New Urbanism in Suburbia–A Bad Idea
By LC on Nov 2, 2007 in New Urbanism
New Urbanism for Small Suburban Shopping Centers-A Bad Idea
New Urbanism (NU), a component of Smart Growth, has been the mantra of choice for local governments nationwide for more than a decade. Originally developed by progressive architects and planners reacting to perceived housing sprawl, the elements comprising NU include mixed-use communities with walkability within and between employment, housing, shopping, entertainment, and nearby public transportation. Eschewing “big-box” unarticulated buildings, NU attempts to create “human scale” buildings catering to the nearby resident and worker. The purported benefits of NU include reductions in traffic congestion, air pollution, fuel consumption, and obesity; walkability is a key component of NU.
This paper shall challenge the viability of these elements of NU as they relate to the creation and success of small neighborhood shopping centers serving primarily residents and employees within walking distance.
NU Principle One: Sprawl Must Be Stopped
Addressing the Congress for a New Urbanism in 2000, NU pioneer, planner and architect Peter Calthorpe said, “Americans in general agree that urban sprawl is a problem.” He cited a study by the Pew Center for Civic Journalism, whose poll showed that “urban sprawl was the most important local issue in the country.” [1] Gordon and Richardson disagreed, stating,” while more than 70 percent of the 250 local growth management initiatives come out strongly in favor of high densities, but not for them and not in their neighborhood.”[2] Americans have moved to the suburbs to escape crime and density and have not shown a propensity toward high density in their suburbs and exurbs.
NU Principle Two: Public Transportation Nodes Near Centers Will Create Large Sales
That is a reasonable assumption if public transportation utilization were growing. Sadly, and in face of the new light-rail systems serving many suburbs and exurbs, utilization has declined 63 percent from 1960 to2000, and now stands at only five percent nationwide. Transit use has decreased in Europe as well; it is down to 16 percent. [3] Historically, the use of personal transportation has increased with the wealth of a nation. There is no trend indicating the reversal of this forty-year decline in the use of public transit.
NU Principle Three: Walkability is Key to the Flourishing of Small Centers and as such Must Be Incorporated into Residential and Commercial Developments
If population density through proximity to public transportation, or the much touted mixed-use offices and dwellings, known as live-work buildings, actually existed in the suburbs and exurbs, then walkability might be a strong contributing factor to small-center sales. As these attributes have not developed in these areas, we must then default to examining the potential sales from walkers from nearby residences.
Starbucks Coffee believes that the average consumer will walk no more than two blocks even for essential goods and services.[4] Accordingly, the company will space stores no closer than two blocks apart in very dense areas. Starbucks assumes no significant walking traffic in non-dense areas.
To illustrate the minor impact on shopping center sales from walkers, Figure A below represents an existing 30,000 square foot convenience shopping center in Elk Grove, California. Ironically, the center is located one mile south of a failed NU development designed by architect Peter Calthorpe. The large ring indicates the primary trade area population of approximately 15,000; the minimum population base for a convenience shopping center lacking a major grocery store. The small ring identifies the segment of that population that could potentially walk to the shopping center.
Expanding the Starbucks-stated maximum walking distance of two blocks to three, and assuming a walking time of between six and ten minutes, depending upon whether the walker is moving at a brisk rate or a stroll, we have a market potential of only about 2,250 within a maximum walking distance. Using the California average weekly grocery expenditure of $40 per person, and further factoring an unachievable100% patronage, grocery sales within the walkability zone would be a mere $90,000 per week, a sales figure supporting only a small convenience store. Those stores are now frequently located in gasoline stations.
The potential entertainment sales dollars are no better. Any restaurant that could provide a form of entertainment would require minimum daily sales of $2,500. Assuming an average sales check of $10 per visit for every man, woman, and child in the immediate trade area, one restaurant would require about 250 walking customers per day. With a finite walking population of just less than ten times that figure, the entire population would have to walk to the one restaurant every ten days. Such frequency coupled with an assumed 100 percent market share is unrealistic. Even with a relatively high suburban
density of nearly seven dwellings to the acre in this trade area, we can now see that the sales from walking customers are not significant and will not support a retail shopping center.
FIGURE A
Through examination of three factors which largely determine the retail sales potential of a convenience shopping center-trade area density, traffic, and convenient access-we can conclude that none of these factors are adequate to sustain a small shopping center in a NU environment.
Given a large vehicular traffic flow, high trade area density, and favorable convenience factors, convenience centers often defy a predictive sales model based on traveling distance and the attractiveness of the aggregation of stores to the consumer. The Retail Gravity Model concludes that when the travel distance is held constant, the larger the center and the more the offerings, the higher the sales will be in the center. Although ease of ingress and egress and high-identity storefronts and signage frequently act to make a convenience center more successful for convenience goods stores than a larger center lacking these positive characteristics, it is axiomatic that there be sufficient population, traffic flow, and convenient access to sustain the small shopping center.
Peter Calthorpe now agrees. In a 2005 address to the American Planning Commission, Calthorpe stated, “if it is to be successful, the New Urbanism must switch its emphasis away from neighborhoods and toward regional transportation systems and employment centers.
©John A. Wallace 2007
[1] CNN Special Documentary, “Democracy In America”[2] Ibid[3] Balaker and Staley, “Myths About Suburbia and Our Car Happy Culture, The Washington Post, January 28, 2007[4] International Council of Shopping Centers Conference, Monterey, California,2004
