A Path Forward for Retail at the Mall Under Option C 

By Ben Shiller
Updated from an original post  from January 2, 2024 on Lincoln Talk and The Lincoln Squirrel. Posted here with permission of the author.

Option C has emerged as the winning choice for rezoning for the Housing Choice Act.  Although the discussion may have seemed divisive, I truly believe that we residents share a common goal for a vibrant and walkable central area. 

The Mall is the only area zoned for retail in the station area (under our Housing Choice Act proposal).  Thus, our only chance for retail is through the Mall’s redevelopment. More retail increases walkability/reduces fossil fuel usage. 

Here are some concerns I think we should consider at the upcoming meetings about the Bylaws:

1.  We must have bylaws require 33% commercial at the Mall, carefully defined.  
Following the reasoning of RLF representatives in the fall, a developer should be willing to buy and develop a parcel even if they view the required retail as unprofitable, so long as they anticipate offsetting those losses with high profits from luxury units.  However, if we don’t carefully specify the retail percentage in the bylaws, a profit-oriented developer will replace retail with luxury housing.  

The first-pass Bylaws allow the planning board to completely eliminate the retail requirement at the Mall by a supermajority (4 out of 5 planning board members), without having any involvement by town citizens.  Technically, this requires a “finding” that retail is unprofitable.  However, this finding seemingly relates to whether “retail” is profitable.  The entire purpose of the multiple use parcel is so that profits from luxury units subsidize retail; the parcel owner then charges below market rents to retail establishments who can survive with these lower rents.  The language of this loophole should reflect this intended subsidization.  The Bylaws should word this carefully, and only allow the planning board to unilaterally reduce retail (say to 20%), not eliminate it.  

Relatedly, gyms or pools that are ostensibly available to the public by membership count towards retail, regardless of their price.  The owner could make membership complementary to residents of the development, and set an absurdly high price to outsiders, effectively closing it to outsiders.  The Bylaws should state that such commercial units only count towards the 33% requirement if they are available at prices that reflect prices of similar quality establishments.  

2.  Retail space and residential affordability are not compatible:
At the Dec 12th meeting, Planning Board members discussed what percentage of square footage at the Mall should be required to be retail rather than residential. While town residents benefit from retail space, strict requirements may make redevelopment unprofitable, and several Planning Board members believe we need to substantially reduce retail space from current levels to make the Mall redevelopment viable.  I suggest we encourage developers to use profits from market-rate units in the Mall to subsidize larger retail spaces.  The Mall is not the place to build a large number of "affordable" apartments. Fortunately, Option C provides numerous locations outside of the Mall to build a variety of housing options for a variety of budgets.

3.  Ground level and second floor retail are both appealing: 
The Planning Board seems to prefer retail on the ground level---which I agree with---but this is not yet set in stone.  Retail space on the ground level is more appealing to retail establishments such as restaurants, grocery stores, and banks.  The second floor may be appealing as office space, as in the current Mall. 

4.  Retail parking is vital:
One parking space for retail allows multiple customers to come and shop there at different times of day; one retail parking spot = multiple customers.  However, if retail parking spaces are displaced by resident parking spaces, retail customers will go elsewhere, putting our retail in a more precarious position than currently.  Moreover, the Housing Choice Act does not allow us to require any spaces for retail parking, and there is limited land for buildings and parking.  This is not a problem with a simple solution.  

5. Parking During Construction:
Our retail is allegedly in a fragile state.  Can it survive if parking spots for customers are temporarily (or permanently) removed during construction?  Let’s craft a plan that makes clear where customers can park and how trucks full of groceries can reach the offloading bay during construction.

We can do hard things.  And we can do them quickly as long as we all work together.  This is arguably the biggest change in Lincoln in last 50 years.  Let’s make sure we do this right!