Monthly Archives: June 2013

“Hyperdensity” and providing cities the room to grow

CC image from Alan Grinberg

The first thing crossing my mind when reading Vishann Chakrabarti’s piece in Design Observer (Building Hyperdensity and Civic Delight) was: what the hell is ‘hyperdensity?’ Thankfully, Chakrabarti answers that question in the first paragraph: “density sufficient to support subways.”

The second thing to cross my mind was why he would frame a reasonable kind of urbanism – transit-supportive density – in such extreme terms? Chakrabarti is a principal at SHoP Architects and a professor at Columbia. Hearing someone in that position praise the very real benefits of density isn’t surprising, though the framing of the issue as ‘hyper’-anything seems naive in the face of neighborhood opposition to even minor changes like the allowance of accessory dwelling units.

Contrast Chakrabarti’s position to that of Brent Toderian. Toderian, formerly the chief planner in Vancouver, BC, is a veteran of many contentious civic battles over development and density. His calling card is to focus on mitigating any possible downside of density, re-branding the ideal as ‘density done well.’ Leaving aside any substantive differences between Toderian and Chakrabarti, the difference in framing is significant. Both praise the benefits of density for an urban economy, for climate change, and for city life; both agree that dense environments demand good design to address the challenges that density can present. Yet, Toderian emphasizes that it can be ‘done well’ (implying that it currently isn’t done well) while Chakrabarti emphasizes the need for more density (implying that we don’t currently have – or allow – enough of it).

Chakrabarti isn’t satisfied with the small-scale focus from current planners, and embraces the general focus of the econourbanists:

Today the global economy demands that we embrace large buildings not just for housing but also for many modern office functions; yet many planning professionals remain fixated on smaller-scale development. They tend to ignore that height limitations have held back the Parisian economy in comparison to the forward-looking redevelopment of London, both at Canary Wharf and within its city center, which is now marked by a series of glistening and respectful new towers by Norman Foster, Richard Rogers and Renzo Piano. There is, in fact, a marked correlation between those European cities that have allowed skyscrapers and those that have successful economies.

Chakrabarti also mentions the challenges of building denser cities in today’s regulatory environment of zoning codes and lengthy reviews, risk-aversion from incumbent residents and landowners, and the feasibility of adding new infill development into established neighborhoods without fundamentally altering their character.

Perhaps the single most compelling reason to act is the growing challenges of affordability. This Wall Street Journal article highlights the challenges in New York, quoting Professor Chakrabarti extensively:

In the coming decades, New York could confront a problem many cities would love to have: too many people and nowhere to put them.

The city is expected to add one million more residents by 2040, but there likely won’t be room for hundreds of thousands of them unless a small city of new housing is built, according to a report by a Columbia University think tank.

“What surprised me most was the scale of the problem,” Mr. Chakrabarti said. “It’s a clarion call that we don’t have enough housing.”

At the same time, plenty of other publications about affordability challenges in cities around the world do not even mention the restrictions on and challenges to add housing supply.  At the same time, the fact that many American cities used to have more people residing in the same area will lead them to believe that the city can accomodate more people without exanding the city’s building stock. The reality is that those older population figures included larger household sizes and fail to account for housing stock lost to commercial development from expanding downtowns. Payton Chung looks into these claims for DC:

These conditions were common in District homes at the time. The 1950 census found 14.1% of the District’s 224,142 occupied housing units to be overcrowded (with >1 person per room). By 2011, that figure had fallen two-thirds, to 4.7% (an increase from 3.3% in 2008) — a figure lower than the 5.3% of homes that were extremely overcrowded (>1.5 occupants per room) in 1950.

On average, every apartment and house in DC had one more person living inside — households were 50.2% larger! In 1950, 3.2 people occupied each dwelling unit (for non-whites, it was 4.0). In 2007-2011, the number of persons per household had fallen to 2.13, while the number of housing units had grown to 298,902.

As the city gets reacquainted with the notion of population growth, and begins to plan for a much larger population within the same boundaries, we’ll have to have a realistic conversation about household sizes and housing production. A change of just 0.09 persons per household means the difference between planning for 103,860 units or 140,515 units.* In either case, though, that is one heck of a lot of construction for a city of 68 square miles, of which 10.5 are parks and 7 are underwater. It works out to 2,000-3,000 additional units per square mile — as simple as building a platform and plop 5 DUA suburbia across it, or as complicated as infilling a contentious, built-up city. (More the latter than the former, I suspect.)

That problem can’t be solved with just a few new mega-development sites absorbing all of the demand for urban growth. It requires existing neighborhoods to help absorb some of that demand.

At the same time, Chakrabarti is well aware of the regulatory challenges to merely allowing the market to add density to an already-established city:

At Columbia University, my students and I have been working on a concept I call “cap and trade zoning,” which would allow the free flow of air rights within an urban district, with an understanding that the overall amount of developable area would be capped in relation to proximity to mass transit. This would result in hyperdensity, to be sure, but would also create a “high-low” city of diverse heights, uses and ages. This concept would strengthen small businesses by permitting owners to sell their air rights, while allowing development to occur on nearby lots. Critics may argue that this approach would result in unpredictable development with varying building scales, to which I would reply “Hip hip hooray!” Much of what passes as good planning today is known as “contextual zoning,” a mechanism through which new architecture is tamed into mediocrity by mimicking a false understanding of the scale and aesthetics of existing neighborhoods. Too often this process allows a lowest-common-denominator mentality to trump the wonders of the unpredictable city. Half a century ago, in The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jane Jacobs relentlessly critiqued the planner’s urge for control; her critique is no less pertinent today.

The concept is good, but what remains to be seen is if it could pass the political test – and if it could adjust the regulatory process (not just the regulatory content) that governs urban development decision-making. Perhaps the first test of the political viability of ‘hyperdensity’ will be if the name helps advance the needed regulatory reforms.

Crowdfunding and cooperatives – more thoughts on Fundrise and alternative models for urban development and finance

CC image from harrypope

Following up on the previous post on the limits and potential benefits of Fundrise:

First, from Payton Chung, an excellent breakdown of the limits and potential benefits of the crowdfunding platform. Payton identifies three general benefits to a Fundrise-like system: ‘slower’ and cheaper money; participation and trust of the investors; and as an opening for even better investment vehicles.

The idea of ‘slower’ money refers to the more patient investment from Class C shareholders who cannot realistically expect a quick flip or immediate return. Such patient capital is particularly useful when navigating projects that do not follow the path of least regulatory resistance – as Payton notes, slower money “eases longer-term thinking about the investment.”

Participation and trust speak to the idea of channeling broad-but-shallow support for development from a mostly silent pool of the community (potentially representing a silent majority). Payton notes that some local control helps gain support, but that support is not limitless. I would liken it to the disparate treatment of chain stores and restaurants compared to locally owned ones. The local retailers might gain more support than a chain, but that support is far from universal or far from guaranteed.

Transitioning to better investment vehicles requires more than just what Fundrise is offering – not just for development, but for long–term ownership and stewardship. Payton cites co-ops as an example:

Fundrise is certainly a great idea, but the lack of community control limits its ability to establish trust in the community development enterprise. Yet it’s an important part of a broader conversation that’s just beginning around using crowdfunding innovations to improve communities. We can try many other tools — some new, some tried-and-true — to give communities greater control and input over their character and future. Cooperative businesses, like the one I founded, are growing all across America, and they play a key role in affordably housing thousands of Washingtonians (including myself).

Second, the idea of an increasing role for cooperatives is linked to the second article: an update on the status of DC’s mandatory inclusionary zoning statute from Aaron Wiener at the City Paper.

The code requires the provision of subsidized housing units for all developments above a certain size. However, in for-sale properties, the requirement to preserve long-term affordability in the units requires some sort of deed restriction to prevent the later sale of a unit at market rates. This both limits the long-term appreciation of the property, but also makes traditional mortgage-based finance difficult. Such a program for preserving long-term affordability might be at odds with the traditional model of housing finance and home ownership. Wiener writes:

The central difficulty in selling the units has been that lenders were unwilling to provide loans for IZ units because those units would remain affordable in the event of foreclosure, limiting the bank’s ability to recoup its money. But recently, the rules changed to allow the units to return to market prices.

Purchasers of affordable units have issues with the system, as well. Cooperative ownership (both market-rate and limited equity) might present a better way to manage permanently affordable units.

Real estate as investment vs. real estate as city-building

CC image from John M.

Fundrise is one of the most hyped developments in real estate in recent years. Is it a major shift in real estate investment? Maybe, maybe not. If nothing else, Fundrise and the surrounding hype/criticism exposes the dual nature of real estate as both an investment and the critical element of how we build our cities.

In last week’s Washington Post, Jonathan O’Connell sought to burst the bubble by soliciting the opinions of various real estate and financial experts on the terms and conditions that Fundrise offers to potential investors:

“I would never recommend this kind of investment for my clients,” said Russell McAlmond, president of Evergreen Capital Management. “It has almost every kind of risk imaginable that one may have with commercial real estate. If it works and they find a tenant, you may receive some kind of return, but by taking huge risks.”

Said Derek Tharp, of Mote Wealth Management: “They may have noble intentions and it may work, but if anybody does do this, this should be money they could otherwise just flush down the toilet.”

The problem with the evaluation of these experts is that the mis-diagnose the purpose of an investment in a Fundrise offering. Emily Badger responds in Atlantic Cities: 

Crowdfunded real estate isn’t an important idea because it may enable the lady next door to make it big like a real-estate developer. It’s an important idea because it changes the trajectory of neighborhoods. The crowdfunding mechanism changes what gets built. O’Connell’s query with wealth investors – who have no reason to be interested in this question – misses this point.

This isn’t to say that the wealth managers aren’t correct; investing all of one’s savings into Fundrise would not be a wise investment. But they approach Fundrise with a fundamentally different mindset than one does if they think of it as Kickstarter for cities. It’s not as if donors (perhaps a more useful term in this case than ‘investors’) are rigorously investigating the potential returns of such investments – Gawker raised more than $200,000 to buy a video of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford allegedly smoking crack, after all.

The combination of common purpose, a large base of donors/investors allows for individuals to risk little individually (some Fundrise shares are as small as $100) while potentially pooling resources at a sufficient scale to have an impact. I suppose one of the wealth managers could make the case that the $100 share would be better invested in an IRA, but that likely misunderstands why someone would buy such a share (or why someone gives money to a Kickstarter campaign, or to a political candidate).

So, will it work? That is, will it deliver quality projects while satisfying the demands of investors (whatever those demands may be – if they exist at all) so that people will still give up their money for new projects? Matt Yglesias is skeptical (for a variety of legal and technical reasons), but notes that if it works, it could do so by slaying neighborhood opposition to new development:

Still, the main reason I want to believe isn’t because I hope for a huge return, it’s about politics. Specifically the toxic local politics that too often loads the dice against change and new businesses. Here in Washington, even a proposal as innocuous as replacing a vacant storefront with a functioning restaurant attracts politically potent complaints about noise and traffic…

The real promise of Fundrise is that it gives pro-growth members of the community a way to become literally and figuratively invested in the success of a project. A building owned by hundreds of local people, rather than owned as part of a pooled investment vehicle marketed to pension funds, is one that’s much more likely to get a sympathetic hearing from local authorities. It’s also one that’s much more likely to inspire people to show up to meetings and hearings and make the case for development and expansion. As George Mason University Law School’s David Schleicher has observed, despite the stereotype of politically powerful real-estate developers, in practice most cities’ legal framework “creates a peculiar procedure that privileges the intense preferences of local residents opposed to new building.”

The other potential benefit isn’t just in cutting through local politics, but in better aligning the dual roles of real estate investment and city building. In a profile of Fundrise in the New York Times, founder Ben Miller put it this way:

They realized that who the investors are and where the money comes from determine what gets built: distant private equity backers who see a deal as simply an investment vehicle tend to put up cookie-cutter projects and strip malls anchored by chain stores — hardly what the community may want or need.

“Who your money is affects what you build, but no one ever thinks about that,” said Benjamin Miller, who also co-founded a site called Popularise that lets developers solicit input from the community. “We’re taking an institutional asset and changing who gets to invest in it.”

In other words, a great deal of real estate development simply follows the path of least resistance. If Fundrise really takes off, it will do so by changing that path on the finance side. The Fundrise management team is also selling themselves, as they are essentially asking for silent partners for these projects. If their investors are to help smooth over an approvals process, they’ll need to feel involved enough in the concept to lend their support – in addition to their cash.

They are selling the chance to help shape the city more than they are selling the chance to invest in it.

Housing demand and the regulatory path of least resistance: Seattle and microapartments

Seattle Space Needle. Photo by author.

The feature piece in The Stranger last month delved deeply into Seattle’s trend of micro-apartments. Dominic Holden offers an in-depth look at not just the development trends, but the politics of the policy and planning conversation around development in an expanding city.

A few things popped out:

Room for rent: The article describes Seattle’s micro-apartments like this:

But inside each town house, the developer was building up to eight tiny units (about 150 to 250 square feet each, roughly the size of a carport) to be rented out separately. The tenants would each have a private bathroom and kitchenette, with a sink and microwave, but they would share one full kitchen for every eight residents. The rent would be cheap—starting at $500 a month, including all utilities and Wi-Fi—making this essentially affordable housing in the heart of the city.

If that sounds familiar, it should – it’s a situation similar to what already happens in big cities – renting a room in a group house. For a fraction of cost of a studio or 1-bedroom apartment, you can instead rent a room in a shared house. Considering that comparison, there is clearly a market for these kinds of spaces, and it’s not exactly new.

It ain’t much, but it’s home: While the rise of micro apartments is in the news in Seattle, it’s not a new thing for cities. Single-room occupancy (SRO) apartments have a long history in cities. The Blues Brothers highlighted this housing typology in their 1980 homage to the city of Chicago (“how often does the train go by?” – “so often you won’t even notice it.”).

Chicago’s WBEZ documented the dwindling numbers of SROs in the city, noting how this particular form of affordable housing has served a different market of individuals than the kinds of tenants mentioned in Seattle:

The Chateau is among the city’s shrinking pool of single-room occupancy hotels (map below), which offer an important housing option for people with low- and fixed-incomes. SROs also serve clients with troubled credit or criminal histories. The North Side has long been an SRO hub, but in recent years many such buildings have been purchased by developers and closed, only to reopen as more expensive housing — often beyond the means of prior tenants. Some SRO residents and community organizers worry the Chateau Hotel might be the next building in this trend.

The key difference is in the level of maintenance, and thus the target market. Nonetheless, it’s not hard to see how micro-apartments like likes in Chicago or the new construction in Seattle would appeal to a number of potential markets. None other than The Stranger’s own Dan Savage makes note that he lived in an SRO when first moving to Seattle, and “I wasn’t sketchy then, I’m not sketchy now.”

As a part of re-evaluating the SRO’s sketchy reputation, Next City focused on the role this type of housing can have in the future of our cities.

Meeting housing demand: As Holden notes, a dynamic and expanding city like Seattle needs room to grow, and needs opportunities for a wide range of incomes. He also makes note of the only sure-fire way American cities have to meet growing demand post-WWII – sprawl. “Accommodating our growing population by shipping workers into the low-density sprawl of the exurbs is not the way a city should operate.”

This isn’t unique to Seattle. Other cities (including New York and DC) are struggling to meet the demand for housing, and are considering micro apartments as one potential solution.

The politics of neighborhood opposition: Holden’s Stranger article offers a fascinating dive into the politics of those opposed to these projects. Holden examines the stated objections to these projects (which include everything but the kitchen sink – or, in the case of complaints about shared kitchens, why not bring it up?) and finds most opponents to be “dramatically exaggerating”  the impacts. “Tick through the neighborhood groups’ complaints,” he writes, “and they don’t add up to a logical argument.”

The two issues in opposition that Holden deems to have legs deal with a tax break loophole for these developments and an exemption from the city’s normal design review process (more on this later). The principal objection is that the apartments count as many units for the purposes of a tax break, but few units to avoid the threshold for additional design review scrutiny.

Holden’s article goes into substantial detail about his interactions with some of the individuals and groups in opposition, highlighting a kind of fanaticism. Even without the crazy elements, the strength of the opposition and relative lack of proponents involved in the discussion shows the kind of game theory challenge for urban development regulations – opposition is strong, but only in a narrow segment of the population; support is broad, but few individuals feel the need to organize in favor of developments like micro apartments. The existing legal procedures favor the organized, and therefore give organized groups leverage in discussions.

The limits of design review: While a procedural loophole exempts micro-apartments in Seattle from design review (and Holden flags this as a legitimate complaint from opponents), there are limits to what such reviews can accomplish. Holden notes that such reviews in Seattle are largely administrative. He also ferrets out the intentions of those pushing for design review: “What public reviews will do is give activists a chance to obstruct microhousing by quibbling with the appearance.”

Holden understands the importance of process, and the cost it can impose on any new development. Since developers must (at a minimum) cover their costs to even entertain a proposed project, any increase in procedural time and costs means those costs must eventually be baked into the cost of the final product.

If the city pursues design and environmental reviews—which could improve the aesthetics and aren’t inherently flawed processes—they should be administrative reviews. They should be conducted by city staff who notify the public but limit input to letters in writing. They shouldn’t involve neighborhood meetings that are easily sidetracked, shouldn’t require multiple revisions to the architecture, and shouldn’t allow appeals.

If the public is allowed to obstruct these projects—and their arguments thus far have been specious—the results will be predictable: Every time developers must redesign the buildings to satisfy the neighbors, every time the project is delayed for further review, every time a spurious appeal is filed, the more it costs to build that project. And that has one predictable outcome: It will make them more expensive to rent, i.e., fewer people will be able to afford them. In other words, whether deliberate or not, the effect of neighborhood advocacy and its input on development projects will make living in these places more expensive and push out workers with less money. That would seem like a terrible mistake—unless pushing out poor people is the actual goal.

Development following the path of least resistance: Given the increasing costs of compliance with the regulations and procedures, it’s not hard to understand why so much real estate development seeks to follow the path of least resistance.

Leaving aside the question of whether micro-apartments are a worthy policy for cities to pursue (as opposed to other expansions of zoning allowances), it does show the catch-22 inherent in things like design review: the additional regulatory review is required because the outcome those reviews shape is a desirable policy goal – but the very cost of the review makes achieving those desired outcomes less likely.

The ideal would be a case where the desired outcome is prioritized, given the path of least resistance. Holden’s discussion of keeping reviews administrative and not subject to lengthy public hearings and appeals is an example. I suspect that (with the exception of some special cases), changing the outcomes from the path of least resistance cannot be accomplished through de-regulation alone.

However, the larger question looms in the background: what agreement is there about the most desired outcomes?

 

Shifting DC’s mode share – Sustainable DC’s complimentary policies of population growth and increasing non-auto transportation

Last month, the Washington Post’s Dr. Gridlock column profiled DC’s various new transportation investments might change transportation in the District. However, Dr. Gridlock used some odd phrasing to frame the city’s varied goals:

“In the Sustainable D.C. plan we released earlier this year,” the mayor said at the crosswalk event, “we set an aggressive-but-realistic goal of increasing the use of public transit, biking and walking to comprise 75 percent of all commuter trips in the District in the next 20 years.”

In other words, Gray told me afterward, the future of city travel is about sharing routes safely. Look for more bus routes, streetcars, bike lanes and devices such as the pedestrian signal, which can make walking safer and more popular without infringing on people’s ability to drive autos.

But for any city, getting three of four commuter trips done without cars is a major shift in people’s behavior. Why set the target so high?

“We’re looking at adding 250,000 people over 20 years,” Gray said. “If everyone drives, that’s unsustainable.”

Is the Sustainable DC goal really setting the bar ‘so high?’

First things first, the Mayor is absolutely right: adding 250,000 new residents would not be sustainable if everyone drove. The good news, however, is that adding that many new people to the city is entirely complimentary to increasing the use of non-auto transport modes. There is no ‘if,’ those 250,000 new residents will not all drive.

What about that goal of 75% of trips by non-auto modes (with 25% of trips by bike or on foot)? First, let’s consider where we are today. On Page 80 of the full plan document:

The data is commute mode share from the 2010 Census for DC. That is, residents of DC who work (and therefore commute to work). The usual limitations apply; this data is for commute trips only, it only counts the primary mode for the commute (if I walk to a bikeshare staiton, bike to a Metro station, then ride a train, and walk to work – you wouldn’t know it from these stats), and it only applies to DC residents, not to all commuters into DC.

Looking at that 2010 data, the goal is a strong one, but hardly unreachable. Contrary to Dr. Gridlock’s focus on commuters from outside the city, basing the data on DC residents shows how close to the goal we already are. If you look at the 75% goal through the lens of the region (where 15.4% commute via transit), it indeed looks like a high bar. From the view of the city, however, the non-auto share keeps growing.

Not only are non-auto modes growing in their share of the commute, but the city is growing in population. Given DC’s fixed boundaries (no annexation of our neighboring states here), any growth in population, by definition, means an increase in DC’s population density. This growth is complimentary to the goals of increasing use of non-auto modes. Infill development, focused around transit, and built with walkability in mind all adds up to a city where non-auto modes are easier for more trips; therefore they are the ones used by the public.

As a point of comparison (with the caveat that some of the statistics might not be exact apples-to-apples comparisons) to other places and other commutes. In Paris, France: 60% walking, 27% transit, 4% bike, 7% by car. Note that this appears to be all trips, not just commute trips. Also note that 60% of Parisians do not own a car. Add in the macro-level trends concerning the drop in vehicle-miles traveled, particularly among younger Americans.

For American cities, compare the state of the DC’s non-auto mode share to other American cities in the 2012 State of Downtown report from the Downtown Business Improvement District:

The difference between DC residents commuting and people commuting to DC is significant, but not as large as the difference between DC and the region as a whole – such are the benefits of ruling out most of the auto-dominant suburb-to-suburb commutes.

Likewise, the total non-auto share for DC residents stands at 55%. Getting to 75% is a good target, but certainly not unreasonable given the starting point. Brooklyn, for example, currently has a 75% non-auto mode share (60.8 transit; 8.7 walk, 3.9 work from home, 2.1 other = 75.5%).

Making up that 20-point gap is realistic; adding 250,000 new residents is similarly realistic. These goals are complimentary to one another.

Frager’s Hardware

Yesterday evening, Frager’s Hardware went up in flames in a four-alarm blaze. The iconic neighborhood institution has been in operation since 1920.

It’s the kind of neighborhood store many would love to have. At the same time, the store represents more than just a hardware store. While it can’t compete with the big box stores on price, it can offer a wider range of services and the local, personalized touch you won’t be able to find elsewhere. That kind of personal touch sells more than just hardware, it also sells t-shirts.

I happen to live nearby, and was able to snag a few photos from the roof.

6/5, 7:00 pm – full response underway:

6/5, 8:17 pm – more trucks and firefighters on the scene:

6/5, 10:59 pm – DCFD has the fire contained:

6/6, 8:34 am – daylight comes, the morning after:

6/6, 6:13 pm – traffic returns to Pennsylvania Ave, workers begin to board up the storefronts:

While the store appears to be a total loss, the owner vows to rebuild.

On restaurants, retail, and clustering – agglomeration economies and urban retail trends

A few intersecting stories regarding retail and restaurants:

In DC, a group of activists are pushing a moratorium on new liquor licenses for 14th and U and environs. There has been substantial pushback to the idea of a moratorium, yet proponents insist the dominance of bars and restaurants are crowding out brick-and-mortar retail establishments. From Jessica Sidman’s summary in the Washington City Paper:

Joan Sterling of the Shaw Dupont Citizens Alliance, the group that proposed the moratorium, kicked things off by reading from a written statement in which she talked about the negative impact the proliferation of bars and restaurants has had on neighborhood noise, parking, and rat problems.

Sterling also talked about the need for a better balance of businesses. Who wouldn’t want grocery stores, hardware stores, movie theaters, galleries, and retailers like Urban Outfitters, Container Store, or an Apple store, she asked? “These are all businesses that will improve the daytime foot traffic and strengthen the neighborhood more than strip after strip of taverns,” she said. (The moratorium would not, of course, mandate that any of those other retailers come in, nor does the status quo ban them.)

Two obvious problems arise from Sterling’s desire for a greater diversity of retail offerings. Sure, who wouldn’t want more shopping? The problem is that there’s no such thing as a neighborhood Container Store. You might have a Container Store in your neighborhood, but retail of that nature requires a much larger audience to survive than just one neighborhood (The Container Store, for example, has only four locations in the entire Metro DC area – Tenleytown, Clarendon, Tysons Corner, and Rockville – with a fifth location in Reston on the way).

Richard Layman consistently comes back to this point in his blogging. Not only does retail require a wider area to draw from, it also likes to cluster together into districts: “with transportation costs being relatively equal, people choose to shop in the retail district with the  greatest variety of stores and the most appealing choices.” Not every retail district will be full of the regionally significant stores. However, many of them can be filled with a cluster of neighborhood-based bars and restaurants.

The other problem is mistaking the symptom and the cause: the old adage holds that retail follows rooftops. The real-life decisions are obviously more complex, but additional stores are likely to feed off daytime traffic more than drive it.

Retail shops are but one form of aggolmeration. In last week’s City Paper, Jessica Sidman writes about the growing cluster of restaurants in part of the proposed moratorium zone. 14th Street, H St NE, 8th St SE, and others – in addition to the city’s already established dining zones. Payton Chung takes note of the trend – that retail is restaurants. Payton cites Terranomics: “There is only one segment of the market where we are seeing aggressive growth plans from inline users and that is the restaurant sector.” Payton adds:

Yes, we’d all love to be able to walk to the corner and buy some bolts from a corner hardware store, or socks from an apparel shop, but let’s face it: not enough of us do that often enough to sustain very many such businesses, particularly in areas that don’t have enough foot traffic to guarantee significant cross-shopping. Such uses will increasingly congregate within metropolitan subcenters — probably focused on today’s fortress malls or midtown destinations — so there will be winners and losers among retail nodes. At least everyone will have someplace to eat, though.

(BTW, connectivity to those subcenters will be necessary from ever-wider catchment areas. This will require rapid transit, not just walk accelerators like streetcars or bikeshare, in order to connect neighborhoods to retail focal points.)

Hard to fight the trend, particularly when additional restaurants can add value to neighborhoods – particularly when they cluster together. Payton’s point about the rising importance of regional transit to link these regionally significant centers together is a good one, as well – the pattern of transit-oriented development around transit stations can be a positive feedback loop for additional transit ridership and development. Regional significance can mean that a place achieves that critical mass where the retail draw is indeed pushing daytime traffic – but those kinds of centers will be limited to a few key parts of each region.