the City over some of
the “grandiose ideas” the City had that the developer could not implement knowing that
the retail market does not work in those ways.53 Initially, the City wanted CityCenter to
be the main shopping experience for the entire South Metro Area of Denver, with high-
end retailers (such as Banana Republic, Ann Taylor, Gap, etc.) that did not fit the
demographics of the immediate trade area. The City expected that people would travel to
the project via light rail specifically to shop. However, the developer felt that this was
not realistic in the Denver area since only some depend on the light rail for trips other
than the work commute.



53
     Greg Moran, Vice President of Leasing, Miller Weingarten Realty, LLC. Phone interview, 7/2/03.


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                        28
                                                                                        White Paper:
                                                                          Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                         March 2004


The city made and allowed an exception for Walmart not to provide sidewalks on one
side of the parking lot. The City, in retrospect, says it should not have permitted Wal-
Mart to develop without including the sidewalk. The reason the city originally made the
exception was because Walmart was struggling as a company with the diminished
parking (4.5 spaces per 1000 square feet versus their standard 6 spaces). The problem is
that there are sidewalks on both sides of the street, and when one reaches Walmart, the
sidewalk on the store-side disappears and the pedestrians find themselves in the middle of
a parking lot. The City reports that this design did not look bad on paper, but when one is
out walking the site, it creates a discontinuity in the shopping environment.

In retrospect, the City officials also state that they should have been more diligent in
requiring Walmart to draft electrical plans that would then be carefully reviewed. While
once again the drawings looked fine, when the project was developed, electrical
transformers were placed in the middle of the 10 foot wide sidewalk, leaving three feet on
one side and one foot on the other side for pedestrians, making it cramped and difficult to
get by when there are large crowds of shoppers. These transformers were not included in
the site plan, although the City now requires them on all future plans.

For the City, the project is successful because they earn both sales tax revenue as well as
ground lease revenue from the developer who leases some of the land from the City.
While the project is considered a great success, from the developer’s perspective, it is not
performing as well as they would like. For the developer, who only owns the retail
buildings on the land, the earnings have been lower than they had expected. They
measure their success by looking to an annual yield on the property given the dollars
spent on the development, and in relation to other traditional retail projects, it was very
expensive. And while the project is not losing money, it is not performing at the level the
developer had hoped and the developer expects that even with 100% occupancy the yield
will continue to be below their expectations.54 The City of Englewood acknowledges that
if TOD developments are going to continue to be built, that it is necessary to learn how to
make the projects more profitable for the private sector.55 However, the developer sees
non-financial successes from the awards the project has won, the lessons learned from
trying new things, and learning how things need to be done for there to be greater
financial successes next time. Overall, there is a feeling that projects such as City Center
can be done, but there is a limit on how far you can push the traditional limits of retail.

Additionally, since completing this project, the developer has drawn from the lessons
learned and both the challenges and successes, to replicate some of the ideas in new retail
development projects elsewhere. One of the big successes has been the “Main Street”
shopping area, fronted with two-sided small retail shops, each with two entrances.
Typically retailers do not like to have more than one entrance (mostly for security issues),
but the developer says it has worked much better than anticipated and this design of two-
sided shops has since been used in two other retail projects in the Denver area. The

54
     Ibid.
55
     Bob Simpson, Community Development Director, City of Englewood. Phone interview, 6/27/03.


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                    29
                                                                                           White Paper:
                                                                             Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                            March 2004


developer has learned with each project how to perfect the design. The developer is also
in the process of developing a new project, scheduled to start construction in 2004, with a
similar “Main Street” layout with two-sided retail for the small shop tenants.56 It is worth
noting that both the City and developer asserted that parking is still at a premium and
needs to be provided for these large-scale, mixed-use projects to be successful.

Based on the definitions coined by Strategic Economics in “Transit Oriented
Development: Moving From Rhetoric to Reality,” CityCenter is not a true TOD, It is a
mixed-use, town center development that happens to be located next to transit. One
reason that the parking is tight is because planners and developers did not account for the
fact that the transit station was a major park’n’ride station for students. If this transit use
had not been significant then perhaps the parking facilities would be ample. Again, this is
an example of where the transit function was not fully integrated and considered in the
design and choice of uses and tenants. It also supports the premise that big-box retail is
problematic and difficult to accommodate at TODs.




56
     Greg Moran, Vice President of Leasing, Miller Weingarten Realty, LLC. Phone interview, 7/2/03.


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                        30
                                                                                   White Paper:
                                                                     Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                    March 2004


Figure 1: CityCenter Englewood Site Map57




57
     Found at http://www.englewoodgov.org/citycenter/siteplan.htm.



Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                               31
                                                                             White Paper:
                                                               Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                              March 2004


Figure 2: Parking Map for CityCenter Englewood58




58
     Found at http://www.englewoodgov.org/home/pkg-map.html.



Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                         32
                                                                                White Paper:
                                                                  Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                 March 2004



2. LINDBERGH STATION TOD, ATLANTA, GA
Project Overview
In November 1997, MARTA (Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority) sent out
RFPs for the development of 50 acres surrounding the Lindbergh MARTA Station, which
is served by both bus and light rail. Lindbergh Center is located within the city limits of
Atlanta, six miles from downtown. The area was originally developed as a typical
suburban corridor in the 1950s and 1960s, and had been an older, overlooked area until
MARTA sent out RFPs for the redevelopment of the area. Carter & Associates was
selected as the master developer of this urban infill project, and they had team members
with specialties in retail, condos, apartments, and other aspects of development.
However, since the time of the proposal all of the team members with specialties have
left the project, although Carter & Associates is still involved in the development. Due to
various setbacks, the project is now expected to be complete in January 2005, two years
later than anticipated. According to Michael Hoath of Carter & Associates, upon
completion, Lindbergh Center will be the only neighborhood in Atlanta where residents
can live, not own cars, and have access to retail, services and transportation. This $750
million project hopes to get people out of their cars, provide easy access to work for Bell
South employees, and create a center where people can live independently of
automobiles.

Table 4: Lindbergh Land Use Program (50-acre site)
USE                                 SIZE
Housing                             400 apartments and 110 condominiums
Retail/Commercial                   225,000 square feet
Office Space                        2,800,000 square feet

Retail Space

Federal Realty Investment Trust (FRIT) was to develop the retail space at Lindbergh
Center, but due to internal turnover in the company, they abandoned the project in 2001.
Since then, Carter & Associates has assumed the development of the retail space. At this
point 70,000 square feet of retail should be complete by September 2003. This retail
space is ground floor retail with office space on the upper floors. Zoning allows for
330,000 square feet of retail, but Carter & Associates is targeting a total of 225,000
square feet of retail at build-out.

Lindbergh Center is planned to be primarily a neighborhood and specialty retail center,
not a destination center for the larger region, with a combination of restaurants, an ice
cream store, boutiques and shops. The developer is currently negotiating with potential
anchors and was unable to disclose names. However, they confirmed that an unnamed
grocery store will definitely be one of the tenants of the development. The developer had
hoped to have a 35,000 square foot grocery store but was told by numerous players in the


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                            33
                                                                                            White Paper:
                                                                              Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                             March 2004


market that the store needed to be at least 50,000 square feet. The supermarket will
occupy 55,000 square feet, with second level parking on the roof. Due to its proximity to
interior design showrooms and galleries, many of the tenants at the Center will likely be
galleries and showrooms in addition to the traditional retail. Restaurants will also be a
part of the tenant mix (see Figure 3).

Across the street from the site is an old shopping center which is home to a Kmart and
other small stores. The owner of this center will demolish and redevelop the site because
it is antiquated by current retail standards. They plan to put in a number of big-box
retailers to meet the transformation of the district.

One of the challenges Lindbergh will have will be supporting the 70,000 square feet of
retail slated to open this fall, as it is supposed to be neighborhood based and there is no
housing built at this time. Additionally, the site is in a more suburban area of Atlanta
(although it is in the city limits). It is not clear how much retail support can be derived
from the surrounding residences. However the developer feels that the residential
component will open shortly after the retail is leased and open, and claims that market
studies reflect that the demographics of the area will support the retail. They anticipate
no problems for the businesses.59

Office Space
Bell South hired Carter & Associates to develop their office headquarters at the
Lindbergh Center site. The Bell South offices are complete, with 1.0 million square feet
of office space. Bell South currently occupies 65% of the building and expects 100%
occupancy by the end of the year. It is not fully occupied because Bell South decided to
move different departments to the building than they had originally planned. At full-
occupancy, the Bell South offices will house 3,500 employees. In addition to the Bell
South building, MARTA headquarters are also on the site and Carter & Associates plans
to develop and own one more office building at the Lindbergh Center. In total, there will
be 2.8 million square feet of office space at the Lindbergh Center site.

Residential
As mentioned earlier, Lindbergh Center is located in a suburban pocket within the City of
Atlanta. When the plans for the mixed-use development were approved, a group of four
to five vigilant neighbors, who were also attorneys, filed two lawsuits against MARTA
opposing the housing component of the development, but lost both times. They did not
want such a large-scale development built near their homes. It appears to have been a
NIMBY issue more than anything else. The lawsuits greatly affected the ability to move
forward on the residential aspects of the development, which had to be put on hold for the
duration of the lawsuit. Additionally, by the time the lawsuits were resolved, the housing
market had become weaker. Post, who was the original residential developer, no longer

59
     Hoath, Michael. Director of Development, Carter & Associates, Inc. Phone interview, 7/30/03.


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                        34
                                                                                           White Paper:
                                                                             Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                            March 2004


wanted a part in the development when the head of the company left. They were wary of
the anticipated slowdown in real estate markets nationwide and the neighborhood
opposition that delayed the project.60 After not having a residential developer for a
period of time, Carter & Associates selected the Harold A. Dawson Company in late
2003 as the new residential developers of the site, and they will be building
approximately 400 apartment units and 110 condominium units. A 190-room hotel is
also planned.

Parking

Although there is a nine-story parking structure with thousands of vacant spaces, parking
is considered to be greatly reduced compared to national parking standards. In this case,
MARTA built the parking structure before the other uses were developed. Expecting that
peak uses of the structure would vary between retail and office uses, the developers and
MARTA used a 25% modal split model to determine the parking ratios. Retail is at 3.7
parking spaces per 1,000 square feet (typically 4 per 1,000 square feet) and Bell South
has 2.33 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Other office space is at 2.7 spaces per 1,000
square feet (typically 3 per 1,000 square feet). There is definitely an expectation by both
Bell South and MARTA that Bell South employees will be making substantial usage of
public transportation to commute to and from work.

Ridership
The current ridership for MARTA at the Lindbergh Center stop can be divided into three
categories: bus-to-rail, park-and-ride, and walk-and-rail. Bus-to-rail sees the highest
ridership; it primarily serves those who do not own cars and have no choice but to use
public transit. Next is the park-and-ride, which sees some ridership, and currently there
is almost no walk-and-rail ridership, which had been expected to increase significantly
with the occupancy of the mixed-use development. Perhaps the addition of housing will
increase walk-and-rail.61

Role of MARTA in Development
At this point in time, MARTA has invested $115 million in sewers, parking, inner
roadways, expanding boarding platforms, building stairs and escalators and other
structural aspects of the development intended to serve the planned TOD development.
A nine-level parking structure remains with thousands of vacant spaces daily because the
retail and housing elements have not been developed yet. At this point, all of the money
MARTA has invested in the project is considered a sunk cost because interior roadways
and parking spaces cannot be sold. MARTA had hoped that Lindbergh would be a good
example of a TOD in Atlanta and would end up making enough money to fund other

60
     Wilbert, Tony. “Developer May Exit Rail Project.” BizAtlanta Journal. October 3, 2000.
61
     No data was available on current ridership numbers from MARTA.


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                       35
                                                                                            White Paper:
                                                                              Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                             March 2004


TODs in the city. While it still has the potential to be a successful TOD, the number of
project setbacks has generated some doubt within MARTA about the future of the site.
While MARTA representatives expressed doubts about the project’s overall success,
developers seem enthusiastic.

Lessons Learned
According to the developer, Carter & Associates, the number one problem of TODs is the
ownership issue involved with vertical integration (mixed uses on different floors of a
single building) and vertically owned buildings. It is expensive, timely and cumbersome
to bring together a group of developers to vertically develop, and lawyers are not yet
prepared to deal with the issues that arise from these relationships. Michael Hoath of
Carter & Associates believes that instead of vertically mixed-use development,
horizontally mixed-use development will prevail, meaning that each component will have
its own separate facility, but be clustered near other uses.62 This model will allow for a
mix of uses to be in proximity to one another while allowing the developer to own their
own pad, avoiding the complexities of vertical ownership. The problems faced in Atlanta
with this project in relation to vertical versus horizontal mixed-use development, may be
a more localized issue. Vertical mixed-use development is relatively common in the Bay
Area and more dense urban locations.

The struggles and delays of the Lindbergh Center project shed light on the complexities
of TOD development. The change in partners, the intricacies of ownership for mixed-use
buildings between developers, and the partnership between public and private entities all
made this project challenging. One of the more surprising aspects of this research was
the apparent lack of coordination between the developer and MARTA. When speaking
with MARTA, they seemed very unclear about any potential progress on the site, citing
unoccupied retail and an overall halt in development. In contrast, from the developer’s
perspective, there appears to be a feeling that the project faced some delays but is now
moving along fine. It will be interesting to see how the initial retail fares without the
residential component of the project complete, and to see whether the project will
become, as initially planned, a true TOD providing transportation, entertainment,
shopping and residential uses in a vibrant urban environment.

The problems faced at Lindbergh are identified by Strategic Economics in their paper on
TOD discussed above. There was a lack of coordination and communication between
entities, each with its unique set of issues, concerns, and requirements. The project
infrastructure appears to have been constructed too soon and not phased appropriately
with development. Lawsuits have held up the residential component, which no one could
have foreseen. Overall, however, the developers appear optimistic and excited to see the
project completed.



62
     Hoath, Michael. Director of Development, Carter & Associates, Inc. Phone interview, 7/30/03.


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                        36
                                                                                        White Paper:
                                                                          Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                         March 2004


Figure 3: Site Map for Lindbergh Center63




63
  Provided by Michael Hoath, Director of Development, Carter & Associates, Inc. Phone interview,
7/30/03.


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                     37
                                                                   White Paper:
                                                     Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                    March 2004


Figure 4: District Area Map for Lindbergh Center64




64
     Ibid.


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                               38
                                                                                          White Paper:
                                                                            Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                           March 2004



3. UPTOWN DISTRICT, SAN DIEGO, CA
Project Overview
Uptown District is located in the Hillcrest area of San Diego and was built in 1989 on a
former Sears’s site. The City had originally purchased the 14-acre site as the potential
location for the central library, but when plans fell apart they decided to use it as a
prototype urban mixed-use project. A $70 million project, Uptown District consists of a
combination of housing, a large grocery store, retail, restaurants, parks and courtyards,
and a community center. Oliver McMillan developed the site in partnership with the City
of San Diego, who provided the land estimated at $10 million.

Table 5: Uptown District Land Use Program (14 acre site)
USE                                     SIZE
Residential                             318 units (304,000 square feet)
Retail/Commercial                       137,000 square feet
Office Space                            Not Available

Retail
Uptown has a total of 137,000 square feet of commercial and retail space, including a
42,000 square foot Ralph’s grocery store. Approximately 102,000 square feet of retail is
ground floor retail, with 29,000 square feet of second story retail. Since the development
opened as the recession hit, there were some challenges to leasing up the space but not
more so than other projects. The biggest challenge has been leasing the second story
space which has been marketed both as office and retail space at different times. All of
the small retailers are struggling, regardless of ground floor or second story space and
many small businesses such as restaurants, a pet shop, a yogurt shop, a women’s clothing
store, coffeehouse, travel agency, evening gown rental shop and a local clothing
designers’ store have all gone out of business.65 Some of these small business owners
blame the slow economy while others blame the design, including one of the original
leasing agents who said that Uptown District was “…a case where the developer bent
over backwards to fit what the planners really wanted, and they paid a price for that.
Planners have great ideas, but that doesn’t mean they’re always functional.”66

The smaller-scale Ralph’s supermarket has been extremely successful (as has a new
Trader Joe’s which opened several years after Ralph’s). While there is not an abundance
of signage, residents of the area like the human scale of the store, which instead of being
a monumental building behind a sea of parking lot, the store is nestled within and fronted
by a small ring of shops, visible from the street, and not the typical open field of parking.
The Ralph’s also has a small pylon sign in a courtyard next to University Avenue. This

65
     “Unsprawl Case Study: Uptown District in San Diego, California.” www.terrain.org. Summer 1998.
66
     Ibid.


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                        39
                                                                               White Paper:
                                                                 Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                March 2004


neighborhood feel is a theme that planners and architects worked hard to create and as a
result the Uptown Ralph’s is one of the most successful of the Southern California
supermarket chain. Since the grocery parking is mostly underground, many supermarkets
were not interested in Uptown, but it has not been an issue because although it is
underground it is easily accessible and has not turned away prospective shoppers. Ralph’s
has since built at least two more ‘urban infill’ stores in the San Diego region that use
structured parking, and a Whole Foods store down the street from Uptown has parking on
the roof.

Housing
Developed on just over 7-acres, the residential development consists of 320 housing
units, 20 townhomes, 10 artist’s lofts, and 290 apartments. Unlike the retail portion of
the development (with the exception of Ralph’s and Trader Joe’s), the residential market
at Uptown has thrived. The density of the residential component of the development is
43 dwellings per acre, with residential parking located underground allowing for
narrower streets and less on-street parking. There is a building height limit of 50 feet,
keeping things on the neighborhood scale of development. There is also a 3,000 square
foot community room that is adjacent to one of the commercial mixed-use streets that are
used by residents of the project, providing a space for meetings, social gatherings and
other events. The housing surrounds courtyards and urban parks, creating outdoor
gathering areas and space for residents.

Parking
Parking at Uptown District is almost entirely subterranean, and parking ratios were
reduced because of its designation as a TOD. Parking ratios for Uptown are 2.5 spaces
per 1,000 square feet of retail space. For the housing, the parking for townhouses is 2
spaces per unit and for the apartments the requirement is 1.7 spaces per unit.

Lessons Learned
The biggest lesson learned was that supermarkets and their parking do not have to be
seen from the street to be successful as long as there is good signage and demand exists
in the neighborhood for a grocery store. People tend to know where their supermarket is;
since it is an essential retail store they will seek markets out and are willing to park
underground although they might avoid underground parking at first. The center is so
popular now that the parking lot is almost always full.

An undergraduate student at the University of California, San Diego wrote a thesis in
1994 on Uptown District by sending out surveys to the residents of Uptown, of which
51% responded. His research showed that residents of the Uptown District walk more
and drive less than they used to. Residents on average were making 3.6 automobile trips
per day, versus 5.1 trips per day before moving to Uptown. Even more dramatic was the


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                            40
                                                                                     White Paper:
                                                                       Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                      March 2004


number of walking trips by residents which increased to 6.5 walking trips per week
versus 2.7 before. The thesis concluded that “the utilization of mixed land use and high
development densities, works as an effective transportation demand management
strategy” and attributes it more to the design of the development rather than the
surrounding neighborhood.67

One of the main reasons for the success of Uptown is that it is embedded in a
neighborhood with a historic street car suburb pattern of walkable streets oriented
towards University Avenue, which is a main commercial street in the area. Uptown is a
horizontal mixed-use infill development that provides a good set of lessons related to
infill mixed-use development but not necessarily lessons about retail and TODs. Second
floor retail is difficult in any setting and adding that component to a TOD is not
recommended.




                           Figure 5: Site Map of Uptown District




67
  Cenzano, J.C. “Uptown District: Land Use Planning As A Transportation Demand Management
Strategy.” Undergraduate Thesis, University of California at San Diego. June 1, 1994.


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                 41
                                                                                        White Paper:
                                                                          Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                         March 2004




                             Figure 6: Images of Uptown District68



68
     Images found on website of SGPA Architecture and Planning (www.sgpa.com).


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                    42
                                                                                 White Paper:
                                                                   Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                  March 2004



4. PLEASANT HILL BART STATION

Project Overview
The Pleasant Hill BART project is located within the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area
Specific Plan and was originally planned to include housing and employment adjacent to
the Pleasant Hill BART station transportation hub. The site is in an unincorporated area
of Contra Costa County and is therefore being planned by the Redevelopment Agency of
Contra Costa County in association with other local government and transit agencies.
The Specific Plan area is 125 acres total, although the development discussed in this case
study is located on the 12 acres immediately adjacent to the BART Station tollgates that
were formerly the BART parking lot.

The Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan provides for much higher density
than what is actually being developed on the site. A higher density development was not
developed due to a variety of political issues including neighborhood opposition and
opposition from surrounding cities. The original plan was to have regional office and
retail space. A major concern of adjacent, incorporated cities included fears that as a
regional attractor, this development would steal customers from their own downtown
redevelopment projects and thus, sales tax and other revenues. In the late 1980s, Contra
Costa County approved a large office building in the Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan
area (though not on the BART property). The County was sued by the City of Walnut
Creek, and the settlement agreement included what would and what would not be
permitted in the Specific Plan area. The outcome of the settlement agreement was that
the County agreed to a cap of 100,000 square feet of retail on the BART property as long
as the City of Walnut Creek would never again sue the County. BART was never party
to any of these discussions.

The site offers convenient access to local businesses and services as it is accessible to
BART, is adjacent to the I-680 Freeway, and is also at the intersection of a large arterial
boulevard. However, even though this site is a prime regional destination, political
compromises were made as a result of the lawsuit and other pressures and all subsequent
projects have been downsized. Additionally, the Pleasant Hill BART Station currently
has an average of over 6,300 daily passengers boarding at their site.

In the mid 1990s the Redevelopment Agency of Contra Costa County sent out an RFP to
develop the BART site, and Millennium Partners was chosen from a dozen applicants as
the developer for the site. The original proposal from Millennium Partners was a large
entertainment complex that would have been significantly over 100,000 square feet,
requiring a plan amendment. At the same time, however, downtown Pleasant Hill,
Concord, and Walnut Creek were all planning their own downtown multiplex cinemas.
The opposition from the consortium of cities combined with local neighborhood
opposition ultimately conspired to defeat the proposal, which was then withdrawn by
Millennium. As a result of the opposition, local government agencies involved in the


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                             43
                                                                                         White Paper:
                                                                           Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                          March 2004


project and Millennium Partners went through community-based charettes, which they
felt was an effective way to bring everyone to a common denominator, and they came
back with the current project proposal.

At this time (early 2004) the project is still in the process of getting approvals. Phase I
will include constructing a new parking garage, which is expected to take 1.5 years to
complete. Phase II includes construction of housing with ground floor retail and is
expected to take two years to complete. Phase III will be the construction of the office
space, which should take another two years to complete depending on the amount of
office space to be built (which depends on market conditions at that time).69 It is unclear
exactly how many square feet of each type (office, retail, and housing) will be built
because there are so many variables and the economy may change significantly over the
course of the next seven years. Ultimately the project will carry much less retail then it
could have and should have according to the marketplace due to the political controversy
and constraints.70

Table 6: Pleasant Hill BART Station Land Use Program (12-acre site)
USE                                   SIZE
Housing                               450 units (apartments and townhomes)
Retail/Commercial/Office Space        42,000 square feet

Housing
The development will consist of approximately 450 units of housing, both apartments and
townhomes. Of the 400 apartment units, 20% or approximately 80 units will be
affordable rental units. The 54 remaining units will be for-sale townhomes.

Retail Tenants
As this project was originally planned as a regional retail and entertainment destination, it
was not necessary to provide incentives to the developer to include retail in the project.
Due to market studies and prime location, the city and developer would have liked to
have included greater amounts of retail space but were unable to due to the settlement
agreement from the late 1980s along with opposition from surrounding cities and local
neighbors. Now the project is too small to be a significant retail presence in the area,
especially given the success of neighboring cities, such as Walnut Creek, in creating
destination retail locations in their own jurisdictions.

For the 42,000 square feet of local, area-serving development being built currently, there
is no real retail anchor, although the notion of the site being anchored by a business
conference center has been discussed. The County would like to see 15,000-20,000
square feet of restaurant space due to the large daytime population, although the

69
     Mark Farrar, Millennium Partners. Phone interview, 11/25/03.
70
     Jim Kennedy, Director, Redevelopment Agency of Contra Costa County. Phone interview, 12/4/03.


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                       44
                                                                                     White Paper:
                                                                       Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                      March 2004


developer said it might be difficult to attract restaurants to the site. The small amount of
retail that is planned on the site is targeted to BART patrons, office tenants, and multi-
modal residents within a 2-mile radius. The retail on the site will be predominantly
below the residential and office spaces, although there is the possibility of a couple
freestanding retail PADs. Otherwise they plan on having local serving retail such as dry
cleaners, which the developers feel can be supported. Currently there is approximately
60,000 square feet of retail in the immediate surrounding area.

In general, retail demand from BART riders is very limited and difficult to sustain, price
points are important for most riders, and direct proximity to exits and entrances is key. If
prices are higher than those offered at supermarkets and other types of convenience
stores, the goods do not sell. The types of products sold at BART stations by Black Bart,
Inc., include videos, coffee, beverages, flowers, sundries, sandwiches, pizza, bagels, and
pastries. Brian Black, owner of Black Bart, Inc., currently operates a small convenience
store 8 feet away from the entrance and exit gates of BART and he says that they attract
only 1% of riders.71 Black believes that the current proposed plan has too much retail,
unless they are able to attract a large chain store such as Longs Drugs. Black also feels
that if the retail is located on the ground level of housing and office, it will be too far
away to attract riders passing through the area on BART. He is not sure why the
developers and County believe that there will be demand for restaurants, as two
restaurants nearby just closed because they were struggling financially. He feels that this
is still a very car-oriented society that prefers big-box shopping to small convenience
stores, and that the development at the Pleasant Hill BART Station would be much better
served by housing and office uses, although he warned that with high office rents, large
companies are moving to the Sacramento area where rents are more affordable. He also
noted the high vacancy rates in surrounding office buildings. Black does believe that a
high-quality child care center, senior housing, affordable housing for migrant workers,
medical and dental offices, and small service-oriented businesses, like a hair salon and
laundermat would be highly successful.

Parking
Parking at the site is reduced from standard development parking ratios, although 1:1
parking must be replaced for current BART parking. The proposed 1,400 BART spaces
at the site will be replaced in a parking structure. For the new development, the
maximum number of spaces for office space is 3.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet. For
residential, it is 1.35 spaces per unit (less than the standard of 2 spaces per unit), and
retail has 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet (as compared to the standard of 5 per 1,000
square feet).




71
     Brian Black, Owner, Black BART, Inc. Phone interview, 12/10/03.


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                 45
                                                                                         White Paper:
                                                                           Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                          March 2004




Lessons Learned
Although this project has barely broken ground, it already has a history of nearly seven
years of planning. According to Jim Kennedy, Director of the Redevelopment Agency of
Contra Costa County, political compromising was a major factor in this development. He
believes that at the end of the day, in a perfect world, the BART property that is at the
heart of the Specific Plan would have been a great project with higher densities, including
more retail, office space and residential uses. Kennedy also believes that if the site were
privately owned by a developer that something closer to the original plan could have been
built because of different economic incentives and because of the high demand for retail
in the mid-1990s. If the site had been owned by a private developer, he believes that the
neighborhood would have been less effective in its opposition as well. However, since
the site development was being handled by two public agencies (BART and Contra Costa
County), there were greater opportunities for the opposition to get their voices heard.72

Mark Farrar of Millennium Partners expressed similar sentiments, saying that the nature
of the body making the decisions matters. When publicly elected bodies, such as BART
decision-makers, are involved, the entitlement process is driven by the same pressures
that drive politics instead of policies promoting smart growth.73 The result is less dense
developments that are less focused on smart growth. Another lesson learned, according
to Farrar is that projects such as this are only financially feasible when they are in a
redevelopment area and a land donor is involved. With the 1:1 BART parking
replacement necessary, it would not be financially feasible without the support of
government funding. This is true of all BART station developments; replacing BART
parking with structured parking challenges development at all the BART stations and is
not unique to Pleasant Hill. A particular challenge at Pleasant Hill is that scale of
development is being constrained by political factors.




72
     Jim Kennedy, Director, Redevelopment Agency of Contra Costa County. Phone interview, 12/4/03.
73
     Mark Farrar, Millennium Partners. Phone interview, 11/25/03.


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                       46
                                                                            White Paper:
                                                              Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                             March 2004




                   Figure 7: Current Pleasant Hill BART Station Site




              Figure 8: Illustrative Birds-eye View of Pleasant Hill BART




Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                        47
                                                                                    White Paper:
                                                                      Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                     March 2004




                  Figure 9: Program and Site Map of Pleasant Hill BART



5. RICHMOND TRANSIT VILLAGE
Project Overview
The Richmond Transit Village site is located on 16 acres adjacent to the Richmond
BART station, and is one of the busiest BART stations. The site plan for the Transit
Village was designed by Calthorpe Associates and VBN architects. The Olson Company
was brought on board by the City of Richmond Redevelopment Agency as the developer
in April 2002. One of the unique aspects about this BART station site is that it is served
by multiple modes of transit, including buses, rail (Amtrak), taxis, and BART. The City
of Richmond sees the project as having “high design” and being “very exciting.”74

Project development has been divided into two phases. With the exception of the parking
structure, the first phase, on the West side of the site, expects to be completed in spring

74
 Interview with Gary Hembree, Senior Development Project Manager, City of Richmond Redevelopment
Agency, December 16, 2003.


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                48
                                                                                             White Paper:
                                                                               Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                              March 2004


2005. The timing of the second or Eastern phase is dependent upon the completion of the
first phase, but will not be complete for three to four years after the completion of the
first phase. In addition to access to multiple modes of transit, retail, and housing, the site
will have five pocket-parks for both people passing by and residents.

This project is complex in that it has multiple funding sources and is expected to cost $35
million just in transit infrastructure, reconstruction, and a reorganization of the bus transit
at the site. The total development cost is expected to exceed $100 million. Additionally,
the different access points for bus riders, taxis, train, Kiss’N’Ride and BART make the
design issues complex yet crucial to the projects success.

Table 7: Richmond Transit Village Land Use Program (16-acre site)
USE                                     SIZE
Residential                             231 townhomes
Retail/Commercial                       27,000 square feet75

Housing
The Richmond Transit Village will consist of 231 townhome units of for-sale housing,
50% of which will be affordable to moderate income individuals and families. The
townhomes range in size from 1,350-1,650 square feet and are located at various nodes
around green space (such as the five pocket parks). Approximately 89 of the residential
units will be live/work units as well. The first phase of construction will include 132
housing units, and the second phase will include the remaining 99 housing units. The
Olson Company partnered with a non-profit housing organization to help find residents
for the affordable housing, and priority is given to current Richmond residents. Whether
the immediate surrounding community would be able to afford the new housing is
questionable. This is the first time new, market-rate housing has been developed in the
area and it is selling very well. The first 15 homes were occupied at the end of December
2003.

Retail Tenants
Currently, 27,000 square feet of retail are planned on the site. The developers expect that
the retail tenants will be small convenience retail, such as coffee shops, a newsstand, a
small deli, a dry cleaner and other small-scale retail. A large supermarket is already
located across the street from the site, along with a Walgreens, restaurants, and some
commuter-oriented retail.

The retail is located along a pedestrian pathway designed as a mini “Main Street,” with
retail areas on both ends, and the retail is planned to attract transit riders as well as
pedestrians walking through the Village traveling to the west side of the site for
appointments at Kaiser, the Social Security Administration, and other employers, all
75
     This number might change depending on funding for the project over the next several years.


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                         49
                                                                                   White Paper:
                                                                     Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                    March 2004


located next to the site. This area is currently highly traveled by pedestrians accessing
these services.

There are also plans to have a police substation on the site. There were additional plans
for a Performing Arts Center on the southwest corner of the site. As there is no funding
for the Center currently, this area will probably be used for additional housing and retail.

Another possibility for the site is a child care center, although there is currently a child
care center to the west of the site. The City has not ruled it out as an option, especially if
it is clear that there is a demand for additional child care.

Transportation

As mentioned previously, the Richmond Transit Village serves multiple modes of transit
including BART, multiple bus services (AC Transit, Golden Gate Transit, West County
Transit, and others), rail (Amtrak), taxis, and Kiss’N’Ride. The $35 million in transit
infrastructure alone shows the central role transit has to the site, and the complexity in
funding it although none of the transit agencies that serve the site are giving substantial
money, if any, to the project development. Amtrak will be contributing by building a
new area platform, and the City of Richmond will be putting out a RFP for an intermodal
transit station for the site.

Parking
The first phase of construction will conclude with a five-story, 800-space parking
structure on the West side of the site, to make up for the parking that will be lost by the
construction during the second phase. However, due to budget cuts it is not clear how
this structure will be funded and until this structure is built, the construction of the second
phase of the project on the east side of the site cannot commence.

For the residential units, parking ratios were not lowered, and each unit has a 2-car
garage with guest parking available. The City was willing to lower the parking ratios, but
Olson insisted that parking ratios needed to remain at standard ratios if the units were to
sell successfully. However, there is tandem parking for some of the garages.

For the retail, there is no designated parking at all as the project is seen as pedestrian-
oriented. The City does not believe the lack of parking will be an issue for the “right”
retailers.

Lessons Learned
Some of the lessons learned in the planning process and early construction phases of the
Richmond Transit Village are that one should never underestimate the amount of time
necessary to plan this type of complex, mixed-use project. Additionally, there was a lot


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                50
                                                                                  White Paper:
                                                                    Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                   March 2004


of conflict between the various transit providers, although none of these transit agencies
have any money to contribute to the project. The Community Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Richmond and Olson are working on grants to secure additional funding for
the project.

The CRA emphasized the critical importance of having a solid site plan that works in
terms of transportation and residential uses, where residents and transit riders alike feel
comfortable. The CRA believes it is very important for residents to have a sense of
enclosure, safety and comfort, without the use of gates.

Another lesson learned was the importance of developing a good relationship with the
developer. The CRA feels that Olson is a great developer and has been a good partner.
Olson has been proactive and keen to community concerns, which has been critical in
pushing the project through the various stages of approvals.




                Figure 10: Photo of Richmond Site before Development




Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                51
                                                                            White Paper:
                                                              Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                             March 2004




                   Figure 11: Site Plan for Richmond Transit Village


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                        52
                                                                        White Paper:
                                                          Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                         March 2004




          Figure 12: Renderings of Townhomes at Richmond Transit Village



Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                    53
                                                                                             White Paper:
                                                                               Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                              March 2004



6. FRUITVALE TRANSIT VILLAGE
Project Overview
Fruitvale Transit Village is a $100 million transit-oriented development in Oakland,
California that has become well known because of the community action and
involvement in the planning and design of the site. In the early 1990s BART announced
that it planned to build a large parking structure next to the Fruitvale BART station.
While parking was needed, there was opposition from local residents and business
owners who felt that the project was inappropriate for the area and that it would attract
more traffic, causing greater noise, congestion, and pollution.

A local community development corporation (CDC), the Spanish Speaking Unity
Council, organized local residents and businesses to oppose the BART plans, and claimed
that the planning of any development around the BART station should include residents
and employees who live and work in the area.76 During the early to mid-1990s there was
a great deal of planning by local community members and residents who were able to
contribute their opinions about what they wanted at the project. Today, Fruitvale Transit
Village includes a child care facility, a non-profit health clinic, a library, retail, offices
and pedestrian areas, allowing easy access to essential goods and services and reducing
dependency on the automobile.

The project was planned in two phases, and Phase 1 is currently reaching completion.
Phase 1 consists of the majority of the retail and commercial uses of the project, and
Phase 2, which will be located on the 4 acres of the old BART parking area, will be
primarily housing, with approximately 25,000 square feet of retail or other commercial
uses.

     Table 8: Fruitvale Transit Village Land Use Program (9-acre site)
      USE                                  SIZE
      Housing                              247-267 units77
      Retail                               255,000 sq ft
      Office Space                         30,000 sq ft
      Nonprofit Healthcare Clinic          54,000 sq ft
      Child Care Facility                  16,800 sq ft

The Fruitvale Transit Station has revitalized this low-income neighborhood, attracting
people to its shops and restaurants, which are easily accessible to BART passengers, AC
Transit bus riders, and local residents. Because the Fruitvale BART station is only one
stop from the Oakland Coliseum, many people come to Fruitvale, park their cars, meet
friends for dinner and a drink, and then take BART to the Coliseum, avoiding the traffic

76
     “Fruitvale Transit Village Project, Oakland, CA” Environmental Justice.
77
     The final number of apartment units has not been decided yet.


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                         54
                                                                                 White Paper:
                                                                   Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                  March 2004


and fees associated with parking there. Additionally, in the early 1990s, there was a
vacancy rate of nearly 40% for retail in the immediate area surrounding the Fruitvale
Transit Village. Currently, that has dropped dramatically to a 3% to 4% vacancy rate.
An 18,000 square foot supermarket is in the planning stage just a couple of blocks from
the Village, bringing another needed amenity to the neighborhood.

Housing
Forty-seven, two-story, loft-style apartment units have been completed during Phase 1 of
construction, and 13 of these are affordable units. They are located above the ground
floor retail along the pedestrian corridor and have views of the Oakland foothills or the
San Francisco Bay. Phase 2 of construction is primarily residential and will include
between 200 and 220 apartment units, a percentage of which will be affordable.

Retail Tenants

Phase 1 of the Fruitvale Transit Station includes approximately 255,000 square feet of
retail space, as well as a 16,800 square foot child care center, 15,000 square foot library,
8,500 square foot senior center, and 30,000 square feet of general office space. The retail
space is oriented along an ornate and tree-lined, well-landscaped pedestrian plaza that
connects the intermodal BART station and AC Transit bus hub to a major boulevard at
the other end. The retail is located on the ground floor of two large buildings that straddle
the pedestrian plaza.

The majority of the retail spaces are approximately 800-1,200 square feet, although there
are a couple of retail spaces around 45,000 square feet. Some of the smaller tenants
include a bank, optometrist, coffee shop, specialty markets and a dentist office. There is
no retail anchor, as the Unity Council and other team members decided to exclude
national chains as retailers (partly because of their parking requirements). Starbucks tried
to get a lease at the site and was turned down. Instead there is an independently-owned
coffee shop. Additionally, two neighborhood retailers that have operated locally for over
15 years have signed leases to move to the new Fruitvale site, even though their rents (per
square foot) will nearly triple. One of these stores is Casablanca Bridal and Tuxedo,
which has been very successful and will be tripling their current size and moving into a
45,000 square foot retail store in the Fruitvale development. The other is Acapulco
Records, has expanded and part of their space is now part of the Fruitvale development,
and they are more than willing to pay the higher rents associated with this development.

The Fruitvale Development Corporation had originally been working with a national real
estate company to do their leasing, and this company was going to ask $2.10 per square
foot for the retail space. However, they hired their own Director of Real Estate and they
are currently asking $2.65 per square foot; 94% of their leases are receiving asking




Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                             55
                                                                                         White Paper:
                                                                           Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                          March 2004


price.78 There are currently two vacant retail spaces and eight different businesses vying
for those spaces.

Parking
Although the original BART plan for a parking structure was strongly opposed by the
community, their revised, final plans for the site (upon completion of both phases of
construction) does include two parking structures that will have 1,500 spaces which will
serve BART patrons only. Parking for retail uses includes 35 on-street, metered parking
spaces, and 115 spaces in an adjacent paid parking lot. . Therefore, the 150 spaces
available for shoppers is all paid parking to further discourage automobile use.

Lessons Learned

The Fruitvale Transit Village has become a model transit-oriented development,
attracting visitors from Japan and Europe, and attracting busloads of planners attending
the American Planning Association’s conference in San Francisco several years ago. The
primary feature of this development that made the project stand out was the level of
community involvement, both in the opposition to the original BART plan and the
involvement in the planning of the Village, which now serves the needs of local
neighborhood residents. The revitalization of the area surrounding the site can be
accredited to the success of the development.

Additionally, this project was able to capture more demand and higher retail rents than
they had expected, while not allowing any chain retailers to become tenants. Many
would say that it is too risky to have retail with such limited parking, that it is against
“conventional wisdom,” but as seen here, there is high demand for the retail space at
Fruitvale, and it may exceed supply, which is an unusual situation anywhere and in
particular in a lower income neighborhood. This is a testament to the benefits of good
neighborhood planning.




78
  According to Steve Woolery, Director of Real Estate, Fruitvale Development Corporation in a phone
interview on January 9, 2004.


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                        56
                                                                             White Paper:
                                                               Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                              March 2004




         Figure 13: One of the buildings with retail along the pedestrian plaza




Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                         57
                                                                                           White Paper:
                                                                             Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                            March 2004




                    Figure 14: Renderings of Fruitvale Transit Village.79




79
  Images found at the website of Field Paoli Architects, which worked on the project
(www.fieldpaoli.com)



Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                       58
                                                                                  White Paper:
                                                                    Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                   March 2004



Lessons Learned and Conclusions

OVERALL LESSONS LEARNED
As seen in the case studies, there are numerous ways in which TOD retail is approached
and developed. Some of the key factors to consider in developing a transit-oriented
development and retail are:

            Will the project retail provide neighborhood serving or destination retail?

            What are realistic parking requirements for the project, given the transit usage,
            culture of area, and type of retail planned?

            How much retail can the residential development support, particularly in
            relation to the timing of that development?

            Is the developer willing to work with and consider some non-traditional
            shopping/retail designs? and;

            Is there a connection between the actual transit stop and the retail area, and is
            the parking for transit and other uses clearly defined and enforced.

These are some key decisions that need to be considered early in the planning and design
process because they will affect the design and scope of the project.

Neighborhood Serving Retail versus Destination Retail
Our case studies considered one destination retail location (CityCenter or Englewood)
and five neighborhood serving retail TODs (Uptown, Lindbergh Center, Pleasant Hill,
Richmond, and Fruitvale). The CityCenter project is clearly a destination location, as it
includes a major big-box retailer (Walmart) and civic uses in its overall design.
CityCenter also includes the Outdoor Museum of Art and other public spaces, such as
fountains in which children can play, which make the area an attraction for more than just
neighborhood residents. Therefore, they created a place with large scale-retail that had
broad appeal to a much larger community than just the immediate neighborhood and the
TOD.

Lindbergh Center, Uptown District, Pleasant Hill, Richmond Transit Village, and
Fruitvale Transit Village all have neighborhood serving retail, although Lindbergh will
also have specialty retail that serves the interior design trade or showrooms. Even
Uptown’s retail, with a large grocery store is more community serving than neighborhood
serving. However, Uptown, Pleasant Hill, Richmond and Fruitvale are all of a much
smaller scale than Lindbergh Center, and they are more of a residential mixed-use
project. Fruitvale, however, with 255,000 sqft of retail is the equivalent of a community


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                              59
                                                                                           White Paper:
                                                                             Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                            March 2004


shopping center and as designed it functions as a community center for the neighborhood.
Lindbergh, on the other hand, is very large, has a significant amount of corporate and
government office space, and plans to support its retail development from both residents
of the project as well as employees of the nearly 3.0 million square feet of office space.
Uptown has succeeded in supporting a very successful supermarket, although some of the
retail has struggled, perhaps because Uptown is not a retail destination and the residents
alone cannot support the smaller shops. In addition, some of the in-line shops are on the
second floor; second floor retail struggles in almost all locations, except large regional
shopping centers. Fruitvale, on the other hand, has also been highly successful in regards
to its retail even though only a small number of their housing units have been built. This
is because the Village is in a dense urban neighborhood in which there was a demand for
retail (and services), and it does not depend solely on transit riders or project residents to
support its retail. It has been a long time since new development had occurred in the
neighborhood and there was strong latent demand. It will be interesting to see how the
retail at Lindbergh fares once it is occupied and opens its doors, especially with the lack
of residential development at this point.

          Table 9: Comparison of Retail Square Footage and Housing Units80
                                                              Sq ft of retail
                                  Total Retail  Total Housing per housing
                                    (Sq Ft)         Units          unit
        1. CityCenter               330,000          438           753
        2. Lindbergh Center         225,000          510           441
        3. Uptown District          137,000          318           431
        4. Pleasant Hill            42,000           450            93
        5. Richmond                 27,000           231           117
        6. Fruitvale                255,000          267           955

As the above table shows, there is no pattern of retail to the amount of housing
development in the six TODs reviewed for this paper. There are a variety of reasons for
this, but most likely because retail market studies were not prepared as part of the
planning of the TODs (with the exception of Pleasant Hill). Ironically the project that has
the most retail per unit and is highly successful is Fruitvale and we know from the
interviews that this retail serves the broader community. CityCenter also serves a much
larger area. This simple comparison combined with the case studies above shows that
each area is unique and there are no simple formulas for quantifying how much retail can
be supported at a TOD.




80
  Some of these numbers are subject to change, as some of these projects are in planning stages and do not
have exact numbers available.


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                          60
                                                                                  White Paper:
                                                                    Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                   March 2004


Realistic Parking Requirements for the Project
One aspect and perhaps myth of TOD development is the ability to diminish the number
of parking spaces based on the idea that more people will use transit to get to the site.
Cities often have lower parking ratios for TODs, although many retailers and financers
are hesitant to accept lower parking standards. Depending on the type of TOD
(neighborhood versus destination or big-box) their caution may be justified. As seen at
CityCenter, because the project is a major retail destination, parking is constrained. Most
customers travel to the CityCenter by automobile and not by public transit, so even
though the parking is barely below normal big-box standards (4.5 versus 5 spaces per
1,000 square feet of retail) parking appears to be constrained at this project. The limited
parking, however, appears to be the result of not adequately planning for the park-and-
ride function of the TOD, rather than the parking requirements of the retail.

This issue has potentially negative consequences for the retailers who might find
customers avoiding their stores if they believe they will not find parking. And time has
shown that constrained parking does not get people out of their cars and onto public
transit. Light rail is, at least in Denver, considered as a means of transportation to and
from work, but shoppers do not use it nearly as often. Also, public transit may not be
available to the entire market base of the project, which requires shoppers to get in their
cars to travel to the site. Therefore, as discussed in the literature and shown in practice,
parking and its relationship to the type of retail provided is a key planning factor to
consider.

Uptown, as a neighborhood-serving project, is prospering with diminished parking (2.5
spaces per 1,000 square feet versus the regular 5 spaces), but would provide more if they
could. Because many of its customers are able to travel by foot from their homes within
the TOD and the neighborhood, the parking demand is somewhat alleviated. This project
shows that diminished parking can work with the appropriate type of retail. Fruitvale is
another example of a neighborhood-serving project which is succeeding with greatly
reduced parking. Again, it is an issue of how large an area the retail will draw from and
whether automobiles are going to be the primary means of transportation to and from the
site, regardless of the proximity of public transit.

In order for the East Dublin BART development to allow for reduced parking, the
development will have to include retail that draws employees and residents, as well as
BART passengers traveling through the East Dublin station.

How Much Retail Can the Residential Development Support
It is important to evaluate each TOD project individually to determine the right amount
and mix of retail. Each area will have its own unique retail supply and demand
conditions, including surrounding competition, planned projects, household income,
demand from other areas and market segments, such as employees from office and
industrial uses. Projects that are planned to have neighborhood-serving retail should


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                 61
                                                                                 White Paper:
                                                                   Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                  March 2004


especially take these factors into consideration and make sure market studies are
conducted well before the development of the project. One of the challenges for
Lindbergh, as previously mentioned, seems to be the opening of 70,000 square feet of
retail without any housing development or even full-occupancy of the office space. While
the amount of retail planned may be appropriate to the scale of development, the timing
of the retail and residential uses is a concern. While the developer seems confident that
the retail ultimately will be successful, it is unclear from where they expect the shoppers
to come as employees alone are not usually sufficient demand for the amount of retail
included in the project.

Choosing a Developer that is willing to be Flexible
Developers in all of the case studies expressed that while the projects were overall more
costly than normal retail projects, and required straying from some of the traditional retail
rules-of-thumb, they learned that TOD retail projects can be successful. Many of them
even incorporated some of these non-traditional aspects, such as the “Main Street” model
in later non-TOD retail developments because they saw how successful these components
could be. Bringing on a developer who can be flexible and open to new ideas is critical
for TOD developments because they often require non-standard and creative layout and
design to meet the needs of pedestrians, transit users, and automobile users. However,
these characteristics are also true for developers involved in developing town centers and
new lifestyle centers, projects that are becoming more standard and considered less risky
than in the past. They also take more time and planning and usually require more
collaboration than non-TOD projects.

Making sure that Retail is connected to the Transit Stop
It is important that the transit stop is connected to the retail area physically, but also
through design. Just as the average shopper will not walk 100 yards from their
automobile to a store, one should not expect a passenger to walk across a parking lot or
residential area to get to the shops. If the retail is not adjacent to the transit stop,
landscaping and design must be used to connect one to the other, diminishing the
perceived distance and attracting potential shoppers.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EAST DUBLIN
Keeping the scale of the retail at a community and pedestrian level is the key variable to
ensuring successful retail projects at TODs. But it does matter how you measure success;
developers can feel a project is successful if it generates expected revenues but from a
planning and public policy standpoint, it should be considered successful if it keeps
people out of their cars and encourages them to use transit. A small neighborhood feel is
related to the kind of atmosphere town centers strive for, and there is an appeal for
smaller-scale retail that is inviting to pedestrians and may be alluring to transit riders,
especially if they have needs that can be met at the center. This is what the East Dublin


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                               62
                                                                                        White Paper:
                                                                          Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                         March 2004


Transit Center Specific Plan does when combined with the design guidelines developed
by Community Design + Architecture.

As the East Dublin site will not be a destination retail center, and will depend on
employees and residents for most of its business it is important to develop the site with a
neighborhood feel (i.e., the place function), with amenities that meet the needs of the
consumer base. Conducting community meetings and encouraging community
participation in the design and development concepts will help create a stronger
consumer base. Unfortunately, most of the retail will be planned at the Transit Center
before residents are present. The retail market analysis prepared under separate cover
finds that the amount of retail planned for this project is over stated. And that without
orienting the retail towards the major arterial adjacent to the transit center (and thus,
drawing from a larger market area), only about half of the 70,000 sqft of planned retail
could be supported.

An interesting finding from this analysis is that currently BART riders do not generate
much retail demand. Black BART Inc. is the largest existing retail concessionaire within
the BART system. They have retail concessions at several BART stations and plans for
several more. Black BART reports that they capture about 3% of riders and the average
expenditure is about $3.50 per rider.81 It is not clear, however, whether poor retail
expenditure is a function of the poorly designed retail space and sea of parking around
most existing BART stations or whether this is just a function of lack of demand from
riders. Other areas of the country have retail near transit stations and that does quite well,
such as in Manhattan and even in downtown San Francisco.

APPLICABILITY TO OTHER TODS
Retail, more so than any other type of land use, does not lend itself to formulas or simple
equations of supply and demand, such as residential development where one can easily
assume so many households will need so many housing units. Retail more than any other
type of development is subject to a wide range of demand factors and pressures;
including the shopping whims of customers, the general state of the economy, current
retail supply, and work and travel patterns. The list of types of retail analysis presented at
the beginning of this paper, belay the complexity of retail. And then there are retail
projects, such as the new retail developed as part of the Fruitvale BART Station in East
Oakland that counter some widely held conventions about retail, i.e., it has very little
parking.

The above review of six TODs in terms of retail confirms that there is no pattern to the
type and amount of retail provided at TODs. But there are some consistent challenges.
Parking seems to be the universal challenge. Developers and retailers want revenues and
proponents of TODs typically want to allow for a denser and tightly knit urban fabric. As

81
  See separate Technical Memorandum “Retail Analysis of Dublin Transit Center Specific Plan” prepared
for East Bay Community Foundation by Brion & Associates, August, 2003.


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                     63
                                                                                       White Paper:
                                                                         Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                        March 2004


stated by Strategic Economics, “Parking can become a political, financial, and design
issue, and the goal of providing parking conflicts with place-related goals in many ways”
and “in this way parking whether it serves the transit station itself or the surrounding
uses, reduces the efficacy of transit-oriented development as place.”82 Even when retail
is comprised of convenience-oriented uses, some parking must be provided. When it is
regional-serving in nature such as a Walmart at CityCenter, then parking becomes a huge
issue and can conflict with the other goals of TODs.

While there is no formula for how much retail can be supported by TODs, several factors
should be considered as discussed through this paper. Retail at TODs is meant to be an
amenity and not a primary driving land use for the TOD. If retail is the primary use, then
the project is most likely not transit-oriented development as most retail requires ample
parking. As far as this research could determine, only Pleasant Hill conducted a retail
market study in the planning stages.

As noted by Strategic Economics, much more work is needed on how to truly achieve,
“transit-oriented development, and along those lines more research is needed on how to
best site and configure retail. Evidence suggests that each TOD project will be unique
and needs to be considered individually, following the parameters presented above. One
cannot extrapolate the findings from one TOD and apply it to another TOD across town
or in another city. Other factors such as the political dynamics associated with the project
can totally change the nature of a project and render it having little to do with market
demand, such as in the case of Pleasant Hill.

The three projects located at BART stations (Pleasant Hill, Richmond, and Fruitvale)
seem most relevant to the East Dublin site. The scale of these three projects is
comparable, as is the types of uses. Each of these three projects took advantage of their
location. For Fruitvale, the retail was easily supported by the immediate community
because there had been such a lack of retail beforehand. The Richmond Transit Village is
a major transportation hub that is located near a large Kaiser medical center, in addition
to other offices and government services. By locating their retail on a well-traveled
corridor, they hope to attract the already present pedestrians.

On the other hand, Pleasant Hill had hoped to be a large-scale, destination retail center,
but due to lawsuits and other competing redevelopment projects in surrounding
jurisdictions, the developers have decided to develop the site as more of an employment
center, with some residential uses. They are also considering including a conference
center at the site. It is crucial for each site to take advantage of the amenities and services
already nearby and develop uses that complement and support those uses, so that they can
build upon the market base which is already present. Being realistic about what can be
supported in terms or retail is also important in the planning process. In general, it seems

82
  See “Transit-oriented Development: Moving from Rhetoric to Realty” prepared by Strategic Economics
for The Brookings Institute Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy and The Great American Station
Foundation (June 2002), page 21.


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                                     64
                                                                                 White Paper:
                                                                   Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                  March 2004


that smaller scale, and neighborhood serving retail is a better fit for TOD than large scale
retail uses like big-box and massive entertainment centers.




Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                             65
                                                                               White Paper:
                                                                 Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                March 2004




Bibliography
Adams, Mark. “Surveys Find Strong Sales Occupancy in Town Centers.” New Urban
News Vol. 8, pp. 1-4, April/May 2003.

Barnett, Jonathan. “Redesigning Commercial Strips.” Wharton Real Estate Review Vol.
7, No. 1, pp. 71-80, Spring 2003.

Belzer, Dena and Gerald Autler. “Transit-oriented Development: Moving From Rhetoric
to Reality,” Strategic Economics. June 2002.

Bernick, Michael. “Transit Villages: Tools for Revitalizing Inner Cities.” Access, Fall
1996.

Boarnet, Marlon and Randall Crane. “Neighborhood Supply Issues” and “Transit-
Oriented Planning.” Travel By Design, Chapters 6 and 7. 2001.

Bohl, Charles. “The Return of the Town Center.” Wharton Real Estate Review Vol. 7,
No. 1, pp. 54-70, Spring 2003.

Bolen, Ed and Kenneth Hecht. “Neighborhood Groceries: New Access to Healthy Food
in Low-Income Communities.” California Food Policy Advocates. January 2003.

Bossard, Earl G. et al. “Envisioning Neighborhoods With Transit-Oriented Development
Potential.” The Mineta Transportation Institute. May 2002.

California Department of Transportation. “Statewide Transit-Oriented Development
Study: Factors for Success in California.” Business, Transportation and Housing Agency.
2002.

Calthorpe, Peter. “The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the
American Dream.” Princeton Architectural Press. 1993.

Center for Livable Communities. “Model Projects: Uptown District, San Diego, CA
Neighborhood.” 1995.

Cenzano, Juan Carlos. “Uptown District: Land Use Planning as a Transportation
Demand Management Strategy.” Undergraduate Thesis, University of California at San
Diego. June 1, 1994.

Cervero, Robert and Michael Duncan. “Residential Self Selection and Rail Commuting:
A Nested Logit Analysis.” University of California Transportation Center Working
Paper. December 2002.



Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                            66
                                                                              White Paper:
                                                                Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                               March 2004


Cervero, Robert and Kara Kockelman. “Travel Demand and the 3Ds: Density, Diversity,
and Design.” Transportation Research, vol. 2(3), 199-219. February 1997.

City of Spokane Focused Growth Alternatives Mixed Use Case Studies (35).
“Neighborhood Mixed Use: Portland Oregon.” March 1999.

Community Building Sourcebook, Portland, Oregon . “Belmont Dairy.” Chapter 4:
Transit-Oriented Developments. December 2002.

Dittmar, Hank and Gloria Ohland. “The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit-
Oriented Development.” Island Press. 2004.

Dunphy, Robert, Deborah Myerson, and Michael Pawlukiewicz. “Ten Principles for
Successful Development Around Transit.” ULI-Urban Land Institute, 2003.

Hembree, Gary. Senior Development Project Manager, City of Richmond
Redevelopment Agency. Phone interview, December 16, 2003.

Initiative for a Competitive Inner City. “The Changing Models of Inner City Grocery
Retailing.” July 2002.

Initiative for a Competitive Inner City. “Inner-City Shoppers Make Cents (and Dollars).”
October 2003.

Lapham, Michael. “Transit-Oriented Development: Trip Generation and Mode Split in
the Portland Metropolitan Region.” Portland State University. 2001.

Levine, Jonathan. “Access to Choice.” Access, Vol. 14, 16-19. 1999.

Linneman, Peter and Deborah C. Moy. “The Evolution of Retailing in the United
States.” Wharton Real Estate Review Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 42-53, Spring 2003.

Lockwood, Charles. “Raising the Bar.” Urban Land, February 2003.

Loukaitou-Sideris, Anastasia and T. Banerjee. “There’s No There There: Or Why
Neighborhoods Don’t Readily Develop Near Light-Rail Stations.” Access, vol. 9, 206.
1996.

Northwest Midwest Institute and Congress for the New Urbanism. “Strategies for
Successful Infill Development.” 2001.

Renne, John and Jan Wells. “State of the Literature: Transit-Oriented Development.”
Rutgers University, December 2002.
Rybczynski, Witold. “The Changing Design of Shopping Places.” Wharton Real Estate
Review Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 34-41, Spring 2003.


Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                          67
                                                                               White Paper:
                                                                 Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                March 2004




Terrain.org. “Unsprawl Case Study: San Diego’s Uptown District.” Terrain.org Issue
No. 1, Summer 1998. (http://www.terrain .org/unsprawl/1/)

Tierra Concepts. “Fruitvale Transit Village Retail Opportunities Report.” December
1999.

Wilbert, Tony. “Developer May Exit Rail Project.” BizAtlanta Journal. October 3, 2000.

Interviews
Hoath, Michael. Director of Development, Carter & Associates. Phone interview,
7/30/03.

Moran, Greg. Vice President of Leasing, Miller Weingarten Realty, LLC. Phone
interview, 7/2/03.

Pendergrast, Scott. MARTA. Phone interview, 7/30/03.

Porter, D. “Transit-Focused Development and Light Rail Systems: The Lite
Connection.” Transportation Research Record 1623, 165-169. 1998.

Simpson, Bob. Community Development Director, City of Englewood, Colorado. Phone
interviews, 6/27/03 and 8/1/03.

Wilhoit, John. Senior Planner, City of San Diego. Phone interview, 6/20/03.

Websites:
“CityCenter Englewood” Englewood, Co.
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/hosting/phoenixawards/Presentations/present_02/Cases/case0
(as viewed July 2, 2003).

Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit
Administration. “Fruitvale Transit Village Project.”
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ejustice/case/case6.htm (as viewed June 15, 2003
and 1/6/04).

“Uptown District” San Diego, CA.
http://www.gast-hillmer.com/uptown.html (as viewed June 13, 2003).

Photos and Illustrations:

Photos and illustrations used in this study were either provided by the City within which
each TOD is located or from websites for the TODs or City websites.




Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                           68
                                                                                 White Paper:
                                                                   Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                  March 2004



Appendix A
                   Case Study Questions for East Dublin TOD Project

Planning Department:

    1. When was the project planned/completed? (If not yet complete, when build out
       expected.)

    2. What are the types, mix and amount of retail and service uses present/planned?

    3. What are the types, mix and amount of residential and other commercial – office
       service uses present/planned?

    4. Do the stores tend to be large chain retailers or smaller independent businesses?

    5. Do any retailer(s) act as an anchor for this development?

    6. Is the retail targeted to project residents and employees or does it draw from a
       larger community or area?

    7. How is the retail development configured in the overall project in terms of
       location, access, and visibility?

    8. Does any competitive retail development surround the project? If so, about how
       much and what type?

    9. What incentives, if any, were offered to the developer to include retail
       development in the project? Did it take a long time to lease up?

    10. How much parking is provided (get spaces per 1,000 sqft) and how is it located?
        Did this raise issues for the developers? If so, what compromises were made?

    11. Are there certain kinds of retail that have been more successful than others? What
        seem to be the factors that contribute to the success (or failure) of retail
        establishments at the project?

    12. Has there been any evidence of an increase in transit use or less automobile
        dependency/usage as a result of this project?

    13. Has the project met its original goals?

    14. What are some of the lessons learned form this project, especially in regards to
        retail (related to design, layout, parking, etc.)?



Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                             69
                                                                                  White Paper:
                                                                    Retail and TOD Case Studies
                                                                                   March 2004




Developer/Leasing Agent:

    1. What are the types, mix and amount of retail and service uses present/planned?

    2. How much turnover have you experienced?

    3. Do the stores tend to be large chain retailers or smaller independent businesses?

    4. What retailer(s) is the anchor for this development?

    5. What are the average rents charged by type of retail and are they market rate?

    6. What is the current vacancy of the retail space? Have there been any trends
       associated with this?

    7. How long did it take to lease up the retail? Was it tied to the residential
       development being completed and occupied?

    8. Is the retail targeted to project residents and employees or does it draw from a
       larger community or area?

    9. How is the retail development configured in the overall project in terms of
       location, access, and visibility?

    10. How much parking is provided and how is it located? (ask for spaces per 1,000
        sqft) Is parking an issue? (i.e., is there enough?)

    11. What competitive retail development surrounds the project?

    12. Did you (as developers) have to work to find tenants for the retail/commercial
        space or did the tenants come to you?

    13. Are there certain kinds of retail that have been more successful than others? What
        seem to be the factors that contribute to the success (or failure) of retail
        establishments at the project?

    14. What are some of the lessons learned form this project, especially in regards to
        retail (related to design, layout, parking, etc.)?




Prepared by Brion & Associates                                                              70

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:4
posted:8/13/2011
language:English
pages:75