Downtown Longview Comprehensive Plan

Introduction

The following plan was developed to guide the central core area of Longview, Washington into the future. The plan was developed by The Chesapeake Group, under contract to the City of Longview.

The plan was prepared under the auspices of the Downtown Advisory Committee, established with the intended purpose to oversee its development. That committee was composed of representatives of the Downtowners Association, the business group for the central core area; key property owners; tenants of the area; residents of Longview with no direct economic interest in downtown; City representatives; and others.

During the course of the planning process business and citizen input was solicited through a variety of means that included but was not necessarily limited to:

• Face to face, or in person, one-on-one interviews with “stakeholders” or “critical actors.”
• Telephone survey of residents, patrons and potential patrons of Longview, Kelso, and surrounding areas.
• Survey of businesses in the central core.
• A public forum held at the Columbia Theater.
• Advisory Committee meetings.
• Meetings with the Downtowners Association.

The strategic plan addresses a number of significant components of downtown Longview and most downtowns. Included are market opportunities, parking, physical design, and marketing and other implementation. There are corresponding sections of this document associated with those components.

The plan was developed in a manner that allowed for initiation of implementation from the onset. The specific steps taken were associated with issues and activities whose early implementation was unlikely to conflict with the overall strategy suggestions or components. Thus, actions taken were seen as one step toward a larger associated goal. These measures already taken include, but are not limited to:

• Trimming of trees.
• Modification of zoning regulations associated with places of assembly.
• Increased sharing between the City and business interests with regard to cost of landscaping efforts and holiday lighting and perceived increased cooperation at all levels.
• Marketing modifications.
• Certain changes to parking management activity.

In developing all suggestions or recommended activity, careful consideration was paid to cost. Longview has limited resources at present and is likely to have limited resources in the future. Thus, “optimum” solutions are pragmatic solutions that will accomplish objectives and still be affordable either with current resources or potential resources that it is reasonable to expect can be made available.

Issues

There are a number of significant issues that were raised prior to initiation of the plan and many more that surfaced during the public participation and other aspects of the strategic planning process. They generally fall within the seven highlighted categories that follow. (They are not listed in order of priority.)

It is important to note that perceptions are reality to those who hold them, whether or not they are founded on concrete information or valid assumptions. Economic viability is often dependent upon minimizing or mitigating negative perceptions.

1. Market & Tenant Mix for Retail

• There was significant concern expressed over who patronizes downtown at present and what opportunities exist.
• Current tenant mix is such that places of assembly, such as churches and bingo halls, are becoming dominant land uses.
• Many independent operations are perceived to be struggling, with sales insufficient to support further investment or to provide for long-term income.
• Duplication of businesses is a concern believed to be partly to blame for the perception that there is “nothing to do,” “nothing to buy,” and “no reason to come.”
• Little synergy exists within the area. It is felt that people come for one business or activity and leave. Few walk around; few “window shop;” and most go to the attraction or operation by private vehicle, park, and then leave.
• The number and proportion of vacancies has grown over the past year, and interest in leasing space has waned.

2. Critical Mass & Attractions

• Perceptions of both the number of attractions and critical mass are identified as obstacles for success by people in the area.
• Businesses and the areas are perceived as being in “transition,” without clear definition of what it is that they are transitioning to.
• Housing, cultural activity, office services, and government services were perceived as being non-existent, insufficient, or disjointed.

3. Use of Location & Marketing

• The potentials associated with Longview’s location and the downtown, in particular, are significant with respect to attracting patronage. Longview is surrounded by large population centers in Portland and Seattle and visitors to significant tourist attractions to the east and west that could utilize activities and services. Yet, these possibilities in general have not been recognized or exploited.

4. Current Rent Levels

• Rehabilitation, acquisition of properties coupled with rehabilitation, and other related investment is difficult to justify, because of the current low rent levels.
• There is at least some “cause and effect” relationship between low rent levels and the perceived negative tenant mix.

5. Parking

There are numerous parking issues. There are perceptions of:

• Insufficient supply;
• Supply in the wrong places;
• Lack of parking for certain types of tenants that have proliferated the area more recently;
• Abuse of on-street spaces;
• Abuse of off-street spaces; and
• Concerns for patron ticketing.

6. Physical Conditions

• Conditions in the evening during the winter are not conducive to walking downtown for either patrons or employees. Lighting is insufficient, and loitering is perceived as being high.
• The streetscape is inconsistent, and maintenance of all but trees is perceived as being in the hands of the current businesses and property owners.
• A major water body or feature, that is perceived as being catalytic to reinvestment in other communities, is missing downtown.
• There is perceived as being both a lack of investment or consistent investment.
• Downtown Longview is not well differentiated from surrounding commercial activity or other commercial activity. Current recognizable physical identity is lacking.

7. Cooperation with City

• Relationships between the city and business interests at the initiation of the project were perceived as being strained.
• Private sector interests are investing dollars and energy in efforts that typically are associated with public sector activity.
• “Battle lines” existed on many issues based on past activity and perceptions. Neither side appeared to be really listening to the other. Frustration existed among all sides and all parties.
• Moratoria on development caused tension between other interests in the city and City government.
• Entities with interest in restoration for historic purposes expressed frustration at the inability to reach consensus and move ahead with “themed” implementation. Certain business interests felt that the previous proposals were too restrictive.

Goals

In spite of the host of perceptions and issues that surround the downtown, there are also many attributes, not the least of which are:

• The physical characteristics of the buildings along Commerce Avenue, the central core’s major spin.
• The proximity to residential neighborhoods.
• Reasonable traffic flow.
• The rehabbed Columbia Theater.
• A number of restaurants and quality shops.
• A business organization that is growing in effectiveness.
• Dedicated business leadership.
• Reasonable proportion of ownership of property and businesses by people from the area.
• A strong tourist base in the region.
• Relative proximity to large populations in Seattle and Portland and close proximity to specific tourist oriented areas along the coast and inland, with Mt. St. Helens.
• A caring group of City employees and local elected officials.

The intent of the plan is:

“To create a downtown in Longview whose viability is based on a unique character, is easily differentiated from other commercial areas in the Longview/Kelso area, is attractive to residents and visitors, is active “24-7”, and attracts residents and visitors from Longview and other areas.”

In order to accomplish the above, the following objectives become important.

• Increase the numbers of retail businesses in the area.
• Expand the range of services and non-retail synergistic activity.
• Enhance the definition of downtown from a physical perspective.
• Enhance the regional visibility of downtown.
• Enhance the economic importance and visibility of downtown.
• Implement a cohesive, affordable set of physical improvements that accentuate the positive.
• Enhance the utilization of assets.
• Enhance cooperation.
• Broaden the market for businesses and their goods and services downtown.

The strategy that is put forth addresses the many concerns and the goals and objectives. Implementation of the program is key to changing the dynamics of Longview’s central core.

Business Retention Development & Recruitment

In effort to better understand both current activity and opportunities for downtown, several analyses were undertaken, including, but not limited to: (a) a comparative assessment; (b) demand analysis for retail and related service activity; and (c) a survey of business operations. Information from the three surveys was factored into all recommendations for action associated with this plan, not just those presented in the text that follows.

Comparative Analysis

The comparative analysis essentially involves comparing the Longview area’s business structure to the business structures associated with communities that are similar. In determining areas for which the comparison can be made, the following process was used:

• States along the West and East Coasts; states in close proximity to Washington; states in the Southwest; and states having significant water bodies, such as the Great Lakes, were examined. These were chosen because of Longview’s climate, proximity to visitor based water activity to the west of Longview, and Mt. St. Helens to the east.
• Twenty states were examined. The 20 states are:
  
  1. Oregon
  2. Washington
  3. Arizona
  4. Nevada
  5. Colorado
  6. Idaho
  7. New Mexico
  8. Florida
  9. California
  10. Illinois
  11. North Carolina
  12. Massachusetts
  13. Maryland
  14. Virginia
  15. Georgia
  16. South Carolina
  17. Ohio
  18. New Jersey
  19. Maine
  20. Kentucky
      
• County level comparisons were preferred because of the close proximity between downtown commercial activity and non-downtown activity in Longview, the close proximity to Kelso, and the composition of Cowlitz County.
• Counties within each state were then examined to identify those having a population near 95,000 and the number of households near 30,000, thus being similar to Cowlitz County. A total of 39 counties were identified within these states that met the population and household criteria.
• Of the 39 counties identified, those that are near larger metropolitan cities, are near cities that have built reputations in recent years for economic vitality, are near tourist attractions, and have interstate roadways running through or on their border were isolated. In total, nine counties met the criteria and were selected for inclusion in the effort. The nine counties for which the comparisons are made are:
  
  • Coweta , South Carolina
  • Columbia , Georgia
  • Douglas , Georgia
  • Linn , Oregon
  • Nash , North Carolina
  • Orangeburg , South Carolina
  • Rockingham , North Carolina
  • Sandoval , New Mexico
  • Stafford , Virginia
    
• For each county, including Cowlitz, six digit SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) codes were extracted on every and all “industries” beginning with the 520000 and running through 999999. These SIC codes exclude manufacturing, warehousing, agriculture, and certain other uses generally incompatible with downtown activity, but include all retail and most personal and professional service activity.
• “Under-represented industries” were then defined as those where Cowlitz has a lesser number of businesses than at least six other counties. Thus, the number of businesses in the industry in Cowlitz compared to the other communities is below what might be expected based on geographic location and population. However, under-representation does not mean the identified categories of industries are desirable for Cowlitz County, Longview, or downtown Longview.

The following are the “industries” identified as being under-represented in Cowlitz County in the selected SIC codes most often compatible with the concept of downtown in the past, at present, or in the future. About 40 are identified. To reiterate, their inclusion does not represent an endorsement of the activity for downtown Longview. However, certain categories have been highlighted that may constitute downtown opportunities.

It is noted that in general there are clusters of activities that are under-represented. These include, but are not necessarily limited to:

• Home furnishings, antiques, and household products;
• Outdoor and outfitting;
• Additional government; and
• Finance and Real Estate (this with Insurance is generally categorized as FIRE activity and related space often located in office structures).

All of these activities are deemed appropriate for downtown. Their addition would enhance activity in accordance with the established goals and objectives of the strategy.

Demand for goods and services for any commercial area is based on the market’s ability to purchase goods and services. A telephone survey of residents of Longview , Kelso and surrounding areas is the primary source of information used to define spending patterns and retail estimates and locally generated service demand opportunities. The following represents a synopsis of pertinent information with respect to the demand for activity within Longview and the downtown.

There are essentially four potential markets for goods and services associated with downtown Longview . These are:

• The primary market area, composed of residents living in Cowlitz County ;
• The secondary market area, composed of residents living in the Portland area to the south; and
• Two tertiary markets, composed of other residents of the Seattle area to the north and visitors to the area.

Three of the markets, being associated with residents, are considered “local” markets. It is also noted that employees of local businesses who are non-residents of the area contribute to demand. Because of the lack of concentration of major employers or employment centers in downtown Longview at present, their contribution is not considered significant at this time.

Market penetration is a key factor in the long-term success of economic activity. Market penetration incorporates both the proportion of residents in an area using the commercial activity and the frequency of use. Effective market penetration represents a combination of both factors.

As defined through the telephone survey and traffic patterns, effective market penetration levels for the primary area are very high. Those in the secondary and tertiary areas are small, as would be anticipated.

There are ten major categories of sales of retail goods and related services. These are:

• Food, such as groceries and related merchandise generally purchased for home preparation or consumption;
• Eating and drinking, consisting of prepared food and beverages generally consumed on the premises or carried to another location;
• General merchandise, including variety stores, department stores and large value oriented retail operators;
• Furniture and accessories, including appliances and home furnishings;
• Transportation and utilities, including the sale of new and used automotive and other personal vehicles and parts, and basic utilities for the home;
• Drugstores, including those specializing in health and beauty aids or pharmaceuticals;
• Apparel and accessories;
• Hardware and building materials, including traditional hardware stores and garden and home improvement centers;
• Auto services, including gasoline and vehicle repair; and
• Miscellaneous, including a plethora of retail and services ranging from florists to paper goods.

It is noted that some operations will cross more than one category.

Table 2 contains the estimates of all retail and related services sales for Cowlitz County, irrespective of the location at which residents spent the dollars.

It is noted that total sales are expected to increase by about $150 million over the next nine years, going from about $1.03 billion to about $1.18 billion.

Table 2 - Estimated Sales for Retail and Related Services By Major Category for Cowlitz County for 2000, 2005 and 2010*

While quite substantial, the Cowlitz County sales are dwarfed by the Portland and Seattle sales. Portland sales are estimated to have been more than $36 billion in 2000, and will grow by an additional $8 billion by 2010.

Table 3 - Estimated Sales for Retail and Related Services By Major Category for the Portland Area for 2000 and Change in Sales for 2000 to 2005 and 2000 to 2010*

Seattle sales are larger yet as shown in Table 4.

Table 4 - Estimated Sales for Retail and Related Services By Major Category for the Seattle Area for 2000 and Change in Sales for 2000 to 2005 and 2000 to 2010*

Furthermore, within each retail goods and related services category there are sub-categories, generally associated with particular types of businesses. While clearly not the largest in terms of sales, as indicated, the miscellaneous category contains more sub-categories or types of establishments than any other major retail goods and related services category.

Sales can be converted to supportable space through the application of retail sales productivity levels. A retail sales productivity level is the level of sales at which it is assumed that the business will generate sufficient revenue to cover all costs of operation as well as provide a reasonable return on investment for the ownership. Table 5 contains the estimated supportable space for Cowlitz County for 2000, 2005, and 2010 by type of business or sub-category

Table 5 - Estimated Supportable Space for Retail & Related Services By Sub-category for Cowlitz County for 2001, 2005 and 2010 (in Square Feet)*

Table 6 contains the change in supportable space for Cowlitz between 2000 and 2005 and between 2000 and 2010. Change in supportable space tables represent increases in space between the years.

Table 6 - Estimated Change in Supportable Space By Category for Cowlitz County for 2000 to 2005 and 2000 to 2010 (in Square Feet)*

Table 7 contains the year 2000 supportable space and the changes between 2000 and 2005 and 2000 and 2010 for the Portland market by major category.

Table 7 - Estimated Supportable Space for Retail and Related Services By Category for the Portland Area for 2000 and Change in Supportable Space for 2000 to 2005 and 2000 to 2010 (in Square Feet)*

Table 8 contains the information for the Seattle area.

Table 8 - Estimated Supportable Space for Retail and Related Services By Category for the Seattle Area for 2000 and Change in Supportable Space for 2000 to 2005 and 2000 to 2010 (in Sq. Ft.)*

The changes in supportable space by sub-category or type of operation for Cowlitz County, Portland areas, and Seattle areas are found in Tables 9, 10, and 11 that follow.

Table 9 -Estimated Change in Supportable Space for Retail and Related Services By Sub-category for Cowlitz County for 2000 to 2005 and 2000 to 2010 (in Square Feet)*