How deep should a retail space be?

Retail space should be the right depth i.e. deep enough to accomodate the expected or hoped-for users.

In a discussion on Slog about some proposed neighborhood development in Seattle, one of its most sophisticated commenters criticized a project because its retail spaces were not deep enough. He wrote:

Maybe it goes way back, but if it does it would be highly unusual. And note that the description says 3500 sq ft of retail, and that strip looks 100 feet long, which means an average depth of 35 ft. -- not ten, but nowhere near deep enough to provide adequate retail space. They should go all the way back to the back of the lot.

My response:

Assuming that the lot is 100 feet deep (typical minimum) then you'd have retail spaces which are 100 feet deep. Not a good idea for a neighborhood setting.

That's designing yourself into a spot where you MUST have tenant which needs a large space — typically a national or large regional such a Bartells or Wallgreens drugstore — rather than the idiosyncratic "mom-and-pops" which make a neighborhood streetfront diverse and engaging. A typical space for a small store is 1000 SF, (though it could even be smaller.) If the rule is to build retail full-depth of the property, that would mean a retail space of 100' depth by 10' wide -- which is far too narrow. More traditional, practical and widespread is 50' deep and 20' wide. The back part of a retail space is not valuable except for the larger retailer.

In general you size your retail space for the kind of user you hope or expect to see. If you want a Satples or Office Depot you have to have around 7500 SF (that's for their urban stores) and so the larger depth is fine. If you want small business make the spaces smaller. For a small shoe store 1000 SF is appropriate. And for many small or starting businesses, 4-600 is just fine.

Comments

[Fnarf]

Hmm, I don't agree. I think small businesses need deep spaces. Restaurants need kitchens, shoe stores need stockrooms. Everybody needs toilets and places for workers to hang their coats. Maybe 100 feet is exaggerated; I haven't got the tape measure out. But I'm thinking of retail strips that work for small businesses, like 45th Street in Wallingford. Look at Tweedy and Popp -- narrow and deep. Look at Bella Cosa or Fuel Coffee -- deep and narrow. Look at virtually all of Manhattan's little shopping districts. Narrow and deep. These retail spaces weren't designed; they're just the default from the lot size. The Manhattan lot is one of my favorite subjects!

20x50 is fine. 15x50 or 10x50 are even better.

Two advantages to being narrow: they're cheaper, and you can cram more of them, and thus more interest, into a block. A block with one store on it is not attractive. Especially when that store isn't really using the frontage at all, like a typical Walgreens or Safeway, who have turned all their "new urbanist" facades into fake windows that don't even look into the store. These are just as bad of block-killers as blank concrete.

What I'm really arguing against is the current trend, which is thin strips of "retail" across the front to meet the design guidelines, without any consideration of whether it's really usable. The example I gave on Slog, Fini in Phinney Ridge, is TEN FEET DEEP, or possibly even less. They're getting an ice cream shop or something; nothing else could possibly fit, I don't think; there isn't even any room for the ubiquitous tanning salon. Almost all of the ground floor is taken up by a parking garage in the back. This isn't just one example; these things are ALL OVER. I like them, mostly, but this is one thing I hate.

If the place in Lake City goes with ONE retailer taking the whole 3500, I'll be very, very disappointed. I'd like to see five or six!

[Fnarf]

PS -- I am not trained, and not an expert. But I'm widely read on the subject, and I've been thinking about things like retail spaces and walkable districts for 20 years. "Narrow and deep" has been a mantra for about 18 of them!

[Dave Sucher]

You are correct Fnarf about the benefits to a street front in having many shops.

But requiring a developer to go full-depth goes too far and requires the merchant to rent space which is hard to police, hard to arrange and yet requires the small merchant -- least able to pay -- to absorb the cost of sub-optimum retail space. No, I don't think a 10' by 100' shop is a practical idea.

Furthermore, having thin strips of retail is a very good way to civilize the parking garage. Ten feet depth may indeed be a bit shy. But twenty or so feet -- the depth of a car stall -- seems quite reasonable for small shops.

We may just have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Will Cox]

There's a very nice soup shop in Mt. Kisco, New York, that is 400 sq. ft. It's not 4 feet wide, but it is narrow, perhaps 10.

http://www.ladleoflove.com/
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E00E2DA1531F932A25755C0A9609C8B63

[FinishTag]

Cheap Developers and Lazy Architects and do not like to create many, narrow commercial spaces because it means the slab has to step because of wheelchair access to each individual space. Narrow retail will occur in Seattle when it is codified.

[David Sucher]

FinishTag,
Just so I understand, is your claim true on a flat site?