Phase 1 Report: Research & Assessment -...

Lexington Market Master Plan

Phase 1 Report: Research & Assessment

August 3, 2014

118 William Street, Portland, Maine 04103 207.321.2016 tel 866.757.1705 fax

www.marketventures inc.com

Master Plan: Phase 1 Market Ventures, Inc. Lexington Market

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 4 Best practices ...................................................................................................................... 4 Competitive and trend analysis ........................................................................................... 5 Development context .......................................................................................................... 5 Facility condition survey..................................................................................................... 5 Demand analysis ................................................................................................................. 6 Supply analysis ................................................................................................................... 7 Operations review ............................................................................................................... 8 SWOT analysis ................................................................................................................... 9

Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 10 Background ....................................................................................................................... 10 Consultant team ................................................................................................................ 10 Master plan process and methods ..................................................................................... 11 Goals ................................................................................................................................. 13 Lexington Market description ........................................................................................... 14

Best practices ............................................................................................................................ 16 Reading Terminal Market ................................................................................................. 17

Competitive and trend analysis ................................................................................................ 19 National trends .................................................................................................................. 19 Local trends ....................................................................................................................... 22

Development context ................................................................................................................ 25 Challenges ......................................................................................................................... 25 Opportunities..................................................................................................................... 26

Facility condition survey .......................................................................................................... 28 East Market and Arcade .................................................................................................... 28 West Market and Garage .................................................................................................. 32 Pfeiffer Building ............................................................................................................... 34

Demand analysis ....................................................................................................................... 35 Customer intercept survey ................................................................................................ 35 Internet survey .................................................................................................................. 50 Trade area analysis ............................................................................................................ 56 Sales potential ................................................................................................................... 62

Supply analysis ......................................................................................................................... 67 Existing tenants ................................................................................................................. 67 Merchant comments .......................................................................................................... 70 Prospective tenants............................................................................................................ 70

Operations review ..................................................................................................................... 76 Management and operations ............................................................................................. 76 Financial analysis of current operations ........................................................................... 78

SWOT analysis ......................................................................................................................... 81 Appendix A: Key Informant and Vendor Interviews .............................................................. 84

Key informants.................................................................................................................. 84 Interview findings ............................................................................................................. 85 Vendor interviews ............................................................................................................. 86


Appendix B: Best Practices ..................................................................................................... 89 Appendix C: Competitive Analysis ....................................................................................... 107

Fells Point/Canton ........................................................................................................... 107 CBD/Harbor East/Mount Vernon ................................................................................... 110 Bolton Hill/Mondawmin ................................................................................................. 113 Charles Village/Station North/Waverly/Hampden ......................................................... 116 Pigtown/Union Square .................................................................................................... 119 Federal Hill/South Baltimore .......................................................................................... 120 Upper Broadway/Johns Hopkins Medical ...................................................................... 122

Appendix D: Development Context ...................................................................................... 125 Immediate environment .................................................................................................. 125 Adjacent uses and activities ............................................................................................ 130 Westside Neighborhood .................................................................................................. 135 Downtown Baltimore ...................................................................................................... 141 Beyond Downtown ......................................................................................................... 142 Baltimore City and Region ............................................................................................. 143 Photos of Adjacent Streets .............................................................................................. 146

Appendix E: Customer Intercept Survey ............................................................................... 154 Overview ......................................................................................................................... 154 Methodology ................................................................................................................... 154 Findings........................................................................................................................... 155

Appendix F. Internet survey ................................................................................................. 182 Overview ......................................................................................................................... 182 Methodology ................................................................................................................... 182 Findings........................................................................................................................... 182

Appendix G: Sales Potential .................................................................................................. 206 Appendix H: Supply Analysis ............................................................................................... 207

Interview Summaries ...................................................................................................... 207


Executive Summary

Since its establishment in 1782, Lexington Market has served the residents of Baltimore as the city’s principal public market. Once a primary location where a diverse cross section of residents bought their staple grocery items, the Market today serves a narrower demographic group with a mix of fresh and prepared foods. The Market remains an iconic institution for generations of Baltimoreans.

Like all longstanding business ventures, public markets periodically need infusions of capital to improve outdated facilities and new strategic direction to meet the market’s goals, address evolving consumer tastes, and respond to neighborhood changes. Today, Lexington Market’s facilities do not serve merchants or customers well and there are serious problems with the building’s mechanical, plumbing electrical, and fire safety systems. The Market no longer attracts a broad cross section of the population. Recognizing these and other challenges, the board of directors of Lexington Market, Inc. has undertaken an effort, entitled “Transform Lexington Market,” to make the Market into a more aesthetically pleasing and commercially successful place.

This master plan is meant to guide redevelopment and investment into the facility by establishing a firm foundation of market research, by learning from the experiences of other public markets around the country, by engaging a broad range of stakeholders including Market merchants, customers, and downtown leaders, and by creatively addressing new opportunities and challenges. This Phase 1 report is focused on market research, public input, and facility assessment.

Best practices

Public markets come in many sizes and configurations: there is not a standard model. Rather, key common elements of successful public markets include:

• Small, independent, owner-operated specialty fresh and prepared food vendors that feature locally grown and produced foods and sell predominately at the retail level.

• Great public spaces that welcome all elements of the community in accessible and visible urban locations, with adequate customer parking.

• Well designed, code-compliant facilities that meet the needs of both customers and high volume, fresh and prepared food vendors.

• Active, on-site professional management staff that provides a range of services to ensure the public market meets its goals and supports the vendors.

• Community linkages and partnerships that help the public market meet the evolving needs of the local population and leverage resources for education and training.

A number of communities around the country, including Reading Terminal Market in Philadelphia, have made significant investments in their public markets over the past several decades and have experienced tremendous success as the markets have ridden the growing wave of interest in locally produced, high quality foods and the rediscovery of downtowns as desirable locations for retail and entertainment.


Competitive and trend analysis

Consumption trends suggest that Americans are consuming more fresh fruit and vegetables, although much less than recommended. Other important trend are increased focus on food safety, product traceability, sustainability, and local foods.

Attracting and maintaining high quality retailers can be the greatest challenge in creating a successful public market, in large part because so few independent specialty food retailers currently exist.

Baltimore is becoming an increasingly competitive marketplace when it comes to grocery, meal replacement and dining offerings. In all three categories, from the low end to the high end, an increasingly savvy and food-conscious public has more choices than ever, and there is no sign of slowing.

Development context

Lexington Market’s environment poses two major challenges and three big opportunities. Addressing these challenges and taking advantage of these opportunities are essential if the Market is to be successfully revitalized.

Customers, the general public, and area institutions all point to a prevalence of drug activity and loitering around the Market as factors that have made going to the Market uncomfortable and unpleasant. The redevelopment of Lexington Market offers the potential to disrupt and potentially eliminate drug sales from around the Market. This might require closing off the physical spaces where drug sales take place, including the sidewalks, during the construction period, and investing additional public resources on the streets and sidewalks around the Market. For Lexington Market to be successful, it must become a welcoming place where everyone feels safe and where miscreant behavior is not tolerated.

The appearance of many of the streets and buildings immediately around the Market are unkempt and uninviting. Surrounding the Market are a number of vacant or poorly maintained buildings, broken sidewalk sections, empty tree pits, messy tree pits with missing grates, and untended landscaping. The Market’s immediate surroundings need attention.

The University of Maryland Baltimore, the University of Maryland Medical Center, and the Baltimore Veterans Administration Medical Center are Lexington Market’s largest close potential sources of customers. This entire campus, with a weekday population of over 30,000 people, includes well-paid physicians, researchers and administrators, as well as many medical technical and support staff.

Since 2000, Downtown Westside has added more than 1,800 residential units in converted commercial or new buildings. The new Bromo Arts District is also an opportunity for Lexington Market. The District’s purpose is to realize the area’s potential as a thriving arts neighborhood in downtown Baltimore.

Facility condition survey

Overall, the Main East Market building and the Arcade are in acceptable structural


condition. However, the existing HVAC systems have exceeded their normal service life and are generally in poor condition, kitchen exhaust systems do not have make up-air supply, and HVAC systems are very energy inefficient. The existing plumbing systems have exceeded their service life, are generally in poor condition, and do not meet current code requirements for ADA accessibility or energy performance standards. There are serious deficiencies in the Market’s fire safety systems. The entire electrical distribution system for both the East Market and Arcade should be replaced.

Overall, the structural condition of the West Market is in fair condition. The kitchen hood exhaust and make-up air systems are in poor condition. Current mechanical code requirements for ventilation and energy performance are not satisfied. The existing plumbing systems are approaching the end of their normal service life.

The Pfeiffer Building has serious structural, mechanical, electrical and fire safety deficiencies.

Demand analysis

Large scale, successful urban public markets attract customers from a wide geographic area, often up to 30-45 minutes away. Unlike supermarkets, which seek to dominate food retailing within a small geographic zone, public markets attract a small percentage of people from a wide area who appreciate the product selection, atmosphere, and interaction with independent food vendors. The highest spending customers are generally highly educated, higher income women, although many public markets attract consumers representing a wide demographic profile, including recent immigrants familiar with markets from their native countries.

The customer intercept survey found that the Market attracts a large percentage of people in the 50-59 age bracket and relatively few who are younger than 40. Customers are generally lower income than Baltimore City residents and much lower than metro residents. The survey found an almost even split between men and women. This is unusual: typically, more women shop at public markets than men. The large majority of customers interviewed were identified by the surveyors as black (88%), compared to 11% white and 1% other. By contrast, 65% of residents in the City of Baltimore identify as black while the metropolitan region is about 30% black.

Most respondents (88%) live within the City of Baltimore, with 18% living elsewhere in Maryland, and 4% out-of-state. A majority of respondents live in just eight zip codes all clustered around the Market. Typically, customers are distributed more widely around a metropolitan area.

Only 3% of the respondents reported that they were visiting the Market for the first time. Typically, more first time visitors (typically tourists) will be identified at a public market. The vast majority (70%) are consistent, loyal customers who come every week. By far the largest group (64%) had first come to the Market more than 20 years ago, followed by those who had first come 11-20 years ago. Only 4% had come to the Market for the first time within the past year.


Two-thirds of respondents said they bought something to take home or take away, reflecting the Market’s important role as a place to buy grocery items and take-out location. Half said they bought food to eat in the Market and one quarter said they bought nonfood items or services.

Among those customers that purchased something, the average total expenditure was $21.68. This is the lowest among five public markets surveyed recently. Younger customers purchased more than older customers. Customers from higher income households spent more than customers from lower income households. White customers spent more for food to eat in the Market, while black customers spent more for other items and more overall. Customers who drove to the Market spent much more than those who arrived by other means.

Respondents rated the Market highly for selection but much lower for quality and prices. The qualities of the Market they like best include the social qualities and people, the music/entertainment, variety, and fresh foods. The main things they would like to see changed are the drugs/junkies and the cleanliness, followed by loitering and panhandling.

Over 5,000 people took an Internet survey about the Market. Two-thirds were women, they were younger than the customer survey respondents, higher income, and a higher percentage were white. Nearly all had visited Lexington Market and the vast majority had visited within the past two years.

Among those who had not visited in the past two years, the main reasons were they did not feel safe, the Market is unclean, and panhandling.

In terms ofnew products at Lexington Market, respondents are most interested in basic fresh foods (fruits and vegetables. seafood, baked goods) rather than prepared foods. Respondents showed a strong interest in visiting the Market if it is transformed into a clean, safe and vibrant public market, particularly for lunch and to shop for fresh foods. There is also interest in shopping on Sundays, when the Market is currently closed.

Three trade areas were identified for the Market and demand potential analyzed based on demographic characteristics and competition. Total demand potential is $38.2 million for fresh and specialty foods at the Market.

Supply analysis

Prepared food is prevalent in Lexington Market, with over half of the merchants classified as prepared food businesses. By contrast, there are 19 staple food businesses, 19 nonfood businesses, and 14 specialty food businesses. The greatest amount of leased area in Lexington Market is devoted to prepared foods although the share of the total is not as high because prepared food businesses are smaller than the other types.

Prepared food vendors drive up the need for common eating areas within the Market and increase the operational costs of housekeeping staff, utilities, and waste removal.

The Market’s 19 staple businesses occupy only 8,890 sf, or 15% of the Market’s leased square footage. The average size of a staple business is 468 sf. Nearly all of the staple merchants are located in the East Market

Public markets are most successful when each vendor becomes a well-known, branded


business that attracts customers to the Market. When every tenant is a draw, every other tenant benefits equally from the draw of the others, creating the unique synergy of a public market. At present, there are very few merchants in Lexington Market that have an identifiable name or brand and there is significant overlap within categories, particularly delis.

Missing products include fresh baked bread, fresh cheeses, smoked meats and charcuterie, coffee and tea, wine, and wider varieties of fresh produce. In the Internet survey, respondents expressed the greatest interest in having the Market provide expanded offerings of fruits and vegetables, seafood, breads/baked goods, cafes/restaurants, local specialty foods, and cheeses/dairy. While several Market merchants sell meat and poultry, both the selection and the merchandising do not appeal to all consumers, particularly products that are not sold from refrigerated display cases and are displayed in the open-air on ice.

The merchants are very concerned about the degraded facility, security, and cleanliness. They note both duplication of products among the merchants and a lack of choice. They want to attract a broader demographic base of customers.

Most merchants recognize the need to make substantial changes at the Market, even if that means closing the facility during the construction period. While some are pessimistic because sales have been declining, many remain optimistic about the future if the Market’s challenges can be addressed. Some are looking to expand their stalls.

Prospective new tenants were identified throughout the Washington/Baltimore/ Philadelphia area. Those interviewed expressed several consistent, positive impressions of Lexington Market, most of which related to the Market’s potential to be restored to a place of prominence and importance in the region and to the general public, rather than to a limited segment of the population. Not a single interviewee expressed an interest in transforming the Market into an exclusive or “gourmet” operation. A majority of those interviewed expressed a willingness to be a tenant in Lexington Market. However, all interviewees communicated that doing so is conditioned upon a lengthy list of improvements happening in advance. Without these improvements they were not interested.

Operations review

Lexington Market has an extraordinarily large security staff compared to other large downtown public markets. Despite the large staff, security is a major concern among both customers and vendors. In the Internet survey, the most frequent words used in response to the question, “What changes would you like to see at Lexington Market?” were “drug,” “safer,” “security,” “safety,” and “loitering” with 2,946 mentions.

Lexington Market also has a large staff devoted to cleaning and considerable attention is given to keeping the tables and 500 public seats in the Arcade clean. Despite this effort and due in large part to the facilities’ age and condition, the Market is still perceived as not being clean.

The redevelopment of Lexington Market will potentially require financing, fundraising, construction, public relations, and leasing skills beyond those needed previously. This process provides the opportunity to rethink the Market’s management structure to meet the needs of the redevelopment process and the ongoing operation of the facility.

Lexington Market operates without an annual marketing plan that is tied to specific goals


and objectives. The Market requires a sophisticated marketing plan and implementation to coincide with the redevelopment process.

Customers expressed a strong interest in Sunday hours and later weekday hours.

Rents per square foot are high compared to many public markets, providing substantial resources to operate the Market. However, the Market suffers from very high expenses for personnel (security and cleaning) and utilities because of the inefficient equipment.

SWOT analysis

The SWOT analysis (Strengths – Weaknesses – Opportunities – Threats) seeks to concisely state the Regional Market’s existing strengths and weaknesses, and to reveal the opportunities for redevelopment and any potential threats to its future.


Introduction

Background

Since its establishment in 1782, Lexington Market has served the residents of Baltimore as the city’s principal public market. Once a primary location where a diverse cross section of residents bought their staple grocery items, the Market today serves a narrower demographic group with a mix of fresh and prepared foods. The Market remains an iconic institution for generations of Baltimoreans.

Like all longstanding business ventures, public markets periodically need infusions of capital to improve outdated facilities and new strategic direction to meet the market’s goals, address evolving consumer tastes, and respond to neighborhood changes. Other public markets around the country, including Reading Terminal Market in Philadelphia, North Market in Columbus, and Pike Place Market in Seattle, have recently made substantial investments into their historic public markets and have seen their popularity and success soar. Today, Lexington Market’s facilities do not serve merchants or customers well and there are serious problems with the building’s mechanical, plumbing electrical, and fire safety systems. The Market no longer attracts a broad cross section of the population. Recognizing these and other challenges, the board of directors of Lexington Market, Inc. has undertaken an effort, entitled “Transform Lexington Market,” to make the Market into a more aesthetically pleasing and commercially successful place.

Recent changes to the Westside neighborhood around the Market, including new housing and entertainment offerings, the expansion of the University of Maryland at Baltimore, and new commercial activity all suggest that the Market can benefit from physical and operational improvements. As will be discussed below, the residents of Baltimore feel a strong connection to Lexington Market and want to see it thrive. Based on the experience of other public markets around the country, it is critical to maintain the authentic, core elements that have made Lexington Market a beloved institution for more than two centuries, while addressing the Market’s deficiencies in a strategic and cost effective manner. This master plan is meant to guide redevelopment and investment into the facility by establishing a firm foundation of market research, by learning from the experiences of other public markets around the country, by engaging a broad range of stakeholders including Market merchants, customers, and downtown leaders, and by creatively addressing new opportunities and challenges.

Consultant team

Following a national solicitation of proposals, Lexington Market, Inc. (LMI) selected a consultant team led by Market Ventures, Inc. with subconsultants Williams Jackson Ewing, Edds Consulting, Qodesh Engineering, and Economic Development Assistance Consortium.

• Market Ventures, Inc.: lead consultant, market research, planning, financial analysis, and design. MVI is a specialty urban planning and economic development firm that assists public, non-profit, and for-profit clients with planning, creating, and managing innovative food-based projects and programs, including food hubs, public markets and farmers’ markets. Information about MVI can be found at www.marketventuresinc.com.


The consultant team was led by Ted Spitzer, President, and included Senior Associate Hugh Boyd, FAIA, a specialist in public market design who is based in Montclair, New Jersey, and Senior Associate Paul Steinke, who is General Manager of Reading Terminal Market in Philadelphia.

• Williams Jackson Ewing: retail consulting, Baltimore-based. For more than 30 years, WJE has conceptualized and developed a variety of urban retail concepts in cities and towns around the world and has restored some of the nation’s most treasured landmarks, including Grand Central Terminal in New York City. WJE staff included Michael Ewing and Michael Smith.

• Edds Consulting: planning and policy analysis; Baltimore-based. Rachel Edds has over 40 years of experience in planning, community and economic development, and public administration in Baltimore. Through her work with the Baltimore City Department of Planning, The Baltimore Empowerment Zone, the Southeast Community Development Corporation in East Baltimore, and 10 years of planning consulting work she has provided analysis of most aspects of the area’s economy and neighborhood needs and issues. Ms. Edds was assisted by Joe Nathanson.

• Qodesh Engineering: engineering, Baltimore-based. Founded in 1996, Qodesh Engineering, led by Brian Stephenson, is a minority-owned consulting firm committed to excellence in engineering, design, and management. The firm and its predecessors span over thirty years of professional engineering services in the Baltimore-Washington-Philadelphia metropolitan areas including all aspects of civil/structural engineering planning, design, quality control and construction management on a broad array of capital projects for institutions, government agencies, industrial clients, and private developers.

• Economic Development Assistance Consortium (EDAC): finance. EDAC under the direction of Mark Weiss has facilitated funding for a number of public markets, farmers’ markets, kitchen incubators and federally-funded Healthy Food Financing Initiatives. EDAC provides technical assistance and financial analysis to a wide range of clients nationwide on projects that foster urban and rural economic revitalization.

Master plan process and methods

The master planning effort has three phases. Phase 1 is focused on market research, public input, and facility assessment. Phase 2 includes developing a vision for the facility and proposing the development program, including schematic design concepts, partnership opportunities, and an operations and management plan. Phase 3 includes financial and economic analysis, including construction cost estimation, an operations pro forma, economic impact analysis, and financing strategies.

This Phase 1 report addresses the following elements:

• Research methods and the planning process.

• Best practices at public markets throughout the country, with an emphasis on historic markets that have undertaken transformational change.

• Competitive and trend analysis, reviewing existing and proposed grocery and fresh


food options within Baltimore and nearby communities.

• Development context assessment, identifying the recent and proposed land use and demographic changes to the Westside and analyzing key site factors such as access, circulation, public transportation and parking.

• Facility condition survey, including an analysis of the major building systems (structural, mechanical and utilities) plus regulatory and code analysis.

• Demand analysis, exploring current and potential consumer demand for products sold at Lexington Market.

• Supply analysis, identifying both current and potential merchants and the supply of products that flow through the Market.

• Operations review, describing how the Market currently functions and identifying key areas for improvement

• Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) analysis, as a means to summarize the Market’s current position and potential for redevelopment.

Research methods The consultant team utilized a wide range of research methods for the master plan,

including key informant interviews, a customer intercept survey, a web-based survey, site observations, and analysis of secondary data. Summaries of the research approach and findings can be found in the indicated appendix:

Method Description Appendix

1. Key informant and vendor interviews

Individual meetings with people involved with Lexington Market and the regional food system.

A

2. Best practices Identification of comparable facilities and review of best practices and innovations

B

3. Competitive analysis

Review of existing and emerging competition for fresh and prepared foods

C

4. Context Analysis of land use, adjacencies, and physical constraints D

5. Customer intercept survey

Face-to-face surveys conducted on two Saturday mornings in September and October 2013 as customers were leaving the Regional Market

E

6. Web-based survey

On-line survey exploring knowledge, use, and perceptions of Lexington Market. Promoted via web sites, Facebook,

F


Method Description Appendix

Twitter, and press releases to media outlets

7. Supply analysis

Identification of potential tenants for Lexington Market G

8. Trade area analysis

Collection and analysis of (a) demographic and food purchasing data for trade rings around Lexington Market, and (b) economic census data about local supermarkets and specialty food stores

H

Steering Committee LMI established a Steering Committee of board members, management staff, city

officials, and nonprofit leaders to meet with the consultant team periodically throughout the study. The four roles of the Steering Committee are to:

1. Provide input into the research and analysis

2. Ensure all necessary perspectives are considered and be a conduit for feedback from the Market’s constituents

3. Understand the analysis and recommendations

4. Become advocates for the master plan

Members of the Steering Committee are identified by asterisk on the interview list in Appendix A.

Goals

The master plan RFP included the following goal statement for the Market:

“Lexington Market is an historic public market and is part of Baltimore’s heritage. It continues to exist to provide products and services promoting the general welfare of the City’s citizens and visitors. To that end, Lexington Market seeks to:

• offer fresh and prepared foods that meet the shopping needs of Baltimore’s diverse residents, work force, students and visitors,

• support Maryland’s farmers as an outlet for locally grown and produced foods,

• provide retailing opportunities for small, locally-owned businesses,

• contribute to Downtown Baltimore’s redevelopment initiatives,

• become a prominent destination for visitors to Baltimore,

• re-establish itself as a Downtown Baltimore community gathering place that celebrates the City’s food traditions,


• preserve the historic food market concept and activity,

• facilitate health and fitness strategies involving food.”

These goals were used to guide the master planning process.

Lexington Market description

Lexington Market includes seven distinct but interconnected properties that are located in the central west part of Downtown Baltimore, generally bordered by W. Lexington St. on the south, N. Eutaw Street on the east, W. Saratoga Street on the north and N. Greene Street on the west (see Map 1). The seven properties include:

Property Size Location Functions

East Market 76,638 sf gross 31,109 sf leasable

400 West Lexington Street between N. Eutaw and N. Paca Streets

• 58 merchants offering fresh and prepared food

• Herling’s Grocery • Management offices and

restrooms (upstairs) • Merchant storage and food

production space (basement)

Arcade 71,071 (two floors) 12,522 sf leasable

Attached to southern side of East Market

• 27 merchants offering predominately prepared foods and nonfoods

• Barber shop • Mem Sahib Indian restaurant

(2,963 sf) • Performance space • Seating for 500 and meeting

room (upstairs) • Storage rooms, restrooms,

service areas

West Market 31,126 sf gross 22,317 sf leasable

520 W. Lexington Street between Paca and Greene; connected to garage

• 23 merchants offering fresh foods, prepared foods, and nonfood items

Paca Street storefronts

13,425 sf Paca Street between Lexington and Saratoga

• Seven retail stores from 1,458 to 3,220 sf

Lexington Market

1,174 parking spaces on 4

520 West Lexington St between Paca and

Parking


Garage levels, 474,556 sf

Greene

Pfeiffer Building

5 story retail/office building, 21,700 sf

200 block North Paca Street

• Ground floor: retail (H&R Block)

• Upper levels: vacant

Surface parking lot

110 parking spaces, 48,240 sf

South of Arcade between Eutaw, Marion and Paca

Parking

In addition to these properties, the City of Baltimore operates the Market Center Parking Garage, which is adjacent to the north side of the East Market and which houses the Market’s loading facility.


Best practices

Public markets come in many sizes and configurations: there is not a standard model. Rather, key common elements of successful public markets include:

• Small, independent, owner-operated specialty fresh and prepared food vendors that feature locally grown and produced foods and sell predominately at the retail level. Chain stores and franchises are generally prohibited within authentic public markets. Sometimes vendors are farmer-owned enterprises. The most successful public market vendors are highly knowledgeable and passionate about their products. The best vendors are innovators who create or source unique, high quality items and who employ creativity and flare in selling their products.

• Great public spaces that welcome all elements of the community in accessible and visible urban locations, with adequate customer parking.

• Well designed, code-compliant facilities that meet the needs of both customers and high volume, fresh and prepared food vendors.

• Active, on-site professional management staff that provides a range of services to ensure the public market meets its goals and supports the vendors.

• Community linkages and partnerships that help the public market meet the evolving needs of the local population and leverage resources for education and training.

Many public markets have strong education programs and host special events for the community. Some focus on food production within the facility and encourage wholesale distribution, which help diversify the tenants’ income streams and support product innovation.

A number of communities around the country have made significant investments in their public markets over the past several decades and have experienced tremendous success as the markets have ridden the growing wave of interest in locally produced, high quality foods and the rediscovery of downtowns as desirable locations for retail and entertainment. For this analysis, MVI used the following criteria to select public markets to examine in greater detail:

• Large urban public markets

• Serve diverse mix of consumers, including low income households, with fresh, healthy foods

• Recently upgraded/transformed

• Focus on sale of local foods

• Cutting edge facilities and programs

Public markets that meet most if not all of these criteria include Reading Terminal Market in Philadelphia, Pike Place Market in Seattle, Eastern Market in Detroit, West Side Market in Cleveland, North Market in Columbus, Findlay Market in Cincinnati, Soulard Market in St. Louis, and Eastern Market in Washington. Essex Street Market on Manhattan’s Lower East Side is in the process of relocating across the street to a new facility where its floor area will grow by 40%. Other cities have created new public markets that have successfully integrated indoor and outdoor fresh food retailing with food production, events, and educational facilities,


such the Grand Rapids Downtown Market.

Appendix B includes information about successful public markets in other communities. Lessons from these markets are woven throughout the research and analysis.

Reading Terminal Market

Reading Terminal Market in Philadelphia has been recognized as particularly relevant to the transformation of Lexington Market, in part because many people in Baltimore are familiar with Reading Terminal, because Reading Terminal went through its own transformation process in the 1990s, and because the Market is very successful and is seen as a model of what people would like Lexington Market to become. The scale and downtown location of both markets are also similar.

Reading Terminal Market was built by the Reading Railroad Company in 1892 as part of its new main downtown passenger terminal. The market activity took place on the ground floor and the trains arrived upstairs. Interestingly, this private company owned and operated the Market for nearly a century, even after the train function had relocated.

In 1990 the Market was sold to the newly formed Pennsylvania Convention Center Authority (PCCA), a state-chartered agency whose mission was to design and build a major convention center in the downtown. The design for the convention center integrated the old train shed, with its soaring ceilings, into a ceremonial entryway and ballroom on top of the market hall, with the main exhibit spaces spread out over several city blocks to the north of the Market.

At the time of the sale, Reading Terminal Market was suffering from years of deferred maintenance and had serious deficiencies with respect to its structural, electrical, HVAC, mechanical and plumbing systems as well as several jerry-rigged and poorly designed tenant stands. Nevertheless, the Market enjoyed tremendous popularity among its customers, who advocated strenuously for its preservation amidst fear that the new convention center would inalterably ruin its authentic character.

This advocacy effort led the PCCA to agree to renovate and upgrade Reading Terminal Market as part of the development of the new convention center. While some floor area in the Market was lost to meet the needs of new egress stairways from the ballroom above, the renovation brought the Market up to building codes and modern sanitary standards. The essential character of the building was preserved and every tenant stall was rebuilt. The PCCA investment in Reading Terminal Market equaled about $30 million. The financing was wrapped into the bond funding for the entire convention center, which was approximately $500 million.

Some of the strongest advocates for “saving” the Market were historic preservationists, whose initial focus was on the architecture. The emerging leadership realized that the preservation had to extend to the authentic, fresh food vendors, including the Amish merchants who give Reading Terminal its unique flavor. The Market adopted leasing targets with the explicit goal that two-thirds of the Market’s presentation would be fresh foods and limiting the repared and quick service foods to one-third.

The Market renovation project grew out of often heated negotiations that sometimes involved representatives of Philadelphia’s City Council and Mayor. Lawsuits and the threat of lawsuits also accompanied the process. Before construction started, a “Continuous Market


Operations Agreement” was signed by PCCA and the Reading Terminal Market Merchants Association that provided for six primary elements:

1. No closure or cessation of operation for the Market or its merchants during the renovation project;

2. All merchants to be relocated within the Market while their area of the Market was being worked on;

3. Funding to subsidize the Merchants’ Association operations during the project so that they would be able to carry out their responsibilities under the agreement;

4. Joint marketing efforts between the Merchants Association and PCCA to promote the Market during and immediately after the project;

5. Customer parking spaces equal to spaces that would be lost due to the convention center construction;

6. A “Merchants’ Business Compensation and Assistance Fund” to compensate individual merchants for any decrease in operating profits during the project as well as assistance with costs to upgrade fixtures and equipment to comply with the building code.

But in the end, the entire Market was completely renovated to historic preservation standards and each business survived the transition.

While the PCCA continues to own the Market facility, oversight and operation of Reading Terminal Market transferred to Reading Terminal Market Corporation, a single purpose nonprofit corporation whose board includes representatives from both the public and private sectors, including a representative from the Merchants Association. The corporation hires the general manager (currently Paul Steinke) who then hires and oversees the management staff.

Since the renovation was completed in 1995, the Market has experienced tremendous success. It has an enviable mix of high quality merchants who cater to a wide range of customers, including inner city low income shoppers, suburban residents, and tourists. Additional renovations and investments have been made since the major reconstruction, using a mix of grant funding and the Market’s private financing capabilities. Some of this worked has concentrated on increasing the fresh food offerings in the Market, following the merchandising principles that were established during the initial renovations, with a particular focus on food production facilities within the Market.


Competitive and trend analysis

National trends

Consumption trends suggest that Americans are consuming more fresh fruit and vegetables, although much less than recommended. An analysis of USDA Economic Research Service data from 1976 to 2009 revealed that fresh fruit consumption grew by 25% and fresh vegetable consumption grew by 54%.1 A recent W.K. Kellogg Foundation survey of 800 American adults found that 68% reported eating more whole grains, fruits and vegetables than they did five years ago.2 However, there is a long way to go before Americans consume the recommended quantity of fresh fruits and vegetables. According to recent research form the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 38% of US adults consume fruit less than once daily while 23% consume vegetables less than once daily.3 With 2/3 of adults and 1/3 of US children categorized as overweight or obese and with national attention to health issues and food rising (through new federal school food guidelines, and Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move campaign, for example), industry and policy efforts toward increased consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables are on the rise. Lexington Market has an important role to play in offering fresh fruits and vegetables for city residents and can position itself to take advantage of growing demand for fresh produce.

This interest in healthy foods is right in line with trends in the food industry. In a recent Deloitte study, 79% of industry executives interviewed noted that health and nutrition are the key issues that are driving the food industry.4

Within Lexington Market’s trade areas (described in detail below), the demand for fresh and specialty foods should grow 5.8% between 2014 and 2019 in the one mile ring around Lexington Market. Growth will be less pronounced but still upward in the second trade area (the band between one and five miles) at 2.2%, and will again be strong in the third trade area (the band between five and fifteen miles) at 4.2%. In total, Nielson projects the demand for fresh and specialty foods will grow by $124 million within all three trade areas, a 3.8% increase.

Another important trend is increased focus on food safety, with stricter federal regulations and greater industry attention to issues such as cold chain compliance and food storage and handling practices. New, state-of-the-art facilities at Lexington Market will greatly enhance the tenants’ ability to operate according to current and emerging standards and could potentially catapult them to the forefront of the food safety curve.

An important dimension of food safety is product traceability from point of origin to point of final purchase. The Hartman Group called 2013 the “Year of Traceability and Good Stewardship,” noting that traced and sustainably produced foods are no longer just an “upmarket offering” but increasingly part of the cost of doing business now.5 While product traceability can

1 Cook, Roberta, “Tracking Demographics and U.S. Fruit and Vegetable Consumption Patterns,” Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Davis, October 2011 2 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/all-we-can-eat/post/americans-eat-more-fresh-foods-than-they-did-five-years-ago/2012/05/22/gIQAyPS1gU_blog.html 3 http://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/downloads/State-Indicator-Report-Fruits-Vegetables-2013.pdf 4 Deloitte “Food and Beverage 2012: A Taste of Things to Come,” Deloitte: 2008 5 Hartman Group: Contemporary Food Trends: Emergent Themes in Products, Retailers and Restaurants, 2009


connect a food product back to its farm and field anywhere in the world, locally grown products can benefit as a positive point of differentiation from products grown overseas or across the country. While Lexington Market has the goal of to “support Maryland’s farmers as an outlet for locally grown and produced foods,” the Market does not include a farmers’ market section or host any farmers at day stalls, which is common practice at other public markets.

The food industry is seeing increasing demand for products considered “sustainable” (a broad term that includes social, environmental, economic impacts along the food supply chain). In part, this trend is consumer driven, as one study from market research firm Datassential found that 30% of consumers had bought food they would describe as sustainable in the past month. It is also industry driven: in that same study, 29% of retail and food service operators indicated a willingness to pay more for sustainably produced foods.6 Environmental sustainability was the #4 trend in the National Restaurant Association’s “What’s Hot in 2013” survey.7 With this focus on sustainability, production methods are taking center stage, and a labyrinth of claims, certifications and certifiers have emerged to underwrite sustainable production claims.

A key driver of sustainability in the food industry is local food, with consumers and industry players (food service and retail sectors in particular) willing to search out and sometimes pay more for local foods.8 At present, local foods play a minor part of the offerings at Lexington Market, yet merchants in most public markets focus on sourcing and promoting locally grown and produced products.

While the dominant trend in the supermarket and distribution industries has been consolidation, there have been some noticeable countertrends. According to a 2012 W.K. Kellogg national survey, 14% of respondents use farmers’ markets as a regular source for fresh produce purchase and 70% said that they have purchased local foods from farmers markets or farm stands over the past year.9 Among the more than 5,000 people who participated in the Internet survey (described in detail below), 76% had visited a farmers’ market within the past 12 months. The number of retail farmers’ markets made up of small and medium family farmers, for example, has increased in the US from 1,755 in 1994 to 8,144 in 2013 and are becoming a common source of fresh food 6 The Packer, “Local Food Still Rules,” 10/25/2012 7 The Packer, “Chef survey says: Local produce hot in 2013,” 12/6/2012 8 The Packer, “Local Food Still Rules,” 10/25/2012 9 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/all-we-can-eat/post/americans-eat-more-fresh-foods-than-they-did-five-years-ago/2012/05/22/gIQAyPS1gU_blog.html

Figure 1. Farmers' markets with 20 miles of zip 21201


for many households. The USDA database of farmers’ markets includes 150 farmers’ markets in Maryland, including 16 farmers’ markets within five miles of Lexington Market and 50 farmers’ markets within 20 miles.10 Figure 1 shows the location of farmers’ markets within 20 miles of zip code 21201.

Attracting and maintaining high quality retailers can be the greatest challenge in creating a successful public market, in large part because so few independent specialty food retailers currently exist. Today supermarkets and groceries dominate food retailing in the United States with nearly 95% market share in the year 2000. The remaining 5.3% of food sales are captured by specialized food stores, defined as stores that are primarily engaged in the retail sale of a single food category such as meat and seafood markets, dairy stores, candy and nut stores, and retail bakers. Nationally, the market share of specialized food stores dropped from 6.6% in 1980 to 5.3% in 2000. In the wake of the recession, all food stores faced increased competition from mass-merchandisers and warehouse club outlets and long term trends toward more eating out, resulting in increased competition for a smaller pie.11

In Baltimore City, the 2007 Economic Census counted 308 grocery stores, 68 specialty food stores, and 258 beer, wine or liquor stores, with grocery stores capturing 79% of the $933 million in sales and specialty food stores capturing 5.3% or $49.3 million. In Baltimore County, the 2007 Economic Census counted 230 grocery stores, 74 specialty food stores, and 155 beer, wine or liquor stores, with grocery stores capturing 89% of the $2 billion in sales and specialty food stores capturing 2.6% or $52.3 million.12

The past 25 years have seen radical changes in the grocery business, commencing with the first Wal-Mart supercenter in 1988 which offered fresh and grocery food items in addition to its large selection of discounted department store merchandise. Along with the growth of warehouse clubs such as Costco and Sam’s Club, these nontraditional food stores have grown from controlling 13.8% of the national share of food purchases for at-home consumption in 1986 to a staggering 32.6% in 2006.13 In less than 20 years, Wal-Mart became the country’s single largest seller of food for at-home use. Having saturated the country with supercenters, Wal-Mart is now moving aggressively into smaller format stores with grocery components, including a 15,000 sf neighborhood format.

Wal-Mart is not only the nation’s largest food retailer, it is also committed to local foods as are many other supermarket chains. Wal-Mart has stated that its goal is “to support farmers and their communities, through a combination of sourcing more directly from them and providing training in agricultural practices.” By the end of 2015, Wal-Mart expects to sell $1 billion globally in food sourced directly from small, medium, and local farmers. In the U.S., Wal-Mart plans to double its sale of locally sourced produced.14 While these trends suggest that the largest buyers are looking for locally grown products, they also require large quantities, uniformity, and low prices.

10 http://search.ams.usda.gov/farmersmarkets/ 11 Economic Research Service, USDA, “U.S. Food Marketing System, 2002,” AER-811 12 Data from the Economic Census accessed online at www.census.gov/econ/census. Data from the 2012 Economic Census have not yet been released on the county level so this report utilized data from the 2007 Economic Census. 13 Martinez, Steve and Phil Kaufman, “Twenty Years of Competition Reshape the U.S. Food Marketing System,” Economic Research Service, USDA, April 2008 14 Wal-Mart Sustainable Agriculture: Fact Sheet, www.walmartstores.com


Another major development has been the indirect competition that food retailers have felt from the food-away-from-home sector. In 1988, Americans spent 45.4% of their food dollars on food away from home; by 2006, that percentage had grown to 48.9%. In some parts of the country, expenditures for food away from home exceed those for food bought for consumption at home. The recent recession has altered these figures somewhat but the fact remains that Americans are cooking less and eating fewer of their meals at home.

A third major development has been the growth of “fresh format” stores which emphasize perishables and natural or organic products. From 1999 to 2006, Whole Foods Market, the industry leader, experienced 275% growth in sales while the second largest chain, Wild Oats, saw sales grow 64%. This compares to 22% increase for all grocery stores during the same period. A Whole Foods Markets is located in the Fells Point area of Baltimore. These existing stores – and the potential that other stores that have a strong buy-local program will join the marketplace – could provide substantial competition for a transformed Lexington Market.

Local trends

Baltimore is becoming an increasingly competitive marketplace when it comes to grocery, meal replacement and dining offerings. In all three categories, from the low end to the high end, an increasingly savvy and food-conscious public has more choices than ever, and there is no sign of slowing.

Grocery - traditional As the population of Baltimore’s downtown area has grown, so too has the spectrum of

grocery offerings. Someone living in the central business district, for example, has a full array of choices—low end to high end—within a 10-minute drive. On the low end, big box chains like Target and Walmart each have—or will soon have—two stores in the downtown area and are competing with discount grocers like Save A Lot, Shoppers and Aldi for market share.

Mass-market grocers like Safeway and Giant each have several locations within the area and are also competing head-to-head with Target and Walmart. Growing competition is forcing what were previously industry giants to renovate stores and increase amenities.

On the high end of the spectrum, Whole Foods and Harris Teeter (now with two locations) are both serving an increasingly affluent downtown area dweller. Fresh Market—another upscale, but smaller operator—is just starting to establish a presence in Baltimore, and a location in the downtown area in the not-too-distant future could be likely. Even more likely is Trader Joe’s, which is actively looking for locations inside the Beltway, particularly in the city’s northern neighborhoods.

Wegmans—an upscale, large-format grocer—is strategically establishing a presence in the Baltimore area. With two existing locations and a third in the planning stage, a location in the downtown area isn’t out of the question. With virtually no experience or interest in an urban format, the amenity-abundant store needs a minimum of 100,000 SF on a single level, with convenient surface parking. Given the chain’s focus on abundance, quality of product and quality of experience—all at reasonable prices—Wegmans appeals to the widest spectrum of customers and would threaten the stability of just about any competitor in the marketplace.


The marketplace has seen its share of attrition, as local and national market forces have driven some brands like SuperFresh and its successor Fresh & Green out of business. Several Fresh & Green locations were acquired by Giant. The location at 222 North Charles Street remains vacant. While the store served nearby residents and office workers well, its small and awkward format relegated it for many to an interim trip between major grocery visits to other area stores.

Grocery - public markets Baltimore City retains one of the country’s only systems of public markets even though

many cities on the East Coast and Midwest once had multiple municipal markets. While the markets were once the heart of commerce for urban neighborhoods and served a majority of the population base, they are now serving a predominately lower income demographic. At a time when appreciation for public markets, farmers’ markets, food culture and independent businesses are all on the rise, Baltimore’s public markets have the potential to reclaim their position in the community. The general public is already shopping in market-type businesses, and privately-owned markets like Belvedere Square, Union Market and Suburban Square are flourishing. The public markets currently capture a very small share of the region’s grocery and culinary pie, but with the right positioning, the opportunity to increase market share is tremendous.

Grocery - membership clubs Operators who have yet to penetrate the downtown submarket include the membership-

driven stores (e.g. Costco and BJ’s). Sam’s Club closed their Port Covington location in 2007, a decision that was driven more by a downturn in the economy and internal restructuring than market-related factors. Costco does not have a store that serves the north/northwestern part of the city, so a location north of downtown, inside the Beltway, may very well be on the horizon, assuming a site can be secured. Costco has been increasingly willing to look at more urban locations, although two-story units are being avoided in most markets.

Grocery - delivery services Grocery delivery is experiencing a surge in the Baltimore area. Giant, Safeway and

ShopRite currently offer home delivery, while third party services like Relay Foods are also on the rise. Amazon.com is carefully entering a crowded grocery market but has plans to be a legitimate competitor—and possibly a category killer—in the near future, with the ability to compete on margins and convenience. The company’s new one million square foot distribution facility in Southeast Baltimore will primarily serve its AmazonFresh grocery delivery service, which will drastically expand the company’s resources in the Mid-Atlantic over the next several years.

Prepared food/meal replacement Prepared food and meal replacement are playing a significant role in contributing to the

sales and—more importantly—profit margins in the grocery businesses. Unprepared items typically sell at very low profit margins, while prepared foods sell at comparatively high margins. Profit margins, maximization of customer visits, and adapting to trends in consumer eating habits are the driving factors behind the increase in prepared food offerings. This trend can be witnessed in virtually every grocery store or market today. Depending on the location


and size of facility, some operators are capturing 30% or more of their sales from prepared food, often dedicating hundreds of seats for on-site consumption.

Prepared food has a place in the grocery and market community, but incorporating it into markets and grocery stores must be done carefully. While healthy options are abundant, so too are unhealthy options that contribute to the rampant problem of diet-related disease.

Dining Much in the same way meal replacement has flourished, so too has the practice of dining

out. Urban dwellers are leading the dining-out trend and restaurants, cafes and fast casual/fast food establishments are opening at a rapid pace. With food culture spreading into virtually every demographic, the general public is growing increasingly savvy and increasingly particular. Dining habits are much more diverse as well, as “cross-eating” (the food equivalent of “cross-shopping”) is becoming more and more common. In the past, dining habits were less diverse, with choices consistently correlating to income. Today, people of a variety of incomes will eat out at a food truck one day and a white table cloth restaurant the next. Fast food, fast casual and full service dining industry segments are as robust as ever, with virtually every cuisine available in a variety of service formats and price points in most cities, including Baltimore. The grocery business is at no risk of dying, but grocery operators and markets are continually looking for new ways to tap into this growing trend and industry segment. Grocery operators typically do it by way of prepared food and fast food, while many markets are increasing their share of fast food, fast casual and, to an extent, full service restaurants. Unlike grocery stores, which still rely on unprepared food as their source of business, some markets (single and multi-tenant) are relaying so heavily upon fast food that they have become glorified food courts and end up competing with fast food and fast casual businesses. Whether successful or unsuccessful at competing, this can quickly change the market’s role in the community, furthering the domination of fast, processed food in the public dietary landscape.

While the spectrum of offerings is abundant and diverse in many neighborhoods, such abundance correlates to income, with many lower income neighborhoods suffering from a severe lack of choices. Just as the city has two starkly different socio-economic classes, the same applies to food availability, and the “food desert” syndrome is as rampant in Baltimore as just about anywhere in the United States. While the number of public markets in Baltimore is higher than many other cities, many of the city’s neighborhoods rely upon convenience stores and fast food for sustenance, neither of which are an adequate source of healthy, whole foods.

Appendix C includes a summary of the downtown area’s grocery and market food offerings, sorted by geographic area.


Development context

The condition and evolution of the immediate environment around Lexington Market, the broader West Side neighborhood, the downtown, and the metropolitan region all have an impact on what can and should happen to revitalize Lexington Market. Appendix D contains a thorough review of the development context around the Market, including issues relating to pedestrian, vehicular and public transit access; parking; safety; land uses; housing; and planned development.

Lexington Market’s environment poses two major challenges and three big opportunities. Addressing these challenges and taking advantage of these opportunities are essential if the Market is to be successfully revitalized.

Challenges

Drug activities and uncomfortable surroundings Customers, the general public, and area institutions all point to a prevalence of drug

activity and loitering around the Market as factors that have made going to the Market uncomfortable and unpleasant.

This issue is not new and much attention has been placed on finding solutions. Recent efforts by police and human service agencies have revealed that there is illicit prescription drug resale going on outside the Market, drawing buyers from throughout the region. Surprisingly, the patients at the nearby drug abuse treatment programs are not the primary participants in this illicit activity.

The redevelopment of Lexington Market offers the potential to disrupt and potentially eliminate drug sales from around the Market. This might require closing off the physical spaces where drug sales take place, including the sidewalks, during the construction period. A multipronged strategy to address this serious problem might include:

• substantial disruption of the current physical spaces to displace the drug sales

• new upgraded facilities that employ environmental design components such as glass storefronts which provide more “eyes on the street”

• new merchants and product offerings that attract a wide spectrum of shoppers from throughout the region

• training to improve the ability of merchants and their employees to take an active role in security

• ongoing concentrated efforts of police and Market security

In addition, ongoing efforts are needed to address the needs of homeless persons, substance abusers, and individuals suffering from mental health ailments in the area. Solutions will likely require cooperative action between public and private agencies. For Lexington Market to be successful, it must become a welcoming place where everyone feels safe and where miscreant behavior is not tolerated.


Poorly maintained neighboring buildings and streets The appearance of many of the streets and buildings immediately around the Market are

unkempt and uninviting. Surrounding the Market are a number of vacant or poorly maintained buildings, broken sidewalk sections, empty tree pits, messy tree pits with missing grates, and untended landscaping. The Market’s immediate surroundings need attention.

Especially on the streets bordering the Market, city and university-owned properties should be improved. Public right-of-ways should be repaired and replanted as needed. Effective ongoing maintenance strategies should be developed. A “Main Street” initiative, including stepped-up code enforcement and resources for façade and sign improvements, might be an effective approach to address the problems presented by the private properties.

Significant change is coming to this area already, with both city and university-owned vacant properties immediately south of the East Market between N. Eutaw Street and Paca Street being redeveloped or offered for redevelopment. In addition, university-owned properties south and west of the West Market along W. Lexington Street and N. Greene Street are slated for façade improvements.

Opportunities

University of Maryland Baltimore & University of Maryland Medical Center The University of Maryland Baltimore, the University of Maryland Medical Center, and

the Baltimore Veterans Administration Medical Center are Lexington Market’s largest close potential sources of customers. This entire campus has a weekday population of over 30,000 people, including faculty, staff, students, and visitors. Some are as close as one-half block away. This population includes well-paid physicians, researchers and administrators, as well as many medical technical and support staff.

A 2012 survey of faculty, staff and students from UMB, as well as personnel from UMB BioPark and UMMC, found that 92% of the 1,788 respondents typically purchase lunch on or near campus at least a few days per month. While 44% responded that they had been to Lexington Market in the past month, only 17% had been as often as once a week, suggesting that the Market is not their “go-to” place for lunch despite its close proximity.

Beyond individuals’ lunch-time purchases, these institutions conduct a vast number of gatherings, seminars, work sessions and meetings at which food is served. Capturing a portion of this business could provide a further, and probably new, revenue stream for Lexington Market vendors.

New Westside residents Since 2000, Downtown Westside has added more than 1,800 residential units in

converted commercial or new buildings. The 2013 estimated population within one-half mile of the Market is just under 10,000 with 5,746 households and a median household income of $35,620. Even closer to the Market, within a quarter-mile radius, the population of 3,287 has a median household income of $41,735. These residents have higher incomes than Baltimore City’s households (median household income $39,251), although lower than suburban residents. Low household income is likely due, in part, to small household sizes.


There is some evidence that the Market is not capturing these new customers. In 2010, Community Planning Studio at the University of Maryland surveyed residents in The Atrium, the converted Hecht’s Department School one block away from Lexington Market. The Studio reported that despite the Market’s proximity and diverse product offering, respondents reported that they “rarely or never shopped at the Market because of safety concerns, poor atmosphere, and panhandling.” The fact that the Market shuts its doors at 6:00 pm and is closed on Sundays likely prevents many downtown residents from shopping at the Market, since it is not open at some of the primary times when downtown residents are likely to shop for food.

The Bromo Arts District The new Bromo Arts District is also an opportunity for Lexington Market. The District’s

purpose is to realize the area’s potential as a thriving arts neighborhood in downtown Baltimore. The district seeks to attract city and regional visitors to its attractions including the France-Merrick Performing Arts Center, Everyman Theater and the galleries and studios of artist residents. Lexington Market is a key asset within the district and the Market should work closely with the Bromo District’s organizers to offer itself as a venue for arts promotion and programming, and as a supplier of food for events throughout the district.


Facility condition survey

Qodesh Engineering led the consultant team’s efforts to assess Lexington Market’s physical attributes, including review of the buildings’ structural, mechanical and utilities systems, as well as identification of regulations and codes that might impact changes to the Market. This analysis, while done at a master planning level, provides the team with guidance about what is possible and needed when looking at revitalization of the existing structures. Lexington Market, Inc. was provided the full engineering report under separate cover; a summary of findings is included below.

East Market and Arcade

Structural Overall, the Main East Market building and the Arcade are in acceptable structural

condition; however, several deficiencies were observed: 1. A triangular crack that crosses five courses in the brick veneer was noticed in the hallway

connecting the Arcade and Market East. Further investigation is required to determine if this crack lessens the structural integrity of this space.

2. Paint and anti-corrosion inhibitors are required to address minor rust on the exterior frame and at bolted connections. Base plates are in fair condition.

3. Corrections are required to areas of minor water penetration where the facade steel frame connects to the exterior brick wall.

Mechanical and plumbing

1. The existing HVAC systems have exceeded their normal service life and are generally in poor condition. Current mechanical code requirements for ventilation and energy performance are not being satisfied throughout the year.

2. Each kitchen hood in the East Market is equipped with an individual roof-mounted exhaust fan but most of the hoods have no direct make-up air supply, as required by the International Mechanical Code. Make-up air for these hoods currently comes from the central ventilation systems serving the Market, which creates excessive negative pressure inside the building. The East Market also has two central exhaust fans located at the basement level that are original to the building. At present, only one of these fans is functional.

3. Based on current energy performance standards, the existing HVAC equipment is highly energy inefficient. This is the result of age and extensive deterioration.

4. A built-up air handling system located within a mechanical penthouse on the roof provides the majority of the air conditioning. The capacity of the rooftop package units is inadequate to satisfy heating load during summer peak hours. While a Trane packaged unit was added on the roof to supplement cooling during the summer, Market staff advised us that, even with this added unit, cooling capacity is inadequate.


5. The ductwork serving the open food court area is in fair condition with signs of aging throughout the building. If the ductwork continues to be used, it should at least be cleaned by qualified technicians.

6. Three gas-fired package rooftop units serve the conference rooms within the building. The three units appear to be in fairly good condition and have not exceeded their life expectancy.

7. Several abandoned steam heating units are located on the ceiling structure.

8. The basement does not have any heating.

9. A mechanical ventilation system supplies some basement ventilation air yet it is inadequate to remove strong odors throughout the basement. A properly sized and configured exhaust system should be installed.

10. A built-up air-handling unit in the basement currently provides exhaust and fresh air intake. This system (which does not provide cooling or heating) should be replaced so that air changes per hour are increased to remove heat coming from the existing compressors and to eliminate odors.

11. A chiller and cooling tower plant are needed to maintain a consistent temperature throughout the East Market. This area is challenging because of the height of the ceiling and the constant variation of internal loads (people and compressors).

12. There are currently three pieces of equipment served by the main chiller. A high efficiency chiller should replace the current equipment. The new cooling tower must be selected to compliment the new chiller selection.

13. The York rooftop air handling units are in excellent condition. However, the Market advised that cooling during peak hours remains a challenge under summer ambient conditions. An energy recovery unit within the Arcade would increase the efficiency of the four units and reduce the load impacted by outside air intake. Tenant spaces exhaust should be used to reduce the load and costs to dehumidify and cool outside air. CO2 sensors should be incorporated into the duct system (if these have not been installed already).

14. The central penthouse air handler should be replaced: the current unit is undersized and has a short remaining life expectancy. A new penthouse should be fabricated to facilitate new equipment including a larger cooling tower. The Market will likely require a new chilled water coil with flow control valve and fan component, based on new load calculations. The central penthouse air-handling unit should be equipped with a mixing box for economizer mode (52°F to 58°F).

15. All ductwork near food should be cleaned by qualified personnel to eliminate debris and dirt that has accumulated over the years.

16. Grease traps are needed for East Market tenants who create any grease effluents. Grease traps should be provided for those areas that are not equipped. (Note: Market staff said that grease traps will soon be provided for the tenants who do not presently have them). The Market requires an ongoing grease trap maintenance program to ensure that cleaning is conducted properly and routinely.


17. Sanitary piping downstream of the grease traps should be examined and piping that is corroded, damaged, exhibiting excessive build-up, and/or is otherwise compromised should be replaced. Sewer pipes should be evaluated using a camera system.

18. The exhaust system for the toilet rooms should be replaced with a new rooftop exhaust fan, including associated ductwork and fittings, and toilet room ventilation should be replaced in its entirety.

19. Exhaust fans and ductwork on the Arcade roof that serve tenants’ kitchen hood equipment are badly corroded and should be replaced. New ductwork for the exhaust is needed to use an energy recovery unit. Kitchen exhaust ducts should be provided in accord with International Mechanical Code for grease ductwork and should be properly enclosed with ceramic insulation.

20. All ductwork in the lower Arcade and mezzanine should be cleaned by qualified contractors.

21. New plumbing fixtures with associated valves and fittings should be provided for public toilet rooms in accord with building code and ADA requirements. Lavatories should be equipped with occupancy sensors. The three-compartment sink on the ground level should be relocated or removed if not in use. The mop sink adjacent to the existing 3 compartment sink should be upgraded along with associated valves and fittings, installed in an enclosed room, and ventilated with a dedicated exhaust fan.

22. The existing plumbing systems have exceeded their normal service life and are generally in poor condition and do not meet current code requirements for ADA accessibility or energy performance standards. The discharge pipe on the sump pump located at the basement level is broken.

23. The sanitary drainage piping is original to the building and reportedly often leaks due to deterioration. There are frequent sanitary backs-ups in the building due to blockage in the main lines.

24. Roof drains and floor drains are in poor condition at the East Market but are in good condition at the Arcade.

Fire safety 1. Serious deficiencies were discovered in the Market’s fire safety. Day-to-day

maintenance and needed upgrades have not been carried out and there have been obvious defects for a considerable period of time.

2. None of the buildings has photocell smoke detectors. The two older buildings, constructed in approximately 1950, do not have any smoke detectors, fire sprinklers, or annunciators. In the Arcade, Market indicated that the annunciator has had a service light blinking for approximately 10 years. In the event of fire, it is very likely that it would not ‘call out’ to the fire department. A contractor specializing in these systems was unable to repair the system or the annunciator. A replacement is recommended immediately.

3. Some of the sprinkler heads in the Arcade are clogged with dust. They are unlikely to operate in the event of fire. As for the smoke detectors in the ductwork, there is no record


of their being replaced since their initial installation in 1981. As a general rule smoke detectors should be replaced every 10 years.

4. The following are key recommendations for corrective action in the arena of fire safety:

a. A Fire Protection Engineer should examine and report on the condition of the alarm system and the smoke detectors.

b. Fire protection piping, fire pumps and water flow from the domestic water mains should all be evaluated and deficiencies addressed.

c. Electrical items should be comprehensively reviewed and corrected to achieve conformance with National Electric Code requirements.

d. The vendor storage area door should be replaced with doors with hand-level release bars. If security is an issue, alarms can be installed on these doors.

5. A precautionary fire inspection could call for closing down a business based on the following violations and typical resolution deadlines:

a. Lack of secondary egress from the West Market vendor storage room – immediate shutdown if not corrected.

b. Electrical hazards such as open junction boxes, panel covers missing, etc. – one week deadline

c. Emergency lighting that is misplaced or in disrepair – two week deadline

Electrical

1. The entire electrical distribution system for both the East Market and Arcade should be replaced from the service entry point along with all associated branch panels, all wiring, lights, and wiring devices. This is for the safety and security of all patrons and business owners.

2. Existing lighting, including the self-contained emergency lighting, should be replaced and upgraded. New GFCI type duplex receptacles should be installed in all restrooms.

3. The fire alarm system should be replaced to meet current life safety requirements. The new system should consist of audio-visual devices, dual action pull stations and smoke/heat detectors. The fire protection system should also include connection to flow and tamper switches.

4. The data/communication system should be modified and expanded throughout the building. New Cat. 5E cable should be provided with a combination of RJ45 and RJ11 type outlets provided, where needed. All new cabling should be routed back to a terminal board. All new and modified systems should be coordinated with local service provider for the respective system.

Building envelope 1. The roof on the East Market is an elastomeric, torched-down single membrane roof on a

concrete deck. It was nicely installed and is in good condition. The roofing membrane is covered with a mineral roll surface.


2. The Arcade has two sections of flat roof on concrete decks there are also elastomeric, torched-down membranes with white surfaces. These are often referred to as “cool roofs.” The center of the Arcade has a gable roof with a number of skylights and standing seam metal roofing. The same type of metal roofing has been used on the perimeters of the east side, south side and west side. While these types of roofs are generally quite durable, the membranes of the cool roofs were not adequately stretched on the initial installation, creating a number of wrinkles in the membranes.

West Market and Garage

Structural Overall, the structural condition of the West Market is in fair condition. Water-

related problems were noted in the garage which require further inspection and repair. Key observations include:

1. Throughout the garage major areas of concern are the infiltration of water through cracks and through the joints in the structural slabs, as well as lengthy cracks in both structural masonry walls and reinforced concrete elements. On each level of the garage, sap (efflorescence) from concrete has accumulated in alarming amounts throughout the garage.

2. The garage has experienced significant damage due to the presence of deicing salts over the winter seasons. Corrosion of the reinforcing steel has led to localized spalling of the concrete cover. The upper deck of the garage is severely worn resulting in equally severe corrosion at the underside of the slab. A report prepared by Desman Associates well documents the damages observed early last decade.

3. Many cracks in the brick veneer, the CMU masonry, and throughout the beam girder system raise concern. The cracks found in the masonry crosses various courses, while the cracks noted in the concrete beam girder system covers a few feet in length. Further investigation is recommended to determine if these cracks lessen the structural integrity of the surrounding spaces.

4. Water penetration along the parapet wall of the rooftop parking level. Repairs are recommended to prevent intrusion.

5. Cracks in concrete parking surface and surface below. The source of water infiltration should be identified and resolved because it is causing deterioration of the concrete surface.

6. Cracks in the interior masonry walls. Further evaluation is recommended to determine whether structural integrity has been lost.

Mechanical and plumbing 1. The condensing units of the West Market are fairly new and appear to be in satisfactory

condition.

2. The kitchen exhaust hoods have a combination of central exhaust and individual exhaust systems. Some of the kitchen hoods have direct make-up air supply while some hoods


have no direct make-up air supply. The kitchen hood exhaust and make-up air systems are in poor condition. Current mechanical code requirements for ventilation and energy performance are not satisfied.

3. The West Market parking garage includes four floors above ground, with the ground floor open on two sides while the rest of the floors are open on three sides. The ground floor has a partial ventilation system which is appears to be in poor condition and has been decommissioned. The parking structure lacks a carbon monoxide detection system.

4. The roof (parking level five) is drained via floor drains and internal cast iron rain leaders that connect to underground storm drainage. The roof also have parapet and overflow pipes. Floor drains are in fair condition.

5. The West Market has a lower ceiling level than the East Market, creating fewer challenges in maintaining comfortable temperatures. The open area is fed conditioned air from two air-handling units located in the parking garage ground level. In some areas, ductwork paint is peeling due to old age. Overall, the supply duct is in fair condition. The radiant heat panels appear to be in excellent condition. Market management staff advised that the panels are adequate to maintain indoor design temperatures during the winter.

6. Deteriorated exhaust fans and associated ductwork serving tenants’ kitchen hoods should be replaced. As state above, some of the equipment and ductwork are aged and corroded.

7. CO2 sensors should be installed into the current air conditioning system to reduce the cost of conditioning the outside air used for both Carrier climate changers.

8. The air conditioning ductwork serving the West Market area should be re-painted or replaced. The paint is peeling from the sheet metal and is not appropriate for a food environment. If the current duct system is retained intact, then the duct should be cleaned internally and externally, prepared for painting and painted in its entirety by qualified parties.

9. The existing plumbing systems are approaching the end of their normal service life. A central domestic hot water system serves all the vendors. Some of the 3-compartment sinks do not have code-required grease interceptors installed. Current code requirements for ADA accessibility and energy performance standards are not being met.

10. Due to their deteriorated condition, the plumbing fixtures should be replaced for the women’s and men’s toilet rooms.

11. Roof drains and floor drains are in poor condition.

Building envelope The building envelope is considered adequate for present use. Envelope systems require

constant maintenance and some minor repairs are recommended.


Pfeiffer Building

Structural 1. Due to minor but longstanding roof leaks, joist and rafters appear to have suffered from

wet rot. Most of the abandoned floors of this building are covered with corrugated asbestos pipe insulation, which evidently has been torn off the pipes and thrown onto the floors. The existing ladders on the top floor are in very poor condition.

2. Given these conditions, the floors should only be traversed by trained and experienced personnel with extreme care, using appropriate safety precautions and equipment. Existing ladders within the building should not be used.

Mechanical and plumbing 1. Apart from one tenant (H & R Block), the building has been unoccupied and all HVAC

systems have been removed. The interior of the building is in very poor condition and pipe insulation, which appears to contain asbestos, is presently scattered on all floors. The fifth floor and roof structures are severely damaged from roof leaks.

2. The existing plumbing systems are not functional and are in very poor condition. Gutter and downspout of the West Market parking structure are draining to the roof.

Electrical

1. The entire electrical distribution system requires replacement from the service entry point. All associated branch panels, all wiring, lights and wiring devices should be replaced for the safety and security of all building occupants and visitors. The building requires all new lighting including self-contained emergency lighting, new convenience outlets, tele/data outlets according to tenants’ need, and duplex receptacles in all restrooms.

2. The existing fire alarm system should be replaced to meet life safety requirements. The new system should consist of new audio-visual devices, dual action pull stations and smoke/heat detectors. The fire protection system requires connection to flow and tamper switches.

3. The existing data/communication system should be modified and expanded throughout the building. New Cat. 5E cable should be provided with a combination of RJ45 and RJ11 type outlets provided where needed. All new cabling should be routed back to a terminal board. All new and modified systems should be coordinated with local service provider for the respective system.

Building envelope 1. The roof normally consists of four layers of 15 pound tarpaper which is hot mop between

each layer with either asphalt tar or coal tar. The top coat of tar is badly alligator and has torn through the roofing felts. The roof has failed and leaks and requires complete replacement.

2. Unused portions of the building should be secured to prevent unwanted access to unsafe areas.


Demand analysis

The demand analysis explores both current and potential demand for products sold at Lexington Market, identifying and segmenting current and potential future customers and quantifying potential demand, where possible.

While the demographic profile of customers varies by public market, our research has found that large scale, successful urban public markets attract customers from a wide geographic area, often up to 30-45 minutes away. Unlike supermarkets, which seek to dominate food retailing within a small geographic zone, public markets attract a small percentage of people from a wide area who appreciate the product selection, atmosphere, and interaction with independent food vendors.

The highest spending customers are generally highly educated, higher income women, although many public markets attract consumers representing a wide demographic profile, including recent immigrants familiar with markets from their native countries. Some public markets, because of their inner city locations and social mission, have become major redemption points for SNAP benefits (food stamps) and famers’ market coupons. Reading Terminal Market in Philadelphia, for example, is one of the city’s largest SNAP redemption sites, while the Rochester Public Market is the country’s largest redemption site for farmers’ market tokens, with nearly $1 million in token redemptions this year. As the customer intercept survey revealed (below), Lexington Market currently serves a preponderance of lower income consumers and is not attracting a wide range of area consumers and limited numbers of tourists.

Customer intercept survey

Appendix E contains a complete report on the Customer Intercept Survey. Key findings are highlighted here.

Lexington Market is currently attracting a large percentage of people in the 50-59 age bracket (one-third of all customers) and relatively few who are younger than 40. While people in this age bracket have proven to be higher spending in other public markets, it is rare to see such a lopsided percentage.

In terms of income, customers are generally lower income than Baltimore City residents and much lower than MSA residents. The chart below compares the household incomes of customer survey respondents, City of Baltimore residents, and resident of the Baltimore metropolitan area (MSA). 45% of survey respondents said that their household income was less than or equal to $25,000 per year while 41% said between $25 and 75,000. Only 14% reported household income over $75,000. By contrast, 45% of households in the MSA have income over $75,000. The Market attracts very few people from upper income households ($75,000 and above).


Q25. What range includes your total household income, before taxes, for 2013? (N=394)

The survey found an almost even split between men (52%) and women (48%). This is

unusual: typically, more women shop at public markets than men. Recent customer surveys at both Reading Terminal Market in Philadelphia and Essex Street Market in New York found the same proportion of women (63%) and men (37%).

As the chart below demonstrates, the large majority of customers interviewed were identified by the surveyors as black (88%), compared to 11% white and 1% other. By contrast, 65% of residents in the City of Baltimore identify as black while the metropolitan region is about 30% black.

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

Under $15,000

$15,000 to $25,000

$25,001 to $50,000

$50,001 to $75,000

$75,001 to $100,000

$100,001 to $150,000

Over $150,000

Household Income 2013

Survey City of Baltimore Baltimore MSA


Respondents live in 75 different area codes with 88% living within the City of Baltimore, 18% living elsewhere in Maryland, and 4% out-of-state. 60% of the respondents live in just eight zip codes all clustered around the Market. Typically, customers are distributed more widely around a metropolitan area.

The zip code map below indicates the areas with the largest number of customers. The blue star shows the approximate location of Lexington Market. The areas of the red circles are proportional to the number of customers who reside in those zip codes.

10.9%

31.8%

64.1%

88.0%

64.9%

30.2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Lex Mkt City MSA

Race

Other

Black

White


Going to a public market is typically a social activity compared to the often solitary trip to the supermarket. At Lexington Market, the group size ranged from one to 40. Even though there were some large groups, the average group size was only 1.6 people. This is substantially lower than the experience of other public markets, which typically have group size of 2.2. 77% of the customers came alone, while 13% came in groups of two.

76.6%

13.1% 5.1% 2.4% 0.4% 2.2%

1 2 3 4 5 6+

Group Size


When asked the last time they visited Lexington Market before today, only 3% of the respondents reported that they were visiting the Market for the first time. Typically, more first time visitors (typically tourists) will be identified at a public market. By far the largest percentage (70%) reported last being at the Market within the past week, so the Market is attracting a very consistent, loyal customer. Only 10% reported last being at the Market more than a month ago.

Q4. Before today, when was the last time you came to the Market? (N=461)

Excluding those customers who said they were visiting the Market for the first time in Question 4, the customers were asked about the first time they visited Lexington Market. By far the largest group (64%) had first come to the Market more than 20 years ago, followed by those who had first come 11-20 years ago. Only 4% had come to the Market for the first time within the past year (the 3% who were visiting the Market for the first time could be considered part of this group). The other ranges were fairly evenly divided. This perhaps suggests that the Market is not consistently attracting customers who have moved to the Baltimore area more recently:

First time here 3%

Within the week 70%

Within the past month

17%

More than month ago

10%

Last Visit


Q5. How long ago was the first time you visited Lexington Market? (N=439)

Customers were asked if they bought anything to eat in the Market and, if yes, how much money they spent on food to eat in the Market. Similarly, they were asked if they bought anything to take home or take away and how much they spent on those items. Finally they were asked if they had bought any nonfood items or services and how much was spent on those items.

As the chart below demonstrates, two-thirds of the respondents said they bought something to take home or take away, reflecting the Market’s important role as a place to buy grocery items and take-out location. About one-half (53%) said they bought food to eat in the Market and 25% of respondents said they bought nonfood items or services.

4% 5% 4% 8%

14%

64%

Within the past year

1-2 years ago

3-5 years ago

6-10 years ago

11-20 years ago

>20 years ago

First Visit to Market


The average expenditure for those who spent on food to take home was $17.95, while among all customers if was $11.20. The average expenditure for those who spent on food to eat in the Market was $8.72, or $4.34 for all customers. The average expenditure for those who spent on nonfood items was $18.80, or $4.35 for all customers. Adding the three expenditures together to determine total expenditures per customer, those who spent something averaged $21.68. Since some people did not buy anything, the average expenditure among all customers interviewed was $19.89.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Nonfood only

Eat in only

Take home only

Eat in & take home

Nonfood

Eat in Market

Take home food

Type of Purchases


Dividing the total expenditures of all respondents ($9,191) by the total number of vendors patronized (1,076), the resulting average single sale in the Market is $8.54. This is quite low compared to the experience at other public markets.

The following chart shows average expenditures at several different public markets. The expenditures at Lexington Market are the lowest compared to other places:

$8.72

$17.97 $18.80

$21.68

$4.34

$11.20

$4.35

$19.89

$-

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

$20.00

$25.00

Eat in Market Take home Non food Total

Average Expenditures

Ave (those who bought) Ave (all)


Average expenditures were examined among several demographic variables: gender, age, household income, household size, and race. There were not statistically significant variations in spending between men and women. The chart below shows the mean expenditures based on age. Younger customers spent more on nonfood items. For total purchases, younger customers had higher average expenditures than older customers.

$19.89

$22.79

$26.00

$30.00

$32.00

$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35

Lexington Market 2014

Essex St Market 2014

Soulard Market 2012


Reading Terminal 2011

Mean Customer Expenditures by Market


There is a statistically significant correlation between customers’ household income and how much they spent on food to eat in the Market, with wealthier customers spending more. The other relationships are not statistically significant using analysis of variance (ANOVA) measures, yet the mean expenditures show increasing total sales with higher income households.

$0.00

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

$20.00

$25.00

$30.00

$35.00

$40.00

Eat in Take Home Nonfood Total

Ave. Spending by Age

<30 30-49 50-69 70+


Except for food to eat in the Market, black customers spent substantially more on average than white customers.

$0.00

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

$20.00

$25.00

$30.00


Ave. Spending by HH Income

<$25k $25-50k $50-75k >$75k

$0.00

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

$20.00

$25.00


Ave. Spending by Race

White Black


There is a large and significant variation between travel model to the Market and average expenditures for food to take home and total sales. Those customers who drove spent much more than those taking the bus or walking. This underscores the importance of easy access to the Market and adequate parking to meet the needs of drivers.

There is significant variation between travel time to the Market and average expenditures for food to take home from the Market. Those who travel from farther away spent considerably more than those who had a short trip to the Market. This suggests the importance of attracting customers from a wide geographic region and tourists:

$-

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

$20.00

$25.00

$30.00


Ave Spending by Travel Mode

Walk Car Transit


Finally, incidental customers (first time visitors and those who had not come in more than a month) had the highest average expenditures, while more regular customers had lower.

$-

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

$20.00

$25.00

$30.00

$35.00

$40.00

Eat in Take Home Total

Ave Spending by Travel Time

<5 minutes 5 - 15 minutes 16 - 30 minutes 31 - 60 minutes > 60 minutes

$-

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

$20.00

$25.00

$30.00

$35.00



First time here Within the week Within past month > month ago


Respondents were asked to compare the quality, selection, and prices of products in the Market with other places that sell similar products. Since respondents had chosen to be at Lexington Market, it generally follows that the responses to these questions are likely to be quite favorable. Interestingly, the largest group of respondents only ranked the selection of products at Lexington Market “much better.” For both quality and prices, the largest group of respondents ranked the Market the “same” compared to other places. Most customers (52%) ranked customer service from vendors as “very good,” while 26% said “somewhat good.” These rankings are lower than typically seen at other public markets.

Q. 14-16. Compared to other places that sell similar products, would you describe the quality/selection/prices of products at Essex Street Market as much better, somewhat better, about the same, somewhat worse, or much worse? (N=387, 407, 403)

Respondents were asked to name the things that they liked best about the Market and what they would like to see changed. Up to three responses were recorded for each question. Customers provided a wide range of answers. In terms of what customers liked best, the most frequent response was the social qualities and people, followed by the music/entertainment, variety, and fresh foods. They also frequently mentioned convenience/location and the Market’s atmosphere. Prices were mentioned by only a few respondents.

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

Quality Selection Prices

Comparable Rankings

Much Better Somewhat Better Same Somewhat Worse Much Worse


Q19. What things to you like most about Lexington Market? (N=657)

Two items stand out among the changes that customers would like to see at Lexington Market: addressing the drugs/junkies and making the Market cleaner. Customers also highlighted loitering/panhandling and security. A fair number of customers identified the need for the Market to renovate and update, to attract more and different customers, and to improve seating.

0 20 40 60 80 100

Baked/desserts

Prices

Service/fast

Seafood/crab cakes

Vendors/service

Landmark/history

Prepared food

Atmosphere

Convenience/location

Food/fresh food

Variety

Music/entertain

Social qualities/people

What Like Best


Q20. What changes would you like to see at Lexington Market? (N=539)

Finally, customers were asked about the likeliness of their shopping on Sundays if the Market were open. There was very strong positive response to this question: nearly half (47%) said they were “very likely” to shop on Sundays. About one-fifth were at the opposite extreme, saying it was “not at all likely” they would shop on Sundays.

Internet survey

To gather input from area residents about their experiences and perspectives on Lexington Market, the consultant team designed an Internet-based survey that was appropriate for both Market shoppers and non-shoppers. Appendix F contains the complete report on the Internet survey.

About twice as many women (66%) took the on-line survey as men (34%). This contrasts sharply to the actual customers interviewed within Lexington Market, but is more typical of who generally shops at public markets.

Compared to both current Market customers and households in the Baltimore region, survey respondents were generally younger, as is typical with Internet surveys. The largest

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Parking

Better quality/fresher

Vendor sanitation

Minority/diverse vendors

Prices lower

Vendors - new/more/different

Better attitudes/less harassment

Bathroom improvements

Seating

Different/more customers

Renovate/update

Security

Loitering/panhandling

Cleaner

Drugs/junkies

What Things to Change


group of respondents was between the ages of 21 and 39; almost no one over 70 took the survey.

The majority of Internet respondents self-identified as “White/Caucasian/Anglo not of Hispanic origin” (59%), followed by “African-American/Black not of Hispanic origin” (29%). Only 2% identified as Hispanic or Latino. The racial composition of survey respondents is very similar to residents of the metro region, with many fewer minorities than shop at the Market now and fewer than in the City of Baltimore.

Survey respondents were generally wealthier than the general population and much wealthier than current Market shoppers. The proportion of high income households (over $150,000) was the same as the metro area but the respondents included many more upper-middle income households (from $50,000 to $150,000) than live in the metro area.

Q24. In what range did your 2013 total household income (before taxes) fall? (N=4,209)

Respondents live in 259 different zip codes. The top eight zip codes, representing 43% of respondents, are all in Baltimore City. The largest group of respondents lives within the same zip code as Lexington Market: 21201, with 13% of the total.

Respondents were asked where their households purchased most of their fresh foods. A majority (63%) said a supermarket chain (such as Giant, Safeway, Wegman’s or Shoppers), followed by a specialty grocer (such as MOM’s Organic, Whole Foods Market, or Trader Joe’s) at 13% and a mass merchandiser (such as Costco, Super Walmart or BJ’s) at 9%. Only 2% of respondents said Lexington Market and 2% said another Baltimore public market. This contrasts with the one-third of customers at Lexington Market who said the Market was their primary

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

Under $25,000 $25,001 to $50,000

$50,001 to $75,000

$75,001 to $100,000

$100,001 to $150,000

Over $150,000


Customer Internet Baltimore MSA


place to buy fresh foods.

Nearly all respondents (93%) reported having ever visited Lexington Market. If respondents said they had never visited the Market, the survey skipped ahead to Q15.

Among those who had ever visited, the vast majority (82%) had visited within the past two years. Although less dominant than the customer survey, the largest group (36%) first came to the Market more than 20 years ago. Compared to only 9% of the Market customers, 23% had first come to the Market within the past two years.

Q6. When was the most recent time you visited Lexington Market? (N=4,596)

Only those respondents who said they had visited the Market within the past two years were asked the next series of questions about their recent experiences at the Market. Those who had not visited the Market within the past two years were asked about why they had not visited.

Respondents were asked the number of times they had visited the Market in the past two years. Most were infrequent visitors: 44% reported coming only one to three times in the past two years, while 29% reported coming 4-10 times. Only 16% reported coming most frequently (more than 24 visits, or about twice per month over the two years).

The largest group of respondents said they typically travel to the Market by foot (57%), while 31% drive in their own car. 12% use public transportation. By contrast, only 20% of respondents in the customer survey said they walked, while 25% used their own car and 49% used the bus or light rail/metro.

The largest group of respondents (40%) said they typically buy food both to eat in the

< 2 yrs ago 82%

2-10 yrs ago 15%

>2 yrs ago 3%

Most Recent Visit


Market and to take home. 28% said they only buy food to take home and 22% said only food to eat in the Market.

Respondents who reported not visiting the Market within the past two years were asked the main reasons they have not visited Lexington Market recently. The possible responses were items that Market customers had previously identified plus the respondents could add other reasons. The most frequent response was “Do not feel safe there” followed by “Poorly maintained or dirty” and “Panhandling.”

Q11. What are the main reasons you have not visited Lexington Market recently? Check all that apply or add other reasons, below. (N=2,578)

Survey respondents were asked to rank (on a scale of one to five) their interest in a list of new or expanded offerings at the Market. A score of three represents neutral. All items received a score of more than three, with fruits and vegetables the highest (4.42) and crafts the lowest (3.2). Overall, basic fresh foods (fruits and vegetables. seafood, baked goods) received higher scores than prepared foods:

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Prices too high

Inconvenient hours

Lack of variety

Poor quality

Too crowded

Too far away

Parking difficult

Panhandling

Unclean

Don't feel safe

Reasons for Not Visiting


Q17. How interested are you in having new or expanded offerings for each of the following types of products at Lexington Market:

Respondents were asked to rank the likeliness of their visiting Lexington Market (again on a scale of one to five) under a variety of scenarios, assuming the Market can be transformed into a clean, safe, and vibrant public market with a diverse product offering. All five questions received an average score of more than three (neutral), with visiting Lexington Market for lunch the most highly rated (4.3) and visiting Lexington Market on weekday evenings the lowest rated (3.6). Visiting the Market on Sunday received a score of 3.7.

1 2 3 4 5

Crafts Wine/beer

African Vegan/vegetarian

Eastern/North European Teas

South Asian Fresh roasted coffee

Ice cream Chocolates/candies

Latin American Fresh pasta

East Asian BBQ

Meats and sausages Mediterranean Cheeses/dairy

Local specialty foods Cafes/retaurants

Breads/baked goods Seafood

Fruits & vegetables

New/Expanded Offerings


Q19. Assuming that Lexington Market can be transformed into a clean, safe, and vibrant public market with a diverse product offering, how likely would you be to…

These scores were analyzed based on the frequency the respondents reported visiting Lexington Market. Infrequent visitors said they were less likely “to shop for fresh foods at Lexington Market on a regular basis” compared to more frequent visitors (mean scores ranging from 4.08 to 4.32), yet all groups reported a high likelihood of shopping at the Market (all scores more than 4). Even the least frequent visitors said they were highly likely to visit the Market for lunch (4.34) and for coffee, tea or snacks (4.08).

The scores were further analyzed to see if men and women rated these questions differently. In fact, women expressed a higher likelihood of shopping for fresh food at Lexington Market on a regular basis if the Market is transformed (women overall: 4.29; men 4.10) and a higher likelihood of visiting the Market for coffee, tea or snacks (women: 4.20; men: 4.05).

Finally, there are statistically significant relationships between household income and mean scores for these variables. Lower income households provided higher scores that higher income.

1 2 3 4 5

visit weekday evenings

visit on Sundays

visit for coffee/snacks

shop on regular basis

visit for lunch

If transformed, likeliness to:


Trade area analysis

Trade area analysis is used to understand the demographic qualities of people living within reasonable proximity of Lexington Market and to explore the potential for attracting more shoppers to the Market.

Three separate trade areas were defined for the Market, using 400 West Lexington Street as the center point: a one mile ring, the band between one and five miles, and the band between five and fifteen miles (see maps). The one mile ring is approximately equivalent to a 15-20 minute walk or a very short drive to the Market, while the one to five mile band approximates the rest of the City of Baltimore. The five to fifteen mile band captures much of the Baltimore metropolitan region 1. Residents of a one mile ring

around Lexington Market. This ring includes most of the downtown and adjacent neighborhoods to the west and north. The site can be considered easily accessible for residents in this trade area: nearly all will be able to walk to the Market and for others it will be a short drive, bike ride, or bus trip. There is very limited competition within this area for fresh foods so Lexington Market is one of the most convenient places to buy fresh products for trade area residents. Whole Foods Market, which offers a popular destination for many downtown residents, is located just outside this area and plans to relocate to a larger, new store one block from its current location.


2. The band between the one

mile ring and a five mile ring. This band encompasses most of the City of Baltimore. Lexington Market is generally convenient to residents and workers in this area although most customers will require transportation to get there. There is considerable and growing competition for fresh food within this trade area, including two Giants, two Whole Foods Markets, two Harris Teeters, two Targets, one Walmart, one Safeway, and one Eddies.

3. The area between the 5 mile

ring and a 15 mile ring. This band represents the greater Baltimore area. Based on our research at numerous public markets, this represents the typical extended catchment area for a large downtown market. Lexington Market is not convenient for residents from this trade area unless they work downtown. There is extensive competition for both fresh and prepared foods. However, the large scale and unique attributes of a public market can consistently attract some customers to visit the market if it is a unique destination that draws customers past other places to buy fresh and prepared foods.

In addition to these trade areas, the demand analysis also includes estimates of potential

patronage by tourists (defined as anyone who lives outside the 15 mile ring).

Demographic data about the three trade areas were acquired from Nielsen-Claritas, a national market research data company. The acquired data include 2010 U.S. Census information, estimates developed by Nielsen for 2014 based on the 2010 Census, and projections for 2019.

Data about the three trade areas are summarized in the chart below. Each band is independent – only the “total” section aggregates the three bands:


Lexington Market Demographics 1 mile ring 1-5 m band 5-15 m band Total USA

Population 2010 census 45,431 512,509 1,252,466 1,810,406 Population 2014 estimate 46,456 513,194 1,293,405 1,853,055 Population 2019 projection 47,988 519,675 1,346,357 1,914,020 Population change 2010-2014 (%) 2.3% 0.1% 3.3% 2.4% 2.7%

Population change 2014-2019 (%) 3.3% 1.3% 4.1% 3.3% 3.5%

Population change 2014-2019 1,532 6,481 52,952 60,965 Racial diversity (% non-white) 64.1% 67.8% 40.3% 28.7%

Percent Hispanic 2014 3.5% 5.5% 5.5% 17.6%

Households 2014 21,257 203,589 499,400 724,246 Household growth 2014-2019 4.2% 1.6% 4.1% 3.7%

Average household size 1.84 2.43 2.53 2.55

Age 35-64 36.0% 37.2% 40.4% Median age 2014 33.5 34.9 38.6 37.7

Median age 2019 34.9 36.5 39.8 38.6

Median household income 2014 $29,119 $40,863 $70,314

Average household income 2014 $46,409 $57,336 $91,514 $71,320

Average household income 2019 est $52,737 $65,477 $103,512 $75,940

Change HH income 2014-2019 13.6% 14.2% 13.1% 6.5%

Household income >$75,000/yr 2014 3,829 50,447 232,238 286,514 Household income >$75,000/yr (%) 2014 18.0% 24.8% 46.5% 39.6% Per capita income $21,235 $22,746 $35,335 Household income <$15,000/yr (%) 2014 33.8% 21.2% 8.1% Family households 31.1% 55.4% 65.8% 66.4%

No Vehicles 45.1% 31.2% 7.7% Employment status - not in labor force 48.1% 37.4% 31.0% Bachelor's Degree 20.9% 13.4% 20.9% 17.8%

Master's, Professional or Doctorate 17.4% 10.7% 15.6% 10.5%

Trade Area 1: 1 Mile Ring 2014 population for the 1 mile ring is estimated at 46,456 people, which represents a

2.3% increase from the 2010 Census count of 45,431. The population is expected to increase by 1,532 people, or 3.3%, by 2019, to 47,988 people. By comparison, the population of the United States is expected to grow 3.5% between 2014 and 2019. This area is growing much faster than


the second trade area but slower than the third area.

The trade area is estimated to have 21,257 households in 2014, with a very low average household size of 1.84 people, well below the national average of 2.55. Only 31.1% of these households are families, compared to a national average of 66.4%. Typically, small household size and small percentage of families would suggest lower than average purchases at a public market.

The median age of the population, at 33.5, is well below the national median of 37.7 and younger than the other two trade areas. As the graph labeled “Age – Trade Areas” shows, the first trade area has many fewer residents under age 25 compared to the other two areas, but many more who are 25-34 and somewhat more 35-44. 36.0% of the population is in the targeted age range of 35 to 64, compared to 40.4% in the third trade area.

Average household income in this trade area is $46,409 compared to $57,336 in the second area and $91,514 in the third area. While household incomes in this area are lower than both the other trade areas and the national average, this is driven in large part by the small household sizes. By 2019, average household incomes in this trade area are projected to increase nearly 14% to $52,737, still well below the national average but the difference is shrinking.

Per capita income is low in this area at $21,235, but close to the second trade area and far below the third trade area.

A large percentage of households in this trade area (34%) have income less than $15,000 per year while only 18% have household income above $75,000. This represents 3,829 households.

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

$90,000

$100,000

1 mile ring 1-5 m band 5-15 m band USA

Average household income 2014

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

<25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+

Age - Trade Areas

1 mile radius 1-5 m band 5-15 m band


Over 48% of residents are not in the labor force, far beyond the 37.4% in the second trade area and the 31.0% in the third area. This is most likely due to the large number of students who live in this area.

Educational attainment typically has a strong correlation with higher spending for quality food. While household incomes are low, educational attainment in the first trade area is well above the national average and highest among the three trade areas: 20.9% of those 25 years or older have a bachelor’s degree, while 17.4% hold a master’s professional, or doctorate degree. The chart labeled “Educational Attainment” clearly demonstrates the high levels of educational attainment in this trade area, plus the high level in the third trade area.

The population in this trade area is very diverse. Over 64% of residents identified themselves as non-white compared to 28.7% for the country. Only 3.5% of the population identified as Hispanic, below the other trade areas and far below the national average of 17.6%.

Nearly half of the residents in the first trade area do not have a vehicle. Therefore, they need to rely on public transportation, shared rides, or foot to shop for food. The close proximity of Lexington Market will potentially make the Market more convenient for residents without their own cars.

The one mile ring around Lexington Market has a fairly large and growing population for whom the Market is very convenient. The large number of young people, the small household size, and the low per capita and household income all suggest that residents of this trade area will not be strong shoppers for fresh food. On the other hand, they have very high levels of educational attainment and many do not have vehicles, limiting their ability to travel elsewhere for shopping. They are likely to be interested in prepared food offerings, entertainment, and educational programming at the Market.

Trade Area 2: Area between 1 mile ring and 5 mile ring The band between one and five miles has 24 times the land mass as the one mile ring yet

only 11 times more population. This area contained 513,194 people in 2014 and is expected to grow slightly to 519,675 people by 2019, a low 1.3% growth between 2014 and 2019 compared to 3.3% growth in the first trade area and 4.1% growth in the third area.

This area is divided into 203,589 households, with an average household size of 2.43 people, substantially more than the first trade area (1.84) and but below the national average of 2.55. This population is older than the first trade area with a median age of 34.9 but well below the national average of 37.7. However, it is supposed to age substantially in the next five years to 36.5. More than a third of the residents (37.2%) are in the targeted 35-64 year old range.

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

1 mile ring 1-5 m band 5-15 m band USA

Educational Attainment

Bachelor's Degree Master's, Professional or Doctorate


While much higher than the first trade area, the percentage of family households (55.4%) is well below the national average of 66.4%.

Average household income in this area is fairly low at $57,336 and per capita income is only $22,746. Household income is projected to rise a rapid 14.3% by 2019, more than double the national average increase of 6.5%. Only 24.8% of the households have income of more than $75,000, while 21.2% have income below $15,000.

Educational attainment in this trade area is the lowest of the three trade areas and well below national averages.

The one to five mile band around Lexington Market has a large and stable population with fairly small household size, low average income (although rising fairly rapidly), and fairly low educational attainment. The Market is reasonably convenient to residents of this trade area and about one-quarter have household income above $75,000. While there is growing competition within this trade area, residents are likely potential shoppers at Lexington Market, particularly for lower priced items and among the area’s wealthier and more educated population.

Trade Area 3: Area between 5 mile ring and 15 mile ring The band between five and fifteen miles has 8.3 times the land mass as the one to five

mile band yet only 2.5 times more population. Nearly 1.3 million people are estimated to live in the 5 – 15 mile band, divided into 499,400 households. According to Nielsen, the population in this area is growing above the national average and will experience a 4.1% increase to 1.35 million people by 2019.

Families make up a large portion (65.8%) of the households, surpassing both the other two trade areas and about the same as the national rate of 66.4%. Average household size is 2.53, slightly below the national average of 2.55. The median age is 38.6, the oldest of the three trade areas and above the national average of 37.7. 40.4% of residents are within the desired 35-64 age band.

Average household income in the third trade area is $91,514, by far the highest of the three trade areas and well above the national average of $71,320. A large percentage (46.5%) of the households has income of more than $75,000, while only 8% has income below $15,000.

Educational attainment in this trade area is slightly below the first trade area but well above the national figures.

Nearly all residents have access to a vehicle, making it possible to drive to Lexington Market.

The large number of wealthy, well educated, and mobile residents within the third trade area offers a strong target for Lexington Market. However, the Market is not convenient for most residents of this area and (except for residents who work nearby) the Market will require an intentional trip. There are many more convenient places nearby for them to buy fresh or prepared food. Saturdays and Sundays are the most likely times residents of this trade area will come to the Market. The Market’s physical spaces and merchandising mix, in addition to the perceptions of safety, will all need to be addressed before customers from this trade area can be regularly attracted to Lexington Market.


Tourists Tourists can make up a significant percentage of a public market’s clientele, depending

on its location. Tourists are often attracted to markets because they are unique places, offering a window into the culture of the region where they are located. As Americans have become more interested in food and cuisine, they are searching out public markets when they travel. Tourists are often well educated and higher income, and willing to spend significantly at a market. Lexington Market is already a known destination for many tourists.

Tourists are generally more interested in buying prepared foods and craft items than fresh foods. Some fresh food vendors in public markets have found creative ways to sell to tourists, such as the fish merchants at Pike Place Market, but this requires a sophisticated shipping operation.

Sales potential

Based on the demographic profile of area residents and typical expenditure patterns as determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Expenditure Survey, Nielsen estimates the retail sales potential for consumer goods. Using their estimated per capita expenditures for various food items, Nielsen creates a Food Purchasing Index that compares local expected purchases to national averages on the household level. In any category, a score of 100 means that households within the defined trade area are expected to buy exactly the same as the national household average. If households in the targeted trade area are expected to purchase less of a particular product, the index will be less than 100. Conversely, if they are expected to buy more of a certain item, the index will be more than 100. For example, if the average household in the trade area is expected to buy $1,200 worth of baked goods per year and the national average is $1,000 per household, then the index would be 120.

For each trade area, the estimated food purchasing index for 2014 is:

1 mile ring 1-5 mile band 5-15 mile band

Food at Home - overall 69 87 100 Food Away from Home - overall 83 85 118

Market categories Baked goods 72 87 104 Dairy 62 78 96 Meat 70 92 101 Poultry 91 113 111 Prepared foods 66 81 98 Produce - fresh 69 83 102 Seafood - fresh 101 119 133 Specialty food (jams, jellies) 57 76 94 Sweets 50 68 89 Beverages - nonalcoholic 72 88 100 Beer 70 80 98 Wine 92 97 136


For all but one category (fresh seafood), the food purchasing index is below 100 in the first trade area. Specialty foods, sweets, and dairy are particularly low. Poultry and wine are relatively high. Food away from home (dining out) is also below average at 83. The numbers are generally higher in the second trade area but still below 100. The exceptions are fresh seafood at 119 and poultry at 113.

The third trade area has the highest index scores, many of which are above national averages. The highest include wine at 136, fresh seafood at 133, poultry at 111 and baked goods at 104. The Food Away from Home is also high at 118.

These findings suggest that residents in the third trade area are likely the strongest potential users of a public market, although Lexington Market is least convenient for them.

The chart below shows Nielsen estimates for aggregate annual food and beverage expenditures divided between the types of products typically found in public markets, in thousands of dollars. These data give an indication of the magnitude of dollars in the region being spent on fresh foods. The growing population and income in all three trade areas is reflected in the increasing sales in each category between 2014 and 2019. The fastest growing demand is coming within the first trade area (5.8% expected sales growth over the next five years):

1 mile ring 2014

Estimate 2019

Projection Change $ Change

% Market categories (000s) (000s) (000s) Baked goods $7,100 $7,629 $529 7.5% Dairy $8,030 $8,665 $635 7.9% Meat $12,485 $12,932 $447 3.6% Poultry $6,851 $6,928 $77 1.1% Prepared foods $4,057 $4,302 $245 6.0% Produce - fresh $7,907 $8,365 $458 5.8% Seafood - fresh $1,462 $1,500 $38 2.6% Specialty food $7,529 $8,129 $600 8.0% Sweets $2,256 $2,537 $281 12.5% Coffee/Tea $2,196 $2,395 $199 9.1% Wine/Beer $10,473 $11,051 $578 5.5% Total $70,346 $74,433 $4,087 5.8%

All Food/Alcohol at Home $100,858 $106,694 $5,836 5.8%

1-5 mile band

2014 Estimate

2019 Projection Change $

Change %

Market categories (000s) (000s) (000s) Baked goods $81,133 $84,256 $3,123 3.8% Dairy $96,521 $99,464 $2,943 3.0% Meat $156,729 $157,453 $724 0.5% Poultry $80,296 $79,855 ($441) -0.5% Prepared foods $45,626 $46,738 $1,112 2.4% Produce - fresh $90,441 $92,203 $1,762 1.9% Seafood - fresh $16,443 $16,492 $49 0.3% Specialty food $92,171 $94,986 $2,815 3.1% Sweets $30,440 $31,704 $1,264 4.2%


Coffee/Tea $25,107 $26,055 $948 3.8% Wine/Beer $111,151 $114,667 $3,516 3.2% Total $826,058 $843,873 $17,815 2.2%

All Food/Alcohol at Home $1,179,980 $1,206,639 $26,659 2.3%

5-15 mile band 2014

Estimate 2019


% Market categories (000s) (000s) (000s) Baked goods $236,697 $249,867 $13,170 5.6% Dairy $289,315 $301,946 $12,631 4.4% Meat $420,677 $435,275 $14,598 3.5% Poultry $194,308 $200,904 $6,596 3.4% Prepared foods $135,906 $141,710 $5,804 4.3% Produce - fresh $272,696 $284,555 $11,859 4.3% Seafood - fresh $44,784 $46,566 $1,782 4.0% Specialty food $283,735 $295,809 $12,074 4.3% Sweets $109,045 $112,935 $3,890 3.6% Coffee/Tea $78,150 $82,391 $4,241 5.4% Wine/Beer $349,682 $365,341 $15,659 4.5% Total $2,414,995 $2,517,299 $102,304 4.2%


Total Fresh/Specialty Food (3 Trade Areas) $3,311,399 $3,435,605 $124,206 3.8%


In total, residents in this region spend about $3.3 billion on fresh and specialty foods and $4.7 billion each year on total food and alcohol for home consumption. Combined, the three trade areas are expected to see an increase of $124 million in demand for fresh and specialty foods over the next five years, a 3.8% increase.

Residents also spend on food to eat away from home. Nielsen provides estimates of consumer demand for various categories in the food away from home sector. For Lexington Market, the most important categories are “fast food” breakfast, lunch and dinner (compared to “full service” restaurants). As the charts below show, there is about $37.6 million of demand for fast foods, snacks, and alcoholic beverages among residents in the one mile radius around the Market. This does not include the considerable demand from the many people who work, study, or visit this area during the day.


1 mile ring 2014

Estimate 2019


% Market categories (000s) (000s) (000s) Lunch - fast food $9,854 $10,068 $214 2.2% Dinner - fast food $8,457 $8,626 $169 2.0% Breakfast - fast food $3,224 $3,308 $84 2.6% Snacks/Nonalcoholic bev $12,817 $13,582 $765 6.0% Alcoholic beverages $3,225 $3,332 $107 3.3% Total $37,577 $38,916 $1,339 3.6%


1-5 mile band

2014 Estimate


Change %

Market categories (000s) (000s) (000s) Lunch - fast food $101,946 $102,446 $500 0.5% Dinner - fast food $92,471 $92,700 $229 0.2% Breakfast - fast food $32,725 $32,815 $90 0.3% Snacks/Nonalcoholic bev $127,832 $131,910 $4,078 3.2% Alcoholic beverages $32,780 $33,494 $714 2.2% Total $387,754 $393,365 $5,611 1.4%


5-15 mile band

2014 Estimate


Change %

Market categories (000s) (000s) (000s) Lunch - fast food $285,092 $292,959 $7,867 2.8% Dinner - fast food $247,092 $253,390 $6,298 2.5% Breakfast - fast food $89,593 $91,625 $2,032 2.3% Snacks/Nonalcoholic bev $408,742 $424,781 $16,039 3.9% Alcoholic beverages $102,170 $106,935 $4,765 4.7% Total $1,132,689 $1,169,690 $37,001 3.3%


Total market categories (3 trade areas) $1,558,020 $1,601,971 $43,951 2.8% All Food/Alcohol at Home $2,557,264 $2,657,954 $100,690 3.9%

To estimate potential sales for fresh food products within Lexington Market, this

consumer expenditure data is utilized with projected capture rates. See the chart labeled “Sales Analysis – 2014,” in Appendix G. This chart repeats the product categories and sales estimates from the chart above in the first two columns. The third column, labeled “Potential,” contains a realistic estimate for the percentage of sales that Market vendors should be able to obtain.15

15. These estimates have been developed and refined by the Market Ventures, Inc. through its work planning, developing, and operating public markets and its research of other public markets around the country. The ability to achieve these capture rates will depend on Lexington Market having the qualities of other successful public markets (well designed, clean and safe facilities, the right tenant mix with high quality vendors, skilled management,


The fourth column, labeled “Sales,” is the product of multiplying the potential by the capture percentage. For example, in the Baked Goods category, Nielsen estimates $7.10 million in consumer expenditures within the first trade area. Market Ventures, Inc. estimates that Market vendors could reasonably capture 10.0% of those sales, based on our experience and research. This results in the potential for $710,000 in annual baked goods sales at Lexington Market from residents in the first trade area. The capture rate for the second trade area is estimated at one-fifth of the first trade area, and the capture rate for the third trade area is estimated at one-fourth of the second trade area. Adding the sales for baked goods across all three trade areas, Lexington Market could reasonably achieve $3.52 million in baked goods sales among residents in these trade areas.

Summing the sales total column for the 1.0 mile ring, Lexington Market could reasonably capture $6.86 million in sales from this trade area, which represents 9.7% of all fresh food sales in the zone, $16.2 million in sales from the 1 to 5 mile band, which is 2.0% of fresh food sales in that region, and $11.7 million from the 5-15 mile band, which is 0.48% of fresh food sales in that region.

Based on 10% sales to tourists, shoppers from outside of the 15 mile ring are expected to generate sales of $3.47 million, which brings total market sales potential to $38.2 million:

Trade Area Demand 2014 1 mile ring $6,860,00 1-5 m band $16,200,000 5-15 m band $11,660,000 Tourists $3,470,000 Total $38,190,000

As the chart labeled “Sources of Demand” shows, the 1-5 mile band represents 44% of projected sales and the 5-15 mile band represent 32%. The one ring equals 15% and tourists 9%.

Assuming average gross sales of $850 per square foot, a number which should ensure profitability for vendors, Lexington Market should be able to support approximately 44,000 square feet of net leasable fresh foods vendors.

These projections apply to the retail component of Lexington Market. At many public markets, chefs and restaurateurs looking for locally grown, fresh, and interesting foods are regular buyers. There is also potential demand from larger wholesale buyers, such as institutions and food wholesalers.

sufficient low cost parking, effective marketing, convenient hours of operation, etc.) The potential suggests what accomplished vendors might realistically achieve for sales from a trade area. Particularly strong vendors might achieve higher sales from the trade area and might have customers from outside the trade area if their business is unique and attractive to consumers. Weaker vendors will not be able to achieve the potential. These estimates are meant to serve as guides for planning, not projections of actual sales for any particular vendor.

1 mile ring 18%

1-5 m band 42%

5-15 m band 31%

Tourists 9%

Sources of Demand


Supply analysis

The following is a summary of existing tenants in the four primary Lexington Market tenant areas: the East Market, West Market, Arcade, and Paca Street stores. As the chart below shows, the East Market provides the core market experience because it has the most leased space (28,931 sf) and has the greatest number of tenants (62):

Location # Stalls % Total

Stalls Leased SF % total

SF Arcade 27 25% 12,624 21% East Market 62 56% 28,691 48% Paca stores 5 5% 9,244 15% West Market 16 15% 9,033 15% Total 110

59,592

The Arcade contains nearly as much gross square footage as the East Market (71,071 sf and 76,638 sf, respectively) but has much less leasable area. The entire leasable area within the Arcade is 12,522 sf, or only 18% of the total square footage. Most of the Arcade is devoted to seating area, performance space, and entrances and walkways. By contrast, 41% of the East Market is leasable and 72% of the West Market is leasable. Typically, public markets strive to achieve about 60-65% leasable area.

Existing tenants

The analysis looks at the four merchants categories:

• Prepared food, including delis and fast food

• Staple food, such as produce, meat, poultry, and seafood

• Specialty food, such as baked goods and nuts

• Nonfood, including liquor, tobacco, florist, and services such as shoe repair and barbershop

Prepared food is prevalent in Lexington Market, with over half of the merchants (58 of 110) classified as prepared food businesses (see chart labeled “Number of Merchants”). By contrast, there are 19 staple food businesses, 19 nonfood businesses, and 14 specialty food businesses. Prepared food businesses are spread

Nonfood, 19

Prepared Food, 58

Specialty , 14

Staple, 19

Number of Merchants


throughout the Market, with 32 of them in the East Market, 15 in the Arcade, and 11 in the West Market.

The greatest amount of leased area in Lexington Market is also devoted to prepared foods although the share of the total is not as high because prepared food businesses are smaller than the other types (see chart labeled “SF by Merchant Type”). The average square footage of a prepared food business is 388 sf, compared to the overall average of 544 sf. Prepared food merchants occupy 38% of the Market leased area (22,488 sf of total 59,832 sf).

Prepared food vendors also drive up the need for common eating areas within the Market and increase the operational costs of housekeeping staff, utilities, and waste removal.

By contrast, Lexington Market has 19 staple businesses that occupy 8,890 sf, only 15% of the Market’s leased square footage. The average size of a staple business is 468 sf. Nearly all of the staple merchants (16) are located in the East Market, with the remaining three in the West Market.

While there are only 14 specialty food businesses, they have the largest average square footage (923 sf) and constitute 21% of the Market’s leased area with 12,679 sf. However, the high average square footage is due to one large tenant, Herlings Grocery Basket, which occupies 8,096 sf. Taking away this one tenant, the average square footage for the remaining vendors drops to 353 square feet, making the specialty food tenants the smallest businesses in the Market. The specialty food businesses are located either in the East Market (9) or the Arcade (5).

Finally, there are 19 nonfood businesses at Lexington Market which occupy 15,353 sf. They average 818 sf and make up 26% of the leased area.

Public markets are most successful when each vendor becomes a well-known, branded business that attracts customers to the Market. When every tenant is a draw, every other tenant benefits equally from the draw of the others, creating the unique synergy of a public market. At present, there are very few merchants in Lexington Market that have an identifiable name or brand.

Despite the large number of

Nonfood, 15,535 ,

26%

Prepared Food,

22,488 , 38%

Specialty , 12,679 ,

21%

Staple, 8,890 ,

15%

SF by Merchant Type

818

388

906

468

- 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

1,000

Nonfood Prepared Food

Specialty Staple

Average SF


merchants at Lexington Market, there are both substantial overlaps within some product categories and notable absences of products that are typically found in large public markets. Some overlap is generally seen as desirable within a public market. Having multiple vendors creates internal competition which potentially improves quality, lowers prices, encourages innovation, and leads to product specialization. Within the staple food category, there are currently five poultry, five produce, three seafood, and three meat businesses. Management has done a commendable job in keeping these tenants within their product categories so they are selling only the core staple foods within their category, not prepared foods or other items.

By contrast, Lexington Market has ten delis that sell essentially the same products. Many of these businesses are not differentiated from the others. Some vendors commented on the copy-cat nature of Market tenants, who do not develop their own innovative ideas but rather simply copy what others are doing.

The problem of overlap has been exacerbated by recent efforts to comply with USDA regulations for SNAP participation. These regulations forced the delis to expand the range of foods they sell in the Market and making them into little general stores, working against the principle of product specialization that generally leads to success within a public market and leading to considerable product duplication.

Qualifying for SNAP participation is important to servicing the needs of the community and efforts to encourage tenants to participate—and enforcement of compliance—are applauded; however, compliance is in many cases being achieved through the sale of items that are incongruent with a tenant’s core business. Furthermore, there is a tremendous overlap and redundancy from one tenant to the next when it comes to SNAP-related offerings (i.e. cereal, canned meat, soup, etc.), often in the same small case.

Missing products include fresh baked bread, fresh cheeses, smoked meats and charcuterie, coffee and tea, wine, and wider varieties of fresh produce. In the Internet survey, respondents expressed the greatest interest in having the Market provide expanded offerings of fruits and vegetables, seafood, breads/baked goods, cafes/restaurants, local specialty foods, and cheeses/dairy. While several Market merchants sell meat and poultry, both the selection and the merchandising do not appeal to all consumers, particularly products that are not sold from refrigerated display cases and are displayed in the open-air on ice.

Approximately 80% of tenants serve soda and/or sugar-heavy faux juices, even when the product is well outside of the tenant’s primary use. Such product is counter to the spirit of the Market and inconsistent with many tenants’ core use. Alcoholic beverages served for on-premises consumption are not overly abundant and not incongruent with tenant core uses.

Lighting Tenant lighting is generally poor, with limited coverage, quality and condition. Poor

lighting can result in less appealing displays, a less enjoyable shopping experience and can even damage or prematurely age product. While variety is encouraged, tenants should be required to follow a standard criterion. The redevelopment provides the opportunity to replace the Market’s lighting system with a modern, energy-efficient LED system that will last much longer and operate at much lower cost.


Credit cards About 60% of Market’s tenants accept credit cards. In a business climate where carrying

cash is becoming increasingly uncommon, credit card acceptance is now the norm. Failing to employ a credit card system makes tenants less competitive and diminishes sales potential.

Signage - tenant Tenants utilize a diverse array of signs. Many signs are historic (or appear historic),

generally using a combination of painted graphics and neon. These unique signs add a positive character that benefits the Market, despite their current state of deterioration. Many tenant signs are poorly designed and lack character, and many are deteriorating.

Signage – menu boards Menu boards and secondary signage is generally poor. Many menu boards are in bad

condition and are poorly maintained. Makeshift hand-written pricing is often mounted to the surface and some signs have actually been abandoned altogether but remain in place. Menu boards produced for the “Get Fresh Get Fit” are newer and support this important objective, have good intentions but are too homogenous and are back-lit. Menu boards should be unique to the tenant and should be designed to a front-lit standard.

Display cases and fixtures Many of the tenant stalls have unappealing, deteriorating display cases that diminish the

shopping experience and inadequately display a product’s qualities. Some display cases are underutilized and others abandoned altogether, letting prime frontage go dark with empty fixtures. In a highly competitive grocery environment, the Market vendors appear antiquated and outdated.

Merchant comments

The consultant team conducted one-on-one interviews with 27 merchants. Many of the merchants’ comments are consistent with observations made by management, customers, and the key informants. The merchants are very concerned about the degraded facility, security, and cleanliness. They note both duplication of products among the merchants and a lack of choice. They want to attract a broader demographic base of customers.

Most merchants recognize the need to make substantial changes at the Market, even if that means closing the facility during the construction period. While some are pessimistic because sales have been declining, many remain optimistic about the future if the Market’s challenges can be addressed. Many are happy with their current stall size but others are looking to expand.

A summary of merchant interview comments can be found in Appendix A.

Prospective tenants

The following prospect sample is comprised of businesses in the Baltimore, Washington and Philadelphia regions, all of whom offer high quality product and most of whom are in the


retail trade. Several prospects—particularly those in farming, seafood and butcher trades—only operate in wholesale. This provides an initial list of businesses that Lexington Market might pursue to supplement the existing tenants. The businesses marked with an asterisk include ones that were mentioned most frequently by respondents to the Internet survey when asked if there were particular businesses they would like to see located in Lexington Market.


MARKET FOOD

BAKERY

DAIRY Atwater’s – Baltimore* Trickling Springs Creamery – PA Baked and Wired - Washington Hawk's Hill Creamery - Maryland Bonaparte Breads - Baltimore Keswick Creamery - New Jersey Bonjour - Baltimore Singing Meadow Farm - Pennsylvania Iced Gems - Washington Cherry Glen Farm - Maryland Lyon Bakery - Washington Mark Furstenberg - Washington FLOWERS United States of Pie - Washington Dutch Floral Garden - Baltimore Uptown Bakers - Washington Flowers on Fourteenth - Washington Lee's Flowers - Washington BUTCHER/DELI

Little Shop of Flowers - Washington

Ceriello Fine Foods - New York Locust Point Flowers - Baltimore Di Pasquale’s Italian Marketplace - Baltimore

Union Flowers - Washington

Domenico Cornecchia (chef) - Washington Fells Point Wholesale Meats - Baltimore PANTRY/OLIVE OIL Harvey's Market - Washington All Things Olive - Washington Red Apron - Washington Cavanna Pasta - Baltimore Singer Meats - Washington Gone Native - Washington Smith Meadows - Virginia Mama Organic Herbs - Washington Springfield Farm - Maryland Olio - Washington Stachowski’s - Washington Olivier & Co. - National Trinacria – Baltimore* PREPARED FOODS CANDY/CHOCOLATE/NUTS

Neopol - Baltimore

Edward Marc Chocolatier - Washington The Peanut Shoppe - Baltimore PRODUCE Spagnvola - Washington Albright Farms - Baltimore Anam Cara Harvest - Pennsylvania CHEESE

Big City Farms - Baltimore

Murray’s Cheese - New York Caprikorn Farms - Maryland Firefly Farms - Maryland Next Step Farm - Maryland Righteous Cheese - Washington One Straw Farm - Maryland Planet Produce - Maryland COFFEE

Reid’s Orchard - Pennsylvania

Artifact Coffee - Baltimore Simmer Rock Farm - Maryland Baked and Wired - Washington Stoecker Farm - Maryland Ceremony Coffee Roasters - Annapolis Tuscarora - Maryland Chinatown Coffee Co. - Washington The Coffee Bar DC - Washington SEAFOOD Filter Coffee and Roasters - Washington Rappahannock River Oyster Co. - Virginia Peregrine Espresso - Washington Choptank Oyster Co. - Maryland


Spro - Baltimore Walton’s Seafood - Maryland Zeke's Coffee – Baltimore* War Shore Oyster Co. - Virginia

Prepared/Fast Food

WINE PIZZA 13.5 Wine Bar - Baltimore 2 Amy’s - Washington Bin 604 - Baltimore DC Slices - Washington Chesapeake Wine Co. - Baltimore Iggies - Baltimore Cordial - Washington

Joe Squared - Baltimore

Grand Cru - Baltimore Iron Bridge Wine Co. - Baltimore SANDWICHES Pure Wine - Baltimore G by Mike Isabella - Washington Spirits of Mount Vernon - Baltimore Jetties - Washington Wine Market - Baltimore Stachowski's - Washington Taylor Gourmet - Washington BEER Alewife - Baltimore

SOUP

Brewer's Art - Baltimore Ploughboy Soups - Baltimore Flying Dog - Frederick Soup Up - Washington Heavy Seas - Baltimore Souper Freak - Baltimore Iron Hill Brewery - Baltimore Souper Girl - Washington Stillwater Ales - Baltimore Soup's On - Baltimore Union Craft - Baltimore SUSHI BARBECUE Daisuke Utagawa - Washington Curley’s Q - Washington Kaz Okochi - Washington Jurassic Pork - Baltimore Kon - Washington Kommie Pig - Baltimore Sushi Taro - Washington The Smoking Swine - Baltimore South Carolina BBQ - Baltimore

TACOS/MEXICAN

Ann Cashion - Washington BURGERS DC Empanadas - Washington Kooper’s Chowhound - Baltimore District Taco - Washington Upslidedown Dave - Baltimore Surfside - Washington TaKorean - Washington ICE CREAM

The Jolly Pig - Washington

The Charmery - Washington Woody’s Taco Island - Baltimore Dolcezza - Washington Pitango - Washington RESTAURANT Prigel Family Creamery - Baltimore Buffalo & Bergen - Washington Taharka Brothers - Baltimore Busboys and Poets - Washington City Café - Baltimore JUICE Cypriana - Baltimore Goshen - Washington Iron Rooster - Severna Park Metro Diner - Washington


PASTA Miss Shirley's Café - Baltimore Grano - Baltimore

One World Café - Baltimore

Qayum Karzai - Baltimore Ted's Bulletin - Washington

Prospect interview summary Prospect interviews were identified in five distinct categories: non-permanent, farmers’

market vendors; permanent market tenants from Baltimore; permanent market tenants from Washington; restaurateurs from the greater Baltimore area; and former tenants of Lexington Market. Detailed information from each interview is found in Appendix G.

There were several consistent, positive impressions of Lexington Market, most of which related to the Market’s potential to be restored to a place of prominence and importance in the region and to the general public, rather than to a limited segment of the population. Some frequently noted attributes include:

• History

• Local brand recognition

• Accessibility

• Size and corresponding ability to be something meaningful

• Potential for greatness

Not a single interviewee expressed an interest in transforming the Market into an exclusive or “gourmet” operation. All interviewees who had been to Reading Terminal Market viewed it as an ideal model for Lexington Market: a place where people of all backgrounds could go to get a variety of high quality food in an authentic market setting.

On the negative side, several themes emerged.

• Perceived crime problem—inside and in the surrounding area—and a blighted neighborhood.

• Quantity of intoxicated and unsavory individuals

• Deteriorating conditions on the premises and unsafe food service conditions

• Excessive fast and unhealthy food

• Lack of diversity in offerings

• Odor

Interest in being a tenant While all of the interviewees knew about Lexington Market, none regularly visit the

Market and most had not visited in at least five years. Prior visits were primarily to eat at Faidley’s for lunch and sometimes on special occasions.


A majority of those interviewed expressed a willingness to be a tenant in Lexington Market. However, all interviewees communicated that doing so would be conditioned upon a lengthy list of improvements happening in advance. Without these improvements they were not interested.

Those not interested in being tenants in the Market expressed their lack of infrastructure to accommodate expansion or a permanent tenancy. Only one interviewee indicated that the lack of interest was due to lack of confidence that the Market could be restored to any level of quality.

Weekly farmers’ market at Lexington Market Interviewees generally favored the idea of a Saturday farmers’ market outside Lexington

Market, believing there is strength in numbers. Those not favoring a farmers’ market tended to be involved in low margin businesses that sell primarily fresh food (i.e. produce, flowers, etc.).

Typical customer All interviewees described their typical customer as being educated on health and/or

interested in consuming fresh, high quality food. Their customers care about ingredients and knowing where fresh food was coming from; many are passionate about supporting local businesses.


Operations review

The operations review describes how Lexington Market currently functions and identifies key areas for improvement.

Management and operations

Site management While they are organized as two separate corporations, Lexington Market and the

Baltimore Public Markets share management staff, with the Executive Director overseeing all of the city’s public markets. The Executive Director’s office is located at Lexington Market. Site management staff specific to Lexington Market includes:

• Assistant General Manager

• Controller

• Marketing and Promotions Director

• Chief of Security and security staff (20 officers)

• Maintenance Leader and maintenance helpers (2)

• Housekeeping Supervisor and porters and housekeepers (23)

• Administrative Assistant Lexington Market has an extraordinarily large security staff compared to other large

downtown public markets. The Market also has an extensive security camera system and works closely with the Baltimore Police Department to secure the area and prevent illegal conduct. Despite the large staff, security is a major concern among both customers and vendors. In the Internet survey, the most frequent words used in response to the question, “What changes would you like to see at Lexington Market?” were “drug,” “safer,” “security,” “safety,” and “loitering” with 2,946 mentions.

Lexington Market also has a large staff devoted to cleaning and considerable attention is given to keeping the tables and 500 public seats in the Arcade clean. Despite this effort and due in large part to the facilities’ age and condition, the Market is still perceived as not being clean. In the Internet survey, the second most frequent words used in response to the question, “What changes would you like to see at Lexington Market?” were “clean,” “cleaner,” or “cleanliness” with 1,822 mentions. Key informants mentioned the strong smell in the Market and the grease-laden vapors that can cause clothes to smell after visiting the Market.

Communication with tenants was identified as an issue. Some Market tenants, particularly a number of Korean business owners, do not speak English. Since no one on staff speaks Korean, Market management utilizes other vendors when translation is needed.

The redevelopment of Lexington Market will potentially require financing, fundraising, construction, public relations, and leasing skills beyond those needed previously. This process provides the opportunity to rethink the Market’s management structure to meet the needs of the redevelopment process and the ongoing operation of the facility.


Marketing Lexington Market provides a variety of marketing services, including a regular program

of live music in the Arcade, staging of festivals, a web site and Facebook page. Annual events include Black History Celebration in February, Lunch with the Elephants (in concert with the Ringling Brothers Circus), Preakness Crab Derby in mid-May, and the Holiday Fashion Show in December. Educational programming is offered in concert with partnering organizations, including health fairs and literacy programming for youth or art activities.

The Market operates without an annual marketing plan that is tied to specific goals and objectives. The Marketing and Promotions Director does not work from a set annual budget but rather seeks approval for individual initiatives as they arise.

Lexington Market requires a sophisticated marketing plan and implementation to coincide with the redevelopment process. The customer and Internet surveys provide good baseline data to understand current and potential customers. The marketing plan must address the disruption caused by construction and changes at the Market, plus encourage new customers to visit the Market once transformation is complete. The next stages of the master plan will provide recommendations for how to accomplish this.

Leasing Since public markets regularly experience turnover among their tenants, leasing needs to

be consistent a management function. Lexington Market does not currently have a merchandising plan or a strategy for recruiting vendors who satisfy the plan. As part of the transformation process, the Market will need to substantially expand its leasing capacity.

Operations schedule Lexington Market is open from 8:30 am to 6 pm, Monday through Saturday. Tenants

with their own doors, such as Memsahib Restaurant, set their own hours.

Customers expressed a strong interest in Sunday hours. According to the customer intercept survey, 47% of existing customers said it was “very likely” and 19% said “likely” that they would visit Lexington Market on Sunday. In the Internet survey, respondents scored the likeliness of their visiting the Market on Sunday a score of 3.7 out of 5.

In the supermarket industry, Sundays have become the busiest shopping day of the week, surpassing Saturdays. Public markets that have added Sunday hours, such as Reading Terminal Market, have found that Sunday is their second busiest day (even though the Amish vendors at Reading Terminal are closed that day).

Sunday hours offer important benefits. The Market is more likely to attract a diverse range of customers on Sundays because customers from throughout the region have the leisure time on the weekend to visit downtown Baltimore. There is considerably less traffic on Sundays than midweek, reducing the amount of time needed for area residents to reach the Market, and there is much greater availability of parking. Since many customers come to public markets for the experience, not just to satisfy their basic food consumption needs, Sunday hours effectively double the amount of time that most consumers have available for this type of activity. It is strongly recommended that Lexington Market add Sunday hours as part of the transformation process.


The 6 pm closing time discourages sales among downtown residents who do not have time to visit the Market after work. At least one additional hour of operation (open until 7 pm) would likely increase sales and serve shoppers better. Reading Terminal currently closes at 6 pm but other successful public markets, such as the Milwaukee Public Market, are open until 8 pm during the week, 7 pm on Saturday, and 6 pm on Sunday.

As part of the redesign, Lexington Market can consider additional tenants having their own entryways so they can offer extended hours, particularly for businesses such as coffee shops and bakeries that can have active early morning trade. A section of the Market could be devoted to prepared foods and beverages, and offer later evening hours.

Financial analysis of current operations

The consultant team analyzed the financial statements for Lexington Market provided by Market management for the most recent fiscal years.

Income FY13 revenues surpassed $4

million, with the bulk of revenue coming from rents ($3.45 million, or 85%). Subsidy from the City of Baltimore was about $170,000 or 4% of income. The Market recorded $77,000 in grant income or 2% of the total. Interest and investment income equaled $88,000 or 2.2%.

Total income grew $173,000 between FY12 and FY13, a 3% increase. Market stall rent equaled a slightly larger share in FY12, at 87% of total income.

According to data provided by Market management, the Market leases 63,015 square feet to 110 merchants. Base rent averages $26.43 per square foot. Vendors also pay commissary rent and charges for HVAC, insurance, shared hot water, advertising, promotions, water, and special charges. In total, vendor rents equaled $2.33 million, or $36.92 per square foot. This compares favorably to Reading Terminal Market, which

$49.15 $50.85

$12.22

$38.69

$-

$10.00

$20.00

$30.00

$40.00

$50.00

$60.00

Arcade East Mkt Paca stores West Mkt

Rent/sf by Location

$21.24

$44.39

$22.15 $21.43

$- $5.00

$10.00 $15.00 $20.00 $25.00 $30.00 $35.00 $40.00 $45.00 $50.00

Nonfood Prepared Food

Specialty Staple

Rent/sf by Product


generates under $15 per square foot.

Base rents vary considerably depending on the category of tenant and the location. As the chart labeled “Rent/sf by Location” demonstrates, the highest rents come from the East Market and the Arcade, while the West Market commands less and the Paca Street stores have low rent per square foot.

Prepared food tenants pay, on average, $44.39 per square foot, which is more than twice the rate of the other three categories, which all pay about $21 per square foot. See the chart labeled “Rent/sf by Product”.

Income from the M&T Bank ATM brought in $8,413 in FY13 rent. By comparison, Reading Terminal Market has five ATMs and generates $75,000 per year in revenue, or $15,000 per ATM. Except for two long time merchants who have their own machines, Reading Terminal Market prohibits vendors from adding their own ATMs. As part of the transformation of Lexington Market, new locations should be identified for additional Market-operated ATMs.

Expenses Operating expenses for

Lexington Market in FY13 totaled $5.02 million. The chart labeled “FY13 Expenses” identifies the highest cost categories in operating Lexington Market.

The largest share of expenses is salaries and benefits, which make up 42% of the budget. While it is typical for personnel costs to be the largest operating expense in a public market, Lexington Market’s $2.1 million personnel expense is high compared to other public markets, driven by the substantial staffing for security and housekeeping.

Utilities are the next highest expense, at $1.30 million. The transformation process will provide the opportunity to replace the existing lighting, HVAC, and other building systems with higher efficiency equipment that will potentially lead to lower utility costs.

In FY13, Lexington Market spent about $200,000 on advertising and promotions, or 4.0% of expenses. While a substantial figure, this number will likely need to grow to meet the marketing and communications goals of the transformation process.

FY13 Market operations resulted in a $940,000 operating loss, which was more than made up by the $1.25 million net income from the Lexington Market Garage, resulting in Net Income from Operations of $306,000. In FY12, the Net Income was slightly higher, at

Personnel 42%

Utilities 26%

Depreciation 12%

Repairs 6%

Advertising 4%

Other 10%

FY13 Expenses Lexington Market


$461,000.

Assets On its balance sheet dated June 30, 2013, Lexington Market, Inc. reports current assets of

$7.15 million, including $6.75 million in cash and investments. Current liabilities are listed at $1.02 million. Current assets are high compared to other public markets and provide an important reserve for operating losses or capital investment.


SWOT analysis

The SWOT analysis (Strengths – Weaknesses – Opportunities – Threats) seeks to concisely state the Regional Market’s existing strengths and weaknesses, and to reveal the opportunities for redevelopment and any potential threats to its future. This analysis concludes the Phase 1 research tasks and sets the stage for the development principals, program, and design options that will be explored in Phase 2.

1. Strengths a. Well known institution b. Long, storied history c. A few well known, branded merchants d. Loyal, longstanding customers – most come weekly, 75% first came more than 10

years ago e. Has a number of “pure” fresh food vendors selling only produce, meat, poultry,

and seafood but not fast foods f. Serves fresh food needs of many city residents g. Financially secure with substantial operating reserve h. Achieving high rents per square foot i. Accessible, visible, at a public transportation hub j. Sufficient parking k. Recognized as an important city asset l. Healthy foods social marketing and menu changes

2. Weaknesses a. Pfeiffer Building

i. Serious structural and building system conditions b. East Market

i. Sloped floor; raised vendor stalls (not ADA compliant) ii. Narrow aisles

iii. Lack of natural light iv. Too many doors v. Inadequate HVAC, fire protection, electrical, plumbing systems

vi. Deteriorated stalls, bathrooms vii. Freight elevators break down

viii. Garbage located in basement ix. Smells

c. West Market i. Noncontiguous with core operation in East Market and Arcade

d. Paca Street storefronts i. Not connected to market activity


ii. Weak retailers iii. Vacancies and low rents

e. Merchants i. Product overlap, lack of variety, merchandise mix has limited appeal

ii. Decreasing sales iii. Most tenants without own brand identity iv. Lack of authenticity – ethnic foods being sold by people of unrelated

ethnicities v. Poor customer service skills; limited English, poor sanitation

vi. Old equipment, weak merchandising vii. Numerous unhealthy food options

f. Operations i. Enormous expense of security

ii. Not open Sunday – busiest fresh food buying day iii. Closes 6 pm – too early

g. Customers i. Narrow demographic – Market not attracting wide range of customers

1. Racially imbalanced 2. Income imbalanced

ii. Geographically clustered – not attracting people from entire region iii. Very few new or recent customers – nearly all first came more than 10

years ago h. Negative behavior

i. Crime ii. Panhandling

iii. Loitering iv. Rude and antisocial behavior

i. Neighborhood i. Drug sales in and around Market

ii. Deteriorated storefronts facing the West Market iii. Sidewalks and other streetscape elements need improvements

3. Opportunities a. Consumer affection for and memories of Lexington Market b. Growing interest in markets and quality, local food c. Interest among high quality area food businesses in being part of transformed

Lexington Market d. Recruitment of Lancaster County Amish vendors e. Successful national examples of public market renovation and remerchandising f. Growth of UMB g. Growing residential neighborhood around Market


h. Sunday hours – biggest grocery day i. Capital reserves and public interest in investment j. Affordable Care Act community initiative requirements that could lead to

partnerships with local hospitals to promote fresh food consumption k. Size of Market and multiple properties provides opportunities to phase

construction while still doing substantial transformation 4. Threats

a. Persistent challenges to create a comfortable and safe environment around the Market

b. Ongoing deterioration of facilities c. New fresh food competition downtown d. Lack of redevelopment immediately to east and north e. AmazonFresh delivery business


Appendix A: Key Informant and Vendor Interviews

Key informants

Name & Title Organization Category

Casey Brent, Special Assistant Mayor's Office of Economic & Neighborhood Development Government

Kim Clark, Executive VP Baltimore Development Corporation Nonprofit

Darrell Doan, Director of Econ. Dev. Baltimore Development Corporation Nonprofit

Laurie Feinberg, Assistant Director Planning Department, City of Baltimore Government

*Kirby Fowler, President Downtown Partnership of Baltimore Nonprofit

Angela Fowler-Young, Director UMB Office of Capital Budget & Planning Education

*Holly Freishtat, Food Policy Coordinator Planning Department, City of Baltimore Government

Jim French, President French Development Business

*Casper Genco, Executive Director Lexington Market Nonprofit

Bill Gilmore, Executive Director Baltimore Office of Promotion & the Arts Nonprofit

Shelia Goodwin, Special Events Director Baltimore Office of Promotion & the Arts Nonprofit

*Brian Greenan, Project Coordinator, West Side Initiative

Mayor's Office of Economic & Neighborhood Development Government

Alexandra Hoffmann, Central District Community Planner Planning Department, City of Baltimore Government

Alice Huang, Healthy Food Coordinator Planning Department, City of Baltimore Government

*Jim Hughes, VP, Research & Develoment U. of Maryland, Baltimore Education

*Steve Kraus, Director, Treasury Dept. Finance Department, City of Baltimore Government

Ron Kreitner, Director WestSide Renaissance, Inc. Nonprofit

Luke Mowbray, Manager UMB Office of Capital Budget & Planning Education

*Josh Nieman, Assistant Director MD Economic Development Corp. Government

*Kaliope Parthemos, Deputy Chief of Staff

Mayor's Office of Economic & Neighborhood Development Government

Nan Rohrer, Vice President Downtown Partnership of Baltimore Nonprofit


Jane Shaab, VP, Business Development UMB BioPark Education

*Tom Stosur, Planning Director Planning Department, City of Baltimore Government

*Colin Tarbert, Deputy Director, Neighborhood & Econ Dev Mayor's Office, City of Baltimore Government

*Robert Thomas, Assistant General Manager Lexington Market Nonprofit

John Thompson, Economic Development Officer Westside Initiative Nonprofit

Mark Wasserman, SVP, External Affairs UMMS Nonprofit

*Arnold Williams, Board Chairman Lexington Market Nonprofit

* Steering Committee members

Interview findings

• Believe that Lexington Market is a “jewel” and holds huge opportunity if redeveloped

• Agreement that the top issues facing Lexington Market include safety, deterioration/cleanliness, and smells. Panhandling, drug sales and aggressive customer behavior make the Market unpleasant for visitors.

• Dissatisfaction with the overlapping, fast food focused merchandise mix; need for healthier foods and interesting fresh foods; importance to some residents as their best fresh food option

• Reading Terminal Market seen as best model

• Merchants are optimistic about master plan improvements; sales have been decreasing and threatened by overreliance on SNAP

• Very few well known, branded merchants left at the Market. The transformation is not focused on preserving existing tenants but on providing opportunities for food vendors to offer compelling, ethnically diverse products to a wide range of consumers

• Likely need fewer but larger vendor stalls

• Building architecture not important, building can be reinvented to address problems and space needs of modern food vendors

• The memory of the Market as a place to meet and get good foods is its principle connection to most Baltimore residents

• Need to attract wider demographic range of customers while preserving existing customer base

• Lexington Market is critical to West Side’s future and the surrounding area is critical to


the Market’s success

• Opportunity to connect Lexington Market to the Arts & Entertainment District

• Northward growth of UMB provides new opportunities for the Market, including adjacency to ~30,000 people on campus each day

• Market must be financially independent and secure

• Given the depth of the problems, small bore changes will not work. Need dramatic and disruptive changes that will displace the negative behavior and then relaunch the Market with a diverse mix of tenants who serve community residents and visitors from throughout the region

Vendor interviews

The consultant team met with and interviewed 27 Market merchants selling fresh foods, prepared foods, and nonfood items. 17 of these meetings took place in a semi-structured, interview style format. Nine meetings took place as part of MVI’s effort to assist the Market’s deli owners to continue to quality for SNAP benefits.

Many of the merchants’ comments are consistent with observations made by management, customers, and the key informants. The merchants are very concerned about the degraded facility, security, and cleanliness. They note both duplication of products among the merchants and a lack of choice. They want to attract a broader demographic base of customers.

Most merchants recognize the need to make substantial changes at the Market, even if that means closing the facility during the construction period. While some are pessimistic because sales have been declining, many remain optimistic about the future if the Market’s challenges can be addressed. Many are happy with their current stall size but others are looking to expand.

Key findings include:

1. Security

a. Too many doors, thefts, drug dealing driving customers away b. Customers with $ have stopped coming because afraid and being hassled

(panhandling), particularly seniors c. Lexington Market has bad name because of drug dealing, even if much has now

been cleaned out d. Area around Lexington Market needs to be cleaned up e. Guards not effective and too cozy with ill-behaved customers

2. Facility a. Concern about building disrepair: too cold or hot, insufficient lighting,

inadequate air handling, broken freight elevator, drains b. Don’t rebuild with sloped floor c. Should close West Market – no connectivity with rest of Market


d. Vendor stalls need facelift e. “Arcade started the demise of the Market” – lost connection outside, too much

prepared food, LM no longer place for groceries 3. Sales

a. While one vendor reported strong sales, most complained of weak sales and steady decline, particularly since 2011. A few said their sales were OK and consistent

b. Sales dropped in half when drug dealing was cleaned up 4. Vendor issues

a. Need to bring in good vendors to replace the bad. Better to have fewer, better vendors, with better communication skills

b. Vendors need to renew their businesses and are not investing enough in their own businesses. Believe many vendors can invest, particularly if low interest loans available. Tell vendors upfront they need to invest.

c. Vendors need better customer service skills, English language proficiency. Over 80% of merchants are Korean, most not fluent in English even if here 10-20 years

d. Need better sanitary practices, food handling skills e. Lexington Market still a place where someone with a dream and limited capital

can open a business f. Many current vendors had no previous food service experience when they bought

the business and have made no changes in many years g. Need better communication with vendors – many won’t come to meetings, so

need newsletter, other methods 5. Product mix

a. Need to reduce product redundancy – 14 delis too many. Too many similar vendors clustered together

b. Need gourmet shops, vegetarian, Thai, Vietnamese, more produce variety, fresh pasta, coffee, fresh breads, higher quality meat and produce

c. Need strong management who don’t let vendors go outside their category, more strict with duplicating products. “Enforcement of rules is the biggest issue”

6. Customers a. Increase of SNAP use b. People want authenticity, diversity c. Need better communication with customers, build Market back

7. Transformation a. “We hope and pray for a lot of changes” – need to change customer

demographics, attract more diverse group of customers b. Think will be many vacant stalls within year if not changes. Many want to leave

but cannot c. Several vendors said to close the entire Market while rebuilding.


i. “Should close entire Market and rebuild, not piecemeal” ii. “Need to close entire Market, not section by section. Change everything”

d. One vendor expressed concern about closing and disruption to business. Thinks can just clean up and do lots of marketing (but recognizes building issues)

e. Recent improvements to the neighborhood provide an opportunity for Lexington Marekt to come back

f. “People will be enthusiastic about coming back if major changes are made” g. “Very optimistic about the future” - see great potential, want to expand h. JFX closes for 5 months so vendors there are looking for opportunities,

particularly craft vendors 8. Sunday hours make sense as part of re-launch


Appendix B: Best Practices

Public Market Best Practices

1. Criteria

– Large urban public markets

– Serve diverse mix of consumers,

including low income households,

with fresh, healthy foods

– Recently upgraded/transformed

– Focus on sale of local foods

– Cutting edge facilities and programs

2. Examples

– Findlay Market, Cincinnati

– Reading Terminal Market

– Eastern Market, Detroit

– Soulard Market, St. Louis

– Grand Rapids Downtown Market

Philadelphia

• City population: 1,547,000 (2012)

– Black 43%

– White 37%

– Hispanic 12%

– Asian 6%

– Poverty rate: 28% (Baltimore = 25%)

• Downtown population - 57,000


•>80 owner-operated independent retail businesses in 78,000 square feet

•Merchandise mix: fresh and prepared foods, and groceries; some jewelry & crafts

•City’s widest variety of dining choices under one roof


• Location: adjacent to Convention Center, commuter rail

station and subway system

– Blocks from financial district and historic area

• Average visitors per week: 120,000

– 63% Women, 37% Men

– 57% White, 38% Black, 2% Hispanic, 3% Other

• Household income

<$25,000 4%

$25,000-$40,000 36%

$40,000-$100,000 44%

>$100,000 13%

Party for the Market fundraiser

Findlay Market

Soulard Market, St. Louis

Eastern Market, Detroit


Eastern Market, Detroit – Shed 3 Renovation


Grand Rapids Downtown Market

Grand Rapids Downtown Market

Grand Rapids Downtown Market - First Floor

Outdoor Market Shed

• Multi-day, seasonal operation

• Farmers’ and craft markets

• Expansion into Heartside Park

Market Hall

• 21 independent businesses

• Fresh and prepared foods

• “Food production and

distribution warehouse”

Restaurants, retail, office

• Mixed-use, 24 hour facility

• Multiple income streams stabilize and expand Market revenue

Grand Rapids Downtown Market - First Floor

Grand Rapids Downtown Market - Second Floor

• Shared commercial

kitchen

― Kitchen incubator program

― Supports catering, special

events

― Surplus production space for

vendors

• Greenhouses for

education and events

• Demonstration

kitchen/special event

room for 250

• Kids’ Teaching Kitchen

• Public seating

• Outdoor terrace

• Kent County School

District – culinary and

health programs

Grand Rapids Downtown Market - Second Floor


Appendix C: Competitive Analysis

The following is a summary of the downtown area’s grocery and market food offerings, sorted by geographic area:

Fells Point/Canton

Major Grocery

1. Harris Teeter Address: 3501 Boston Street Accessibility: Strong. While on the periphery of the Downtown area, the store is within minutes

of I-95 and is within close proximity of planned Red Line LRT. Site design isn’t conducive to walking, nor is it well-connected to adjacent neighborhoods.

Parking: Abundant. Store is part of large power center project, with ample surface parking.

Shopping Environment: Strong. While the format of the project is suburban in nature, the amenities within are upscale and the space is newly built. Offerings are abundant.

Quality of Product: Strong. Product isn’t quite “gourmet” but offerings appeal to upscale shopper. Abundance of quality prepared and fresh food.

Healthy Food Offerings: Strong. Virtually every need of the health-conscious shopper is addressed, which only Whole Foods would surpass.

Hours: Mon to Sun: 6:00 am to 12:00 am

2. Safeway Address: 2610 Boston Street

Accessibility: Strong. Store is closer to Downtown core than others and is accessible by major arterials, but not by highway. Site is adjacent to planned Red Line LRT line and is within walking distance of urban, medium density surroundings.

Parking: Abundant. Store is part of large mixed-use project, with ample surface parking.

Shopping Environment: Strong. While the format of the project is suburban in nature, the amenities are good and the space has recently been remodeled. Offerings are abundant.

Quality of Product: Good. Product is consistent with mass-market grocery store. Fresh food is abundant. Moderate level of prepared food.

Healthy Food Offerings: Good. Limited offering of organic and wellness, but selection of fresh food is abundant and is consistent with mass-market grocery store.

Hours: 24 hours

3. Target Address: 3559 Boston Street


Accessibility: Strong. While on the periphery of the Downtown area, the store is within minutes of I-95 and is within close proximity of planned Red Line LRT. Site design isn’t conducive to walking, nor is it well-connected to adjacent neighborhoods.

Parking: Abundant. Store is part of large power center project, with ample surface parking.

Shopping Environment: Good. While the format of the project is suburban in nature, the amenities are modern and the space is newly built. Store does not have as significant a grocery component as some, but basic grocery and prepared foods are met. The store includes Target’s “Fresh Grocery” component, which features more fresh food than the average Target and about 60% of the grocery SKU’s as Super Targets.

Quality of Product: Good. Product quality is consistent with mass-market grocery store. Healthy Food Offerings: Good. Limited offering of organic and wellness, but selection of fresh

food is abundant and is consistent with mass-market grocery store. Hours: Mon to Sun: 8:00 am to 11:00 pm

Neighborhood Grocery For the purposes of this study, there are no notable neighborhood grocery businesses in

this part of the community.

Public/Private Markets

1. Broadway Market Address: 1640 Aliceanna Street Accessibility: Good. Building is situated in the heart of a medium-density, walkable, urban

neighborhood and is adjacent to planned Red Line LRT. Parking: Limited to very small surface lot and street parking, but size of market relegates it to

customer base that is predominantly living and working within close proximity.

Number of Tenants: 7 tenants (new South building planned, with additional tenants)

Shopping Environment: Satisfactory. Facility and tenant stalls have undergone renovation in recent years, although on a limited budget. Space is relatively clean and comfortable, but is unremarkable and lacks a sense of place.

Quality of Product: Satisfactory. Fresh meat and seafood are consistent with other public market offerings. Prepared food is better than other local public markets but not notable.

Healthy Food Offerings: Limited. Fresh meat and seafood is available but produce is not. Prepared and fast food dominates tenant mix.

Hours: Mon to Fri: 8:30 am to 4:30 pm; closed Saturday and Sunday

Farmers’ Markets

1. Fells Point Farmers’ Market Address: Intersection of Broadway and Thames Street


Accessibility: Good. Site is situated in the heart of a medium-density, walkable, urban neighborhood and is adjacent to planned Red Line LRT.

Parking: Limited to very small surface lot and street parking.

Number of Tenants: 28 farm/food; 11 non-food Shopping Environment: Strong. Consistent with authentic, urban farmers’ market. Quality of Product: Strong. Abundance of quality local tenants, selling fresh and prepared food. Healthy Food Offerings: Strong. Fresh food includes produce and meat. Absence of seafood. Hours: Saturday: 7:30 am to 12:30 pm – May to December

2. Highlandtown Farmers’ Market Address: Intersection of Bank Street and Highland Avenue

Accessibility: Good. Building is situated in the heart of a medium-density, walkable, urban neighborhood. Site is 5-minute drive from I-895.

Parking: Limited to small surface lot and street parking.

Number of Tenants: 9 farm/food; 4 non-food Shopping Environment: Good. Neighborhood is relatively stable, but a presence of crime

exists. Quality of Product: Good. Moderate selection of good local tenants, selling fresh and prepared

food. Healthy Food Offerings: Good. Fresh food includes produce and meat. Absence of seafood. Hours: Thursday: 4:00 pm to 8:00 pm – June to November

3. Canton Harbor Farmers’ Market Address: 1300 South Ellwood Avenue Accessibility: Good. Site is situated in the heart of a medium-density, walkable, urban

neighborhood. Site is adjacent to planned Red Line LRT. Parking: Limited to small surface lot and street parking. Number of Tenants: 18 farm/food; 6 craft Shopping Environment: Strong. Consistent with authentic, urban farmers’ market. Quality of Product: Strong. Abundance of quality local tenants, selling fresh and prepared food. Healthy Food Offerings: Strong. Fresh food includes produce and meat. Absence of seafood. Hours: Tuesday: 10:00 am to 1:00 pm – June to November

Notable Planned Grocery/Markets Marketplace at Fells Point is nearing completion. The project’s 2nd phase will include the


redevelopment of Broadway Market’s South Building, which will include a collection of local vendors.

CBD/Harbor East/Mount Vernon

Major Grocery

1. Whole Foods Address: 1001 Fleet Street Accessibility: Strong. Store is in the heart of Downtown and is within minutes of I-83 and I-95

and is adjacent to planned Red Line LRT. Store is anchor to walkable mixed-use destination.

Parking: Abundant. Store is part of large mixed-use development, with ample, adjacent garage parking that is validated with purchase.

Shopping Environment: Strong. Store is one of older prototypes and is smaller than most in the chain, but the experience is high quality. Store is adjacent to high end liquor wine shop, which also sells beer and premium spirits.

Quality of Product: Strong. Small store size puts some constraints on selection, but offerings are relatively ample and serve the needs of most customers in search of a premium experience. Abundance of quality fresh food. Prepared food offerings are more limited than larger stores in the chain.

Healthy Food Offerings: Strong. Unparalleled in the marketplace. Abundance of fresh food and wellness products.


Neighborhood Grocery

1. Eddie’s of Mount Vernon Address: 7 West Eager Street Accessibility: Good. Building is situated in the heart of a medium-density, walkable, urban

neighborhood and is two blocks from LRT. Parking: Limited to street parking, but size of market relegates it to customer base that is

predominantly living and working within close proximity.

Shopping Environment: Satisfactory. Space is relatively clean, although in need of an update. Fixtures and finishes are old and tarnished. Store caters primarily to customer in need of a quick shop, looking to stretch supplies until next visit to larger store.

Quality of Product: Satisfactory. Fresh meat and produce is consistent with other mass-market neighborhood grocers. Seafood and prepared food offerings are poor. No bakery.

Healthy Food Offerings: Limited. Produce, butcher and dairy are satisfactory, but seafood and prepared food selection is poor.


Hours: Mon to Sat: 8:30 am to 8:00 pm; Sun: 8:30 am to 5:00 pm

2. Milk and Honey Address: 816 Cathedral Street Accessibility: Good. Building is situated in the heart of a medium-density, walkable, urban

neighborhood and is two blocks from LRT. Parking: Limited to street parking, but size of market relegates it to customer base that is


Shopping Environment: Good. Space features higher end finishes and fixtures. Unperishable food is abundantly stocked, while perishable food is sparse.

Quality of Product: Strong. Quality of product is strong, but favors prepared food side of business. Amount of perishable food is continually decreasing.

Healthy Food Offerings: Limited. While product is upscale, limited fresh food is available and continues to get scaled down in favor of prepared food.

Hours: Mon to Sun: 7:00 am to 7:00 pm

3. Trinacria Address: 406 North Paca Street Accessibility: Satisfactory. Building is situated in the heart of a medium-density, walkable,

urban neighborhood but is surrounded by undesirable properties that make walking to it less attractive. Site is one block from LRT.

Parking: Limited to street parking. Uniqueness and quality gives it the ability to draw from outside the neighborhood, but lack of parking limit the customer base to local residents and employees.

Shopping Environment: Good. Space is relatively clean and its unpolished, cluttered aesthetic exude a character that most find charming and appealing.

Quality of Product: Strong. Product is not considered “gourmet,” nor is it organic or free range, but fresh and cured meats are as good as any local butcher. Packaged goods are unremarkable. Prepared foods are not “gourmet” but are well-respected in the marketplace.

Healthy Food Offerings: Satisfactory. Aside from fresh meat and cheese, balance of product is processed.

Hours: Tue to Sat: 8:00 am to 4:30 pm; closed Mon and Sun


1. Lexington Market Address: 400 West Lexington Market


Accessibility: Strong. Building is situated in the heart of a high-density, walkable, urban neighborhood. Site is adjacent to subway, one block from LRT and blocks from I-95.

Parking: Strong. Abundance of on-site garage, surface and street parking.

Number of Tenants: 94 farm/food; 20 non-food Shopping Environment: Limited. Common area and tenant spaces are in need of major

renovation. Perception of crime and presence of drug users and dealers makes experience uncomfortable for most, severely limiting the market’s drawing power.

Quality of Product: Poor. Seafood is strong but majority of tenants serve product and food that is average or below average, providing little to no destination appeal.

Healthy Food Offerings: Limited. Fresh meat, produce and seafood are abundant but tenant mix is heavily skewed towards fast food and unhealthy prepared food.

Hours: Mon to Sat: 8:30 am to 6:00 pm; closed Sunday

Farmers’ Markets

1. Baltimore Farmers Market Address: Intersection of Holliday Street and Saratoga Street Accessibility: Good. Site is situated in the heart of a high-density, walkable, urban neighborhood

but is surrounded by undesirable properties that make walking to it less attractive. Immediately adjacent to I-83 and two blocks from subway station.

Parking: Good. Several surface parking lots and abundance of street parking are available.

Number of Tenants: 90 farm/food; 14 craft Shopping Environment: Strong. Consistent with authentic, urban farmers’ market. Quality of Product: Strong. Abundance of quality local tenants, selling fresh and prepared food. Healthy Food Offerings: Strong. Fresh food includes produce, meat and seafood. Hours: Sunday: 7:00 am to 12:00 pm – April to December

2. Pratt Street Farmers’ Market Address: Intersection of Pratt Street and Light Street

Accessibility: Good. Site is situated in the heart of a high-density, walkable, urban neighborhood, just blocks from subway and light rail. Sight is blocks from I-83 and I-95.

Parking: Good. Several parking garages are nearby, along with an abundance of street parking. The market’s limited number of vendors, along with operating hours limit its appeal to area office workers and tourists.

Number of Tenants: 6 farm/food; 0 non-food Shopping Environment: Strong, although the limited number of vendors diminishes its appeal.

Quality of Product: Strong, but limited.


Healthy Food Offerings: Limited. 1 farm, with balance of tenants offering prepared and fast food.

Hours: Thursday: 11:00 am to 2:00 pm – June to November

3. University Farmers’ Market Address: University Plaza Park Accessibility: Good. Site is situated in the heart of a high-density, walkable, urban

neighborhood, just blocks from subway and light rail. Sight is blocks from I-95 and the Baltimore-Washington Parkway.

Parking: Good. Several parking garages are nearby, along with an abundance of street parking.

Number of Tenants: 12 farm/food; 0 non-food Shopping Environment: Good, although the neighborhood is at times plagued with some

undesirable activity.

Quality of Product: Strong mix of local farms and prepared food vendors. Healthy Food Offerings: Strong. 50% of vendors are farm-based, offering produce and meat. Hours: Tuesday: 10:00 am to 2:30 pm – May to December

Notable Planned Grocery/Markets Whole Foods has been exploring the opportunity of moving its Harbor East location to a larger neighboring site, which would allow for a much larger store. Discussions with the project’s developer are ongoing and appear likely to materialize.

Bolton Hill/Mondawmin

Major Grocery

1. Save A Lot Address: 250 McMechen Street Accessibility: Good. Store is closer to Downtown core than others but is farther from major

arterials. Site is minutes from I-95, but store services primarily those living in the immediate proximity. Surrounding neighborhood is very walkable, although site itself is suburban in design.

Parking: Abundant. Store is stand-alone, with ample surface parking.

Shopping Environment: Satisfactory. The store is old and in need of a renovation, but clean. Given the lack of grocery amenities in many of Baltimore’s lower income neighborhoods, this store is well-received in the community, drawing customers from lower income neighborhoods to the West and South and also some spillover from Bolton Hill and nearby MICA.


Quality of Product: Satisfactory. Product is consistent with value-oriented grocery stores; it is not gourmet but is serving the local population well. Fresh food is abundant, including produce, meat, seafood and dairy. Moderate level of prepared food.

Healthy Food Offerings: Good. Limited offering of organic and wellness, but selection of fresh food is abundant and is consistent with a value-oriented grocery store.


2. Shoppers Food Address: 2000 Gwynns Falls Parkway Accessibility: Good. Store is adjacent to subway station and is a 5-minute drive from I-83. Site

is suburban in design and is not walkable, although being part of a shopping mall development creates some synergies.

Parking: Abundant. Ample surface parking.

Shopping Environment: Satisfactory. The store design is unremarkable but the space is clean and serves the community well.

Quality of Product: Satisfactory. Product is closer in quality to a mass-market grocery store than a value-oriented store. Fresh food is abundant, including produce, meat, seafood and dairy. Moderate level of prepared food, although much of it is unhealthy.



3. Target Address: 3201 Tioga Pkwy Accessibility: Good. Store is adjacent to subway station and is a 5-minute drive from I-83. Site

is suburban in design and is not walkable, although being part of a shopping mall development creates some synergies.

Parking: Abundant. Ample surface parking.

Shopping Environment: Good. While the format of the project is suburban in nature, the amenities are modern and the space is relatively new in construction. Store does not have as significant a grocery component as some, but basic grocery and prepared foods are met. The store includes Target’s “Fresh Grocery” component, which features more fresh food than the average Target and about 60% of the grocery SKU’s as Super Targets.

Quality of Product: Good. Product quality is consistent with mass-market grocery store. Healthy Food Offerings: Good. Limited offering of organic and wellness, but selection of fresh

food is abundant and is consistent with mass-market grocery store. Hours: Mon to Sun: 8:00 am to 11:00 pm


Neighborhood Grocery For the purposes of this study, there are no notable neighborhood grocery businesses in this part of the community.

Public/Private Markets Avenue Market

Address: 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue

Accessibility: Good. Building is situated in the heart of a medium-density neighborhood but is surrounded by vacant or undesirable properties, making surroundings less walkable. Site is blocks from subway station.

Parking: Strong. Abundance of surface parking.

Number of Tenants: 13 food/farm tenants; 6 non-food tenants


Quality of Product: Satisfactory. Fresh meat and seafood are consistent with other public market offerings. Prepared food is better than other local public markets but not notable.

Healthy Food Offerings: Good. Fresh meat, seafood and produce are all available.

Hours: Mon to Sat: 7:00 am to 6:00 pm; closed Sunday

Farmers’ Markets

1. Druid Hill Farmers’ Market Address: Howard P. Rawlings Conservatory

Accessibility: Good. Site is situated in the heart of a medium-density, walkable, urban neighborhood. Site is adjacent to I-83.

Parking: Abundance of surface parking.

Number of Tenants: 8 food/farm tenants; 2 non-food tenants Shopping Environment: Good. While surrounding neighborhoods have issues with crime, the

park is relatively stable and is a one-of-a-kind setting. Quality of Product: Good. Moderate selection of good local tenants, selling fresh and prepared

food. Healthy Food Offerings: Good. Fresh food includes produce and meat. Absence of seafood. Hours: Wednesday – 3:30 pm to 7:30 pm – June to October


2. State Center Farmers Market Address: 201 West Preston Street Accessibility: Good. Site is situated at crossroads of Mount Vernon and Bolton Hill. Site is

straddled by two very walkable neighborhoods. Close proximity to subway, light rail and I-83.


Number of Tenants: 10 food/farm tenants; 4 non-food tenants Shopping Environment: Good. While surrounding neighborhoods have issues with crime, the

site itself is relatively stable. Quality of Product: Good. Moderate selection of good local tenants, selling fresh and prepared

food. Healthy Food Offerings: Good. Fresh food includes produce and meat. Absence of seafood. Hours: Wednesday: 10:00 am to 2:00 pm – June to December

Planned Development There are no immediate grocery/market-related projects being planned for this area.

Charles Village/Station North/Waverly/Hampden

Major Grocery

1. Safeway Address: 2401 N. Charles Street Accessibility: Good. Store is closer to Downtown core than others but is farther from major

arterials. Site is within walking distance of urban, medium density surroundings. Parking: Abundance of surface parking.

Shopping Environment: Strong. While the format of the project is suburban in nature, the amenities are good and the space has recently been remodeled. Offerings are abundant.


Healthy Food Offerings: Good. Limited offering of organic and wellness, but selection of whole food is abundant and is consistent with mass-market grocery store.


2. Giant (Hampden) Address: 1020 West 41st Street


Accessibility: Good. Store is closer to Downtown core than others but is farther from major arterials. Site is within walking distance of urban, medium density surroundings and is minutes from I-83.


Shopping Environment: Good. While the format of the project is suburban in nature, the amenities are good. Giant’s prototype has a dated look and has not kept up with trends in design; this applies to new and remodeled stores. Offerings are abundant.



Hours: 24 hours

3. Save A Lot Accessibility: Good. Store is closer to Downtown core than others but serves primarily those

living within close proximity of the site. Site is minutes from I-83. Surrounding neighborhood is walkable, although site itself is suburban in design and neighboring blocks are home to many vacant properties, making walking less attractive.


Shopping Environment: Satisfactory. The store is old and in need of a renovation, but clean. Given the lack of grocery amenities in many of Baltimore’s lower income neighborhoods, this store is well-received in the community, seeing customers from lower income neighborhoods to the West and South and also some spillover from Bolton Hill and nearby MICA.




4. Giant (Waverly) Address: 1020 West 41st Street Accessibility: Satisfactory. Site is surrounded by low-density neighborhood and several vacant

properties, making walking around and to the site less desirable. Limited access to transit. Parking: Abundance of surface parking.


Shopping Environment: Good. While the format of the project is suburban in nature, the amenities inside are good. Giant’s prototype has a dated look and has not kept up with trends in design; this applies to new and remodeled stores. Offerings are abundant.



Hours: Mon to Sat: 6:00 am to 12:00 am; Sun: 6:00 am to 11:00 pm


1. Eddie’s Address: 3117 Saint Paul Street Accessibility: Good. Building is situated in the heart of a medium-density, walkable, urban

neighborhood. Building is near major arterials but lacks access to transit or a highway. Parking: Limited to street parking, but size of market relegates it to customer base that is


Shopping Environment: Satisfactory. Space is relatively clean, although in need of an update. Fixtures and finishes are old and tarnished. Store caters primarily to customer in need of quick shop, looking to stretch supplies until next visit to larger store.

Quality of Product: Satisfactory. Fresh meat and produce is consistent with other mass-market neighborhood grocers. Seafood offerings are poor. No bakery.

Healthy Food Offerings: Limited. Produce, butcher and dairy are satisfactory, but seafood selection is poor.


Farmers’ Market

1. 32nd Street Farmers’ Market Address: Intersection of East 32nd Street and Barclay Street

Accessibility: Good. Building is situated in the heart of a medium-density, walkable, urban neighborhood.

Parking: Limited to small surface lot and street parking.

Number of Tenants: 49 farm/food; 6 non-food Shopping Environment: Good. Neighborhood is relatively stable, although a presence of crime

exists. Quality of Product: Strong. Abundance of quality local tenants, selling fresh and prepared food. Healthy Food Offerings: Strong. Fresh food includes produce, meat and seafood. Hours: Saturdays: 7:00 am to 12:00 pm – year-round


Notable Planned Grocery/Markets

1. The Whitehall Building Terranova Ventures is planning the redevelopment of a mill on the Fallsway in Hampden, which may include a multi-tenant market totaling up to 15,000 SF.

2. 25th Street Station

Plans have been approved for a mixed-use project in Remington (25th Street and Howard Street) that will include a 104,000 SF Walmart store, which will include a moderately-sized grocery component.

3. The Rotunda

As part of the ambitious redevelopment of Hampden’s Rotunda project, MOM’s Organic Market is slated to open a 15,000 SF store in late 2014.

Pigtown/Union Square

Major Grocery There are no notable major grocery businesses in this part of the community.

Neighborhood Grocery There are no notable neighborhood grocery businesses in this part of the community.


1. Hollins Market Address: 26 South Arlington Avenue Accessibility: Satisfactory. Building is situated in the heart of a medium-density neighborhood

that is very walkable. There are several vacant properties in the area, along with some undesirable activity, which makes walking less attractive. Limited access to mass transit or major arterials.

Parking: Limited. Street parking only.

Number of Tenants: 10 food/farm tenants; 5 non-food tenants

Shopping Environment: Satisfactory. Facility and tenant stalls are in need of renovation. Space is clean, but grimy and while building is iconic, its current state lacks a sense of place.

Quality of Product: Satisfactory. Fresh meat and seafood are consistent with other public market offerings.

Healthy Food Offerings: Good. Fresh meat, seafood and produce are all available. Hours: Mon to Sat: 7:00 am to 6:00 pm; closed Sundays

Farmers’ Markets There are no notable farmers’ markets in this part of the community.


Notable Planned Grocery/Markets There are no notable neighborhood grocery businesses in this part of the community.

Federal Hill/South Baltimore

Major Grocery

1. Harris Teeter Address: 1801 Whetstone Way

Accessibility: Strong. Project is in the middle of a walkable, medium-density neighborhood and is adjacent to I-95.

Parking: Abundant. Store is part of large mixed-use project, with ample garage parking.

Shopping Environment: Strong. Amenities are upscale and the space is newly built. Offerings are abundant.

Quality of Product: Strong. Product isn’t quite “gourmet” but offerings appeal to upscale shopper who is not very cost-conscious. Abundance of quality prepared and fresh food.

Healthy Food Offerings: Strong. Virtually every need of the health-conscious shopper is addressed, which only Whole Foods would surpass.


2. Shoppers Food Address: 857 East Fort Avenue Accessibility: Strong. Project is surrounded by medium-density, walkable neighborhood and is

within minutes of I-95. Site design isn’t conducive to walking. Parking: Abundant. Store is part of strip center, with ample surface parking.

Shopping Environment: Satisfactory. Format of the project is suburban in nature, and the store design is unremarkable, but the space is clean.

Quality of Product: Satisfactory. Product is closer in quality to a mass-market grocery store than a value-oriented store. Fresh food is abundant, including produce, meat, seafood and dairy. Moderate level of prepared food, although much of it is unhealthy.

Healthy Food Offerings: Good. Limited offering of organic and wellness, but selection of fresh food is abundant and is consistent with a mass-market grocery store.


3. Walmart Address: 2701 Port Covington Drive Accessibility: Strong. Project is adjacent to I-95. Site is suburban in nature, is not walkable and

lacks meaningful connections to surrounding neighborhoods.



Shopping Environment: Poor. Format of the project is suburban in nature, and the store design is unremarkable.

Quality of Product: Satisfactory. Product is closer in quality to a mass-market grocery store than a value-oriented store. Grocery component is limited, with virtually no fresh food.

Healthy Food Offerings: Poor. Very little fresh or healthy food. Hours: Mon to Sun: 6:00 am to 12:00 am

Neighborhood Grocery For the purposes of this study, there are no notable neighborhood grocery businesses in

this part of the community.


1. Cross Street Market Address: 1065 South Charles Street Accessibility: Good. Building is situated in the heart of a medium-density, walkable, urban

neighborhood. Site is blocks from I-95. Parking: Limited to street parking and nearby public garage.

Number of Tenants: 21 farm/food; 5 non-food


Quality of Product: Satisfactory. Fresh meat, seafood and produce are consistent with other public market offerings. Prepared food is better than other local public markets but not notable.

Healthy Food Offerings: Good. Fresh meat, seafood and produce are available. Hours: Mon to Sat: 7:00 am to 7:00 pm; closed Sunday

Farmers’ Markets

1. Baltimore Museum of Industry Farmers’ Market Address: 1415 Key Highway Accessibility: Strong. Project is surrounded by medium-density, walkable neighborhood and is

within minutes of I-95. Site design is not conducive to walking. Parking: Abundance of surface parking.

Number of Tenants: Shopping Environment: Good. Unique shed facility, overlooking the Inner Harbor.

Quality of Product:


Healthy Food Offerings: Hours: Saturday: 9:00 am to 1:00 pm – May to November

Notable Planned Grocery/Markets There are no plans for notable grocery or market uses in this area in the near future.

Upper Broadway/Johns Hopkins Medical

Major Grocery

1. Save A Lot Accessibility: Good. Store is closer to Downtown core than others but is farther from major

arterials. Site is minutes from I-95, but store services primarily those living in the immediate proximity. Surrounding neighborhood is very walkable, although site itself is suburban in design.


Shopping Environment: Satisfactory. The store is old and in need of a renovation, but clean. Given the lack of grocery amenities in many of Baltimore’s lower income neighborhoods, this store is well-received in the community, seeing customers from lower income neighborhoods to the West and South and also some spillover from Bolton Hill and nearby MICA.





1. Murray’s Address: 2238 East Monument Street Accessibility: Satisfactory. Store fronts a major arterial but lacks connectivity to mass transit or

highway. Building is situated in the heart of a medium-density, walkable, urban neighborhood, but walkability is hindered by numerous vacant properties and undesirable activities throughout the neighborhood.

Parking: Limited to street parking, but size of market relegates it to customer base that is predominantly living and working within close proximity.

Shopping Environment: Satisfactory. Space is relatively clean, although in need of an update. Fixtures and finishes are old and tarnished.


Quality of Product: Satisfactory. Fresh meat and produce is consistent with other value-oriented neighborhood grocers.

Healthy Food Offerings: Satisfactory. Produce, butcher and dairy are satisfactory, but seafood and prepared food selection is poor.



1. Northeast Market Address: 2101 East Monument Street

Accessibility: Satisfactory. Building fronts a major arterial but lacks connectivity to mass transit or highway. The market is situated in the heart of a medium-density, walkable, urban neighborhood, but walkability is hindered by numerous vacant properties and undesirable activities throughout the neighborhood.

Parking: Limited to small parking lot and street parking.

Number of Tenants: 35 food/farm tenants/7 non-food tenants

Shopping Environment: Satisfactory. Facility has recently undergone a renovation; primarily to exterior and common areas. Space is clean and comfortable, but is unremarkable and lacks a sense of place.

Quality of Product: Satisfactory. Fresh meat, seafood and produce are consistent with other public market offerings. Prepared food is better than other local public markets but not notable.

Healthy Food Offerings: Good. Fresh meat, seafood and produce are all available. Hours: Mon to Sat: 7:00 am to 6:00 pm; closed Sunday

Farmers’ Markets

1. Johns Hopkins Hospital Farmers Market Address: 1650 Orleans Street

Accessibility: Satisfactory. Site lacks connectivity to mass transit, highway or other major arterials. The site is situated in the heart of a medium-density, walkable, urban neighborhood, but walkability is hindered by numerous vacant properties and undesirable activities throughout the neighborhood.

Parking: Limited to small parking lot and street parking.

Number of Tenants: Shopping Environment: Satisfactory. Facility and tenant stalls have undergone renovation in

recent years, although on a limited budget. Space is relatively clean and comfortable, but is unremarkable and lacks a sense of place.


Quality of Product: Healthy Food Offerings: Hours: Thursday: 10:00 am to 2:00 pm – April to November

Notable Planned Grocery/Markets

1. East Baltimore Development Initiative The East Baltimore Development Initiative is a partnership between the Johns Hopkins medical campus and developer Forest City. The $2B mixed-use project’s vision includes a grocery component; something that is different from existing Northeast Market and Save A Lot, serving the surrounding community and the thousands of people employed on the campus.


Appendix D: Development Context

The condition and evolution of the immediate environment around Lexington Market, the broader West Side neighborhood, the downtown, and the metropolitan region all have an impact on what can and should happen to revitalize Lexington Market. This report explores the development context around the Market, including issues relating to pedestrian, vehicular and public transit access; parking; safety, land uses; housing; and planned development. The analysis begins with the blocks immediately around Lexington Market and then looks at the Westside neighborhood, the rest of downtown, the city, and the region.

Immediate environment

Pedestrian access and experience Lexington Market has many entrances, making pedestrian access into the Market very

easy. Unlike a supermarket, there is no single front door but rather numerous entrances along the east, south and west sides of both the West Market and the East Market/Arcade. For a pedestrian coming to the Market, there is a full street grid of sidewalks and multiple access points to the Market from the surrounding neighborhood.

While a customer may approach and enter the Market from a variety of access points, the character of these entries differs depending on the location. There is extensive pedestrian street activity near the N. Eutaw Street entrances generated by a major transit hub, surrounding stores, Market customers, and street vendors selling a variety of products including fragrances, jewelry, and clothing. Most of the pedestrian activity near the N. Paca Street entrances seems to relate to the Market. It involves people moving from one Market building to the other or going to or from a parking garage. Market customers must cross N. Paca Street at one of two stop lights and crosswalks between the East and West Market buildings. There is also a “gypsy cab” operation along the east side of N. Paca Street beside the East Market. Drivers of private cars offer rides to shoppers leaving the Market.There is widespread public perception that the intersection of N. Eutaw and W. Lexington Streets is beset by loitering and drug activity, tied to the clients of several drug rehabilitation clinics in the area. This makes the entryways to Lexington Market scary or uncomfortable for customers. Customers who were surveyed at Lexington Market cited dealing with drugs and junkies as the most needed change there. Respondents to the Internet survey identified a lack of safety as the primary reason they do not visit the Market.

As the chart below shows, crime statistics for the area around Lexington Market and Westside Downtown suggest somewhat limited and declining danger in the area over the past two years. Most of the crime is larceny (theft of personal property), followed by common assaults and then robberies.


Lexington Market and Westside Crime Statistics

Within 1 Block of Market Rest of Westside Crime Type 2012 2013 Jan –

Apr 2013

Jan – Apr. 2014

2012 2013 Jan –Apr

2013

Jan – Apr

2014 VIOLENT CRIME (Total) 62 53 18 17 233 239 78 66 Homicide 1 0 0 0 1 5 1 0 Rape 1 3 0 0 8 6 4 2 Robbery 33 34 12 12 135 152 44 36

Aggravated Assault 27 16 6 5 89 76 29 28

PROPERTY CRIME (Total) 152 142 41 32 1087 850 282 229 Burglary 6 9 2 0 114 79 25 25 Larceny 143 127 39 30 915 715 243 191 Auto Theft 2 6 0 2 56 54 13 12 Arson 1 0 0 0 2 2 1 1 COMMON ASSAULTS (Total) 62 42 11 17 251 175 50 70 Grand Total 276 237 70 66 1571 1264 410 365

Considerable attention is being focused on accurate assessment of the problem and on strategies for resolving it. Solving the problem and changing the discomfort of many current and potential Market customers will be essential for successful Market revitalization.

The Police Department leads security efforts on the Westside with a team of 14 officers, and coordination with Lexington Market security staff, the University of Maryland Police, MTA Police, and Downtown Partnership’s Clean and Safe Team. In its recently published Strategic Plan for Improvement of Public Safety, the Baltimore Police Department reports that it has launched a “Take Back Public Spaces” strategy at the Market. The Department is taking the lead in addressing true malfeasance around the Market, while collaborating with other agencies and organizations to deal with homeless persons, substance abusers, and individuals suffering from mental health ailments.

There is general agreement among law enforcement and human service agencies that prescription drug trafficking is the primary drug problem in the area. Interestingly, only a small percentage of those being arrested for drug offenses near Lexington Market are receiving treatment at the nearby or other drug rehab clinics. The conclusion is that those looking for drugs are mostly untreated addicts.

A team of human services and other agencies, including Behavioral Health System and the Police Department, has developed strategies in addition to police anti-crime activities to address these addiction problems. Public and non-public treatment centers are now being notified if their patients are arrested or cited around the Market. Outreach services are being provided in the area. The addition of a nurse-managed health center near the Market could potentially serve the addicted population, following the model of the 28-year-old program run by the University of Maryland School of Nursing at Paul’s Place on Washington Boulevard.

Environmental design strategies could also be utilized in and around the Market to improve security. Physical features that can make a drug dealer or other criminal feel more likely to be caught will help reduce crime. Increasing visibility and reducing places where it is easy to hide are such measures. An interior and access control review of Lexington Market,


dated February 29, 2012, made a number of recommendations dealing with natural surveillance, lighting, natural access control, and application of closed circuit TV surveillance. In response, the Market installed seven new cameras that are connected to the Police Department’s Citiwatch monitoring system. The Market already has 45 other surveillance cameras which are monitored in the Market offices. The review also recommended better lighting maintenance, which has received more attention. Other recommendations to consider in the master plan include:

• Reducing the number of public entrances and making those entrances larger

• Adding more windows on exterior walls to allow views in and out of the Market

• Rearranging the loading dock area so that it is no longer open to pedestrian access Environmental design strategies have been applied on the street with mixed results. In

fall 2013, the city prohibited most street parking in the 100 and 200 blocks of N. Eutaw Street as a way of disrupting drug transactions. While the strategy seems to have reduced the incidence of drug transactions, the Market merchants felt that it significantly reduced their sales because customers could not pull up to the Market and quickly buy something to eat. In response, the Market has worked with the Police Department to relax some of the parking prohibitions. Since the drug trade has not disappeared, additional environmental design strategies should be considered as part of the master plan implementation, but mitigation measures should be considered to minimize negative effects.

Sidewalk materials vary greatly from block to block around the Market, ranging from brick, to combinations of brick and concrete, to paver blocks, to concrete only. Sidewalk conditions around the Market range from good to rough. Some adjacent streets have older street trees, some have younger ones, and some have none or very few. Some tree pits are messy and trash strewn, while others have well-maintained iron tree-grates. Street trees and tree pits maintained by the University of Maryland on N. Paca Street south of the Market, for example, are in good condition, with new mulch around them. Surrounding streets are lit by both lower, sidewalk lamps and taller lights aimed at general street illumination. Lamp styles vary. Other than street trees, there are a few small (and in some cases, dead) bushes in large pots near the Market’s main entrances.

The Market would benefit from more consistent and well maintained sidewalks, pedestrian lighting, well marked crosswalks, and pedestrian amenities on all of the blocks surrounding the Market. The places where improvements are most needed are:

• On the west side of N. Eutaw St between W. Saratoga and W. Fayette Streets and the east side between W. Lexington and W. Fayette Streets, trees should be added to empty tree pits, tree grates should be installed, and rough sidewalk sections should be repaired. Two dead bushes in large planters near Market entrances should be replaced. Perhaps UMB’s tree maintenance program can be applied to this area.

• On the south side of W. Lexington Street between N. Paca and N. Greene Streets, sidewalks should be repaired and some street trees added.

• At the Market Center U.S. Post Office at N. Greene and W. Lexington Streets, the tree pits and planter beds need to be maintained. They are overgrown with weeds.


• On N. Greene Street, rough sidewalk sections in the blocks north and south of W. Lexington Street and the entrances to the garage should be repaired. The weed-filled large planter at the southwest corner of the West Market should be replanted and maintained.

Pedestrian-level signage and wayfinding are other important factors to attract customers to the Market, particularly out-of-town visitors. At present, the city has a system of downtown signs located at street corners that are aimed at pedestrian traffic. Some of these signs give direction to Lexington Market, including those located at:

• Liberty and W. Fayette

• N. Howard & W. Fayette

• W. Pratt and S. Eutaw

• W. Lombard and S. Eutaw

• N. Howard and W. Lexington (2 signs)

• W. Saratoga and N. Eutaw These signs are in good condition and easy to read. A few other intersections,

particularly ones further east near Charles Street and the Inner Harbor, would also be good locations for signs.

Automobile access and parking There is generally easy vehicular access to Lexington Market from all directions. The

Baltimore street grid pattern provides many alternate routes to the site. From the south and north, the Paca Street (northbound) and Greene Street (southbound) one-way pair typically provide the easiest routes. Paca Street provides entrance to all three parking garages at or near the Market (Lexington Market Garage, Market Center Garage, and Baltimore Grand Garage). Greene Street offers entrance to the Lexington Market Garage. Two-way Eutaw Street is not an efficient north-south automobile access route because traffic is slow and there is only access to one nearby garage, the Atrium at the northeast corner of N. Eutaw and W. Fayette Streets. From the west, vehicles on eastbound Pratt Street, Baltimore Street, Saratoga Street or Mulberry Street can reach Paca/Greene Streets for Market access. From the east, westbound vehicles on Lombard Street, Fayette Street, Saratoga Street, or Franklin Street allow the same connection.

There is a large but faded sign directing drivers to Lexington Market on W. Lombard Street via Paca Street. While the sign location is excellent, it needs to be repainted or otherwise updated.

While the street grid is extensive, downtown Baltimore experiences considerable traffic and congestion, particularly during the workweek around rush hour times. While knowledgeable drivers know which streets to avoid, infrequent downtown visitors or tourists can experience long delays. A Google Maps search for a route to the Market provides directions via Eutaw Street, rather than Paca Street, which is the better driving option. At present, the Lexington Market website does not give directions to the Market. The website would be enhanced with preferred driving directions and information about parking garages.

There is currently ample, predominately garage parking for Lexington Market patrons,


merchants and employees. According to a March 2013 Westside Parking Study prepared for Lexington Market, the Parking Authority of Baltimore City, and UMB, there are about 3,400 parking spaces within one block of Lexington Market. A survey of weekday, midday occupancy found high occupancy rates but available spaces in all the garages:

Garage/Lot Spaces Occupancy Lexington Market Garage 1,107 88% Market Center Garage 606 61% Baltimore Grand 987 86% Atrium 550 75%

Lexington Market surface lot 110 Total 3,360

There is also some on-street parking, mainly on N. Paca Street and the 500 block of W. Lexington Street. Most nearby streets have rush hour parking prohibitions to allow more traffic lanes. Since the busiest shopping days for public markets are generally Saturdays and Sundays, these parking garages provide sufficient capacity during peak times.

Public transit Lexington Market is located within a public transit-rich area, with buses, Metro, Light

Rail, and more planned for this area. This makes the Market very accessible for people throughout the region, including the many city residents who do not own a car. According to the customer intercept survey, half of all Lexington Market customers took public transportation to reach the Market, with 39% using the bus and 10% using Light Rail or Metro.

Baltimore’s Metro, which connects northwest Baltimore and the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions in East Baltimore, has a station on Eutaw Street across the street from the Market’s front door. There is a second entrance to the same station one block north at the northeast corner of N. Eutaw and W. Saratoga Streets. The Metro’s Central Control Building is also located at this corner. According to ridership data from the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) for 2012, about 7,700 people exit the Lexington Market subway on an average weekday.

Northbound buses stop on Eutaw Street at the Metro entrance and connect to and from northeast, north, northwest, southern and western parts of the region. Many bus lines linking east and west Baltimore, as well as north/south connections, run on Saratoga Street, Baltimore and Fayette Streets, Eutaw Street, and Paca and Greene Streets. According to MTA, nearly 22,600 people get on or off a bus within two blocks of Lexington Market on an average weekday, making buses the most frequently used public transportation option near the Market.

The sidewalk at the bus stop next to the Metro entrance is covered by a canvas awning. Concrete benches and trash cans are provided for bus patrons. These facilities are well-maintained.

Baltimore Light Rail, connecting north Baltimore and the Thurgood Marshall BWI Airport to the south, runs in the bed of N. Howard Street in downtown, just one block east of the


Market. The MTA states that 3,702 people board the Light Rail at Howard and Lexington on an average weekday.

While overall Baltimore regional transit ridership has increased slightly (2.4%) in the last decade, that increase has come in all modes of public transit except local buses. Local bus ridership declined 5.4%. Metro use increased by 6.4% and Light Rail use increased 7.1%.

A comprehensive Bus Network Improvement Project for the entire Baltimore region is nearing completion. MTA is now focusing on downtown bus circulation where most of the region’s buses connect. The program invites recommendation about how bus service can better benefit Lexington Market. Although specific plans in this area have not been completed, MTA is certain that much service will remain on Eutaw Street to be able to connect with Baltimore’s Metro. Given the reliance of so many Market customers on the bus, it is important that the area remain a circulation hub.

The City also operates a free shuttle bus, called the Charm City Circulator. The system, with four separate routes, is geared to tourists and downtown travelers. The closest route to Lexington Market, the Orange Line, runs between Hollins Market and Harbor East. Unfortunately, the Circulator does not stop at the Market: the closest Orange Line stops to the Market are westbound stops at W. Lombard and S. Howard Streets (4 blocks away), and W. Lombard and S. Greene Streets (3 blocks away). The closest eastbound stop is at W. Baltimore and N. Greene Streets (2 blocks away).

A new, east/west Red Line Light Rail is being planned and will run in a tunnel under downtown. The closest station to Lexington Market will be at Howard and Lombard Streets, four blocks away. Pending funding, construction is expected to begin in 2015, with line operation in 2021.

Adjacent uses and activities

The environment surrounding Lexington Market plays a significant part in the experience of someone visiting Lexington Market. The majority of uses on the streets facing Market buildings are convenience retail, with some clothing stores on W. Lexington between N. Howard and N. Eutaw Streets. Figure 1 summarizes adjacent Market activities while photographs of the streets around the Market are included at the end of this appendix.

Specific streets have the following characteristics:

N. Eutaw Street – 100 and 200 blocks (Fayette to Saratoga) Retail and convenience commercial businesses occupy the street level north of the

Market on both sides of Eutaw Street and south of the Market on the east side. Uses include several beauty supply stores, convenience variety stores, America’s Best Contacts and Eyeglasses, Cricket Tax Service, Eutaw Liquors, a pawn shop and a Chinese restaurant. There are two store vacancies north of the Market and one south of the Market, all on the east side of the street.

The City of Baltimore owns the three properties south of the Lexington Market parking lot on the west side of Eutaw (106 – 110 N. Eutaw). These include the sites of the former Palmer House Restaurant and Devine Seafood Market. The City has approved the sale of these


properties to a developer who will locate a restaurant on the first floor and residences above. Cleanup of the properties is underway with opening anticipated in 2015.

The University of Maryland owns the former Drovers Bank building at the northwest corner of Eutaw and Fayette Streets and immediately south of the city-owned buildings. The university also owns the rest of the properties south of the Lexington Market parking lot along the north side of the 400 block of W. Fayette Street between N. Eutaw Street and N. Paca Street. This site includes the Sons of Italy building and a parking lot at the northeast corner of W. Fayette Street and N. Paca Street. UMB has issued a Request for Proposals for these properties with submissions due August 17, 2014. The RFP asks for uses that will complement surrounding community activities. Suggestions are a childcare center, market rate apartments, an extended stay hotel and offices. The bank and Sons of Italy buildings are to be preserved and restored. New construction elsewhere on the site would be allowed. A long-term ground lease, rather than sale of the property, is being offered. The renovation and reactivation of these city-owned and university-owned vacant properties would be a significant improvement near the Market.

Sidewalk surfaces and lighting are not uniform on this part of N. Eutaw Street, creating a haphazard, unkempt feel to the area. The sidewalk on the east side of N. Eutaw, north of W. Lexington where the Metro entrance and bus stops are located, is in good condition. The other segments are less so, containing some holes in the brickwork, and messy tree pits without protective grates. There are many street trees of varying sizes in these two blocks, and some empty tree pits south of the Market on the east side of the street. Trees in front of the Market’s surface parking lot are the most mature. There are also many street lights in these blocks. They are a combination of lower decorative street lights designed to light the sidewalks, and higher lights to illuminate the street. Broken sidewalks in these blocks need to be repaired and trees, tree pits and planters better maintained.

W. Lexington Street – 300 block (Howard to Eutaw) W. Lexington Street is the pedestrian route to Lexington Market from the east. It

connects the Market with the Light Rail on Howard Street (one block away) and the eastern portions of Baltimore’s downtown. For three decades it was part of the pedestrian-only Lexington Mall; the street is now open to two-way traffic. Protected, on-street parking spaces are provided alternately on the south side and then on the north side.

The stores along W. Lexington are primarily clothing. They include Ashley Stewart, Totally Kids, and Rainbow Shoe City. A Quick Food Mart and a large Rite Aid drug store in the former Hecht’s Department Store’s first floor occupy the corners on the south side. Most of the north side of the 300 block of W. Lexington is vacant retail space.

W. Lexington forms a part of the transit hub with its connection to the Metro and buses at N. Eutaw Street. This area experiences heavy pedestrian traffic, street vendors, and the same suspicion of loitering and drug trafficking as discussed above.

The sidewalks and street are generally in good condition. The block is well-planted with trees and has well-spaced decorative lights for the sidewalks.

N. Paca Street – 100 and 200 blocks (Fayette to Saratoga) N. Paca Street, with three moving lanes of one-way, northbound traffic (plus parking


lanes on either side), is a direct vehicular access road to the Market from the south. The Baltimore-Washington Parkway (MD Rte. 295) curves and become Paca St. as it enters downtown Baltimore, making Lexington Market very easy to access for visitors from I-95 and the B-W Parkway. Paca St. provides direct access to the Lexington Market surface parking lot and to the two garages immediately north of the Market.

On its way to the Market, Paca Street passes the UMB School of Social Work, Central Plaza, and School of Law on the left and the Baltimore Grand Parking Garage on the right, just south of W. Fayette Street. The west side of the 100 block of N. Paca Street (immediately before the Market) is occupied by UMB support buildings and a Volunteers of America residential facility. Lexaco Furniture and a Subway store occupy commercial space across from the Market on N. Paca Street up to the intersection with W. Lexington Street.

The entire west side of N. Paca Street north of W. Lexington Street to W. Saratoga Street is Lexington Market property. The West Market sits back from the street on the northwest corner with four outdoor, awning-covered vendor spaces in front and an awning-covered walkway from the street to the Market entrance. The 5-story Pfeiffer building, whose first floor is leased to an H&R Block office, is located past the West Market, followed by an entrance and exit to the Lexington Market Garage. The remainder of the block is occupied by one-story stores including a dress shop, a shoe store, a book and gift store, a perfume store, and Downtown Dollar Mart. Two storefronts are vacant.

The East Market has several entrances along the east side of Paca Street, including an entrance into Perfect Gentlemen II Barber Shop, a door to Faidley’s Seafood, and an entrance to Herling’s Grocery. Immediately past the Market is the seven-level Market Center Garage, which includes an entrance into the Market’s loading and delivery zone, and another entrance for parking. Two small buildings complete the block – a vacant one-story cafe and a four-story corner building facing W. Saratoga Street with a psychic reader on the first floor. The Market’s dumpster is located in the small dead-end alley just past the north wall of the Market Center Garage. A screened and less visible location for it would be desirable.

There are decorative sidewalk lights beside the Market buildings, mixed with higher street-illuminating lights. Trees are grouped in front of the Market’s surface parking lot, and near the Market entrances, with none near the west-side storefronts. Pairs of round concrete planters hold bushes at the entrance to the Arcade and at the awning over the entrance to the West Market. There is one additional round planter in mid-block in front of the shops on the west street side. There is also a bush in a planter near the Faidley’s entrance.

The sidewalks on the west side of Paca Street are concrete in varying condition south and north of Lexington Street. The east side sidewalks beside the Market are patterned, with a design mixing brick and concrete blocks. They are in good condition. Paca Street in these blocks is generally in good condition with some rough spots.

W. Lexington Street – 500 and 600 blocks (Paca to Pearl) West of Lexington Market, Lexington Street has two-way traffic and then dead-ends

before Martin Luther King Boulevard, just two blocks away. There is a parking lane on each side. In W. Lexington’s 500 block, the West Market occupies the whole north side of the block and has five entrances. The south side of the street contains a collection of lower-end retail stores and some vacancies. The stores include beauty supply, tax preparation, variety and


clothing, Caribbean-American food, braiding, liquors and gifts. UMB owns the last building at the corner of Greene Street, which is vacant.

In the next block of W. Lexington Street, between Greene and Pearl Streets, the Market Center U.S. Post Office is located on a narrow island in the street. The south side includes a variety store, a deli and several vacant buildings. UMB owns several of these, as well as properties on N. Greene Street south of W. Lexington. The UMB campus occupies the remainder of W. Lexington Street. University buildings include the relatively new Lexington Building, an administration building at 620 W. Lexington Street; Pascault Row, renovated historic row houses now used as residences at 651 – 665 W. Lexington; Hope Lodge and the Ronald McDonald House at 635 and 636 W. Lexington respectively; and a parking garage and parking lot. North of the Post Office, also called W. Lexington Street, are a row of small, historic houses. UMB owns all of them except Club Bunns, a gay nightclub at 608 W. Lexington St.

UMB is scheduled to begin façade improvements this summer to its storefront commercial buildings near the corner of W. Lexington Street and N. Greene Street, directly across from the West Market. The university-owned buildings include the former Walterhoffer Co. building at 121 N. Greene, the southeast and southwest corner buildings, additional adjacent buildings on the west side of N. Greene and the south side of the 600 block of W. Lexington, and most of the buildings behind the Post Office on the north side of the 600 block of W. Lexington Street. The unexpectedly poor condition of some of the buildings may, however, cause a delay in this schedule. The former Walterhoffer building and those at the corner will become medical space. Tenants in the buildings across Greene Street will remain after the façade improvements. Except for the southwest corner building, the University does not own the commercial buildings in the 500 block of W. Lexington Street, directly south of the West Market.

The Lexington Street sidewalk adjacent to the West Market has several mature street trees and three lower ornamental light fixtures. The U.S. Post Office to the west has attractive sidewalks and a recessed plaza in front of the building on N. Greene Street. Sidewalks on the north side of the street are made of concrete beside the West Market, and of decorative paver blocks beside the Post Office. The sidewalk and decorative brickwork are in good condition, but the tree pits and planters are overgrown and need planting and maintenance. The south side of W. Lexington Street has no trees and only widely-spaced, tall light fixtures. The sidewalks are concrete and in varied or rough condition.

This section of W. Lexington Street would benefit from a “Main Street” approach that would improve the environment around the Market. Potential components include code enforcement, incentives for façade and sign improvements, sidewalk repair and street-tree planting. As was noted in the 2004 Market Ventures, Inc. study for the West Market, improvements to these privately-owned buildings on Lexington Street are needed in order to attract a wide range of customers to Lexington Market and reverse the perception that this area is unsafe and in decline. University efforts could complement “Main Street” improvements for the other privately-owned properties here.

N. Greene Street – 200 block (Lexington to Saratoga) N. Greene Street is the western border of the Lexington Market properties. The street

carries southbound traffic with four lanes at rush hour, and two lanes with parking on each side


at off-peak times. The east side of the block includes the West Market building and the Lexington Market Garage. There are three doors along N. Greene Street into the Market, and an entrance and exit for the garage. The University of Maryland owns most of the properties on the west side of the block. The university owns all but one of the small historic houses beside the U.S. Post Office and a surface parking lot in the middle of the block. Only two buildings remain at the north of the 200 block at W. Saratoga Street - a hair braiding salon and a trash removal business.

N. Greene Street has low pedestrian activity in this area. There is a bus stop for south-bound buses in front of the Post Office. There are trees, one empty round planter and decorative lighting around the West Market. Further north beside the garage there are also similar lights, as well as higher lights to illuminate the street.

The sidewalks on both sides of N. Greene Street are concrete in varying condition. Sidewalk condition is good beside the UMB parking lot, but moderate to poor elsewhere. The entrance and exit from the garage are cracked and rough. These portions of the sidewalk and the garage entrances should be repaired. The street surface is generally OK, with some patches.

W. Saratoga Street – 400 and 500 blocks (Greene to Eutaw) W. Saratoga Street is the street immediately north of Lexington Market properties. It is a

two-way street, carrying traffic into central downtown from west Baltimore. Customers driving to Lexington Market from the west on Saratoga Street can turn right (south) on N. Greene Street to enter the Market Garage at the West Market. A Market sign on the garage at the northwest corner of the building directs this movement. W. Saratoga is also a bus route connecting west and northeast Baltimore, with eastbound stops at N. Paca and N. Eutaw Streets, and a westbound stop at N. Eutaw and N. Paca Streets. A second entrance to the Lexington Market Metro Station is also located at W. Saratoga and N. Eutaw Streets. These stops generate high pedestrian traffic on W. Saratoga, particularly around N. Eutaw, and contribute to the transit hub at Eutaw and Lexington.

Downtown Open Space Plan Downtown Partnership and the Baltimore City Planning Department completed a

Downtown Open Space Plan in December 2010. The plan has a number of recommendations for the streets and areas around Lexington Market and for the Market itself which should be considered in this Lexington Market Redevelopment Plan. The Open Space Plan sees Lexington Market at a prominent feature of west downtown’s activity, and focuses on enlivening the area it calls “Lexington Market Square” along Lexington Street and the parking lot south of the Market from Pearl Street to Eutaw Street (Open Space Plan, pages 115 – 130). The plan presents various alternatives which include:

• New mixed use development on the site of the Market’s West buildings and more open space on the north side of W. Lexington St. in that block;

• Opening up the south wall of the Market Arcade to provide outdoor dining, vendors and market stalls in part of the parking lot;

• New mixed use or market activities in the parking lot, perhaps with below ground parking added;


• Removal of the Arcade and reopening Lexington Street as “shared space” with outdoor market activities and easy pedestrian movement; and

• Removal of the Arcade with a new market shed surrounded by a market plaza in its place, and new mixed-uses in the parking lot.

The Open Space Plan also identifies links to the Market that should be enhanced. Eutaw and Howard Streets are connections from Pratt Street to the south. One recommendation suggests using accent lighting to highlight unique architectural features of buildings along Eutaw to reinforce connections from the south to the Market. Also the Lexington Street Steps at Martin Luther King Boulevard, just 2 blocks west of the Market, are an important pedestrian connection between The Terraces neighborhood and the Market. The Steps’ access to “Lexington Market Square” and the Market should be emphasized.

Planned Public Improvements Several public improvements are planned or underway near Lexington Market. These include:

• Howard Street streetscape – landscaping and sidewalk improvements

• MTA study of Light Rail facility changes that could improve pedestrian movement on Howard Street

• Improvements that will enhance pedestrian safety at the intersection of Martin Luther King Boulevard and W. Baltimore Street. Federal funds will finance the work. The result will improve access between UMB’s BioPark and the rest of the University campus and beyond

• Creation of new dog parks in the triangular space at N. Howard and Center near the Seton Hill and Mt. Vernon neighborhoods

• UMB campus landscaping at various locations including the Campus Center at Lombard and Greene Streets and tree planning on portion of Paca St. and Greene St.

Westside Neighborhood

Lexington Market is located in the Westside neighborhood of Downtown Baltimore, an area that is bounded by Charles Street on the east, Center Street on the north, Martin Luther King Boulevard on the west and Pratt Street on the south. This area constitutes an approximately one-half mile radius around the Market. Figure 2 summarizes the activities in the Westside neighborhood.

UMB/UMMC The UMB campus is one of the Market’s closest and certainly its largest neighbor. The

campus, including the Schools of Medicine, Pharmacy, Dentistry, Nursing, Law, Social Work and Public Health and the University of Maryland Medical Center (UMMC), is located just west of Lexington Market, generally between Paca Street and Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard and stretching from Pratt Street on the south to Saratoga Street on the north.

UMB and University of Maryland Medical Center (UMMC) have maintained steady


growth and capital investment in the Baltimore campus. The first decade of the 21st century saw a new Law School building (2002), a new Dental School building (2006), completion of the 620 W. Lexington Street Administration Building (2008), a new Campus Center (2009), and the launching of the BioPark on West Baltimore Street, expanding the campus west of MLK Boulevard. The park now contains two multi-tenant lab and office buildings, the Maryland Forensic Medical Center and a parking garage.

The University of Maryland Medical Center is the flagship of the University of Maryland Medical System (UMMS), a privatized, separate organization from UMB. All of its physicians are on the faculty of the University of Maryland School of Medicine. UMMC is a national and regional referral center for trauma, cancer care, neurocare, women’s and children’s health, and organ transplantation. At the end of 2013, UMMC opened its 140,000 sq. ft. Shock Trauma Critical Care Tower at W. Lombard St and Penn Street. Maryland General Hospital, located north of Lexington Market in the Mt. Vernon neighborhood, has recently become a part of UMMC and has been renamed the UMMC Midtown Campus.

UMB has broken ground on a 429,000 sq. ft., 10-story School of Medicine Research Building to be opened in fall 2017. The site, where demolition of previous buildings is underway, is in the 600 block of W. Baltimore Street.

As described earlier, UMB is seeking commercial development of the entire north side of the 400 block of W. Fayette Street, directly south of the Market’s surface parking lot. UMB is also planning to make façade improvements to the buildings it owns on W. Lexington Street and N. Greene Street, south and west of the Market.

Further to the west in the UMB BioPark, the 110,000 sq. ft. Maryland Proton Treatment Center at 850 W. Baltimore Street is under construction with opening expected in 2015. It will provide proton cancer therapy to approximately 1,900 patients annually.

The UMB BioPark’s next building will be a 200,000 sq. ft. multi-tenant laboratory and office facility at 873 W. Baltimore Street, west of the two occupied multi-tenant buildings, and across the street from the Park’s parking garage. Another prospect for the BioPark is a Gateway Building, to be located on the northwest corner of Martin Luther King Boulevard and W. Baltimore Street at the entrance to the Park. This might be a rental residential tower with first floor retail along Martin Luther King. Other BioPark plans include a research and development building north of the Gateway Building along MLK Boulevard and a hotel aimed at patients of the Proton Center. The entire BioPark Master Plan calls for a total of 1.8 million sq. ft. of wet laboratory and office space.

In addition to the city’s pedestrian signs pointing walkers to Lexington Market, the UMB campus has a few Market-directing signs as well. The campus uses pedestrian-aimed pylons as direction signs for university locations. These pylons at S. Greene and W. Fayette, W. Lombard and S. Greene, and N. Paca and W. Fayette include a directional arrow to Lexington Market on them. The sign at S. Greene and W. Fayette, however, is very faded and the Lexington Market entry is almost unreadable.

The Baltimore Veterans Administration Medical Center at 10 N. Greene Street is also located in this area. Taken together, UMB, the VA, and UMMC have a total daily population of over 30,000 people including students, faculty, staff and visitors. This population includes well-paid physicians, researchers, and administrators, as well as many medical, technical and support


staff. For fiscal year 2012, the total UMB payroll, less 35% for fringe benefits, was $494.6 million for UMB’s 7,113 employees. That amounts to an average of $70,000 per person, an indicator of substantial purchasing power.

This population offers a convenient and large ready source of potential Market customers. A 2012 School of Social Work survey, which included UMB faculty, staff and students and UMB BioPark and UMMC personnel, revealed that 92% of the 1,788 respondents typically purchase lunch on or near campus at least a few days per month. However, only 44% of respondents said that they had been to Lexington Market in the past month, and only 17% had gone as often as once a week.

Beyond lunch-time purchases, these institutions host a vast number of gatherings, seminars, work sessions and meetings at which food is served. Capturing a portion of that catering business could provide a further, and probably new, source of revenue for Lexington Market vendors.

Bromo Arts District Lexington Market is located within the Bromo Arts District, a newly designated State

Arts & Entertainment District. The District is named for the distinctive 15-story Bromo Seltzer Tower at 21 S. Eutaw Street, which now houses studios for visual and literary artists. The District stretches from the Arts Tower north to Martin Luther King Boulevard, encompassing Howard and Eutaw Streets. The Arts District, located close to Baltimore’s main sports venues, Convention Center and the Inner Harbor, seeks to realize its potential as a thriving arts neighborhood in downtown Baltimore.

The Bromo Arts District contains a significant collection of arts assets including the France-Merrick Performing Arts Center, the new Everyman Theatre, Arena Players, and a number of galleries, studios and local independent artists. The France-Merrick Performing Arts Center at 12 N. Eutaw Street opened in 2003 in this renovated historic vaudeville and later movie theater. It features a 2,200 seat performance space. The new theater complex encompasses historic buildings in the entire block and connects to the Baltimore Grand’s 987-space parking garage. Everyman Theater, a professional repertory company of artists, has renovated the former Town Theatre at 315 W. Fayette Street and moved to the building. The Theater, with its 250 seat auditorium, is completing its second season at this location.

The new Bromo Arts District provides an opportunity for Lexington Market to attract new customers, expand its nonfood offerings, and rebrand itself as part of a distinctive new cultural corridor. Working closely with district leadership, the Market can be a venue for arts promotion and programming, and a supplier of food for events throughout the district. A revitalized Lexington Market’s vibrant, unique and historic character should enhance the quality of the district and benefit from the district’s vitality.

Commercial activity A targeted tax credit program offers assistance to businesses that locate around Lexington

Market. Most of Downtown Baltimore has been designated a State of Maryland Enterprise Zone. That designation offers a 10-year credit against a portion of local property taxes generated above the pre-development taxes, and additional employment tax credits for new hiring in the zone.


The department stores that once occupied large buildings on Howard Street, one block east of Lexington Market, have all closed. Their buildings have been re-occupied by offices of the Maryland Department of Human Resources, Catholic Relief Service’s international headquarters, and the Atrium, a 173-unit apartment building. At the eastern edge of this area is Downtown’s Charles Center Redevelopment of the 1950’s and 60’s. As described above in the Bromo Arts District section, two nearby theaters that had fallen vacant just south of Lexington Market have been converted into live performing arts venues. There are still many vacancies in this former retail center, including in the 100 and 300 blocks of Eutaw Street, the 300 and 400 blocks of Howard Street, the former Lexington Mall, and Park Avenue. The 100 – 300 blocks of Lexington Street, which once formed the pedestrian Lexington Mall, have now been reopened to two-way vehicular traffic.

Social Security complex The massive 1.2 million sq. ft. Social Security Metro West building, which spans W.

Mulberry Street and stretches from W. Saratoga Street to W. Franklin Street, has been vacated by the federal government and is being offered for development. The surplus property contains two 50,000 sq. ft. surface parking lots along Martin Luther King Boulevard. The Social Security complex is immediately north and west of the Lexington Market Garage.

Vendors in the West Market noted that their sales have decreased since Social Security closed. While this current vacancy is not helpful to the Market, some have noted that the complex, constructed between 1976 and 1980, never had the spin-off economic impact hoped for when it opened. No adjacent businesses opened as a result. Employees of the complex had very short lunch periods, and food services and convenience retail were provided inside the building. New uses for the property might be beneficial in the long run.

Federal GSA is reviewing responses it received to a September 23, 2013 deadline for expression of interest in the property, but has not published any conclusions. No disposition schedule has been announced and GSA has not formally moved the building into the disposition phase. University of Maryland Baltimore, whose campus now stretches to the property, submitted a statement of its interest, as well as an explanation of some of the obstacles it would face in meeting GSA’s stated needs for the property’s disposition. The University does not have a current use for such a large facility. It estimates that the cost to “mothball” the building for future use would be $6 to $10 million per year.

Retail and restaurants There has been a recent boost in retail activity in the 400 block of W Baltimore Street,

just west of the UMB campus and two blocks south of Lexington Market. Most of the block’s buildings have been renovated and occupied by tenants such as Panera Bread, PNC Bank, Pita Pit, and State Employees’ Credit Union. Most of the block’s redevelopment was carried out by David S. Brown Enterprises, Ltd. In addition, a new, two-story building is being constructed for a Seven-Eleven store at the southeast corner of W. Franklin and N. Paca Streets.

Recently, three new restaurants have located near the Market:

• Forno’s Restaurant, at 17 N. Eutaw Street, offers local and artisan food


• Trinacria’s Café, at 111 W. Centre Street, is operated by the Italian grocery and deli of the same name, located at 406 N. Paca Street since 1908

• Puerto 511 is a new Peruvian restaurant at 102 W. Clay Street These new retailers and restaurants are showing that neighborhood revitalization is

happening very close to Lexington Market, offering the possibility that the private properties around the Market might be upgraded soon, particularly if Lexington Market embarks on a transformation process.

Hotel The building at 200 W. Saratoga Street, at the corner of Park Avenue, is in the process of

being converted into a La Quinta Hotel.

City-owned properties Baltimore Development Corporation issued requests for proposals for two groups of city-

owned properties near Lexington Market in February and submissions are being reviewed. BDC approached these offerings differently than other recent redevelopment efforts. The requests were for rehabilitation, where appropriate, rather than larger-scale new construction. Smaller groups of properties were offered, allowing smaller developers the opportunity to participate. The offerings were:

• 408-414 N. Howard Street – the City requested mixed use residential and ground floor retail or office for these smaller buildings.

• Liberty-Clay-Park-Marion – the city seeks mixed retail, office and residential uses for this collection of mainly city-owned lots east of Lexington Market.

BDC issued an additional request for proposals for mixed-use residential-retail developments on city-owned parking lots at 410 and 422 W. Mulberry Street at the end of April.

As mentioned earlier, the city has also approved sale of 106 – 110 N. Eutaw Street, just south of the Market’s surface parking lot, to a developer to create a restaurant and upper floor apartments.

The city also owns most of the block bounded by N. Howard Street, W. Mulberry Street, Park Avenue and W. Franklin Street. Redevelopment here is more complicated. These properties will be offered later in smaller groupings. The city also owns the former Mayfair Theatre at 508 N. Howard Street and the property just south of it. BDC is assessing the best disposition of these two properties, considering options of demolition, stabilization or a combination.

Development of the important 200 block of W. Lexington Street, called Lexington Square or the Super Block, is still in legal contention (the city rescinded an award to a private developer, who is fighting to get it back). The City of Baltimore owns the entire south side of the block, and almost all of the properties south to W. Fayette Street. These properties will be reoffered for development as soon as the legal challenge is cleared. The vacant grass lot on the north side of the 200 block of W. Lexington is owned by the Weinberg Foundation and the Cordish Company, the result of a property swap with the city. A condition of the swap is that Weinberg/Cordish must submit development plans for their property when the city breaks


ground on the south side.

Residential activity The Westside residential population is growing and changing. Until recently, the only

residential areas on the Westside included the neighborhoods of Lexington Terrace (public housing now redeveloped as The Terraces), Seton Hill and the southern edge of Mt. Vernon. Several commercial buildings nearer the Market have recently been converted to residential use and new residential buildings have been added. 2013 Nielsen data obtained from the Baltimore Metropolitan Council (BMC) shows a 2013 population of 9,840 within one-half mile of the Market, and a population of 3,287 within one-quarter mile. There are an estimated 5,746 households within a half mile of the Market, and 1,991 within a quarter mile. The estimated median household income within a half mile is $35,620, and $41,735 within a quarter mile. While their average household income is fairly low, residents in this area are within easy walking distance to the Market and there is no current significant nearby competition for fresh food. To capture this trade, however, the Market will need to adjust its hours of operation since these residents are more likely to shop in the evenings and on the weekends.

Since 2000, the Downtown Westside has experienced considerable residential development in both converted commercial and new buildings. Besides the conversion of the Hecht’s Department Store to the Atrium, the following new residences opened:

Name Address Units Camden Court 300 W. Lombard Street 221 The Redwood 11 S. Eutaw Street 151 The Abell Building 329 W. Baltimore Street 30 Avalon Centerpoint 8 N. Howard Street 392 39 W. Lexington 39 W. Lexington Street 182 St. James Place 301 W. Franklin Street 25 Fayette Square 506 W. Fayette Street 135 The Saratoga Lofts 125 W. Saratoga Street 19 The Zenith 511 W. Pratt Street 191 The Greenehouse 519 W. Pratt Street 88 300 Cathedral St. 300 Cathedral St. 59 Total

1493

Conversion of the former Hochschild Kohn warehouse at 520 Park Avenue to 171

apartments is underway, and nearing completion.

Several additional development plans are at various stages:

• Enterprise Homes has received approval of state assistance for 70 units of affordable housing at 203 W. Mulberry Street. The development is called Mulberry at Park.

• A Washington, DC developer owns most of the east side of the 300 block of N. Howard Street and is considering residential and mixed use options.


• The owners of 600 and 602 N. Howard Street (former Planned Parenthood headquarters) propose converting the buildings to 60 apartments.

• The owner of 322 N. Eutaw Street is proposing conversion to 28 apartments. The Planning Department reports that downtown residential activity is strong. Currently

seven Westside residential projects, many identified above, have applied for pre-development site plan review. A new city tax credit program, which offers tax credits for market-rate rental housing in new developments (new construction or renovation) of 50 units or more located in qualified areas (including downtown), might help spur new housing around Lexington Market.

In 2012, the Downtown Partnership commissioned an analysis of market rate housing demand in downtown and adjacent neighborhoods. The study projects that these areas should be able to attract an additional 5,800 households by 2017.

A Downtown Partnership Outreach Survey of residents in and around downtown in fall/winter 2013-2014 identified that nearly half of CBD respondents also work downtown, and nearly 40% of them do not own cars. Lexington Market is certainly located close enough to offer food to these residents. But the Market is closed in the evening and on Sundays, all likely food-shopping times for downtown working residents.

Perhaps of more significance, in 2010 a University of Maryland Community Planning Studio surveyed residents in The Atrium. The Studio report stated that despite the Market’s proximity (one block away) and diversity of product offering,, most respondents reported that they “rarely or never shop there because of safety concerns, poor atmosphere, and panhandling.” If this pattern exists for other new neighborhood residents, then these obstacles must be addressed to attract them to the Market.

Downtown Baltimore

To the east and south of the Charles Center Redevelopment is the much larger Inner Harbor Redevelopment of the 1970’s and 80’s. Also to the east are City Hall and Downtown’s business and government center. The shoreline redevelopment of the Inner Harbor has now stretched further east and south to Harbor East, which is occupied by new high-rise mixed-use office, residential, shopping and entertainment buildings.

Downtown Partnership’s most recent State of Downtown Report states that the entire area within one mile of the intersection of Pratt and Light Streets, an area that contains Lexington Market’s Westside neighborhood and all of downtown, had employment of 122,222 in 2013. This was an increase of nearly 10,000 jobs since 2012. The population in this area was 40,971 in 2013; the number of hotel rooms was 8,135. Both were also increases from 2012. Downtown employees, residents, and visitors are all potential customers for Lexington Market.

There is more downtown growth in the pipeline. Development plans or prospects include:

• Conversion of the former Bank of America headquarters building, one of downtown Baltimore’s most prominent skyline features, at 10 Light Street to 445 market rate apartments is in progress. Construction is expected to be complete in spring of 2015.


• A proposal for a 30-story office and residential tower at 325 W. Baltimore Street by the David S. Brown Enterprises, Ltd, the same company that renovated much of the 400 block. The building would contain 100,000 sq. ft. of office, seventeen levels of residential, and ground floor retail.

• In Hopkins Plaza, at Baltimore and Charles Streets, David S. Brown Enterprises, Ltd. has also presented plans for a new mixed use development on the site of the former Morris A. Mechanic Theater. The development includes a 30-story tower, 250 residential units, 160 hotel rooms, and over 107,000 sq. ft. of retail space on three levels. This project is anticipated to begin in 2014.

• In the future, the mostly vacated PNC tower along Baltimore Street in Hopkins Plaza is a candidate for residential conversion.

• There is still deliberation about the future of the Baltimore Arena, which is two blocks south and one block east of Lexington Market. The facility needs major renovation but is still active and financially successful. The question of whether it should be rebuilt on site or moved to a new location has not been answered. While the arena might now bring some customers to the Market, a new use of the arena site could also be advantageous.

Beyond Downtown

Nearby neighborhoods Outside of downtown, the nearest residential neighborhoods to Lexington Market are

Mount Vernon, Seton Hill and Bolton Hill to the north; The Terraces, Heritage Crossing, Harlem Park, Poppleton, and Hollins Market to the west; Ridgely’s Delight, Barre Circle, Washington Village/Pigtown, Otterbein, Federal Hill, and Sharp-Leadenhall to the south; and Little Italy and Jonestown to the east (see Figure 3). For the six Neighborhood Statistical Areas that ring downtown, the following table indicates 2010 Census population, households, and median household income.

Area Population Households Median HH IncomeMidtown 15,020 3,676 $36,751Upton/Druid Heights 10,342 4,439 $14,785Poppleton/Terraces/Hollins Mkt. 5,086 2,181 $19,277Washington Village/Pigtown 5,503 2,273 $44,933Inner Harbor/Federal Hill 12,855 6,724 $83,497Little Italy/Harbor East 5,407 2,305 $30,283TOTAL 54,213 21,598

Neighborhoods Surrounding Downtown

The Poppleton neighborhood, in which UMB’s BioPark is located, has had a long-standing plan for new residential development around the BioPark. While that plan has not moved forward during the recent recession, a first phase of the development is now under design. Two rental apartment buildings with a total of 260 units are being proposed at 101 and 201 N. Schroeder Street, just north of the Park. The apartments will be primarily market rate with 20%


reserved for workforce housing. The total project development envisions an eventual 1,000 units. This development could also add to Lexington Market’s customer base.

The same strategies that can begin to attract Westside Downtown’s new population to the Market would also be appealing to many of these surrounding downtown neighborhoods. Evenings and Sundays are also likely to be food-shopping times for this population.

Stadiums Immediately south of downtown, both Oriole Park at Camden Yards and M&T Bank

Stadium bring many people downtown and near Lexington Market. There are at least 80 home baseball games from April through September, most starting at 7:05 pm. Most Sunday games, and a few weekday games, begin in the early afternoon. At least ten Ravens football games are played in August through December. Almost all are on Sunday afternoons or evenings.

New casino Also south of downtown, another project which may generate new tourist business for

Lexington Market is Baltimore’s Horseshoe Casino, now under construction on Russell Street. The Casino, with a 122,000 sq. ft. gaming floor, has announced an August 2014 opening.

State Center A long-stalled plan to redevelop the complex of state office buildings in Baltimore has

recently received court approval to move forward with its ambitious plan. Besides providing offices for 3,500 state employees over a 15 year period, the development would add rental apartments, a condo tower, a grocery store, neighborhood retail and better connection to nearby neighborhoods. State Center is located on the Metro line one stop north of Lexington Market and is also served by Baltimore’s Light Rail. This new development is expected to transform the area from a homogenous Monday – Friday, 9 to 5 environment to a transit-oriented live and work community. A coalition of downtown businesses had filed suit against the development, fearing it would worsen the problem of vacant office and retail space there. If State Center redevelops, Lexington Market could aim to attract state employees and nearby residents who have quick public transit access to the Market.

Baltimore City and Region

Lexington Market is familiar to residents throughout the Baltimore region and many citizens have positive memories of it. Like other successful large-scale public markets, Lexington Market should be able to attract customers from the entire Baltimore region.

The Baltimore Metropolitan Council’s (BMC’s) Nielsen data estimates Baltimore City’s 2013 population at 617,450 with nearly 250,000 households. The estimated median household income is $39,251. The Baltimore region’s estimated population for that year is 2.7 million people divided into 1.04 million households. The region’s median household income is $66,579. Baltimore City’s population and households are projected to remain stable for the next 5 years while the region’s are projected to grow slightly. A breakdown of city and regional demographic and income statistics are presented below.


Baltimore City Baltimore RegionPopulation 617,450 2,701,204Households 249,196 1,036,428Median HH Income $39,251 $66,579

2013 Estimates

Population Households Population Households2000 Census 651,151 257,997 2,512,434 958,7622010 Census 620,961 149,903 2,662,691 1,020,7492013 Estimate 617,450 249,196 2,701,204 1,036,4282018 Projection 617,338 250,136 2,773,018 1,066,862

Baltimore City Baltimore RegionTrends

% %Under 21 163,905 26.55% 725,322 26.85%21 - 34 142,787 23.13% 508,923 18.84%35 - 44 78,524 12.72% 346,780 12.84%45 - 54 82,526 13.37% 404,376 14.97%55 - 64 72,590 11.76% 347,552 12.87%65 & over 77,118 12.49% 368,251 13.63%Median Age 35.26 0.01% 38.36

Baltimore City Baltimore RegionEstimated 2013 Age

% %White 180,487 29.23% 1,628,081 60.27%African American 391,990 63.49% 798,178 29.55%Asian 15,691 2.54% 137,078 5.07%Other 29,282 4.74% 137,867 5.10%

Baltimore City Baltimore RegionEstimated 2013 Race


% %< $15,000 54,181 21.74% 106,456 10.27%$15,000 - $24,999 31,601 12.68% 78,550 7.58%$25,000 - S49,999 64,021 25.69% 208,479 20.12%$50,000 - $74,999 43,377 17.41% 188,085 18.15%$75,000 - $99,999 22,068 8.86% 136,548 13.17%$100,000 - $149,999 21,162 8.49% 173,168 16.71%> $150,000 12,786 5.13% 145,142 14.00%Median HH Income $39,251 $66,579

Baltimore City Baltimore RegionEstimated 2013 Household Income


Photos of Adjacent Streets

Photo 1. N. Eutaw St. looking south in front of Lexington Market

Photo 2. N. Eutaw Street stores north of Lexington Market


Photo 3. W. Lexington St. looking east from N. Eutaw St. and Lexington Market

Photo 4. Lexington Market Metro Station Entrance


Photo 5. N. Eutaw St. bus stop at W. Lexington St across from Lexington Market, looking south

Photo 6. N. Paca Street looking north to Lexington Market


Photo 7. N. Paca St. sidewalk with awning to West Market entrance. Looking north with East

Market and Market Center Garage across Paca St. on the right

Photo 8. Stores in 500 block of W. Lexington St. looking south from West Market


Photo 9. West Market looking north in 500 block of W. Lexington St.

Photo 10. Looking north on N. Greene St. West Market and Lexington Market Garage

on the right


Maps


Residential Development Key

Completed and Underway

1 The Atrium 118 N. Howard St 173 units 2 Camden Court 300 W. Lombard Street 221 units 3 The Redwood 11 S. Eutaw Street 151 units 4 The Abell Building 329 W. Baltimore Street 30 units 5 Avalon Centerpoint 8 N. Howard Street 392 units 6 39 W. Lexington 39 W. Lexington Street 182 units 7 St. James Place 301 W. Franklin Street 25 units 8 Fayette Square 506 W. Fayette Street 135 units 9 The Saratoga Lofts 125 W. Saratoga Street 19 units 10 The Zenith 511 W. Pratt Street 191 units 11 The Greenehouse 519 W. Pratt Street 88 units 12 300 Cathedral Street 300 Cathedral Street 59 units 13 520 Park 520 Park Avenue 171 units 14 10 Light Street 10 Light Street 445 units

Proposed 15 Mulberry at Park 203 Park Avenue 70 units 16 Mixed Use 325 W. Baltimore Street 17 res. floors 17 Mixed Use Hopkins Plaza 250 units 18 Prospect Tower, Hopkins Plaza

19 Prospect 300 blk. N. Howard St. 20 Prospect 600 – 602 N. Howard St. 60 units 21 Prospect 322 N. Eutaw Street 28 units


Appendix E: Customer Intercept Survey

Overview

To assess who shops at the Lexington Market today, the consultant team designed an intercept survey instrument that identified the demographic profile of current Lexington Market shoppers, explored their shopping patterns and expenditures, their perceptions of quality, selection and price, their likes and dislikes about the Market, their ideas for improvements, and their reactions to new merchandising concepts.

Methodology

Market Ventures, Inc. designed the intercept survey instrument using a methodology and core question set that has been used successfully at other public markets around the country, modified to meet the needs of Lexington Market. A copy of the survey instrument is located at the end of this report.

Ten surveyors were recruited from the University of Maryland and Morgan State. Prior to beginning the interviews, the surveyors were trained on how to conduct the survey, with particular emphasis on clear communication and minimizing bias in selecting respondents and influencing their answers.

The interviewers were posted at exits all around the Market. The survey was designed to be administered as customers left the Market, after they had completed their shopping. The interviewers were instructed to approach every second customer as that person walked past their post on the way out of the Market so as to create a systematic (and unbiased) selection process. If the person was part of a group, the interviewer was instructed to ask the questions of one person within the group only.

The survey was conducted over three weekdays and two Saturdays between March 13 and March 22, 2014. The surveying began at 9:00 am and ended about 4:00 pm each day, with the most surveys completed between 11 am and 1 pm. A total of 462 surveys were conducted and entered into a database for analysis.

By its nature, an intercept survey is not a random sampling procedure so randomness assumptions cannot be made for statistical analysis. With a sample size over 450, we can have confidence that the results approach representativeness for the days on which it was conducted. However, there could be significant variation in the customer base between March and other months. This survey should be seen as a snapshot of a particular time rather than a full picture of customer demographics and behavior throughout the year.

The survey aimed to gather information about the customers’ trip to the Market as well as their opinions about the Market today. The survey asked about shoppers’ mode of travel, their travel time, and the frequency of their visits. A series of questions focused on the number of vendors from whom they bought, the total amount of their expenditures, and what additional products they would like to see sold at the Market. The survey also solicited the customers’ likes about the Market and things they would like to see improved or changed. Finally, the survey gathered demographic information about the customers, both through self-reporting and through


the interviewers’ observations.

For analysis, the demographic data are compared to residents within the City of Baltimore and the Baltimore metropolitan statistical area (MSA) using 2012 data from the American Community Survey (available online at https://www.census.gov/acs/www/).

Findings

Demographics The survey included questions about the respondents’ age, household size, and income

level. Respondents were asked to indicate where their age fell among seven standard categories. Since no one younger than 21 was interviewed, the chart below shows the other six categories and the census data is standardized to residents 21 and over:

Q23. Which of the following ranges includes your age? (N=446)

A third of Lexington Market customers are between the ages of 50-59, a far larger proportion than people in that age bracket who live in the Baltimore area (14%). While public markets generally do attract more people in this age bracket, the variation is generally not this large. The Market also attracts many customers between the ages of 40-49 (21%) and 60-69 (20%), but substantially fewer customers younger than 40 or older than 70.

Household sizes ranged from 1 to 12, with the average being 2.9 and a median of 3. As the chart illustrates, most people live in households with only one person. Typically, public markets attract more family households.

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

21-29 years 30-39 years 40-49 years 50-59 years 60-69 years 70+ years

Age (pop 21+)

Survey Baltimore MSA


Q24. Including yourself, how many people live in your household? (N=447)

In terms of income, customers are generally lower income than Baltimore City residents

and much lower than MSA residents. 45% of respondents said that their household income was less than or equal to $25,000 per year while 41% said between $25 and 75,000. Only 14% reported household income over $75,000. By contrast, 45% of households in the MSA have income over $75,000.

Market customers include the same proportion of very low income households as the City

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7+

Household Size

<=$25k 45%

$25-75k 41%

>$75k 14%



of Baltimore (household income under $15,000) but many more in the next income bracket (household income between $15,000 and $25,000). The Market attracts very few people from upper income households ($75,000 and above).

Q25. What range includes your total household income, before taxes, for 2013? (N=394)

The surveyors were asked to observe the sex and race of the respondents and record an

answer after the intercept survey was completed. There was an almost even split between men (52%) and women (48%). This is unusual: typically, more women shop at public markets than men. Recent customer surveys at both Reading Terminal Market in Philadelphia and Essex Street Market in New York found the same proportion of women (63%) and men (37%).

The large majority of customers interviewed were identified by the surveyors as black (88%), compared to 11% white and 1% other. By contrast, 65% of residents in the City of Baltimore identify as black while the metropolitan region is about 30% black.

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

Under $15,000

$15,000 to $25,000

$25,001 to $50,000

$50,001 to $75,000

$75,001 to $100,000

$100,001 to $150,000

Over $150,000


Survey City of Baltimore Baltimore MSA


Residence, method of transportation, and travel time

Q22. What is your home zip code? (N=448)

Respondents live in 75 different area codes with 88% living within the City of Baltimore, 18% living elsewhere in Maryland, and 4% out-of-state. 60% of the respondents live in just eight zip codes all clustered around the Market. A list of all zip codes is found at the end of this report.

10.9%

31.8%

64.1%

88.0%

64.9%

30.2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Lex Mkt City MSA

Race

Other

Black

White


The zip code map below indicates the areas with the largest number of customers. The

blue star shows the approximate location of Lexington Market. The areas of the red circles are proportional to the number of customers who reside in those zip codes.

0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0%

21217

21215

21201

21223

21202

21216

21218

21229

21213

21225

21230

21207

Zip Codes (most prevalent)


Half of Market customers take public transportation to get to the Market: 39% take a bus and 10% take the Light Rail or metro. One-quarter drive in their own car and 20% walk, while only 4% are dropped by a car or taxi.

Q1. To get to the Market today, did you walk, drive in your own car, get dropped off by a car or taxi, or take a bus or train? (N=462)

Travel time, linked with the method of travel, serves as a good proxy for determining trade areas. As the chart entitled “Travel Time to Market” shows, about one-tenth of the customers travel less than five minutes to get to the Market. By far the largest group, 42% of the customers, traveled between 5 and 15 minutes to reach the Market. 32% traveled for 16-30 minutes while 15% reported traveling for more than 30 minutes.

Walk 20%

Own car 25%

Dropped off 4%

Bus 39%

Light rail/metro

10% Other 2%

How Travel


Q2. How long did you travel to get to the Market today? (N=461)

Visit characteristics Going to a public market is typically a social activity compared to the often solitary trip

to the supermarket. At Lexington Market, the group size ranged from one to 40, with an average group size of 1.6 people. This is substantially lower than the experience of other public markets, which typically have group size of 2.2. 77% of the customers came alone, while 13% came in groups of two.

Q3. Did you come to the Market alone or with other people? How many other people? (N=449)

Groupsize Average 1.6 Min 1 Max 40 Mode 1 77% Mode 1 or 2 90% Sum 727

11%

42%

32%

11%

4%

Less than 5 minutes

5 - 15 minutes

16 - 30 minutes

31 - 60 minutes

More than 60 minutes

Shop

pers

Travel Time to Market


When asked the last time they visited Lexington Market before today, only 3% of the respondents reported that they were visiting the Market for the first time. By far the largest percentage (70%) reported last being at the Market within the past week, so the Market is attracting a very consistent, loyal customer. Only 10% reported last being at the Market more than a month ago.

Q4. Before today, when was the last time you came to the Market? (N=461)

76.6%

13.1% 5.1% 2.4% 0.4% 2.2%

1 2 3 4 5 6+

Group Size

First time here 3%

Within the week 70%

Within the past month

17%

More than month ago

10%

Last Visit


Excluding those customers who said they were visiting the Market for the first time in Question 4, the customers were asked about the first time they visited Lexington Market. By far the largest group (64%) had first come to the Market more than 20 years ago, followed by those who had first come 11-20 years ago. Only 4% had come to the Market for the first time within the past year (the 3% who were visiting the Market for the first time could be considered part of this group). The other ranges were fairly evenly divided:

Q5. How long ago was the first time you visited Lexington Market? (N=439)

Purchases Among those customers who purchased something, customers shopped from 1 to 10

vendors, with an average of 3.9 vendors. This is typical of what is found at other public markets, where the average is often 3 to 4. The most frequent response was three vendors, at 31% of the total.

4% 5% 4% 8%

14%

64%


1-2 years ago

3-5 years ago

6-10 years ago

11-20 years ago

>20 years ago



Q6. Counting everywhere you made a purchase today, how many different vendors did you buy from? (N=458)

Customers were asked if they bought anything to eat in the Market and, if yes, how much money they spent on food to eat in the Market. Similarly, they were asked if they bought anything to take home or take away and how much they spent on those items. Finally they were asked if they had bought any nonfood items or services and how much was spent on those items.

Q7. Did you buy any food today that you ate while in the Market? (N=438)

Q9. Did you buy food to take home or take away from the Market today? (N=436)

Q11. Did you buy any nonfood items or services at the Market today? (N=431)

6%

53%

34%

6% 1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

0 1-2 3-4 5-6 7+ Number of Vendors

Number of Vendors Shoppers Bought From


Two-thirds of the respondents said they bought something to take home or take away, reflecting the Market’s important role as a place to buy grocery items and take-out location. About one-half (53%) said they bought food to eat in the Market and 25% of respondents said they bought nonfood items or services.

The data was then analyzed to explore the various combinations of what people bought. One-quarter (26%) of customers said they only purchased food to eat in the Market and 40% said they only bought food to take home or take away. 24% said they both ate in the Market and bought food to take home. Just 3% said they only bought nonfood items or services.

The average expenditure for those who spent on food to take home was $17.95, while among all customers if was $11.20. The average expenditure for those who spent on food to eat in the Market was $8.72, or $4.34 for all customers. The average expenditure for those who spent on nonfood items was $18.80, or $4.35 for all customers. Adding the three expenditures together to determine total expenditures per customer, those who spent something averaged $19.89. Since some people did not buy anything, the average expenditure among all customers interviewed was $22.79.

Q8. Counting everything that you bought, how much money did you spend on food that you ate while in the Market?

Q10. Counting everything that you bought, how much money did you spend on food to take home or away?

Q12. How much money did you spend on all the nonfood items and services at the Market today?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Nonfood only

Eat in only

Take home only

Eat in & take home

Nonfood

Eat in Market

Take home food

Type of Purchases


The data are summarized below:

Lexington Market Customer Purchases

Food to take home

Eat on premises

Nonfood/ services Total

Average (among those who spent) $17.97 $8.72 $18.80 $21.68

Average (all customers) $11.20 $4.34 $4.35 $19.89

Min $0.50 $0.50 $0.05 $0.50

Max $150.00 $0.58 $120.00 $165.00

Total $5,175 $2,005 $2,012 $9,191

Dividing the total expenditures of all respondents ($9,191) by the total number of vendors patronized (1,076), the resulting average single sale in the Market is $8.54. This is quite low compared to the experience at other public markets.

The following histogram shows the clustering of purchases in ten dollar increments. Many customers spent very little, with the largest grouping between $0 and $10, but a few reported large expenditures (up to $165), which effectively skews the averages upward:

$8.72

$17.97 $18.80

$21.68

$4.34

$11.20

$4.35

$19.89

$-

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

$20.00

$25.00

Eat in Market Take home Non food Total

Average Expenditures

Ave (those who bought) Ave (all)


The following chart shows average expenditures at several different public markets. The expenditures at Lexington Market are the lowest compared to other places:

SPENDTOT

170.0160.0

150.0140.0

130.0120.0

110.0100.0

90.080.0

70.060.0

50.040.0

30.020.0

10.00.0

200

100

0

Std. Dev = 24.84 Mean = 19.9

N = 462.00

$19.89

$22.79

$26.00

$30.00

$32.00

$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35


Essex St Market 2014

Soulard Market 2012


Reading Terminal 2011

Mean Customer Expenditures by Market


Average expenditures were examined among several demographic variables: gender, age, household income, household size, and race. There were not statistically significant variations in spending between men or women or age. The chart below shows the mean expenditures based on age. Younger customers spent more on nonfood items. For total purchases, younger customers had higher average expenditures than older customers.

In general, larger households spent more than smaller ones, except for the very largest

households:

$0.00

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

$20.00

$25.00

$30.00

$35.00

$40.00


Ave. Spending by Age

<30 30-49 50-69 70+


There is a statistically significant correlation between a customer’s household income and

how much they spent on food to eat in the Market, with wealthier customers spending more. The other relationships are not statistically significant using analysis of variance (ANOVA) measures, yet the mean expenditures show increasing total sales with higher income households.

$-

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

$20.00

$25.00

$30.00

$35.00

1 2 3 4 5 6+

Ave Spending on Take Home Food by HH Size

$0.00

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

$20.00

$25.00

$30.00


Ave. Spending by HH Income

<$25k $25-50k $50-75k >$75k


Except for food to eat in the Market, black customers spent substantially more on average than white customers:

There is a large and significant variation between travel model to the Market and average expenditures for food to take home and total sales. Those customers who drove spent much more than those taking the bus or walking.

$0.00

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

$20.00

$25.00


Ave. Spending by Race

White Black


There is significant variation between travel time to the Market and average expenditures for food to take home from the Market. Those who travel from farther away spent considerably more than those who had a short trip to the Market:

$-

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

$20.00

$25.00

$30.00


Ave Spending by Travel Mode

Walk Car Transit

$-

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

$20.00

$25.00

$30.00

$35.00

$40.00



<5 minutes 5 - 15 minutes 16 - 30 minutes 31 - 60 minutes > 60 minutes


Finally, incidental customers (first time visitors and those who had not come in more than a month) had the highest average expenditures, while more regular customers had lower.

Competition When asked where their household buys most of its fresh food this time of year, about

one-third said Lexington Market, while 55% said a supermarket and 13% said some other place. Among the supermarkets, Giant was mentioned most frequently, followed by Shoppers and Food Depot.

$-

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

$20.00

$25.00

$30.00

$35.00



First time here Within the week Within past month > month ago


Q13. This time of year, where does your household buy most of its fresh food? (N=431)

Supermkt 55%

Lex Mkt 32%

Other 13%

Where Buy Most Fresh Food

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Mars

Sam's Club

Shop & Save

Stop & Shop

Food King

Whole Foods

Aldi's

Sav-A-Lot

WalMart

Safeway

Food Depot

Shoppers

Giant

Supermarkets


Respondents were asked to compare the quality, selection, and prices of products in the Market with other places that sell products. Since respondents had chosen to be at Lexington Market, the responses to these questions are likely to be quite favorable. Interestingly, the largest group of respondents only ranked the selection of products at Lexington Market “much better.” For both quality and prices, the largest group of respondents ranked the Market the “same” compared to other places. Most customers (52%) ranked customer service from vendors as “very good,” while 26% said “somewhat good.” These rankings are lower than typically seen at other public markets.

Q. 14-16. Compared to other places that sell similar products, would you describe the quality/selection/prices of products at Essex Street Market as much better, somewhat better, about the same, somewhat worse, or much worse? (N=387, 407, 403)

A similar question was asked about the service that shoppers receive from vendors in the Market. The Market ranked high in regards to service, with 52% rating the service “very good.”

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

Quality Selection Prices

Comparable Rankings

Much Better Somewhat Better Same Somewhat Worse Much Worse


Q. 17. How would you rate the service you receive from Market vendors? Would you describe it as very good, somewhat good, OK, somewhat poor, or very poor? (N=421)

Additional Products Respondents were asked if there were any additional products they would like see sold at

Lexington Market. Up to three answers were recorded for each survey. The most common answer was more prepared foods. Like answers were grouped together and included in this chart:

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Very Good Somewhat Good

OK Somewhat Poor

Very Poor

Comparable Rankings: Service


Q18. Are there any additional products that you would like to see sold at Lexington Market? (N=168)

Rating the Market Respondents were asked to name the things that they liked best about the Market and

what they would like to see changed. Up to three responses were recorded for each question. Customers provided a wide range of answers. In terms of what customers liked best, the most frequent response was the social qualities and people most about Lexington Market, followed by the music/entertainment, variety, and fresh foods. They also frequently mentioned convenience/location and the Market’s atmosphere. Prices were mentioned by only a few respondents.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

TV/electronics

Clothing/shoes

Diverse/ethnic foods

Grocery/hh item

Seafood

Healthier foods

Fresh F&V

Other nonfood

Other fresh food

Other prep foods

Additional Products


Q19. What things to you like most about Lexington Market? (N=657)

Two items stand out among the changes that customers would like to see at Lexington Market: addressing the drugs/junkies and making the Market cleaner. Customers also highlighted loitering/panhandling and security. A fair number of customers identified the need for the Market to renovate and update, to attract more and different customers, and to improve seating.

0 20 40 60 80 100

Baked/desserts

Prices

Service/fast

Seafood/crab cakes

Vendors/service

Landmark/history

Prepared food

Atmosphere

Convenience/location

Food/fresh food

Variety

Music/entertain

Social qualities/people

What Like Best


Q20. What changes would you like to see at Lexington Market? (N=539)

Sunday hours Finally, customers were asked about their interest in shopping at Lexington Market on

Sundays. Residents expressed very strong interest in Sunday operations, with 47% saying they were “very likely” to shop then and 19% saying “likely.” Sunday is the busiest day in the supermarket industry and automobile access and parking are easiest on that day. Public transportation is likely less convenient, however.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Parking

Better quality/fresher

Vendor sanitation

Minority/diverse vendors

Prices lower

Vendors - new/more/different

Better attitudes/less harassment

Bathroom improvements

Seating

Different/more customers

Renovate/update

Security

Loitering/panhandling

Cleaner

Drugs/junkies

What Things to Change


Q21. Lexington Market is exploring the possibility of adding Sunday hours. On a scale of one to five, with one being “not at all likely” and five being “very likely,” how likely are you to visit Lexington Market on a Sunday? (N=539)

Not at all likely 21%

Unlikely 6%

Neutral 7%

Likely 19%

Very likely 47%

Sunday Hours


Zip codes - Customer Survey

City Zip Code # Customers Baltimore 21217 62 Baltimore 21215 37 Baltimore 21201 36 Baltimore 21223 32 Baltimore 21202 25 Baltimore 21216 24 Baltimore 21218 24 Baltimore 21229 24 Baltimore 21213 23 Brooklyn, MD 21225 16 Baltimore 21230 14 Gwynn Oak, MD 21207 10 Baltimore 21239 9 Baltimore 21206 8 Pikesville 21208 6 Baltimore 21212 6 Baltimore 21224 6 Parkville 21234 6 Windsor Mill, MD 21244 6 Baltimore 21205 5 Baltimore 21231 5 Baltimore 21211 4 Catonsville 21228 3 Columbia, MD 21044 2 Glen Burnie, MD 21061 2 Ownings Mills, MD 21117 2 baltimore/Pikesville 21209 2 Rosedale 21237 2 Temple Hills, MD 20748 1 Hyattsville, MD 20783 1 Hyattsville, MD 20784 1 Jessup, MD 20794 1 Colesville, MD 20904 1 Davidsonville, MD 21035 1 Edgewood, MD 21040 1 Ellicott City, MD 21042 1 Ellicott City, MD 21043 1


City Zip Code # Customers Columbia, MD 21045 1 Columbia, MD 21046 1 Linthicum, MD 21090 1 Manchester, MD 21102 1 Millersville, MD 21122 1 Randallstown, MD 21133 1 Reisterstown, MD 21136 1 Severn, MD 21144 1 Baltimore 21203 1 Towson, MD 21204 1 Middle River, MD 21220 1 Essex, MD 21221 1 Dundalk 21222 1 Baltimore 21233 1 Towson, MD 21286 1 Annapolis, MD 21401 1 Easton, MD 21601 1 Knoxville, MD 21758 1 Mount Airy, MD 21771 1 Point of Rocks, MD 21777 1 Cohasset, MA 2025 1 Auburndale, MA 2466 1 Jersey City, NJ 7307 1 Keyport, NJ 7735 1 New York, NY 10021 1 Levittown, PA 19057 1 Swarthmore, PA 19081 1 Washington, DC 20024 1 Washington, DC 20231 1 Annandale, VA 22003 1 Alexandria, VA 22315 1 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 1 Macon, GA 31201 1 Green Cove, FL 32043 1 Pike Road AL 36064 1 Port Clinton, OH 43452 1 Phoenix, AZ 85032 1 Canada 99999 1 Total 75 448


Appendix F. Internet survey

Overview

To gather input from area residents about their experiences and perspectives on Lexington Market, the consultant team designed an Internet-based survey that was appropriate for both Market shoppers and non-shoppers.

Methodology

Market Ventures, Inc. designed the Internet instrument using a methodology and core question set that has been used successfully at other public markets around the country, modified to meet the needs of Lexington Market and similar to the customer survey, when possible. A copy of the survey instrument is located at the end of this report.

The survey was promoted on the home page of the Lexington Market website and its Facebook page; through press releases and emails to the media, list serves, and neighborhood organizations; and by Tweets from the Mayor. During a one month period from February 23 to March 24, 2014, 5,016 people took the survey on-line.

Respondents are self-selected and do not represent a sampling of the general population. However the large size of the dataset provides an opportunity to explore how a wide range of people perceive and experience Lexington Market.

Findings

Demographics About twice as many women (66%) took the on-line survey as men (34%). This

contrasts sharply to the actual customers interviewed within Lexington Market, but is more typical of who generally shops for fresh foods at public markets.

Compared to both current Market customers and households in the Baltimore region, survey respondents were generally younger. The largest group of respondents was between the ages of 21 and 39; almost no one over 70 took the survey. The Internet respondents are represented by the red bars, below:


Q22. In what range does your age fall? (N=4,445)

The majority of Internet respondents self-identified as “White/Caucasian/Anglo not of Hispanic origin” (59%), followed by “African-American/Black not of Hispanic origin” (29%). Only 2% identified as Hispanic or Latino. The racial composition of survey respondents is very similar to residents of the metro region, with many fewer minorities than shop at the Market now and fewer than in the City of Baltimore.

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

21-29 years 30-39 years 40-49 years 50-59 years 60-69 years 70+ years

Age (pop 21+)



Q26. What is your ethnic background? (N=4,318)

Most respondents are full time workers (78%) while a small group represents part-time workers (4%). 14% are students and 3% retired. Only 0.5% reported being not employed.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Customer Internet City MSA

Race

White Black Other


Q25. Which of the following best describes your current employment status? (N=4,429)

Survey respondents were generally wealthier than the general population and much wealthier than current Market shoppers. The proportion of high income households (over $150,000) was the same as the metro area but the respondents included many more upper-middle income households (from $50,000 to $150,000) than live in the metro area.

Work FT 78%

Work PT 4%

Stay-at-home parent

1% Student 14%

Retired 3%

Not emplyd 0%

Employment Status


Q24. In what range did your 2013 total household income (before taxes) fall? (N=4,209)

Household size ranged from 1 to 12. Most respondents live in two person households, as compared to current Market customers, who live in one person households.

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

Under $25,000 $25,001 to $50,000

$50,001 to $75,000

$75,001 to $100,000

$100,001 to $150,000

Over $150,000




Q23. Including yourself, how many people live in your household? (N=4,341)

Respondents live in 259 different zip codes. The top eight zip codes, representing 43% of respondents, are all in Baltimore City. The largest group of respondents lives within the same zip code as Lexington Market: 21201, with 13% of the total. A list of all zip codes is found at the end of this report.

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7+

Household Size

Customers Internet


Q21. What is your home zip code? (N=4,261)

The chart to the right shows the zip codes within Baltimore that had the largest numbers of residents, with the area of the circles scaled to the percentage of respondents who live there. The blue dots represent the Internet survey and the red dots the customer survey.

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

21201 21230 21218 21224 21202 21217 21211 21212 21117 21229 21215 21207 21231 21209

Zip Codes (most prevalent)


Competition Respondents were asked where their households purchased most of their fresh foods. A

majority (63%) said a supermarket chain (such as Giant, Safeway, Wegman’s or Shoppers), followed by a specialty grocer (such as MOM’s Organic, Whole Foods Market, or Trader Joe’s) at 13% and a mass merchandiser (such as Costco, Super Walmart or BJ’s) at 9%. Only 2% of respondents said Lexington Market and 2% said another Baltimore public market. This contrasts with the one-third of customers at Lexington Market who said the Market was their primary place to buy fresh foods.


Q2. Where does your household purchase most of its fresh food? (N=4,735)

The vast majority of respondents (76%) reported having visited a farmers’ market in the past 12 months.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Balt. public markets

Lexington Market

Independent store

Value grocer

Mass merchandiser

Specialty grocer

Supermarket chain

Where Buy


Q3. Have you visited a farmers’ market in the past 12 months? (N=4,735)

Visit characteristics Nearly all respondents (93%) reported having ever visited Lexington Market. If

respondents said they had never visited the Market, the survey skipped ahead to Q15.

Among those who had ever visited, the vast majority (82%) had visited within the past two years. Although less dominant than the customer survey, the largest group (36%) first came to the Market more than 20 years ago. Compared to only 9% of the Market customers, 23% had first come to the Market within the past two years.

Yes 76%

No 24%

Visited Farmers' Market


Q5. When was the first time you visited Lexington Market? (N=4,592)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


1-2 years ago 3-5 years ago 6-10 years ago 11-20 years ago

>20 years ago


Customer Internet


Q6. When was the most recent time you visited Lexington Market? (N=4,596)

Only those respondents who said they had visited the Market within the past two years were asked the next series of questions about their recent experiences at the Market. Those who had not visited the Market within the past two years were asked about why they had not visited.

Respondents were asked the number of times they had visited the Market in the past two years. Most were infrequent visitors: 44% reported coming only one to three times in the past two years, while 29% reported coming 4-10 times. Only 16% reported coming most frequently (more than 24 visits, or about twice per month over the two years).

< 2 yrs ago 82%

2-10 yrs ago 15%

>2 yrs ago 3%

Most Recent Visit


Q7. In the past two years, about how many times have you visited Lexington Market? (N=3,736)

The largest group of respondents said they typically travel to the Market by foot (57%), while 31% drive in their own car. 12% use public transportation. By contrast, only 20% of respondents in the customer survey said they walked, while 25% used their own car and 49% used the bus or light rail/metro.

1-3 visits 44%

4-10 visits 29%

11-24 visits 11%

>24 visits 16%

Times Visited in Past 2 Yrs


Q8. How do you typically travel to Lexington Market? (N=3,691)

Most current customers reported that it takes them 5-15 minutes to reach the Market (42%) or 16-30 minutes (32%). These percentages are quite similar to the travel times reported on the on-line survey, with more contrast among those who reach the Market in less than five minutes: 11% of customers but 22% of on-line respondents.

Walk 57%

Own car 31%

Dropped off 0%

Bus 4%

Light rail/metro

8%

How Travel


Q9. How long does it typically take you to get to Lexington Market? (N=3,763)

The largest group of respondents (40%) said they typically buy food both to eat in the Market and to take home. 28% said they only buy food to take home and 22% said only food to eat in the Market.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Less than 5 minutes

5 - 15 minutes 16 - 30 minutes 31 - 60 minutes More than 60 minutes

Travel Time to Lex Mkt

Customer Internet


Q10. When you visit Lexington Market, do you typically purchase food to eat at the Market, to take home, or both? (N=3,769)

Respondents who reported not visiting the Market within the past two years were asked for the main reasons they have not visited Lexington Market recently. The possible responses were similar to the things that customers did not like about the Market; respondents could also add other reasons. The most frequent response was “Do not feel safe there” followed by “Poorly maintained or dirty” and “Panhandling” (see chart labeled “Reasons for Not Visiting”).

Eat in only 22%

Take home only 28%

Both 40%

Neither 10%

What Typically Purchase


Q. What are the main reasons you have not visited Lexington Market recently? Check all that apply or add other reasons, below. (N=2,578)

Respondents were asked what would make them more likely to visit Lexington Market in the future. The answers to this open-ended question are found at the end of this report.

Rating Survey respondents were asked to rate their most recent experiences at the Market

compared to similar places. The questions had a five point scale, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” (see chart labeled “Compare LM to Similar Places,” below). An average score of 3 would represent a neutral position. The Market rated highly for “Easy to get to,” “the vendors are friendly and provide good service,” and “the prices of products are much better than places that sell similar products.” The Market scored poorly on “I feel secure and safe walking around Lexington Market.”

The mean scores for these ratings were analyzed based on the frequency of the respondents’ visits to Lexington Market. When the four groups were analyzed (ranging from frequent visitors who have visited the Market more than 24 times in the past year, to infrequent visitors who have visited only 1-3 times), there was no statistically significant difference between their perception of quality, selection or prices (the mean scores were essentially the same). However, there was highly significant correlation between frequency of visits and perceptions of access, security, and whether it is fun to shop at the Market. For example, the mean score for “I feel secure and safe walking around Lexington Market” among the least frequent visits was only 1.88 compared to 2.38 for the most frequent visitors. “It’s easy to get to

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Prices too high

Inconvenient hours

Lack of variety

Poor quality

Too crowded

Too far away

Parking difficult

Panhandling

Unclean

Don't feel safe

Reasons for Not Visiting


Lexington Market” ranged from 3.80 to 4.38 while “It’s fun to shop at Lexington Market” ranged from 2.72 to 3.20.

These same variables were also analyzed depending on the respondents’ household income. There is statistically significant variation for most of the variables, although the spread between the highest and lowest scores is not very large. For example, the lowest income households (below $25,000 per year) rated security at 2.06 while the highest income households (above $150,000) rated security at 1.99. Accessibility ranged from 4.13 among low income respondents to 3.93 among high income households.

Respondents were asked to list up to three things that they like most about Lexington Market. Nearly 7,000 comments were provided. Based on a textual analysis, the most frequently mentioned words were:

Word % of responses # of responses Food 22% 629 Variety 16% 457 Vendors 5% 141 Selection 4% 118 Market 4% 108 Location 4% 100 History 3% 95 Convenience 3% 91

1 2 3 4 5

Feel secure and safe

Fun to shop

Quality much better

Would recommend

Selection much better

Prices much better

Good service

Easy to get to

Compare LM to Similar Places


Crab cakes 3% 80 Atmosphere 2% 68

Survey respondents were asked to rank (on a scale of one to five) their interest in a list of new or expanded offerings at the Market. Again, three would represent neutral. All items received a score of more than three, with fruits and vegetables the highest (4.42) and crafts the lowest (3.2). Overall, basic fresh foods (fruits and vegetables. seafood, baked goods) received higher scores than prepared foods from various regions:

Q17. How interested are you in having new or expanded offerings for each of the following types of products at Lexington Market:

Respondents were asked if there were any particular food businesses from the Baltimore area that they would like to see located at Lexington Market. An open-ended text box was

1 2 3 4 5

Crafts Wine/beer

African Vegan/vegetarian

Eastern/North European Teas

South Asian Fresh roasted coffee

Ice cream Chocolates/candies

Latin American Fresh pasta

East Asian BBQ

Meats and sausages Mediterranean Cheeses/dairy

Local specialty foods Cafes/retaurants

Breads/baked goods Seafood

Fruits & vegetables

New/Expanded Offerings


provided to write the names. Using textual analysis, the most frequently mentioned words and phrases were:

Particular food businesses % Number Zeke's Coffee 6.8% 111 Atwaters 5.7% 83 Local 5.6% 92 Chipotle 4.0% 66 Trinacria 3.3% 53 Rhebs 2.6% 42 Starbucks 2.3% 38 Panera 1.7% 27 Dangerously Delicious Pies 1.6% 26 Land of Kush 1.6% 26 Subway 1.3% 21 Chick Fil A 1.2% 20 Five Guys 1.0% 17 Milk and Honey 0.7% 12 Woodberry Kitchen 0.7% 11 Joe Squared 0.7% 11 Blacksauce Kitchen 0.6% 10

Respondents were asked to rank the likeliness of their visiting Lexington Market (again on a scale of one to five) under a variety of scenarios, assuming the Market can be transformed into a clean, safe, and vibrant public market with a diverse product offering. All five questions received an average score of more than three (neutral), with visiting Lexington Market for lunch the most highly rated (4.3) and visiting Lexington Market on weekday evenings the lowest rated (3.6). Visiting the Market on Sunday received a score of 3.7.


Q19. Assuming that Lexington Market can be transformed into a clean, safe, and vibrant public market with a diverse product offering, how likely would you be…

These scores were analyzed based on the frequency the respondents reported visiting Lexington Market. Infrequent visitors said they were less likely “to shop for fresh foods at Lexington Market on a regular basis” compared to more frequent visitors (mean scores ranging from 4.08 to 4.32), yet all groups reported a high likelihood of shopping at the Market (all scores more than 4). Even the least frequent visitors said they were highly likely to visit the Market for lunch (4.34) and for coffee, tea or snacks (4.08).

The scores were further analyzed to see if men and women rated these questions differently. In fact, women expressed a higher likelihood of shopping for fresh food at Lexington Market on a regular basis if the Market is transformed (women overall: 4.29; men 4.10) and a higher likelihood of visiting the Market for coffee, tea or snacks (women: 4.20; men: 4.05).

Finally, there are statistically significant relationships between household income and mean scores for these variables. Lower income households provided higher scores that higher income.

1 2 3 4 5

visit weekday evenings

visit on Sundays

visit for coffee/snacks

shop on regular basis

visit for lunch

If transformed, likeliness to:


Zip codes – Internet survey

Zip Code Number 21201 553 21230 308 21218 239 21224 168 21202 159 21217 143 21211 138 21212 104 21117 100 21229 100 21215 95 21207 91 21231 88 21209 84 21228 75 21210 71 21206 69 21234 68 21239 67 21208 65 21214 61 21216 59 21244 55 21133 47 21236 46 21043 45 21213 43 21223 42 21042 39 21093 39 21122 32 21227 31 21044 30 21061 30 21237 29 21225 28 21136 27 21204 25

Zip Code Number 21220 25 21221 25 21045 23 21030 21 21222 21 21286 21 21075 19 21784 17 20723 16 21146 16 21157 15 21401 13 21009 12 21014 12 21015 12 21060 12 21128 12 21090 11 21113 11 21205 11 21074 10 21144 10 20910 9 21046 9 21076 9 20904 8 21050 8 21048 7 21085 7 21158 7 21403 7 21771 7 20740 6 21040 6 21047 6 21114 6 21131 6 21226 6

Zip Code Number 21409 6 20707 5 21013 5 21078 5 21108 5 21111 5 21163 5 20724 4 20735 4 21001 4 21102 4 21120 4 21152 4 21162 4 21219 4 17331 3 20002 3 20770 3 20852 3 20853 3 20866 3 20902 3 21012 3 21017 3 21029 3 21037 3 21057 3 21104 3 21203 3 17327 2 17345 2 17349 2 17406 2 17408 2 20001 2 20012 2 20019 2 20152 2


Zip Code Number 20721 2 20736 2 20737 2 20759 2 20785 2 20814 2 20817 2 20833 2 20854 2 20874 2 20878 2 20879 2 20886 2 20901 2 20905 2 20906 2 21005 2 21032 2 21035 2 21053 2 21054 2 21071 2 21084 2 21087 2 21153 2 21161 2 21601 2 21702 2 21703 2 21774 2 21776 2 21788 2 21797 2 21911 2 21921 2 22003 2 02044 1 02109 1 02130 1 07882 1

Zip Code Number 08096 1 08618 1 10001 1 10012 1 12345 1 15217 1 17015 1 17340 1 17360 1 17361 1 17362 1 17363 1 17404 1 17407 1 19003 1 19146 1 19335 1 19805 1 19934 1 20003 1 20009 1 20011 1 20018 1 20144 1 20147 1 20603 1 20613 1 20640 1 20705 1 20706 1 20708 1 20715 1 20716 1 20720 1 20732 1 20744 1 20748 1 20755 1 20763 1 20772 1

Zip Code Number 20774 1 20777 1 20782 1 20783 1 20784 1 20816 1 20850 1 20851 1 20872 1 20876 1 20877 1 20882 1 20903 1 20912 1 21010 1 21021 1 21023 1 21028 1 21051 1 21052 1 21077 1 21132 1 21140 1 21155 1 21156 1 21235 1 21250 1 21282 1 21617 1 21619 1 21625 1 21666 1 21701 1 21737 1 21740 1 21754 1 21769 1 21791 1 21804 1 21830 1


Zip Code Number 21871 1 21901 1 21904 1 22030 1 22079 1 22191 1 22204 1 22205 1 22207 1

Zip Code Number 23322 1 23803 1 30311 1 30902 1 31136 1 31234 1 32301 1 32563 1 38757 1

Zip Code Number 41042 1 44212 1 60201 1 62234 1 65201 1 68164 1 94117 1

TOTAL 4261


Appendix G: Sales Potential


Appendix H: Supply Analysis

Interview Summaries

The following are summaries of each interview conducted.

Farmers’ Market Vendors

1. Business: Hawks Hill Creamery Location: Street, MD Type of Business: Farm - creamery Interviewee: Allen Galbreath

The interviewee has never been to Lexington Market but through word of mouth has a negative opinion about the atmosphere and product quality. His business is primarily wholesale to high end grocers and he has no interest in a permanent location at the Market.

2. Business: Reid’s Orchard Location: Buchanan Valley, PA Type of Business: Farm - produce Interviewee: David Reid

The interviewee was last at Lexington Market 10 years ago. His perception of the Market is that it’s in need of a major renovation and that the tenants do not sell high quality product. He has limited interest in being a tenant in the Market, given his age and lack of resources to take on such an endeavor.

3. Business: Stoecker Farm Location: Middle River, MD Type of Business: Farm - produce Interviewee: Charles Stoecker

The interviewee was last at Lexington Market 5 years ago. His perception of the Market is negative, with the feeling that the space is dirty and the product is low in quality and in some cases unsafe. He believes there is too much fast food and not enough fresh food. He would consider a permanent location at the Market if it received a major overhaul and the tenant lineup was drastically improved.

Baltimore-based Market Vendors 1. Business: Atwater’s

Location: Baltimore, MD Type of Business: Bakery cafe Interviewee: Ned Atwater


Ned Atwater was last at Lexington Market 5 years ago. His perception of the Market is that there is too much fast food and that the quality of the space, product and surrounding neighborhood alienate the general public. Ned would like to see more emphasis on fresh, locally-sourced food, with a stronger connection to the community. He would consider a location there if the Market was completely overhauled and more attention was given to cleaning up the neighborhood.

2. Business: Dutch Floral Garden

Location: Baltimore, MD Type of Business: Flowers and home accessories Interviewee: Paula Dobbe-Maher

The interviewee last visited the Market 4 years ago. Her perception of the Market is that it’s an uncomfortable place for the general public to shop and that the product is very low in quality. She would like to see the Market play more of a role in the community, much like public markets in southern Europe. It’s unlikely she would consider a location in the Market, as she thinks her product is too high end.

3. Business: Neopol Location: Baltimore, MD Type of Business: Prepared foods Interviewee: Barbara Lahnstein

The interviewee last visited the Market several months ago. Her perception is that the Market deserves so much better and is need of a major overhaul. Barbara really believes in the Market’s potential but understands how drastic a change is necessary. She doesn’t want the Market to alienate existing customers but rather to appeal to the general population. She would consider a location if the Market, its tenants and the neighborhood were all improved.

4. Business: The Peanut Shoppe Location: Baltimore, MD Type of Business: Nuts, chocolate and candy Interviewee: Bonnie Scible

The interviewee last visited the Market about 3 years ago. Her perception is that the Market is unappealing and that the neighborhood scares away hundreds of thousands of potential customers. She wouldn’t consider a location in the Market, as she prefers street locations. She believes the Market deserves better.

Washington, DC-based Market Vendors 1. Business: Goshen

Location: Washington, DC Type of Business: Fresh-squeezed juice and scratch-made health food Interviewee: Nathaniel Adams


The interviewee has never been to Lexington Market. He is a tenant at Union Market in Washington, DC and is a believer in public markets. His business focuses on high quality health food. He would be interested in a location at Lexington Market if he were surrounded by other high quality merchants.

2. Business: TaKorean Location: Washington, DC Type of Business: Taqueria Interviewee: Mike Lenard

The interviewee has never been to Lexington Market. He is a tenant at Union Market in Washington, DC. He also owns a food truck and is beginning to open street locations in DC. He likes markets and would be interested in a location at Lexington Market if surrounded by other high quality merchants.

Restaurant and Café Businesses 1. Business: Bread Furst

Location: Washington, DC Type of Business: Bakery cafe Interviewee: Mark Furstenberg

The interviewee last visited Lexington Market 2 months ago, to visit Faidley’s. While he has lived and worked in DC for decades, he is a native Baltimorean and grew up going to Lexington Market during its heyday. He believes the Market can be great again but understands how daunting a task it will be. He feels the quality of offerings and the condition of the neighborhood are its greatest deficiencies. If the Market were restored to its former glory, he would consider a location there if he wasn’t near the end of his career.

2. Business: Cypriana Location: Baltimore, MD Type of Business: Greek cafe Interviewee: Maria Kaimakis

The interviewee last visited Lexington Market 3 years ago, to visit Faidley’s. She has been in business in Downtown Baltimore for decades and has watched the Market continue to decline, with bad product and too much fast food. She thinks the neighborhood is as much a problem as the Market itself and thinks it will take a monumental shift to turn things around. If such a turnaround occurred, she would consider a location.

3. Business: Grano Location: Baltimore, MD Type of Business: Italian restaurant and pasta bar Interviewee: Gino Troia


The interviewee last visited Lexington Market 3 years ago, visiting out of curiosity. He used to visit regularly when he was younger and thinks the Market could be great again. He thinks the product and experience are a turnoff to too many and that people have other options. He would consider a pasta bar at the Market if it were completely revamped and the neighborhood turned around.

4. Business: Heavy Seas Alehouse Location: Baltimore, MD Type of Business: Microbrewery restaurant Interviewee: Mike Morris

The interviewee last visited Lexington Market 2 weeks ago, to visit Faidley’s. He has owned a business in the neighborhood for decades and fatigued by the problems that have plagued it for so long. He believes the biggest problem with the Market is the neighborhood itself and that it is such a turnoff to potential customers that unless it is dealt with, any improvements to the Market will be wasted and unfruitful. He would consider a location at the Market if it and the neighborhood were overhauled.

5. Business: Pitango Gelato

Location: Washington, DC Type of Business: Gelato and coffee Interviewee: Lynne White

The interviewee last visited Lexington Market 7 years ago and used to visit Faidley’s regularly for lunch when she lived in Baltimore. She believes in the Market’s potential but thinks it and the neighborhood need to be reinvented from scratch, so that more than a small percentage of the population feels comfortable there. She would not consider a location there, given opportunities in DC.

6. Business: Singer Meats Location: Washington, DC Type of Business: Butcher and deli Interviewee: Doug Singer

The interviewee has never been to Lexington Market. He is a believer in public markets and their authenticity; something that is important to him in operating his business. He would consider a location at Lexington Market if surrounded by other high quality tenants.

7. Business: Trinacria Location: Baltimore, MD Type of Business: Italian butcher and deli Interviewee: Vince Fava

The interviewee last visited Lexington Market 3 weeks ago, to visit Faidley’s. He has owned a business in the neighborhood for decades and fatigued by the problems that have plagued it


for so long. He believes the biggest problem with the Market is the neighborhood itself and that it is such a turnoff to potential customers that unless it is dealt with, any improvements to the Market will be wasted and unfruitful. He would consider a location at the Market if it and the neighborhood were overhauled.

Former Lexington Market Tenants 1. Business: Konstant’s

Location: Baltimore, MD Type of Business: Candy, chocolate, nuts, popcorn, hot dogs Interviewee: Nick Konstant

Nick Konstant ran a family business that had been at the Market for more than a century. He sold the business in 2008, feeling that he’d had enough of the intensity of the work and feeling like the Market was in a downward spiral. The conditions in the building and the quality of neighboring tenants were factors in his decision to sell his business. He is not interested in getting back into the business.

Phase 1 Report: Research & Assessment -...

Documents

Transcript of Phase 1 Report: Research & Assessment -...