Back to the future in commercial real estate

Development

Back to the future in commercial real estate

by Cavan Wilk • January 2, 2009 11:59 am

Newsweek economics columnist Robert J. Samuelson declared in his December 29, 2008 column that 2008 was "the end of an era." He wrote, "We know 2008, much like 1932 or 1980[?], marks a dividing line for the American economy and society." The economic trends in the commercial real estate market bear out Samuelson's claim.

Husk of a dead mall outside Richmond, VA . Photo by barxtux on Flickr.

On Friday, December 26, an opinion piece on Slate's "The Big Money" declared, "Shopping malls are a thing of the past. It's time we closed them all down. The author, Chadwick Martin, pointed out some current facts:

Already, malls are in a considerable amount of trouble. Shopping centers on the block are selling for 25 percent to 35 percent less than they did just a year ago. Retail vacancies are on the rise; nationally, 6.6 percent of stores were empty in the third quarter of 2008, a 20 percent increase from the same quarter last year and the highest mark since 2002. Much of the pain is interwoven with the retail sector, where analysts estimate 148,000 stores will have been closed in 2008.

The changes in these malls are the very opposite of the revitalization of walkable urban places such as in Silver Spring, North Arlington, and Logan Circle:

At the risk of getting Gladwellian, every store that closes has an impact on the shops left behind. Walking through a half-empty mall is an unsettling experience; it feels as dreadful as Dawn of the Dead, just without the zombies.

Many mall management firms are also in financial trouble because of losses from many bubble-era real estate deals. What truly surprised me was the author's conclusion about what to do next:

But why just consolidate? Let's close them all. I'm not saying that all of their tenants should close. Instead, the stores that once filled the malls should go and fill other empty storefronts dispersed across the city. Call it the great chain-store diaspora.

Even writers from the urbanist community don't advocate wholesale closing of malls, acknowledging that malls are private property. While economic commentator Mike "Mish" Shedlock declared that the "Shopping Center Economic Model is History" back in April 2008, he made no comment about where to go from here; as a libertarian-leaning economics and finance writer, urban planning and infrastructure are outside the scope of Mish's blog. As far as I know, no one outside the urbanist community has previously concluded that it would be okay or even positive for malls to go out of business, and for the stores to relocate to Main Streets. What a year it's been.

Of course, it's possible that an even more auto-dependent form could succeed the malls, if such a form even exists. However, the nationwide trend is moving toward faux town-center-like "lifestyle centers." In a "lifestyle center," it's not as big of a jump to add a little housing, remove some surface parking, and maybe add a few offices. It'd be even better to simply redevelop the land into a true walkable urban place.

However, hoping for the wholesale replacement of malls with either of these more walkable forms is unlikely. The fact remains that there is more commercial space than existing demand. We know there was enormous and mostly car-dependent commercial real estate overbuilding during the bubble years. At the time, chain retailers engaged in bidding wars to rent space in a shopping malls and strip mall in the latest piece of sprawl. Even more amazingly, the space was often 80 to 100 miles from the nearest non-retail jobs. Now that euphoria has turned to panic, we're finding the true value of far-flung malls (and exurban McMansions). It's an awful bind.

There is a potential silver lining in the current panic-filled commercial real estate environment. As Mr. Martin mentioned in his piece, those stores have to go somewhere. Many of those stores will want to own or lease their own buildings. Some might try the single use building on the suburban arterial behind acres of parking. But this could be problematic for stores that aren't all-in-one retail big boxes such as Target. After all, who wants to fight traffic while driving to a sprawl-mart that only sells one category of product? Wasn't the all-in-one format one of the most appealing aspects of a suburban shopping mall? More importantly, how many of those mall-based retailers will want to operate in a building that is large enough to be practical in single-use suburban form? Will higher-end boutique-format chain clothing retailers like Banana Republic, Anne Taylor, Express, Guess, Kenneth Cole, etc. be able to operate out of a stand-alone single-story building set back behind acres of parking on the side of some suburban arterial?

If that would work, some of the national higher-end retail brands would already be trying it. But these stores have found success opening stores in walkable urban places. In the District of Columbia, there are four shopping districts that support clusters of national retail chains that are usually mall-based: Downtown (Old Downtown clustered around Metro Center), Connecticut Avenue between Farragut Square and Dupont Circle, Friendship Heights, and Georgetown. Columbia Heights is emerging and has a different mix of retailers. Additionally, some clothing stores that usually locate in malls have opened shop in the Fenton Street development in Silver Spring.

These are successful shopping districts for similar reasons that private car-dependent shopping malls were successful. There is a large cluster of different stores that serve different tastes, but similar socioeconomic demographics. Within a similar distance as spanned by a typical mall, a shopper can reach a similar selection of stores. Furthermore, no shopping mall in the region can offer the extra added bonus of the historic Downtown's flagship stores. The Macy's is five floors tall, bigger than any other Macy's in the region. The H+M offers the chain's entire product line, like their stores in Manhattan. The Zara spans two floors. And so on.

The walkable urban shopping district is a much better arrangement for society. The stores don't all rent from the same landlord. Because they are in a district that has more uses than just retail, one business failure has less effect on all the other stores. There are still restaurants, offices, other stores, and residences to generate foot traffic. It takes years for a mixed-use walkable urban district to decline, rather than months like shopping malls did during 2008.

Retailers will start to encounter similar problems as those who currently prefer to live in a walkable urban place: lack of affordable rents. Because we as a nation have spent 60 years building almost exclusively car-dependent environments, there will be more retailers interested in walkable urban places than vacancies. Rents for retail space in walkable urban places will increase, just like it has for residential space because of its relative scarcity.

One likely outcome is for the chains to just keep bidding up the rents, making it impossible for legacy small businesses to keep their doors open. Alternately, the chains could stop bidding against each other and instead set up shop in another section of the metropolitan region, thus beginning a cycle of revitalization in another walkable urban place. However, we know from practical experience that the latter mode is not how chains operate. If they did, Apple would be in discussions with the Shaw Historic District rather than in Georgetown over the design of their new store. Chains look at income levels, rents and other quantifiable factors from afar when choosing where to set up shop. That's why Apple is opening another store in the Favored Quarter rather than going where the rents are lower. They're a big corporation. Even though they make really cool products, they don't know and don't care about Washingtonian development economics. It's not their business.

Still, it's quite possible that Apple would make even more money in Columbia Heights or Logan Circle or Shaw or College Park because of those locations' cheaper rents and better Metro accessibility. But Apple, located in Cupertino, California, really doesn't know about how Metro access affects local businesses in our region. It's not in their computer model. I'm not specifically criticizing Apple; this is simply how national chains conduct their business.

As a result, all these stores that are getting displaced from dying malls are in for a rough ride. In the big picture, most players in the commercial real estate game have no idea what consumers want right now. Most consumers don't either. However, consumers are voting with their dollars that they don't want the suburban mall anymore. In other words, strap in because we're in for a really rough ride in retail, as our nation enters a period of cognitive dissonance that will mark the historic boundary between the post World War II oil-and-corn-syrup economy, and whatever emerges next. Based on the trends in commercial real estate, a more urban future looks bright on the other side.

32 comments — Share	— tags: economics, malls, retail, sprawl

The silver lining of the real estate bust (Mar 9, 2009)
Supermarket chains blind to walkable urban business opportunities (Jan 28, 2009)
14th and T heading toward big-box furniture (Oct 25, 2008)
"Mall people" and Montgomery County's downtowns (Jul 2, 2008)
"Structure of voids" and chain restaurants in Ballston (Feb 5, 2008)

Comments

"However, hoping for the wholesale replacement of malls with either of these more walk able forms is unlikely." Maybe not wholesale but this transformations has been occurring, in this area at least, for the last few years.

Tysons, Landmark and Springfield mall all have active plans to redevelop into a mixed use oriented development for sometime.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/22/AR2007012201484.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A57333-2005Feb2?language=printer

http://www.springfieldtowncenter.com/

by RJ on Jan 2, 2009 1:11 pm

RJ, in our region that is likely because we have a comprehensive mass transit system. However, in places like Richmond (pictured) or Kansas City (and basically most of the United States) that don't have a centralized transit infrastructure, I think we'll see a lot of dead husks on the periphery.

Closer in dead malls will be prime spots for redevelopment. For example, the Kansas City Wizards Major League Soccer team are building a new stadium on the site of a dead mall in Kansas City, KS. The stadium will be an anchor for a new mixed-use walkable urban neighborhood.

However, in places like California's "inland empire," I see a less regenerative future...

by Cavan on Jan 2, 2009 1:57 pm

Back to the future indeed. A huge mall anchors the development in Columbia Heights. The cornerstone of Silver Spring is also a mall. Yes, it's a mall without a top, but it is still a mall, complete with a single landlord with hired goons to tell you not to take photographs.

Meanwhile, the "lifestyle centers" you talk about are also malls. And what mall declined in "months" in 2008? Landover Mall did not become a shell overnight, and malls can get revitalized too.

Sure, trends are shifting and downtowns are doing well, but claiming that people "don't want suburban malls anymore" is just ridiculous.

by Omari on Jan 2, 2009 2:12 pm

I used local examples to try to illustrate a point I was making on the national level.

The Fenton Street development in Silver Spring has many mall-like qualities, specifically the single landlord. However, it is not a mall. Its form is mixed into a connected street grid that is connected to the surrounding town. It is true walkable urbanism. Once the landlord's lease on the land ends, it could be sold in parcels and have a more diversified ownership.

Yes, the "lifestyle centers" are also malls. I see them as in intermediate step, kind of like the historic strip malls in Silver Spring and Cleveland Park. You'll notice that I say that those lifestyle centers that are located in far-flung places will suffer the same fate as any other mall or strip mall.

by Cavan on Jan 2, 2009 2:20 pm

I like this post, and the idea of a wholesale reframing of American retail culture. Ironically, though, enclosed shopping malls have arguably good urbanism once you enter the building. I believe that in many places, it's possible to leave the mall but better connect it to the surrounding areas. Transit stations and parking decks could free up surface paring lots for denser residential and office immediately abutting the malls, which could have their main corridors opened into "streets" if it gives urbanists a warm fuzzy.

Since I live a quarter mile from a dying Laurel Mall, I'm very interested in seeing how development ultimately affects retail centers like these. Hopefully, they won't be wastefully torn down in quasi-urban areas like Laurel, Wheaton, or Fair Oaks when they could be reinvented as mini downtowns.

by Dave Murphy on Jan 2, 2009 2:21 pm

There were plans (http://www.fairfaxtimes.com/news/2008/may/13/staff-oks-spectrum-plan-reston/) to redevelop the Spectrum at Reston, which is across the street from the Reston Town Center. The Spectrum (http://thespectrumatrtc.com/) currently has several big box retailers, including Barnes & Noble and Best Buy. This development also currently has a large surface-parking lot.

by Ben on Jan 2, 2009 2:28 pm

Dave, the problem with malls is inherently their single use separation. That's why the loss of one store affects the others so negatively. The only reason one goes to a mall is to buy durable goods. There is nothing else there. The food is forgettable and meant to be a break from buying durable goods.

In contrast, I wrote in the post, "The stores don't all rent from the same landlord. Because they are in a district that has more uses than just retail, one business failure has less effect on all the other stores. There are still restaurants, offices, other stores, and residences to generate foot traffic."

You do have a decent idea for retrofitting a mall into a place by building offices and residences adjacent to the mall with its roof off. While I'm not an expert in construction, I imagine that it would be more expensive to perform this kind of retrofit than it is to knock it down and rebuild. The logistics of a mall and a walkable urban place are quite different. You have to remember that the stores have to be stocked. Malls have few shared loading docks that are connected to a service corridor. How do you reconcile this with a walkable place? In a walkable place, there is an alley. Even Fenton St. development has an alley, too. The service corridor works if there is a single landlord. However, that model breaks down if each shop owns/leases their own space independently.

by Cavan on Jan 2, 2009 2:42 pm

Here's a recent article (http://www.housingwire.com/2008/12/29/malls-the-future-of-housing/) that suggests mall owners add residential development to revitalize dated and decaying suburban malls. The article has the example of a mall in Lakewood, CO, which successfully did this. Many of the shopping malls that were built on the fringes of metropolitan regions decades ago are now more readily accessible.

by Ben on Jan 2, 2009 2:49 pm

Cavan,

Certainly there are differences and hurdles, but I look at it as using what we have in order to make subtle, gradual changes that are easy for the general population to accept. Malls like PG Plaza were retrofitted with roofs, I think those should be the places where we start removing them. I imagine that would be easier and cheaper for construction. As for the loading dock issue, perhaps there is a clever solution that my suburban mindset cannot yet fathom. But we can turn foundries into apartment complexes in spite of logistical difficulties, I'm confident that there is an answer those logistical barriers. Sadly, I'm not the engineer to devise them.

But logistics aside, malls are still places where people go to walk around. their worst aspect is their otherwise isolate locations. adding mixed use, better connecting them to the street grid, and transforming them to 18-24 hour destinations, not the 9am-9pm retail spots they are now.

by Dave Murphy on Jan 2, 2009 2:54 pm

Ben,

Belmar in Lakewood isn't exactly just adding housing to an extant mall to revitalize it, it's a whole hog demolition and complete redevelopment of the site. It's not as simple to 'just add housing.'

by Alex B. on Jan 2, 2009 3:03 pm

Yawn! Malls have been dying in huge numbers since the 90s. Some of the most imaginative reuses have occurred even w/o dense development and good mass transit. The Denver area led the way with this. The main thing is that shopping center developers (some of whom are in big financial trouble right now) discovered that malls turn into white elephants if they lose out to new competition or run into changing demographics. Well maintained 50s "plazas", OTOH, often have done well, esp. if they have decent demographics--it's easy to change the store mix and add non-retail uses. Hence, the "lifestyle"center was born, along with its earlier relative the "power center". The malls that will survive are the big super-regionals like Tyson's (the malls aren't going anywhere), Montgomery, Fair Oaks and Lakeforest. The decline of malls may help the cause of urbanism and will provide openings for better redevelopment, but this will require advocacy. Otherwise, we'll get stuck with semi-new forms of the same old urban sprawl.

by Rich on Jan 2, 2009 3:50 pm

The question is what hurdles will the stores face in light of these changes? I think that's where it's going to get interesting.

by Cavan on Jan 2, 2009 4:36 pm

I for one am shocked to discover that change is more responsive to market forces than local government regulations.

by Economic Geography on Jan 2, 2009 4:40 pm

"But Apple, located in Cupertino, California, really doesn't know about how Metro access affects local businesses in our region. It's not in their computer model. I'm not specifically criticizing Apple; this is simply how national chains conduct their business."

Not at all true. National firms have sophisticated real estate operations with substantial geographic and demographic analysis. They work with local brokers to refine their locational search once they've decided upon an area, so to suggest that any firm "doesn't know... Metro" is not accurate. The cost of putting in a new store runs to the several millions of dollars before you open the doors, so getting it wrong is not habit forming.

If you look at Apple's locations in the DC area, they have a presence in Clarendon (Metro), Pentagon City (Metro), Tysons, Bethesda (Metro), and Montgomery Mall. These are visible storefronts in high income areas. More importantly, they are surrounded by other national chains that have a similar demographic appeal to increase the foot traffic. Personally, I think they would do well to look at Dupont, Tenley Circle, or another Red line location in addition to G'town, perhaps with a Bethesda-like mini-store.

The larger question of how to revitalize malls is a more interesting question. Dave is right to highlight the suffocating effect of all that parking between the mall and surrounding uses. The problem you have is that zoning regulations, lease requirements, and 'maximum flow' guidelines conspire to create a parking capacity that meets the equivalent of a 10-year flood. In essence, if it has enough to deal with a busy Christmas, it has 150% of parking needed to meet the regular daily requirement.

For redevelopment purposes, keep in mind that each land use has different parking requirements and you cannot always 'double count' that parking for zoning purposes. I'm thinking of a project I did in PW County that required separate and clearly delineated parking for residential, hotel, commercial, and retail. Trying to finance structured parking when several parties 'own' the facility (condo owners plus a commercial owner, e.g.) is an onerous undertaking.

In addition to the well known economics of surface vs. structure vs. below grade parking ($5-7k/space, $15-20k, $30+k), many mall lots are subdivided and leased directly to anchor stores. So while General Growth, owner of Tysons, may want to build residential next to Macy's, they have to negotiate a new lease with Macy's to do so.

By comparison, loading dock issues are fairly straightforward and can be solved either through limited storefront loading or by providing a series of restricted access hallways. It's not too difficult at all to fix these types of structural issues.

Zoning and finance stand in the way of easy reuse, not engineering.

by Will on Jan 2, 2009 4:48 pm

Zoning and finance stand in the way of easy reuse, not engineering.

Espeically the zoning.

by Christopher Dodd's Mistress on Jan 2, 2009 5:02 pm

I'm surprised Apple's not looking at Gallery Place.

by mark on Jan 2, 2009 5:33 pm

mark:

Maybe not Gallery Place, but 2 blocks west at the CenterCityDC development at the Old Convention Center Site.

http://pqliving.com/?p=1931

by Justin on Jan 2, 2009 5:45 pm

Yeah, that was my other thought.

by mark on Jan 2, 2009 5:59 pm

Not to dispute the points made in the original post, but the mall in the photo (Cloverleaf Mall) is located on the border between the City of Richmond and Chesterfield County in the inner suburbs. It has only been vacant for a few years, and is scheduled for redevelopment (http://www.chesterfield.gov/CommunityDevelopment/Revitalization/cloverleaf.asp) into a mixed-use retail, office, and residential area. Looking at an aerial illustration (http://www.chesterfield.gov/CommunityDevelopment/Revitalization/chippenhamaerialscan2.pdf) t is still a bit automobile-centric, but I would argue it is a vast improvement over the mall it will replace.

by RiverCity on Jan 2, 2009 7:44 pm

This is a tangential comment on new-urbanist communities:

I live in the Lakelands (sister community to the Kentlands in Gaithersburg) and I walk A LOT (dog + kid + jogging). My neighbors do not. Stores in our walkable community keep opening and closing. I have concluded two things so far, and I'd like some comments on it:

1) New-urbanist walkable communites chock full of families don't have the same economics as urban areas. Although my community has a very high household income as a whole, that income is largely locked up in homes + multiple cars + kids. Ergo my community cannot support its small, cozy shops (as evidenced by the fact that they keep opening and closing). However, it and the surrounding community can support the gigantic Lowes, Giant, Whole Foods, K-Mart, Michaels and PetSmart big-box stores. Therefore I conclude that the economics of the community is distinctly suburban.

2) The Kentlands has zoned a key street for mixed use live/work units. It is in these units especially that shops keep opening and closing. I conclude that our recent housing bubble made the "live" part of these "live/work" units push up the rent on the "work" part of these units too high. (I'm hoping that one positive outcome of the housing collapse is that more of these shops can stay in business once rents for the "work" unit come down...)

Thoughts?

by ingsy on Jan 2, 2009 10:23 pm

"So while General Growth, owner of Tysons.."

The Galleria (i.e. "Tyson's 2"), but not the mothership.

by spookiness on Jan 2, 2009 10:23 pm

There is a website, deadmalls, and they look at what has become of some. They can be made into low-priced satellite campuses, say for NOVA or Strayer; county govt. offices can be made of them (imagine FFax Co. savings over building their county castle) medical offices - college housing. Much easier and cheaper than reforming them into a charming and expensive mini main street.

by Amy Smith on Jan 2, 2009 10:51 pm

Thoughts?

You can zone anything for anywhere, but that doesn't necessarily make it efficient or profitable.

Zoning ultimately fails for the same reason centrally-planned economies fail: it is impossible for a centralized authority to anticipate and correctly distribute land-use regulations to match the wants and needs of consumers. The government may like the fact that certain areas are live/work but the market obviously didn't. It, as you suggested, possibly wanted housing.

I'm not saying a pure market approach is perfect either, but at least you lose a ton of bureaucratic economic deadweight in the process.

It just seems so silly that people are so passionate about using a system of laws to influence the real estate sector (which is really funny when you truly think about it) when the truth is overzealous laws have screwed things up ranging from rent-control to minimum-lot size to mandatory parking requirements, etc.

My contention is that you can't corrupt a zoning board chairman if there is no zoning board in the first place. You can't have (economic) rent-seeking methods if there's no structure to obtain it with.

Some people may say, 'Yea but those are only extreme cases. We need to just make sure it's well regulated (how often do you hear that term?)"

Maybe the first generation of bureaucrats will follow the spirit of the law. Often times they do with good results. Then they retire, etc. and there is suddenly this power granted to the government to regulate who gets to build what and where. You don't think every real estate developer isn't gonna be fighting arm and leg for that power? You can fund the county planning commissioner's election, but you can't bribe the market; rather you must give it what it wants.

by Economic Geography on Jan 3, 2009 2:00 am

ingsy,

I think what hurts economic activity in Kentlands, Lakelands, Crown Farm, Clarksburg, and to a lesser extend King Farm is the fact ath the premis for these new urbanist communities is transit-oriented development, and yet they have no transit. I submit that a corner grocer (like the Magruders in Cleveland Park, for example) would do quite will if it were located by a train station used daily by commuters in one of those neighborhoods. transit brings the foot traffic to the retail areas, and then people get used to walking to the corner store instead of driving to Target.

Live-work units also rely heavily on foot traffic. I'm interested to see what will become of the art studios in the new development in Hyattsville once that town is all set up. I don't know if it will have the transit to pull it off there, either.

by Dave Murphy on Jan 3, 2009 3:43 am

This is great news.

We can label all the dead malls "libraries," and the homeless will flock there, allowing non-odiferous types to occasionally use West End and other such facilities.

Landmark and Springfield will make GREAT hobo hotels.

This will also shift the homeless problem to the suburbs.

And it will all pass the legal muster of his excellency, Judge Emmett Sullivan.

It works on so many levels.

by Mr. Snark on Jan 3, 2009 9:03 am

My understanding is the Landmark "plan" to redevelop as high-end condo/retail is really the city's wish, not the owner's plan. There was a task-force on the future of the West End which came up with the recommendation that Landmark be redeveloped. Given the credit crunch, and the current condo oversupply, it's unlikely to happen anytime soon.

Still, it was one of the things that motivated the inclusion in the city's Transportation Master Plan of two streetcar lines -- one N-S along a Van Dorn St./Beauregard St. alignment, meeting Metro at Van Dorn St. and one E-W along a Duke St. alignment, meeting Metro (and VRE) at King St. -- intersecting at Landmark. Planning isn't very far along with these: exact alignments haven't been determined and there's no funding been identified.

But this sort of synergy between transportation planning and redevelopment ideas is what's going to make things in the inner suburbs better.

by jim on Jan 3, 2009 10:09 am

This is an interesting debate and one that has already arrived in other parts of the country. In Kansas City, my hometown, there is one large mall that has already been torn completely down and another mall that has been converted to a makeshift police station. I always double take when I see 100 police cars parked outside the mall.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the Northeast.

Chris

by Chris on Jan 3, 2009 10:35 am

Chris, thank you for pointing out the developments in other parts of the country. I wrote this piece in a nationwide context, understanding that most of the rest of the country is far less dense than the northeast corridor. Also, there was far less overbuilding of commercial real estate on the most extreme fringes. We also have to remember that many of our cities have a land use pattern than more closely resembles Loudoun County or outside the beltway southern Prince George's County. Most also lack a comprehensive transit system. In that context, it would be very hard to have any success with any sort of rerofit.

In our region, the Metro completely changes the chance of success of a new walkable urban place in place of a dead mall. Such a place only needs a streetcar line or be in walking distance of a Metro and its chance of success is greatly increased.

The real estate bubble popping is making the financing of car-dependent environments increasingly untenable in both commercial and residential real estate. Under these conditions, the sprawl cities will see more retail locating in their small historical cores where there is little real estate at all. Market pressure will build for more walkable urban places in a central location. The rents will skyrocket long before anyone can break ground on new city blocks that add to the historical urban core. In our region, the Metro greatly enhances mobility and consequently increases the size and number of places with high enough land demand to make a walkable retrofit profitable.

by Cavan on Jan 3, 2009 7:24 pm

I'm reminded of something I saw on New Year's Day down in Hampton: the former Coliseum Mall has been completely ripped up, and a whole slew of new development is now under construction in its place.

Perhaps more interestingly, this is not an area with a lot of transit, which makes it run counter to one of Cavan's earlier comments.

by Froggie on Jan 5, 2009 10:26 am

But is it located in a decent proximity to the core of the community? Was it built in the super-exurban fringes during the bubble years?

by Cavan on Jan 5, 2009 10:39 am

In response to the final issue you've raised, the local businesses being displaced in neighborhoods like Georgetown by the chains are the ones that need to be willing to relocate to the neighborhoods like Shaw. No, we can't expect Apple to open a store in an up and coming neighborhood, because they don't know what's up and coming. But local businesses with less influence and money have to accept that they are the ones who have to invest in those neighborhoods.

by Paul on Jan 5, 2009 2:49 pm

Cavan: neither. I'm guessing you don't know much about the Hampton Roads communities, but IMO Hampton doesn't exactly have what one could consider a "core". Nor is it out in the boondocks.

by Froggie on Jan 5, 2009 5:41 pm