White paper
Location Intelligence
Enterprise Location Intelligence
The evolution of
the shopping
center landscape.
Insights by Pitney Bowes and the Directory of Major Malls
Page 2
Background
Massive changes within the shopping
industry have been — and will continue
to be — constant and unyielding. The
transformation is fueled by the same
issues transforming retail itself. From the
increasing pressures of a technologyempowered consumer to the major brand
contractions/consolidations underway
within the big-box arena, the shopping
center industry faces challenges that
could not even be imagined just a decade
past. These changes have far-reaching
implications on how existing shopping
centers are positioned to survive and
where opportunities may exist for the
continued growth of new supply.
To better understand the broad market
patterns associated with the current
shopping center landscape, the
Pitney Bowes Applied Analytics group has
partnered with the Directory of Major
Malls to conduct an analytic inquiry. This
includes a specific focus of where new
shopping center supply is concentrated.
With a deeper understanding derived
from the patterns we observe, we
intend on providing new — and
possibly — surprising insights on market
trends and potential opportunities.
The evolution of the shopping center landscape.
Authors
Gary Faitler and Tom Coats,
Pitney Bowes
Tama Shor,
Directory of Major Malls
A Pitney Bowes / Directory of Major Malls white paper
Page 3
For this project, the collaboration of Pitney Bowes and
Directory of Major Mall (DMM) reflects a marriage of
complementary strengths. Like any good marriage, it is
helpful to understand the distinct roles each partner plays.
The Directory of Major Malls is an industry-recognized
brand dating back to 1979. Just as the name indicates,
they deliver a comprehensive database of all shopping
centers that exhibit a significant scale in terms of gross
leasable area (GLA) and/or character. This database serves
as both a current and near-term planned inventory of
major shopping centers as well as a repository of important
detail and information regarding tenancy and center
characteristics. The Directory of Major Malls data can be
accessed directly via the ShoppingCenters.com website or
through direct custom database licensing as well as via a
network of resellers of geospatial and analytic platforms
including Pitney Bowes. The DMM information is enhanced
by DMM’s topical publication Directory of Major Malls
e-newsletter. It’s aimed at keeping subscribers informed
regarding industry developments and trends. Pitney Bowes
Applied Analytics and Marketing Services (AAMS) group
specializes in geo-spatial analytics, pioneering the field
of predictive modeling for chain retailers and financial
services institutions. With industry roots in consulting
services, their solutions are today delivered in GeoInsight,
an interactive web-based mapping and analytic platform
designed to easily leverage for the user the full suite of
Pitney Bowes proprietary demographic data and the power
of AAMS group’s expert modeling.
This partnership’s resultant analysis reflects a unique view
applied to the domain of shopping center inventorying
and development planning. Pitney Bowes’ specific chain
retail focus on market potential and prioritization has
lent an objective and comprehensive global view to the
shopping center landscape. In a sense, this analysis reflects
Pitney Bowe’s retail perspective in a way that analogized the
DMM database of major shopping centers as a “store fleet”
database and markets (DMA’s) as “trade areas” with their
comparative dynamics and levels of viability.
Methodology
The study specifically focuses on comparing trends and
attributes in the top markets in the U.S. We evaluated
54 markets (DMAs) with populations of 1.5 million and
higher. DMM collects intelligence on a wide variety of
shopping center types and sizes. For the purposes of
this study, we concentrated on the “major” shopping
centers, those with GLAs of 200,000 and greater. This
yielded nearly 5,000 individual centers, representing
total GLA of over 2.3 billion square feet. In order to
draw a distinction between the current “established”
environment and “new” development activity patterns,
Pitney Bowes classified any shopping center that
opened prior to 2012 as “established”, and those either
built in 2012 and beyond, or those currently in the
development pipeline, as “new activity”.
Pitney Bowes also accounted for the differences in
service areas ranging from moderate-sized, communityoriented shopping center to those of major regional
malls. Furthermore, the service areas themselves will
have differing “extents” depending on the size of the
market and local density patterns surrounding the
center. Understanding this dynamic, Pitney Bowes
used a proprietary scaled drive-time approach based
on shopping center type, market size, and density to
establish each center’s logical “service area”.
Once service areas were established, Pitney Bowes was
able to capture an array of demographic variables for
each center. These service area variables; population,
household growth, educational attainment, occupation,
income, and wealth were used as drivers for aggregate
household expenditure. The results were scored,
creating an index for measuring the relative service
area quality for each center.
Page 4
Findings: Existing market landscape
Pitney Bowes’ first task was to develop an overall
view of the existing major shopping center landscape.
In constructing this view, we focused on three primary
statistics that addressed the broad consideration
of supply as derived from the DMM database. This
broad-stroke approach has been designed to provide
comparisons by market with respect to market
saturation, the age of shopping center supply within
the market and relative levels of center vitality as
indicated by anchor tenant occupancy.
The most saturated markets theoretically suggest an
intensity of retail build-out that needs to balance the
underlying residential base. Such markets as Las Vegas and
Washington D.C., with their significant transient and tourist
bases of traffic, could explain a GLA servicing more than an
indigenous population. New York, positioned among the
markets at the lower end of the saturation index, is in the
company of generally small, much less dynamic markets.
This anomaly results from the market’s unique hyperdensity within the central city’s core, as well as the much
larger proportion of “street-level” retail that is not captured
in the typical shopping-center milieu.
Market saturation
A pivotal market statistic that emerged from the analysis is
that of shopping center saturation. Conceptually, this metric
is designed to provide a view of how “built out” a market is,
with respect to the overall supply of major shopping facilities.
It specifically indexes the varying ratios of aggregated
major shopping center gross leasable area to the quantity of
households in the market. The following tables illustrate the
highest and lowest levels of saturation that emerged:
Ages of major shopping centers
As a global indicator of the relative age of the fleet of
centers in each market, Pitney Bowes tapped the DMM data
base to calculate the average age of the centers within
each market. On a high level, this provides a view of how
recent the majority of shopping center development has
been. The following table illustrate the markets ranked
newest to oldest by average shopping center age:
Market saturation
Average age of shopping centers
Most saturated
GLA/HHS
Least saturated
GLA/HHS
Newest
Avg open
Oldest
Avg open
Las Vegas
44.9
Wilkes Barre
22.2
Las Vegas
1999
Hartford
1985
Phoenix
42.5
Greensboro
21.9
Phoenix
1998
Seattle
1985
Washington, DC
36.7
New Orleans
21.8
Austin
1996
New Orleans
1985
Philadelphia
35.4
Boston
21.6
Dallas
1993
New York
1985
Norfolk
34.1
Milwaukee
20.8
Greenville, SC
1993
Memphis
1985
Austin
34.0
Nashville
20.7
San Antonio
1993
Pittsburgh
1984
Pittsburgh
33.9
New York
19.4
Birmingham
1993
Minneapolis
1984
Baltimore
33.7
Greenville, SC
19.4
Denver
1992
Detroit
1984
Atlanta
32.3
Fresno
19.3
Richmond
1992
San Francisco
1984
St. Louis
31.3
Minneapolis
19.0
Atlanta
1992
Cleveland
1983
Orlando
31.2
Portland, OR
18.8
Charlotte
1991
Milwaukee
1983
Richmond
31.1
Louisville
15.6
Orlando
1991
Indianapolis
1983
Cleveland
30.8
Seattle
15.3
Houston
1991
Buffalo
1981
Columbus, Oh
30.6
Oklahoma City
15.1
Raleigh
1991
Louisville
1981
Kansas City
30.3
Albuquerque
13.0
Nashville
1990
Baltimore
1981
The evolution of the shopping center landscape.
A Pitney Bowes / Directory of Major Malls white paper
Page 5
Las Vegas and Phoenix again top the list, indicating
that the high proportion of the shopping center supply
which drove up their respective levels of saturation is
also relatively recent in development, resulting in the
youngest average shopping center ages among U.S.
markets. Of note, three of the youngest shopping center
markets are in Texas, the shopping center fleets for three
of the four Texas markets are among the most recently
built in the nation.
Shopping center vibrancy
Having addressed the issue of overall market saturation
for shopping center space and the relative age of the
existing fleet, the DMM database was tapped for a
qualitative assessment of the overall health and vibrancy
of shopping centers within each market. For the purposes
of this analysis, Pitney Bowes has employed the average
anchor tenant occupancy rate as a surrogate indicator for
market-wide shopping center heath. It is granted that on
an individual center basis, a vacant anchor space could
merely be evidence of a temporary, healthy transition to
a revitalized tenant mix. The consolidation of some major
big-box tenants could be contributing to such short-term
transitional events. Nevertheless, we have assumed that
on a market-wide basis, varying levels of anchor vacancy
do serve to provide some indicator of overall demand for
space and, consequently, some measure of the health of
the market’s major shopping center supply. The following
table provides a summary of the average:
Average anchor occupancy
Highest
Occ. %
Lowest
Occ. %
Greenville, SC
97.7%
Denver
90.4%
Albuquerque
97.6%
Las Vegas
90.3%
Minneapolis
97.2%
Milwaukee
90.3%
San Diego
96.7%
Pittsburgh
90.2%
Nashville
96.0%
Louisville
89.9%
Portland, OR
95.8%
Jacksonville
89.8%
Greensboro
95.7%
Houston
89.8%
West Palm Beach
95.6%
San Antonio
89.5%
Charlotte
95.5%
Indianapolis
89.1%
Boston
95.5%
New Orleans
88.9%
Seattle
95.3%
Salt Lake City
88.6%
Richmond
95.1%
Baltimore
88.4%
San Francisco
95.0%
Kansas City
88.3%
Washington, DC
95.0%
Memphis
86.0%
Birmingham
94.9%
Providence
86.0%
Page 6
Findings: Indicators of demand
Having considered market metrics associated with shopping
center supply, the study then moved to those indicative of
demand for new shopping center space. In this analysis, it
focused on demographic quality, household growth, and
how these variables translate — or fail to translate — into
new shopping center activity.
Demographic quality
In order to better understand underlying demographic
quality associated with both a market’s established and
new shopping center environment, Pitney Bowes created a
score card which reflects the each center’s relative position
regarding service area quality. Service area demographic
indices were created for each center and then compiled
to the market level, providing Pitney Bowes with the
ability to conduct intra-market comparisons between
established centers and new centers as well as inter-market
assessments. As described above, resultant high market
scores reflect the compilation of market service areas that
aggregately demonstrate trends toward high population,
high income, high growth, and high educational attainment.
Not surprisingly Washington, DC, San Francisco, New York,
and Boston scored in the top decile groupings for both
established and new service area quality metrics. Several
markets indexed much higher in demographic quality
for their new environments relative to their established
shopping center service areas. Raleigh, St. Louis, and
Columbus reflect generally average service area quality
scores for their established environments but indexed
highly for new center development. This may suggest
potentially an under-development in the affluent areas
of those markets.
Top trade area quality indexes
Annual increase in households
Existing
(Environment)
Score
New
(Environment)
Score
Highest
Annual
growth
Lowest
Annual
growth
Washington, DC
8.2
Washington, DC
10.8
New York
63,225
Norfolk
3,644
San Francisco
6.7
San Francisco
6.7
Los Angeles
53,475
St. Louis
3,535
New York
3.9
Raleigh
5.9
Dallas-Ft. Worth
37,148
Albuquerque
3,424
Austin
3.2
St. Louis
5.9
Houston
35,498
Jacksonville
3,315
Boston
3.0
Boston
5.2
Washington, DC
35,099
Milwaukee
3,213
Dallas
2.9
Houston
5.1
San Francisco
32,948
Cincinnati
3,177
San Diego
2.7
Dallas
5.1
Phoenix
27,354
Fresno
3,156
Denver
2.1
Denver
4.7
Atlanta
26,358
Pittsburgh
3,020
Houston
2.1
Oklahoma City
3.6
Miami
23,999
Hartford
2,701
Baltimore
2.1
New York
3.4
Denver
23,893
Cleveland
2,512
Chicago
1.6
Columbus, OH
3.0
Seattle
23,450
Providence
2,345
Atlanta
1.2
San Diego
2.8
Boston
20,251
Birmingham
2,305
Seattle
1.2
Austin
2.3
Orlando
17,073
Memphis
2,129
Minneapolis
1.2
Richmond
1.3
Tampa
16,869
Buffalo
713
Los Angeles
1.0
San Antonio
1.1
Austin
16,406
Wilkes Barre
366
The evolution of the shopping center landscape.
A Pitney Bowes / Directory of Major Malls white paper
Page 7
Rooftops rule
Having noted above some key rankings regarding the
overall level of major center saturation by market, the
relative age of the existing center fleet and a broad view of
center vitality (as evidence by anchor tenant occupancy), it
might have suggested that we’ve identified some expected
basis for where new development activity would be
focused. The presumptions would be that highly saturated
markets would generally not be conducive to supporting
new supply. Similarly, markets with relatively low anchor
occupancy might imply minimal appetite for new centers
expanding an already evident oversupply of space. These
would be logical suppositions; however, overriding these
considerations, new center development is ultimately not
driven by broad market-wide phenomena, but by one
logical driver: household growth.
As a nuance, it is important to note that the market-wide
household growth metric that most aligns with new
shopping center activity is not the traditional measure of
percent annual growth. Such growth rates are a function
of new residential construction relative to the market size.
At the end of the day, in this analysis, new center activity is
driven by sheer mass of new residential decoupled from the
overall market scale. As such, the leading growth markets
from this perspective New York, Los Angeles and Atlanta
are not typically thought of as “high growth” markets.
Specifically, while they are ranked 27th, 23rd and 18th
respectively in market percentage growth, they are first,
second and eighth in their quantities of household growth.
Page 8
New shopping center activity
As noted, for the purpose of this analysis, we have
identified new shopping center activity from the DMM
database as any major shopping center built in 2012
or beyond, plus those identified in the current new
development pipeline. We have expressed the activity
both in terms of the number of new centers developed
as well as the gross GLA added to the market. Viewed in
combination with the growth statistics shown above,
we have identified a conceptual alignment that compares
one measure of new supply (households) to another
measure of new supply (shopping center space).
Based on this assessment, there is a clear alignment of
growth and new shopping center activity. Seven of the
most active markets in terms of new center activity
(New York, Los Angeles, Dallas, Washington D.C., Phoenix,
Houston and Atlanta) are among the top ten highestgrowth markets. This is true both with respect to new
center aggregate GLA as well as center count.
The evolution of the shopping center landscape.
A Pitney Bowes / Directory of Major Malls white paper
Page 9
Level of new shopping center activity
Highest
New center GLA
New center count
Lowest
New center GLA
New center count
New York
18,810,719
31
Minneapolis-St. Paul
1,517,000
4
Los Angeles
12,994,383
28
Portland, OR
1,414,381
4
Phoenix
12,843,144
18
Fresno
1,300,000
3
Washington, DC
12,033,882
22
Cincinnati
1,236,000
3
Dallas
12,018,399
27
Richmond
1,181,000
4
Philadelphia
11,229,725
28
Jacksonville
1,117,465
4
Sacramnto
8,535,625
16
Oklahoma City
1,013,871
2
Houston
7,532,437
15
Pittsburgh
858,000
3
Atlanta
6,443,248
14
Norfolk
728,100
2
Chicago
5,972,328
13
Milwaukee
726,000
2
Charlotte
5,823,146
9
New Orleans
700,000
1
Boston
5,805,500
11
Cleveland
690,000
2
Austin
5,659,290
8
Birmingham
653,500
2
San Diego
4,495,000
5
Detroit
640,000
2
Tampa
4,297,589
8
Greenville, SC
597,000
2
Orlando
4,278,000
8
Providence
330,000
1
San Francisco
3,821,628
11
Wilkes Barre
0
0
Hartford
3,614,614
10
Albuquerque
0
0
Denver
3,577,577
6
Indianapolis
0
0
Raleigh
3,521,705
7
Buffalo
0
0
Noting the deviations between the rankings of growth
and new center activity has provided some interesting
results. It is a bit surprising that three among the highest
growth markets, San Francisco (ranked 6), Miami (ranked
9) and Denver (ranked 10), are only in the “middle of the
pack” in terms of new center activity (ranked 17, 24 and
19 respectively). The question arises of whether, in these
markets, there is a possible under-investment in new center
development. Conversely, when focus is placed specifically
on the markets with the highest levels of shopping center
development as suggested by the DMM database, some
additional surprises emerge. Three among the top most
active markets for new shopping center gross leasable
area, Philadelphia (ranked 6), Sacramento (ranked 7) and
Chicago (ranked 10) are ranked substantially lower in terms
of market household growth (20, 26 and 18 respectively).
Again, the question is begged whether this reveals an
excessive volume of new center activity relative to what
the underlying fundamentals associated with these
markets suggest.
In the end, it is important to recognize that all of the
above observations are aggregate in nature and that
every individual development decision likely includes a
requisite due diligence analysis of market demand for a
specific development. Individual nuances of tenant mix,
pre‑existing center conditions, localized growth and
psycho‑demographics all come into play. It is revealing
nonetheless to register the market facts in context and
as a backdrop behind the volume of new center activity.
Page 10
Market focus
This section is designed to provide additional insights and
perspective based on an overall summary and comparison
of the supply and demand indicators, and how these
translate into new shopping center activity. The following
table provides a comprehensive view of the 54 markets in
this context.
growth markets. For interpretation, it should be noted that
for supply indicators a 1 remains a positive indicator. Here,
markets with the lowest levels of saturation (i.e. “highly
unsaturated” markets) and the highest levels of anchor
tenant occupancy receive a 1. Finally, for the new center
activity indicators, a 1 suggests the highest level of new
shopping center activity.
To interpret the table, for each variable, the value for
the market among the 54 markets evaluated has been
grouped into a deciles format from one to ten with one
being the highest and ten the lowest. As such, a score
of 1 for population implies that the market is within the
highest population tier out of 10 tiers. Similarly, a score of
1 on household growth indicates that it is the highest tier
In our evaluation of the 54 markets five distinct patterns
were identified based on the synthesis of demand, supply
and new activity indicators. These serve as very high level
groupings from which to compare and contrast markets
and to better describe the relative consistencies and
inconsistencies between their established market dynamic
of supply and demand and new shopping activity.
Demand indicators
Supply indicators
Activity indicators
Market
Population
Annual
new HH
Demographic
quality:
established
Saturation
Anchor
occupancy
New center
count (score)
New center
GLA
Demographic
quality:
new activity
New York
1
1
1
2
4
1
1
2
Los Angeles
1
1
3
7
4
1
1
6
Philadelphia
1
4
4
10
6
1
1
4
Dallas
1
1
2
8
6
1
1
2
Chicago
1
3
3
7
5
2
2
4
San Francisco
1
1
1
4
3
3
3
1
Washington, DC
2
1
1
10
3
2
1
1
Phoenix
2
2
5
10
5
2
1
5
Houston
2
1
2
8
7
2
2
2
Atlanta
2
2
3
9
4
2
2
3
Boston
2
2
1
3
2
3
2
1
Seattle
2
2
3
1
3
4
5
4
Sacramento
3
5
5
5
4
2
2
5
Tampa
3
3
9
3
4
3
3
9
Denver
3
2
2
7
7
4
4
2
Miami
3
2
7
7
3
4
5
9
Minneapolis
3
3
3
2
1
6
7
7
Detroit
3
7
6
4
5
8
8
3
Orlando
4
3
9
9
5
3
3
8
San Diego
4
4
2
6
1
5
3
2
Portland, OR
4
4
6
2
2
6
7
4
Cleveland
4
9
10
8
6
8
8
9
The evolution of the shopping center landscape.
A Pitney Bowes / Directory of Major Malls white paper
Page 11
Demand indicators
Supply indicators
Activity indicators
Market
Population
Annual
new HH
Demographic
quality:
established
Saturation
Anchor
occupancy
New center
count (score)
New center
GLA
Demographic
quality:
new activity
Charlotte
5
4
6
6
2
3
2
3
Salt Lake City
5
4
4
6
8
4
4
6
Raleigh
5
3
4
6
4
4
4
1
St. Louis
5
8
6
9
3
5
5
1
Baltimore
6
5
2
9
9
4
5
6
Nashville
6
5
6
3
2
8
7
9
Pittsburgh
6
8
9
9
7
7
8
7
Indianapolis
6
6
8
5
8
10
10
10
Hartford
7
9
5
4
6
3
4
5
San Antonio
7
4
8
8
7
4
5
3
Columbus, OH
7
6
7
8
5
4
6
2
Kansas City
7
6
4
8
9
6
6
5
Cincinnati
7
8
6
4
6
7
7
5
Milwaukee
7
8
9
3
7
8
8
9
Greenville, SC
7
7
9
2
1
8
9
7
Austin
8
3
1
10
4
3
3
3
Las Vegas
8
5
9
10
7
4
5
8
Fresno
8
8
10
2
6
7
7
8
West Palm Beach
8
6
8
4
2
5
7
6
Memphis
9
9
7
5
10
7
6
7
Oklahoma City
9
5
9
1
4
8
7
2
Jacksonville
9
8
8
6
7
6
7
9
Norfolk
9
8
7
10
6
8
8
8
Birmingham
9
9
7
5
3
8
8
8
Albuquerque
9
8
8
1
1
10
10
10
Greensboro
10
7
10
3
2
6
6
6
Louisville
10
7
8
1
7
5
6
4
Richmond
10
7
5
9
3
6
7
3
New Orleans
10
6
8
3
8
9
8
9
Providence
10
9
7
7
10
9
9
10
Buffalo
10
10
10
7
4
10
10
10
Wilkes Barre
10
10
10
3
6
10
10
10
Market focus
Page 12
Consistent markets
Markets in this group exhibit relatively equal scoring across
demand, supply, and new activity metrics. It contains
markets of all sizes and all component scoring levels. From a
qualitative perspective, this group does not denote “good”
or “bad” market conditions. Rather, it conveys markets
that tend to be in balance with respect to demand/supply
characteristics and new activity indicators. As evidenced
below, markets with a high critical mass of population,
high growth that are simultaneously under-saturated, are
generating high new center activity. Conversely, relatively
low populated markets with weak growth that are at the
same time fairly saturated appropriately have very minimal
new shopping center activity.
Optimism prevails
Like the Consistent Market grouping, this classification
comprises markets that also tend to be in balance with
respect to demand scores and new activity scores. Where
these groupings differ is in regard to supply indicators,
especially saturation (GLA per household), which is notably
high for all of the observations. This group includes
some of the nation’s largest and highest growth markets:
Washington D.C., Dallas, Houston, Austin, Los Angeles, and
Phoenix. These markets also collectively garner the highest
scores for demand and new activity, suggesting that there
is optimism for future development opportunity in these
markets. This optimism is evidently sufficient to overcome
very saturated market conditions and relatively low anchor
occupancy rates.
Demand indicators
Supply indicators
Activity indicators
Market
Population
Annual
new HH
Demographic
quality:
established
Saturation
Anchor
occupancy
New center
count (score)
New center
GLA
New York
1
1
1
2
4
1
1
Boston
2
2
1
3
2
3
2
San Francisco
1
1
1
4
3
3
3
Pittsburgh
6
8
9
9
7
7
8
Cleveland
4
9
10
8
6
8
8
Norfolk
9
8
7
10
6
8
8
Providence
10
9
7
7
10
9
9
Consistent markets
Demand indicators
Supply indicators
Activity indicators
Market
Population
Annual
new HH
Demographic
quality:
established
Saturation
Anchor
occupancy
New center
count (score)
New center
GLA
Washington, DC
2
1
1
10
3
2
1
Dallas
1
1
2
8
6
1
1
Los Angeles
1
1
3
7
4
1
1
Phoenix
2
2
5
10
5
2
1
Philadelphia
1
4
4
10
6
1
1
Atlanta
2
2
3
9
4
2
2
Chicago
1
3
3
7
5
2
2
Houston
2
1
2
8
7
2
2
Austin
8
3
1
10
4
3
3
Optimism prevails
The evolution of the shopping center landscape.
A Pitney Bowes / Directory of Major Malls white paper
Page 13
Transition markets
This group is represented by markets that exhibit generally
low demand indicators while scoring in the moderately
high range for new center activity. While low demand
and high new activity, on the surface, suggest potential
over investment, we believe that the explanation could
be more complex. Collectively, this group scores among
the lowest with respect to established center trade area
quality, indicating that some may be transitioning from
older, under-utilized centers to centers within the market’s
growth zones. It should be noted that this group contains
two significant tourism markets, Las Vegas and Orlando.
It is therefore notable that these two markets also exhibit
exceptionally high levels of saturation due in part to this
outside source of demand (not captured in this study)
adding to market GLA.
More juice to be had?
This group tends to exhibit mid to high scoring in
the demand and supply areas but trails lower in new
development activity across the board. It includes some
relatively large markets that also tend to exhibit mixed
growth and demographic quality scores. These results
suggest that there is potentially under-development. They
could also indicate limited development opportunities
(Seattle), local economies still relatively sluggish from the
economic downturn (Detroit), or markets that may have
experienced recent over building and are now correcting.
Demand indicators
Supply indicators
Activity indicators
Market
Population
Annual
new HH
Demographic
quality:
established
Saturation
Anchor
occupancy
New center
count (score)
New center
GLA
Charlotte
5
4
6
6
2
3
2
Tampa
3
3
9
3
4
3
3
Orlando
4
3
9
9
5
3
3
Hartford
7
9
5
4
6
3
4
Las Vegas
8
5
9
10
7
4
5
Transition markets
Demand indicators
Supply indicators
Activity indicators
Market
Population
Annual
new HH
Demographic
quality:
established
Saturation
Anchor
occupancy
New center
count (score)
New center
GLA
Seattle
2
2
3
1
3
4
5
Minneapolis
3
3
3
2
1
6
7
Portland, OR
4
4
6
2
2
6
7
Nashville
6
5
6
3
2
8
7
Detroit
3
7
6
4
5
8
8
Indianapolis
6
6
8
5
8
10
10
More juice to be had?
Page 14
Smaller market, smaller growth
This group tends to demonstrate low demand scoring and
low development activity scores. Although these markets
score relatively well in saturation, they are collectively
the lowest scoring group across all demand indicators,
suggesting a corollary weak appetite for new development.
Demand indicators
Supply indicators
Activity indicators
Market
Population
Annual
new HH
Demographic
quality:
established
Saturation
Anchor
occupancy
New center
count (score)
New center
GLA
Fresno
8
8
10
2
6
7
7
Oklahoma City
9
5
9
1
4
8
7
Cincinnati
7
8
6
4
6
7
7
Greenville, SC
7
7
9
2
1
8
9
Birmingham
9
9
7
5
3
8
8
Milwaukee
7
8
9
3
7
8
8
New Orleans
10
6
8
3
8
9
8
Albuquerque
9
8
8
1
1
10
10
Wilkes Barre
10
10
10
3
6
10
10
Buffalo
10
10
10
7
4
10
10
Smaller market, smaller growth
The evolution of the shopping center landscape.
A Pitney Bowes / Directory of Major Malls white paper
Page 15
Conclusion
We, at Pitney Bowes and DMM trust that this national
overview of the marketplace for major shopping centers,
that considered the overall supply, demand and new activity
factors has been thought-provoking and provided some
unique perspective.
Despite the broad-stroke perspective that was employed,
we believe that the individual nature of each market reveals
the complexity and need for rigorous analysis on a market
by market basis, addressing such questions as:
•What is the nature and condition of the existing space?
•What is the state of the local economy; is the market
generating new population growth or stagnating?
•What is the demographic make-up of the current
population; are there dynamics afoot that drive demand
for a new retail character?
•Does the market reflect a balance of the factors of supply,
demand and new center activity?
Trends in retail development are reflecting the changing
needs and desires of population. The demands of
consumers for retail projects to meet not only their
traditional shopping needs but also to fulfill their growing
needs for more social environments, entertainment
opportunities and overall convenience all lend themselves
to a more intense study as retail shopping continues
to transform.
About Pitney Bowes
Pitney Bowes (NYSE: PBI) is a global technology
company offering innovative products and solutions that
enable commerce in the areas of customer information
management, Location Intelligence, customer engagement,
shipping and mailing and global ecommerce. More than
1.5 million clients in approximately 100 countries around
the world rely on products, solutions and services from
Pitney Bowes. For more information, visit us online:
pitneybowes.com.
About Directory of Major Malls, Inc.
What started in print in the late 1970s as the Directory
of Major Malls has now evolved decades later into
THE industry source for comprehensive and accurate
retail data. The Directory of Major Malls’ inventory has
exploded to over 8,100 major shopping centers and
malls with over 303,000 associated store locations,
4,200 site/leasing plans and 23,000+ primary retail
real estate contacts. DMM data is available for direct
access via ShoppingCenters.com, as custom reports and
direct licensed custom data sets containing complete
shopping center details, contact information, tenant
lists and longitude/latitude coordinates for geospatial
analysis. For more information about the DMM data
products, visit shoppingcenters.com, Find us on
Facebook and follow us on Twitter @Dir_Major_Malls.
United States
3001 Summer Street
Stamford, CT 06926-0700
800 327 8627
[email protected]
Europe/United Kingdom
The Smith Centre
The Fairmile
Henley-on-Thames
Oxfordshire
RG9 6AB
0800 840 0001
[email protected]
Canada
5500 Explorer Drive
Mississauga, ON L4W5C7
800 268 3282
[email protected]
Australia/Asia Pacific
Level 1, 68 Waterloo Road
Macquarie Park NSW 2113
+61 2 9475 3500
[email protected]
For more information on Pitney Bowes,
visit us online: pitneybowes.com
Directory of Major Malls
P.O. Box 837
Nyack, NY 10960
800 898 6255
For more information on Directory of Major Malls,
call 800 898 6255 or visit us online at ShoppingCenters.com
Pitney Bowes, the Corporate Logo, and GeoInsight are the registered or otherwise protected trademarks of Pitney Bowes Inc. Directory of Major Malls is a registered
or otherwise protected trademark of Directory of Major Malls, Inc. © 2015 Pitney Bowes Inc. All rights reserved. © 2015 Directory of Major Malls Inc. All rights reserved.
15DCS03791_US