Retail is Not a Crime

Ryan Avent makes a pretty persuasive case that cities ought to either "directly subsidize neighborhood-serving retail" like grocery stores or else "they should foster the creation of neighborhood organizations empowered to do the same thing on a local level." In a more free markety vein, though, I would note that the particular city in which Ryan and I live erects an enormous quantity of regulatory barriers to the opening of retail establishments. It's almost as if people were always walking around town saying to each other "you know what I don't like about this city -- there are just way too many opportunities to buy goods and services in a convenient manner at a reasonable price."

When you see a slice of retail-friendly zoning like the "Arts / C-3-A" zone on 14th street from Rhode Island Avenue to U Street then -- like magic -- there are stores to shop in. But most places aren't zoned for retail, and even streets like 9th and 11th where there are some patches of retail permitted also have these odd zoning-mandated dead zones that prevent them from developing into real retail corridors. This is nice for people who own the privileged patches of real estate, but obviously has the effect of making rents for retail space in non-depressed parts of the city substantially higher than they might otherwise be. That, in turn, gives us fewer grocery stores (and, indeed, other kinds of stores) than we might otherwise have.

In general, I think relaxing the regulatory restrictions around what kinds of things you're allowed to build and what kinds of business you're allowed to run in America's urban areas has a ton of potential to make life in this country much, much better.

Comments

Its a question of judgement and balance. Zoning exists for a reason. You have to make the argument that, for whatever reason, zoning requirements are consistently pushing us away from more ideal solutions. Unless you establish some very general mechanism for why this would be so (which may be the case), you have to be able to do this on a city by city basis. But if you are a young person who is looking for lots of places to shop, you may have a different set of concerns from a family who don't want lots of cars driving on the streets where their kids are playing.

Posted by mpowell | February 19, 2008 4:44 PM

I like his point about developers putting parking spaces on all their residential units to facilitate driving to (remote) grocery stores etc. To me the measure of a city is how easily you can live without a car. Large areas of the District don't have quite the mix of public transportation and close-at-hand retail to make that option broadly attractive.

Posted by mark | February 19, 2008 4:50 PM

Mpowell: But if you're talking about cities, traffic (of some sort) is a fact of life. Frankly, I think the wave of re-suburbanization of cities will kill what's good about a city (creative energy, intellectualism, diversity). I didn't move to a city to be run over by "urban baby" strollers. In Boston, the "fashionable" South End has the ethnography of any suburb in the US, aka, bland and boring. They recently fought off the opening of a new pizza place. Go team.

On the broader topic, I think a slight loosening of zoning restrictions wouldn't hurt. It could operate as some kind of governmental/quasi-governmental organization to promote local business development, perhaps funded by a tax or fee for large chains or franchises who want to move into the neighborhood or other parts of the city. Promote local, independent businesses first, with extra help for arts organizations. We need to keep our cities alive and vibrant, as cultural and economic centers.

Posted by brudy | February 19, 2008 4:57 PM

Zoning as an instrument of rational planning makes sense. Zoning that delegates veto power over any development to any group of well-funded and persistent neighbors, whatever the merits of the issue, does not. The latter is what you usually have, most especially in the District.

Posted by roac | February 19, 2008 5:09 PM

DC has some of the most bizarre zoning in an urban area that I have ever encountered-- planners seem to thrive on the idea of creating these residential "dead zones." I suppose it creates a nice, quiet suburban feel in areas with single family homes, but in denser areas with apartment buildings, it makes life inconvenient in some neighborhoods and downright dangerous in others.

The idea of neighborhood organizations that would encourage such retail development has me skeptical. It's not so much that I'm sure many people in the neighborhood would support it, but rather that the sort of people who are interested in joining these "neighborhood organizations" tend to be control freaks and people who want as little retail activity as possible in their neighborhood and/or are going to put up the largest number of hoops any businessmen will be required to jump through.

Posted by Tyro | February 19, 2008 5:11 PM

I would note that the particular city in which Ryan and I live erects an enormous quantity of regulatory barriers to the opening of retail establishments. It's almost as if people were always walking around town saying to each other "you know what I don't like about this city -- there are just way too many opportunities to buy goods and services in a convenient manner at a reasonable price."

I expect that these are just concessions to the lobbying of the Wal-Marts of the world, and are meant to discourage the little guy from trying to get into business and getting his share of the book-cafe market, or the Wicca store market, or whatever.

Posted by Swan | February 19, 2008 5:15 PM

In general, I think relaxing the regulatory restrictions around what kinds of things you're allowed to build and what kinds of business you're allowed to run in America's urban areas has a ton of potential to make life in this country much, much better.

That's until the big-business conservatives start some rumors that lots of co-habiting gays or liberals and illegal immigrants are starting up small businesses, and then the same conservatives who were in favor of this today will be deployed as goons tomorrow to bad-mouth and intimidate the small-businessman on radio shows and so on. Idiot goon: "You say it promotes homosexuality? Oh really?" They just need to get one conservative person to say it to them, and then all these people will buy it.

Posted by Swan | February 19, 2008 5:20 PM

"Its a question of judgement and balance. Zoning exists for a reason"

This argument assumes that zoning is necessary, rather than establishing its necessity. Zoning only developed with the wave of graden city/city beautiful activists who decided that where we live should be distinct from where we work (and do our marketing). Up sprang zoning creating peaceful oases from the industrial revolution.

But look at European cities where stores are scattered about - undoubtedly concentrated in some areas, but there will always be little grocery stores or bakeries on side streets. And life follows into those streets. North American cities lack this organic lively nature due, in large part, to the idea that areas must be zoned for one use and one use only.

Posted by Chris B | February 19, 2008 5:26 PM

The trouble always seems to happen when a prospective business owner needs a zoning variance to start his business in a given storefront. The problem is not simply the existence of zoning but of the hyper-categorization of zoning rules. A space might be zoned for retail but not for food serving. So a restaurant owner needs to approach the zoning board for a variance, which results in every single "neighborhood community organization" coming out to explain why it should be opposed (and if it's particularly corrupt, as in DC, the "concerned citizen organization" might be willing to drop its opposition in exchange for a "donation" from the business owner). This causes zoning hearings to drag on and creates a long delay in getting new businesses in after a previous tenant of commercial space leaves.

It would be a great help if zoning became much more generalized. The flip side -- which no one is willing to accept -- is that when a new business that people don't like takes over a space, the "tough noogies rule" will apply to the neighbors. Everyone seems to expect development and change to occur only with neighborhood consensus.

Posted by Tyro | February 19, 2008 5:33 PM

"Rational planning" is the Intelligent Design of municipalities everywhere, except it probably does a helluva lot more harm. You can get a lot of nonsense out of a young person's head with well written book, but just try to fix a city after the "rational planners" get ahold of it for a few years.

It takes a "rational planner" to suggest extensive tax subsidies to fix what the previous "rational planners" have wrought.

Posted by Will Allen | February 19, 2008 5:37 PM

Why doesn't some rich man start a rumor and spread it over Fox News that Republicans can fight evil by giving blowjobs in public bathroom stalls for nickels?

I'd like to see that.

Posted by Swan | February 19, 2008 5:37 PM

This argument assumes that zoning is necessary, rather than establishing its necessity.

You can try to take the truly laissez faire approach here, but I think city policy inevitably has an impact. In the post that MY refers to, specific intevention in favor of retail is considered.

Mpowell: But if you're talking about cities, traffic (of some sort) is a fact of life.

I didn't mean to imply that this was the predominant reason for limiting retail establishments. But I believe that there could be a counter-reason, depending on the specific situation. And it may be one that MY's demographic doesn't appreciate as much.

Posted by mpowell | February 19, 2008 5:38 PM

But look at European cities where stores are scattered about - undoubtedly concentrated in some areas, but there will always be little grocery stores or bakeries on side streets. And life follows into those streets. North American cities lack this organic lively nature due, in large part, to the idea that areas must be zoned for one use and one use only.

OK, but if I recall, Europeans have traditionally done a hell of a lot more centralized planning of urban development than Americans would ever put up with. That sidestreet bakery didn't get there by laissez-faire, unless it did so in 1767 or something.

The question becomes, how does European urban land-use regulation differ from our own?

Posted by low-tech cyclist | February 19, 2008 5:47 PM

"Rational planning" is the Intelligent Design of municipalities everywhere, except it probably does a helluva lot more harm.

There's certainly a case to be made that "rational planners" have badly failed the District of Columbia. On the other hand, most of the quality of life issues in Northern Virginia can be blamed on libertarian asshats who thought that transportation systems evolve naturally without any need for rational planning.

America's urban centers need smarter planning, not less planning.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | February 19, 2008 6:06 PM

The City of Houston doesn't have any zoning, and it's no European pedestrian paradise. Developing large tracts of land with one usage type is the simplest type of (non-)planning there is; Euclidean planners from the early 1900s to the 1960s supplied the legal and theoretical heft to support it. In the 1960s criticism of it (think Jane Jacobs) began to coalesce but it wasn't until the last couple of decades that most planners really began to see "rational planning" for the crock it was. Sure, nobody wants to live next to a heavy industrial use, but there's no logical reason for the default state of zoning to have residential strictly separated from commercial uses.

That being said, not only is most of the physical established base in this country built on Euclidean zoning, but the institutional and legal basis of most planning codes in this country are based on it, too. It's taking a lot of work to change that, but there are a growing number of municipalities that recognize that at least in certain areas, a mix of uses is a desirable thing, and they're taking steps to do that. Generally, though, that's only accomplished through zoning variations, plan amendments, planned use districts, etc. Mixed-use zoning is very much the exception, not the rule, but a good number of planners are amenable to the idea.

Like anything political, though, it takes changing "hearts and minds" of both the general public and elected officials. And it's not applicable everywhere--- existing single-family residential areas are largely going to stay that way, but in both new development and infill development, you'll see a lot more mixed uses.

Posted by Adam Villani | February 19, 2008 6:19 PM

America's urban centers need smarter planning, not less planning.

Just to clarify, this is absolutely 100% true. Laissez-faire planning might get you some positive effects, but overall the need for planning is still very much there. But planning is not synonymous with "large swaths of land all devoted to a single use." You need to set a long-range vision for the area, make sure new uses are compatible with existing uses, ensure that the infrastructure is adequate, and make sure environmental impacts are mitigated. Laissez-faire planning might be able to take care of some of that through lawsuits and compacts, but it's better for consistency and equity to build it into the system.

Posted by Adam Villani | February 19, 2008 6:34 PM

Just to clarify again:
Laissez-faire planning might get you some positive effects

But it will get you a whole lot more negative effects.

Posted by Adam Villani | February 19, 2008 7:07 PM

Re: But if you are a young person who is looking for lots of places to shop, you may have a different set of concerns from a family who don't want lots of cars driving on the streets where their kids are playing.

It should be possible to locate retail businesses of roads where children should not be playing in the first place.

Posted by JonF | February 19, 2008 7:11 PM

If people want to start messing around with zoning laws to actually restrict big corporate stores like WalMart and require room for 'mom and pop' shops, there may be some constitutional law challenges to the zoning. But if the courts could decide to get around these, it might be good for our society if we could freeze in amber, so to speak, a little bit of every-man participation in neighborhood retail. At least it's more Democratic than having corporations in charge of almost all retail decisions.

Posted by Swan | February 19, 2008 7:12 PM

Why do I get to the planning blogs so damn late?

There is a bit of nuance missing from the Avent piece. First, I can't speak for NY, but developers and builders are not necessarily the same people. Developers, often, are those people who prepare a piece of land for stuff to go on it (including ensuring that the end use is consistent with the land use and zoning designations). Builders, well build...and ensure all permitting is done.

Posted by Gus | February 19, 2008 7:23 PM

As far as this...

the developers will make their properties convenient to grocery stores by including parking for very unit, so that owners can drive to where the food is.

That's not always true. Local governments usually dictate parking spaces by requiring space minimums for a given land use (interestingly, Portland OR places maximums, or caps, on parking spaces). Now, perhaps the PUD regulations/processes allow for flexibility (PUD being planned unit development - other places have different names for the same things) - but typically something like parking is either going to be preset or negotiated...not dictated per the expectations of the developer.

Posted by Gus | February 19, 2008 7:28 PM

And then...

In planned mixed-use communities, where the whole tract is controlled by one developer, you never run into this problem. The developer is interested in maximizing the value of the whole community rather than just one piece of land, so he ensures that value-increasing retail options, like grocery stores, are present, often by heavily subsidizing retail.

Again, it's not that easy. Remember, grocery stores exist in a tight competitive environment. They aren't going to be easily bought by a subsidy. What's more subsidies aren't exactly popular unless they can be sold (ie "this public subsidy will create X jobs!").

A large grocery store will not just go where they are told. My sense is that they have pretty firm architectural standards. Between this and the fact that they are endpoints for heavy trucks - you see where I'm going with this - bigger stores will be much more interested in being placed near highly accessible transportation amenities than tucked away in a picturesque part of a development.

Posted by Gus | February 19, 2008 7:34 PM

As far as zoning changes go, again I can't speak to the situation in NY, but in FL this is fraught with legal danger.

There is this concept of the "taking". The idea is that if the government takes land from an individual it has to pay. This is reasonable. The problem is that this extends to regulations. You can have a "regulatory taking" in which, by changing a zoning designation, the government is perceived to have taken value from the land owner and may have to pony up money. People seriously freak out about this kind of thing.

Posted by Gus | February 19, 2008 7:39 PM

So what do you do to keep these business without zoning or subsidies. I don't know. But what about a different type of subsidy? What about providing public space as an open market? You can have locally grown products. You can have local owners. Heck, you can even try to swing not charging anything.

You'll need some kind of public space. People might freak out less if the government just buys the land (no eminent domain purchases, though). And the space can be programmed as park land or whatever else when the vendors are not there.

Posted by Gus | February 19, 2008 7:44 PM

Finally, there is this...

I think relaxing the regulatory restrictions around what kinds of things you're allowed to build and what kinds of business you're allowed to run in America's urban areas has a ton of potential to make life in this country much, much better.

I agree. I think, though, that you can make the case that the problem isn't zoning - but rather the zoning designations. Specifically, they are technical (often involving "floor area ratios" and setback distances) and, crucially important, they are so damned text-based. I think that we will make great strides when zoning ceases to be as text-based and moves further toward pictographic formats (ie DPZ's Smartcode).

http://www.tndtownpaper.com/images/SmartCode6.5.pdf

Posted by Gus | February 19, 2008 7:53 PM

I used to live in that hellhole by the Potomac river

Try finding a diner or corner store. Only in slum areas do you find crappy little stores (try getting some bacon and eggs at 3am in DC)

In the center of the universe where I now live there is a news stand, a diner and at least a bodega, if not a quality market, every 2-3 blocks

The city I live in is a socialist paradise (the federal welfare state is insufficient, they're layered on more) but it is just not as absurdly zoned as the nation's capital and the inhabitants are more pragmatic

Only truly wonky weenies would even have to debate whether "Retail is a crime" - the thought police of the left never sleep. In Mao's Cultural Revolution the crazies stayed up later into the night at "Struggle Meetings" debating which activities were economic and social crimes. (and which people should be killed) The greens and lefties will take us there again some day

Posted by Jozef | February 19, 2008 8:00 PM

Jozef,

I don't understand this comment. How do you know which city is more tightly regulated? What criteria are you using to judge? Just your observations? And how does this justify the end of the analysis?

I can tell you that, going back to my example above, Portland OR is pretty tightly regulated and has a thriving retail economy.

Posted by gus | February 19, 2008 8:10 PM

Check out the mess that is Houston for what a city virtually free of zoning would look like...a couple neighborhoods work, the rest is a disaster

Posted by coomaraswamee | February 19, 2008 8:26 PM

Here in Seattle, new multi-family dwellings (condos mostly, although some aren't selling and so are rentals) have to have retail on the ground floor in almost all areas of the city (maybe all). Plus, condos are only allowed on major arterials, which means the residential areas off the "main drag" remain pretty traffic-free. Which means as single family residences on main streets are replaced by condos, more retail is arriving.

This is a pretty good deal. The new condos near me have retail, and also apparently only have to provide minimal parking, if any (street parking is available most places). So what this often means is a condo won't get permitted unless the retail requirement makes sense, but it also means that retail is increased wherever new, denser housing units are put in, which means these condos don't require as much parking (and Seattle is trying hard to get rid of or modify minimum parking requirements).

The flip side of this is that although I now have a new Starbucks and JambaJuice across the street, I also have a tanning salon (WTF?), a T-mobile store, and some random credit union. That said, a lot of the other places nearby have cool restaurants and bars, and there has always been a large grocery store up the street where two of the main arterials meet.

In any event, it seems that requiring retail when denser housing is built is a good idea, as it only allows denser building to be built where retail is viable (that is, main streets that already have traffic and not deeper in single family residence neighborhoods) but also adds density to corridors that otherwise would have remained mostly commercial with a few single family homes, or converted to condos without the desirable increase in retail and the ability to get stuff you want without having to drive.

Posted by abject funk | February 19, 2008 9:23 PM

New York's Industrial Development Agency Act, which provides a mechanism for providing tax incentives to new businesses, including real property tax abatement, mortgage recording tax exemption and sales and use tax exemptions, and actually specifically prohibits IDAs from providing incentives to retail facilities.

However, New York has created "Local Development Corporations" which are less transparent, but can offer mortgage recording tax and sales and use tax exemptions to retail facilites. However because of the costs associated with the transactions, are almost exclusively used for big box stores - which was probably the intent of the legislation. Anyone know how other states do it (Mass etc.?)

Posted by Mike | February 19, 2008 9:23 PM

Here in the exurbs we have the opposite problem... a massive surplus of recently built retail space, with not enough merchants or shoppers to support them. It seems like every strip mall around here has multiple empty storefronts. And they keep building more strip malls.

Posted by Spike | February 19, 2008 10:55 PM

I think part of the problem of not being able to find bacon and eggs at 3am in DC (and yes, it can be found, fairly easily, in fact) has more to do with the fact that DC has never been a 3-shift factory town with a large enough late night population to need/support a great deal of late night commerce. Most people here with cash to spend on eating out keep daytime working hours.
When I first came to DC in the early 70s, the TV stations all shut down at 1AM (talk about WTF?) and no one thought it unusual - you just watch the B'more stations which ran all night, because B'more had those 2d and 3d shift workers who were up late. DC just never has had that.

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | February 20, 2008 12:42 AM

If you want lots of good retail, there's a (maybe not so) simple solution: don't have highways.

Visit Vancouver BC and San Francisco north of Market. In both cases, they decided *not* to put the perhaps-obvious north-south highway through the middle of town to the bridge at the north end.

In both cases it's a pain in the ass to go *anywhere* by car--including the mall on the other side of that bridge.

And both areas are crammed with all sorts of retail. People stay in their neighborhoods and enjoy the local amenities instead of going to big boxes.

In short, congestion is A Good Thing.

Posted by Steve Roth | February 20, 2008 1:03 AM

Lots of good comments here. Some thoughts from a retired "rational planner" (27 yrs at King County WA). Professional thinking about zoning has evolved. Yes some uses need to be protected, or separated, or carefully sited, or whatever. Biggest problem with it all has been the tyranny of the auto. So we tried several things, some of which may end up working. Allow more multifamily, but in smaller amounts, same with zoning for local shopping. Revise street standards; narrower in some cases (including in commercial areas) and always get sidewalks. Try reestablishing a grid, esp. for arterials in the 'burbs. Try minimum densities in all urban residental zones. Allow clustering of lots (require it if the property has a wetland, etc). It's a very slo-mo experiment; it took about 40 years to evolve the worst of the 'burbs, it will take decades to see if our rethinking works.

Posted by Tom Fitzpatrick | February 20, 2008 1:57 AM

most of the quality of life issues in Northern Virginia can be blamed on libertarian asshats who thought that transportation systems evolve naturally without any need for rational planning.

Not quite. From an article in the Washington Post:

Attracting workers -- but not the homes for all of them to live in -- is not official policy just in Clarksburg and Montgomery County; it has increasingly become the practice across the region. Local governments believe this makes financial sense because workplaces pay more taxes and use fewer government services than homeowners do. And governments maintain this imbalance through zoning and other development controls.

But by creating housing shortages, the policies push developers, home buyers and renters farther and farther away to find available land and more reasonably priced houses.

Space for Employers, Not for Homes

Posted by Justin | February 20, 2008 9:13 AM

Zoning is why there's no Abercrombie and Fitch at the National Mall.

Zoning is why your apartment isn't a WalMart.

Posted by Luke | February 20, 2008 9:54 AM

I think Steve Roth is definitely on to something. It is a real hassle to go East-West inside the City of Seattle due to no highways, as a result, there are neighborhood retail areas spread throughout the city, that is, most neighborhoods have a large grocery store within a mile along with diners, bars, coffee shops, etc. because people have a strong incentive to stay close to home. My favorite supermarkets are not located near me, but the hassle of getting to them usually means I shop locally instead of driving/busing across they city, and I assume my neighbors have a similar calculus. As a result, neighborhood grocery stores are common because they win on convenience, if not on actual selection or quality or price.

Posted by abject funk | February 20, 2008 1:59 PM