SHREVEPORT COMMON Market Analysis for Mixed

Transcription

SHREVEPORT COMMON
Market Analysis for
Mixed-Use Development & Artist’s Housing
February 2014
TMG CONSULTING
Shreveport Common Market Assessment
Planning, Economics, & Engineering
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary .................................................................................................... 5
Housing Market Assessment ......................................................................................... 5
Retail and Commercial Market Assessment ...................................................................... 6
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 7
Case Studies: Arts and Cultural Districts .......................................................................... 9
Summary ............................................................................................................... 9
ARTS AND CULTURAL DISTRICTS ...................................................................................................................... 9
COMMON THEMES .................................................................................................................................. 10
Definitions ............................................................................................................ 12
ARTS DISTRICT ..................................................................................................................................... 12
CONSERVATION EASEMENT ......................................................................................................................... 12 FLOOR AREA PER LOT RATIO (FAR) ............................................................................................................... 12
HUD EMPOWERMENT ZONE ........................................................................................................................ 13 INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BOND ........................................................................................................................ 13 OVERLAY DISTRICTS ................................................................................................................................ 13
TAX CREDITS ....................................................................................................................................... 13
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (TIF) .................................................................................................................. 13
TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) .......................................................................................................... 13
Case 1: New Orleans Arts District (Warehouse District) ....................................................... 14
HISTORY ........................................................................................................................................... 14
REDVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................................... 14
CURRENT STATUS .................................................................................................................................. 15
RELATION TO SHREVEPORT COMMON ............................................................................................................... 15 Case 2: North Hollywood Arts District – Los Angeles, California ............................................. 17
HISTORY ........................................................................................................................................... 17
REDVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................................... 17
CURRENT STATUS .................................................................................................................................. 18
RELATION TO SHREVEPORT COMMON ............................................................................................................... 19 Case 3: The Pearl District – Portland, Oregon .................................................................. 20
HISTORY ........................................................................................................................................... 20
REDEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................................... 20
CURRENT STATUS .................................................................................................................................. 21
RELATION TO SHREVEPORT COMMON ............................................................................................................... 21 Case 4: The Railyard – Santa Fe, New Mexico .................................................................. 23
HISTORY ........................................................................................................................................... 23
REDEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................................... 23
CURRENT STATUS .................................................................................................................................. 24
RELATION TO SHREVEPORT COMMON ............................................................................................................... 24 Case 5: 18th and Vine Jazz District – Kansas City, Missouri ................................................... 26
HISTORY ........................................................................................................................................... 26
REDEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................................... 26
CURRENT STATUS .................................................................................................................................. 27
RELATION TO SHREVEPORT COMMON ............................................................................................................... 27 Case 6: SALT District – Syracuse, New York ..................................................................... 29
HISTORY ........................................................................................................................................... 29
REDEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................................... 29
CURRENT STATUS .................................................................................................................................. 30
RELATION TO SHREVEPORT COMMON ............................................................................................................... 30 February 2014
1
Case 7: The River Arts District – Asheville, North Carolina ................................................... 31
HISTORY ........................................................................................................................................... 31
REDEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................................... 31
CURRENT STATUS .................................................................................................................................. 32
RELATION TO SHREVEPORT COMMON ............................................................................................................... 32 Case 8: Wynwood – Miami, Florida ............................................................................... 34
HISTORY ........................................................................................................................................... 34
REDEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................................... 34
CURRENT STATUS .................................................................................................................................. 36
RELATION TO SHREVEPORT COMMON ............................................................................................................... 36 Case 9: The Dallas Arts District – Dallas, Texas................................................................. 38
HISTORY ........................................................................................................................................... 38
DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY .......................................................................................................................... 38 CURRENT STATUS .................................................................................................................................. 39
RELATION TO SHREVEPORT COMMON ............................................................................................................... 39 Case 10: Lancaster ARTS – Economic Benefits of the Arts .................................................... 41
STUDY FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................... 41
RELATION TO SHREVEPORT COMMON ............................................................................................................... 42 Economic and Demographic Analysis .............................................................................. 43
Population ............................................................................................................ 44
TOTAL POPULATION ................................................................................................................................ 44
Household Income ................................................................................................... 46
AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME ..................................................................................................................... 46 MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME ....................................................................................................................... 52 RACE AND ETHNICITY............................................................................................................................... 53
Employment and Business .......................................................................................... 55
UNEMPLOYMENT ................................................................................................................................... 55
EMPLOYMENT ...................................................................................................................................... 56
EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY ......................................................................................................................... 58 Tourism ............................................................................................................... 66
VOLUME ............................................................................................................................................ 66
HOTEL ............................................................................................................................................. 68
CASINOS............................................................................................................................................ 70
Housing Market Assessment ......................................................................................... 71
Summary of Projections ............................................................................................ 72
Housing Qualitative Analysis (SWOT) ............................................................................. 73
STRENGTHS ........................................................................................................................................ 73
WEAKNESSES ....................................................................................................................................... 73
OPPORTUNITIES .................................................................................................................................... 74
THREATS ........................................................................................................................................... 74
Trends ................................................................................................................. 75
URBAN LIVING ...................................................................................................................................... 75
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ACTIVITY IN SHREVEPORT ................................................................................................... 75
Methodology .......................................................................................................... 78
FAIR SHARE ........................................................................................................................................ 78
Supply ................................................................................................................. 80
COMPARABLE RENTAL COMMUNITIES IN SHREVEPORT & BOSSIER CITY .............................................................................. 80
EXISTING RENTAL COMMUNITIES WITHIN ONE MILE................................................................................................. 81
EXISTING RENTAL COMMUNITIES WITHIN ONE TO FIFTEEN MILES ................................................................................... 84
POTENTIAL LOCATIONS FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN THE SHREVEPORT COMMON ................................................................ 87
POTENTIAL HOUSING MARKET SUPPLY .............................................................................................................. 88
Demand ............................................................................................................... 88
February 2014
2
Shreveport Common Housing Fair Share Analysis .............................................................. 89
SHREVEPORT COMMON ADJUSTED FAIR SHARE ..................................................................................................... 90
SUMMARY OF PROJECTIONS ........................................................................................................................ 95 Potential for Artist Housing in the Shreveport Common ...................................................... 96
PROJECTION OF ARTIST OCCUPIED UNITS ........................................................................................................... 97
PROJECTED DISTRIBUTION OF ARTIST OCCUPIED UNITS ............................................................................................. 98
Potential Rental Revenue .......................................................................................... 99
Potential Impacts to the Housing Market in the Shreveport Common Cultural District ................. 102
ZONING AMENDMENT – SHREVEPORT COMMON ARTS SUB-DISTRICT ................................................................................ 102
THE HAYNESVILLE SHALE .......................................................................................................................... 102 LOUISIANA ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY TAX CREDIT PROGRAMS .................................................................................... 102
LOUISIANA COMMERCIAL TAX CREDIT (HISTORIC TAX CREDIT) ..................................................................................... 103
FEDERAL HISTORIC REHABILITATION TAX CREDIT .................................................................................................. 103
CADDO COMMON DEVELOPMENT................................................................................................................... 103 Retail and Commercial Market Assessment .................................................................... 104
Summary of Projections ........................................................................................... 104
Retail and Commercial Qualitative Analysis (SWOT) ......................................................... 106
STRENGTHS ....................................................................................................................................... 106
WEAKNESSES ...................................................................................................................................... 106
OPPORTUNTITIES .................................................................................................................................. 106
THREATS .......................................................................................................................................... 106
Trends ................................................................................................................ 107
RETAIL SALES ..................................................................................................................................... 107
MARKET RENT FOR RETAIL PROPERTIES ........................................................................................................... 108 MARKET RENT FOR OFFICE PROPERTIES ........................................................................................................... 109 Methodology ......................................................................................................... 110
Existing Supply ...................................................................................................... 112
RETAIL SUPPLY .................................................................................................................................... 112
NON-RETAIL SUPPLY .............................................................................................................................. 114
Potential Locations for Retail and Commercial Development............................................... 116
Fair Share Analysis ................................................................................................. 117
SHREVEPORT COMMON RETAIL FAIR SHARE ........................................................................................................ 117
SHREVEPORT COMMON NON-RETAIL FAIR SHARE .................................................................................................. 119
Existing Demand .................................................................................................... 121
RETAIL DEMAND ................................................................................................................................... 121
NON-RETAIL DEMAND ............................................................................................................................. 128
Supply vs. Demand Comparison .................................................................................. 130
RETAIL SUPPLY VS. RETAIL DEMAND ............................................................................................................... 130 NON-RETAIL SUPPLY VS. NON-RETAIL DEMAND ................................................................................................... 132
New Business Demand ............................................................................................. 133
NEW RETAIL BUSINESS DEMAND ................................................................................................................... 133 NEW NON-RETAIL BUSINESS DEMAND.............................................................................................................. 139 Impact of Commercial Vacancies in the Market ............................................................... 141
Disclaimer............................................................................................................. 146
Appendix I: Applicable Incentive Programs .................................................................... 148
Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program ............................................................. 148
New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) Program ...................................................................... 148
Federal Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit ..................................................................... 148
Louisiana State Historic Preservation Tax Credit ............................................................. 148
February 2014
3
Louisiana State Residential Rehabilitation Tax Credit ....................................................... 149
Restoration Tax Abatement (RTA) ............................................................................... 149
Waiver of Construction Permit Fees ............................................................................. 149
Façade Rebate Program ........................................................................................... 149
DSDC Low Interest Loan Program ................................................................................ 149
DSDC Historic Restoration Grants ................................................................................ 149
Economic Development Initiative (EDI) Loan Program ....................................................... 149
Brownfields Revolving Loan Program ............................................................................ 150
The HOME Investment Partnerships Program .................................................................. 150
Loan Guarantees.................................................................................................... 150
Soft Second Loan Programs ....................................................................................... 150
Federal Tax Credit for Home Energy Efficiency Improvements ............................................. 151
Home Energy Rebate Option (HERO) ............................................................................ 151
Small Business Loan and Guaranty Program .................................................................... 151
Louisiana Main Street Redevelopment Incentive Grant ...................................................... 151
Renewable Energy Systems State of Louisiana Tax Credits .................................................. 151
Developer Incentives to Lure Tenants .......................................................................... 151
U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) Loan Programs .................................................... 152
Appendix II: Artist Demographic Data........................................................................... 153
Artists in the United States ....................................................................................... 153
Artists in Louisiana ................................................................................................. 155
LOUISIANA ARTISTS BY GENDER ................................................................................................................... 155 LOUISIANA ARTISTS BY AGE ....................................................................................................................... 156 ARTISTS BY RACE AND ETHNICITY ................................................................................................................. 157 ARTISTS BY EARNINGS ............................................................................................................................. 158
Artists in the Shreveport-Bossier City MSA ..................................................................... 159
Artists in the Shreveport Common Cultural District .......................................................... 160
SHREVEPORT REGIONAL ARTS COUNCIL SURVEY: ARTISTS BY AGE ................................................................................. 160
SHREVEPORT REGIONAL ARTS COUNCIL SURVEY: ARTISTS BY GENDER ............................................................................. 161
SHREVEPORT REGIONAL ARTS COUNCIL SURVEY: ARTISTS BY RACE AND ETHNICITY ................................................................ 161
SHREVEPORT REGIONAL ARTS COUNCIL SURVEY: EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT...................................................................... 162
SHREVEPORT REGIONAL ARTS COUNCIL SURVEY: WORK SPACE .................................................................................... 162
SHREVEPORT REGIONAL ARTS COUNCIL SURVEY: LIVING WITHIN SHREVEPORT COMMON ........................................................... 163
SHREVEPORT REGIONAL ARTS COUNCIL SURVEY: ADDITIONAL FACILITIES .......................................................................... 164
Appendix III: Rental Housing Data ............................................................................... 165
Appendix IV: Retail and Commercial Downtown Shreveport Fair Share Analysis ...................... 195
February 2014
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In our analysis, TMG Consulting (TMG) concludes that the Shreveport Common Cultural District should be
capable of supporting significant housing and retail or commercial uses. This conclusion is dependent on
significant infrastructure improvements in and marketing of the area, as well as on continued growth of
the greater Shreveport-Bossier region.
Housing Market Assessment
In our assessment of the potential for housing in the Shreveport Common area, TMG developed both
“Low” and “High” forecasts. With a full build-out of 250 rental units in the area, TMG projects that
approximately 177 to 222 units could reasonably be occupied, generating between $1.3 million and $2.4
million in rental revenues annually. Of the occupied units, between 11 and 17 could potentially be
occupied by artists.
Shreveport Common Adjusted Fair Share Projections
0-1 Mile
(LOW)
0-15 Mile
(HIGH)
Shreveport Common's Fair Share of Occupied Rental Units
161
222
Discount/Premium to Fair Share
1.1
1.0
Forecast of Occupied Units in the Shreveport Common
177
222
Category
Source: TMG Consulting
Potential for Artist Units in Shreveport Common
Category
Low
High
Shreveport Common Occupied Units
177
222
New Artist Renters Captured
11
17
Potential % of Occupied Units
6%
8%
Summary of Projected Rental Revenue
Scenario 1
Revenue
Generating Units
177
$0.76
Occupancy
Rate
71%
Scenario 2
177
$1.14
71%
$1,904,329
Scenario 3
222
$0.76
89%
$1,636,275
Scenario 4
222
$1.14
89%
$2,398,342
Scenario
PSF
Potential Annual Revenue
$1,299,228
February 2014
5
Retail and Commercial Market Assessment
The Shreveport Common Cultural District is expected to capture a portion of the demand for retail and
non-retail commercial property in the Downtown Shreveport area. As outlined in the 2011 Shreveport
Common Vision Plan, the Shreveport Common Cultural District is expected have approximately 138,000
square feet available for commercial use by 2017.
Total Potential New Businesses Demanded in Downtown Shreveport
Category
Retail
Non-Retail
Total
Unsatisfied Demand (2012) (Number of Businesses)
6.5
8.2
14.7
Anticipated Growth (2017) (Number of Businesses)
1.6
4.3
5.9
8.1
12.5
20.6
Source: TMG Consulting Analysis
Summary of Retail and Commercial Market Fair Share Analysis for Shreveport Common
Category
Retail
Non-Retail
Total
8.1
12.5
20.6
Estimated Capture by the Rest of Downtown Shreveport
2.4
9.8
12.2
Estimated Capture by Shreveport Common (# of businesses)
5.7
2.7
8.4
The Shreveport Common Cultural District is expected to capture approximately 8.4 business by 2017 if
sufficient infrastructure improvements and adequate marketing efforts are made that make it equally
competitive with other new and renovated buildings in the Downtown Shreveport Area.
At an average rate of $13.50 per square foot for retail property and an average rate of $12.50 per square
foot for non-retail property (based on Caddo Parish September 2013 levels), the resulting anticipated
annual revenue that can be expected from new Shreveport Common retail and non-retail commercial
properties is approximately $555,550 per year (in 2013 dollars).
Summary of Retail and Commercial Market Assessment for Shreveport Common –
Square Footage and Revenue Projection
Category
Estimated Capture by Shreveport Common
Estimated Square Feet Per Business
Estimated Square Feet of Real Estate Demanded
Retail
Non-Retail
Total
5.7
2.7
8.4
5,000
5,000
5,000
28,637
13,516
42,153
September 2013 Market Rental Rate per Square Foot
$
13.50
$
12.50
$
13.18
Total Estimated Annual Revenue
$
386,606
$
168,945
$
555,550
February 2014
6
INTRODUCTION
In September 2013, the Downtown Shreveport Development Corporation (DSDC) engaged TMG Consulting
to perform a series of analyses for the Shreveport Common Cultural district. Included in our study were
assessments of the potential for the district to provide housing as well as to host retail and commercial
uses. The goal of this study is to provide the data and information necessary to inform potential investors
and project developers while maintaining the focus and overall vision of the plan to sustain an active
and engaging Arts & Cultural District in Shreveport.
In order to assess the potential for the desired uses, TMG Consulting reviewed the Shreveport Common
Vision Plan, conducted three site visits covering six days, and performed extensive research and analyses.
During these site visits TMG conducted interviews with local developers, real estate professionals,
bankers, artists, City officials, economic development professionals, officials from the Shreveport
Regional Arts Council, and DSDC/Downtown Development Authority (DDA) staff to further our
understanding of the development site, existing facilities and location, regional trends and attitudes,
February 2014
7
needs and desires of all parties with relation to Shreveport Common, and any plans for future
development. Data was gathered with regard to future area development plans, the existing customer
base, and on the local and tourist populations. Locally competitive facilities were evaluated. Detailed
demographic and consumer spending data was obtained from proprietary sources and mapped using our
in-house GIS capabilities, showing population density and income levels as they relate to the Shreveport
Common. Where possible, pricing and performance data from competitive and comparable developments
and businesses were gathered and trends reviewed.
TMG Consulting utilized the data gathered in order to perform market assessments for each of the
potential uses for the site. The market demand, utilization and revenue potential for each of these uses
was projected. The following study details our research and analyses, including methodology, inputs,
and forecasts for the potential utilization and revenue potential of the area’s proposed housing and
retail/commercial uses.
February 2014
8
CASE STUDIES: ARTS AND CULTURAL DISTRICTS
The following section of this study details a sample of art and cultural districts across the United States
and serves as a comparison set for the Shreveport Common.
Summary
This section of our study examines the development process and strategies used in the formation of arts
and cultural districts across the United States. The case studies allow better insight to the successes and
failures of certain measures taken in the redevelopment of urban space. In total, TMG researched and
analyzed ten different arts and cultural development projects that are relevant to the Shreveport
Common development effort:
1. New Orleans Warehouse District – New Orleans, Louisiana
2. North Hollywood Arts District – Los Angeles, California
3. The Pearl District – Portland, Oregon
4. The Railyard – Santa Fe, New Mexico
5. 18th and Vine Jazz District – Kansas City, Missouri
6. SALT District – Syracuse, New York
7. The River Arts District – Asheville, North Carolina
8. Wynwood – Miami, Florida
9. Dallas Arts District – Dallas, Texas
10. Lancaster ARTS – Lancaster, Pennsylvania1
ARTS AND CULTURAL DISTRICTS
For decades, the arts have been used by planners and developers as a key component in the
redevelopment of declining urban areas. 2 Arts and cultural districts impact these urban areas by
providing a high concentration of cultural facilities, thus attracting visitors and stimulating economic
activity. Property values, adjacent businesses (restaurants, retail, lodging, etc.), the local work-force,
and the overall creativity of a community all benefit from the presence of an arts and cultural district.3
Arts and cultural districts help to beautify and re-animate areas in cities that are in need of revitalization.
Every arts and cultural district is unique. Some districts focus on visual arts establishments such as
galleries and museums, while others focus on the performance arts such as theater or live music. Arts
and cultural districts promote history as well, capitalizing on the city’s historic characteristics and
celebrating its past. Each district has similar goals: revitalize an urban area, provide activities for
residents and tourists, and connect the community more intimately with the arts.4
The tenth arts district, Lancaster ARTS, was examined but only to report the findings of an economic study regarding the
benefits of arts and cultural establishments in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
2 Frost-Kumpf, H.A. “Cultural Districts: The Arts as a Strategy for Revitalizing Our Cities.” Americans for the Arts. 1998. Web. 1
Nov. 2013.
3 Frost-Kumpf (1998).
4 Frost-Kumpf (1998).
1
February 2014
9
COMMON THEMES
Listed below are some common themes found in the case studies:

Each arts and cultural district reviewed involves the redevelopment of an under-utilized urban
space. Arts and cultural districts are often located in former industrial or manufacturing sites,
where inexpensive rental prices allow artists to reside and produce their art at low cost. These
sites are often dilapidated prior to the arrival of new tenants, benefit from an influx of creativity
and begin to flourish and see increases in property values.

Local efforts to remove blight and beautify urban areas often happen in concert with
revitalization efforts.

Often the arrival of single arts/cultural institution or establishment (e.g. an art museum or an
arts center) will act as a catalyst and spur the development of several other establishments in
the area.

Several case studies involve the use of tax-increment financing (TIF) as a way to fund
redevelopment. This strategy works by allocating future property or sales tax generation for
infrastructure improvements and commercial development in a defined district.

Zoning changes and overlay districts are common tools used to promote investments in arts and
cultural districts.

Many of the case studies reflect the notion that cities covet arts and cultural establishments.
This is made evident by the generous amount of funding some cities have provided for
improvements.

Artist housing units are often provided within arts and cultural districts to promote a creative
residential population. These accommodations allow artists to live and work in the same space,
therefore stimulating the district with an ongoing creative presence.

Public transportation often plays an important role in providing access and visibility to arts and
cultural districts.

Events such as art walks, craft fairs, and festivals are commonly used to promote galleries and
studios in arts districts. These events generate excitement and visibility for the district and
connect the community with the arts.

Not all arts and cultural redevelopment projects are successful. Although cities may provide
sufficient funding for arts and cultural districts, housing and retail markets do not always respond
favorably. The redevelopment projects examined in these case studies rely heavily on private
investment. Investors, despite the incentives provided by cities, are not always fully enticed.
February 2014
10
Summary of Characteristics of Selected Case Studies
#
District Location
2010 MSA
Population
Size of
District
(acres)
# of
Cultural
Buildings
Development Strategies
1
Warehouse
District
New Orleans, LA
1,167,764
100
31
Zoning changes, Investment Tax
Credits, Industrial Revenue Bonds
2
North Hollywood
Arts District
Los Angeles, CA
12,828,837
628
52
Arts-specific
zoning
overlay,
designated redevelopment area,
tax increment financing, local state
and federal funding
3
The Pearl District
Portland, OR
1,789,580
280
10
Tax Increment Financing, housing
implementation strategies
4
The Railyard
Santa Fe, NM
144,170
50
21
Conservation easement, Trust for
Public Land Partnership, State
financing
5
18th and Vine
Jazz District
Kansas City, MO
1.188.988
98
10
Tax Increment Financing, HUD
Grants, "Show-Me Small Business"
Act
6
SALT District
Syracuse, NY
662,557
191
10
Non-profit
fundraising,
micro
lending
programs,
residential
property tax freeze, Dollar Home
incentive.
7
The River Arts
District
Asheville, NC
424,858
64
25
Properties
owned
transportation
improvements
8
Wynwood
Miami, FL
5,564,635
530
57
HUD Empowerment Zone, private
investments
9
Dallas Arts District
Dallas, TX
6,371,773
68
17
Municipal
investments
10
Lancaster ARTS
Lancaster, PA
519,445
112
66
N/A (Economic Impact Analysis)
Bonds,
by
artists,
infrastructure
private
Sources: US Census Data, Google Earth, TMG Consulting Analysis, Caplinger Planners (1983), New Orleans Arts District Association,
Community Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles, Urban Land Institute, Portland City Council, Morris (2011), Railyard at Santa
Fe Community Corp., Jazz District Redevelopment Corp., Near West Side Initiative, Asheville River Arts District Association,
City of Miami, Miami Urban Think Tank, City of Dallas, Office of Economic Development.
February 2014
11
Case Study Locations
Definitions
The following is a list of terms that will be commonly used throughout this section of our report. These
definitions explain the strategies used in the development of Arts and Cultural Districts.
ARTS DISTRICT
A mixed use area in a community with high concentration of cultural facilities and operations aimed to
promote economic development and cultural activity.
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
An agreement between a private landowner and government agency that limits uses of land in order to
protect its conservation value. Not only do conservation easements help to conserve land, they also have
tax benefits. The easement creates a discounted value for the property that provides a charitable
contribution tax deduction and tax savings for the owner of the property.5 This way, both the public and
the property owner can enjoy the benefits of the easement.
FLOOR AREA PER LOT RATIO (FAR)
The floor area permitted on a site divided by the net area of the site. Used to express intensity of land
use in non-residential areas.6
Lafond, A., Schrader. J. “Charitable Contributions of Conservation Easements” Journal of Accountancy. Nov. 2011. Web.
5 Nov. 2013.
6 Pollack, V.M.W., “What is Floor Area Ratio (FAR)?” Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Urbsworks. September 6, 2003. Web. 15
Oct. 2013.
5
February 2014
12
HUD EMPOWERMENT ZONE
Designated areas of high poverty and unemployment that benefit from tax incentives provided to
businesses within the boundary.7 Federal program managed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD).
INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BOND
Tax exempt municipal bond that finances facilities for private businesses and local industries.8 Local
government is not responsible for repaying the bond and it does not count against its credit capacity.
OVERLAY DISTRICTS
Ordinance that provides a way to incorporate development regulations across an area. Overlay Districts
are special zones that lay on top of existing zoning categories to supplement or supersede existing
regulations.9 As a land use tool, overlay districts can be used in several land management scenarios and
exist in many forms. Local governments use this tool to achieve specific goals such as access
management, preservation of natural and historic resources, redevelopment of blighted areas, special
taxing or financing, and protection of environmental quality. Overlay districts can be specifically
designed to incentivize investors with low land use restrictions in order to generate more tax revenue.10
TAX CREDITS
A tax credit is a direct, dollar for dollar, reduction in the tax liability that must be paid for a given year.
A credit is different from a deduction, which reduces a taxpayer’s adjusted gross income.11 Tax Credits
are awarded at both the Federal and State levels.
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (TIF)
A method of public financing that authorizes the use of future gains in sales or property taxes to subsidize
current improvements that promote economic development and private investment for a designated
area.
TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD)
A type of community development that includes a mixture of housing, office, retail and/or other
commercial development and amenities integrated into a walkable neighborhood and located within
proximity to quality public transportation. 12 Louisiana State Law currently defines transit oriented
development as a “mixed-use development consisting of at least fifty percent multifamily residential
housing and at least twenty thousand square feet of commercial or retail facilities, on a single contiguous
site, all or part of which is located within one-quarter mile of a multimodal transit center, with at least
ten million dollars in capital expenditures for new construction or conversion of existing structures”13
“Empowerment Zones” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2013. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
U.S. Legal “Industrial Revenue Bond Law and Legal Definition” Definitions. N.d., n.p. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.
9 “Planning Tools: Overlay District Ordinances” Sub-regional Planning. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.
10 “Planning Tools: Overlay District Ordinances” Sub-regional Planning. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.
11 “Tax Incentive Program.” Louisiana Department of Culture Recreaton and Tourism. 2013. Web. 6 April 2013.
12 “What Is Transit-Oriented Development?” Center for Transit-Oriented Development. N.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2013
13 La. R.S. 51:1783 (II)
7
8
February 2014
13
Case 1: New Orleans Arts District (Warehouse District)
The New Orleans Warehouse District, also known as the New Orleans Arts District, is a former industrial
area, now-thriving neighborhood located up-river from New Orleans’ Central Business District. The area
is home to several art galleries, museums, high-end restaurants, shops, hotels, and private residences.
HISTORY
The Warehouse District gets its name
from the several warehouses located in
the neighborhood that served as
industrial and trade sites from the mid1850s to the early 1900s. At the time, it
was an important center of commerce
along the Mississippi River and the
warehouses served as storage facilities
for the goods entering and exiting the
city’s port. These buildings were built for
industrial use, making the neighborhood
a very important location for the city’s
labor force and economic viability. Also
located in this area were ship services
and supply businesses as well as machine
shops that catered to the needs of trade
vessels. Through the 20th century, this
area of New Orleans lost businesses as
they relocated to less congested areas or
shut down as needs of the port changed
and
the
area’s
infrastructure
deteriorated.
Contemporary Arts Center located within the
Warehouse District of New Orleans
Photo Credit: LA Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism; Website
http://www.crt.state.la.us/Arts/Images/slideshow/photos/image4.jpg
REDVELOPMENT
In 1976, the New Orleans Contemporary Arts Center (CAC) was founded in the Warehouse District and
became a catalyst for the arts-driven revival of the neighborhood. After making its home in an old,
dilapidated ice cream factory, the CAC began to fill a growing need for bringing arts into the city.14 In
1977, the Warehouse District was established as a historic district under the recommendation of the
Historic District Study Commission.15
In 1983, the Preservation Resource Center of New Orleans initiated the “New Orleans Historic Warehouse
District Study” to examine the district and its potential for redevelopment. The study recommended
several items that would promote development in the district while preserving its urban fabric and
historic form. Zoning restrictions were relaxed to make better use of underutilized properties that were
best suited for high intensity uses. Investors could do then more with the vacant properties, which
incentivized more development progress. The study was also explicit on the need to provide zoning
ordinances that would preserve the Warehouse District as a historic resource and recommended the
14 Francino, Jennifer L., “Contemporary Arts Center, New Orleans (CAC): Past, Present, and a Vision towards the Future”
(2013). Arts Administration Master’s Reports. Paper 146.
15 Caplinger Planners “New Orleans Historic Warehouse District Study: Technical Report” The Preservation Resource Center
of New Orleans. 1983.
February 2014
14
regulation of the amount of floor area per lot (FAR) in areas that could experience speculative rises in
property value. By regulating FAR, values of properties were stabilized to assure historic preservation.
The study also suggested the use of several financial programs that would incentivize investors to develop
in the district. One program, investment tax credits (ITC), was recommended for qualified rehabilitation
projects. Depending on the age of the structure, investors could receive anywhere from 15%-25% of the
redevelopment cost of the rehabilitation project using ITC. Another program, industrial revenue bonds,
provided assistance to developers by issuing long-term, fixed asset, and tax-exempt revenue bonds.16
The study offered several physical development recommendations, such as the restoration of neutral
grounds, street resurfacing, sidewalk repair, and lighting improvements.17
The “New Orleans Historic Warehouse District Study” was important for the development of the district
due to its timing and the district’s proximity to the site of the 1984 Louisiana World Exposition (World’s
Fair). Many of the district’s buildings were renovated for the World’s Fair and much of the renovation
was financed through tax credits offered by the federal government specifically for refurbishing historic
buildings. 18 The district benefitted from the World Expo through an increase in investment and
improvements and by 1990 it had evolved into the arts and cultural center of the city.19
Over the next two decades, downtown area grew from approximately 2,000 residents in 1990 to 3,460
residents in 2010; a 73% increase over 20 years and a cumulative average increase of 2.8% per year during
this period.20 With this growth came renewed interest in making major investments in the area. In 2000,
the National D-Day Museum opened in the Warehouse District and became a major tourist attraction for
the area. In 2003, the Museum was designated at the National WWII Museum, and over the next ten years,
it greatly expanded its exhibits and overall footprint in the neighborhood. As the population in the area
reached a critical mass, new retail and commercial amenities moved into the area to accommodate the
growing local demand, including a 40,000 square foot supermarket in 2011.21
CURRENT STATUS
Since the World Expo, the Warehouse District has experienced a resurgence of commercial, cultural, and
residential investments. Over 25 art galleries are located in the neighborhood, firmly establishing it as
the center of art in New Orleans. Located in the Warehouse District are four museums, The World War II
Museum, Louisiana’s Civil War Museum, The Ogden Museum of Southern Art, and The Louisiana Children’s
Museum. Also located in the Warehouse District are cultural establishments, such as the Contemporary
Arts Center, American Italian Cultural Center and the Preservation Resource Center. The Warehouse
District also has 34 restaurants (many of which are upscale), 20 hotels, and 13 bars and nightclubs.
RELATION TO SHREVEPORT COMMON
The Warehouse District in New Orleans provides an example of how an urban area in Louisiana can be
revitalized using zoning changes, financial programs, and capital improvements, all of which incentivized
investment in the neighborhood. The arts-driven revival of the Warehouse District can be attributed to
Caplinger Planners. Page 89 (1983).
Caplinger Planners. Page 91 (1983).
18 Wagner, F.W., Joder, T.E., Mumphrey Jr., A.J. Urban Revitalization: Policies and Programs. United States: Sage Publications,
Inc. 1995. Book.
19 Francino. 2013.
20 Donze, F. & R. Mowbray. “Rouse’s Market on Baronne Street fills void in Central Business District.” Times Picayune., Nov.
16, 2011
21 Donze, F. & R. Mowbray. “Rouse’s Market on Baronne Street fills void in Central Business District.” Times Picayune., Nov.
16, 2011
16
17
February 2014
15
the presence of the CAC, which served as an early catalyst for restoration and re-invention in the
district.22 Shreveport Common currently has a similar arts facility (SRAC’s ARTSTATION) within the
study area that could play a similar role in connecting the community through art exhibitions and
programs. This case study is unique because of the influx of financial capital provided by the 1984
World’s Fair and how that event helped revive the area’s vacant buildings. Many of the buildings in the
Warehouse District were repurposed rather than demolished and rebuilt. As some of the building stock
in the study area is similar to that of the Warehouse District, the repurposing of vacant properties is
also an applicable concept to Shreveport Common.
New Orleans Warehouse District Characteristics
Location
2010 MSA Population
Size (acres)
New Orleans, Louisiana
1,167,764
100
Building Stock
Cultural Buildings
31 total
Museums
4
Galleries
25
Cultural Centers
Restaurants
Hotels
Housing
Transportation
2
34
5
850 units (approx.)
Bus, Streetcar.
Development Strategies Used
Zoning changes
Investment Tax Credits
Industrial Revenue Bonds
Sources: 2010 US Census Data, Caplinger Planners (1983), New Orleans Arts District Association
22
Francino. 2013.
February 2014
16
Case 2: North Hollywood Arts District – Los Angeles, California
The North Hollywood Arts District (NOHO) is a neighborhood in Los Angeles that has experienced
revitalization due to public and private investment in residential and commercial properties. With a
dense concentration of theatres, galleries, dance studios and recording studios, NOHO has become an
area of artistic significance. Much of its success as a thriving arts district can be attributed to its
connection to the LA Metro mass transit line; however, the redevelopment of the neighborhood has fallen
short of its lofty expectations.
HISTORY
From the early 1900s through the 1940s, NOHO
was a densely populated residential community
with a shopping corridor along Lankershim Blvd.
In the 1960s and 70s, shopping malls and freeway
construction took people away from the main
streets of the NOHO community leaving buildings
vacant and blighted.
New Mixed-Use Development Located in North
Hollywood Arts District (NOHO)
REDVELOPMENT
In 1979, the Community Redevelopment Agency
of Los Angeles (CRA), the city’s authority in
community revitalization, designated North
Hollywood as an area of interest and established
a plan to redevelop the neighborhood. The
“North Hollywood Redevelopment Plan” 23 was
adopted to set the framework for the
revitalization process. The plan gave authority
to the CRA to acquire land, remove deteriorated
buildings, and manage vacant property.
The plan also allowed for residents of the
neighborhood to obtain property by giving them
opportunities to purchase and rehabilitate land
on a preferential basis.
Photo Credit: Jamespeace. Webpage:
By the mid-1990s, over 750 new housing units
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spumante_in_NoHo.JPG
were built in the district, many of which were
designated for elderly, handicapped, and low-income residents.24 The CRA Redevelopment Plan did not
specifically mention the use of arts as a redevelopment tool; instead, NOHO took the shape of an arts
district in an organic manner as theatres, dance studios, galleries, and arts centers arrived in the
neighborhood and as artists began to take advantage of NOHO’s relatively inexpensive housing prices.
The city did not recognize the neighborhood as an official “arts district” until 1992. In 1995, the City of
Los Angeles implemented a zoning overlay ordinance so that the artists living in the district could live,
create and sell their work all in the same place.25
23 The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, California (CRA). “Amended Plan for the North
Hollywood Development Project”
24 Urban Land Institute. “North Hollywood, Los Angeles, California: Transit and the Arts in NoHo (Building a Vibrant
Community)” 30 Jan. 2004. Web. 24 Oct. 2013.
25 Urban Land Institute. 2004.
February 2014
17
In order to purchase and rehabilitate properties, CRA was allowed to receive financial assistance from
various sources, including local, state, and federal funding, as well as property TIF districts and special
assessment districts. However, by the year 2000, the plan had failed to meet many of its original goals.
Twenty years after the plan was issued, $117 million of public funding had been invested in NOHO, yet
the community had yet to see significant benefits.26 Despite the involvement of the CRA, the number of
blighted properties actually increased and the number of jobs in the district had declined. Large-scale
developments, such as the proposed home for the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, failed to be
fully realized. The Academy project, which was to be a $45 million dollar, multi-use development that
would provide hundreds of jobs to the community, was delayed due to the inability of CRA to condemn
certain properties needed for construction, which caused tenants to back out and financing to collapse.27
The development was finished but did not have the community-changing effect as intended. Since the
CRA used eminent domain to acquire a large number of properties, local residents became anxious and
increasingly vocal in opposition of the agency’s power and filed legal challenges against the CRA, further
delaying development projects.
In 2000, the Red Line Metro subway station opened in the heart of the district, connecting the people of
North Hollywood and the San Fernando Valley to downtown Los Angeles. This would have a lasting,
positive effect in bringing people to NOHO from across the region. The station also serves as a form of
public art with a large, colorful entryway. Most importantly, the opening of the Metro Station encouraged
more developments in the district, adding some much needed investment. One planned development,
the NOHO Art Wave, was approved in 2007 by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (LACMTA) to be the largest and most expensive transit-oriented development in the city.
Located on land owned by LACMTA and directly next to the Metro station, the $1 billion project will
eventually offer 562 housing units, three office towers, 1.72 million square feet of retail, and 6,200
parking spaces.
CURRENT STATUS
Despite the failures of the CRA redevelopment plan, NOHO has flourished as an arts and cultural district.
NOHO is currently a destination for the performing arts and home to over 30 professional working theatres
offering film, dance, and drama. Eight high end art galleries occupy space in the district as well. The
Metro Station (at the intersection of Lankershim Blvd. and Chandler Blvd.) is at the heart of the district
and connects the Red and Orange Metro lines. NoHo Commons, a mixed-use property located on Fair Ave.
between Cumpston St. and Cumptson Blvd., anchors the retail and residential activity in the district.
Tenant demand created by industries like technology and media continues to grow, which was made
evident by the recent sale of an 188,000 square foot vacant office building in close proximity to the
Metro Station.28
The planning process and financial programs involved in the redevelopment of North Hollywood are
examples of popular strategies taken by cities to rehabilitate their neglected communities. However,
sometimes, these efforts are not fully realized. What is most notable about NOHO and its relationship
to the Shreveport Common project is the role of transportation. The connection of new transportation
McGreevy, P., Miller, C.T. “Heady Plans, Hard Reality: $117 million redevelopment effort left North Hollywood no better
20 years than some similar areas that got no such aid, data show. Officials defend agency.” Los Angeles Times. January
30, 2000. Web.
27 McGreevy, M. 2000.
28 McGreevy, M. 2000.
26
February 2014
18
lines from NOHO to downtown Los Angeles served as catalysts for increased investment and development
in the neighborhood. The limited success of NOHO can be attributed to its transportation infrastructure.
The “CommonLink” transportation substation in Shreveport Common is comparable to the transit
station located in NOHO because it serves as a central public transportation site for the arts district.
The “CommonLink” will benefit the district by bringing visitors and residents to the center of Shreveport
Common and will serve as a public work of art with its unique design features. The metro station in NOHO
achieves similar goals as it is the focal point of the arts district.
North Hollywood Arts District Characteristics
Location
2010 MSA Population
Size (acres)
Building Stock
Cultural Buildings
Museums
Theatres
Galleries
Art Institutes
Arts Centers
Acting/Dance Studios
Restaurants
Hotels
Housing
Public Transportation
Los Angeles, California
12,828,838
628
52 total
1
30
8
1
2
10
38
1
16 total apartment complexes
115 Artist-housing units
Metro, Bus
Designated "Redevelopment Area"
Arts specific zoning overlay
Property tax increment financing
Local, state, federal funding
Source: 2010 US Census Data, NoHo Communications Group, Community Redevelopment
Agency of Los Angeles, Urban Land Institute.
February 2014
19
Case 3: The Pearl District – Portland, Oregon
The Pearl District, formerly known as the “Industrial Triangle”, is situated along the Willamette River in
downtown Portland, Oregon. Aside from high-rise residences, the neighborhood consists of a significant
amount of art galleries, museums, retail shops, and restaurants. What is unique about the Pearl District
is its diversity of incomes. Many residences within the District are high-rent or market-rent; however,
developers and planners have ensured diversity by setting aside low-income housing. “The Pearl,” as it
is known, is a “clear validation that high-quality, inner-city communities can revive from the ashes of
urban decay.”29
HISTORY
Along the banks of the Willamette
River, the Pearl District was once the
transportation hub of the city of
Portland. 30 Many buildings in the
district were erected during the early
1900s for storage and manufacturing
uses; however, suburbanization and
changes in transportation patterns
over time shifted shipping methods
from rail and water to roads and
highways, leaving the Pearl District
with many vacant warehouses. Years
later, artists seeking inexpensive
rental rates began moving into the
warehouses. “Warehouses became
used as dwellings, legally and
illegally, introducing a new resident
population. The District became an
eclectic mixture of auto shops and art
galleries.”31
Lovejoy Station located within the Pearl District
Photo Credit: Another Believer: Website:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lovejoy_Station,_Pearl_District,_Portland,_
OR_2012.JPG
REDEVELOPMENT
Planning initiatives laid the groundwork for development and growth management in Portland’s
downtown, known as the 1998 River District Urban Renewal Plan. The city of Portland enacted property
TIF districts for developments in the Pearl. The TIFs allowed for infrastructure improvement projects to
be subsidized by directing public funds toward development projects for the area.
The 1994 and 1999 River District Housing Implementation Strategies were issued to increase the number
of housing units in the area of downtown Portland. The goal of the 1994 Strategy was to add 1,600 new
units and the Strategy was amended in 1999 to add 5,000 additional units. By 2006, 7,480 housing units
had been added to the development area.32 This increase in units led to the Pearl becoming the fastest
“Home” Explorethepearl.com. 2013. Web. 25 Oct. 2013.
Portland City Council. Pearl District Development Plan Steering Committee. “Pearl District Development Plan” 2001. Web.
25 Oct. 2013.
31 Pearl District Development Plan. 2013.
32 River District Housing Implementation Strategy 2006 Annual Report
29
30
February 2014
20
growing neighborhood in Portland, increasing its population from 1,110 residents to 6,000 residents from
2000 to 2010.33
Much of the new construction in the River District involved high-income luxury apartments. By 2006,
2,916 new low to moderate income housing units were also built and 366 additional such units were
renovated. Providing a diversity of income in the planning area was a key component of the housing
strategy and it helped to ensure social equity and minimize the concentration of poverty in Portland.34
CURRENT STATUS
The Pearl is world-renowned for its efforts in urban revitalization.35 The dominating planning elements
in the Pearl reflect the ideas of New Urbanism. Today, 22 percent of residents living in the Pearl District
qualify for low-income housing.36 The neighborhood is densely populated, walkable, and has several
mixed-use properties. Residents benefit from a variety of shops, restaurants, and entertainment. A new
streetcar has been built in Portland and some routes within the Pearl District charge no fare for riders.
In the past 5 years, the Portland Development Commission has completed over 16 housing, development,
and public improvement projects in the neighborhood.37
The Pearl District is an example of a well-executed urban revitalization effort. The City of Portland,
through various planning efforts, was able to take an under-utilized urban area and turn it into a thriving,
desirable place to live. Applicable to Shreveport Common is both developments’ desire to retain
diversity within the housing market. By creating diverse housing options, low-income earning
residents, such as artists, can afford to live and work in the neighborhood.
Hottman, S. “New Pearl District affordable apartment highlights misperception of neighborhood’s wealth.” The
Oregonian. 17 May 2013. Web. 25 Oct. 2013.
34 City of Portland. Bureau of Planning. “North Pearl District Plan.” Portland City Council. 5 Nov. 2008. Web. 25 Oct. 2013.
35 “The Pearl District” Pearl District Neighborhood Association. 2013. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
36 Hottman. 2013.
37 Portland Development Commission (pdc.us)
33
February 2014
21
The Pearl District Characteristics
Location
2010 MSA Population
Size (acres)
Building Stock
Cultural Buildings
Galleries
Museums
Theaters
Restaurants
Retail
Hotels
Housing
Portland Oregon
1,789,580
280 acres
10
8
1
1
40
44
4
13 apartment complexes
1 artist-specific complex
(22 percent of all units are low-income)
Streetcar, Bus Rapid Transit
Tax Increment Financing
Increase in low-income housing units
Source: 2010 US Census Data, Portland City Council, Pearl District Neighborhood Assoc.
February 2014
22
Case 4: The Railyard – Santa Fe, New Mexico
The Railyard is a mixed-use arts and cultural attraction in the heart of the Santa Fe, New Mexico. Opened
in 2008, The Railyard has provided the city with a sense of place by revitalizing an old, dilapidated
railroad facility.
HISTORY
Historically, the Railyard was a center
of activity in Santa Fe. 38 It was an
arrival and departure station for two
popular railroad lines which brought
both goods and people directly to the
city center. The site remained a
central
hub
until
railroad
transportation became obsolete after
World War II.39 What was left was an
underutilized site of historical and
cultural significance in the middle of
Santa Fe.
Santa Fe Railyard Park
REDEVELOPMENT
In 1987, the city of Santa Fe began to
plan for the redevelopment of several
Photo Credit: Rennet Stowe – Website:
blighted areas including the Railyard.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Santa_Fe_Railyard_(7729689888).jpg
In 1995, the city purchased the 50 acre
plot of land with support from the Trust for Public Land.40 The local community also played a major part
in the planning process through a public forum held by the city in December of 1996. At this forum,
citizens providing their input on what amenities and services they expected the Railyard to have. In 2002,
the city released the Railyard Master Plan and the Santa Fe Railyard Community Corporation (SFRCC) was
founded to manage the redevelopment.
The SFRCC received money from several sources to fund the redevelopment project. The New Mexico
Finance Authority loaned $12.2 million for infrastructure improvements to SFRCC.41 Nearly $1 million of
grant money from the Trust for Public Land and HUD was provided for the planning and design process.42
Thirteen acres of The Railyard are protected under a conservation easement. In the case of The Railyard,
the protected land cannot be used for any other use besides serving the community as a gathering space,
rail corridor, and/or trail.43 The Trust for Public Land provides oversight for the terms of the conservation
easement.
CURRENT STATUS
Today, the Railyard boasts a wide variety of cultural facilities, parks, shops, restaurants, and services.
Within the 50 acre development is an emphasis on arts and entertainment. The Railyard has a collection
of twelve art galleries, seven museums, cultural centers, performance centers, including El Museo
www.railyardsantafe.com/history
“History” The Railyard at Santa Fe. 2013. Web. 29 Oct. 2013.
40 The Railyard at Santa Fe Community Corporation. “History.” Santa Fe Railyard. N.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2013.
41 New Mexico Finance Authority. “About”. 2013. Web. 30 Oct. 2013.
42 The Railyard at Santa Fe Community Corporation. “Funding.” Santa Fe Railyard. N.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2013.
43 Morris (2011)
38
39
February 2014
23
Cultural, a Hispanic cultural center, and Warehouse 21, an arts center for teens. SITE Santa Fe, a worldrenowned international art exhibition center, is located at the center of the Railyard, featuring a building
façade that doubles as a venue for rotating exhibitions.44 The Santa Fe Farmer’s Market, New Mexico’s
largest, operates twice a week at a location within the Railyard. Several buildings are occupied by techservice companies, including web design, computer systems, and database management.
Railyard Park, the main green space within the Railyard, has an outdoor performance space, a children’s
play area, picnic tables, walking and biking trails and an innovative water harvesting system that uses
rainwater and run off to sustainably operate the park’s water features.45 The park was designed through
an international design competition and is managed by the Trust for Public Land.
The Artyard Lofts is a three-building apartment complex located near the Railyard that provides living
and studio space for Santa Fe artists. Built in 2008, the Artyard was one of the first new construction
projects in New Mexico to reach the LEED Platinum Certified level of low-energy performance. Because
of this, the complex was qualified to receive State of New Mexico Sustainable Building Tax Credits.
The Railyard at Santa Fe is a revitalization project with a definitive emphasis on arts and culture.
Museums, galleries, and community space now drive the success of the once neglected area. Most of the
buildings are original structures and renovated to serve as either commercial space or loft apartments.
The Railyard works both as an attraction for visitors and a place for the community to meet, especially
at weekly events such as a farmer’s market. Much like Shreveport Common, the centerpiece of The
Railyard is its park space. Railyard Park is designed to provide the city of Santa Fe with an opportunity
to experience the region’s natural beauty while remaining a useful, functional open space. Although
much smaller in scale, “The Caddo Common,” as it is envisioned, is comparable to Railyard Park in terms
of park features.
44
45
SITE Santa Fe. “Vision.” 2013. Web. 30 Oct. 2013.
“Park, Plaza and Alameda” The Railyard. N.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2013.
February 2014
24
The Railyard Characteristics
Location
2010 MSA Population
Size (acres)
Building Stock (buildings)
Cultural Buildings
Museums
Galleries
Cultural Centers
Restaurants
Retail
Services
Housing
Santa Fe, New Mexico
144,170
50 acres
64 total
21
7
12
2
4
12
27
10 live/work units
Rail line, Bus
Conservation easement
Trust for Public Land Partnership
State sponsored finance agency
Sources: 2010 US Census Data, Morris (2011), Railyard at Santa Fe Community Corp.
February 2014
25
Case 5: 18th and Vine Jazz District – Kansas City, Missouri
A historic district, the 18th and Vine Jazz District in Kansas City, Missouri was redeveloped to promote
the culture of the city and to provide an entertainment destination for visitors and residents. The Jazz
District is home to the American Jazz Museum and the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum as well as several
night clubs and theatres.
HISTORY46
The 18th and Vine neighborhood was
an African-American neighborhood
that thrived during the early to mid1900s primarily because of the
growing popularity of Kansas City jazz
music. By The 1950s, the area began
to decline as many of the clubs that
employed musicians closed. By the
1980s, most of the Jazz Districts
storefronts had become vacant and
only a few business remained due to
the growing suburbanization trend
that was spreading across the country.
18th and Vine Jazz District
REDEVELOPMENT
The Black Economic Union, a Kansas
City
non-profit
community
Photo Credit: SakuraAvalon86; Website:
development
corporation,
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:18thstreet.jpg
jumpstarted
the
redevelopment
process by purchasing large amounts of property in the neighborhood and tearing down blighted buildings.
This was the beginnings of what is now called the Jazz District. In 1989, a sales tax package was approved
that allocated $20 million to the rejuvenation of the neighborhood, which included renovation of the
Historic Gem Theater and construction of a new facility to house the American Jazz Museum and the
Negro Leagues Baseball Museum. 47 In 1997, an additional $14.2 million of federal money was also
allocated for the renovation of buildings and the development of the Jazz District.48
In 1999, the city agreed to apply tax increment financing (TIF) from increased economic activity to the
district in order to spur additional commercial growth; however, by the end of the TIF period in 2010,
the TIF failed to generate a considerable amount of revenue, due in large part to lack of retail in the
district.49 Funds from the TIF district were mainly used to construct off street parking.
In 2007, Kansas City’s Downtown Development Group (DDG) partnered with the Jazz District
Redevelopment Corporation (JDRC) to attract new development and investment. The partnership secured
a $1.8 million grant from HUD to purchase land and build more residential properties.50
“Jazz District History.” 18th and Vine Jazz District Redevelopment Corporation (JDRC). 2012. Web. 30 Oct. 2013.
“Jazz District History.” 18th and Vine Jazz District Redevelopment Corporation (JDRC). 2012. Web. 30 Oct. 2013.
48 Reynolds, B.R. “The Jazz District Authenticity Problem” Atlantic Cities. Feb. 21, 2012. Web. 30 Oct. 2013
49 Reynolds (2012)
50 JDRC (2012)
46
47
February 2014
26
In 2010, Kansas City planners developed the Vine Street District Economic Development Plan.51 In this
plan, the redevelopment boundaries were extended to include two other neighborhoods surrounding the
18th and Vine Jazz District. The primary focus of this plan was to attract businesses and retail to the Vine
Street District. The plan also intended to incubate new businesses through the “Show-Me Small Business”
Act, established by the State of Missouri in 2011, which created a tax free zone to attract new businesses
from all over the city and region.52
CURRENT STATUS
In total, $81 million dollars have been spent on the redevelopment of the Jazz district since 198953 and
despite the generous amount of funding the Jazz District has received in the last 20 years, there remains
work to be done. Many storefronts remain empty and businesses are slowly moving back. One major
criticism of the district is that regulations placed on music and noise levels have deterred restaurants
and nightclubs from creating an authentic nightlife experience. 54 Despite the lack of retail and
commercial options in the Jazz District, investors have continued to build residential units. According to
the Jazz District Redevelopment Corporation, five apartment complexes have generated 242 housing
units for a wide range of residents.55 Another residential development, which will provide 22 units of
affordable housing, is under currently under construction. This development will use seven vacant
historic structures that will reflect vibrant culture of Kansas City’s Jazz District.56
The 18th and Vine Jazz District is an example of how a city attempts to capitalize on its historic culture
yet falls short of its redevelopment goals. While other areas of Kansas City’s downtown have thrived, the
Jazz District has struggled. Significant funding has been invested into the Jazz District; however, the
neighborhood has experienced very little activity in terms of retail. It is vital for the district to not only
be an attractive place for people to come and spend time, but also a place where they will generate
commerce. Planners and developers have succeeded in making the 18th and Vine Jazz District a cultural
attraction; however, restoring the neighborhood to vibrancy has been an ongoing struggle. This case
study should serve as a cautionary tale for Shreveport Common because it demonstrates how
important a balanced redevelopment effort is in order to achieve the plan’s goals.
Vine Street Steering Committee. “Vine Street District Economic Development Plan” Kansas City, Missouri. 1 Jul. 2010. Web.
24 Oct 2013.
52 Vine Street Steering Committee (2010)
53 Giesler, C. “Development at 18th and Vine: Understanding Problems and Formulating Strategies for the Future”. Kansas
State University. 2009. Web. 25 Oct. 2013.
54 Reynolds (2012)
55 “Jazz District Today”. 18th and Vine Jazz District Redevelopment Corporation (JDRC). 2012. Web. 30 Oct. 2013.
56 JRDC (2012)
51
February 2014
27
18th and Vine Jazz District Characteristics
Location
2010 MSA Population
Size (acres)
Building Stock
Cultural Buildings
Museums
Cultural Centers
Theaters
Jazz Venues
Restaurants
Hotels
Housing
Kansas City, Missouri
1,188,988
98
10
2
5
1
2
4
1
242 mostly affordable units
Bus
Tax increment financing
HUD Grants
"Show-Me Small Business" Act (2011)
Sources: 2010 US Census Data, Jazz District Redevelopment Corp.
February 2014
28
Case 6: SALT District – Syracuse, New York
The SALT (Syracuse, Art, Life, and Technology) District is an ongoing redevelopment project located on
the West side of Syracuse, New York, just outside the city’s core. Galleries, studios, design firms and
arts venues are all contained within walking distance of the SALT District. The goal for the neighborhood
developers was to create a center of artistic and cultural development in the city by attracting artists to
become property owners.
HISTORY
Aside from being the home of Syracuse University,
Syracuse is a city with a deep history in manufacturing.
The SALT District is named not only for its acronym but
also for its lineage with the salt factories that once
occupied the west side. Like many cities, Syracuse
experienced decentralization and loss of manufacturing
viability. Many warehouses, especially on the West side,
became vacant over time.
South Salina Street in Downtown Historic
District of Syracuse
REDEVELOPMENT57
In 2006, the Gifford Foundation, a charitable foundation
that distributes grants for community purposes in
Central New York, established the Near West Side
Initiative (NWSI). This initiative was created as a nonprofit in charge of overseeing the redevelopment of the
near-West side of Syracuse. NWSI has since partnered
with Syracuse University, Home HeadQuarters Inc. (a
housing non-profit), the City of Syracuse, the Syracuse
Center for Excellence, National Grid (energy company),
and neighborhood residents. Since the formation of
these partnerships, NWSI has raised $44 million for
improvements within the SALT District.
The main goal for the SALT District redevelopment is to
attract artists, and people in general, to purchase
homes in the area. NWSI offers inexpensive options for
prospective residents, including the Dollar Home
Program, where selected homes can be purchased for
Photo Credit: Lvklock: Website:
only $1 with the obligation to renovate the exterior of
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:South_Salina_St
the home within 6 months, the entire home within 18
_Downtown_HD1.jpg
months, and live in the home for at least three years.
Each Dollar Home also comes with a seven year property tax abatement plus subsidies from the City of
Syracuse for renovation costs. Several homes are move-in ready and require no renovation. These homes
are not sold for one dollar but are relatively inexpensive and enjoy the same seven-year property tax
exemption. NWSI also offers commercial/mixed use rental properties that are LEED certified and
equipped with studio space. For instance, the Lincoln Building, a 100 year old, four story warehouse,
provides a 10 unit live/work space specifically designed for artists. In terms of commercial investment,
Lundborg, P. “Syracuse’s Near West Side neighborhood looks for future in SALT”. The Post Standard 18 Oct. 2012. Web.
30 Oct. 2013.
57
February 2014
29
NWSI has provided micro lending and business support programs for existing and new businesses in the
SALT District. These programs help give entrepreneurs affordable solutions to start businesses by
providing teaching, training and financing for each client.58
CURRENT STATUS
The SALT District is in a state of ongoing development. The Gear Factory, a formerly dilapidated
warehouse facility, has emerged as an affordable studio and event space for musicians and artists. The
five story building is still being renovated but has strong support from the art community. It has become
a hub of artistic activity in Syracuse by providing studio and event space. Over the last four years, the
SALT District and NWSI have leveraged over $70 million dollars in investments.59 In early 2013, NWSI held
a competition to select a design team for its main street.
The SALT District is relevant to the Shreveport Common Cultural District because both Syracuse and
Shreveport have comparable levels of population within their MSAs. The case of the SALT District
reveals intriguing strategies to incentivize home-ownership of a population that is comparable in
size to Shreveport. While some aspects of the “Dollar Home” program may or may not be feasible for
Shreveport Common, the program represents a creative way to provide inexpensive housing solutions for
low-income residents. This program is similar in nature to the Soft Seconds Program in New Orleans. It
also benefits the community by reducing blight and incentivizing home ownership. The SALT District,
despite being a new redevelopment effort, has generated excitement in the Syracuse community and
continues to gain momentum.
SALT District Characteristics
Location
MSA 2010 Population
Size (acres)
Building Stock
Cultural Buildings
Galleries
Studios
Cultural Centers
Restaurants
Syracuse, New York
662,557
191 acres
Housing
1 artist-specific apartment complex (10 units)
Bus
15
3
5
2
5
Non-profit fundraising
Residential Property Tax Freeze
"Dollar Home" home ownership incentive
Sources: 2010 US Census Data, Near West Side Initiative.
58
59
“NWS Micro lending Program” The SALT District. 2012. Web. 25 Oct. 2013.
Salt District Monthly Newsletter (January 2013), Web. 25 Oct. 2013.
February 2014
30
Case 7: The River Arts District – Asheville, North Carolina
Located along the eastern bank French Broad River, the River Arts District (RAD) is home to Asheville’s
working artists. RAD has been evolving since the 1980s when a group of dedicated artists, landowners,
and businesses laid claim to a neglected area of the city.60 Today, over 150 artists live in RAD and the
area has several dining and shopping destinations.
HISTORY
Asheville is located in Western North
Carolina within the Blue Ridge Mountains.
In the early 1800s, the town grew thanks to
the completion of a road to French Broad
River. This road connected the city to the
rest of the South and Asheville soon became
an affluent resort destination. 61 In the
1880s, a railroad connection to the city
further increased the number of jobs,
industry, and population of Asheville. “An
industrial center sprang up near the railroad
in the area that would later be known as the
River District.” 62 The River District,
however, has been historically subjected to
severe flooding. In 1916, floods damaged
buildings and killed neighborhood residents.
By the 1930s, the neighborhood was
subjected to the effects of the Great
Depression and, combined with the flood
damage, the River District was reduced to a
run-down collection of vacant warehouses
and homes.
Haywood Street located within the River Arts District
Photo Credit: Jane023 Website:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Woolworth_building_25_Haywoo
d_Street,_Asheville_NC.JPG
REDEVELOPMENT
The redevelopment of the RAD has been an organic process. In the late 1980s, artists began purchasing
and renovating riverfront properties in Asheville, transforming them into studios. The adaptive reuse of
the old buildings in the district accelerated in the 1990s because of the inexpensive cost of property.
Due to the overwhelming presence of artists in the neighborhood, local stakeholders officially identified
the neighborhood as the River Arts District in 2004.63
By 2011, 14 buildings in the district were owned by artists. As the River Arts District became a popular
attraction, the city of Asheville responded by investing more in its infrastructure. The $1.2 million
Clingman Avenue Streetscape Enhancement Project, completed in 2012, improved the transportation
infrastructure adjacent to the RAD by retrofitting an existing intersection into a traffic circle, fixing
sidewalks, and installing bike lanes. This improvement allowed for a better connection from downtown
Asheville to the RAD.
“About”. Asheville RAD. 2013. Web. 30 Oct. 2013.
Gunter, Ava. M, “The Voice of the River Arts District” University of Tennessee Honors Thesis Projects. May 2012. Web.
Accessed: October 15, 2013.
62 Gunter, Ava. M, “The Voice of the River Arts District” University of Tennessee Honors Thesis Projects. May 2012. Web.
63 “SmART Initiative: River Arts District”. North Carolina Arts Council.
60
61
February 2014
31
CURRENT STATUS
The River Arts District is a popular and ever-growing attraction in Asheville. There are 12 restaurants in
the RAD64 ranging from coffee shops to high-end eateries. The district has 23 working arts studios and
160 artists use these spaces to create their art.65 These studios are open to the public to experience how
artists create their work. Three major development and infrastructure projects are currently underway:
the construction of a brand new New Belgium Brewing Company brewery, the construction of seven
buildings, a mixed use development, and the implementation of the River Arts District Transportation
Improvement Project.
New Belgium Brewing Company brewery is slated to open in winter 2015.66 The new brewery was provided
with $3.5 million in tax reimbursements over seven years from the City of Asheville.67 The city grant is
performance based, which means the New Belgium Brewing Company is expected to invest the full agreed
amount ($175 million) in order to receive the full amount of reimbursements. The city also plans to
provide $500,000 in infrastructure improvements to the immediate area. The brewery is projected to
generate 140 new jobs and after the seven year tax reimbursement period, it is expected to generate
$551,000 per year in property and machinery taxes.68
Proposals have surfaced to turn a former steel manufacturing site along the French Broad River into a
large mixed use development. 69 Delphi Development, LLC, an Asheville real estate development
company, plans to build 209 apartment units with 43,000 square feet of retail space, 12,000 square feet
of office space and 338 parking spaces. The project is projected to cost $43 million. Some residents are
concerned that the development will be imposing and will not include local business owners, thus
jeopardizing the locally owned characteristic of the RAD.
The River Arts District Transportation Improvement Project (RADTIP) is an infrastructure project created
to improve a 2.2 mile stretch of roadway in the RAD. Currently, studies are being conducted through
Federal Highway Administration funding to position the project for construction. The final project will
improve the transportation infrastructure by upgrading the road, adding storm water controls,
constructing multi-use trails, and adding sidewalks.70 This type of emphasis on infrastructure proves that
the City of Asheville is serious about further developing the RAD.
The RAD in Asheville is an example of an arts district with grassroots beginnings. The district was
started by artists and has grown into an arts community that is a vital component of Asheville’s culture.
The approach of the Shreveport Regional Arts Council (SRAC) is similar. SRAC’s goal is to promote and
encourage the arts in Northwest Louisiana and is the catalyst for the Shreveport Common plan. The
presence of SRAC makes the revitalization of downtown Shreveport an arts-based movement, much
like what happened in Asheville and the RAD.
“River Arts District Restaurants” Urbanspoon. Web. N.d., Oct 22, 2013
River Arts District.
66 “Home” New Belgium.
67 Forbes, David. “City of Asheville will give New Belgium $3.5 million in incentives, infrastructure improvements”
68 “Asheville Frequently Asked Questions” New Belgium Brewing. n.d, n.p., Web. 22 Oct. 2013.
69 Boyle, John. “Dave Steel property proposal evolves into several structures” Asheville Citizen-Times. 21 Oct. 2013. Web. 24
Oct. 2013.
70 “RAD Transportation Project” City of Asheville, North Carolina. 2013. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
64
65
February 2014
32
River Arts District Characteristics
Location
2010 MSA Population
Asheville, North Carolina
424,858
Size (acres)
98
Building Stock
Cultural Buildings
Studios
25
23
Galleries
Restaurants
2
7
Housing
N/A
Bus
Artist-owned properties
Transportation infrastructure improvements
Sources: 2010 US Census Data, Asheville River Arts District Association
February 2014
33
Case 8: Wynwood – Miami, Florida
The Wynwood neighborhood in Miami, Florida is comprised of 4 million square feet of industrial
manufacturing warehouses and residential properties that are currently being repurposed, many for artsbased uses. Located at the south end of the city, the neighborhood has grown from desolated to thriving
as it has become a destination for visitors and Miami natives alike to experience its more than 70
galleries, museums, and collections.
HISTORY
The Wynwood neighborhood was built
to be a residential neighborhood for
those working in the Garment District,
located
just
south
of
the
neighborhood. 71 Miami’s garment
industry boomed in the early 1920s
due to manufacturers from New York
and elsewhere becoming enticed by
lower production costs. The Garment
District, aside from being a center of
manufacturing, was also a center of
fashion. Latino immigrants populated
the
Wynwood
residential
neighborhood and took part in the
garment industry labor force. By the
1970s, the garment industry had
moved its operations outside the
United States, vacating the Garment
District
and
the
Wynwood
neighborhood and turning its streets
over to drugs and crime.72
Midtown Miami Center located within Wynwood
Photo Credit: Marc Averette; Website:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Midtownmiamicenter.jpg
By 1979, 280 substandard residential structures had been cleared in the Wynwood neighborhood and the
Garment District.73 These structures had been haplessly built by low-income immigrant garment industry
workers. The 1979 Garment District Redevelopment Plan, created by the City of Miami, sought to acquire
and demolish 95 more vacant homes and 9 business establishments in an attempt to attract more
industrial investments. This instance of slum clearance and urban renewal gave way to civil unrest, which
ultimately led to violent race riots in the 1990s.
REDEVELOPMENT
Artists took advantage of inexpensive rents and began to move into the Wynwood neighborhood. By the
late 1990s, a few underground galleries had sprung up but Wynwood remained relatively silent. In 1999,
the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) designated the Miami-Dade
County Empowerment Zone, a federal initiative devised to create jobs and business opportunities by
71 “Wynwood: Cleansing the Urban Canvas in Preparation for Redevelopment” Miami Urban Think Tank. August 28, 2010.
Web. Accessed: Oct 24, 2013.
72 Alvarez, L. “Breathing Life, and Art, Into a Downtrodden Neighborhood” The New York Times. 8 Dec 2012. Web. 24 Oct.
2013.
73 Miami Urban Think Tank, 2010
February 2014
34
offering various tax credits and cash incentives. 74 The Miami-Date Zone included the Wynwood
neighborhood, which provided that community with the following tools:
Tax Exempt Bond Financing: A special tax-exempt bond, outside the state volume cap, that may provide
lower than market interest rates for large-scale business expansion and job creation projects.
Deductions: An IRS Section 179 Expensing increase that may provide up to $37,000 for investments in
capital and equipment.
Qualified Zone Academy Bonds: A bond program that may provide funds for the use of a “Qualified Zone
Academy”, which is a public school or academic program within a public school at a secondary level or
below that meet certain requirements. Certain banks, insurance companies and corporations that are
actively engaged in the business of lending money, can receive a tax credit as an incentive to hold these
bonds.
Revolving Loan Fund Program: A program that may provide easier access to capital and affordable
financing to small and minority-owned businesses that do not meet standard credit criteria. Loans will
range from $10,000 to $250,000 and must be used for general business purposes, excluding real estate.
Welfare-to-Work Credit: A credit that may provide businesses with an incentive to hire long-term family
assistance recipients.
Brownfields Tax Incentives: An environmental clean-up tax deduction that may provide an incentive to
clean up certain sites that are contaminated with hazardous substances.
Work Opportunity Tax Credit: A federal tax credit that may provide businesses with incentives of up to
$2,400 for each eligible employee and up to $3,000 for each eligible summer youth employee.
It was not until investments from developers such as Tony Goldman75 and David Lombardi76 that the
Wynwood arts driven resurgence began to take place. Lombardi began buying property in Wynwood in
2000 for inexpensive prices. He was struck by the presence of artists already located in the neighborhood
and began attracting more, by creating an art walk event called “Roving Fridays” to increase the
exposure of Wynwood artists. Lombardi was the first in the area to retrofit a warehouse into artist housing
in 2001. The Terminal Lofts, formerly a fabric manufacturing site, provided eight live/work units and
were specifically rented by artists, designers, and photographers. In order to accommodate additional
demand for housing, Lombardi built another building, Wynwood Lofts, to house artists in 36 more units.
He offered his tenants a stake in ownership so that they would not be forced out by gentrification. By
2004, there were 18 galleries and word about the revival of the Wynwood neighborhood was spreading.
Tony Goldman, the man who is largely responsible for the revival of neighborhoods such as SoHo in
Manhattan and Miami’s own South Beach77, also saw the potential in the neighborhood and began to
invest in the early 2000s. Like Lombardi, Goldman lured more artists into Wynwood by offering
City of Miami “Business Incentives: Empowerment Zone” Miami.gov. N.d. Web. Accessed Oct 24, 2013.
Munzenrieder, K. “Developer Behind SoBe and SoHo Hasn’t Given Up on Wynwood” Miami New Times. 31 Mar. 2010.
Web. 24 Oct. 2012.
76 Alvarez, 2012.
77 Brecher, E.J., et. al. “South Beach, Wynwood developer Tony Goldman dies at 68” Miami Herald. 12 Sep 2012. Web. 24
Oct. 2013.
74
75
February 2014
35
inexpensive rental space. Goldman also realized the lack of a commercial presence in the neighborhood
and opened Joey’s, a restaurant that now serves as a meeting place in the community. Currently, the
Goldman Properties Group owns the largest amount of properties in the neighborhood. More famously,
Goldman commissioned several graffiti artists to cover the blank walls of the neighborhood’s run-down
warehouses. These works became known as the “Wynwood Walls” and have displayed the talents of the
world’s greatest street artists.78
In 2002, Miami hosted its first Art Basel Fair.79 This fair showcases art from across the world and brings
in thousands of artists and art professionals to Miami each year. As the art fair expanded, galleries and
showings were increasingly held in Wynwood. Now in the eyes of the international art community,
Wynwood has emerged as center for the creative arts.
Art Basel is an organization that stages the world's premier modern and contemporary art shows. Miami
Beach was chosen because it is, “one of America's most visited cities, is a fusion of North America and
Latin America, the perfect setting for an international show rich in cultural diversity, offering visitors a
selection of premier works from the entire Americas as well as Europe, Asia, and Africa…”80
Miami Beach’s Art Basel’s prime geographic location contributed to the area’s eventual success; however,
it was the initial movement of gallery owners into the area which sparked redevelopment in Wynwood.
Brook Dorsch moved his gallery “known for cutting-edge art and events that brought in performers from
the local experimental music scene” from Coral Gables to Wynwood in 2000. Several other gallery owners
followed. In 2005, North Miami's Museum of Contemporary Art opened an annex in Wynwood. To spur
interest in the area, the gallery owners began hosting “Second Saturdays”, a monthly event where visitors
can visit all of the galleries in the area.81
CURRENT STATUS
Today, the Wynwood Arts District is home to over 70 art galleries, retail stores, antique shops, eclectic
bars, and one of the largest open-air street-art installations in the world, the Wynwood Walls.82 Thanks
to the Art Basel Fair and a monthly art-walk, the neighborhood has grown at an unexpected rate. The
neighborhood has started to move beyond art galleries, drawing in more restaurants, bars, and even a
recording studio. Although the number of residential units have increased 176% from the years 2001 –
2011 (2,168 residential units in 2000 and 5,995 in 2011) some say the residential presence is still lacking,
as day-time foot traffic is low.83
Wynwood is a prototypical arts district that serves Miami as an epicenter for the city’s emerging visual
arts. It is an example of how a cluster of galleries, studios, and museums can serve as an attraction for
both visitors and artists looking for a place of residency. The development of Wynwood occurred out of
demand for a place suited for artists to create and display their art. Wynwood does this by providing a
high concentration of art galleries and hosting world-famous public art installations. Similarly, the plan
for Shreveport Common is to create a focal point for the artists in Shreveport and North Louisiana. The
“About Wynwood Walls” Wynwood Walls. N.p. 2011. Web. 24 Oct. 2013.
“Our History” Art Basel. N.d. Web. 24 Oct. 2013.
80 “About Art Basel”. Art Basel. Web. 13 April 2013.
81 Houdek, Alesh. “A Miami Neighborhood Begins to Bristle at its Own Success”. Atlantic Cities, 11 April 2013. Web.
82 “History” Wynwood Arts District.
83 Goodkin, L.M., Werley, C.A. “Residential Sector: Profile of Change” Decade of Change: Downtown Miami Area 20112011. Goodkin Consulting, Focus Real Estate Advisors. April 2012. Web. 24 Oct. 2013.
78
79
February 2014
36
presence of a major event, such as the Art Basel Fair for Wynwood, demonstrates the kind of effort
that is sometimes needed to attract significant investment into an arts and cultural district. Projects
similar to Art Basel that draw visitors and economic development, while smaller in scope, could be
applied to Shreveport Common. These entertainment districts can help to anchor downtown
revitalization and serve as keys to urban revival initiatives. A local example of this type of project has
been “the Hayride,” which first occurred as a radio broadcast in 1948. Louisiana Hayride was a country
music show broadcast from the Shreveport Municipal Memorial Auditorium and later turned into a
television program. The Hayride helped to launch the careers of some of the greatest names in American
country western music.84 The Louisiana state government declared 2013 the “Year of Louisiana Music”.
In conjunction with this plan, the Louisiana Hayride Music Festival is in pre-production and a Louisiana
Hayride TV series is on-track, following the 2013 re-launch of the Hayride brand.85
Wynwood Characteristics
Location
2010 MSA Population
Size (acres)
Building Stock
Cultural Buildings
Galleries
Arts Complexes
Studios
Museums
Event Venues
Restaurants
Miami, Florida
5,564,635
530
Housing
Transportation
2 artist specific apartment complexes
Bus
57
41
7
2
3
4
17
HUD Empowerment Zone
Private Investors
Sources: 2010 US Census Data, wynwoodmiami.com, City of Miami, Miami Urban Think Tank
84
85
“History” The Louisiana Hayride Foundation. nd WordPress. Web. 15 January 2014.
“The Future” The Louisiana Hayride Foundation. nd WordPress. Web. 15 January 2014.
February 2014
37
Case 9: The Dallas Arts District – Dallas, Texas
The Dallas Arts District is considered to be the largest dedicated arts district in the nation, spanning 68
acres and 19 contiguous blocks.86 Under the umbrella of the Downtown Dallas, Inc., the district was
created to stimulate the economic and cultural life of the region. The Dallas Arts District itself is a nonprofit 501(c)3 organization. Within the district, there are eleven cultural/arts buildings, seven
commercial arts buildings, three places of worship, connection to trolley and light rail lines, and an
adjacent park.
HISTORY87
The City of Dallas began as a frontier
town but grew thanks to the railroad
boom of the 1870s. The city then grew
to be one of the largest industrial and
banking centers in the region with an
increasing emphasis on aviation and
petroleum. During the mid-twentieth
century,
Dallas
attracted
new
technology firms and the economy
continued to expand. The opening of
Dallas Fort Worth International Airport
in 1974 connected Dallas to world
commerce. Today, Dallas is positioned
as a leading economic center in its
region and continues to be one of the
fastest-growing cities in the country.88
The Margot & Bill Winspear Opera House located within
the Dallas Arts District
DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
In 1978, a group of consultants
recommended to Dallas city officials
that the arts and cultural institutions
Photo Credit: Andreas Praefcke: Website:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Winspear_Opera_House_02.jpg
of the city should be relocated to the
city’s downtown area. Dallas city
officials initially backed a $45 million bond issue to build a new art museum, two theatres, and an opera
house in an area northeast of downtown Dallas. In 1978, voters elected against the bond issue and the
idea of the arts district stalled. Dallas voters voted again in November 1979, this time for a smaller bond
issue specifically intended for a new arts museum. Also within the 1979 election was a measure to set
aside 60 acres of land for cultural focused development. This area would later become the Dallas Arts
District.
The $24.8 million Dallas Museum of Art bond issue served as a catalyst for the development of the Arts
District. This would be the first time in Dallas that a cultural facility was developed as a public/private
partnership between the City and a non-profit organization.89 As the museum began construction in 1979,
Dallas city officials realized that the arts district would not be successful with just one museum or
institution. As property values had increased with speculation, cultural organizations were challenged to
“The District” The Dallas Arts District. 2013. Web. 23 Oct. 2013.
City of Dallas, Office of Economic Development. “History: Summary” Dallas Development Atlas. N.p. Web. 23 Oct. 2013
88 “Dallas” America’s Fastest-Growing Cities. Forbes. 2013. Web. 23 Oct. 2013.
89 “Dallas Arts District” The German Marshall Fund of the United States. N.d. Web. 25 Oct. 2013.
86
87
February 2014
38
obtain property within the arts district. In September, 1981, the City of Dallas as well as private property
owners, donated parcels of land to the Dallas Symphony Association to build a new concert hall. The
project was largely funded by nearby property owners who were interested in raising their own property
values. The symphony hall, designed by famous architect I.M. Pei, broke ground in 1985 and was finished
in 1989.
The city was able to leverage $450 million dollars in private investment for the Dallas Arts District to
match $149 million of its own spending over a period of 20 years. Public/private partnerships between
the City and Dallas have resulted in the construction of cultural centers such as the Booker T. Washington
School for the Performing Arts, the Dallas Black Dance Theatre, AT&T Performing Arts Center, Winspear
Opera House, City Performance Hall, and Annette Strauss Square.
CURRENT STATUS
Today, the Dallas Arts District, while solidifying itself as a center of culture and major attraction in
Downtown Dallas, continues to grow. Filling one of the last vacant lots in the Arts District will be a three
building complex that will include a 30 story residential condo facility and two large office buildings.90
This condominium development will bring a long awaited residential presence to the Dallas Arts District.
The first building is expected to be complete in 2015.
The Dallas Arts District was formally established in the 1980s and underwent a slow redevelopment
path over the last 30 years that could not have occurred without public-private partnerships. This
study is an example of how a public-private partnership can succeed in bringing its city world-class
cultural facilities. The Dallas Arts District also shows how one initial investment, in this case the Dallas
Museum of Art, can spur interest in further investments.
While the cities of Dallas and Shreveport are vastly different in terms of scale, they exist in a similar
geographic region. Because of the proximity of the cities to one another, Shreveport Common has the
opportunity to pull from the same group of developers who are interested in investing in the city’s
revitalization efforts. Also, Shreveport Common will seek to pull in similar regional residents that may
also visit the Dallas Arts District.
90
Brown, S. “Dallas Arts District tower filling up long before it opens,” Dallas News. 18 Sep. 2013. Web. 25 Oct. 2013.
February 2014
39
Dallas Arts District Characteristics
Location
2010 MSA Population
Size (acres)
Building Stock
Cultural Buildings
Museums
Performance Venues
Cultural Centers
Restaurants
Hotels
6,371,771
68
17
5
5
7
14
1
Housing
Transportation
Dallas, Texas
60 luxury units
(more residential units are in development)
Bus Rapid Transit, Trolley
Municipal Bonds
Private investment, donations
Sources: 2010 US Census Data, City of Dallas, Office of Economic Development.
February 2014
40
Case 10: Lancaster ARTS – Economic Benefits of the Arts
This portion of the Case Study Report will focus on a study conducted in Lancaster, Pennsylvania
regarding the economic impacts of the city’s arts establishments. In total, downtown Lancaster has 125
art venues ranging from galleries, studios, museums, theatres, and public murals.91 This study was chosen
for examination because of the similarity in population size between Lancaster and Shreveport.
STUDY FINDINGS
The study,92 conducted by the Local Economy
Center for Opinion Research at Franklin and
Marshall College, documented the direct and
indirect economic effects of all the arts
activity in Lancaster by gathering data from a
number of sources such as: Lancaster County
resident surveys, business surveys of
downtown arts, restaurants, and retail
establishments,
parking
data,
and
organizational spending data from a nonprofit
database.93 The study lists the following key
findings:

Lancaster residents individual annual
median spending was $285.69 per
person based on a median 5 arts-related
trips to downtown Lancaster per year.
Lancaster ARTS District
Photo Credit: Lancaster City Arts Flickr Page:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lancasterarts/with/9916419836/

From a list of 166 retailers, restaurants and arts-related businesses in Downtown Lancaster, the
study found that businesses gathered $36.9 million in total sales, arts-related business gathered
$9.4 million in total sales, and retailers gathered $18.5 million in total sales for the year 2009.

Art walk events, such as Lancaster’s First Friday, provided a generous revenue boost to downtown
businesses. In Lancaster, 39% of business owners responding to the survey indicated a “great deal”
of increase in sales. Parking Authority data indicated that monthly art walks increase parking meter
transactions by about 7,000 annually.

Economic activity connected to the downtown arts spending accounted for 734 direct and indirect
jobs countywide.

Non-profit arts and culture organizations generated over $28 million of economic flow through the
area’s economy by means of direct, indirect, and induced spending. These non-profits include
organizations such as: historical societies, museums, visual arts, music, dance, and theatres.
“Home” Lancaster CITY Arts. 2013. Web. 25 Oct. 2013.
Local Economy Center for Opinion Research, Floyd Institute for Public Policy, Franklin and Marshal College. “The Arts in
Lancaster: Overview of Survey and Economic Findings” Lancaster Arts. Jan. 2010. Web. 25 Oct. 2013.
93 Center for Opinion Research, 2010.
91
92
February 2014
41
For Lancaster, the arts are an important and powerful driver for economic activity. The study states that
Lancaster has a lower educational attainment rate than the rest of Pennsylvania. Only 17% of Lancaster
City residents have a Bachelor’s degree, compared Pennsylvania’s 26%. This, according to the study, may
account for the comparatively lower wages earned by Lancaster residents. The continuation of a
community that is centered on arts activity could potentially provide more opportunities for
development. For Lancaster, “the arts are the only sector that is poised to offer such multi-faceted
economic and social benefits to the City” 94
This study is valuable for Shreveport Common because it shows how a city that is relatively similar
in MSA population benefits economically from its arts and cultural establishments. With equal
investment in arts and cultural establishments, the city of Shreveport could expect to see similar impacts
on its economic viability.
Lancaster ARTS
Location
2010 MSA Population
Size (acres)
Building Stock
Cultural Buildings
Galleries
Dance Studios
Performance Venues
Museums
Lancaster, Pennsylvania
519,445
112
Housing
Transportation
66
44
10
8
4
N/A
Bus
N/A
Source: 2010 US Census Data, LancasterARTS.com
Local Economy Center for Opinion Research, Floyd Institute for Public Policy, Franklin and Marshal College. “The Arts in
Lancaster: Overview of Survey and Economic Findings” Lancaster Arts. Jan. 2010. Web. 25 Oct. 2013.
94
February 2014
42
ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
The following analysis provides insight into the size and makeup of the local and tourist populations in
the area of the Shreveport Common Cultural District. This data provides the ability to assess more
accurately the potential success of the Cultural District. The following map demonstrates the geographic
boundaries of 0-1 mile, 1-5 mile, 5-10 mile, and 10-15 mile rings surrounding the Shreveport Common
Cultural District. The 0 to 1 mile ring surrounding the Cultural District includes both Bossier and Caddo
Parishes. The subsequent tables and charts detail the demographic statistics and forecasts for these
regions surrounding the downtown site.
Population Density Map - Caddo and Bossier Parishes – 2012
February 2014
43
Population
Population growth is an important indicator of an area’s general outlook. Data on the total population
and average household income are provided for the area of the Shreveport Common Cultural District.
TOTAL POPULATION
In 2012, there were approximately 346,021 people living within 15 miles of the Shreveport Common
Cultural District. By 2017, the total population of this region is projected to increase by 0.5%, or
approximately 8,476 people. The population growth rate in the 15-mile region has been and is projected
to be greater than that of the United States. The map below details the various distance rings for the
proposed site.
Population Density Map – 15-Mile Radius around Shreveport Common – 2012
The Shreveport Common Cultural District lies at the eastern side of Caddo Parish, with Bossier Parish in
close proximity. Within the two-parish area of Caddo and Bossier Parishes, there were approximately
376,004 people in 2012. This area includes the cities of Shreveport, Bossier City, Benton, and Vivian,
Louisiana. The population within this two-parish area is expected to grow by approximately 9,003 people
by 2017.
February 2014
44
By 2017, the total population of the region within 10 to 15 miles of the proposed Shreveport Common
Cultural District is projected to grow the fastest with an annual growth rate of 1.1%. The population
within this same distance ring has grown the fastest since 2000. The population within one mile of the
Shreveport Common Cultural District has been on the decline since 2000 and is projected to further
decline in 2017.
Allendale is a neighborhood which includes the Shreveport Common Cultural District. The neighborhood
thrived until the 1960s. In the 1970s the neighborhood began to decline. Between 1970 and 2000,
Allendale lost two-thirds of its population.95 In 2006, the City of Shreveport demolished96 269 units of
aged public housing at the Naomi Jackson Heights development with funding from a HUD HOPE VI grant.97
This decrease in neighborhood population explains the average annual decrease of 3.9% in the one-mile
area surrounding the Shreveport Common Cultural District.
Shreveport Common Area Total Population
0 to 1 Mile Ring
1 to 5 Mile Ring
5 to 10 Mile Ring
10 to 15 Mile Ring
0 to 15 Mile Ring
Two Parish Area
Caddo Parish
Bossier Parish
State of Louisiana
United States
2000
2010
2012 Est.
2017 Proj.
5,141
143,286
129,685
43,439
321,550
350,384
251,832
98,552
4,468,976
281,421,688
3,462
138,802
147,187
52,351
341,802
371,853
254,905
116,948
4,533,372
308,745,538
3,456
140,089
149,235
53,242
346,021
376,004
256,983
119,021
4,599,076
313,456,393
3,422
140,071
154,806
56,199
354,497
385,037
262,161
122,876
4,668,972
319,158,722
A.A.G.
20002010
-3.9%
-0.3%
1.3%
1.9%
0.6%
0.6%
0.1%
1.7%
0.1%
0.9%
A.A.G.
20102012
-0.1%
0.5%
0.7%
0.8%
0.6%
0.6%
0.4%
0.9%
0.7%
0.8%
A.A.G.
20122017
-0.2%
0.0%
0.7%
1.1%
0.5%
0.5%
0.4%
0.6%
0.3%
0.4%
Source: AnySite; TMG Consulting Analysis
95 MHSM Architects. AllendaleONE: Part of the “TOTAL” Commitment Neighborhood Initiative. Shreveport: City of
Shreveport, Department of Community Development, 31 Jan 2007. Web.
96 “Jackson Heights” HW demolition, n.p., n.d. Web. 30 October 2013
97 Campbell, Patricia. “HUD Archives: News Releases.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Archives. 11
March 2011. Web. 30 October 2013
February 2014
45
Household Income
AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Residents living within one mile of the Shreveport Common Cultural District had an average household
income of $27,136 in 2012, with an expected 2017 average household income of $28,271. This is
significantly lower than the current average household income of the region, ($61,659), the State of
Louisiana, ($62,226) and the national average ($73,241). The average household income in the Shreveport
Common Cultural District increased by an average of 1.0% annually from 2010 to 2012—a rate similar to
the surrounding parishes and the state of Louisiana.
Income growth in the area surrounding Shreveport Common has outpaced and will continue to outpace
the rest of the country; 1% annual growth is forecast for the U.S. and 1.2% annual growth is forecast for
the 15 miles around the Cultural District. However, the rate of income growth for the 0 to 5 mile area
around the Cultural District is projected to be slower than the national average.
February 2014
46
February 2014
47
February 2014
48
February 2014
49
The following table and chart provide data on the 2000, 2010, estimated 2012, and projected 2017
Average Household Incomes for the region surrounding the Shreveport Common Cultural District, the
State of Louisiana, and the nation.
Shreveport Common Average Household Income
0 to 1 Mile Ring
1 to 5 Mile Ring
5 to 10 Mile Ring
10 to 15 Mile Ring
0 to 15 Mile Ring
Caddo Parish
Bossier Parish
State of Louisiana
United States
2000
2010
2012
Est.
2017
Proj.
$21,581
$41,203
$50,492
$55,397
$46,456
$45,219
$47,845
$44,855
$56,690
$26,610
$50,466
$65,767
$76,195
$60,518
$56,969
$66,702
$61,062
$72,166
$27,136
$51,179
$67,024
$77,895
$61,659
$58,023
$67,935
$62,226
$73,241
$28,271
$53,276
$71,255
$83,008
$65,368
$61,251
$72,202
$65,990
$76,987
A.A.G.
20002010
2.1%
2.0%
2.7%
3.2%
2.7%
2.3%
3.4%
3.1%
2.4%
A.A.G.
20102012
1.0%
0.7%
1.0%
1.1%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.7%
A.A.G.
20122017
0.8%
0.8%
1.2%
1.3%
1.2%
1.1%
1.2%
1.2%
1.0%
Shreveport Common Area Average Household Income
$90,000
$80,000
0 to 1 Mile Ring
$70,000
1 to 5 Mile Ring
$60,000
5 to 10 Mile Ring
$50,000
10 to 15 Mile Ring
$40,000
0 to 15 Mile Ring
$30,000
Caddo Parish
$20,000
Bossier Parish
$10,000
State of Louisiana
United States
$0
2000
2010
2012 Est.
2017 Proj.
The table and chart below detail 2012 Average Household Income by income bracket. In 2012, the
majority of households (67.3%) living within one mile of the Cultural District earned under $24,999 a
year.
February 2014
50
Shreveport Common 2012 Breakdown of Average Household Income
Up to
$24,999
0 to 1 Mile Ring
1 to 5 Mile Ring
5 to 10 Mile Ring
10 to 15 Mile Ring
0 to 15 Mile Ring
Caddo Parish
Bossier Parish
State of Louisiana
United States
67.3%
37.8%
24.2%
22.4%
30.0%
33.8%
23.2%
29.8%
23.2%
$25,000
to
$49,999
20.4%
28.3%
26.0%
23.9%
26.5%
26.9%
25.3%
26.0%
24.9%
$50,000
to
$74,999
6.7%
14.0%
17.9%
16.4%
16.0%
15.0%
18.0%
16.1%
17.4%
$75,000
to
$124,999
4.5%
13.6%
20.9%
21.7%
17.8%
15.6%
22.2%
18.0%
20.6%
$125,000
to
$199,999
0.8%
4.0%
8.3%
10.2%
6.8%
5.8%
8.5%
7.3%
9.6%
$200,000
or more
0.1%
2.3%
2.7%
5.4%
2.9%
2.9%
2.7%
2.8%
4.3%
Source: AnySite, TMG Consulting Analysis
Breakdown of 2012 Average Household Income
80.0%
70.0%
Percentage of Households
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Up to $24,999
$25,000 to
$49,999
$50,000 to
$74,999
$75,000 to
$124,999
$125,000 to
$199,999
0 to 1 Mile Ring
1 to 5 Mile Ring
5 to 10 Mile Ring
10 to 15 Mile Ring
Caddo Parish
Bossier Parish
State of Louisiana
United States
$200,000 or
more
0 to 15 Mile Ring
February 2014
51
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME
The following table expresses the median household income for the Shreveport Common Cultural
District’s surrounding areas, and the corresponding relationship to the nation as a whole. While the 2012
median household income for 0 to 15 miles surrounding the cultural district was $42,804, slightly lower
than the state of Louisiana ($43,608) and the entire nation ($52,472), the median household income for
people living within one mile of the Cultural District was a staggering $17,952. The Federal poverty level
for a household of two is $15,13098 and the average household size is 1.8 for people living within one
mile from Shreveport Common Cultural District. Based on this information, it can be concluded that the
Shreveport Common Cultural District is borderline impoverished. Income growth has been strong (0.6%)
for people living within a one mile area around Shreveport Common, but has yet to approach the income
levels of the surrounding areas.
Shreveport Common Area Median Household Income
0 to 1 Mile Ring
1 to 5 Mile Ring
5 to 10 Mile Ring
10 to 15 Mile Ring
0 to 15 Mile Ring
Caddo Parish
Bossier Parish
State of Louisiana
United States
2000
2010
2012
Est.
2017
Proj.
$13,129
$28,001
$40,035
$43,301
$33,997
$31,764
$39,234
$33,016
$42,350
$17,748
$33,654
$49,783
$54,566
$42,707
$38,626
$51,710
$43,549
$52,302
$17,952
$33,750
$49,772
$55,219
$42,804
$38,719
$51,836
$43,608
$52,472
$18,174
$33,414
$49,358
$57,496
$42,664
$38,520
$51,891
$43,333
$52,739
A.A.G.
20002010
3.1%
1.9%
2.2%
2.3%
2.3%
2.0%
2.8%
2.8%
2.1%
A.A.G.
20102012
0.6%
0.1%
0.0%
0.6%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
A.A.G.
20122017
0.2%
-0.2%
-0.2%
0.8%
-0.1%
-0.1%
0.0%
-0.1%
0.1%
Shreveport Common Area Median Household Income
$70,000
0 to 1 Mile Ring
$60,000
1 to 5 Mile Ring
$50,000
5 to 10 Mile Ring
$40,000
10 to 15 Mile Ring
$30,000
0 to 15 Mile Ring
$20,000
Caddo Parish
$10,000
Bossier Parish
State of Louisiana
$0
2000
2010
2012 Est.
2017 Proj.
United States
98
“2012 HHS Poverty Guidelines.” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 09 Feb 2012.
February 2014
52
RACE AND ETHNICITY
The area surrounding Shreveport Common is not racially homogenous. Within one mile surrounding the
cultural district, approximately 68% of residents identify themselves as African American only, and
approximately 29% of residents identify as White only in 2012. Conversely, in the area 10 to 15 miles
away from Shreveport Common, 80% of residents identify as white only, and approximately 16% of
residents identify as African American only. Within 15 miles of Shreveport Common Cultural District,
approximately 55% of residents identify as white only, and approximately 40% of residents identify as
African American only.
In 2012, Caddo Parish had an almost equal distribution of residents identifying as white only (49%) and
African American only (approx. 47%) with 1.1% of residents identifying as Asian only, and 2.8% identifying
as another race.
This diversity found surrounding the Shreveport Common Cultural District is in stark contrast to the United
States’ racial makeup. In the United States approximately 72% of residents identify as white only,
compared to the approximate 55% in the 15 miles surrounding the cultural district. 12.6% of the total
United States population identify as black only, compared to the cultural district’s approximate 40%.
Within the United States, 4.8% of people identify as Asian alone, compared to the cultural district’s 1.3%,
and nationally 10.3% identify as another race, whereas within 15 miles surrounding the cultural district
3.6% identify as another race. It is interesting to note that 10 miles to 15 miles surrounding Shreveport
Common, has the highest population growth, even though it has the smallest number of residents in the
three 5-mile rings. The 10 to 15 miles surrounding the Cultural District has the highest average and
median household incomes, as well as the highest growth in median and average household income. This
area also has highest average home values, and is the least racially diverse of all four rings surrounding
the Shreveport Common Cultural District.
2012 Racial Distribution
White Alone
Black/African American Alone
Asian Alone
Other Race
0 to 1
Mile
28.6%
68.3%
0.3%
2.8%
1 to 5
Mile
41.4%
53.2%
1.2%
4.2%
5 to 10
Mile
59.2%
35.7%
1.7%
3.4%
10 to 15
Mile
80.0%
16.2%
0.7%
3.0%
0 to 15
Mile
54.9%
40.1%
1.3%
3.6%
Caddo
Parish
49.0%
47.2%
1.1%
2.8%
Bossier
Parish
72.2%
20.9%
1.6%
5.3%
State
of LA
62.5%
32.1%
1.6%
3.9%
United
States
72.4%
12.6%
4.8%
10.3%
February 2014
53
2012 Racial Distribution
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0 to 1 Mile 1 to 5 Mile 5 to 10 Mile 10 to 15 0 to 15 Mile
Mile
White Alone
Caddo
Parish
Black or African American Alone
Bossier
Parish
Asian Alone
State of
Louisiana
United
States
Other Race
February 2014
54
Employment and Business
The civilian labor force is an important indicator of the economic health of a region. The following tables
provide information regarding the labor force, number of employed persons, number of unemployed
persons, and unemployment rate. None of the tables were seasonally adjusted. The Shreveport-Bossier
City MSA, in terms of economic indicators is doing better than Louisiana and the United States.
Shreveport-Bossier City MSA’s 2012 unemployment rate of 6.4% is favorable compared to the nation’s
unemployment rate of 8.1%. While the national labor force has experienced an average annual growth
rate of 0.1% over the past six years (2007 through 2012), the number of employed persons has exhibited
an average annual decline of 0.4%, resulting in higher unemployment. It should be noted that the region
surrounding the Shreveport Common Cultural District has consistently had lower unemployment rates
than the national average.
UNEMPLOYMENT
Unemployment Rates
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA MSA
Caddo Parish
Bossier Parish
State of Louisiana
2013 Est.
United States
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; TMG Consulting Analysis
February 2014
55
Comparison of Unemployment Rates
Shreveport-Bossier City MSA
Caddo Parish
Bossier Parish
State of Louisiana
United States
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Est.
4.4%
4.6%
3.7%
3.8%
4.6%
4.9%
5.1%
4.0%
4.4%
5.8%
7.1%
7.5%
5.9%
6.6%
9.3%
6.9%
7.4%
5.7%
7.4%
9.6%
6.7%
7.1%
5.6%
7.3%
8.9%
6.4%
6.7%
5.4%
6.4%
8.1%
7.1%
7.5%
6.1%
6.8%
7.7%
A.A.G.
20072012
5.5%
5.6%
6.2%
7.8%
6.9%
In 2012, the United States had a labor force of 154,975,000, with 142,469,000 or 91.9% of people
employed. The Shreveport-Bossier City MSA experienced a 6.4% unemployment rate for 2012, performing
above the national average, and at the same rate as Louisiana. The following tables present detailed
employment and unemployment data.
EMPLOYMENT
Employment Data for the United States (in thousands)
Labor Force
Employment
Unemployment
Unemployment Rate
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013 Est.
153,124
146,047
7,078
4.6%
154,287
145,362
8,924
5.8%
154,142
139,877
14,265
9.3%
153,889
139,064
14,825
9.6%
153,617
139,869
13,747
8.9%
154,975
142,469
12,506
8.1%
155,595
143,645
11,951
7.7%
A.A.G.
20072012
0.1%
-0.4%
7.0%
6.9%
With a workforce of approximately 2.1 million people, Louisiana had an unemployment rate of 6.4% in
2012, increasing by 0.4% in 2013 estimates. Over the past five years, Louisiana has consistently had a
lower unemployment rate than the national average.
Employment Data for the State of Louisiana
Labor Force
Employment
Unemployment
Unemployment Rate
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013 Est.
2,010,651
1,934,340
76,311
3.8%
2,056,146
1,965,326
90,820
4.4%
2,053,164
1,916,952
136,212
6.6%
2,074,660
1,920,732
153,928
7.4%
2,069,695
1,919,021
150,674
7.3%
2,083,710
1,949,349
134,361
6.4%
2,091,674
1,949,574
142,100
6.8%
A.A.G.
20072012
0.3%
-0.2%
8.1%
7.8%
Caddo Parish’s workforce was 116,467 people in 2012, with an unemployment rate of 6.7%. Over the past
five years, Caddo Parish has had lower unemployment rates than the national average; however, Caddo
Parish also had lower unemployment than the state average in 2010 and 2011, but exceeded the state
average in other years.
February 2014
56
Employment Data for Caddo Parish
Labor force
Employment
Unemployment
Unemployment Rate
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013 Est.
117,332
111,884
5,448
4.6%
119,383
113,266
6,117
5.1%
118,203
109,357
8,846
7.5%
117,703
108,961
8,742
7.4%
117,235
108,877
8,358
7.1%
116,467
108,644
7,823
6.7%
115,944
107,203
8,740
7.5%
A.A.G.
2007-2012
-0.5%
-0.8%
5.0%
5.6%
With a 2012 workforce of 56,201 people, Bossier Parish had an unemployment rate of 5.4%. Bossier Parish
has had a lower unemployment rate than Caddo Parish over the past five years.
Employment Data for Bossier Parish
Labor force
Employment
Unemployment
Unemployment Rate
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013 Est.
52,511
50,593
1,918
3.7%
54,068
51,887
2,181
4.0%
53,655
50,516
3,139
5.9%
55,691
52,532
3,159
5.7%
56,444
53,291
3,153
5.6%
56,201
53,177
3,024
5.4%
55,853
52,472
3,382
6.1%
A.A.G.
2007-2012
0.8%
0.5%
6.8%
6.2%
The Shreveport-Bossier City Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) had a workforce of approximately
184,000 persons in 2012. The labor force has decreased an average of 0.1% annually over the last five
years between 2007 and 2012. Of the 2012 labor force, 11,786 persons were unemployed, yielding a
6.4% unemployment rate. Since 2010, the Shreveport-Bossier City MSA has had a higher unemployment
rate than the statewide average. Shreveport-Bossier City’s MSA unemployment rate is projected to be
higher than the statewide average in 2013 (7.1% compared to 6.8% for Louisiana).
Employment Data for Shreveport-Bossier City MSA
Labor force
Employment
Unemployment
Unemployment Rate
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013 Est.
181,097
173,152
7,945
4.4%
185,042
175,996
9,046
4.9%
183,240
170,317
12,923
7.1%
184,764
171,943
12,821
6.9%
184,975
172,587
12,388
6.7%
184,005
172,219
11,786
6.4%
182,993
169,934
13,060
7.1%
A.A.G.
20072012
-0.1%
-0.4%
5.4%
5.5%
February 2014
57
EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY
It is not only important to understand the labor force trends in the area, but also necessary to understand
the sectors of the economy that are growing or declining. None of the figures in the following tables
were seasonally adjusted. Detailed data tables for 2000 and 2010 Employment by Industry and
Employment by Occupation can be found in the appendix.
2012 Employment by Industry
0 to 1
Mile
1 to 5
Mile
5 to 10
Mile
10 to 15
Mile
0 to 15
Mile
Caddo
Parish
Bossier
Parish
State
of LA
United
States
7
29
57
33
259
54
69
35
101
343
238
38
66
1,381
3,621
3,299
1,856
6,920
2,437
1,331
3,076
4,959
15,976
8,865
3,223
2,619
1,789
3,874
5,112
2,713
8,864
3,580
1,514
4,261
5,381
17,747
7,176
3,580
3,991
984
2,054
2,502
932
2,946
1,519
430
1,257
1,823
5,864
1,883
1,415
1,107
4,162
9,579
10,969
5,533
18,988
7,589
3,344
8,628
12,264
39,930
18,162
8,256
7,784
3,149
6,169
8,113
4,126
13,647
5,341
2,327
5,656
8,632
30,069
13,303
6,228
4,490
2,000
4,565
4,039
1,759
6,870
2,802
1,110
3,360
4,367
12,101
5,696
2,649
3,841
89,787
177,943
171,755
63,406
243,702
104,771
32,891
114,010
171,150
465,527
189,072
104,887
112,564
2,719,649
10,449,451
16,090,606
4,524,634
16,856,221
7,465,570
3,520,841
10,405,008
15,434,598
32,497,435
12,931,262
7,144,370
7,181,990
Ag., Forestry, Fishing/Hunting, Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Transport., Warehousing, Utilities
Information
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate
Professional, Scientific, Mgmt.
Education, Health, Social Assistance
Arts, Entertainment, Accom., Food
Other Services
Public Administration
2012 Employment by Industry (%)
0 to 1
Mile
0.5%
2.2%
4.3%
2.5%
19.5%
4.1%
5.2%
2.6%
7.6%
25.8%
17.9%
2.9%
5.0%
Ag., Forestry, Fishing/Hunting, Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Transport., Warehousing, Utilities
Information
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate
Professional, Scientific, Mgmt.
Education, Health, Social Assistance
Arts, Entertainment, Accom., Food
Other Services
Public Administration
1 to 5
Mile
2.3%
6.1%
5.5%
3.1%
11.6%
4.1%
2.2%
5.2%
8.3%
26.8%
14.9%
5.4%
4.4%
5 to 10
Mile
2.6%
5.6%
7.3%
3.9%
12.7%
5.1%
2.2%
6.1%
7.7%
25.5%
10.3%
5.1%
5.7%
10 to 15
Mile
4.0%
8.3%
10.1%
3.8%
11.9%
6.1%
1.7%
5.1%
7.4%
23.7%
7.6%
5.7%
4.5%
0 to 15
Mile
2.7%
6.2%
7.1%
3.6%
12.2%
4.9%
2.2%
5.6%
7.9%
25.7%
11.7%
5.3%
5.0%
Caddo
Parish
2.8%
5.5%
7.3%
3.7%
12.3%
4.8%
2.1%
5.1%
7.8%
27.0%
12.0%
5.6%
4.0%
Bossier
Parish
3.6%
8.3%
7.3%
3.2%
12.5%
5.1%
2.0%
6.1%
7.9%
21.9%
10.3%
4.8%
7.0%
State
of LA
4.4%
8.7%
8.4%
3.1%
11.9%
5.1%
1.6%
5.6%
8.4%
22.8%
9.3%
5.1%
5.5%
United
States
1.8%
7.1%
10.9%
3.1%
11.4%
5.1%
2.4%
7.1%
10.5%
22.1%
8.8%
4.9%
4.9%
The largest employment industries within one mile of the Shreveport Common Cultural District are
educational services, health care and social assistance (25.8%), retail trade (19.5%), and arts,
entertainment, accommodation, and food services (17.9%). These three sectors of the economy are the
leading employment industries for the entire region (0 to 15 miles) surrounding Shreveport Common, as
well as Caddo and Bossier Parishes as a whole.
February 2014
58
Similar to Employment by Industry, the following tables detail employment by occupation.
2012 Employment by Occupation
Section
0 to 1
Mile
87
30
0
36
42
8
12
53
13
21
26
15
18
0
126
193
57
205
173
0
29
0
73
66
47
1,330
Management
Business/Financial Operations
Computer and Mathematical
Architecture and Engineering
Life, Physical, Social Science
Community/Social Service
Legal
Education, Training, and Library
Arts, Design, Entertain., Media
Health Practitioners
Health Technicians
Healthcare Support
Fire Fighting, Law Enforcement
Other Protective Workers
Food Related
Building/Grounds Maint.
Personal Care and Service
Sales and Related
Office/Administrative Support
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry
Construction and Extraction
Installation, Maint., and Repair
Production
Transportation
Material moving
TOTAL
February 2014
1 to 5
Mile
4,015
2,092
448
717
223
1,191
640
3,808
912
2,243
1,391
1,952
1,148
507
4,462
3,226
3,573
6,881
8,016
61
3,506
1,840
2,480
2,428
1,803
59,563
5 to 10
Mile
5,683
2,288
940
944
363
904
837
4,560
674
3,848
1,695
1,665
930
966
3,583
2,067
3,490
8,682
10,580
208
3,714
2,550
3,543
2,858
2,008
69,580
10 to
15 Mile
2,190
741
199
372
193
318
331
1,440
262
1,559
579
413
257
256
881
785
792
2,434
3,825
172
1,939
1,348
1,686
1,095
648
24,715
0 to 15
Mile
11,975
5,151
1,587
2,069
821
2,421
1,820
9,862
1,861
7,672
3,691
4,045
2,353
1,729
9,051
6,270
7,912
18,202
22,594
441
9,189
5,739
7,783
6,446
4,506
155,190
Caddo
Parish
8,140
3,447
973
1,415
598
1,872
1,359
7,112
1,374
5,283
2,831
3,128
1,667
1,088
7,173
5,030
5,531
12,928
16,303
393
6,168
3,706
6,033
4,477
3,222
111,251
Bossier
Parish
4,423
1,929
600
718
233
749
582
3,344
630
2,619
1,144
1,078
890
915
2,398
1,714
2,736
6,447
7,805
191
4,381
2,694
2,598
2,513
1,828
55,159
State of
LA
165,054
72,319
20,840
36,876
14,686
31,389
25,818
123,793
26,497
75,817
42,643
46,909
27,337
27,453
115,255
75,417
71,838
230,905
287,317
12,440
166,593
83,361
123,376
84,535
52,997
2,041,465
United
States
14,363,411
6,901,467
3,626,720
2,836,514
1,253,313
2,401,944
1,727,134
8,818,307
2,766,768
5,295,091
2,459,373
3,366,493
1,753,813
1,461,005
7,859,983
5,625,986
4,903,418
16,539,763
20,862,914
1,030,742
8,361,532
4,965,375
9,127,572
5,262,565
3,650,432
147,221,635
59
2012 Employment by Occupation (%)
0 to 1
Mile
6.5%
2.3%
0.0%
2.7%
3.2%
0.6%
0.9%
4.0%
1.0%
1.6%
2.0%
1.1%
1.4%
0.0%
9.5%
14.5%
4.3%
15.4%
13.0%
0.0%
2.2%
0.0%
5.5%
5.0%
3.5%
100%
Management
Legal
Education, Training, Library
Health Technicians
Healthcare Support
Food Related
Sales and Related
Production
Transportation
Material moving
Total
1 to 5
Mile
6.7%
3.5%
0.8%
1.2%
0.4%
2.0%
1.1%
6.4%
1.5%
3.8%
2.3%
3.3%
1.9%
0.9%
7.5%
5.4%
6.0%
11.6%
13.5%
0.1%
5.9%
3.1%
4.2%
4.1%
3.0%
100%
5 to 10
Mile
8.2%
3.3%
1.4%
1.4%
0.5%
1.3%
1.2%
6.6%
1.0%
5.5%
2.4%
2.4%
1.3%
1.4%
5.1%
3.0%
5.0%
12.5%
15.2%
0.3%
5.3%
3.7%
5.1%
4.1%
2.9%
100%
10 to 15
Mile
8.9%
3.0%
0.8%
1.5%
0.8%
1.3%
1.3%
5.8%
1.1%
6.3%
2.3%
1.7%
1.0%
1.0%
3.6%
3.2%
3.2%
9.8%
15.5%
0.7%
7.8%
5.5%
6.8%
4.4%
2.6%
100%
0 to 15
Mile
7.7%
3.3%
1.0%
1.3%
0.5%
1.6%
1.2%
6.4%
1.2%
4.9%
2.4%
2.6%
1.5%
1.1%
5.8%
4.0%
5.1%
11.7%
14.6%
0.3%
5.9%
3.7%
5.0%
4.2%
2.9%
100%
Caddo
Parish
7.3%
3.1%
0.9%
1.3%
0.5%
1.7%
1.2%
6.4%
1.2%
4.7%
2.5%
2.8%
1.5%
1.0%
6.4%
4.5%
5.0%
11.6%
14.7%
0.4%
5.5%
3.3%
5.4%
4.0%
2.9%
100%
Bossier
Parish
8.0%
3.5%
1.1%
1.3%
0.4%
1.4%
1.1%
6.1%
1.1%
4.7%
2.1%
2.0%
1.6%
1.7%
4.3%
3.1%
5.0%
11.7%
14.2%
0.3%
7.9%
4.9%
4.7%
4.6%
3.3%
100%
State
of LA
8.1%
3.5%
1.0%
1.8%
0.7%
1.5%
1.3%
6.1%
1.3%
3.7%
2.1%
2.3%
1.3%
1.3%
5.6%
3.7%
3.5%
11.3%
14.1%
0.6%
8.2%
4.1%
6.0%
4.1%
2.6%
100%
United
States
9.8%
4.7%
2.5%
1.9%
0.9%
1.6%
1.2%
6.0%
1.9%
3.6%
1.7%
2.3%
1.2%
1.0%
5.3%
3.8%
3.3%
11.2%
14.2%
0.7%
5.7%
3.4%
6.2%
3.6%
2.5%
100%
The largest employment occupations within one mile of the Shreveport Common Cultural District are
sales and related occupations (15.4%), building and grounds cleaning and maintenance (14.5%), and food
preparation and serving related occupations (9.5%). Sales and related occupations, office and
administrative support, and management occupations are the leading employment occupations for the
entire region (0 to 15 miles) surrounding Shreveport Common, as well as Caddo Parish and Bossier Parish.
The subsequent tables detail employment by occupation growth. Population and white collar jobs in the
larger region surrounding the Shreveport Common Cultural District are expected to continue increasing.
Average household size has dropped dramatically over this same period. The area surrounding the
Shreveport Common Cultural District is becoming less densely populated and becoming more
professional. This could indicate an increase in dual income, childless residents.
February 2014
60
Jobs Added from 2000 to 2010 by Occupation
Management
Legal
Health Technicians
Healthcare Support
Food Related
Sales and Related
Production
Transportation
Material moving
TOTAL
0 to 1
Mile
35
17
(6)
32
42
(3)
(6)
(11)
4
7
7
(27)
10
(16)
(29)
(2)
(1)
40
30
0
(75)
(51)
(58)
2
(56)
(115)
1 to 5
Mile
514
403
(54)
133
(78)
286
0
321
186
75
260
214
510
(151)
232
(194)
1,175
(66)
599
(61)
737
(343)
(1,861)
279
476
3,592
5 to 10
Mile
1,065
(140)
338
52
8
52
132
802
(34)
773
417
328
0
390
995
235
1,131
1,017
997
103
1,119
(185)
(714)
461
768
10,110
10 to 15
Mile
445
142
65
57
59
145
87
411
1
415
156
58
(81)
69
44
237
115
231
337
56
433
91
138
(25)
252
3,938
0 to 15
Mile
2,058
422
342
274
31
479
215
1,523
157
1,270
839
573
439
291
1,242
276
2,421
1,223
1,963
98
2,214
(488)
(2,495)
718
1,441
17,526
Caddo
Parish
830
55
28
216
(19)
345
19
618
75
450
781
177
216
(82)
1,197
48
1,695
185
1,162
96
622
(853)
(2,661)
96
549
5,845
Bossier
Parish
1,137
404
227
9
16
199
289
950
164
672
153
368
92
524
26
279
762
977
929
34
1,888
195
(204)
411
1,031
11,532
State of
LA
25,667
7,869
2,217
2,013
(1,997)
4,765
2,707
7,242
1,639
11,558
7,000
5,982
(2,965)
10,718
12,109
8,231
16,196
9,693
5,806
(2,804)
31,736
(1,781)
(12,531)
2,275
5,733
159,078
United
States
2,184,316
1,202,690
382,562
121,430
28,722
412,719
278,364
1,330,182
235,469
1,050,594
588,449
732,714
190,189
424,595
1,521,556
1,310,621
1,205,590
1,672,293
514,782
68,477
1,103,744
(213,180)
(1,970,910)
541,027
306,230
15,223,225
February 2014
61
Job Growth from 2000 to 2010 by Occupation (%)
0 to 1
Mile
1 to 5
Mile
67%
Management
131%
-100%
800%
4100%
-27%
-33%
Legal
-17%
44%
50%
37%
Health Technicians
-64%
Healthcare Support
125%
-100%
-19%
Food Related
-1%
-2%
24%
Sales and Related
21%
0%
-72%
-100%
-44%
Production
3%
Transportation
-54%
Material moving
Source: AnySite, TMG Consulting Analysis
15%
24%
-11%
22%
-26%
32%
0%
9%
25%
3%
23%
12%
82%
-22%
6%
-6%
49%
-1%
8%
-50%
27%
-16%
-43%
13%
36%
5 to
10
Mile
24%
-6%
57%
6%
2%
6%
19%
22%
-5%
26%
33%
25%
0%
71%
39%
13%
49%
13%
11%
107%
44%
-7%
-17%
20%
64%
10 to 15
Mile
0 to 15
Mile
Caddo
Parish
Bossier
Parish
State
of LA
United
States
26%
24%
50%
19%
45%
85%
37%
41%
0%
38%
37%
17%
-25%
38%
5%
44%
18%
11%
10%
50%
29%
7%
9%
-2%
65%
21%
9%
28%
15%
4%
25%
14%
19%
9%
20%
30%
17%
23%
20%
16%
5%
44%
7%
10%
30%
32%
-8%
-24%
13%
48%
12%
2%
3%
18%
-3%
23%
1%
10%
6%
9%
38%
6%
15%
-7%
20%
1%
45%
1%
8%
33%
11%
-19%
-31%
2%
21%
36%
27%
60%
1%
7%
37%
104%
41%
34%
35%
16%
52%
12%
138%
1%
20%
38%
18%
14%
22%
76%
8%
-7%
20%
134%
19%
12%
12%
6%
-12%
18%
12%
6%
7%
18%
20%
15%
-10%
65%
12%
12%
30%
4%
2%
-19%
24%
-2%
-9%
3%
12%
18%
22%
12%
5%
2%
21%
20%
18%
9%
25%
32%
28%
12%
42%
24%
31%
33%
11%
3%
7%
15%
-4%
-18%
12%
9%
The U.S. Census Bureau data indicates that Life, Physical, and Social Science professionals are moving
within one mile of Shreveport Common (4100% from 2000-2010) and also to 10 to 15 miles surrounding
Shreveport Common (45% from 2000-2010). This could be attributed to the discovery and subsequent
research of the Haynesville Shale. Growth in management, business, and financial jobs is greater within
one mile of Shreveport Common than in the United States, Louisiana, and Caddo and Bossier Parishes.
This is indicative of a trend of the Shreveport Common Cultural District attracting higher income
professionals (white collar jobs). Growth in Architectural and Engineering jobs within one mile of the
Shreveport Common Cultural District (800% from 2000-2010) indicates a trend that these individuals are
moving to Downtown Shreveport. From 2000-2010, artist and designer employment within one mile
surrounding the Shreveport Common Cultural District grew at a rate of 44%. This may indicate that
professionals as well as artists and designers are interested in living in downtown Shreveport.
Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations, protective service workers, construction and
extraction occupations decreased within one mile of the Shreveport Common Cultural District from 2000
to 2010. This area saw rapid demolition of residential housing during this time frame, which could account
for such a dramatic decrease in occupations. Computer and mathematical occupations also decreased
within one mile of the Shreveport Common Cultural District at a rate of 100% from 2000 to 2010. Within
one mile of the Shreveport Common Cultural District, legal professionals declined by 33% between 2000
and 2010. During that same period, the 10 to 15 mile ring experienced a growth of 37% in legal
professionals, suggesting a migration of jobs from one area to another.
February 2014
62
Shreveport Common Cultural District’s (0-15 miles surrounding the Cultural District) biggest occupational
growth was in material moving (48%), followed closely by personal care and service (44%) from 2000 to
2010. Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations and Production occupations experienced decline
from 2000 to 2010 within 0 to 15 miles surrounding the Shreveport Common Cultural District, with a
decline of 8% and 24% respectively. It is seen that growth is higher in Bossier Parish than it is in Caddo
Parish.
From 2010 to 2012, the percentage of employment did not drastically change in any industry surrounding
Shreveport Common. The most growth is seen in total Parish growth, state and national growth. The 10
mile to 15 mile area surrounding the Shreveport Common Cultural District has the greatest rate of
employment growth.
Employment by Occupation Growth 2010-2012 (%)
0 to 1
Mile
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
-1%
0%
2%
-1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Management
Legal
Health Technicians
Healthcare Support
Food Related
Sales and Related
Production
Transportation
Material moving
1 to 5
Mile
1%
0%
-2%
-1%
-1%
0%
1%
1%
-2%
-1%
1%
1%
1%
-3%
0%
1%
-1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
1%
5 to 10
Mile
2%
2%
1%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
2%
3%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
5%
1%
1%
1%
2%
2%
10 to 15
Mile
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
1%
3%
2%
3%
3%
1%
1%
4%
2%
1%
1%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
2%
1%
0 to 15
Mile
1%
1%
0%
1%
1%
1%
2%
2%
0%
1%
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
3%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Caddo
Parish
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
1%
2%
1%
2%
1%
0%
1%
1%
0%
0%
1%
1%
1%
1%
3%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Bossier
Parish
2%
2%
-1%
1%
0%
1%
2%
3%
-3%
1%
2%
1%
2%
1%
1%
2%
0%
2%
1%
0%
0%
1%
2%
1%
1%
State
of LA
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
3%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
1%
United
States
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
The subsequent tables demonstrate that within one mile surrounding the Shreveport Common Cultural
District, both white and blue collar occupations decreased from 2010 to 2012. From 2000 to 2010, within
one mile of the Shreveport Common Cultural District, blue collar occupations decreased and white collar
occupations increased.
February 2014
63
White Collar and Blue Collar Jobs (2000, 2010, 2012)
0 to 1
Mile
Ring
1 to 5
Mile
Ring
5 to 10
Mile
Ring
10 to 15
Mile
Ring
White Collar
Blue Collar
Total
517
929
1,446
29,878
25,917
55,795
35,870
22,570
58,440
11,595
8,730
20,325
White Collar
Blue Collar
Total
708
625
1,333
32,465
26,908
59,373
41,346
27,203
68,549
14,139
10,113
24,252
White Collar
Blue Collar
Total
706
623
1,329
32,578
26,985
59,563
41,997
27,584
69,581
14,443
10,272
24,715
0 to 15
Mile
Ring
2000
77,859
58,146
136,005
2010
88,658
64,849
153,507
2012
89,724
65,464
155,188
Caddo
Parish
Bossier
Parish
State of
Louisiana
United
States
58,253
46,157
104,410
24,658
18,308
42,966
1,048,889
802,823
1,851,712
78,264,036
51,443,990
129,708,026
63,004
47,246
110,250
30,782
23,698
54,480
1,135,068
875,722
2,010,790
88,266,608
56,664,642
144,931,250
63,633
47,616
111,249
31,223
23,936
55,159
1,153,954
887,511
2,041,465
89,852,719
57,368,916
147,221,635
Average Annual Growth in White and Blue Collar Jobs
0 to 1 Mile Ring
1 to 5 Mile Ring
5 to 10 Mile Ring
10 to 15 Mile Ring
0 to 15 Mile Ring
Caddo Parish
Bossier Parish
State of Louisiana
United States
White Collar
Jobs A.A.G.
2000-2010
3.2%
0.8%
1.4%
2.0%
1.3%
0.8%
2.2%
0.8%
1.2%
Blue Collar
Jobs A.A.G.
2000-2010
-3.9%
0.4%
1.9%
1.5%
1.1%
0.2%
2.6%
0.9%
1.0%
White Collar
Jobs A.A.G.
2010-2012
-0.1%
0.2%
0.8%
1.1%
0.6%
0.5%
0.7%
0.8%
0.9%
Blue Collar
Jobs A.A.G.
2010-2012
-0.2%
0.1%
0.7%
0.8%
0.5%
0.4%
0.5%
0.7%
0.6%
February 2014
64
White Collar Jobs by Region
100,000
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
White Collar 2000
White Collar 2010
0 to 1 Mile Ring
1 to 5 Mile Ring
5 to 10 Mile Ring
0 to 15 Mile Ring
Caddo Parish
Bossier Parish
White Collar 2012
10 to 15 Mile Ring
Blue Collar Jobs by Region
100,000
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Blue Collar 2000
0 to 1 Mile Ring
1 to 5 Mile Ring
0 to 15 Mile Ring
Caddo Parish
Blue Collar 2010
5 to 10 Mile Ring
Blue Collar 2012
10 to 15 Mile Ring
Bossier Parish
February 2014
65
Tourism
The following section provides details on the tourists who travel to the Shreveport Common Cultural
District and the surrounding area. This information provides a better understanding of the tourism market
that Shreveport Common could enhance.
VOLUME
State of Louisiana
U.S. residents traveling in Louisiana include both in-state residents and out-of-state visitors traveling
away from home overnight and staying in paid accommodations, or those on any overnight and day trips
to places 50 miles or more away from home. Excluded from the analysis are those that commute to and
from work; travel by operating an airplane, bus, truck, train or other form of common carrier
transportation; travel for military active duty; and students traveling because they are away at school.
In 2012, visitors spent nearly $10.7 billion in Louisiana, up 6.1 percent from 2010 spending.
It should be noted that tourism jobs were proportionally high in 2007 and 2008. This is because these
jobs include the TSA definition of tourism jobs, which include those for infrastructure spending (i.e. the
building and repair of things including highways and hotels). Immediately following Katrina, there was a
surge in hotel construction in the north part of the state along with many repairs to bridges and other
travel infrastructure in the south part. This type of activity has decreased in the years following Katrina
as projects have been completed. In addition, the tourism industry has been cross-training employees
and, therefore, requiring fewer personnel to serve the industry. Thus, the total of all travel-related jobs
is expected to recover from 2009 recessionary effects at a slower pace than spending recovery.99
The following table details Louisiana tourism indicators for 2004 through 2016. Total domestic and foreign
visitors increased from 2004 through 2012. Visitors to Louisiana are projected to steadily increase through
2016, at a rate of 1.6%. In Louisiana, domestic and foreign visitors spent $10.7 billion in 2012. Total
spending is projected to grow by 2.3% from 2012 to 2016. Tourism employed 153,000 residents of
Louisiana employment in 2012.
99 Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism. Louisiana Tourism Forecast: 2012-2015. By The University of New
Orleans Hospitality Research Center and LSU Division of Economic Development. n.p. April 2012
February 2014
66
State of Louisiana Tourism Indicators
2004
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Est.
2016
Proj.
AAG
20042010
AAG
20102012
AAG
20122016
24.8
23.8
24.4
24.0
25.1
25.5
26.3
26.8
28.0
0.2%
2.4%
1.6%
$10.0
$9.0
$9.5
$8.8
$9.5
$10.1
$10.7
$11.1
$11.7
-0.9%
6.1%
2.3%
165.0
143.0
145.0
131.0
143.0
145.0
153.0
155.0
159.0
-2.4%
0.0%
1.0%
Airport Passenger
Enplanements
(Millions)
6.0
5.1
5.2
5.0
5.3
5.6
5.6
5.7
6.0
-2.0%
2.8%
1.7%
Hotel Room Nights
Sold (Millions)4
17.8
16.9
18.2
16.9
18.7
18.7
20.0
20.2
20.6
0.8%
3.4%
0.7%
Convention Room
Nights Sold (Millions)
2.6
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.6
2.3
-3.5%
4.7%
0.0%
Hotel Sales Taxes
(Millions)5
$76
$66
$73
$66
$75
$77
$88
$89
$93
-0.2%
8.3%
1.4%
Non-hotel State Tax
Revenue (Millions)6
$541
$610
$633
$590
$607
$636
$665
$690
$736
1.9%
4.7%
2.6%
Louisiana Superdome
and Exposition Tax
(Millions)7
$35
$27
$30
$28
$31
$34
$40
$41
$42
-2.0%
13.6%
1.2%
Total Domestic and
Foreign Visitors
(Millions)1
Total Domestic and
Foreign Visitor
Spending (Billions)2
Tourism Employment
(Thousands)3
Source: Louisiana Tourism Forecast: 2013-2016; TMG Consulting Analysis
*All tables include the negative effect of BP oil spill and do not include the payment by BP for additional advertising.
AAG = Average Annual Growth
1Source: 2003-5 TIA in combination with CRT
2Source: 2003-6 Louisiana TSA data
3Direct employment, includes construction work on infrastructure.
4In 2005, 2006 and 2008, many hotel rooms were not attributable to visitors.
54% state sales tax. FEMA residents removed in hurricane periods.
6Only state taxes are included.
7Source: 2004-12 Louisiana Dept. of Revenue, Orleans and Jefferson parishes only. In 2006, only $19.8 million are attributed to visitors. In 2008,
only $27.2 million are attributed to visitors.
Louisiana totals may not add due to rounding.
February 2014
67
HOTEL
Caddo and Bossier Parish
The average daily rate for Caddo and Bossier Parishes increased by an average annual growth (A.A.G.)
rate of 1.34% from 2000 through 2010. The average daily rate increased by 1.93% from 2010 through
2012. The average hotel occupancy increased by .67% annually from 2000 to 2010; however, from 2010
through 2012 average occupancy decreased at a rate of 12.1%
Caddo and Bossier Parishes
ADR and Occupancy Rates
Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
A.A.G. 2000-2010
A.A.G. 2010-2012
Average
Daily
Rate
$62.51
$62.81
$60.41
$59.35
$60.14
$61.63
$65.12
$68.11
$68.10
$68.01
$71.40
$74.00
$74.18
1.34%
1.93%
Average
Occupancy
68.47%
61.50%
60.60%
62.70%
65.50%
68.40%
69.30%
67.40%
71.71%
64.80%
73.20%
65.40%
56.50%
0.67%
-12.1%
Source: 2012 Tourism Economic Indicator; Smith Travel
Research; TMG Consulting Analysis
The Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism released a study in April 2013 detailing
tourism indicators for the entire state of Louisiana, and major MSAs within the state. The study indicated
hotels within the Shreveport-Bossier City MSA have slowly been adding capacity, and this increase in
hotel activity could be attributed to activity related to the film industry and nearby natural gas
production.100
2012 Caddo and Bossier Hotel Room Supply
Location
Bossier City
City of Shreveport
Other Rooms (Caddo Parish)
Bed & Breakfast
2012 Overall Total
Number of
Rooms
4,441
5,373
252
8
10,074
Source: 2012 Tourism Economic Indicator; Smith
Travel Research; TMG Consulting Analysis
100 Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism. Louisiana Tourism Forecast: 2013-2016. By The University of
New Orleans Hospitality Research Center. n.p. April 2013
February 2014
68
In 2012, Caddo Parish, received $564.9 million from domestic traveler spending—1.5% lower than 2011.
This spending supported $109.6 million in payroll and 4,730 jobs. In 2012, Bossier Parish, received $336
million from domestic traveler spending—7.28% lower than 2011. This spending supported $97.6 million
in payroll and 4,830 jobs.
Domestic Travel Impacts
2011 Expenditures (Millions)
2012 Expenditures (Millions)
A.A.G. Expenditures
2011 Payroll (Million)
2012 Payroll (Million)
A.A.G. Payroll
2011 Employment
2012 Employment
A.A.G. Employment
2011 State Tax Receipts (Million)
2012 State Tax Receipts (Million)
A.A.G. State Tax Receipts
2011 Local Tax Receipts (Millions)
2012 Local Tax Receipts (Millions)
A.A.G. Local Tax Receipts (Millions)
Caddo
Bossier
$573.35
$564.95
-1.47%
$112.37
$109.64
-2.43%
4,900
4,730
-3.47%
$23.87
$23.02
-3.56%
$11.49
$11.36
-1.13%
$362.45
$336.06
-7.28%
$103.08
$97.57
-5.35%
5,030
4,830
-3.98%
$15.58
$14.55
-6.61%
$10.50
$9.80
-6.67%
State of
Louisiana
$9,614.10
$9,879.82
2.76%
$1,918.18
$1,969.78
2.69%
99,470
101,280
1.82%
$382.96
$391.04
2.11%
$221.98
$230.05
3.64%
Source: U.S. Travel Association; The Economic Impact of Travel on LA Parishes 2012;
TMG Consulting Analysis
February 2014
69
CASINOS
Shreveport-Bossier City, MSA Existing Gaming Facilities
Shreveport Common’s region includes casinos located in and around Shreveport and Bossier City, LA.
There are seven gaming facilities in operation in this region. These facilities offer direct transit between
Shreveport, LA and Dallas, Texas on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sundays. The Xpressbus is an
available amenity for all casinos. The Xpressbus is an express service bus between Shreveport, LA and
Dallas, TX, which offers free WiFi on the three hour trip.101 Please see below for a brief description of
gaming facilities within the Shreveport Common Cultural District Region.
Gaming Facility
Location
Room Supply
Slots
Tables
Boomtown
Casino & Hotel
300 Riverside Dr.,
Bossier City
192 rooms and
suites
1,100
33
Other amenities on-site include four
restaurants.
Diamond Jack's
Casino & Resort
711 Diamond Jacks
Blvd., Bossier City
570 suites
1,100
30
Other amenities include three
restaurants, two bars, and a full service
RV park.
Eldorado Resort
Casino
Shreveport
451 Clyde Fant
Pkwy, Shreveport
403 rooms
1,500
60
Other amenities include a spa, and
four dining options.
Harrah’s
Louisiana Downs
8000 E. Texas
Street, Bossier City
-
1,000
-
Thoroughbred and Quarter Horse
racetracks. Other amenities include
four restaurants, and a bar. Harrah’s
Louisiana Downs is open 24 hours a
day, seven days a week.
Horseshoe
Casino & Hotel
711 Horseshoe
Blvd., Bossier City
610 rooms and
luxury suites.
1,360
92
Guests can also enjoy the facility’s four
restaurants, and bar.
Margaritaville
Resort Casino
777 Margaritaville
Way, Bossier City
395 rooms
1,300
46
Other amenities offered on-site include
two restaurants, four bars, a spa, and
2,500-square-foot meeting space.
315 Clyde Fant
Pkwy., Shreveport
465 standard
room, and 49
luxury suites
30
Open 7 days a week, 24-hours a day,
guests can enjoy its four restaurants
and 18,000 square feet of convention
and banquet space. Other amenities
include a spa, and fitness center.
Sam’s Town Hotel
& Casino
Shreveport
1,100
Amenities
Source: “All Casinos.” Shreveport-Bossier Convention & Tourist Bureau. nd. Web. 15 Oct 2013; CasinoCity.com; TMG Consulting Analysis
101
“XpressBus”. n.p. n.d. Web. 15 Oct 2013.
February 2014
70

SHREVEPORT COMMON Market Analysis for Mixed

Transcription

Similar documents

peter baltz available for sale or lease

Family Adventure Guide

Hot Pursuit 11-matt

Brian Bond (SWEPCO) Tuesday, October 7 12:00 PM Eagle Hall

Arlena Acree Pam Glorioso

pdf Airline #2142-Glendale Plaza, AG-JD

Shreveport-Bossier`s Film Trail

Newsletter - April 2014 volume 5, issue 2, part 3 - NAUW

SUSLA eNews - August 2015 - Southern University at Shreveport

Family Fitness Flyer v9