Bricktown Strategic Plan

[Just the facts]

CVS' absence is actually very perplexing considering their new approach to how their stores are setup and their product inventory. Their urban stores have added significantly to their food section, taking away from a lot of the miscellaneous things that are often seen in a CVS. It seems like there should be one in one of the up and coming districts of OKC.

I was shocked when I went into a CVS in Philly - it was more grocery store than drug store complete with a fresh produce section. Blew my mind!

[Rover]

Now hold on. I wouldn't use CVS' absence as a dig, or anything definitive, for that matter. I doubt CVS has even been asked in a few years, or given a proposal. And if they have and said no, that's their loss. The point being though, I'm pretty sure that downtown could at least support a CVS, the prolonged absence of which is now becoming puzzling.

Not making a dig. But your statement is my point exactly. WHY haven't they? And like anything, there are trend setters whom other retailers respect (or envy) and whom they follow (they are different than innovators/pioneers). When one or two trend setter retailers agree to move in, others will quickly follow. All retailers have their guidelines..some stupid, but they have them. And demographics isn't just number of people and not even always about income, but more about the specific demographics and what they buy, and disposable income as much as income. The new developments and growing market size helps, but it may take awhile...or subsidies to help convince a trend setter to come and show what the neighborhood REALLY will support. Chesapeake subsidized the entry of Whole Foods and guess what....they found they can be VERY successful here. Now they are looking for other sites. Downtown needs their "Chesapeake" to kick start the retail side, and then hope that everyone responds and supports them.

[betts]

This sounds like a circular argument. We don't have retail downtown because we don't have enough people and people dont come downtown to shop because we don't have enough retail. I still believe we could create the impetus for people who don't live downtown to come to shop, which might encourage more people to move downtown. I think, if someone had enough vision or the city helped out financially, that we could create enough interesting retail (not national chains) that it could be destination shopping. I don't think it is likely to happen by itself, which is why I thought the title of this thread related to strategic planning. Maybe we need some of that.

If the plan is "it's not gonna happen", then it won't.

[Spartan]

Not making a dig. But your statement is my point exactly. WHY haven't they?

I just think you're giving way too much credit to the CVS and other low-level retail site selectors, who frankly aren't experts or else they would be site selectors for better retailers than CVS. Especially to let them characterize the potential of downtown retail for us??

It sounds like you're agreeing with my suggestion that subsidies will need to be involved. I was saying though that subsidies need to be applied very diligently and selectively, to prevent that train from leaving the station. Subsidies are a risky thing to lose control of, especially when you have a city that is run the way OKC is (not very well).

But I do not believe that CVS should be given a subsidy to come downtown. Or even an equivalent. Honestly, it sounds like some of you all are just being overly-contrarian. I have been arguing all along that the retail picture is complicated, then you all said no it's very simple. Now that I've brought up that downtown demographic picture is actually not as bad as it is made out to be, now it's not simple, it is in fact very complicated--see these reasons, which come from Spartan's post earlier. So it is frustrating that we're circling the wagons here and to see reasoning that I've already put out there.

That said, I think there's a lot to be said for downtown's demographics. I would argue that instead of controversial "stakeholder" studies and recommendations to bury the streetcar project in a barrage of repetitive studies, perhaps a study should be done on just what is the downtown retail demographic. How can all of these restaurants set up shop and thrive, very few of them ever going out of business, and yet retail is just non sequitur? Retail and restaurants are usually considered very similar uses in the planning picture, so on the business side of it, it would be interested to examine the disconnect there.

I think we would be pleasantly surprised. There are a lot of things that are never as bad as they're chalked up to be. Sometimes, the court of public opinion is a vicious thing, and it's often wrong as well. Granted, O.J. did in fact do it, I think downtown's demographics is a great example of where some people who aren't part of that demographic, haven't studied it fully, and just aren't as connected to reality as they should be to make such a definitive statement, ended up declaring downtown premature for retail and then the media went with it and got all of us to go with it, and then the question was never revisited again because everybody thinks it was definitively answered.

This downtown demographics issue seems more like a lose-lose proposition than a piece of information that can help us correct the problem. The people from whom this statement comes from are also pretty much saying that there's nothing you can do about downtown retail, the facts are this, just give up (which reminds me a LOT about how we used to talk about pro sports in Oklahoma when I was growing up).

This argument seems to be in no way connected to a strategy to fix the problem, and that's something I have a huge problem with, because it's not helping. It's not a constructive issue. And this issue seems to exist, in the minds of people, in a vacuum that is totally oblivious to the fact that we're seeing about a thousand move-ins a year in terms of rooftops downtown. If that doesn't change things in terms of the equation for downtown retail, then I'm going to go ahead and say that the math is wrong, not downtown. If somebody is oblivious, unaware, or just doesn't care about thousands of living units under construction or proposed, then I am either oblivious, unaware, or just don't care about what they're saying about downtown.

[Urbanized]

Facts are facts. It's not a circular argument. It is not giving up. I have been involved with this issue for a long time (many years before actually becoming a retailer in fact), and I am hardly discouraged about downtown's prospects. I have also been fortunate enough to know many of the people involved - all of them with far more than my own meager horsepower - and I can assure you that some very smart, hardworking and resourceful people have worked incredibly diligently over the years to bring they types of retail being discussed, and at times have been frustrated in their efforts. This is not an issue that is somehow being ignored by the City, and a number of property owners downtown have quietly been very aggressive in trying to make it happen.

I have just come to the understanding that attracting quality retail to downtown is a detailed process, and unfortunately in our case likely to continue to be a lengthy one.

It is NOT a "chicken or the egg" thing where there is a debate as to whether the people attract the retail or the retail attracts the people; it's well-established what has to come first: the people. Lots of them. With disposable income. That simply does not exist in the OKC inner-city in the radius that would be considered by the retailers we all hope for.

The bright side is that it probably will exist one day. Creating a strategy in the meantime is of course very important.

The chain retailers people have been talking about on here (other than services like pharmacies) are very unlikely to be here anytime soon. The inner city zip codes that would be considered in the downtown equation are very sparsely populated overall, and even worse the average income numbers are around $20K, I have been told. The only way that changes is when many more quality developments appear, like the ones we are currently seeing.

If an upscale retailer is going to venture into the OKC market, "taking a chance" on the city at all is as about as much appetite for risk as they will possibly exhibit. They will go to a proven location with the right demographics, not a sparsely-populated, comparatively poor, unproven area they "have a gut feeling about."

You can try all you want to create parallels between downtown and Classen Curve, and talk about incentives like WF supposedly received, but what you cannot change is the amount of relatively high-income housing surrounding CC. There is zero legitimate comparison between the two. It's even more sobering when you consider the fact that they apparently STILL had to provide incentives. Downtown isn't even in that ballgame.

Sorry if it seems like I am a wet blanket, but there is a bit of a need for a reality check here. Realistic expectations will make the journey much more palatable, as the work of the past couple of decades and the next few years finally bear fruit, as they eventually will.

[Spartan]

and talk about incentives like WF supposedly received, but what you cannot change is the amount of relatively high-income housing surrounding CC. There is zero legitimate comparison between the two. It's even more sobering when you consider the fact that they apparently STILL had to provide incentives. Downtown isn't even in that ballgame.

Wow, if they say I'm depressing to read, I'd hate to see reactions to this no matter what a good point it is. Here's what I'm wondering, on the bright side: We know how likely downtown retail was 5 years ago when we were looking at our first big wave of infill. There was a 2007 wave, most of which never broke ground due to the recession, but some stuff did. How much progress have we at least made? What have we done right, what have we done wrong? How much has the incredible growth downtown made a dent in the numbers we ultimately will need?

Now we've seen a large 2011 wave that is more in line with our optimistic expectations for development. I'm currently working on lists that will quantify the exact number/costs of development and housing units for downtown. But I suspect once we add up all the small projects with 10/15 units a piece, we'll be surprised at how many new units we've seen. As for how that translates into population, I'll figure that each unit will add 1.5 people, because we know that downtown household sizes are much smaller than average. So, first we need an idea of how many people we have downtown and how many more we KNOW we're adding space for.

Then we need a magical number for downtown housing. Some people have said for a grocery store that it's around 20,000, or else you're looking at incentivizing to make up for however much you're short. But, how much do you think the magical number would be for something like this (you're essentially adding 4 more small stores on Broadway):


I think here is how you can strategically target some small retailers, in this case two national clothing brands (GAP, and Urban Outfitters) that have proven to be urban staples, and then getting a local grocer that has already expressed interest in downtown, and a bookstore that is owned by a downtown developer and probably needs new digs. Instead of $40 million in incentives to get a Bloomingdale's or a Saks that isn't happening anyway (and I'm shocked the City has even thought about it), what if each of these retailers could be made eligible for some very generous tax receipts that would make downtown more than worth their while?

In the case of GAP, I wouldn't be surprised if they're not looking to expand in the metro since they have much more of a presence in other similarly-sized metros, and they've gone in on potentially risky downtown areas before. Like Lawrence, KS (whose downtown was revitalized in the 90s)--which also has a UO on their downtown stretch.

So then, by adding that up with what is arguably our fledgling little retail hub, suddenly I think this stretch provides EXCELLENT retail destination. It also has excellent highway access, which retailers will desire, along with the streetcar and a glut of 4-lane roads with potentially high traffic volume. I would say just by bringing in those four stores, two of which are local (important to make sure locals benefit from retail incentives) and all of which contribute to the kind of cool, unique mix that downtown retail needs in order to succeed--then just sit back and see if creating that retail destination adds to any additional activity from developers once this area gets established and makes a name for itself.

[Spartan]

One of the main reasons I like that location Nick is that it acts as a stepping stone back toward Downtown. I have always wondered why we don't think of urban renewal more in the context of a reverse suburban flight. In other words, draw your population rings and start to work inward, building stability and buy-in along the way. Instead of trying to force activity in abandoned areas and hope people will leave their beaten path to participate.

There are other areas too that boarder the peripheral neighborhoods that surround the CBD. Would be a neat experiment to draw a band about 1-2 miles out around downtown and see what opportunities exist today that can be leveraged - especially retail ones.

Granted, this approach takes longer and isn't as sexy as new entertainment districts, but I think it is a viable project that could run parallel to other, downtown-centric efforts. Over time, you could bring that ring in closer to downtown as infill brings people and activity closer.

Well it's just the idea of organic development (what is proven to be successful) versus inorganic development (what we keep trying).

[Spartan]

What, microsoft Paint not good enough for you? Fine, I see how it is...

[Rover]

How about building a large parking garage in Btown and surround it with a charming urban shopping with street parking. The cheap parking is not necessarily for the shoppers, but for downtown workers, not the $150k a yr workers, but the others for whom parking is expensive. Make them go past the shopping....either walking or by transport. Get the feet on the street and really encourage them to hang around downtown after work. Add that demographics to that of those who live there. Too many people leave work and go straight home. Make them want to hang around...give them a reason. BUILD the kind of demographics beneficial to retail.

[Spartan]

I agree, excellent idea. I would also say that a public parking facility in my little fledgling retail destination would no doubt be necessary and also ensure some degree of success. Available parking is another thing that retailers look specifically for.

It would be very nice if some of these new COTPA parking garages would address non-office land uses, but that seems to be asking for too much. Exnay on the transit, retail, and mixed-use areas apparently.

[Rover]

In many places, the parking is for pay during the day and free after 5. Make it cheap for the office workers to hang around. Keep them downtown rather than trying to get other people to come downtown. Build the garages in areas you want people to be in. If you build them adjoining the offices, they leave the office and drive on out to the burbs. Give them financial incentives to wak from downtown thru btown.

[betts]

How about building a large parking garage in Btown and surround it with a charming urban shopping with street parking. The cheap parking is not necessarily for the shoppers, but for downtown workers, not the $150k a yr workers, but the others for whom parking is expensive. Make them go past the shopping....either walking or by transport. Get the feet on the street and really encourage them to hang around downtown after work. Add that demographics to that of those who live there. Too many people leave work and go straight home. Make them want to hang around...give them a reason. BUILD the kind of demographics beneficial to retail.

Thank you. The point I was trying to make is that if we're simply going to say Bricktown isn't ready for more retail and won't be for some time, why bother talking about a strategic plan? If retail can succeed at the Old Market in Omaha, and from my admittedly limited experience with it it has, then we should be able to make it succeed in Bricktown. I'd rather see people throw out ideas, which perhaps might make people think outside the box a little, than assume it can't be done.

Oh, and as far as CVS is concerned, I actually contacted their management about a possible Deep Deuce store. This was despite the fact that I consider most of their stores decidedly ugly. They gave me population figures they require for a new store, and it was far higher than what we can expect in the next few years. I suggested they alternatively consider 10th St, because it is an arterial between the Health Sciences Center and St. Anthony's and got no response.

[Spartan]

That would seem like a pretty easy conundrum to solve to me. Tell CVS and Walgreens that neither of them can expect a building permit for a new store anywhere in OKC unless they look at downtown. Either they go downtown, or they stop littering our city with their ugly suburban stores, so I don't see how we could lose there. I would sure hate to see incentives for a CVS, not that Cathy O'Connor would go there.

And...

The point I was trying to make is that if we're simply going to say Bricktown isn't ready for more retail and won't be for some time, why bother talking about a strategic plan? If retail can succeed at the Old Market in Omaha, and from my admittedly limited experience with it it has, then we should be able to make it succeed in Bricktown. I'd rather see people throw out ideas, which perhaps might make people think outside the box a little, than assume it can't be done.

Yes!!

[BoulderSooner]

That would seem like a pretty easy conundrum to solve to me. Tell CVS and Walgreens that neither of them can expect a building permit for a new store anywhere in OKC unless they look at downtown. Either they go downtown, or they stop littering our city with their ugly suburban stores, so I don't see how we could lose there. I would sure hate to see incentives for a CVS, not that Cathy O'Connor would go there.

And...

Yes!!

wow .. just wow

[rcjunkie]

That would seem like a pretty easy conundrum to solve to me. Tell CVS and Walgreens that neither of them can expect a building permit for a new store anywhere in OKC unless they look at downtown. Either they go downtown, or they stop littering our city with their ugly suburban stores, so I don't see how we could lose there. I would sure hate to see incentives for a CVS, not that Cathy O'Connor would go there.

And...

Yes!!

That's right, because we all know Bricktown will cease to exist without a 24 hour Drug Store.

[Spartan]

wow .. just wow

Don't tell me you're defending precious CVS..

[BoulderSooner]

Don't tell me you're defending precious CVS..

no but your comment that the city should/could tell CVS and walgreens that neither of them can expect a permit unless the look downtown .. is so out there that is deserved a couple of wow's

[Spartan]

It's also called hardball in bigger cities. If you're going to litter our city with 50 of your crappy suburban boxes, and OKC can't do anything to control that, then at least look downtown. There are a lot of cities that have begun "discriminating" against retailers (like Walmart) who have "too much" market share.

You think it's radical, but it's totally viable. And really, how much "sway" does CVS or Walgreens have in this city? Some cities in Canada are now implementing a "no more than 10 locations" rule (darn you Harvey's), which I think is an awesome idea.

[BoulderSooner]

it very much would be not legal .... and very much effects the rights property holders that lease to CVS/Walgreens ..

[metro]

Wow, quite the crowd. Thanks for sharing!

That was a SMALL fraction of the crowd at the St. Patty's parade. I went this year for the first time and was blown away how big an event this is. Several thousand street spectators from AA all the way through Bricktown to Joe Carter. It was packed, the parade itself lasted about 2 hours.

[Urbanized]

...Oh, and as far as CVS is concerned, I actually contacted their management about a possible Deep Deuce store. This was despite the fact that I consider most of their stores decidedly ugly. They gave me population figures they require for a new store, and it was far higher than what we can expect in the next few years. I suggested they alternatively consider 10th St, because it is an arterial between the Health Sciences Center and St. Anthony's and got no response.

You're confirming the point I have been making, which is not so much about Bricktown, but about downtown in general. CVS won't come to downtown due to sparse population (you heard it with your own ears), but Whole Foods or Urban Outfitters will? Sure, UO isn't afraid of urban areas, but in THOSE cities, there is dense and typically affluent population surrounding the site.

We have to crawl before we can walk. Build residential, build residential, build residential. Beyond that, entice other locals to set up shop, and then SUPPORT them. That is the path. Spending a bunch of time hoping for West Elm to be here tomorrow is wasted energy.

[Urbanized]

One other thing that might be instructive to those who keep bringing up relocating Full Circle Books (which I personally have great affection for and would love to see as much as anyone) is that the owner, Jim Tolbert, already owns multiple buildings in downtown and specifically in Bricktown. He has been deeply involved in the redevelopment of Bricktown nearly since the Neal Horton days, and is a downtown treasure.

Since we opened the Emporium in 2007 he has been kind enough to partner with us on our Oklahoma-themed book collection. When we opened the marketplace in 2010, we actively sought him out and offered him space in one of our large booths, hoping he would do a scaled-down version of Full Circle. After a lot of thought he politely declined.

If he desired to move Full Circle to Bricktown, he would have done it already.

[Just the facts]

You think it's radical, but it's totally viable. And really, how much "sway" does CVS or Walgreens have in this city? Some cities in Canada are now implementing a "no more than 10 locations" rule (darn you Harvey's), which I think is an awesome idea.

That would be counter-productive in OKC. That strategy works in Canada becasue they don't have urban sprawl the way we do so limiting retail outlets forces chains to locate in high density areas and not spread out. OKC is already spreadout so limiting the chains to 10 stores would actually prevent them from expanding in the urban core. If you want to try something radical then limit the number of parking spaces (no more than 1 parking space for every 5,000 sq feet of space). They could build all the CVS' they want but they could only put in 2 parking spaces which would force them to only locate in walkable areas.

[Spartan]

it very much would be not legal .... and very much effects the rights property holders that lease to CVS/Walgreens ..

That would be counter-productive in OKC. That strategy works in Canada becasue they don't have urban sprawl the way we do so limiting retail outlets forces chains to locate in high density areas and not spread out. OKC is already spreadout so limiting the chains to 10 stores would actually prevent them from expanding in the urban core. If you want to try something radical then limit the number of parking spaces (no more than 1 parking space for every 5,000 sq feet of space). They could build all the CVS' they want but they could only put in 2 parking spaces which would force them to only locate in walkable areas.

But BoulderSooner would tell you that doing that, or exercising any kind of planning on private property, "very much would not be legal."

And you could also include code enforcement, zoning regulations, urban design overlay districts, the entire city building permit process, not to mention HOAs, all under this very broad umbrella of "very much would be not legal." Or property tax.

I'm sorry, but you don't have complete private property rights in a city. Cities have the right to enact ordinances and govern their land however they see fit. OKC is ridiculously lax in terms of its building standards, and I can't drive that point home enough. There are U.S. cities as well that limit the number of franchises in a city. Seriously, a growing list of cities including San Francisco don't even allow plastic bags to be given out in any of their retail establishments, and I'm not even proposing exercising that much control.

[Just the facts]

I'm sorry, but you don't have complete private property rights in a city. Cities have the right to enact ordinances and govern their land however they see fit. OKC is ridiculously lax in terms of its building standards, and I can't drive that point home enough. There are U.S. cities as well that limit the number of franchises in a city. Seriously, a growing list of cities including San Francisco don't even allow plastic bags to be given out in any of their retail establishments, and I'm not even proposing exercising that much control.

WalMarts are banned in towns all over the country. South Central LA has banned all fast-food restaurants.

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?se...les&id=7831475

EXPOSITION PARK, Calif. (KABC) -- New stand-alone fast food restaurants have been banned from setting up shop in South Los Angeles, due to rising health concerns by the city council.