Mixed-Use Developments Still Often Operate Better In Theory Than In Reality

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by The North One

That Chicago mid-rise aged horribly.

Mwahahahahaha... You mean the bloody Trump thing? That concrete and outdated glass base looks like a fucking Nazi bunker on Normandy's beaches in 1944.
I swear we don't have anything like that any longer even in la Défense.

Scale is not so much the problem. It may be big or small, it doesn't really matter here. But things just have to be properly laid out, so that they feel friendly.

I think architect and urban planner are 2 very distinctive jobs, and the matter being discussed here belongs to the latter.
The former (architects) are too megalomaniac. They focus on their buildings as their own achievements, forgetting about the surroundings.
That's very bad on principle. Architects, were they brilliant should always be submitted to urban planners.

[M II A II R II K]

Perhaps put non chain store retail under apartment buildings instead.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

Perhaps put non chain store retail under apartment buildings instead.

Non-chain stores typically don't have the cash flows to afford the rents that landlords want to charge.

[M II A II R II K]

Well it seems that non chain retail next to each other at the sidewalk is only viable on pre war streets and back when individual commercial properties were sold next to each other.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

No, it’s not as hard as you’re saying.

Divisible retail is very common.

I said "unless it was built that way originally at significant cost".

[mhays]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

welp, back to go old ground floor residential! lenders are going to have to adjust their retail footage requirements. yay amazon!

It sounds like you think lenders want retail. That's generally not true outside of retail-focused projects.

Cities often require retail on many streets. Mine does. This means retail is built in many cases where lenders and developers know it'll lose money. They build anyway, but they know that the residential pricing needs to subsidize the retail.

Developments that actually want retail are typically on really great retail streets, or the development is large enough to create its own gravity as a retail destination.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by BnaBreaker

I also think that too many developers don't want to "lower" themselves and their development to taking on businesses, like convenience stores, or dry cleaners, or barbers, that might actually have practical usage potential in the daily lives of the people who live in their building. Instead, they hold out for crap like boutique cupcake shops, but how many boutique cupcake shops can one neighborhood really support?

They tend to like convenience stores. Those help rents upstairs.

Dry cleaners have chemicals and venting issues, albeit less than they used to.

Bars are too noisy for most residents.

This stuff isn't easy.

[Centropolis]

i came across a "solve" for this in oceania, the central district of christchurch, nz of course was ravaged by a terrible earthquake...but has established shipping container shopping areas that at times are quite vibrant. this is a far cry from what was but, well, it works.

this isn't to say that shipping containers on parking lots is the future, but small/cheap new retail space works and does exactly what we all want!

[mhays]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Non-chain stores typically don't have the cash flows to afford the rents that landlords want to charge.

Today's cash flow etc. is only part of the story. Are they relatively sure to be around in six years? Where is their backing for the significant investment to build out the space and get the business running?

[Centropolis]

i know shipping container shit is all the rage but i'd never seen it applied to that scale in a semi-permanent commercial fashion in the innermost district of a city.

[M II A II R II K]

Perhaps strip malls can be built at the sidewalk and put the parking at the back out of sight to at least give the streetscape and urban walkable feel to it.

[mhays]

We're talking about infill areas, not cheap suburbia.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

i know shipping container shit is all the rage but i'd never seen it applied to that scale in a semi-permanent commercial fashion in the innermost district of a city.

It's something you do when land is $20 a square foot. Not when land is $200 or $1,000 a square foot...in those places land prices require midrises at least.

[ChiMIchael]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

i know shipping container shit is all the rage but i'd never seen it applied to that scale in a semi-permanent commercial fashion in the innermost district of a city.

There is a Starbucks in Edgewater at Devon and Broadway that I think uses a shipping containter as a frame. Idk if that qualifies though...

[M II A II R II K]

Perhaps strip malls can be built in existing urban areas with no dedicated parking that’s affordable for mom and pop shops and alike.

[mhays]

The sweet spot for that would be very small. You'd need a location with cheap land but plenty of customers with good spending money, who would need to be within walking distance.

It's hard to make all of that happen at once. Usually either density or parking is involved.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by mhays

Today's cash flow etc. is only part of the story. Are they relatively sure to be around in six years? Where is their backing for the significant investment to build out the space and get the business running?

Well those are important considerations from a landlord's perspective, but I strictly speaking from the business owner's (tenant's) perspective.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by mhays

It's something you do when land is $20 a square foot. Not when land is $200 or $1,000 a square foot...in those places land prices require midrises at least.

let's not get hung up on the shipping container aspect. the point was small square footage spaces with an on-the-ground density that has zero fucks paid to automobile or "service" space. in any case, new mid-rises im familiar with are a like completely full of giant breezeway-esque wasted space with like birds flying around in them.

[mhays]

You're in a low-demand city. In a high-demand city every square inch is used to its fullest with minimal exceptions for flair.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by The North One

It seems like the common problem is that developers just write off their empty retail, leaving little incentive to actually rent them out to serve the community. Get rid of his exploit.

This is what definitely seems to be happening. Write off the retail areas, claim a lower property valuation, pay less property tax, therefore who really cares about ever, and I mean ever, filling the space? The lowered taxes probably come close to equaling the rental income from the space!

Maybe I'm being a bit simplistic here, who knows. But it really does seem that developers/building owners should NOT be able to write off empty retail space to reduce their taxes unless they have made a good-faith effort to rent that space, and I don't mean reducing rent by 5% from outrageous numbers, if you get my drift...

Aaron (Glowrock)