AN ADVISORY SERVICES PANEL REPORT Eastland Mall Charlotte...

A N A D V I S O R Y S E R V I C E S P A N E L R E P O R T

Eastland MallCharlotte, North Carolina

Urban LandInstitute$

Eastland MallCharlotte, North CarolinaReinventing the Eastland Mall

March 5–8, 2007An Advisory Services Panel Report

ULI–the Urban Land Institute1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.Suite 500 WestWashington, D.C. 20007-5201

An Advisory Services Panel Report2

The mission of the Urban Land Institute is toprovide leadership in the responsible use ofland and in creating and sustaining thrivingcommunities worldwide. ULI is committed to:

• Bringing together leaders from across the fieldsof real estate and land use policy to exchangebest practices and serve community needs;

• Fostering collaboration within and beyondULI’s membership through mentoring, dia-logue, and problem solving;

• Exploring issues of urbanization, conservation,regeneration, land use, capital formation, andsustainable development;

• Advancing land use policies and design prac-tices that respect the uniqueness of both builtand natural environments;

• Sharing knowledge through education, appliedresearch, publishing, and electronic media; and

• Sustaining a diverse global network of localpractice and advisory efforts that address cur-rent and future challenges.

Established in 1936, the Institute today has morethan 35,000 members from 90 countries, represent-ing the entire spectrum of the land use and develop-ment disciplines. Professionals represented includedevelopers, builders, property owners, investors,architects, public officials, planners, real estatebrokers, appraisers, attorneys, engineers, financiers,academics, students, and librarians. ULI reliesheavily on the experience of its members. It isthrough member involvement and informationresources that ULI has been able to set standardsof excellence in development practice. The Insti-tute has long been recognized as one of the world’smost respected and widely quoted sources of ob-jective information on urban planning, growth,and development.

About ULI–the Urban Land Institute

©2007 by ULI–the Urban Land Institute1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 500 WestWashington, D.C. 20007-5201

All rights reserved. Reproduction or use of the whole or anypart of the contents without written permission of the copy-right holder is prohibited.

Cover photo: City of Charlotte.

Charlotte, North Carolina, March 5–8, 2007 3

The goal of ULI’s Advisory Services Programis to bring the finest expertise in the realestate field to bear on complex land use plan-ning and development projects, programs,

and policies. Since 1947, this program has assem-bled well over 400 ULI-member teams to helpsponsors find creative, practical solutions forissues such as downtown redevelopment, landmanagement strategies, evaluation of develop-ment potential, growth management, communityrevitalization, brownfields redevelopment, mili-tary base reuse, provision of low-cost and afford-able housing, and asset management strategies,among other matters. A wide variety of public,private, and nonprofit organizations have con-tracted for ULI’s Advisory Services.

Each panel team is composed of highly qualifiedprofessionals who volunteer their time to ULI.They are chosen for their knowledge of the paneltopic and screened to ensure their objectivity.ULI’s interdisciplinary panel teams provide aholistic look at development problems. A re-spected ULI member who has previous panelexperience chairs each panel.

The agenda for a three-day panel assignment is intensive. It includes an in-depth briefing com-posed of a tour of the site and meetings with spon-sor representatives; interviews with communityrepresentatives; and one day for formulating rec-ommendations. On the final day on site, the panelmakes an oral presentation of its findings and con-clusions to the sponsor. At the request of the spon-sor, a written report is prepared and published.

Because the sponsoring entities are responsiblefor significant preparation before the panel’s visit,including sending extensive briefing materials toeach member and arranging for the panel to meetwith key local community members and stake-holders in the project under consideration, partici-pants in ULI’s three-day panel assignments areable to make accurate assessments of a sponsor’s

issues and to provide recommendations in a com-pressed amount of time.

A major strength of the program is ULI’s uniqueability to draw on the knowledge and expertise ofits members, including land developers and own-ers, public officials, academicians, representativesof financial institutions, and others. In fulfillmentof the mission of the Urban Land Institute, thisAdvisory Services panel report is intended toprovide objective advice that will promote the re-sponsible use of land to enhance the environment.

ULI Program StaffMarta GoldsmithSenior Vice President, Community

Thomas W. EitlerDirector, Advisory Services

Cary SheihSenior Associate, Advisory Services

Matthew RaderSenior Associate, Advisory Services

Carmen McCormickPanel Coordinator, Advisory Services

Romana KernsAdministrative Assistant, Advisory Services

Nancy H. StewartDirector, Book Program

Laura Glassman, Publications Professionals LLCManuscript Editor

Betsy VanBuskirkArt Director

Martha LoomisDesktop Publishing Specialist/Graphics

Craig ChapmanDirector, Publishing Operations

About ULI Advisory Services


On behalf of the Urban Land Institute, thepanel would like to thank the city of Char-lotte and Glimcher Realty Trust for invit-ing it to assist in preparing the redevelop-

ment recommendations for Eastland Mall. TheCity Council, especially Mayor Patrick McCroryand Council Members Nancy Carter, AnthonyFoxx, and John Lassiter, were helpful in explain-ing the context and policy issues facing the malland surrounding neighborhoods. Ken Cannon, Ar-mand Mastropietro, and Marvin Snyder fromGlimcher were extremely forthcoming and help-ful. The panel appreciates the time and effort theytook to ensure the panel had accurate informationand a thorough tour of the site. The representa-tives from the other commercial entities in themall, including Belk, Sears, and Fields, were alsoextremely helpful in assisting the panel in under-standing the mall and their individual experiencesand concerns.

Special thanks go to Tom Flynn and GiovannaBuyers from the Economic Development Office ofthe city of Charlotte. Without their support andassistance, this panel would not have been possi-

ble. The panel also thanks the city manager,Pamela A. Syfert; the director of planning, DebraCampbell; the director of neighborhood develop-ment, Stanley Watkins; and the chief of police,Darrel Stephens. District Council coordinatorTheresa Salmen also provided invaluable help be-fore and during the panel by identifying stake-holders and coordinating local logistical issues.

The panel appreciates the good work done by ULICharlotte, particularly Todd Mansfield fromCrosland and Peter Pappas from Pappas Proper-ties, in making the panel feel welcome and provid-ing local knowledge of the economic situation.

Finally, the panel wishes to thank the morethan 40 other community, government, andbusiness leaders who volunteered their time,thoughts, and experiences during the interviewprocess. Their insights provided valuable infor-mation that was critical to the completion ofthe panel’s recommendations.

Acknowledgments


ULI Panel and Project Staff 6

Foreword: The Panel’s Assignment 7

Market Assessment 9

Development, Planning, and Design Strategies 11

Implementation 16

Conclusion 21

About the Panel 22

Contents


Panel ChairDavid L. LeiningerChief Financial OfficerCity of IrvingIrving, Texas

Panel MembersMichael D. BeyardSenior Resident Fellow, ULI/Martin Bucksbaum Chair for Retail and Entertainment

ULI–the Urban Land InstituteWashington, D.C.

Tom GardnerSenior Associate EDAW Denver, Colorado

J. Dennis LordProfessor EmeritusUniversity of North Carolina at CharlotteGreenwood, South Carolina

ULI Project StaffThomas W. EitlerDirector, Advisory Services

Cary SheihSenior Associate, Advisory Services

ULI Panel and Project Staff


AULI Advisory Services Panel was asked toevaluate the redevelopment potential ofthe Eastland Mall located in Charlotte,North Carolina. Built in 1975, Eastland

Mall is situated on 90 acres located approximatelyfive miles east of downtown Charlotte. It is a typi-cal center-oriented mall with large anchor storessurrounding a core of smaller, in-line retail spaces.Although the structure went through a major re-modeling in 1990, it is one of the oldest malls in theCharlotte area. Total square footage including theanchors is 1,031,746 square feet. The site includesapproximately 5,800 parking spaces.

From an ownership perspective, the 90 acres isfragmented, with each of the anchor stores own-ing its own property and parking. Glimcher Re-alty Trust owns the main portion of the mall, con-sisting of the in-line stores and portions of theparking area and outlying parcels. A unique fea-ture of the mall is an indoor ice-skating rink thatwas a sensation when the mall first opened.

Over the past few years, many of the national re-tailers have left for locations at newer nearbymalls and power centers. The JCPenney and Belkanchors have closed, and the Dillard’s anchor hasbeen operating in a discount format for the last

Foreword: The Panel’s Assignment

year. Dillard’s will likely close by the end of 2007.The Sears anchor continues to do well, accordingto the operator, but clearly has issues of revenueand visibility. The mall suffers from bad publicityand a perception of crime.

The Panel’s AssignmentThe panel’s assignment was to explore alterna-tive uses or reuses for the anchor stores, includingother anchor retailers and nonretail uses, to con-sider the feasibility of creating a mixed-use center,and to suggest the civic and public uses that mightbe needed in the Eastland area and that might beaccommodated at Eastland Mall. The panel alsoconsidered options and strategies for public in-vestment and public/private partnerships in theproject for infrastructure needs. Consistent withmost Advisory Services Panels, this panel was toprovide an implementation strategy for achievingits recommendations.

Summary of RecommendationsAlthough the panel considered a number of op-tions, such as remodeling the existing stores andpartial retention of existing structures, the panel

NORTH CAROLINANORTH CAROLINA

26

40

40

40

77

77

85

85

95

95

85

Albemarle Sound

Pamlico Sound

A t l a n t i c O c e a n

G E O R G I A S O U T H C A R O L I N A

NORTH CAROLINA

T E N N E S S E E

K E N T U C K Y V I R G I N I A

Raleigh

Charlotte

Winston-Salem Greensboro

Durham

Wilmington

Gastonia

Asheville

Fayetteville

Jacksonville

High Point

Cary

Greenville

Rocky Mount

Location map.


preferred a development proposal for full sitetransformation from a retail to a true mixed-usecenter. The panel felt that only this approachwould build long-term value, prove sustainable,and begin the important community process ofrevitalization in the Central Avenue corridor.Elements of the full site transformation includethe following:

• Demolition of the existing mall;

• Hiring a master developer to negotiate and man-age a cooperative agreement between the prop-erty owners and to formulate and execute a newzoning and urban design plan;

• Development of a true town center with a mainstreet shopping area as its centerpiece;

• Development of high-quality residential, civic,and recreational space; and

• A commitment from the city to fund portions of the infrastructure associated with the transformation.

The ultimate answer to the many questions sur-rounding the mall is how the city can use this op-portunity to create a higher-value, more sustain-able real estate development that helps build amore livable community.

26

40

40

40

77

77

85

85

95

95

85

Albemarle Sound

Pamlico Sound

A t l a n t i c O c e a n

G E O R G I A S O U T H C A R O L I N A

NORTH CAROLINA

T E N N E S S E E

K E N T U C K Y V I R G I N I A

U N I O N A N S O N

G A S T O N

S T A N LY

C A B A R R U S

M E C K L E N B U R G

L I N C O L N

C L E V E L A N D

C A T A W B A R O W A N

D A V I D S O N

A L E X A N D E R

I R E D E L L

Raleigh

Charlotte

Winston-Salem Greensboro

Durham

Wilmington

Gastonia

Asheville

Fayetteville

Jacksonville

High Point

Cary

Greenville

Rocky MountRegional map.

The ULI panelists, cityrepresentatives, and mallowners toured EastlandMall.

Charlotte, North Carolina, March 5–8, 2007

Eastland Mall was a thriving retail locationfor three decades. Throughout the late1970s and early 1980s, Eastland was consid-ered by many to be the finest mall in Char-

lotte. In recent years, however, the mall has seena decline, spurred by changing demographics, re-tail shifts, and an increased perception of crime.

Panel Process

The panel reviewed and analyzed a variety of in-formation to help it determine and set the contextfor viable retail and other uses at the EastlandMall location. The panel reviewed the tenants’operating statements, the Littlejohn residentialmarket study, and the retail market study by Rose& Associates Southeast, Inc., and correlated themarket data with tenant sales data from Dollars& Cents of Shopping Centers®/The SCORE® 2006,published by ULI and the International Council ofShopping Centers. The panel then estimated thespace demand for the types of stores that are un-derrepresented in the Eastland trade area and de-termined a preliminary tenant mix that wouldmake sense for a new retail development in theform of a town center.

Market Conditions

The panel believes an oversupply of retail spaceexists in the immediate area of the Eastland Mall.Combined with nearby obsolete and deterioratingstrip retail, major road divides, and a public realm(streetscapes, landscaping, and public facilities) thatdoes not match the expectation of consumers, thisoversupply has led the most desirable and successfulretail formats to locate elsewhere within the tradearea. The existing competition from newer mallsand big-box format is extensive (see Figure 1).

The Mall’s Current ChallengesThe mall has significant challenges as it attemptsto attract new regional and national tenants: thetrade area is cut off and segmented between newermalls and big-box retail sites, and most new growthhas passed over this portion of the Central Avenuecorridor. Also, little attractive landscaping, streetmaintenance, street lighting, and public amenitiesexist in this area.

Another big challenge is the perception of crime.Although the actual number of crimes is not par-ticularly high for the mall, the perception of crimeremains. The city, the mall owners, and the citi-zens have done a laudable job in trying to correctthis issue through a series of community policingand private security initiatives, but the perceptionis difficult to change.

The Mall’s Current StrengthsThe mall has a number of strengths that should beconsidered in reinventing the site. By its locationand size, it presents an excellent redevelopment

Market Assessment

Figure 1Eastland Mall Competition

Distance fromRetail Location Eastland Mall

Proposed Wal-Mart: Independence Boulevard 2 miles

Wal-Mart: Eastway Drive 2.5 miles

Target: Albemarle Road 3 miles

Wal-Mart: Albemarle Road 4 miles

Target: Midtown 5 miles

SouthPark Mall 6 miles

Wal-Mart: Sardis Road North 7 miles

Concord Mills Mall 14 miles

9


augmented by a mixed-income residential commu-nity of for-sale units with civic facilities and a high-quality, pedestrian-oriented environment. Thepanel has identified the following mix of uses assustainable by the market:

• Restaurants: 90,000–100,000 square feet;

• General merchandise: 75,000–85,000 square feet;

• Books and music: 40,000–45,000 square feet;

• Electronics: 20,000–30,000 square feet;

• Home furnishings and accessories: 10,000–15,000 square feet;

• Specialty food and wine stores: 5,000–10,000square feet;

• Specialty garden/hardware: 5,000 square feet;

• Neighborhood services: 5,000–10,000 squarefeet; and

• Range total: 250,000–300,000 square feet.

The mall site should become the heart and soul ofthe east-side communities. It should be developedas a set of integrated uses in a convenient town-center configuration, and it should accommodateconnectivity to surrounding neighborhoods andcommercial streets. Key in the success of this ideais to “brand” the site with a new identity, includ-ing the elimination of the name Eastland Mall.

opportunity. It can be considered the heart of theeast side of Charlotte, and it has excellent accessfrom both east-west and north-south corridors.The site has good visibility from Central Avenue,making any new development visible to a substan-tial number of vehicles. This feature becomes es-pecially important when creating a new mainstreet, as discussed later.

The basic demographics for the area are also posi-tive: since 2000, the population has increased by5,000 people, and the average household incomecontinued to rise from $45,000 to $56,000 in thesame time period. This growth is reflected in thereinvestment in commercial business in the Cen-tral Avenue corridor closer to the downtown. Fi-nally, a strong sense of community appears to exist,as evidenced by active homeowner associations,neighborhood groups, and business associations.

Market ConclusionsThe panel feels that the future of the east side ofCharlotte depends in many ways on how this prop-erty redevelops. What happens on the mall sitewill determine the nature and timing of reinvest-ment and the effect on the neighborhood in com-ing years. The panel believes the correct land useand design of this site could provide the east sidewith a solution that creates a more sustainablereal estate climate and a more livable community.

The site should not be a regional shopping centerbut rather an environmentally sustainable newtown center with a focus on community retail, din-ing, and services. This redevelopment would be

The portions of CentralAvenue nearest the Char-lotte downtown havebegun to redevelop withnew retail and serviceuses.


The purpose of the panel is to help the city ofCharlotte define a new vision to transformEastland Mall into an active and vibrantpart of the city economy. The preceding

market assessment indicates the need to recon-sider the land uses on the site and has suggesteda mix of uses that is sustainable. However, it isimportant to run through a series of scenarios togauge their various strengths and weaknesses inlight of the market information. For the purposesof analysis, the panel has considered three devel-opment scenarios:

• Status quo;

• Adaptive use; and

• Site transformation.

Of the three scenarios, site transformation wouldcreate the greatest value for the property ownersand the city. Also, it will provide a catalyst forrevitalization and redevelopment of the CentralAvenue corridor.

Scenario 1: Status QuoThis scenario would use the existing structure andassociated facilities. The primary focus would beto remodel and retenant the space. These actionswould have to be accompanied by a well-fundedand focused marketing campaign to gain the inter-est of new tenants while retaining the existingtenants to the extent possible. A new theme andperhaps even a new name would be in order.

Approaches might include the following options:establishing loss-leader tenants (theater, Star-bucks) that would be given a discounted lease todraw in other tenants who want to be close to theloss-leader tenant; creating a new identity thattargets the growing Hispanic and Asian marketshare; converting the ice rink into an indoor soccer

stadium, iconic attractions such as amusementfacilities, interactive and reactive displays, andattention-grabbing and interesting art and sculp-ture. Also, the owners should consider conversionof retail floor space into centers for seniors, healthclubs, libraries, or health care centers. The panelfeels that the existing vacant anchor space is farbeyond the mall’s ability to attract new tenants.These areas should be demolished or convertedinto new space.

In the panel’s view, this scenario did not respondwell to community development goals and wouldstill leave substantial vacant or underleasedspace. The mall currently has three to four timesthe square footage necessary as determined bythe market need. More important, this approachis unlikely to modify the appearance and impres-sion of Eastland Mall in the public’s mind. Ac-cordingly, the panel does not see this approach asa viable scenario.

Scenario 2: Adaptive Use This scenario would remodel and retenant onlyportions of the existing mall (keeping only one of the four anchor stores). Again, this approachwould have to accompany a well-funded and fo-cused marketing campaign to gain the interest ofnew tenants. This scenario would result in large-scale demolition of the empty anchor tenants; thespace could be replaced by other retailers or per-haps recreational attractions, such as restaurantsand bookstores.

This option should not only consider the broadrange of uses mentioned in Scenario 1 but couldalso introduce a residential component. Like Sce-nario 1, this scenario would result in retail spacefar beyond the market’s ability to bear.

The panel also feels this proposal does not respondwell to the community goals of a transformed site.

Development, Planning, and DesignStrategies


In the short term, this scenario would be tenable,but the long-term chances of creating and maxi-mizing land value are unlikely.

Scenario 3: Site TransformationThe panel suggests that the appropriate approachto reinventing the mall is site transformation. Thepanel discussed and considered two alternativesunder this scenario.

Partial TransformationPartial transformation is an alternative that leavesone of the anchor stores intact (Sears) while trans-forming the remainder of the site into an integratedmedium- to high-density mixed-use developmentwith ample open space, civic uses, and residentialdevelopment that complement the new town-centerstreet lined with retail and service uses. Althoughthe panel discussed this partial transformation ap-proach in some depth, the panel felt that retainingthe anchor facility would cause the reinvention ofthe mall to remain unfulfilled because the viewsheds would be compromised in terms of creatinga new town center and the loss of available landfor proposed residential would obstruct the inter-face between the exiting residential communityand the new town center.

Full TransformationThe full transformation alternative calls for as-sembly of the parcels; removal of the existingstructures; and replacement by an integrated mixof retail, commercial, residential, civic, and recre-ational uses as well as substantial open space. Thisapproach will also make available 30 to 40 acresfor cluster and attached residential units, and itwill leave two larger tracts on Central Avenueavailable for redevelopment.

The centerpiece of the proposal calls for a 600-foot-long retail “main street” lined with 275,000square feet of retail and service uses. This mainstreet will be the focal point of a new neighbor-hood and the larger community that surrounds theexisting mall site.

The residential components of the neighborhoodshould be integrated primarily into the blocksnear the main street but would also allow for dis-tinct residential districts, such as those facing theouter edge of the existing mall property. The unitsshould be mixed income with a variety of row-house, patio single-family, and multifamily prod-ucts that conform with and engage the existingresidential communities along the north side ofthe existing mall. The panel’s development pro-gram calls for 300 condominiums in a multifamily

The panel felt that 1970s’architecture combinedwith reduced marketshare and lack of regionalor national retailers putthe Eastland Mall beyondthe reach of a simplerehabilitation andretenanting strategy.


format, 225 townhouses, and 60 single-family unitsin a patio-style arrangement (see Figure 2).

Planning and Design ConsiderationsIn recent years, town centers have attempted toreposition American urban development by com-bining, not separating, uses. Specific uses withinmixed-use buildings along with hardscapes andlandscapes integrate commercial uses with resi-dential uses to create vibrant and exciting livingareas. Good town centers all have basic planningand design principles that allow them to functionsuccessfully. From this perspective, the panel of-fers the following guidelines that will help makethe retail and service uses along the main streetsuccessful:

• At least 75 percent of the street frontage shouldbe occupied by retail uses, including cafés andrestaurants.

• Honor the pedestrian. Retail blocks are in-tended to have a high volume of pedestrian traf-fic and to support public activity throughout theday and evening.

• Major entrances should be located on publicstreets and on corners wherever possible. En-trances should relate to crosswalks and path-ways that lead to bus stops and transit stations.

• Retail venues within the main street should beas transparent as possible to maximize visibilityof street-level uses. Ground-floor facades shouldpermit a clear view from the sidewalk to the in-terior space of the building.

• Blank walls should be avoided along publicstreets and pedestrian walkways.

• Build to the lot line or provide small setbacksfrom the right-of-way for café seating, benches,or small open spaces. Setbacks may be allowedto accommodate street furniture, street trees,or generous sidewalks.

• Awnings and canopies are encouraged to pro-vide shelter and enliven the ground-floor facade.

• Driveway turnaround and vehicle drop-off facil-ities are discouraged along streets.

• Locate loading docks on side streets or servicealleys. Corner articulation of buildings is encour-aged, whereas blank walls should be avoided.

In addition, the panel encourages the followingactions:

• Energize the public realm by a high-quality,public environment focused on a central gather-ing place, a new grid of streets, a reopenedstream, and an interactive fountain or othericonic structure.

• Program farmers markets, antique shows, localevents, civic meetings, street festivals, and sea-sonal events.

• Enliven the public realm with a recreation cen-ter/YMCA combined with soccer fields, a base-ball field, and a new ice rink if the community iswilling to support it.

• Link the area to a regional bikeway/trail system.

Other guidelines are available from ULI’s publica-tion Ten Principles for Rebuilding NeighborhoodRetail. Although this Ten Principles document fo-cuses on revitalization of older retail areas, thegeneral tenets are applicable to the redevelop-ment of Eastland Mall.

Figure 2Illustrative Development Program: Total Land Area

Category Acres Units/Acre Units Square Feet

Retail 15.0 — 275,000

Residential: Condominiums 7.5 40 300

Residential: Townhomes 15.0 15 225

Residential: Single-family detached 7.5 08 60

Total residential units 585

Civic 10.0

Open space 15.0

Streets, right-of-way 20.0

Total 90.0


NORTH SHARON AMITY DRIVE

CEN

TRAL

AVE

NU

E

ALBEMARLE ROAD

REDDMAN ROAD

NEW MAIN STREET

FUTURECOMMERCIALOR MIXED-USEDEVELOPMENT

FUTURERESIDENTIALOR MIXED-USEDEVELOPMENT

FUTURERESIDENTIALDEVELOPMENT

FUTURECOMMERCIALOR MIXED-USEDEVELOPMENT

N

COMMERCIAL/MIXED USE

RESIDENTIAL/MIXED USE

CIVIC USE

WATER FEATURE

OPEN SPACE/RECREATION

KEY

Conceptual plan for re-inventing the EastlandMall site.


Implementation of Scenario 3 will require signifi-cant cooperation from the city, the developer, prop-erty owners, and neighborhoods. The creation of apublic/private partnership to address infrastruc-ture and civic use requirements will be required.The city will have to convince entities such as li-braries and parks to rethink their long-term capi-tal improvement plans and refocus funds towardthe site. This scenario will require creative skillson the part of a master developer and supportfrom the highest levels of the city government.

The panel feels Scenario 3 is the most viable de-velopment scenario. It not only will reinvent themall, adding tremendous value to the property it-

self, but also will have the secondary and tertiaryredevelopment effects that are desired for theCentral Avenue corridor. The extension of thelight-rail system may also benefit from this sce-nario by locating a vibrant node at its terminusalong a corridor where many of the residents areheavily dependent on mass transit. Finally, thisscenario is most consistent with the panel’s under-standing of community aspirations for the site.

An Advisory Services Panel Report

This section of the report outlines how thepanel’s recommendations can be imple-mented. The panel has suggested a devel-opment program to transform the Eastland

Mall site into a valuable and strategic propertyfor the city and the property owners. This programdelineates the physical uses and urban designcomponents that will make the plan successful.

As noted, successful implementation of this planwill require creative development skills on thepart of a master developer and support from thehighest levels of the city government. Successfulimplementation will also require an intricate pre-development process that takes a dedicated effortfrom the property owners and the city, followedby series of phases that will transform the prop-erty from a mall to a mixed-use development.

General ObservationsNone of the current owners at the site are mixed-use developers. The development proposed by thepanel requires one or more mixed-use developerswho have experience and the “horsepower” todevelop a mixed-use, multiphase project. Specifi-cally, the following tasks will need to be completed:

• Determining requirements for city infrastruc-ture support and civic uses;

• Organizing a group to complete the work;

• Developing a master plan;

• Revising the zoning plan; and

• Creating a tax increment financing (TIF)financial plan.

With a mixed-use development program of thisscale, the panel recommends using a master-developer approach. This concept has been usedsuccessfully in many locations and consists of put-ting responsibility for guidance, planning, financ-

ing, and construction in the hands of a single pri-vate entity that can get the job done.

Public Investment ConsiderationsCharlotte has substantial experience with lever-aging public investment into private and publicbenefits. For instance, the infrastructure invest-ment and subsequent private investment on Wilk-inson Boulevard helped revitalize the entire corri-dor. Funding for general public infrastructure willrequire modifications to roadways and drainagepatterns. Roadway improvements will include mod-ifications to Central Avenue as well as some of theadjacent streets, such as North Sharon Amity Road.

The proposed development program designatesthe site’s grand entrance as the middle entranceoff Central Avenue. Modifications to the three en-trances off Central Avenue will have to be part ofthe first phase of development, and the city shouldtake on the responsibility of the costs associatedwith these upgrades. Many examples exist of mu-nicipal participation in road design for new townsand redevelopment where the overarching goal isto improve the private sector value of property asa catalyst for revitalization of a corridor. In Addi-son, Texas, the city participated in installation of a new traffic circle, public gathering places, andiconic art that helped create the area.

Storm drainage and open space recreation as sug-gested in the central part of the site should be partof the public sector’s contribution toward the rein-vention of the site. Other components of the publicfunding should include:

• Common area and public art sites;

• Streetscapes;

• Parks and playing fields;

• Recreation center (that can include an ice-skating rink);

Implementation

16

• Library; and

• Trails and paths.

This list requires a significant commitment fromthe city, especially the reorientation of the city’sand the county’s capital improvement programsthat will be necessary for the library, recreationcenter, and playing fields. The panel notes, how-ever, that this investment should be viewed as ameans of addressing revitalization in the entireCentral Avenue corridor and surrounding neigh-borhoods, not as a giveaway to this particular site.

Finally, given the demographics of the CentralAvenue corridor, the city should consider fundingfor public trolley/transit extension into this corri-dor. The southeastern terminus of the trolley/tran-sit connection should correspond with the existingEastland Mall bus transit center. Existence of sucha fixed-rail track will substantially improve bothresidential and commercial investment and rein-vestment in the entire corridor. The ultimatedensities for the large anchors’ land bays on theeastern and western sides of the parcel will beinfluenced heavily by this decision.

Implementation Phases

This section outlines the phases necessary to achievethe buildout suggested by the panel. The solicita-tion process and predevelopment phases are par-ticularly important for the success of the project.

Solicitation ProcessThe panel recommends that a Request for Qualifi-cations process be used instead of the Request forProposal process because the former will allow thecity to enter into exclusive negotiations with adevelopment entity that can be designated as the“deal maker” to bring about this process. The dealmaker or master developer acts as the city’s agentto carry out the redevelopment of the property. Thedeal maker can conduct the due diligence regard-ing the financial feasibility of the proposal and com-plete the TIF process that will be necessary tosupport the infrastructure. As part of the startupcost, the city should consider covering the expensesof the master developer through this phase, whilethe master developer retains the flexibility ofstructuring its own land deal in accordance withthe goals of the plan.

Predevelopment PhaseWhen the city has retained a master developer,the master developer will negotiate and finalizea participatory agreement among the propertyowners. The participatory agreement could bestructured in a variety of ways, but its primarypurpose is to memorialize and promulgate the dis-position of the property before and during the de-velopment process and to outline the goals, busi-ness relationships, and profit-sharing arrangementthat would result from the development. The fol-lowing key points should be addressed as part ofthe participatory agreement:

• Confirmation of the future increased value ofthe property under the modest mixed-use de-

Figure 3Estimated Private Market Value in Mixed-Use Program

Number of Average Dollars per TotalCategory Units Square Footage Square Foot Market Value

Retail — 300,000 $ 150 $ 45,000,000

Residential: Condominiums 300 1,200 200,000 60,000,000

Residential: Townhomes 225 1,800 250,000 56,250,000

Residential: Single-family detached 60 2,400 300,000 18,000,000

Total $179,250,000


Figure 4Development Timeline

Program Square Feet Units Completion Dates

Pre-Phase I

Landowner participation July 2007–September 2007

Due diligence completion October 2007–April 2008

Developer solicitation May 2008–November 2008

Master planning/zoning December 2008–November 2009

Phase I December 2009–December 2011

Retail 100,000

Residential: Condominiums 150

Public realm

Subtotal Phase I 100,000 150

Phase II December 2011–December 2013

Retail 75,000

Residential: Condominiums 150

Residential: Townhomes 50

Residential: Single-family detached 60

Subtotal Phase II 75,000 260

Phase III December 2013–December 2015


Civic facilities

Subtotal Phase III 75

Phase IV December 2015–December 2017

Retail 50,000


Subtotal Phase IV 50,000 50

Phase V December 2017–December 2019

Retail 50,000


Subtotal Phase V 50,000 50

Grand Total All Phases 275,000 585


velopment program suggested, which the panelfeels can be very beneficial (see Figure 3);

• A financial commitment from the city to provideinfrastructure; and

• A commitment from the city to initiate, review,and approve the mixed-use development concept.

The process of assembling the land and puttingunder contract each of the property owners (or,conversely, buying them out) will be challengingand demanding. The terms of the agreement willpermit the master developer to continue to be thechampion of the project until the subsequent de-velopment phases.

The second part of this phase is retaining a plan-ning design, engineering, and finance team to de-velop a due diligence package that verifies physi-cal facts, legal matters, and viable developmentalternatives. Close coordination with the city willbe necessary, and the city needs to be prepared toparticipate and ultimately approve the rezoning.

The city has a number of mixed-use and urban-density zoning districts that seem appropriate forimplementing this redevelopment plan. Moreover,the Pedestrian Overlay District seems proper,given the compact design of the main street andthe reliance on walkable space between the urbanresidential and the commercial areas. Whatevercombination of zoning districts and overlay zonesis used to accomplish this development proposal,the project must be given special consideration bythe city staff, Planning Commission, and CityCouncil. If this redevelopment process is boggeddown in a lengthy review process, it will likelyfail. The city and master developer will set goalsand a time frame to complete the planning andrezoning process.

Phase I: The Town CenterThis phase will consist of demolition of the oldbuildings and construction of the main street.After demolition of the existing structures, themain street must be built as one unified and se-quential event. The preleasing of new space mustbe part of a coordinated and comprehensive publicrelations and marketing campaign. This redevel-opment must be supported at the highest levelswithin the community. As noted previously, the

city’s commitment is key for success. Also, designis extremely important in helping make the retailand service uses along the main street successful.

Phase I should include 100,000 square feet of retailand service uses located on both sides of two streetblocks (see Figure 4). The buildings should havea unified architectural theme on street frontagethat in later stages will be no more than about600 linear feet. Components for good design forthe main street are outlined in the previous sec-tion of this document.

Additional PhasesPhase II is intended to build out a substantial por-tion of the town center, particularly the residen-tial that will supplement the commercial and civicuses. Although the panel has suggested a series ofadditional phases, the developer, owners, and citywill likely work out a more appropriate approachas time progresses. The panel believed that outlin-ing the first phases that lead up to the completionof the main street was the most important com-ponent of a successful redevelopment program.Later phases may very well be modified based onhow the site develops over the next ten years.

The developer and the city can explore a varietyof options for the various unprogrammed landbays at the east and west corners of the site andadjacent to the existing residential neighborhoods.Feeling that the future of these pieces relies largelyon the success and direction of the Phase I devel-opment, the panel did not stipulate specific usesfor these parcels.

Long-Term ManagementPart of the problem with older strip developmentsis that soon after construction has been completed,management provides only the bare minimum oflandscaping and maintenance. This neglect has-tens a center’s fall into decline. As is the case withmost new towns and innovative mixed-use devel-opments, the site must have a comprehensivestrategy for management, maintenance, andsafety. The panel suggests that the followingitems be addressed in that strategy:



• Recognize that the development is not a shop-ping center; being open 24/7 requires more-intensive management.

• Create a management assessment district totake care of maintenance, landscaping, security,and events.

• Consider the use of private streets because ap-proval for town center–style streets is often notpossible in a timely manner from city and stateauthorities. These streets should be built to thehighest standard possible.

• Work with the retail management and home-owners associations to address ongoing issuesand problems.

• Work with retail management to present a co-ordinated event and marketing effort with aninternational theme.

The overall supervision of the physical infrastruc-ture and operational management is not a one-time fix to address existing perceptions. It shouldbe looked at as a dynamic process, requiring ongo-ing attention and enthusiasm. The panel believesthat one element of a sustainable development isconstant consideration by those who live and workthere. One approach is to establish a Business Im-provement District (BID) or similar organizationsto address these issues. All over the world, theBID techniques are being used to address thislong-term management issue.

The Eastland Mall cur-rently includes a numberof underused or vacantanchor stores. The Belkstore closed in 2006.


From the panel’s perspective, Eastland Mallwill never recapture the retail market shareit once had. The panel feels that the mallstructure and its surrounding anchor stores,

as currently configured, cannot be considered asustainable commercial venture. Although a nim-ble anchor may be able to continue to turn a profitand the in-line stores continue to pay rent that al-lows the owner to pay down the debt associatedwith the structure, long-term sustainability is notpossible. This outcome is especially true given thenew trends in demographics, urban lifestyles,and the substantial retail competition within thegreater Charlotte area.

The Urban Land Institute’s Ten Principles forRethinking the Mall says: “When a mall falters,the question that needs to be asked is not ‘Howcan we save the mall?’ but ‘How can we use thisopportunity to create a higher-value, more sus-tainable real estate development that helps build amore livable community?’” The panel believes thismall has faltered, and therefore the panel recom-mends a development program that attempts to

reinvent the mall as not only a new retail venturebut also a cornerstone and building block to revi-talize the entire Central Avenue corridor.

The site transformation option suggested in thispanel report will bring real value to the propertyand provide the owners with a substantial returnon their investment. The owners and the city mustbe committed to the transformation of the site.Although this process will take time and money,it can ultimately be successful for the community.The panel also knows that the real benefit for thecommunity is the larger revitalization effects thatwill transpire after Eastland Mall fades away anda new town emerges. For this result, the city, themall owners, the anchor store owners, and thesurrounding community must be ready to em-brace the idea of change.

Conclusion


David L. LeiningerPanel ChairIrving, Texas

Leininger joined the city of Irving, Texas, in Juneof 2003, and he serves as its chief financial officer.In that capacity, he oversees the departments ofFinancial Services and Information Technology,the Irving Visitors and Convention Bureau, andthe Las Colinas Tax Increment District.

He also serves as staff coordinator of the redevel-opment planning for Texas Stadium, current homeof the Dallas Cowboys. The stadium area, at thenexus of three limited expressway freeways, willbe served by a new light-rail line connecting theDallas/Fort Worth (DFW) International Airportand downtown Dallas. In addition, all three of theinterchanges serving the 400,000 vehicles passingthrough daily will be reconstructed by 2012.

Before joining the city of Irving, Leininger wasassociated with Economics Research Associates(ERA) where he served as senior vice presidentand director of the firm’s Golf and Recreation RealEstate strategic business unit. In this capacity, hecoordinated the activities of ERA industry practi-tioners throughout the firm.

Over the course of his career, Leininger has beenassociated with a number of private sector firms.During his tenure at ClubCorp International from1986 until 1996, he served in a variety of capaci-ties, including chairman and chief executive officerfor ClubCorp Realty and managing director, newbusiness development, Europe. From 1983 to 1985,he was associated with Triland International, theDallas developer of Valley Ranch in Irving. Heheld a number of positions, including executivevice president and chief operating officer. BeforeTriland, he was associated with the Las Colinasdevelopment, a 6,500-acre master-planned devel-opment located between Dallas and DFW airport,

where he served as vice president and generalmanager of the Las Colinas Association.

He began his career in the public sector in 1971.From 1971 to 1978, he was employed by the city ofDallas in a variety of capacities, including budgetdirector, assistant director of housing and urbanrehabilitation, and director of economic develop-ment. From 1974 to 1976 he was the fiscal servicesadministrator for the city of Garland and servedas chairman of the Finance Committee of theTexas Municipal Power Pool.

Leininger is a contributing author of Golf CourseDevelopment in Residential Communities, pub-lished by the Urban Land Institute. He is a fullmember of ULI and serves as treasurer of theNorth Texas District Council. He has served onfour Advisory Services panels previously.

Michael D. BeyardWashington, D.C.

Beyard is an urban planner and economist withmore than 20 years’ experience in the relatedfields of real estate development, land use plan-ning, and economic development. His experienceis focused in both the United States and Europeon commercial and retail development, shoppingcenters, e-commerce, location-based entertain-ment, and downtown revitalization.

At the Urban Land Institute, Beyard is SeniorResident Fellow for Retail and EntertainmentDevelopment. He is the author/project director ofnumerous books, including Developing Urban En-tertainment Centers, Shopping Center Develop-ment Handbook, Dollars & Cents of ShoppingCenters series, Value by Design, DevelopingPower Centers, Downtown Development Hand-book, The Retailing Revolution, Ten Principlesfor Reinventing Suburban Strips, and Businessand Industrial Park Development Handbook.

About the Panel


He created and directs ULI’s International Con-ference on Urban Entertainment Developmentand its technology and retail real estate forum.He also created ULI on the Future, ULI’s annualpublication devoted to emerging land use and de-velopment trends and issues, and the Entertain-ment Zone.

In his role as Senior Resident Fellow, Beyard isa featured speaker in the United States, Europe,and South America on retail, entertainment, anddowntown development issues, and he is a widelyquoted expert in national and international media,including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal,Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tri-bune, CNN, and CBS News, as well as Americanand European planning and real estate journals.

Prior to his current position, Beyard was vice pres-ident of strategic development and responsible forthe ULI’s research, data collection, books, andconferences in the commercial development fieldas well as its new strategic initiatives. He createdULI’s program in the retail entertainment field,including international conferences, books, UrbanLand magazine supplements, and strategic part-nerships with other organizations. In addition, heis the past director of ULI’s advisory work in Cen-tral Europe under the auspices of the U.S. Agencyfor International Development and the coordina-tor of program activities for ULI-Europe.

Before coming to ULI, Beyard was a senior con-sultant in the fields of urban planning and real es-tate development. He spent ten years at Booz Allen& Hamilton, Planning Research Corporation, andGladstone Associates advising both public and pri-vate clients on market analysis, feasibility, and de-velopment planning.

Beyard has been honored with membership inLambda Alpha, the International Land EconomicsHonorary Society, and was an appointed memberof the Mayor’s Interactive Downtown Task Forcein Washington, D.C. He holds a BA in internationaleconomics with honors from Rutgers College anda master’s in urban planning and developmentfrom Cornell University, where he was elected toPhi Kappa Phi.

Tom Gardner Denver, Colorado

Gardner is a registered landscape architect andurban designer with 14 years of experience. Hehas worked as lead designer/project manager, di-recting multidisciplinary teams through the de-sign and construction process on a variety of proj-ect types, including urban parks, transit-orienteddevelopments, retail destinations, urban street-scapes, and resort hotels. Gardner has a compre-hensive understanding for regional context, envi-ronment and cultural surroundings, and theirinfluences on design. He is currently working onhis master’s in urban design at the University ofColorado Denver where he is focusing on transitand mixed-use designs as well as urban infilltype developments.

Located in the Denver office, Gardner is a seniorassociate with EDAW, an idea-driven planning,design, and environmental firm that has officesworldwide. His clients include a variety of publicmunicipalities and private development firms.

J. Dennis LordGreenwood, South Carolina

Lord is Professor Emeritus at the University ofNorth Carolina at Charlotte, where he served as aprofessor in economic geography for 32 years. Hereceived his PhD from the University of Georgiain 1970. Lord’s academic specialties included retailgeography and store location research.

He has published extensively in the academicjournal literature with articles appearing in suchjournals as The Professional Geographer, UrbanGeography, Annals of Regional Science, Journalof Shopping Center Research, and the Interna-tional Review of Retail, Distribution, and Con-sumer Research. His research has covered topicssuch as changes in urban retail structure, storelocation assessment methods, trade area analysis,retail saturation, and consumer shopping behav-ior. He was a member of the editorial board of theJournal of Retailing for 17 years.

Lord has provided consulting services to a varietyof clients, including the cities of Charlotte and


Greensboro, North Carolina; Developers Diversi-fied of Cleveland, Ohio; the Tameside Metropoli-tan Borough Council in Manchester, UK; and theCharlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina, schoolsystem. He has served as an expert witness inVermont in regard to the state’s land use law (Act250); in Manchester, UK, regarding the effects ofretail decentralization on city centers; and inCharlotte on the implications for school desegre-gation of changes in racial housing patterns.

$ULI–the Urban Land Institute1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.Suite 500 WestWashington, D.C. 20007-5201

AN ADVISORY SERVICES PANEL REPORT Eastland Mall Charlotte...

Documents

Transcript of AN ADVISORY SERVICES PANEL REPORT Eastland Mall Charlotte...