Local neccesity for mixed-use on Cafritz Property?
In this article we draw attention back to a concern aired in a previous post. Many citizens have spoken up for the Cafritz’s to keep their property undeveloped, or to not pursue changing existing zoning to accommodate mixed use. Up to the second (previous) round of meetings at the end of June, the development team had not adequately addressed these concerns to the public at large. However at the latest meetings those concerns were addressed head-on by the development team.
The Cafritz’s acknowledged that not everyone in the community supports development that is mixed-use. In explaining their choice for mixed-use over other development styles, they claim that they have received more positive than negative support for their mixed-use project. They purport that their development will abate an under-served market.
To demonstrate that the Riverdale and surrounding area market is under-served, the development team cited these comparative statistics from the Washington Post: In DC there are 24 square feet of retail space per capita, and one grocer per 9,700 people. In Riverdale there are 15.8 square feet of retail space per capita and one grocer per 18,000 people. Riverdale’s figures are less than half the national average and are clearly deficient when compared to DC. Cafritz Property development would conceivably close that gap by some amount by serving the local market. All concerned parties will not be appeased by the Cafritz’s answer for mixed-use development. But we commend the developer nonetheless for stepping up and explaining their reasons this time around.
It is worthwhile to note that 
comparing the Riverdale area to DC and national market averages assumes that DC and the nation as a whole are efficiently served by their retail markets. For example, are DC’s 24 square feet of retail space per capita all truly necessary? Could better planning reduce that figure while maintaining or even improving DC’s consumer utility from its retail market? Such planning is necessary in today’s age of urban sprawl, abandoned strip malls, and vanishing green space.
Click here to view our interactive project map
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Chris-It is important for the Cafritz family to present a cogent and well supported argument for mixed use and I am glad they have *begun* to address community concerns. However, comparing DC to RP is a little too apples to oranges. Perhaps comparing the Route 1 corridor to DC would work, but not Riverdale Park alone. Similar statistics were probably used to support University Town Center, the Metropolitan Shops and will certainly be used for East Campus.
Opening up the next meeting to substantive questions (and abandoning the stations) and addressing the community’s concerns re: transportation issues might be a worthwhile next step. Thanks for your reports.
August 6th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
what shopping center is that in the photo?
August 6th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Maybe the best explanation would be that the developers will make more money from a mixed use project (also they will make more money from a higher density project). Whatever market analysis they have done must have substantiated this fact or they wouldn’t even pursue a zoning change.
August 6th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Not necessarily so, Marvin Blumberg is putting up the Landy project without any market analysis. Univ. Town Center’s sales are very slow for the almost completed loft condo building. Recent market analysis in our area is very uneven in quality.
August 7th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
They have some sort of market study. You can’t get financed on a whim (without a market study) unless of course you are financing yourself (and you would still have one done). One problem with these studies is that a lot can happen between when they are conducted and when a project is built out.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Re the financing angle, what the Cafritz and Landy properties share is that each parcel has been held for a long time. The assets held over time represent less need for financing, than say the EYA project that is based on land purchases made in the last, say, five years or so.
Sidebar: Marvin Blumberg’s philanthropy is not as easy to see as the Cafritz family. I know that at times, he has been generous to Northwestern, in a low key and intermittant style.
Regarding the market information, the biz–guy consultant at the Cafritz meetings was the least professional of all. His figures/data barely skimmed the surface. I am not sure that any here understand the range of wealth to povery in the area.
I will be bold on the “underserved markets” idea. Perhaps people on Route One — despite wanting some shopping improvements — don’t define themselves as consumers needing more, more, more, more. The click-economy of web-based vendors makes transaction costs between consumers and produces very efficient for many products. Shopping may be oversold, in the emerging I-economy.