Posts about Retail

The document, entitled, "Keep Safeway Site at 35 Feet High or Less," says, "taller commercial and residential structures would violate the scope, scale and values of the community."

Why are they wrong? Because the character of a neighborhood is not defined by the height of its buildings, but by the spirit of its people. The real question is this: What kind of neighborhood do Bluemont residents want? Do we want to be an inclusive, welcoming community, or do we want to be the kind of place that tries to keep newcomers out?

The Bluemont Safeway is on Wilson Boulevard, about a ¾-mile walk from Ballston Metro. Last year, Safeway announced their intention to redevelop the decades-old store and its large parking lot. Current plans call for the new building to occupy the entire site, with parking underground and 160 predominantly 1-bedroom rental apartments on top, according to developer Mark Silverwood.

The region needs more housing in the right places

The Washington region has folks who commute to DC from as far as West Virginia. Their daily journey illustrates a variety of serious problems we say we care about: affordable housing, suburban sprawl, oil consumption, high emissions, and traffic. When a commercial landowner seeks to add significant housing to a single-use site, they're offering an opportunity to help solve all those problems.

Bluemont residents are pretty close to the center of our region. As such, we use less energy and produce less pollution per person than people farther out in the suburbs. We're closer to a whole array of cultural and economic resources. We can be proud of those advantages. They're a big part of why people want to live here.

If we say "no" to new housing, the people we've kept out will do one of two things. They'll move further out into the suburbs, contributing to the loss of farmland and wildlife habitat, driving and polluting more to get to the center from way out there. Or they'll bid up prices to move into one of our scarce housing units; less affluent residents will be pushed out over time. That's why Arlington neighborhoods like ours need to provide more housing. We have a chance to do that.

The proposal promotes real community values

If we care about widely shared values like land conservation, energy conservation, pollution reduction, and affordable housing, then Bluemont residents should support Safeway's proposal. It's good for the region, and sets a positive example for others to follow.

It's also good for the community itself. Aesthetically, it will be a tremendous improvement. The existing store presents a featureless brick wall to Wilson Boulevard, and its parking lot is a bleak void in the fabric of the neighborhood.

The existing store on Wilson Boulevard, seen from west (left) and east (right). Photos by the author.

The new store will create a superior pedestrian experience, with ample shop windows and no curb cuts along Wilson. The apartments, a housing type new to the neighborhood, will allow long-time residents to remain active in the community as they outgrow the yardwork and stairs of typical 2-story houses.

The proposal isn't perfect, of course. Neighbors have suggested allowing customers of nearby businesses to share the new garage, a move that would help make the area's sidewalks safer and more appealing for foot traffic. Smaller-scale "liner" shops and restaurants along Wilson would also make the place a more vibrant destination for nearby residents.

At a recent public meeting organized by the Bluemont Civic Association, Safeway representative Avis Black explained that the geometry of the rather narrow site precludes additional stores, although outdoor cafe seating appears likely.

Neighborhood group plans to vote this week

This Wednesday, Bluemont Civic Association members will vote, choosing between 3 statements of BCA's position on the redevelopment. The first 2 options oppose Safeway's proposal, essentially on the grounds that it's "excessively tall," according to the group's April newsletter. The third option, revealed in an e-mail over the weekend, states support for Safeway's proposal "under certain conditions."

The Association should work with Safeway in a spirit of cooperation, not conflict. One day, when they write about the character of our neighborhood, let's make sure they say that we recognized a good thing when we saw it, that we found a way to make it even better—and that we were an inclusive, welcoming community.

The currently-proposed regulations are their fourth revision. Rather than focusing public safety, they micromanage when and where individual food trucks can operate. But food trucks have been successful in large part because they quickly respond to consumer needs by changing menus and locations.

Most of downtown would be permanently off-limits under the new regulations, aside from a handful allowed to operate in designated "mobile roadway vending locations."

Locations where food trucks would be allowed or prohibited downtown.
Image from the DC Food Truck Association.

The regulations themselves do not create a single MRV location. Instead, they allow DC's Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) to propose locations and the number of food trucks that can operate in each one, subject to review by the District Department of Transportation.

The regulations also allow the director of either agency, on his or her own, "the discretion to propose, modify, or remove a designated MRV location at any time." This does not protect consumers from any actual harm. Given how popular food trucks are, it's not clear which, if any, public interest is being addressed by the regulations.

Helder Gil, DCRA's legislative affairs specialist, has stated that the regulations are an attempt to "find something that works for everyone." This is a misguided goal. Many restaurateurs would prefer a downtown free from competitors, but it makes as much sense to give restaurants input on where food trucks can operate as it does to give food trucks control over prices restaurants can charge.

In heeding the concerns of restaurants, DCRA has strayed from the traditionally-accepted role of crafting regulations to preserve public health by attempting to control competition between businesses.

It's also clear that restaurants and food trucks can coexist. While food trucks have the advantages of mobility, low overhead, and convenience, restaurants have the advantages of seating, climate control, and larger kitchens. When restaurants and food trucks compete for customers by playing to their strengths, consumers win. When businesses thrive by regulating competitors out existence, consumers lose.

DCRA should completely scrap the latest proposed regulations. Instead, simpler regulations should bring food trucks into a legal status without giving local officials power to stifle competition. DCRA should issue a mobile vending license for any truck that meets the already-existing standards for cleanliness and safety.

These licenses should permit trucks to park in any available spot in a commercial zone, allowing them to operate near their customers. The cost of the license, in the range of a few hundred dollars per month, would bring in more revenue than trucks currently pay by feeding parking meters.

By keeping food truck regulations simple and rule-based, we can ensure that restaurants and food trucks compete on an even playing field. By removing discretion from the regulations, we can ensure that consumers, not competitors or officials, are in control.

If you would like to share your input on the proposed food truck regulations, send your thoughts to DCVendingRegs@dc.gov by 5 pm on Monday, April 8th.

Corner stores are very hard to open today

Today, it is almost impossible to put a store in a residential area, even in a location that historically had one, but the store closed. That means neighborhoods that once had walkable retail have lost the opportunity.

Someone can get a variance, but there is a very high legal bar that the owner essentially has to prove they can't use the property without it; since the building works fine as a residence, that's not possible. So even if neighbors are eager for a store, there isn't a path to get one.

One approach would be to allow a special exception, where the owner still has to go through a time-consuming and costly legal process, but the standard is lower. That gives residents a say, which is what many people want to see happen. Still, the process can be a burden; Aaron Wiener's story on the Anacostia Playhouse shows how waiting for a zoning hearing can block something even if people support it and the zoning board is almost sure to approve it.

The Office of Planning took a different approach. They instead said, if people are really concerned that a store will bring trash, noise, and smells, let's just set strict limits to avoid the impacts, but if someone can open a store with minimal effect on neighbors, then allow them to move forward without the time and expense of a hearing.

OP ended up placing so many limits on the stores, though, that it's possible we will see almost no corner stores. In particular, the stores now have to be in actual corner buildings, or buildings originally built as commercial; they also can't be within 500 feet of a commercial corridor to avoid competing with the commercial space.

The proposal also only applies in medium density house zones, but not detached house neighborhoods or higher-density apartment neighborhoods. All told, that leaves very few eligible spots for stores.

Here is Harriet Tregoning explaining the reasons for the corner store proposal at the recent DC Council oversight hearing:

An alternative: special exception, but more broadly

The Zoning Commission (ZC) ought to accept OP's proposal or even loosen the set of restrictions. However, if that board decides they aren't comfortable with any matter-of-right stores and wants to require a special exception, then potential retailers should be able to ask for a special exception to some of the restrictions as well.

In other words, if we believe that it necessary to have a zoning hearing that gives residents a chance to weigh in, and that forum can balance residents' desire for the store against the potential impacts, then we should trust the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) to have the leeway to decide how many square feet is too much, or how close to other stores is too close, or whether the store can include something on the second floor of a building.

OP devised a set of restrictions they thought would ensure stores had minimal impact. They suggested allowing stores as of right in only these extremely narrow circumstances. If ANCs or the ZC don't like this approach, fine, but then we don't really need this extreme set of restrictions.

Instead, make these general criteria the BZA should consider, but give the BZA freedom to allow a corner store even when it doesn't meet all of these criteria. Instead of a rule limiting the stores to corner buildings and historically commercial ones, let the BZA consider the impact on neighbors, understanding that a corner building may be less likely to affect neighbors.

Instead of forbidding stores within 500 feet of commercial corridors, let the BZA decide if the store is going to sap nearby commercial space. Sometimes there's commercial zoning nearby but few or no actual stores, not because the properties are vacant but because they're filled with other things. The BZA could have the power to decide whether a store is going to detract from a commercial strip, or not.

ANC 6B seems open to loosening some of the restrictions:

During ANC 6B's deliberations on this issue, there was discussion about the restriction in OP's proposal that a proposed use not be within 500 feet of a commercial zone and whether a different or more flexible standard might be worth considering. ANC 6B also discussed whether to recommend that "purpose built structures" should be matter-of-right rather than require a special exception. ANC 6B will investigate these questions and may propose further comments and recommendations at a later stage of the consideration of these zoning changes.

The other approach is to pass the ball to a group of people who make a case-by-case decision including resident input on a case by case basis. In this situation, you don't need a lot of detailed rules, just guidelines, because the board can use its discretion.

There's no reason to do have both a very tight set of rules and also require a hearing even to open a store that meets all of those tests. Either go with OP's proposal as is, or replace it wholesale with a rule that you can create a corner store in a residential area under a broader set of circumstances, but need a public hearing and a special exception to do it.

The crowd was as diverse as the community, with life-long residents and newcomers alike speaking in opposition to the moratorium. Fewer than 10 people spoke in support of the moratorium. Comments were impassioned, but civil.

According to the meeting announcement from the ANCs,

The moratorium, as proposed, would seek to prohibit all future liquor licenses with the exception of full service grocery stores, it seeks to cap CT and CN licenses as well, and has been requested to be a 5-year moratorium. The boundaries of the moratorium as proposed and filed with ABRA, extend 1800 feet in either direction from Ben's Chili Bowl. This goes north to Clifton Street, south to R Street, east to just before Georgia Avenue. between 7th and 8th streets, and west to just west of 16th Street. overlapping New Hampshire Avenue. NW.

Moratorium brings harm in Adams Morgan

Business leaders in Adams Morgan are now preparing for an upcoming March 2014 review of the moratorium in their community. A major nightlife destination, Adams Morgan is often invoked as a sort of boogeyman for policy impacting commercial districts, a warning of what might happen on U Street if something is not done to curb issues of noise, trash and crime.

But along 18th Street, the heart of Adams Morgan, a moratorium means that the kinds of businesses that might actually mitigate some of these issues—like higher end restaurants—aren't able to move into vacant spaces unless they wish to purchase an existing liquor license, something that can cost up to $75,000 in the market the moratorium has created. In 2010, the Alcoholic Beverage Control board unanimously lifted a similar moratorium in Georgetown.

There are better solutions than a moratorium

Those of us who have served the U Street community understand that there are serious issues that need to be addressed as our commercial district continues to thrive. But a liquor license moratorium serves as a blunt instrument in a situation where more precision is needed.

There will certainly be cases when a proposed liquor establishment is not the right fit for the space it wishes to occupy. The community will often support an establishment but with certain caveats that can go in a legally-binding "settlement agreement," which serves as a rider to the liquor license. We already have tools to address these issues. But we also need to pursue long-term solutions to the other impacts when residents and businesses are situated so closely.

We should seek funding for hospitality initiatives that train and support business owners. We should support opportunities to create more daytime foot traffic that would support retailers such as offices or hotels. And we should come together around green initiatives that would reduce trash, noise and pollution.

A liquor license moratorium is not the solution to all of our problems. The community has spoken on this issue in the past as it did last night, and it's time to put it to rest so we can focus our attention on real solutions.

Real collaboration is what helped U Street begin to thrive more than 10 years ago and it is what will help us continue to grow in a way that fosters business growth while also making our neighborhood a great place to live.

Any discussion of a local ban on any particular use needs to consider where that use is most appropriate. It's not enough to just say "I don't want more of X in my neighborhood." We have to plan where we do want that use, make sure it can happen there, and then plan what we want in the banned location instead.

Malls can use their control in ways neighborhoods can't

One of the advantages suburban malls have over urban neighborhoods is total control of the merchant mix. Mall owners know that it's important to have a wide variety of stores, so the best malls typically lease spaces to shops that will improve their mix, rather than those that will pay the highest rent.

When you're at a mall and Verizon has a big luxurious shop, but AT&T and T-Mobile only have little carts, it isn't because AT&T and T-Mobile can't afford to outbid that shoe store down the hall; it's because the mall owner will only lease out one big space to cell phone providers.

That isn't limiting the free market. On the contrary, it's taking a broad long term view of the market.

Urban neighborhoods usually can't be as selective, because every building has a unique owner. Mall owners are concerned about the overall profit of the entire mall, so they can turn down high leases on individual storefronts if they think it will pay off with a little more business everywhere else. But if you only own one individual storefront, you're going to maximize it with the highest-paying tenant you can find.

That sometimes results in neighborhoods with a bad mix of stores. We certainly see that in DC, where many of our retail strips have a glut of bank branches, cell phone stores, or pharmacies.

If used carefully, a moratorium can help level the playing field for urban neighborhoods with a lot of small land owners. That only works if the neighborhood is desirable enough to fill all its storefronts even with limits, and if the moratorium is more a way to promote something new rather than limit something old.

But moratoriums shouldn't be tossed around lightly. The key is to plan for what you do want and then make it happen. Moratoriums fail when they're used without a master plan guiding them towards a specific goal.

And sometimes, it's worth having a high ratio of certain things. For example, as a regionally-significant nightlife district, it's acceptable for U Street to have a lot of bars.

Cross-posted at BeyondDC.

Officials announced on Tuesday a trio of new restaurants and a VIP section for the 15-screen movie theater planned for the Towson Square project, an $85 million development seen as a key element in attracting more shoppers and visitors to the county seat.

"We are going to make Towson a regional destination, even better than Bethesda, even better than Silver Spring," Baltimore County Executive Kevin Kamenetz said at a news conference Tuesday announcing the restaurants.

What makes Bethesda and Silver Spring not just regional draws, but fun and vibrant places to be is their density and mix of uses. Downtown Towson has plenty of jobs: according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' County Business Patterns, it has 43,000 workers, fewer than downtown Bethesda (50,000) but more than downtown Silver Spring (32,000).

However, it doesn't have as many people. According to the 2010 Census (accessed via the New York Times' Mapping America), the densest parts of downtown Towson have about 8,900 people per square mile, compared to 17,000 people per square mile in downtown Bethesda and 30,000 in downtown Silver Spring, where over 1800 housing units have have opened or broken ground in the past year. The only housing being built in downtown Towson right now is a small townhouse development.

Sure, people come from across Greater Baltimore to work in Towson, and you have 20,000 college students in the area, but they don't make a neighborhood as active as people who live there after the offices close at 5 pm and when school's out for summer and winter break. Towson Square would do far more to contribute to the area's vitality if there were apartments or condominiums on top of it.

Of course, if Towson were to have more housing, it would probably need more transit as well. If Kevin Kamenetz is really serious about creating a rival to Bethesda and Silver Spring, he might want to focus on extending the Baltimore Yellow Line light rail to Towson.