Thursday, April 7, 2011
As indoor shopping malls became less popular in the last two decades, the open-air lifestyle center (sometimes with a vertical mixture of uses) stepped into the void as an alternative for land developers.
They didn't prove to be the silver bullet though that some predicted.
This story for Retail Traffic discusses why:
Lifestyle centers, as a concept, rose and fell spectacularly right along with the industry’s boom and bust.
That’s left backers of such properties going back to the drawing board and reimagining what lifestyle centers can be. These new approaches at times seem to redefine the concept itself. Whether or not to include anchors, whether to incorporate of non-retail uses and rethinking tenanting strategies are just some of the questions developers are wrestling with.
Developers are even trying to be more careful about how they use the term. During the boom years, the “lifestyle center” name got abused and stretched beyond all meaning, says Josh Poag, president of Poag & McEwen in Memphis, Tenn., which helped pioneer the concept. “Anything with a Starbucks in it was considered a lifestyle center,” he says. As a result, the label “jumped the shark” and “people were using it for anything and everything.”
If lifestyle centers are to succeed going forward, Poag and others argue that to qualify for the name, they should boast open-air environs and primarily upscale retailers. And while the first lifestyle centers eschewed anchors and included only inline retail, developers feel the mix going forward may be a bit more varied.
What I've yet to see research on is whether the existence of a residential component (like this one) to the lifestyle center has helped keep viability up since it embeds an audience in addition to those who travel to the center. My hunch is that is the it does because, if someone lives at the lifestyle center, their likelihood of shopping there likely goes up. The big question is whether the cost of adding the residential product offsets the financial benefit of the built in audience.
This blog is an Amazon affiliate. Help support Land Use Prof Blog by making purchases through Amazon links on this site at no cost to you.
- Stephen Miller on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Josh Galperin on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Jesse Richardson on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Jamie Baker Roskie on Uber Goes to the State House Seeking Preemption of Local Government Control
- Stephen R. Miller on Why are building inspectors so often on the take?
- Can UberPOOL Make Carpooling Cool?
- Are Earth Day cookies an endangered species?
- Fordham Urban Law Center's Sharing Economy | Sharing City Conference - April 24
- Land Use, Telescopes and Sacred Land in Paradise
- Tekle on Percent-for-Art Ordinances