Atkinson Et Al Richmond Main Street Spring 2002

8/14/2019 Atkinson Et Al Richmond Main Street Spring 2002

1/74

A Report for the Richmond Main Street Initiative Economic and Community Prospects

May 8, 2002

Prepared by students in the

Research Workshop in Metropolitan and Regional Planning

Department of City and Regional Planning

University of California Berkeley

Spring 2002


2/74Page i

Acknowledgements

This report was prepared by the following students of the Research Workshop in

Metropolitan and Regional Planning, under the direction of Professor Karen Chapple and

with the advice of Renee Hill, Program Manager, Richmond Main Street Initiative, Inc.

(a program of the Bay Area Urban League, Inc.). The report is intended for use and

dissemination by the Richmond Main Street Initiative, Inc.

Forest Atkinson Avni Jamdar Manuel Suarez-Lastra

Karoleen Feng Deepak Lamba-Nieves Ryan Waterman

Kate Gordon Eric Nakajima Grace Woo

Robert Hickey Muhammad Pohan


3/74Page ii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ i

I. Introduction................................................................................................................ 4

II. Downtown Richmond: Then and Now................................................................. 7

A. Place ....................................................................................................................... 7

B. Planning Downtown Richmond........................................................................... 9

C. Demographics...................................................................................................... 12

III. Economic Need in Downtown Richmond ........................................................... 18

A. Retail Gap Analysis............................................................................................. 18

B. Case Study - The Potential for Apparel Retail................................................. 20

IV. The Voice of the Community Survey and Focus Group.................................. 21

A. Survey and Focus Group Findings.................................................................... 21

B. Profile of Survey Respondents........................................................................... 22

C. Current Shopping Patterns and Perceptions of Macdonald Avenue............. 27

D. Shopping, Food, Entertainment and Community Resources Desires............ 28

E. Voice of the Community - Conclusion .............................................................. 30

V. What Works here and Elsewhere ............................................................................ 32

A. Neighborhood Comparisons .............................................................................. 32

1. Introduction....................................................................................................... 32

2. Patterns.............................................................................................................. 35

3. Comparison to Surveys and Richmond Main Street Neighborhood................. 36

4. Neighborhood Comparisons Conclusions......................................................... 37

B. Macdonald Avenue Observations...................................................................... 38

1. Street Observations ........................................................................................... 38

2. Opportunities and Proposals for Street Design and Development.................... 39

VI. Conclusion and Evaluation ................................................................................. 42


4/74Page iii

A. The city is rich with unmet demand.................................................................. 42

B. Macdonald Avenue must offer a diversity of businesses and community

spaces............................................................................................................................ 43

C. The community must be involved with the process. ........................................ 44

VII. Appendix............................................................................................................VI-1

A. Retail Gap Analysis..........................................................................................VI-1

1. Assumptions of the Analysis .........................................................................VI-4

B. Case Study -- The Potential for Apparel Retail ............................................VI-5

1. Calculating Potential Market Share ...............................................................VI-5

2. Location Analysis ........................................................................................VI-12

3. Pencil Out Analysis......................................................................................VI-13

4. Case Study Conclusions...............................................................................VI-16

C. Survey..............................................................................................................VI-18

1. The Main Street Initiative Survey................................................................VI-18

2. Profile of Survey Respondents: Cluster Analysis Methodology ................VI-21

3. Survey Cross Tabulation Methodology ....................................................... VI-23


5/74

Page 4

Now Richmond, California is a great little town. And I live there and Jack, I getsaround. If you ever go there and you want to jump for joy, Ill tell you where to gothats the Club Savoy . . . . Now everybody goes there to have some fun cause thejoint really jumps from nine to one. . . . [E}verybody is high and in the mood. Causethe band starts playing them dirty blues.

Song lyrics from Club Savoy by Jimmy McCracklin

1

I. INTRODUCTION

The streets of downtown Richmond today feel very different from the Richmond of the

1940s in Club Savoy. This report addresses the challenges of reviving the spirit of

downtown Richmond and bringing life to the citys main street, Macdonald Avenue.

The report was initiated at the request of the Richmond Main Street Initiative to develop

strategies for the economic revitalization of Macdonald Avenue. Though we were

originally asked only to conduct surveys and analyze the retail sales gap in the area, we

found that to make Macdonald Avenue the heart of Richmond, more time and effort

needed to be spent understanding the background and needs of the present community.

Macdonald Avenue is one of Richmonds primary activity corridors. The city of

Richmond lies on the western coast of Contra Costa County, just across the San Rafael

Bridge from Marin County, and along the northern border of Alameda County. The

Main Street2 as defined by the Richmond Main Street Initiative stretches east from 8th

Street to 19th

Street, between Nevin and Bissell Avenues, encompassing Macdonald

Avenue. The location of the Main Street relative to the region can be seen in Map 1

below.

1 Shirley Ann Wilson Moore, To Place Our Deeds: The African American Community in Richmond,California, 1910-1963 (UC Press: 1999)2 The Main Street as defined by the Richmond Main Street Initiative should be distinguished from theactual street in Richmond that is named Main Street. Throughout this document we will refer to MainStreet and Macdonald Avenue interchangeably.


6/74

Page 5

Map 1: Regional Context of Richmond Main Street Initiative

The citys hopes for Macdonald Avenue are to recreate a downtown that attracts residents

and employees as well as daytime and nighttime pedestrians. After studying the

economics, culture and physical landscape of Macdonald Avenue, it is clear that there is

much unmet demand and potential for change. However the history of revitalizing

downtown Richmond in the last forty years indicates that a vigorous, integrated and

prioritized effort will be required. This report will investigate and analyze where the

community is today and how people see the street. We conclude by suggesting

opportunities for Macdonald Avenue based on existing resources and examples from

other central Bay Area neighborhoods.

The history of downtown Richmond in Section Two indicates that downtown Richmondhas been seen as a core area for revitalizing Richmond since the 1960s. Throughout the

1960s to 1980s, local planners and policymakers envisioned downtown Richmond as a

regional center for high-end office employment. The location of a shopping mall at

Hilltop rather than near downtown sealed the fate for Richmonds downtown retail stores.

The efforts of the city to increase affordable housing to support local businesses and to


7/74

Page 6

improve the streetscape have changed the area but have not been enough to refocus

economic and community activities on downtown. Demographics from the 1990 and

2000 census show that the population living in and around Macdonald Avenue has

gradually changed over the last decade with an increasing proportion of Whites,

Hispanics and Asians, although the area is still predominantly African American.

The surveys and focus group conducted (in Section Three) impressed upon us the

importance of listening to the residents and employees of the community. At present,

Macdonald Avenue does not serve enough of their needs economically and socially. This

is partly due to the negative perceptions of the Avenue and partly due to the absence of

stores, food establishments and community spaces that answer community needs. The

retail gap analysis in Section Four will point to the tremendous potential for retail and

grocery development in the area. In Section Five, examples of other neighborhoods are

offered as comparisons of possibilities and alternatives. In addition, this section outlines

the opportunities for improvement based on what exists in the Main Street today and

the results of the previous sections.


8/74

Page 7

II. DOWNTOWN RICHMOND: THEN AND NOW

A. Place3

In 1902, Oakland real estate developer Alfred Sylvester Macdonald joined with officials

from the Santa Fe Railroad Company to purchase 457 acres of land along the water north

of Berkeley. Macdonald, the areas first planner, subdivided the property into residential,

commercial, and industrial zones, and designated Macdonald Avenue as the towns main

thoroughfare. Three years later, Richmond, CA was officially incorporated. At that time,

most of the citys residents were native-born and white. According to the 1910 census,

the nonwhite population, made up of Japanese, Chinese, Native American, Mexican, and

African American residents, comprised only 2% of the total population. Because of its

deep harbor and railway access, Richmond drew many industrial employers, includingthe Santa Fe RR, Standard Oil, the Pullman Coach Co., and several porcelain and steel

works.

While many of the white residents held these industrial jobs, nonwhite residents were

often barred from working in the large factories and turned instead to informal labor such

as truck farming (mainly Japanese), shrimp fishing (Chinese), or part-time and temporary

manual labor (African Americans). With the onset of the Depression, some of the larger

industrial companies used nonwhite laborers as strikebreakers. Richmonds prewar

housing market was similarly segregated. Restrictive covenants closed off many

neighborhoods to nonwhite residents, and the partly unincorporated area of North

Richmond became home to most of the towns African American, Italian, Portuguese,

and Mexican citizens. By 1940, nearly the entire African American population of

Richmond was concentrated in North Richmond.

From its incorporation until around 1940 the population of Richmond grew steadily but

slowly. Americas entry into World War II changed everything, as Richmond was

3Resources used for this section include Shirley Ann Wilson Moore, To Place Our Deeds: The AfricanAmerican Community in Richmond, California, 1910-1963 (UC Press: 1999); Greg Cannon,RichmondShore Due for Cleanup, Transformation, Contra Costa Times, March 15, 2002; Greg Cannon, Toxic Hill


9/74

Page 8

catapulted onto the world stage as one of Americas most important war production

towns. The Kaiser Shipyard located in Richmond in 1941, bringing with it hundreds of

thousands of steady, high-paying jobs. Because there simply were not enough people in

the state to fill these jobs, the War Manpower Commission began a nationwide

recruitment campaign in 1942 to bring men and women to California. These recruiters

especially targeted African American workers from the South, and by 1943 nearly 90%

of the African American shipyard workers were Southerners. The Commission also

worked out a deal with the Mexican government, bringing 300,000 Mexican nationals to

the state to work in the defense industry in Richmond and southern California on short-

term contracts. The result was that between 1940 and 1943, Richmonds population went

from about 23,000 to over 90,000 and the towns African American population, the

fastest growing sector, increased by over five thousand percent.

The cultural impact of the wartime boom on Richmond was enormous. Southerners

brought southern traditions such as soul food and blues clubs to the area. North

Richmonds blues clubs, such as the Savoy Club and the Tappers Inn on Chelsey Street,

became hot nightspots for workers throughout the Bay Area. In downtown Richmond,

movie houses, restaurants, bars, and shops sprung up to serve the exploding population.

This population boom put a great strain on the citys resources, especially because so

many of the federally subsidized defense industries did not have to pay local property

taxes. The city simply could not keep up with the population growth. Downtown

Richmond, for instance, lacked storm drains or a modern sewage system until the 1970s.

Richmond became dependent on federal loans for police support, infrastructure

development, and public housing to accommodate the thousands of new workers.

Between 1941 and 1943, 21,000 units of public housing were built in Richmond, many of

which still stand today. Those workers who did not get into public housing, often because

of racial discrimination, lived in temporary housing or built their own dwellings in the

unincorporated sections of North Richmond, the area with the highest homeownership

rates in the city.

Falling, Plans Rising, Contra Costa Times, April 6, 2002; Editorial,Pearl Harbors Legacy, San FranciscoChronicle, December 7, 2001.


10/74

Page 9

The Richmond economy was utterly dependent on the defense industry, and this proved

to be devastating to the city when the war ended in 1945. By the spring of 1946, the

shipyards were laying off over a thousand workers a month. During the 1950s, more than

30,000 people moved away from Richmond, leaving the city with thousands of units of

vacant wartime housing, huge abandoned factory sites, a declining downtown, and a

severe shortage of jobs.

B. Planning Downtown Richmond

The City of Richmond created the Richmond Redevelopment Agency in 1950 in order to

address some of the problems left behind after the war. The Redevelopment Agency was

charged with clearing temporary housing constructed during World War II and providingfor new construction on vacant parcels. By 1960, it became clear that there was an

additional need to revitalize the citys downtown, stretching along Macdonald Avenue

from 16th

and 6th

Streets, between Barrett Avenue and Bissell Avenue. The

Redevelopment Agency chose downtown Richmond as the site for new economic

development, in an attempt to replace the shipyard and industrial areas as the citys

economic anchor.4

But what would Richmonds new anchor look like? The Agencys first answer was to

develop a regional center for high-end office employment. In 1962, the firm of Wilsey,

Ham and Blair submitted a report to the Redevelopment Agency entitledDowntown

Richmond: a Plan for Redevelopment Action. The plan envisioned a series of modern

office towers, civic plazas and department stores, clustered in a downtown surrounded by

high-rise residential apartments. The designs for the new downtown were driven by the

belief that Richmond would be best served by exploiting its low cost land and proximity

to a national center of white-collar employment. Even in 1962, the city of Richmond

4Richmond City Planning Department, Community Renewal Program: Richmond, California 1965-75,January 3, 1966.


11/74

Page 10

expected that the proposed rapid transit line [BART] would serve as a catalyst for

downtown development.5

In 1966, Richmond received approval from the Department of Housing and Urban

Development to declare the downtown a federal Redevelopment Area.6 The citys

principal goal was to clear out decrepit and abandoned buildings, improve the public

infrastructure and plan for the commercial revitalization of the downtown. Richmond city

officials continued to believe that the downtown would capture a reasonable proportion

of the Bay Areas office and residential development. Activists, planners and city

officials uniformly believed that the completion of the BART station in 1973, along with

improvements in highway access, would entice office developers to take another look at

Richmond.7 This hope was buttressed by the planned construction of the Western

regional office of the Social Security Administration, a new Wells Fargo building, and a

proposed Kaiser medical facility.

Despite these grand plans, the 1970s and 1980s were a difficult time for Richmonds

residents. The citys unemployment level was relatively high and the predicted economic

benefit of the BART station and the Social Security building did not materialize. At the

same time, the construction of the Hilltop Mall in 1976 proved to be the final nail in the

coffin for Richmonds downtown retail stores, which had steadily lost business since the

shipyards closed down. The Greater Richmond Community Development Corporation

(GRCDC) attempted to address community needs by constructing affordable housing

throughout Richmond and building the Enterprise Center on Macdonald Avenue to

support the growth of local businesses downtown. GRCDC, which was supported by

grants from the federal Community Services Administration, provided loans and

technical assistance to businesses and sought a community-centered approach to

5 Wilsey, Ham & Blair,Downtown Richmond: a Plan for Redevelopment Action, Prepared for theRedevelopment Agency of the City of Richmond, California, October 19626 The redevelopment area declared in 1966 overlaps with most of the Main Street study area, since it runsfrom 6th to 16th Streets between Barrett and Bissell Avenues.7 Greater Richmond Community Development Corporation,A Plan For Urban Economic Development,Submitted to the Community Services Administration, Title VII-A Grant Application, 1976.


12/74

Page 11

economic development.8 Despite these efforts, population and employment in downtown

Richmond continued to decline.

In 1986, the City of Richmond initiated an extensive public process to plan for its

downtown. The City Center Specific Plan, approved by the Planning Commission in

1988, began by accepting that the old downtown would not be able to compete with the

Hilltop Mall for retail activity.9 The plan envisioned office buildings near the BART

station, and office buildings above pedestrian-friendly retail stores along Macdonald

Avenue. The downtown would be connected to new and existing affordable housing

units via open space and pubic parks. As before, the fundamental assumption underlying

this plan was that Richmond would share in the rise of overall Bay Area construction and

employment.

During the 1990s, the city implemented parts of the City Center Specific Plan by

significantly improving the streetscape and infrastructure in the downtown area, and

constructing new affordable housing. The city has focused on tangible efforts to improve

economic activity, despite a continuing citywide reputation for high crime. In January

2001, the Planning Commission modified the City Center Specific Plan to help pave the

way for a major residential center at the BART station, the Richmond Transit Village.

The City expects the Transit Village, which will include 231 residential units and 24,000

square feet of commercial space, to catalyze development along Macdonald Avenue and

rebuild the downtown as a lively, 24-hour neighborhood.

Today, the city is undertaking a major effort to build on the opportunities presented by

the transit village and take the incremental steps that will result in a better downtown for

all of Richmonds residents. The Redevelopment Agency is developing a master plan

for the city center stretching from the old downtown of Richmond to City Hall. The

Richmond Main Street Initiative is working with business and community leaders in the

8 Ibid.9 The Main Street lies within the larger area covered by the City Center Specific Plan circa 1988, whichwas bounded by Barrett Avenue, 19th and 20th Streets, the mid-block line between Bissell and ChanslorAvenues, and 6th and 7th Streets.


13/74

Page 12

downtown to plan for the revitalization of Macdonald Avenue as the center of

Richmonds arts, nightlife and community activity. The East Bay Center for the

Performing Arts, which already draws students from all over the Bay Area to Macdonald

Avenue for dance and music classes and concerts, will play an important role in this new

downtown plan. Ultimately, the plan for Richmond is to build up Macdonald Avenue a

downtown destination in its own right, not as a site for spillover office and residential

development from the rest of the Bay Area.

C. Demographics

Any plan for downtown Richmond must take the demographics of the surrounding area

into account. The face of this city has changed dramatically since its incorporation nearly

a century ago. Richmonds wartime population boom dramatically changed thedemographics of the town, bringing in large numbers of African American and Mexican

residents, many of whom bought houses and remained in the area even after the shipyards

closed down. Since the war the Asian population of Richmond has also greatly expanded

and changed in character, from small numbers of Japanese and Chinese residents in the

pre-war period to a much larger, multi-ethnic Asian/Pacific Islander population today.

In the last decade, the makeup of downtown Richmond has undergone further changes as

can be seen in the demographic breakdown of the two zip codes making up downtown

Richmond (see Table 1 and Maps 2 and 3). Generally, there has been an increase in

Asian/Pacific Islander and Hispanic residents and a drop in African American residents 10.

A further breakdown of the Asian population in these zip codes in 2000 indicates that the

majority is of Chinese (22% of Asian population), Filipino (19.8%) or Laotian (26%)

descent (see Table 2). However, African Americans still comprise the majority

population (44%) of the Study Area, which includes Macdonald Avenue plus a 1-mile

buffer zone. Location quotient data, which compares ethnic concentrations in this area to

the entire county, indicates that the Study Area has a much higher concentration of

Asian/Pacific Islander and Other Race residents than Contra Costa County as a whole.


14/74

Page 13

(Note that the extremely large increase in Other Race residents from 1990-2000 is

probably due to the fact that respondents could list themselves as mixed race for the first

time in the 2000 census). Although income data is not available from the 2000 Census,

the 1990 income figures indicate that Richmonds median income level was about 65%

of the entire countys median income.

As you can see from Table 1, this area has a substantial youth population. According to

the 2000 Census, 9% of the population is very young (under five years old), whereas 19%

of the population is between the ages of six and seventeen years old. This youth

population is significant. As you will see from our survey and focus group data,

Richmond residents are very interested in creating a downtown that serves the youth, by

creating teen hang-out centers, family restaurants, and other child- and teen-friendly

spaces.

In the past ten years the number of owner- and renter-occupied housing units in these two

zip codes has increased, though the increase is smaller in owner-occupied units.

Furthermore, the Study Area data shows that nearly 60% of the housing in the immediate

downtown area is renter-occupied. The high number of renters in this area might allow

for unwelcome displacement, unless downtown development is done carefully.

Richmonds downtown and near-downtown residents will play a very important role in

any plan to revitalize Macdonald Avenue. These are the consumers who are most likely

to use the downtown for their day-to-day shopping and entertainment needs, as we found

in our Macdonald Avenue survey. In the Retail Gap section of this report we will

examine the purchasing power of these residents, and demonstrate that downtown

Richmond could support significant new commercial development on the strength of

these residents alone.

10 As we note in the table itself, the exact numbers for the change in ethnic and racial populations cannot bedetermined because the methodology for categorization of race and ethnicity diferred significantly betweenthe 1990 and 2000 census.


15/74

Page 14

Table 1: Demographic Profile of Zip codes 94801and 94804 and Study Area11

11Data source: 1990 Census, 2000 Census. Study Area includes Macdonald Avenue plus a 1-mile radius zone.

94801 94804 Total % 94801 94804 Total % % L.Q.

d

Persons

Total Population 23,904 34,154 58,058 100% 28,437 39,080 67,517 100% 16% 24,299 100% 1

Male 14,224 18,613 32,837 49% 12,089 50% 1.02

Female 14,213 20,467 34,680 51% 12,210 50%

Under 5 2,869 3,036 5,905 9% 2,626 11% 1.24

6-17 4,521 5,378 9,899 15% 6,008 25% 1.69

18-64 16,773 23,990 40,763 60% 13,952 57% 0.95

65 and over 2,093 4,182 6,275 9% 1,713 7% 0.76

Median age 27.8 32.8 30.7 27.1

White 4,557 8,292 12,849 22% 3,990 7,836 11,826 18% -8% 5,778 24% 1.36

Black or African Americanb

11,498 19,131 30,629 53% 9,844 17,785 27,629 41% -10% 10,761 44% 1.08

AHOPIb, c

1,925 3,061 4,986 9% 1,896 4,993 6,889 10% 38% 6,344 26% 2.56

Other Raceb

212 247 459 1% 593 999 1,592 2% 247% 1,417 6% 2.47

Hispanic or Latino 5,712 3,423 9,135 16% 13,525 9,552 23,077 34% 153% 10,787 44% 1.30

Households

Total Households 8,451 12,934 21,385 8,586 14,322 22,908 7% 6,974 95% 1.00

Median Household Income 21,478 27,329

Average household size 3.26 2.71 2.9417 3.63

Housing Units 9,082 13,537 22,619 100% 9,096 14,946 24,042 100% 6% 7,374 100% 1.01

Owner Occupied 3,532 6,542 10,074 45% 3,622 7,017 10,639 44% 6% 2,780 38% 0.86

Renter Occupied 4,919 6,392 11,312 50% 4,964 7,305 12,270 51% 8% 4,194 57% 1.12

Vacant 631 603 1,234 5% 510 624 1,134 5% -8% 400 5% 1.16

Category

Study Area

2000

Zip Codes

%Change1990

a2000

aBecause individuals could report only one race on the Census forms in 1990 and could report more than one race in 2000, and because of other changes in the census

questionnaire, the race data for 1990 and 2000 are not directly comparable. Thus the difference in population by race between 1990 and 2000 is due both to these

changes in the census questionnaire and to real change in the population.b In order to make the 1990 and 2000 census more comparable, the population for Black or African American, AHOPI and Other Races included a proportional amount

of mixed race categoriescAsian, Native Hawaiian, Other Pacific Islander (AHOPI)

dLocation quotient (LQ) is a measure of the relative concentration of the impoverished community for the selected race/ethnicity or housing unit tenure.

For example for the whites in the impoverished community, the calculation is (whites population in the impoverished community/whites population in the

county)/(population in the impoverished community/population in the county) . An LQ greater than 1.0 signifies the impoverished community is more concentrated tha

the county and vice versa for an LQ less than 1.0.


16/74

Page 15

Table 2: Breakdown of Asians by place of origin for Zip Codes 94801 & 9480412

12 Data source: Census, 2000

Total Asian 1,548 5.4% 100.0% 4,319 11.1% 100.0% 5,867 8.7%100.0%Asian Indian 46 0.2% 3.0% 394 1.0% 9.1% 440 0.7% 7.5%Bangladeshi 2 0.0% 0.1% 0 0.0% 0.0% 2 0.0% 0.0%Cambodian 56 0.2% 3.6% 42 0.1% 1.0% 98 0.1% 1.7%Chinese, except Taiwanese 151 0.5% 9.8% 1,146 2.9% 26.5% 1,297 1.9% 22.1%Filipino 513 1.8% 33.1% 648 1.7% 15.0% 1,161 1.7% 19.8%Hmong 19 0.1% 1.2% 13 0.0% 0.3% 32 0.0% 0.5%Indonesian 2 0.0% 0.1% 37 0.1% 0.9% 39 0.1% 0.7%Japanese 43 0.2% 2.8% 423 1.1% 9.8% 466 0.7% 7.9%Korean 37 0.1% 2.4% 215 0.6% 5.0% 252 0.4% 4.3%Laotian 604 2.1% 39.0% 954 2.4% 22.1% 1,558 2.3% 26.6%Malaysian 2 0.0% 0.1% 8 0.0% 0.2% 10 0.0% 0.2%Pakistani 0 0.0% 0.0% 37 0.1% 0.9% 37 0.1% 0.6%Sri Lankan 1 0.0% 0.1% 7 0.0% 0.2% 8 0.0% 0.1%Taiwanese 0 0.0% 0.0% 36 0.1% 0.8% 36 0.1% 0.6%Thai 12 0.0% 0.8% 79 0.2% 1.8% 91 0.1% 1.6%Vietnamese 20 0.1% 1.3% 214 0.5% 5.0% 234 0.3% 4.0%Other Asian 0 0.0% 0.0% 6 0.0% 0.1% 6 0.0% 0.1%Other Asian, not 40 0.1% 2.6% 60 0.2% 1.4% 100 0.1% 1.7%Total Population 28,437100.0% - 39,080 100.0% - 67,517100.0% -

ZipCode

# % oftotal

%within

Asian#

% of

total pop

%within

Asian

94801 94804#

% oftotal

pop

%withi

n Asian

Total


17/74

Page 16

Map 2: Demographics - Whites and Hispanics in Richmond Main Street, CA


18/74

Page 17

Map 3: Demographics African Americans and Asian Richmond Main Street, CA


19/74

Page 18

III. ECONOMIC NEED IN DOWNTOWN RICHMOND

A. Retail Gap Analysis

One of the main issues surrounding a discussion on the success of local economic

development initiatives is the capacity that local businesses possess to serve residents

consumption needs. Understanding how local residents spend their dollars and how much

of this is captured (or not) by the local businesses is important since it will provide

insights into the possibilities for future local economic growth and pinpoint the strengths

and weaknesses present in the communitys retail market. In order to get a better sense

of some of these issues within the Main Street area, we prepared a retail gap analysis

that focuses on analyzing two important retail activities: apparel and groceries

consumption. It must be noted that the selection of these two retail activities is based onthe needs identified by the residents in the survey we administered as well as an analysis

of traditional retail needs in inner city communities.

According to our analysis of retail conditions in the area around Richmond Main Street,

comprised of zip codes 94801 and 94804, local residents could financially support a

considerable amount of new retail in the community. By comparing community

purchasing power to existing retail capacity, we estimate $216.8 million in resident retail

expenditures "leaks" outside the area every year ($3,211 per capita). In other words, local

retail businesses capture only 41% of residents' total retail purchases. This gives strong

support to the contention that new commercial development in Macdonald Avenue is

feasible. Table A1 included in the Appendix describes the figures in detail

The $216.82 million retail gap of the area comprised by the two zip codes could be filled

by a variety of businesses, many of which could locate in Macdonald Avenue under the

Main Street program. We looked specifically at the viability of new supermarkets and

apparel stores, given their success in other inner city markets13 and the fact that these

activities had a strong presence in our survey results (see Table A2 in the Appendix).

13 Porter, Michael, The Business Case for Pursuing Retail Opportunities in the Inner City, 1998.


20/74

Page 19

A considerable amount (46%) of the areas total retail gap consists of a groceries sales

gap (99.1 million) and 15% of apparel sales gap (34 million). Our calculations show that

the area could support one additional large grocery store (50,000 square feet in size) and

two mid-size grocery stores. Additionally the area could support thirteen additional mid-

sized apparel stores (each 6,000 square feet). Given the space available in the Macdonald

Avenue area there are multiple developable parcels that could provide space for these

types of stores. Nonetheless, these figures serve as benchmarks; therefore it should not be

implied that two mid-sized grocery stores or thirteen apparel stores should be developed.

Rather, they identify the potential for development that exists for these commercial

activities. It is our understanding that the retail establishments to be developed should be

determined by the overall synergy and balance of commercial activities that is desired.

We also prepared a retail gap breakdown for African Americans and Hispanics (both on

an aggregate and per capita basis) to get a better sense of how local businesses are

responding to the consumption needs of these populations given the fact that they are the

two largest ethnic groups in our area of analysis (see Tables A3 and A4 in the Appendix).

We found that although the total retail gap for both groups is similar to that of the rest of

the population, the existing establishments serve their groceries needs better than for the

population as a whole. That is, the per capita gap for groceries is less for Hispanics and

African Americans than for the rest of the population. However, the apparel sales gap for

African Americans is 20% higher than for the rest of the population. According to the

analysis, while there is on average a $504 yearly leak per capita for all ethnic groups, the

yearly leak per capita for the African American population ascends to $602. Hispanics

per capita apparel gap, on the other hand, is less than that of the rest of the population and

of African Americans. Nonetheless, this finding should not detract attention from the

argument that the overall consumption needs of this ethnic group (Hispanics) are not

being met by the current local retail market.


21/74

Page 20

B. Case Study - The Potential for Apparel Retail

This section has described the unmet need for retail services among Richmonds residents

who live near downtown. In this case study, we try to understand the barriers and

opportunities that new retailers might face. How realistic is it to expect a new clothing

store, for instance, to thrive if they locate on Macdonald Avenue? How many customers

could a storeowner anticipate, especially given stiff competition from Hilltop Mall or El

Cerrito Plaza?

A full presentation of our case study is located in the Appendix. In the case study, we

analyze the likely success of a store such as Old Navy or Ross Dress for Less, if it

anchors the development of small stores at the western end of Macdonald Avenue.

Residents who participated in our survey and focus groups said that they would like a

low-priced, fashionable clothing store, and these stores were used as good Bay Area

examples. The actual stores that locate on Macdonald Avenue, however, will depend

upon the vision established by residents and the Main Street Initiative.

The upshot of our findings is that a major clothing store could thrive on the 900 block of

Macdonald Avenue. Our analysis found that a 20,000 square foot Old Navy or Ross

could attract a market of just over 50,000 people, even taking into account competitionfrom Hilltop Mall and other stores. This translates into better than $8 million in annual

sales ornearly 2.5 times the median salesper square footachieved by clothing stores

nationwide. If safety concerns limit the attractiveness of downtown Richmond, however,

our analysis shows the stores market shrinks to the point that a new store might not be

feasible. If these concerns can be minimized, there is great hope for a new store in

downtown Richmond.


22/74

Page 21

IV. THE VOICE OF THE COMMUNITY SURVEY AND FOCUS GROUP

A. Survey and Focus Group Findings

A key component of our investigation into the economic and community prospects of

Macdonald Avenue is establishing the activities and needs of those who live and work in

the area. We conducted both surveys and focus groups during April 2002 to learn about

the behavior and preferences of Macdonald Avenue area shoppers. Our research showed

a strong attachment to Macdonald Avenue among community members, who visit it

frequently and meet many of their daily need on the street. However, safety concerns and

the limited choices for activity on the street in particular, the perceived lack of

community resources or entertainment options prevent many from visiting more often.

This section presents the results of the customer survey, highlighted with contributionsfrom the focus group discussions. It begins with a profile of the survey respondents, and

continues with both a report of their current shopping patterns and a list of their desires

for future development on Macdonald Avenue.

The customer survey was administered in the Macdonald area, both to passersby on the

street and to employees of two prominent local employers, the Social Security

Administration and Kaiser Permanente. The group of respondents to the street survey,

the customer group, included 148 respondents, while the surveys from major local

employers, the employee group, included 43 respondents. Although the survey was not

designed to return a statistically representative sample, which would have entailed a

much more extensive and time-consuming process, the responses received were sufficient

to get an impression of the desires of Macdonald area shoppers. 14 (See Appendix

Section C for both a copy of the customer survey and a detailed table of the results).Later,

14 The customer survey was administered two distinct places. First, surveyors intercepted passersby on thestreet in front of three locations around the Macdonald Avenue area (Foods Co., the Players Outlet, and theRichmond BART station), on two different days (in mid-afternoon on Tuesday, April 2nd, and mid-morningSaturday, April 6th). By filling out the survey, all respondents entered a raffle to win one of three prizes: a$100 gift certificate to Best Buy, or one of two $25 gift certificates to Best Buy or Blockbuster Video.Second, the survey was administered to employees of Kaiser Permanente, the City of Richmond and theSocial Security Administration through both in-person distribution and interoffice mail. Both sets ofrespondents filled out the same three-page paper survey, composed of 13 multiple choice and 2 fill-in theblank questions.


23/74

Page 22

we conducted two focus groups with survey respondents to further explore the

impressions of Macdonald area shoppers.15

B. Profile of Survey Respondents

In order to know the people who frequent Macdonald Avenue and their shopping patterns

and preferences, profiles of groups of survey respondents were identified. A brief glance

at their demographic representation, however, shows that relative to the Richmond study

area community, African-American respondents were over represented in the survey,

while Whites and Asians were underrepresented. 16 There were also significant

demographic differences between the customer and employee groups along geographic,

income, racial, and gender categories. Geographically, nearly 75% of employee group

respondents live outside the Macdonald Avenue area, compared to the nearly 73% of thecustomer group that live within the Macdonald Avenue area. Financially, the customer

group was mostly composed of low-income households, with 45% earning less then

$15,000 per year and only 7% earning $50,000 or more, compared to only 5% of the

employee group earning less than $15,000 per year and 49% earning $50,000 or more.

Ethnically, the customer group included more Hispanics and African Americans than the

employee group, while the employee group included more Whites and non-ethnically

reporting respondents than the customer group.

15 Focus group discussions, one for English-speaking residents and one for Spanish-speaking residents,were minimally guided by representatives from the research team and lasted for one and a half hours. Thediscussions were held at the office of the Richmond Main Street Initiative on Saturday, April 27th, in thelate morning and the mid-afternoon. Participants were compensated $25 for their time.16 This does not necessarily mean that those surveyed were not representative of the people that shop onMacdonald Avenue. For the purposes of this report, we used these numbers to generalize about thepreferences of Macdonald Avenue shoppers. However, without a more in-depth survey, the surveysresults should not be used to generalize about the preferences of the entire resident population of downtownRichmond.


24/74

Page 23

Table 3: Ethnic Composition of Survey Respondents

Zip Codes

94801 & 94804

Customer

Group

Employee

GroupPopulation % Population % Population %

Hispanic 23,077 32% 41 28% 6 14%

African American 27,629 39% 88 59% 23 53%

Asian or Pacific Islander 6,889 10% 4 3% 0 0%

White 11,826 17% 8 5% 11 26%

Other 1,592 2% 7 5% 3 7%

Source: Macdonald Avenue Customer Survey, 2002; U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 STF1, P10.Racial categories may be that race alone, or may be in combination with one or more other races.

Finally, although gender within the customer group was more reflective of the

Macdonald Avenue area as a whole, demonstrated by a 43/57% split between male and

female respondents compared to the 49/51% split in the Macdonald Avenue area, the

employee group was overwhelming female (91%).

To further analyze our survey respondents, different groups of consumers that have

similar preferences and opinions were determined using a technique called Cluster

Analysis to find commonalities between respondents to the consumer survey.17

Due to

the small number of responses from the employee group, the analysis only includes the

responses for the customer group.

Using cluster analysis, we identified four groups of consumers with similar personal

characteristics, consumer preferences, and opinions regarding Macdonald Avenue.

Principal characteristics that may explain preferences and opinions about the area include

age, income, gender, and ethnicity. The demographics of the four groups can be seen in

Table 4 below.

17 A description of Cluster Analysis technique can be found in the Appendix in Section C.


25/74

Page 24

Table 4: Demographics of Profile Groups

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

Average Group Age 18.5 30.3 42 57

Number of Respondents (%) 63 (44%) 26 (17%) 33 (22%) 24 (16%)

Income score (1-4)18 1.8 1.7 1.5 2.2

% Males 48% 31% 30% 58%% Females 52% 69% 70% 42%

% Hispanic 27% 52% 21% 18%

% African American 67% 43% 69% 67%

% Others 6% 5% 10% 15%Source: Macdonald Avenue Customer Survey, 2002.

Among respondents to the survey, the groups are most clearly identifiable by age bracket.

Other notable demographic characteristics include: 1) relatively high concentration of

African Americans in every group but Group Two, and 2) relatively high concentrations

of women in Groups Two and Three.

Table 5 below shows the most common answers by respondents, arranged by consumer

group, to the survey. Although some of the preferences presented may not have been top

answers in the survey overall, they show specific characteristics of each of the consumer

groups identified.

18 The Income Score is the mean response to the income question on the survey. The survey gave fourpossible income categories for respondents to choose from: 1) less than $15,000, 2) $15,000 34,999, 3)$35,000 49,999, and 4) more than $50,000. Therefore, if a respondent reports an income of $35,000-49,999, he or she would receive an income score of 3. The statistic presented above is the mean of all theresponses in each Group. For example, if Group 1 has an income score of 1.8, then the mean income levelfor Group 1 is somewhere between income categories 1 and 2, although it is closer to income category 2($15,000 34,999) than to income category 1 (less than $15,000).


26/74

Page 25

Table 5: Preferences of the Profile GroupsMacdonald Avenue Consumer Survey Cluster Analysis

Survey Question Group1 Group2 Group3 Group4

Why do you visit Macdonald

venue.

Shopping eatinghaircut/nails to hang out

Shopping religiousrecreation

Shopping grocerieswork

Groceriesbanking work

Why do you choose

Macdonald Avenue.

Run into people,comfortable to walk

around

Stores I shop atConvenient tohome/work,

comfortable to walk

Services /convenient tohome/work

I would come more often if

there were

More entertainmentMore Stores

More servicesBetter food options

More of the stores Ishop at

More recreation,More stores

What kind of stores would

you like to see

Sporting goods, Music,clothing

Electronics,Bookstores

Clothing, Video,Bookstores, Grocery

Clothing,Hardware, Home

Furnishings

What kind of food places

would you like to seeFast food Bakery/Bagels

Deli, Coffee House,Family restaurant

Health food,Family

restaurants

What kind of entertainment

would you like to see

Teen Hangout Clubs,Movie theatre

Coffee Shops,Teen-Hangout

Coffee shops, Movies,Performing arts

Performing arts,Coffee shops

What keeps you from coming

more often

Difficulty getting byCar/BART

SafetyDifficulty walking,

Dirtiness, NoiseSafety, Difficulty

walking

Source: Macdonald Avenue Customer Survey, 2002.

Group 1: Composed mainly of young people (the average age of the group is 18.5 years),

the proportion between males and females in this group is relatively equal, and it is the

largest group of the four clusters, encompassing 44% of all respondents.

The reasons that members of this group visit Macdonald Avenue are to shop, to eat,

attend to haircuts/nails, and to hang out. Members of this group like Macdonald Avenue

because it is a comfortable place to walk around and they can run into people they know.

They would like to see music, sporting goods, and clothing stores added to the shopping


27/74

Page 26

selections available at Macdonald Avenue. Interestingly, this group is the only group to

ask for more fast food restaurants. In terms of entertainment, members of this group

would like to see clubs and movie theaters, as well as a teen hangout center. This group

was the only group of the four to note that transportation to the Macdonald Avenue was a

reason why they did not come more often, citing difficulty getting to the area by both car

and by BART.

Group 2: The average age in this group is 30 years of age and 69% of its members are

female. Seventeen percent (17%) of all respondents are in this group. It is also the group

with the highest percentage of Hispanics (52% of respondents in this group). Their

reasons for visiting Macdonald Avenue were shopping, religious purposes and recreation.

In general, members of this group said that they would come more often if Macdonald

Avenue had more services and better food options. This group would like to see

bookstores, electronics stores, and bakeries. In terms of entertainment, members of this

group would also like to see a teen hangout center and coffee shops. The main issue of

concern for going to Macdonald Avenue for members of this group is safety.

Group 3: Of the four groups, Group 3 was the only one where a significant number of

the members chose performing arts as one of the main reason why they visit

Macdonald Avenue, along with shopping, groceries, and work. According to their

responses, they choose to come to the area because it is convenient to their homes and it

is a comfortable place to walk around. Seventy percent of this group is comprised of

females and the average age is 42 years. Twenty two percent of all respondents belong to

this group and it is composed mainly of African Americans (69%). Out of all four groups,

it is the one with the lowest income. Members of this group would come more often to

Macdonald Avenue if it had more of the stores they shop at. This group would like to see

video, clothing, bookstores and grocery stores and showed a preference for seeing delis,

coffee houses and family restaurants. In terms of entertainment, members of this group

would like to see performing arts, movie theatres and coffee shops. The main concerns

regarding physical and aesthetic aspects for this group include the dirtiness of streets and

sidewalks, as well as difficulty walking on Macdonald Avenue. This last critique seems


28/74

Page 27

contradictory because respondents in this group also said they chose Macdonald Avenue

because it is a comfortable place to walk around.

Group 4: This group rates highest in both income and age (57 years average), and is the

only group with a higher percentage of males (58%) than females. Besides grocery

shopping, the highest-ranking activity that attracts its members to Macdonald Avenue is

banking. As well as Group 3, members of this group choose to come to Macdonald

Avenue because it has the services they use and because it is convenient (in terms of

access) to their home and/or work. They too would visit Macdonald Avenue more often if

it had more of the stores they shop at and had more of the services they need. This group

would like to see clothing, hardware, and home furnishings stores added to the area.

Group 4 would also like family restaurants, as well as health food. The group showed an

entertainment preference for performing arts and coffee shops. The main issues of

concern for members of this group were safety and difficulty walking around the area.

C. Current Shopping Patterns and Perceptions of Macdonald Avenue

Frequency of Visits to the Macdonald Avenue Area: The customer group reported

relatively frequent visits to the Macdonald Avenue area. Almost half of those surveyed

(over 48%) go to Macdonald Avenue 5-7 times per week and another 34% visit 2-4 times

per week, mostly for shopping, groceries and eating. In contrast, only 23% of the

employee group visits Macdonald 5-7 times per week, and 49% visited less than once per

week.

Perception of the Macdonald Avenue Area: The customer group generally had positive

perceptions of the area. Convenience to home was a significant plus, with 61% noting

that it is convenient to their home, and 47% citing Macdonald as a preferred shopping

area because it has stores they shop at. Focus group participants reinforced this

impression. One man said, I love the neighborhood that my home is in, and I love

walking over here, because its pretty much centrally located, the Macdonald shopping

areaand I just really like this area. Another woman voiced similar approval, saying,


29/74

Page 28

I like it here because everything is pretty much centrally located like everyone else has

said. The hospital is near, youre near public transportation, BART and buses, and the

buses run pretty frequently. There are also a lot of cabs. Employee group respondents

were not as positive about the area and they mostly visited because the area was close to

their workplace.

For both groups of survey respondents, safety in the Macdonald Avenue area was the

most significant concern, with 49% of the employee group and 34% of the customer

group reporting that it kept them from going to Macdonald Avenue more often. This

negative factor was followed by street and sidewalk dirtiness as a cause keeping shoppers

away from Main Street, with 24% of the employee group, and 16% of the customer

group, reporting that it was a significant reason for them not shopping there more often.

Shopping on Macdonald Avenue Area: Respondents come to Macdonald Avenue

most frequently to shop, and other significant activities include eating out, grocery

shopping, and banking. Confirming the retail gap analysis, the survey results indicate

that the Macdonald area does not fully serve respondents shopping needs. Significant

numbers of respondents regularly shop at Hilltop Mall, Appian Way/Pinole, El Cerrito

del Norte, and El Cerrito Plaza.

D. Shopping, Food, Entertainment and Community Resources Desires

The customer groups responses to survey questions along gender, age, income, and

ethnicity lines are evaluated in this subsection, since there were insufficient responses in

the employee group.19

19 The customer group (composed of 148 people) was large enough to evaluate the demographiccharacteristics of the respondents within each question. For example, enough people answered questionslike, How often do you visit Macdonald Avenue? to get a general idea of the gender, age, income, andethnicity of those who do come to Macdonald Avenue. The employee group of 43 respondents, however,was not large enough to do this type of evaluation. For example, no Asian and only 6 Hispanic employeesresponded to the customer survey in the employee group. Drawing conclusions about the preferences ofthese groups of people based on those few responses is not possible.


30/74

Page 29

Most Frequently Requested New Stores: The survey asked respondents to choose which

types of stores they would most like to see added to Macdonald Avenue. Clothing and

shoes stores were the most consistently requested new stores, with 60% of the customer

group and 51% of the employee group asking for these types of establishments. The next

most consistently requested store type was bookstores (customer group: 39%; employee

group: 60%). Focus group participants echoed these survey results. One woman said, I

would also like to see more restaurants, bookstores, coffee shops, things of that nature.

When asked what specific store(s) survey respondents would like to see brought into the

area, Wal-Mart topped the list with 21 requests. Old Navy, Ross Dress For Less, and

Target all received 7 to 8 bids, further demonstrating the demand for clothing stores.

There was some differentiation, however, among ethnic groups in their responses to this

question. Although African Americans and Asians did not make a significant request for

more grocery stores, both Whites (63%) and Hispanics (48%) did do so. One Hispanic

focus group participant noted that she had to travel out of the area to get the ethnic foods

she liked to prepare.

Restaurants, Bakeries, Delis: Family-style sit-down restaurants were highly desired by

both the Customer and employee groups (requested by 59% and 54% of each group

respectively). The customer group also requested fast food (34%), delis (31%), and

coffee shops (30%). Whites were the most likely to request a deli (63%), while

Hispanics were the most likely to request a bakery/bagel caf (38%).

The employee group had a strong desire to see more food options available, including

more coffee shops (58%), delis (53%) and bakery/bagel cafs (47%). In addition, 72% of

employee group respondents said they would frequent Macdonald Avenue more often if

there were better food options available.

Entertainment: For entertainment, a movie theater was the most popular request for both

groups (customer group: 69%; employee group: 56%), although coffee shops also did

quite well (customer group: 30%; employee group: 58%). Participants in the focus


31/74

Page 30

groups asked for a movie theater specifically, as well as for coffee shops and bookstores.

One man said, I would like to see more shops, like more coffee shops, bookstores, and

bakeries. Respondents in the employee group also requested development of the

performing arts (42%), although the customer group did not request such development

with the same vigor (26%).

Community Resources: Another area for development that came out of both the

Customer Survey and the Focus Group meetings was the need for supportive activities

and resources for the Macdonald areas youth. Specifically, 47% of the customer group

requested a teen hang-out center, along with 12% of the employee group respondents.

One Focus Group participant said, I think the area needs to work on the youth, have

more youth programs, because they are the future. So, restaurants and bookstores are

good, but we need to have after-school centers too.

E. Voice of the Community - Conclusion

Survey and Focus Group results revealed a split in the perceptions of the area. For the

customer group, the Macdonald Avenue is a resource that, despite its problems, can be

improved. The energy and excitement of Focus Group participants highlights this

perception. For the employee group, however, Macdonald Avenue is seen as an unsafe

area lacking the shops and entertainment that would draw them into the area more often.

This negative perception of the area is a major opportunity for growth for the Macdonald

Avenue area. For example, over 70% of the employee group said that they would

frequent Macdonald Avenue more often if there were more stores they shop at and better

food options.

Despite this difference in perception of the area as a whole, however, both the Customer

and employee groups reported similar desires for new shops and development on

Macdonald Avenue. For example, both groups requested family-style restaurants,

clothing and shoe stores, coffee shops, and movie theaters. This indicates that the general

desires of both groups coincide in many significant ways. This is yet another opportunity


32/74

Page 31

for the Macdonald Avenue area to capitalize upon. By developing things that local

residents want, Macdonald Avenue also has the opportunity to also shoppers from out of

the area that would otherwise not be attracted to Macdonald Avenue.

Finally, the diversity of the Macdonald Avenue area is a strength that can be cultivated.

The Macdonald Avenue area is very diverse, and as the earlier history section pointed

out, has a rich and vibrant history. As one focus group participant noted, Now that Ive

moved around a lot, I see how different cultures raise areas up. And I think this area

needs a splash of color to liven the area up.


33/74

Page 32

V. WHAT WORKS HERE AND ELSEWHERE

A. Neighborhood Comparisons

1. Introduction

The Bay Area contains many successful Main Street areas with various types of retail

establishments, restaurants, and services. Visits were made to a number of these areas in

order to observe some of the factors that can contribute to creating a successful

commercial street. Five areas that seemed roughly similar to the Macdonald Avenue. area

in terms of functionality and socioeconomic makeup were chosen. These areas were:

Oaklands East Lake area (approximately 10 blocks on both E. 14th Avenue and

E. 12th Avenue between 5th and 14th streets)

Fruitvale (commercial strip along International Avenue near Fruitvale BART

station.

MacArthur (commercial area at the intersection of MacArthur Blvd and Fruitvale

Avenue.

Temescal (area on Telegraph Avenue. between 54th and 44th Streets.

Mission/Excelsior district (area on Mission street near the highway 280 overpass)

A visit was also made to an area in San Pablo City near El Portal Drive and San Pablo

Avenue intersection, South of the International Marketplace, which had been suggested

as a possible successful main street area. On closer inspection, this area seemed to be in

decline, but the information has been included as it is also informative to compare it to

the Macdonald Avenue. area.

The number of observed establishments of each type was recorded, as well as

observations about physical design elements, parking provision, transit availability, levels

of activity, and demographics. In order to make these site visits complementary to the

Macdonald Avenue surveys the same categories and establishment types were used, and

establishments that didnt fit any of these general types were recorded individually. The

results from these observations are shown below, along with observations of Macdonald

Avenues commercial establishments for comparison.


34/74

Page 33

Table 6: Observations from Eastlake, Fruitvale and MacArthur

Eastlake Fruitvale MacArthur

# of Stores% of stores # of Stores % of stores # of Stores % of stores

Clothing or Shoes 8 6.4% 23 19.5% 3 4.5%

Sporting Goods 1 0.8%Electronics 2 1.6% 4 3.4% 5 7.6%

Hardware 2 1.6% 2 1.7%

Home Furnishings 3 2.5%

Video 6 4.8% 2 3.0%

Bookstores/Newsstands 1 0.8% 1 1.5%

Music 1 0.8% 4 3.4%

Grocery Store 10 8.0% 5 4.2% 2 3.0%

Haircut/Nails/Beauty 10 8.0% 9 7.6% 1 3 19.7%

Bank 3 2.5% 5 7.6%

Laundry 1 0.8% 1 0.8% 2 3.0%

Other 1 0.8%

% of total 32.8% % of total 47.5% % of total 50.0%Fast Food 2 1.7% 6 9.1%

Deli 1 0.8% 2 3.0%

Coffee HouseBakery/Bagels 2 1.7% 2 3.0%

Health Food 2 1.7%

Family Restaurant

Ethnic 28 22.4% 9 7.6% 5 7.6%

Other 6 5.1%

% of total 22% % of total 19% % of total 23%

Coffee Shops 2 3.0%

Bars 3 2.4% 2 1.7% 2 3.0%

Clubs 1 0.8% 1 1.5%

Movie Theatre

Performing Arts

Teen Hang-out center

Other

% of total 2.4% % of total 2.5% % of total 7.6%Art Gallery/school 1 0.8%

Auto Body/Repair/auto relate 21 16.8% 13 11.0% 2 3.0%

Auto Sales 6 4.8%

BikeCalling card 4 3.2%

Check Cashing 7 5.9%

Church 3 2.4%

Convenience/Liquor 4 3.2%

Copies/Fax/Photo

Eductional Inst./Adult School 2 1.6% 1 0.8%

Flowers/cards/gifts

Gas station 1 0.8%

General Stores 6 5.1%

Ice Cream 1 1.5%

Jewelry 5 4.2%

Library 1 1.5%

Medical services/ Pharmacy 9 7.2 % 5 7.6%

Park 1 0.8% 1 0.8%

Photo

Professional Services (Taxes, Insurance, etc.) 4 6.1%

Psychic Reader 1 0.8%

School

Storage 1 0.8%

Travel agency 3 2.5%

Totals 125 118 66

Retail

Food

Entertainment

Others


35/74

Page 34

Table 7: Observations from San Pablo, Mission/Excelsior, and Temescal compared

to Macdonald Avenue, Richmond

San Pablo Mission/ Excelsior Temescal Total Macdonal# of Stores% of stores # of Stores % of stores # of Stores% of stores # of Stores % of stores # of Stores % of Stores

Clothing or 9 9.7% 1 2.9% 44 9% 8 18%Sporting Goods 1Electronics 1 1.1% 1 2.9% 13 3% 1 2%Hardware 3 3.2% 2 5.9% 9 2% 1 2%Home 2 7.1% 1 1.1% 3 8.8% 9 2% 2 4%Video 1 3.6% 1 1.1% 10 2%Bookstores/Newsstands 2Music 5 1%Grocery Store 4 14.3% 7 7.5% 2 5.9% 30 6% 1 2%Haircut/Nails/Beaut 4 14.3% 8 8.6% 3 8.8% 47 10% 6 13%Bank 4 4.3% 2 5.9% 14 3% 1 2%Laundry 1 3.6% 3 3.2% 1 2.9% 9 2% 1 2%Other 1

% of total 42.9%% of total 39.8% % of total 44.1% % of total 40.9% % of total 46.7%Fast Food 6 21.4% 4 11.8% 18 4% 4 9%Deli 2 2.2% 1 2.9% 6 1% 1 2%Coffee House 0Bakery/Bagels 4 4.3% 8 2%Health Food 2

Family 5 5.4% 5 1% 1 2%Ethnic 1 3.6% 10 10.8% 4 11.8% 57 12% 2 4%Other 2 2.2% 8 2%

% of total 25%% of total 25% % of total 26% % of total 22% % of total 18%Coffee Shops 1 2.9% 3 1% 2 4%Bars 1 3.6% 4 4.3% 2 5.9% 14 3%Clubs 1 3.6% 3 1%Movie Theatre 0

Performing Arts 0 1 2%Teen Hang-out 0

Other 1 3.6% 1 2.9% 2% of total 10.7%% of total 4.3% % of total 11.8% % of total 4.3% % of total 6.7%

Art Gallery/school 1Auto Body/Repair/auto 4 14.3% 4 4.3% 44 9% 1 2%Auto Sales 6 1%Bike 1 2%Calling card 4 1%Check Cashing 1 3.6% 8 2% 1 2%Church 1 3.6% 1 1.1% 5 1%Convenience/Liquo 4 1%Copies/Fax/Phot 2 2.2% 2

Eductional Inst./Adult 3 1%Flowers/cards/gifts 4 4.3% 4 1% 1 2%Gas station 1 1.1% 2General Stores

6 1%

Ice Cream 1Jewelry 5 1% 1 2%Library 1 1.1% 2Medical services/ 8 8.6% 1 2.9% 23 5% 2 4%Park 2 1 2%Photo 1 2%Professional Services (Taxes, Insurance, 4 4.3% 5 14.7% 13 3% 3 7%Psychic Reader 1School 3 3.2% 3 1% 1 2%Storage 1Travel agency 1 1.1% 4 1%Totals 28 93 34 464 100% 45

Ret

ail

Fo

od

Ent

ert

ain

me

nt

Ot

her

s


36/74

Page 35

2. Patterns

The retail establishments tend to be dominated by clothing/shoe stores, followed by

haircut/nail/beauty establishments. These two types of establishments are important

elements of the retail synergy in these areas. Generally, the eating establishments tended

to be dominated by restaurants serving foods characteristic of the population living in the

areas and by fast food restaurants. The entertainment establishments consisted solely

of bars, clubs, or coffee shops. Bars dominated, with areas containing between one and

four bars apiece.

Looking at the total 464 establishments in the six areas, the most commonly found

establishments in the retail category were clothing/shoe stores (9% of allestablishments), hair/beauty/nails (10% of total), in the food category it was ethnic

(12% of total, also the most commonly found establishment overall), and in the

entertainment category it was bars (3% of total). In the miscellaneous category, the

most commonly found establishment was Auto repair/body shops (9% of all

establishments), followed by medical serviced/ pharmacies (5% of total).

In addition to the predefined survey categories, most of the areas had a wealth of other

establishments. The Eastlake and Fruitvale areas had clusters of auto sales and

body/repair shops. Eastlake had four establishments that specialized in international

calling cards, reflecting needs of East Asian and Latin American immigrants. Fruitvale

also had large numbers of jewelry stores in addition to clothing and beauty

establishments. The MacArthur area had five banks, all within one to two blocks of each

other. Temescal, MacArthur, and Mission Excelsior had a number of professional

services, including tax, insurance, and office/copy/fax establishments.

For the most part, these areas seem to thrive by meeting the everyday needs of the

residents in the surrounding areas. All except for San Pablo seemed to be quite busy, but

the Fruitvale area is probably the only district that might be considered to have a market

area comparable to regional shopping mall or center, because of its concentration of


37/74

Page 36

clothing stores and because of its prominence as a major immigrant community. In

general, the most successful areas have a strong mix of retail and services. These areas

are places where people can come for an appointment - hair, nails, tax accountant, doctor,

school, library, lunch or dinner - and then wander around and shop.

3. Comparison to Surveys and Richmond Main Street Neighborhood

It is interesting to note that two commonly requested establishments from the Macdonald

Avenue survey, bookstore/news stands and coffee shops, were not very well represented

in the neighborhoods we visited. Of all 464 establishments, only 2 were bookstores and

only 3 were coffee shops. Another highly requested item, movie theatres, was not found

in any of the areas. This may indicate that there is opportunity in these neighborhoods

for these types of establishments, but on other hand it may indicate that it is difficult for

these establishments to survive, due lack of demand or due to competition from nearby

areas with existing establishments.

Although it has fewer businesses than most of the streets visited, Macdonald Avenue is

strikingly similar to the overall pattern observed in the retail sector in that it had high

percentages of clothing/shoe stores and haircut/nail/beauty shops. However, clothing

stores still ranked high on the survey in terms of stores people would like to see added,

particularly among those filling out the customer survey (60% of respondents expressed

interest in clothing/shoe stores). This indicates potential for adding more clothing retail or

orienting the existing clothing retail to more closely align with preferences of those who

shop in the area.

In terms of restaurants, Macdonald Avenue. had a high percentage of fast food

establishments (including franchise and non franchise fast food, 4 of the 7 restaurants fit

in this category). The surveys indicated strong interest in other types of restaurants, both

from the customer survey and the local employee survey (family restaurants, delis and

coffee shops topped the list of desired restaurants).


38/74

Page 37

4. Neighborhood Comparisons Conclusions

As can be seen from the table, there is substantial variation from one area to the other in

terms of the commercial mix. The fact that there are so many ways to create commercial

synergy in main street districts represents various opportunities for Macdonald Avenue.

These opportunities include adding more non-fast food restaurants, adding more apparel

and shoe stores, and bringing in more service-oriented establishments such as tax and

insurance offices and office/copy service stores. The areas visited also showed variation

in the degree to which national chains were represented. Some areas had national chains,

such as the Radio Shack and the Payless Shoes in the MacArthur area, while others such

as the Eastlake area had no chains whatsoever.

The areas also had certain things in common. Each had a wide variety of services that

served primarily local needs, including shopping, eating, and other services. The most

successful areas also had certain design elements in common: most have small stores,

small setbacks of storefronts from the street, street facing windows, and no large parking

lots to create empty space between building.


39/74

Page 38

B. Macdonald Avenue Observations

1. Street Observations

In our observations of Richmond downtown, we found many indicators, as well aspotential opportunities for making this area a lively street. We observed the buildings

and shops, their linkages to the street, pedestrian movements and street activity. The

section on Comparison areas illustrates similar characteristics: multiple entry points,

smaller stores and mixed use that contributes to synergy and more pedestrian movement.

The following points outline our impression of Macdonald Avenue as a street today, and

what we see as design and locational opportunities in the future.

The Activities Map shows the distribution of commercial, office, institutional and

residential spaces in the blocks on Macdonald Avenue. There is a disproportionately

large provision for parking in the area. The big parking space near Foods Co. makes for

a pedestrian-unfriendly environment. Observations of other successful streets show that

more mixed use development on main streets allow for a range of activities that support

each other. The existing mixed use development with commerce on the first floor, and

housing on the floors above is a good example of this.

The Built-form Map shows the vacant lots that could be sites for infill development.

Also, this map shows how many buildings, especially the shopping center, is set back

from the street, and is thus not well connected to street activity.

The Map Showing Entrances to Stores shows single and infrequent entrances to stores

result in pedestrian discontinuities. Big box retail activities do not make strong linkages

to the street. The shopping center with Foods Co. has many entrances, but as they are

behind a huge parking space, they do not relate to the street.

Panoramic Views and Sketches of Street These views of either side of Macdonald

Avenue show how there is quite a lot of discontinuity in the street edge all along, except

for a few preserved blocks. These broken edges, which are due to big lots or parking


40/74

Page 39

spaces, result in discontinuity in pedestrian movement. A drive-thru arrangement in a

downtown requires a single structure with a driveway all around it. Such layouts disrupt

flow of pedestrian movement, and give priority to the car. The continuous building edge

of the older blocks has entrances directly onto the street, and many shops concentrated

together (even if many of these are currently closed). Multiple and frequent entrances to

stores in the older preserved city blocks create more vibrant street. The stretches of the

street give a better feel for a downtown area that would have a good mix of activities

closely packed.

2. Opportunities and Proposals for Street Design and Development

Opportunities: Based on our observations, many opportunities exist on this street.

Commerce along Transit Corridors: The existing BART station, as well as the bus lineon Macdonald Avenue are major transit corridors. To locate retail and commercial

activity along the bus route could make this area a good transit-oriented destination.

Pedestrian Linkages: Tree-lined sidewalks that connect the main street to the side streets

are another opportunity for better connection and synergy.

Mixed Use Development along Macdonald Avenue: Introducing a mix of activities would

be feasible for this street. (See comparison areas where such development has proved

successful).

Transit Village and Anchor Store: The proposed transit village near the BART station

will become a major destination and anchor for the area in the future. There is thus an

opportunity to develop retail all along Macdonald Avenue, with another major anchor at

the opposite end of the street from the transit village, so as to attract visitors and

customers to visit the whole street.

Proposals for Street Design: The proposals suggest physical improvements that would

tighten up the space and make it more pedestrian friendly.

Infill Development along Macdonald Avenue and side streets

Relocate parking from street edge to parking structures and other available parking

spaces

Divide large lots into smaller packages for more intense and dense activity


41/74

Page 40

Street Observations


42/74

Page 41

Street Observations - Opportunities and

Proposal


43/74

Page 42

Conclusion and Evaluation

We hope that we have shown through this report that there is great potential for

Macdonald Avenue. One hundred years ago Alfred Sylvester Macdonald panned for this

street to serve as the heart of Richmond, and Macdonald Avenue has had a rich cultural

history ever since, especially during the wartime boom in the 1940s. Even now, though

so many stores have left the downtown due to competition from regional malls like

Hilltop, many local residents still come to Macdonald Avenue to shop, eat, attend cultural

events, or just hang out. However, as we showed in our Retail Gap analysis, these loyal

residents are currently spending $216.82 million of their shopping dollars somewhere

other than in downtown Richmond. These dollars could be recaptured. Furthermore, as

we saw in our Survey and Focus Group data, Macdonald Avenue customers and daytime

employees want to spend more money and time in this area. We saw that other Bay

Area neighborhoods with similar demographic and spatial characteristics have been very

successful, and we showed that there is a great opportunity to build Macdonald Avenue

into a physically welcoming commercial space, especially because there are so many

vacant lots currently open to new development.

With this data in mind, we offer the following observations about downtown Richmond,

and its potential for change. We intend these observations not as a set of proposals for

development in this area, but rather as a first step in the long process of rebuilding

Richmond as a social and cultural center for its residents, employees, and the Bay Area

community at large.

C. The city is rich with unmet demand.

Thousands of residents live within a one-mile radius of downtown Richmond, and we

have seen through our Retail Gap analysis that these residents have both the desire

and the economic power to invest in Macdonald Avenue. Our survey data indicated

that most of the people who currently do their shopping and socializing in downtown

live in the two zip codes that make up the downtown and surrounding area. Why not

target a revitalization strategy toward precisely these residents? Developing a


44/74

Page 43

welcoming space for this population will in turn attract business from Kaiser and

Social Security workers, 70% of whom told us that they would spend more time on

Macdonald Avenue if it were safer and had more of the restaurants and stores that

they like.

The fact is that everyone current residents, daytime workers, and outside investors

sees the same weaknesses in downtown Richmond: lack of safety, lack of stores and

community spaces, lack of pedestrian traffic. Helping to build these things will

address local needs and will also build Richmond into the kind of place that will

attract consumers and developers from outside the area. Furthermore, investing in the

entire downtown area will help to build excitement and market demand for the

planned transit village at the Richmond BART station.

One word of caution about any downtown development strategy is the potential for

displacement, either physically or through higher land costs, of those residents who

currently live in the area and who have been Macdonald Avenues most loyal

customers. This is especially true due to the high renter population in the area.

Therefore any revitalization strategy needs to consider these displacement issues

carefully.

D. Macdonald Avenue must offer a diversity of businesses and community

spaces.

Our survey and focus group data indicated that consumer demand in this area ranges

from retail, to groceries, to services, to arts centers, to teen hang-out centers. This

idea of a mix of stores, services, and activities mirrors our observations of other

successful downtown areas, all of which had a high level of synergy, or

complementarity, between different types of establishments. Our Street Observation

analysis indicated that it is not only the type of establishments, but also the look and

feel of the buildings and the street as a whole, that encourages this kind of synergy.

The more visually and physically accessible the space, the more likely that consumers

will want to spend time in that space. One benefit to Macdonald Avenue as it now


45/74

Page 44

stands is the high number of vacant lots, which offer great opportunity to plan and

develop a friendlier commercial corridor.

Richmond consumers seem to be especially interested in finding spaces where they

can interact as a community, whether these be family-oriented restaurants and shops,

gathering places such as movie theaters, bookstores and coffee shops, and non-retail

establishments like art centers and community centers. In our focus groups we heard

one resident comment on how important it is for members of a diverse, multiethnic

community such as Richmond to get to know one another on a personal level.

Facilitating this kind of interaction, which is not possible in an anonymous mall

environment such as Hilltop, seems crucial to the success of Richmonds downtown.

E. The community must be involved with the process.

Because local residents are currently the most important consumers of downtown

Richmond, these residents must be involved in any strategy that seeks to revitalize

this area. Though we hope that our survey and focus group data can serve as a first

step toward engaging the community in a visioning process for downtown Richmond,

we believe that it is only that: a first step. We are especially concerned that the large

Asian and white populations in the area immediately surrounding the downtown were

not adequately represented in the survey, and we very much hope that the Main Street

Initiative will proactively seek out these residents ideas and opinions as the

revitalization plans continue.

Too many times in the past, planners have made unilateral decisions about what

Richmond should look like. We hope that this time, the community will make these

decisions, perhaps using the tools that planners have provided but ultimately making

the final call. Main Street Richmond is, after all, their home.


46/74

VI-1

VI. APPENDIX

A. Retail Gap Analysis

Appendix Table A 1: Retail Gap Analysis

Retail Gap Analysis Main Street Initiative Richmond 2000 (millions of dollars)

Zip Code

94801 94804Totals

Total Retail Sales1 (2000) 23.7 131.7 155.4

Estimated Total Retail Expenditure2 113.74 258.48 372.22

Total Retail Gap 90.04 126.78 216.82

Total Groceries Sales3 4.9 8.0 12.9

Total Groceries Expenditures4 38.7 73.3 112.0

Groceries Sales Gap 33.8 65.3 99.1

Apparel Sales5 1.3 1.7 3

Total Apparel Expenditures6 11.94 24 36

Apparel Sales Gap 10.64 23 33.6

1 Dun & Bradstreet, 2000. Total Retail includes all industry with 2-digit SIC codes between 53 and 59, as well asPaint, glass, and wallpaper stores (5231), Hardware Stores (5251), and Retail nurseries and garden stores (5261).2 Gross purchasing power for each communities demand-shed was calculated by multiplying number of householdsreported by the 2000 Census by estimated 2000 median income. Because the Census has not yet released median

income data

Atkinson Et Al Richmond Main Street Spring 2002

Documents

Transcript of Atkinson Et Al Richmond Main Street Spring 2002