Quote:
Originally Posted by exit2lef
It does, but it also backs up what I'm saying, particularly with these words: "Consider dropping the retail altogether, or using other methods to achieve your desired height or density if you don’t see retail succeeding."
Most recently built ground floor retail along the light rail corridor has remained vacant years after opening. We can point to bad design and unrealistic rents as the causes, but can we eliminate those factors through legislation? I doubt our local city councils are willing to be that prescriptive, and if even they were, the state legislature would probably overrule them. In light of that situation, it's probably better to leave this to market forces. Cities should stop requiring or strongly encouraging ground floor retail. When they do, developers build poorly designed, overpriced space knowing they can offset the loss by charging more for the other uses in the building. If, on the other hand, we wait for more demand for retail to exist, we'll see higher quality space at competitive rents.
|
The City has a responsibility to plan/zone areas for the uses that will provide the best economic results in the short- and long-term, IMO. That means designating some areas as commercial districts, where any building built should be mixed use. Phoenix is building a downtown from scratch; it would be a horrible strategy to not try and build these corridors. As I've said, and the article states, retail cannot succeed in a vacuum. So, places like Roosevelt Row need to be zoned as such and if the market doesn't support commercial/retail, then ALL projects should be held off in that area until it rebounds. The long-term vitality of the area is better off waiting for the right projects than to hastily build mono-use buildings that will ultimately create deadzones and create a built environment that has a patchwork of retail that can't feed off other successful retail.
But, the whole point is that #5 which you quote should only happen when #1-#4 have been exhausted and my argument is that, the market hasn't shown to be the issue in downtown. It's that #1-#4 have not been soundly applied in several instances. The only place where #5 might have been relevant is the south side of Skyline lofts, but they were probably banking on growth nearby that wasn't limited to parking garages. Still, its north side proves the market is just fine for retail, but that something about its strategy for the south is amiss.
I think you greatly exaggerate the amount of vacant retail built along the light rail corridor. Besides Tapestry and Grigio Metro in Tempe, I can't think of any others that have been failures. Others took time, or have certain spaces struggling, but that's just reality of a market that is still waiting for more residential investment. For those 3 failures, there's a dozen or more with successful occupancy rates.
I agree there isn't anything that can or should be legislated. Urban form and zoning guidelines should be adhered to, and areas like Roosevelt Row should continue to call for ground level retail while residential areas like W McKinley - W Roosevelt should call for urban residential. If the market is hot for commercial space, we wouldn't want an office building plopped in a residential neighborhood. So, we shouldn't want a mono-use residential building plopped onto Roosevelt when the multifamily market is hot.