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

[MNdude]

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


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

By Chris Serres, Star Tribune


When Virel Kapadia moved into Laurel Village apartments in downtown Minneapolis nearly four years ago, the 26-year-old computer engineer thought he'd found a place where he could escape life's daily grind without climbing into his car.
Outside his apartment on Hennepin Avenue was virtually every retail amenity he could imagine, including a food market, two restaurants and a printing shop. On Thursday nights, he would go salsa dancing with other residents at one of the restaurants, and the Latin beat often would spill onto the street.

But over the past year, many of those stores have vanished. So, too, has Kapadia's dream of an urban lifestyle. "I miss having places to walk to," he said.

Not long ago, projects such as Laurel Village, which combine shops and housing in a city-within-a-city atmosphere, were considered the height of smart development. The idea was simple: With shops and restaurants at the base of apartment towers and condominium projects, people would have less reason to get in their cars and would interact with their neighbors, creating vibrant, compact, pedestrian-friendly communities.

But while residents came, retailers didn't necessarily follow. Across the Twin Cities, thousands of square feet of retail space lie vacant in the ground floors of apartment and condominium towers. Residents who moved in expecting coffee shops, art galleries and grocery stores within walking distance now find themselves on urban islands, as isolated and as dependent on their automobiles as if they lived in the suburbs.

The empty storefronts have become so visible that some developers are abandoning plans to include retail in their condo projects for fear of being left with blighted ground floors that would deflate the value of their projects. In some cases, space that was slated for shops or restaurants now is being filled with office or medical tenants.

Although such mixed-use developments often are touted as urban villages, they often lack the parking, road access and population base to support more than just a coffee shop and a few service businesses. The ones that are successful usually have a large anchor tenant that will attract people from several miles away.

"There is a false assumption that people want to shop where they live," said David Crockett, developer of Olin Crossing, a condo project at 53rd Street and Minnehaha Avenue in Minneapolis. "The bottom line is, if people can save a dollar by driving to Target or some other big-box retailer, they'll do it, whether they live in a downtown highrise or in the suburbs."

The high density of retail development in the Twin Cities is another factor working against mixed-use developments. In many neighborhoods, stores and restaurants are within walking distance.

That makes ground-floor retail less of a condo amenity.

Danica Santos, 30, said she passed up buying a condo with a wine bar on the ground floor near Lyndale Avenue in south Minneapolis, opting instead for a quieter condo project known as the Steel Flats at 45th Street and Chicago Avenue S. that had no retail but was three blocks away from a cluster of shops and restaurants.

"We wanted to be in a place where there was retail, but we didn't necessarily want to live right above it," she said. "It's noisier."

No sure bets

Diane Ingram, owner of the E.P. Atelier coffee shop, thought the intersection of 10th Street and Portland Avenue S. in Minneapolis' Elliot Park neighborhood was as close to a sure bet as she could find in retail. More than 6,000 people live within several square blocks, and the nearest coffee shop was six blocks away. Her goal when she opened in 2004 was to create a "great third place," as she called it, where neighbors would gather for live music and discussion.

But nearby residents didn't come in the numbers Ingram expected, which she attributed to high turnover in the apartments and a lack of other retailers nearby. "Look around. We have no dry cleaner. No hardware store. No beauty salon," said Ingram, who recently took out a second mortgage to pay the bills.

Ingram also is concerned by what she sees across the street: A 27-story highrise known as Skyscape Condominiums, with a ground floor that still is vacant even though residents begin moving in next month. "Retail Space For Lease" signs cover the front windows, though an agent handling the property says she's close to finalizing a retail tenant.

"If they can't get retail, in a building that large, what does it say about anyone starting retail in a condo project?" Ingram said.

Even successful mixed-use projects have taken longer than expected to find retail tenants. Excelsior & Grand in St. Louis Park opened with 337 luxury apartments in late 2004 but didn't fill its last retail space for 18 months. The project boasts a Trader Joe's supermarket, Pier 1 furniture store, Starbucks and Panera Bread.

Large retail chains often expect space and parking better suited for suburban strip centers and malls, said Gary Wilson, asset manager for Told Development Co., which developed and owns Excelsior & Grand. "A mixed-use environment will never satisfy some chains," he said. "The complexity of mixed use doesn't lend itself to a cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all approach."

Parking, parking parking

In many cases, condo developers view retail as an afterthought, which makes it difficult to find tenants once the project is finished. Many projects lack adequate venting, storage and space for trash disposal, Realtors said.

"The problem is, too many of these condo projects are geared toward people who live in them -- that is, single people with plenty of time to walk around," said Kathy Doyle Thomas, executive vice president of Half Price Books, a Texas chain that has six stores in the Twin Cities -- none in mixed-use projects. "But the reality is, I've got a car with three screaming kids, and I'm not going to go there if there's a problem with parking."

Molly Bird, president of M2 Real Estate Group in St. Paul, said scarcity of parking was a major reason more than one-third of the retail space remains unfilled in Sibley Court and Sibley Park, two adjacent apartment projects developed about three years ago in downtown St. Paul.

"There are people who moved there thinking it would be this urban neighborhood environment," Bird said. "They're still having to get in their cars and drive to Grand Avenue if they want to shop."

At Laurel Village, parking was a problem from the beginning. Most of the parking spaces were behind the building and were controlled by just a few of the project's larger retailers. One by one, tenants started pulling out, including a City Market grocery store and a Sir Speedy printing shop. Now, the few tenants that remain include two fast-food chains: Subway and Davanni's.

Chuck Howard, a partner with Equity Commercial Services who handles retail leasing at Laurel Village, said CVS Pharmacy recently signed a lease and should open early next year. A Lunds grocery store is planned for a site across the street at S. 12th Street and Hennepin Avenue, though a spokesman for Lunds said there is no set timetable for its opening.

"We hope that CVS and Lunds will generate some new interest in this project and attract some quality tenants," Howard said.

But even if all the empty storefronts at Laurel Village were filled, Jessica Siemens, 24, who recently bought an apartment there, suspects she would still drive to Uptown to get a lot of her essentials. "It's nice to walk places," she said, "but sometimes you just want to get in your car and drive somewhere."


Staff writer Susan Feyder contributed to this report. Chris Serres • 612-673-4308 • cserres@startribune.com

©2007 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.

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

[Kilgore Trout]

if there isn't already a critical mass of residents it will take awhile for retail spaces to fill. not only that, but if a city lacks a significant number of people who get around primarily by foot and transit, street-level retail without parking will suffer.

i can certainly say that this isn't a problem in vancouver and montreal.

[Marcu]

Isn't this just an example of failed social engineering? Government or a developer will never be able to get the supply/demand numbers just right. For example, in one of the neo-urbanist community in Chicagoland the supermarket went out of business for exactly this reason. An organic market process is much more effective. A developer can't just march in and say we will have one dry cleaners, one pharmacy, and one bar. The best thing governments and developers can do is create the right environment (zoning, density requirements, etc.) and let the market sort out the rest.

[Swede]

In some cases, space that was slated for shops or restaurants now is being filled with office or medical tenants.

In my naivity I thought that would be part of any plans? Of course there's not gonna be enough market for shops everywhere at first, that really needs high denisty over a large area. So just have them be shop/office spaces to start with and let market forces decide which end up as which...

[holladay]

^ I agree. Flexibility is key here. Over time the tenant mix will change as the needs of the community evolve. The important thing is that new developments continue to make provisions for retail space.

[mhays]

Most "neighborhood" retail needs many hundreds or even thousands of residents to make it work. It's not downward scalable -- even if 5,000 residents merit 50 businesses, 500 residents might not merit even 5 businesses. Not if a given business requires 1,000 residents.

Further, many urban neighborhoods (like my Belltown neighborhood in Seattle) require or strongly encourage retail on every street (in our case the N-S avenues). But unless you have huge blocks, i.e. fewer streets, there's way more street frontage than the retail demand requires. Our blocks aren't huge, and the neighborhood density is only in the 30,000 range plus a moderate office population. Belltown has some decent retail stretches, partially because we draw restaurant customers from elsewhere, but largely the retail is dispersed and doesn't reach critical mass. So we have our share of insurance companies and vacant storefronts too.

Many dense, prosperous parts of Manhattan focus retail on major streets while having little or none on other streets -- Upper West Side, Upper East Side, etc. London does well with this also, in its "high street" format. Even Hong Kong has quiet side streets.

[Stephenapolis]

One issue that is not mentioned in the article (of course). Is that Laurel Village is right on some very busy roads in a congested part of town. This makes it very pedestrian unfriendly. So the alternative is to drive. Issues with most other developments is that they are within walking distance of other shops.
This article was in the StarTribune. This "newspaper" is notoriuos for being anti-urban.

[VivaLFuego]

Most "neighborhood" retail needs many hundreds or even thousands of residents to make it work. It's not downward scalable -- even if 5,000 residents merit 50 businesses, 500 residents might not merit even 5 businesses. Not if a given business requires 1,000 residents.

This is exactly it. High population density for a significant stretch of land is absolutely vital for such retail activity. Many people (not on this board, of course) seem to have this notion that if only developers would build retail, maybe we'd have more retail options in our neighborhood.

The most critical thing is lots and lots of residents, then the businesses find their own way in.

[SpongeG]

i know with vancouver - a lot of the buildings that have residential above retail/cafes etc replaced buildings that used to be retail or cafes etc. before

they have created whole areas that have retail components that were successful though - like the urban fare - but it was an area that was desperatley needing a super market - so the smaller things like starbucks fill in

[shovel_ready]

if there isn't already a critical mass of residents it will take awhile for retail spaces to fill. not only that, but if a city lacks a significant number of people who get around primarily by foot and transit, street-level retail without parking will suffer.

i can certainly say that this isn't a problem in vancouver and montreal.

You hit the nail on the head. This is a really a regional culture of transportation issue. In a region where almost everyone with discretionary income gets around by car, the retail landscape will be dominated by box bigboxes and stripmalls.

In North America, trying to inject Alpha city urbanism into a setting where walking and transit isn't the dominant established way of life (even if its an old downtown) won't create the desired results by splattering a few condos here and there.

For now, the "Main St./High St" concept is what will work best. Keep shopping along busy streets that have already been established as commercial corridors for years.

The article stated:
"The bottom line is, if people can save a dollar by driving to Target or some other big-box retailer, they'll do it, whether they live in a downtown highrise or in the suburbs."

This is an ugly truth most NA cities have to contend with. Most of these places are nowhere close to having the critical mass of density and urban culture needed to support strong urban core retail districts.

[mhays]

Vancouver does several things right. First, the Downtown peninsula has a residential density in the 40,000 or 45,000/sm range, a similar number of office workers, and a fair number of visitors, both local and non-local. Second, they focus retail on major streets rather than every streets (the West End in particular has many leafy quiet streets lined with apartments). Thirdly, the city's focus on transit rather than freeways reduces trips to big boxes.

I have hopes for Belltown in Seattle, an area around 200 acres roughly between the Space Needle and the CBD. Like I said it's probably 30,000 resident/sm now plus some office workers. But it's only, say, 60% through a several-decade period of growth, and right now it's growing quickly with another 1,250 units u-c.

Belltown's growth will reduce the restaurant and nightclub markets for the simple reason that growth eliminates parking and the lion's share of our nightlife patrons don't use transit. Growth will also add more retail space, generally in clumsy ways, not contributing to critical mass in any one area. But new projects are also providing new customers in every category. What we really need is a major retail block centered on a supermarket -- we're surrounded by supermarkets (Whole Foods, Metropolitan Market, QFC, and Safeway are all a short walk) and the Pike Place Market, but this neighborhood is a gap.

[Chef]

There is a glut of retail space in Minneapolis right now. Even Uptown is suffering. They overbuilt in the last 10 years, it's as simple as that.

[nath05]

There is a glut of retail space in Minneapolis right now. Even Uptown is suffering. They overbuilt in the last 10 years, it's as simple as that.

Yep. But that doesn't mean that new projects should be allowed without retail, as the article implies. As an optimistic person, I'm more inclined to read the title: They built it, but they didn't come....yet. As long as the physical environment is there for storefront retail, it will happen eventually. We're just in a slow period now.

[Cirrus]

It's all been said already. The required density of walkable units isn't there.

Isn't this just an example of failed social engineering?Writing laws that subsidize the suburban lifestyle, such as single-use zoning, tax breaks on homes and gas, ridiculously low maximum density restrictions, required parking, and billions of taxpayer dollars spent on ever more wider and longer roads... THAT'S social engineering. The "American Dream" is social engineering.

A handful of new urbanists trying to serve a niche market of people who want something different, but can't get it because of the overwhelming systemic opposition to it at virtually every level of government? That's nothing but capitalism at work. It's the market trying to correct social engineering gone too far. If it fails it's because the socially engineered system is too strong to overcome.

[Marcu]

Writing laws that subsidize the suburban lifestyle, such as single-use zoning, tax breaks on homes and gas, ridiculously low maximum density restrictions, required parking, and billions of taxpayer dollars spent on ever more wider and longer roads... THAT'S social engineering. The "American Dream" is social engineering.

A handful of new urbanists trying to serve a niche market of people who want something different, but can't get it because of the overwhelming systemic opposition to it at virtually every level of government? That's nothing but capitalism at work. It's the market trying to correct social engineering gone too far. If it fails it's because the socially engineered system is too strong to overcome.

I'm not sure we disagree. I was simply saying a governmental body or a developer can't mandate certain types of uses for land and expect everything to work out accordingly for the sake of establishing some sort of conceived "community", whether that community is urban or suburban. There will undoubtedly be shortages and surpluses of something. In this case a surplus of retail storefronts. The best thing we can do is set the right conditions and let the market sort out the rest. Low density restrictions, required parking, etc. are certainly not the right conditions I was refering to.

[Cirrus]

True enough, then.

[shovel_ready]

Another fun snippet from the article:

"But the reality is, I've got a car with three screaming kids, and I'm not going to go there if there's a problem with parking."

This is a striking facet of modern American middle-class culture: Child rearing and cities are completely incompatible. The kids are gonna suddenly keel over and die if they have to walk a few blocks with their impatient soccer mommy!

"Problem with parking" translates as: "The parking is not FREE and not within 100 feet from the entrance of my destination. My fatass and boogery screaming snots in tow ain't walking anywhere!"

Both parents working full time doesn't help either. This is a huge contributor to the "culture of convenience" that fuels the sprawl lifestyle.

[MtnClimber]

There are just to many dam malls in minnesota =)

[Policy Wonk]

This is an ugly truth most NA cities have to contend with. Most of these places are nowhere close to having the critical mass of density and urban culture needed to support strong urban core retail districts.

That depends on how you describe "strong urban core retail districts" and that will clash with the day to day expectations of real residents. People want their Wal-Mart, very few people could afford (if they even had any desire) to do all their shopping at a combination of downtown boutiques and over-priced small grocery stores where they can get over-priced week old produce and some attitude from an angry immigrant.

Yet try to open a major supermarket or a wal-mart and you guys will be in the street with pitchforks and torches.

[mhays]

Personally I'd be fine with a Wal-Mart if they were part of a dense development.

Actually, anywhere near Downtown Seattle, a dense format would be much cheaper for them than a typical large lot -- the land alone would cost several times what they typically pay for construction of an entire store, so reducing the land cost would be a necessary first step even though it would raise construction costs.

Still wouldn't shop there of course due to their general evil. Plus, on my "average" salary, I find my corner store, Whole Foods, the Pike Place Market, NikeTown, Macy's, etc., to be plenty affordable. I wouldn't say "very few".

[tayser]

three words:

Sydney Olympic Park.

[Segun]

Another fun snippet from the article:



This is a striking facet of modern American middle-class culture: Child rearing and cities are completely incompatible. The kids are gonna suddenly keel over and die if they have to walk a few blocks with their impatient soccer mommy!
.

Boom. Exactly, and three screaming kids aren't much of a problem if you simply reach backwards and backhand all of them with one massive sweeping motion.

[mhays]

There's some truth to that!

Kids are safe if they behave -- for example, if they stop when you say "stop". But if they think it's funny to run away from you, or refuse to budge, you can't take them anywhere unless grownups outnumber them so you can hold hands. My sister's kids don't follow directions. In fact, they know that the surest way to get a treat is to misbehave and therefore merit a bribe. So I won't take more than one anywhere at a time. I wouldn't ever hit them of course. But, since they live in England, I don't see them often enough to train them. So it's awkward.

[slide_rule]

the accessibility of shops offered by the urban village concept is great. unfortunately these developments cannot easily sustain their residents' retail needs.

in this post, i'm referring to the exurban, mostly greenfield urban villages that have been springing up. they're marketed toward suburbanites who still want a taste of urbanity. (arguably redundant) urban villages in already urban settings generally can develop retail much more easily.

it's usually cheaper to just drive to the local big box/mall, where selection is larger and overhead is lower. successful urban village retailers usually are either the highest profit types (e.g. tanning salons, gourmet coffee and cigar bars), or sell only the most basic items (e.g. milk). finding places offering celery and diapers may not be as easy.

some urban villages have flourishing retail. but many of these customers are from further away. these are successful, but they're not much different from the typical suburban retail outlets. their aesthetics may harken back to the walkable, pre-auto era, but their customers drive.

back when people walked, they did so by default, as automobile penetration was not nearly as high. household sizes were larger, and the variety of merchandise and services offered at the local commercial establishments was much lower. nowadays, it's pretty hard to envision an urban village (which doesn't have coruscant-like density) offering the same array of services and merchandise as the typical suburban mall. thus, people will continue to drive.

no one can turn back time and get rid of the car, nor should it be attempted. but building urban villages without any provision for efficient public transit will most likely not curb car dependence. it's an incremental advancement over residential-only sprawl, but it's still a very flawed concept.

[Chicago103]

Another fun snippet from the article:



This is a striking facet of modern American middle-class culture: Child rearing and cities are completely incompatible. The kids are gonna suddenly keel over and die if they have to walk a few blocks with their impatient soccer mommy!

"Problem with parking" translates as: "The parking is not FREE and not within 100 feet from the entrance of my destination. My fatass and boogery screaming snots in tow ain't walking anywhere!"

Both parents working full time doesn't help either. This is a huge contributor to the "culture of convenience" that fuels the sprawl lifestyle.


"But the reality is, I've got a car with three screaming kids, and I'm not going to go there if there's a problem with parking."


People are using kids as an excuse for laziness in this day and age, another symptom of a society in decline or at least with a creative deficiency.

Did people in 1940 complain that there wasnt parking or they had to walk a few blocks to the corner market with or without kids? Heck people had more kids back then and it was unheard of to complain about such minutia. My God what the hell does not being single nor in your 20's have to do with anything? Its not like your legs suddenly become inoperative once you hit 30 or giving birth to a child makes you semi-paralized. It used to be that women who have given birth to five children would be doing chores all day long on the farm or walking for miles on a daily basis, not that I think everyone should be doing that now but why the hell to people chicken out when it comes to activities that are just a fraction of that? This welfare state of socially engineered laziness has to stop!

[mhays]

My family didn't have a car until I was 6, and my dad needed one to get to his ranger job at Mt. Rainier. My mom walked us all over, like Capitol Hill to Downtown and back. Apparently I was a little terror when I got tired (kicked a random old lady once, got kicked back...), but we all lived.

[the Misanthropist]

Millions of kids grow up in cities and don't get killed by a bus. What a lot of nonsense.

As for parking, I said it before and I'll say it again: subterranean parking is the answer.

[Chicago103]

Millions of kids grow up in cities and don't get killed by a bus. What a lot of nonsense.

As for parking, I said it before and I'll say it again: subterranean parking is the answer.

A kid is more likely to be killed in an automobile accident or being hit by a car than in any death involving a bus. Yet if I went around saying that I refuse to drive because I am scared "for my children" those same idiots would think im the one nuts.

[sakyle04]

Great thread...

I was noticing something with a new 14-story apartment building going into downtown San Antonio...

257 units.
30,000 sq ft of retail.

This development (http://www.thevistana.com) is bordered by the two most retail-heavy streets in DT SA (Houston,Commerce) and 30,000 seems like a lot of additional space.

What's worse, Commerce (in the two blocks nearest the development) is a little run-down: Dollar Store, medical supplies, seedy bar, empty storefront, sketchy cafe, and on and on.

The additional 30,000 sf has the potential to prevent the uplift of the area as a whole, limiting redevelopment of a slowly dying corridor - and 257 could have really lifted up the area....

I found this a little troubling.

[mhays]

Depends what sort of space it is, and whether they have tenants lined up. Some stores wouldn't fit in those existing storefronts. Others would fit but...well, extremely few retailers would choose to locate on a crappy street unless it was part of a major overhaul, like someone remodeling a whole block. Also, if the 30,000 sf is the sort of retail that attracts people from outside the immediate few blocks, maybe those new people will help the other storefronts too.

Sometimes that amount of retail means a supermarket. That size is smaller than a typical suburban supermarket, but a lot of urban markets are about that. If so, that would be great news since supermarkets are huge draws for downtown residents.

[sakyle04]

Depends what sort of space it is, and whether they have tenants lined up. Some stores wouldn't fit in those existing storefronts. Others would fit but...well, extremely few retailers would choose to locate on a crappy street unless it was part of a major overhaul, like someone remodeling a whole block. Also, if the 30,000 sf is the sort of retail that attracts people from outside the immediate few blocks, maybe those new people will help the other storefronts too.

Sometimes that amount of retail means a supermarket. That size is smaller than a typical suburban supermarket, but a lot of urban markets are about that. If so, that would be great news since supermarkets are huge draws for downtown residents.

Interesting points, mhays. I had thought about the fact that the leases on the less desirable space probably do not come up simultaneously (and then who says the medical supplier wants to leave...) and you always have to have the first brave soul to begin turning a street around. Makes sense that they would be more likely to try a new space, in a new building, with guaranteed customer base. Still...

BTW, it won't be a supermarket.. (There are 2 new markets in DT SA and a couple of existing ones - all of the oversized-convenience-store variety.)

I know one tenant is a bank - my cousin is doing their interior architecture. He heard another was a dry-clearners. All they would need then would be a deli and they would have the most typical tenant lineup available. :)

[J. Will]

In Greater Downtown Toronto, virtually every condo tower built in the last 10-12 years has ground-floor retail space. And that's a LOT of towers - there are literally several dozen under construction right now alone. In fact, I can only think of a few towers built in recent years that don't have retail space, and that's sometimes because of their awkward location.

It doesn't even seem to matter any more if the condo is built on an established retail street, or a street that was previously residential/other non-retail uses (Wellington Street, for example), they ALL seem to have ground floor retail - typically 3-5 stores/restaurants if it's a single building, or 8+ if there's a long podium connecting multiple towers. Quite frankly, I don't understand how every single new tower can support multiple retailers, but somehow they seem to. And these are actual stores/restaurants, not insurance offices, nail salons, etc.

I have noticed that it sometimes takes a few months to fill these spaces, but I haven't really noticed any becoming (and staying) vacant once they're filled. If a store goes out of business, there's almost always another one ready to snatch up the space in short order. We're lucky to have very few retail vacancies. You can literally walk for blocks, passing 100+ retailers and not see a single retail vacancy in some areas.

As far as Minneapolis, I've read that downtown retail vacancy has soared to 10+% despite all the new residents. Supposedly the reputation for violent crime in the area has increased in the last 5+ years, and I've seen that cited as a reason.

[rich1077]

I don’t know if somebody has mentioned this but I would think they need some mixed office retail buildings in the vicinity for any of these urban villages to be sustainable.
Retail particularly restaurants and cafes need a constant flow of customers and if the area has too much residential then they don’t have enough customers during the day, no lunch rush or morning coffee rush.

[NewYorkYankee]

People don't want their kids to be exposed, becuase taking kids out in public means they have to be behaved. That requires real parenting, which few people choose to do. And then of course, this is about having johnny see gay people/black people/poor people and actually gain a genuine understanding of the world around them. We can't have that. I mean, what if little suzy does this:

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/7/77/250px-Blasianengagement.jpg



Nope, gotta keep them inside.

[The Cheat]

The failure is in zoning, even if the zoning is done vertically, restricting uses too strictly. Traditionally, ground floor units would start out as residences, and then be converted to offices or retail as needed. Rather than trying to dictate the retail mix and ratio of uses from the start, let the market decide the highest and best use for a space.

As for WalMarts and major supermarkets, many new town developments now use them as "anchor" tenants and line the roads to them with smaller retail developments.

[mhays]

In Greater Downtown Toronto, virtually every condo tower built in the last 10-12 years has ground-floor retail space. And that's a LOT of towers - there are literally several dozen under construction right now alone. In fact, I can only think of a few towers built in recent years that don't have retail space, and that's sometimes because of their awkward location.

It doesn't even seem to matter any more if the condo is built on an established retail street, or a street that was previously residential/other non-retail uses (Wellington Street, for example), they ALL seem to have ground floor retail - typically 3-5 stores/restaurants if it's a single building, or 8+ if there's a long podium connecting multiple towers. Quite frankly, I don't understand how every single new tower can support multiple retailers, but somehow they seem to. And these are actual stores/restaurants, not insurance offices, nail salons, etc.

I have noticed that it sometimes takes a few months to fill these spaces, but I haven't really noticed any becoming (and staying) vacant once they're filled. If a store goes out of business, there's almost always another one ready to snatch up the space in short order. We're lucky to have very few retail vacancies. You can literally walk for blocks, passing 100+ retailers and not see a single retail vacancy in some areas.

As far as Minneapolis, I've read that downtown retail vacancy has soared to 10+% despite all the new residents. Supposedly the reputation for violent crime in the area has increased in the last 5+ years, and I've seen that cited as a reason.

Toronto has some very large blocks and good density, and therefore the frontage-to-people ratio is low. I'm not including the "streets" in the middles of blocks that often function as glorified alleys. Also, Toronto focuses retail on some streets and not others. My point is that Toronto concentrates retail effectively rather than attempting the Seattle model of requiring retail on every street, with far too high a frontage ratio to make it successful.

I need to go back -- it's been two years. I'll visit the office and tour some of our projects, i.e. a semi-working vacation (Pure Spirit, Clear Spirit, Trump, et al).

[mhays]

I don’t know if somebody has mentioned this but I would think they need some mixed office retail buildings in the vicinity for any of these urban villages to be sustainable.
Retail particularly restaurants and cafes need a constant flow of customers and if the area has too much residential then they don’t have enough customers during the day, no lunch rush or morning coffee rush.

You hit the nail on the head.

[J. Will]

There are some areas in which Toronto has continuous retail on 3 or more consecutive, closely-spaced parallel streets though, which is what I guess the Seattle planners want.

Bloor-Yorkville, for example, has continuous retail along Bloor Street, one short block north on Cumberland Street, and one more short block north on Yorkville Avenue. Kensington Market has a similar setup with three consecutive north-south parallel streets lined with retail.

My point though, was that almost all the new developments have ground-floor retail (and not just one store per building), whether or not they are on streets that were previously retail streets. For example, all the new buildings lining Wellington Street West around John/Peter streets are lined with shops/restaurants on the ground floor. There really wasn't retail there before, and there's already major retail streets one block north and one block south.

I don't understand how it all stays in business. Maybe rent here is cheaper than in other cities?

From my observation, outside Belltown, Seattle concentrated it's retail on relatively few streets too. Broadway in Capitol Hill, University Ave. (I think it's called), California Ave., etc. I don't remember seeing retail one block east or west of those streets, though I only spent a few days there, and didn't have that much time to look.

[Xelebes]

We also have infrastructure to worry about - can the side roads handle all the trucking necessary to supply all the stores and services? Many side roads aren't developed for trucks to use - only designed for cars and pedestrians.

[mhays]

There are some areas in which Toronto has continuous retail on 3 or more consecutive, closely-spaced parallel streets though, which is what I guess the Seattle planners want.

From my observation, outside Belltown, Seattle concentrated it's retail on relatively few streets too. Broadway in Capitol Hill, University Ave. (I think it's called), California Ave., etc. I don't remember seeing retail one block east or west of those streets, though I only spent a few days there, and didn't have that much time to look.

Every city has retail districts that have multiple retail streets. But based on a five-day visit (being a tourist, visiting a cousin, briefly visiting my company's office, etc.), my impression is that Toronto has more concentrated retail than we do.

In Seattle, Broadway and Belltown are opposite examples. Maybe I should have said some neighborhoods in Seattle such as Belltown and the U-District have retail that's too spread out.

[J. Will]

As for the topic, as I said above, I have read multiple articles about Minneapolis' increasing downtown retail vacancy. It's strange given the apparent boom in residential space, but crime downtown, and moreso the impression of crime, has apparently gotten worse. Outside of Nicollet and a few blocks of 1st Ave. (I think, the one that goes by the Target Centre), I saw little in the way of retail lining the sidewalks when I was there, though it was some years ago now. Even Nicollet had entire blocks where one side of the street was a parking lot instead of retail, especially up near the river.

[nath05]

As for the topic, as I said above, I have read multiple articles about Minneapolis' increasing downtown retail vacancy. It's strange given the apparent boom in residential space, but crime downtown, and moreso the impression of crime, has apparently gotten worse. Outside of Nicollet and a few blocks of 1st Ave. (I think, the one that goes by the Target Centre), I saw little in the way of retail lining the sidewalks when I was there, though it was some years ago now. Even Nicollet had entire blocks where one side of the street was a parking lot instead of retail, especially up near the river.

The skyway system really murders the street-level retail scene in downtown Minneapolis, which is really too bad. (Although I have to admit that I use them all the time...they're damned convenient in the winter)

[mhays]

The skyways might be helpful in the winter, but I think they're a disaster. The "office worker" retail like lunch places, coffee shops, and drugstores is heavily concentrated upstairs rather than on the street. Worse, these stores usually don't even have the option of opening evenings or weekends because many of the skyways are closed.

[J. Will]

I don't mind skyways or tunnels as long as the outside streets are also strong. Toronto and Montreal both have underground tunnel systems with shops/restaurants numbering in the 1500-2000 range, but they also have several thousand "traditional" stores lining the streets.

Minneapolis probably only has a few hundred total retailers in it's downtown (though that's just my guess). It's really not enough to support both strong numbers of retailers both inside and "outside". I agree that if I had to choose, I'd choose "traditional" shopping streets. Instead of one strong shopping street, and a few blocks of another (that's mostly bars/restaurants), Minne could probably support three of four strong streets if there was no skywalk. And I don't buy the argument that they wouldn't do well in the winter. Montreal is probably just as cold in the winter, and it does fine.