Well there are reasons why not. Developers believe programs like this jeopardize their ability to fill the spaces with fully paying tenants.

For what it's worth, I believe that is a reasonable concern.

by WRD on Mar 4, 2011 12:35 pm • link • report

Cool idea. I think this is great as an incubator for people who have stuff to sell but aren't financed or organized enough to start a business on their own.

Unfortunately, though, I doubt that the general concept (letting people sign short-term leases at a reduced rent) could ever get much traction. For most kinds of businesses, there is a substantial investment in building out or configuring the space for their needs. Few people would want to be in a situation where they are basically just waiting for the phone call to tell them they have three months to get out. Too much risk.

So while I think it works great for this kind of flea-market concept I doubt it's going to solve the problem of empty storefronts and high rents.

by Jamie on Mar 4, 2011 12:38 pm • link • report

I had some friends who had a theater in such a space. They agreed that they would get kicked out with, IIRC, just one month's notice. It was pretty cheap, though. After moving around a few times, they've gradually become more financially secure and are able to get less volatile spaces.

by David Alpert on Mar 4, 2011 12:41 pm • link • report

That would require douglas^H^H^H^H^H^H^H err the developer to bring those properties up to code. As long as it's easier to pay off OTR to get out of the vacant rate, they have no incentive to improve the properties until they can get top dollar.

by m on Mar 4, 2011 12:46 pm • link • report

There's a business called the Halloween Store that rents this kind of space. I imagine part of the attraction to the landlord is that you know they will really vacate on November 1 - with other businesses you might worry about a time-consuming fight to get rid of them.

by Ben Ross on Mar 4, 2011 12:47 pm • link • report

While I like this idea for making use of an otherwise vacant building, are the multiple businesses operating in the temporiums paying all the licensing and sales taxes any other fixed-space business would have to pay?

by Fritz on Mar 4, 2011 12:57 pm • link • report

WRD really did hit it... though sometimes it might/should also be an eye-opener to the property owner that perhaps they're asking for too much.

Another risk is that more locally-oriented shops tend to draw a rather devoted fan base, and when time comes to kick them out in place of a higher-paying tenant: the community may not be willing to appreciate such a move.

While it's not *exactly* the same as the issues of empty urban storefronts, the history of the Burtonsville (now Laurel) Dutch Market shares a lot of similarlities.

by Bossi on Mar 4, 2011 12:59 pm • link • report

Unfortunately, it's common practice for property owners to charge such high rents that it can take a long time to find a tenant. Months, even years sometimes. This is especially true for new buildings, and for buildings developed by large-scale corporations (which can eat the losses from an empty lease if they need to).

Do you really think it's common for a 'for profit' business to purposely lose money by charging more than the space will ever get or because they 'can' eat losses? Government maybe, for example all the vacant schools sitting around the District. But no, not businesses. That's just not how business works.

I'm not saying that your idea isn't a good one. It is. I'm just saying I think you're reading into motives which just aren't there. I remember buying some artwork in Georgetown at a gallery that had set up shop in one of these vacant storefronts (actually a 3 storey building), while purchasing the art I learned they were renting the space for cheap while the developer got all his permits together to build out the space. Hence why the art work was hanging on cool looking exposed brick walls and the place looked pretty gutted other than for the art work. This woman who'd set up shop there with her gallery had been the one who approached the owner of the building asking if she could rent for cheap. Maybe that's part of the key, for people with an idea just to ask ...

by Lance on Mar 4, 2011 1:05 pm • link • report

Baltimore has launched "Operation Storefront." We'll see how it goes:

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-02-04/features/bs-ae-operation-storefront-20110130_1_downtown-partnership-mike-evitts-downtown-boosters

by Jed on Mar 4, 2011 1:06 pm • link • report

The new development down at the fairfax courthouse opened at the worst part of the recession and they haven't been able to fill up most of the office space so in the meantime they've allowed a number of galleries and a 10,000 villages that have opened and moved around a bit as more permanent lease holders have moved in.

by Canaan on Mar 4, 2011 1:20 pm • link • report

Don't know how you missed the fact that there is a second Temporium, the garmentDISTRICT, currently at 1005 7th Street, NW (at New York Avenue) that has 10,000 square feet of DMV fashion and art, through March 20, 2011. With over 40 creative entrepreneurs represented, the long vacant 19th century building, most recently used for campaign offices for Councilmembers Evans and Schwartz and Mayor Williams, is also home to musical performances, sewing classes, and fashions shows. Visit www.dcgarmentdistrict.com for details.

by Alexander M. Padro on Mar 4, 2011 2:12 pm • link • report

>Do you really think it's common for a 'for profit' business to purposely lose money by charging more than the space will ever get or because they 'can' eat losses?

Unfortunately, that's exactly how it works a lot of the time, especially in new buildings owned by large development interests. It happens that way because financing is usually built around a 30-year ROI cycle, and in order to pay for the construction of the building they have to get a certain amount of rent. This is why new buildings almost always have chain retail rather than local retail. After 30 years when the initial investment is paid off, it isn't such a problem.

Ask yourself this: Do you honestly think there's nobody in the city who wants those empty spaces in DCUSA?

by BeyondDC on Mar 4, 2011 3:29 pm • link • report

"Do you really think it's common for a 'for profit' business to purposely lose money by charging more than the space will ever get or because they 'can' eat losses?"

Yes, because
(1) sometimes the building is owned by a corporation or bank that is not into actively managing the property. This is especially so when there are a lot of bankruptcies. Similarly, the owner may only be holding it for a time to flip it: note that DC commercial property is rising very strongly.
(2) A vacant store front allows them to go the city/Feds and get "community development" grants to fix up the area.
(3) Not sure about DC, but a lot of cities have onerous regulations that make it expensive to rent for short term, and difficult to expel non-paying renters. You may have to redo the building, get all the inspections, etc. This is something that cities should be better about.
(4) Again, not sure about DC, but the city probably taxes both the cost of the property and a portion of income from the rent. Again, this makes short term renting a hassle (paperwork) that may not be worth it against the losses, which can be offset, especially if part of a larger conglomerate (see point 1). Commercial property used to a favorite for tax minimization purposes.
(5) Once the property is open again, the owner might be liable for lawsuits for anything from personal injury to failure to follow relevant code.

In general, getting a short term tenant is a pain that might not be worth it. Cities could do more by minimizing the costs of getting short term tenants, and penalizing owners for empty storefronts.

by SJE on Mar 4, 2011 3:57 pm • link • report

Also, a series of short term tenants might send a worse signal than having a store vacant for a while: it suggests that any business that moves into their cannot prosper. Who wants to get their commercial space tagged with that? It will seriously lower long term rents.

by SJE on Mar 4, 2011 6:02 pm • link • report

@BeyondDC 'Do you honestly think there's nobody in the city who wants those empty spaces in DCUSA?

Of course ... but obviously not the right somebodies. It's like asking 'Why is a pretty woman ever single? Don't you think lots of people want her? Why doesn't she just settle?'

Imagine an undercapitalized mom and pop opening up in DCUSA. What kind of message do you think that would send to the tenants who are paying market rent for it? I'm sure it's in the lease agreements that only other Class A Retail will be allowed in there.

by Lance on Mar 4, 2011 10:35 pm • link • report

Why is it closing ? will they open another?

by Matt on Mar 5, 2011 11:34 am • link • report

Anyone doing the same thing in Northern Virginia?
What about a similar idea focused on street level office space?

by Kelley C on Mar 5, 2011 5:53 pm • link • report

@Matt, 'Why is it closing ?'

Probably because 'temporary' is part of it's name?

by Lance on Mar 5, 2011 5:55 pm • link • report

I just noticed the Temporium at the corner of 7th and NY Avenue in a Doug Jemal-owned building. The irony of the temporium? It means Jemal doesn't have to pay the vacant property tax on that building. Smart guy.

by Fritz on Mar 5, 2011 6:25 pm • link • report

FYI, when the Temporium closes it will become home to clothing shop Nana (http://www.nanadc.com/), which is moving to Mt Pleasant from U St.

by M.V. Jantzen on Mar 6, 2011 5:07 pm • link • report

Oh, and the Temporium's opening night was awesome. I'd never seen such a great throng of people in Mt Pleasant. That it was a beautiful warm night didn't hurt either. The store is definitely giving the neighborhood a much-needed jolt.

by M.V. Jantzen on Mar 6, 2011 5:08 pm • link • report