Downtown Boulder SurveyDOWNTOWN BOULDER SURVEY
2002
Summary of Results
FINAL REPORT
September 2002
RRC ASSOCIATES
DOWNTOWN BOULDER SURVEY
2002
Summary of Results
FINAL REPORT
September 2002
Preparedfor
Downtown Boulder, Inc.
Cit~ of Boulder
303/449-3774
Prepared b~
RRC Associates
4940 Pearl Enst Circle, Suite 103
Boulder, Colorado 80301
303/449-6558
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVEY
2001
wwzu.rrcassoc.com
RRC ASSOCIATES
DOWNTOWN BOULDEP. USER SURVEY 2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I N TROD UCTIO N .......................................
A Note on Terminoloev .............
...................................................................1
................................................................... 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.........
RCSPONDENT PROFILE ........................................
Visitor/ Resident Mix ..............................
Demo~raphic Characteristics ................
Em~loyees and Students ........................
Geogranhic Origin ..................................
Boulder Citv Residents ...........................
SP$NDING PATTERIVS .........................................
Profile of S~enders ..................................
VISITS TO DOWNTOWN BOULDER AND OTHER SHOPPING AREAS (BOULDER CITYICOUNTY
17
22
RESIDENTS ONLY) ............................................................................................................................ 23
Villa,ge Sho~ing Centers ............................................................................................................. 26
F1atIron Crossin¢ ............................................................................................................................ 27
Louisville/Su~erior ........................................................................................................................ 27
Downtown Denver ........................................................................................................................ 28
PARTICIPATION IN DOWNTOWN BOULDER ACTNITIES .......................................................................... 29
RAT[NGS OP THE DOWNTOWN EXPERIENCE ............................................................................................ 34
General Ratings ..............................................................................................................................34
Parking Ratings ..............................................................................................................................36
TRANSPORTATION DOWIVTOWN .............................................................................................................. 3S
Personal Vehicle .............................................................................................................................39
Sueges_, tio,e ns to Im~rove Paxking Downtown .............................................................................41
A1tenlate Modes of Transport ......................................................................................................42
DOWIVTOWN IMPROVEMENTS ...................................................................................................................43
ADVERTISIIVG AWARENESS .......................................................................................................................45
PANHANDLER BEHAVIOR ......................................................................................................................... 47
SUGGESTIOIVS FOR IMPROVING THE DOWNTOWN AREA ........................................................................ 48
OTHER DOWNTOWN PATTERNS ............................................................................................................... 49
How Long Have You Been Visiting Downtown Boulder? .......................................................49
Is the Downtown Ex~erience Im~roving or Declining? ...........................................................49
Oualit~ of Ex~erience Im~roving ................................................................................................50
Quality of Experience Improving in Some Respects, and Declining in Others .....................50
Ouality of Ex,perience Declining ..................................................................................................51
............................................................................. 3
6
.................................................................. 6
...................................:.............................. 7
................................................................12
................................................................13
................................................................15
RRC ASSOCTATGS CONTENTS
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER 5URVEY
Zooz
FINAL REPORT
INTRODUCTTON
This report summarizes the 6nal results of the 2002 Downtown Boulder User Survey, a randomly
administered intercept survey of downtown area pedestrians conducted on and near the Pearl Street Mall.
A total of 625 interviews were completed during the research period between July 19 and September 8,
2002.~ Interviews were conducted at various times throughout the day, between 11:30 a.m. and 8:30 p.m.
along Pearl Street from 10`h Street to 16`h Streets. Similar to the research conducted in 2001, the surveys
were concentrated on the pedestrian area of the Pearl Street Mall, though a portion of the research was
done both east and west of the mall proper. This year, the off-mall surveys were limited to one block east
of the mall and one block west of the mall.
The 2002 survey is the tenth downtown mall survey RRC Associates has conducted for powntown
Boulder, Inc. and the City of Boulder. Prior surveys, which utilized a similar survey form and research
methodology, were administered in the summer/early fall periods of the years 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998,
1997, and 1996; Spring 1995; Christmas 1994/95; and Fall 1994. In this report, the 2002 results are
compared to results for prior years, particularly the most recent results, to assist in identiFying trends over
the recent past. Note that the interviewing period for the past three years was earlier in the summer
compared to research done prior ro and including 1999.
The purpose of the downtown user research program is to identify and monitor on an ongoing basis the
characteristics and experiences of mall users. Key topics in this year's survey include the mall visitor mix
(visitors and residents), spending patterns, mode of travel to the downtown area, the quality of the visitor
experience, perception of downtown features, frequency of visiting other major shopping areas and
Downtown Boulder's strengths and weaknesses relative to those other areas, suggestions for
improvements, and other important issues. Topics added this year include awareness of mall
improvements, impact of panhandlers and transients on the downtown experience, and advertising
awareness and source of advertising.
The results of the research are intended to assist Downtown Boulder, Inc, the City Dawntown
Management Commission, and the Downtown Business Improvement District in better understanding the
issues and concerns of downtown users and to help set priorities for improving the overall image and
functioning of the downtown area. Following several years of soliciting input from mall users,
improvements thaC have been undertaken to the downtown area include a new fountain in the lawn area
behind the courthouse, a pop-jet fountain on the mall near the corner of 14`h and Peaxl, the construction of
~ For the total sample size of 625 interviews, the standard margin oP ecror is +/-3.92 percent (calculated for [he 95 percent conkidence
interval). Note tha[ the margin of error can be diYferent for every single question on the survey depending on the resultant sample
sizes, proporeion of responses, and number of answer categories for each question. Companson of differences in the data between
various populations, therefore, should take into considera[ion these t'actors. As u general commen[, it is sometimes more
~appropnate to focus attention on [he gener¢l trends and pattems in the data ra[her [han on the individual percentages.
RRC ASSOCIATES
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVEY
2002
improved restroom facilities at l3`" and Pearl, and renovaCions to some of the brickwork and newspaper
boxes, lmong other improvements.
A Note on Terrninolog~
Regarding terminology used in the report, unless otherwise noted, references to Boulder County residents
include residents of the City of Boulder. From time to time in the report, City of Boulder residents are
reported 1s a distinct group, and Boulder County residents outside the City are sometime segregated as
another distinct group (called `Boulder County (non-City) residents"). When referred to collectively in
the report, however, the terminology "Boulder County residents" is used to describe the two groups
together.
In addition, day visitors are those interviewees who live outside Boulder Countg and were returning to
their own homes or todging outside of Boulder the day the interview was conducted - such as a resident
of Denver visiting Boulder for the day but not spending the night, or an out of town visitor staying with
family in Louisville. Overnight visitors are those spending the night in the Boulder area, either in
commercial lodging or with family or friends.
The interviewing area included one block to both the East and West of the Mall Proper to broaden the
scope of the research effort. Nevertheless, when referring to the collective survey sample, terms such as
"mall visitors" are utilized. It should not be assumed that using such ternunology means only those
interviewed on the mall proper; rather, the wards serve as a proxy for the entire sample of those
interviewed this summer in the Downtown Boulder azea. Other terms used to describe the entire sample
include "downtown visitors" and "dow~town users:'
A Final clarification of terminology used in the report refers to the usage oF the terms "local residenP' and
"visitor." Local residents are considered to be mall users who live in Boulder County, including City of
Boulder residents. Those mall users who reside outside of Boulder County are considered to be visitors.
Some of the comments presented in the report are segregated using the local/visitor criteria.
RRC ASSOCIATES
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVEY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2002
The satisfaction with the experience downtown continues to improve, with average satisfaction
ratings rising again this year. These increases are on top of a strong ratings performance recorded
last year. The highest rated aspects of the experience were ease of walking arourtd, feeling of
security and safety, and overall atmosphere and design quality. Particular improvements were
noted for overall cleanliness-and maintenance, feeling of security and safety, ease of getting
downtown, ease of walking around, directory information and signs, and family orientation/ kids
activities. Such high ratings are reflective of the investment in refreshing the downtown, both
from a capital improvement standpoint as well as basic cleanliness and increased safety patrols.
As well, parking ratings showed continued improvement this year, besting last year's all time
highs.
The proportion of mall users who said they were spending money downtown was stable, but the
average per capita spending declined for the third straight year. This year, total spending
averaged $40.51, down from an average of $47.28 in 2001 and $56.72 in 1999. As opposed to
last year, when the decline in total spending was most attributable to a drop in retail spending,
this year a decline in restaurant/bar spending primarily caused the drop in total spending;
spending in retail shops and galleries on a per capita basis was stable compared to last year. The
overall decline in per capita spending is generally consistent with the drop in sales tax collections
recorded thus far for 2002, and is clearly an area of concern for downtown merchants.
Positive trends in the spending figures included a stable proportion of people who spent maney
this trip, and an increase in the median per capita spending. The median spending was $21.50
per spender, up from $20.00 last year. The increase in median spending indicates weakness in the
upper spending levels but general stability in the more moderate spending amounts, Because the
proportion of downtown users spending money was stable and the amount spent per capita
declined, the drop in average spending was partially due to sofLness among the very highest
spenders in Downtown Boulder.
In looking more closely at the data, the shortfall in spending appears to be a result of the
decline in per capita sperzding by Day visitors, Overnight visitors, and Boulder County (non-
City) residerets. Per capita spending figures fell for all three of these a oups in comparison to last
year. The exact "why" for the decrease is unknown, as a variety of factors, such as a general
economic slowdown, increased unemployment, and increased competition from other shopping
areas and the Internet, may have contributed. On the other hand, per capita spending among City
of Boufder residents increased slightly, though such an increase was not enough to stem the
overall decline in per capita spending.
Similar to last season, a trend among City of Boulder residents was noted; that is, the upper tier
of wage earners in the City are not being captured in the research, either becnuse they are not
being interviewed or they are not present downtown. (They also might have declined to answer
the income question.) Among City interviewees, only 15 percent reported income in excess of
$100,00Q a figure far lower than the overall City demographics would indicate. This weakness
might suggest a need For a more targeted marketing program within the City, one that promotes
the upscale positioning of the downtown product. City of Boulder residents, especially the more
affluent ones, should be a real target for the downtown area, and this pattern might warrant
further investigation to determine where this segment of City residents is shopping, if they are,
indeed, shopping elseivhere. From the research, it appears that people in this segment visit
Downtown Denver and Arnpahoe Village with b eater frequency compared to other groups.
RRC ASSOCIATGS
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVEY
2002
The downtowrc user pop~ilation is more geographically diverse this year in terms of those from
outside the City of Boulder and Boulder County. A greater proportion of downtown users live
outside Boulder County, including a jump in visitors staying For the day only (not spending the
night in Boulder). Denver, Fort Collins, and the Northern Front Range, as well as Louisville
residents, increased proportionately this summer. Among City of Boulder residents, a reversal of
a diversifying trend was noted, as a higher proportion of City interviewees lived in the
Central/West Boulder area. The decline in the downtown user population from the peripheral
areas of the City was particularly high in South Boulder. Again, where these people might be
shopping instead of Downtown Boulder is beyond the scope of this project, though the proximity
ofthese South Boulderresidentsto US 36 mightsuggestthatthey frequentthe
Superior/Louisville or FlatIron Crossing.
Average frequency of visits to Downtown Boulder remained strong, indicating a strong loyalty to
the downtown area. However, visits to other shopping areas, such as Arapahoe Village and
Flatlron Crossing, are increasing. As the population of the county has grown, especially in
towns to the east of Boulder (Longmont, Lafayette, Louisville, Broomfield, etc J, Che retail
shopping offerings have also grown in those areas, both luring Boulder City residents and
retaining residents of those towns, who once came to Boulder for some of their shopping needs,
in their respective towns. Indeed, some of these patterns are evident in the research, though a
complete inventory of such patterns cannot be presented in this report, as it profiles only those
who were in Downtown Boulder. Such findings would have to come from an out-of-market
telephone survey.
Boulder County residents were asked to identify the strengths and weaknesses of downtown
Boulder compared to other shopping areas in the region. The strengths of Boulder idenk'fied
were the outdoor setting, the unique atmosphere, restaurants, variety of store, restaurants,
galleries, and bars, quality of restaurants, and the pedestrian aspect. Competitive weaknesses
include lack of parking, high prices and expensive stores, homeless people, and crowding, among
others.
~ Three activities continue to be the bread and butter of downtown: shopping, dining, and hanging
out/enjoying the setting/people watching. These three were the top overall in terms of the
primary reason For coming downtown. These aspects of downtown Boulder, particularly the
hanging out and enjoying the setting, clearly differentiate the downtown area from other
shopping districts, making Boulder more of just a place to shop and more of a location to
experience a variety of sights, sounds, and smells - in other words, real life.
~ In un attempt to quantiFy the feelings about the behaviors of panhandlers on the mall, a new
question was added asking, "On a scale from one to tive, to whut degree do the activities or
behaviors of panhandlers or transients impact your experience or enjoyment downtown?"
Overall, the response was mixed, with about half of the survey population responding not at all or
slight impact. The other fifty percent indicated a moderate or greater impact, with 22 percent
indicating a substantial impact (4 or 5 out of 5). The average response was 2.4 out of five, which,
as below three (the mid point) on the five-point scale. The responses were somewhat polarized
by visitor type, as day and overnight visitors were much more likely to say that such behaviors do
not impact their experience, while City and County residents were more apt to say that the
activities had a somewhat or severe impact. Specific complaints regarding panhandler behavior
and/or presence continue to come up frequently in open-ended comments.
• Sixty four percent of mall users who have been visiting Downtown Boulder for more than one
year said that they noticed the recent improvements to the malt. The proportion of affirmative
responses to this question rose considerably among City residents (79 percent) and non-City
County residents (70 percent). Of those who did notice some of the recent improvements, 26
RRC ASSOCIt1TES
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVEY
2002
percent said they stay longer or come more frequently as a resztlt of the improvements. This
result is impressive and should provide some affirmation to the Downtown Boulder area for the
recent improvements that have been completed. The most commonly cited improvements were
the kids Fountain, the improved brickwork, flowers, new parking structures, and general
cleanliness and maintenance improvements.
Overall, I9 percent said they saw an ad or informalion source for powntown Boulder prior to
their visit, with another 12 percent saying they saw an ad for an individual downtown merchant.
Awareness of the Downtown Boulder ads was highest among City residents, as 28 percent of this
segment indicated awareness prior to visiting downtown. The penetration of the ad campaign
within the city appears to be quite strong based on these results. Among those who saw an ad or
information source for powntown Boulder, 57 percent saw a newspaper advertisement, 25
percent saw a bus panel, and II percent cited a general or feature article about the downtown
area. Overall, 26 percent also cited an `bther" source of the information.
Many of the demographic patterns tracked in the research were quite stable, with some minor
tluctuations noted. In particular, the proportion of singles ivithout children declined for t{ae
second straight year, and the median age increased by one year. Singles without children
continue to be the largest household status segment in downtown Boulder, though they declined
on a proportionate basis for the second straight year to 43 percent oF dow~town users. The
average age of visitors downtown is 35.6 years, nearly identical to last year (35.5 years).
Household income figures rose slightly compared to last summer. In particular, the higher
income segments ($50,000 and above) were up slightly, while the lower income segments
($49,999 and below) were down slightly.
Seventy-one percent of mall users drove downtown, an increase over last year and one of the
highest average figures over the period of time these surveys have been conducted. This finding
is consistent with the increase in day visitors to Downtown Boulder. Despite the increase in the
proporeion who drove, the percentage of single-occupant vehicles fell to just 27 percent of all
drivers, from 35 percent two years ago. Walking was the second most common method of
transpoR downtown, followed by taking the bus. The proportion of respondents taking the bus
downtown has steadily declined the past four years, to just 9 percent of downtown interviewees.
Again, this is partly attcibutable to the shift in visitor profile, with a notable increase in day
visitors From out of the county during that same time period.
Employees of the downtown area and students both continue to represent a substantial and
important group of users. This yeur, 29 percent of Boulder Cnunty residents interviewed work
downtown, or about 15 percent of all survey paRicipants. Twenty percent work downtown Full
time and 9 percent work part time; these figures show u decline in the proportion of interviewees
in the sample. Employees represent a segment that is in the downtown area regardless of the time
of year or the weather conditions, making them an appealing group during certain traditionally
slow periods, such as the winter or other times of inclement weather. Maintaining a strong
employee base in the downtown area is quite important to the ongoing economic health of the
distnct. As well, 29 percent of Boulder County respondents indicated that they were students -
24 percent college/ university students, and 5 percent high school students. In total, about 15
percent of the respondent sample was students. The student population, while t7uctuating
somewhat, is basically stable with past years.
RRC ASSOCIATES
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVCY 2002
RESPONDENT PROFILE
Visitarl Resident Mix
The dow~town user population continues to be quite geographically diverse. In particular this year, a
greater proportion of visitors identified themselves as day visitors, or people living outside Boulder
County but not spending the night in Boulder. Indeed, the mix of Boulder County residents and visitors
from outside the county was split evenly (50 percent each), whereas in past years Boulder County
residents were ~ majority of downtown users. Broomfield became a connty in 2001, contnbuting to the
decline in the proportion of downtown users who live in Boulder Counry. Overall, 42 percent were City
of Boulder residents, 24 percent were visiting for the day, 22 percent were spending the night in Boulder,
and 10 percent were Boulder County (non-City) residents. The remaining one percent was classi6ed as a
downtown employee living outside Boulder County (not considered day visitors).
The proportion of downtown users from the City of Boulder was basically flat this year, at 42 percent of
all users (inchiding full time and summer residents of the City). While City resident comprise the largest
group of downtown users, the propoRion of downtown users living in tl~e City has slowly declined over
the past several years, fram 48 percent in 1999 to 42 percent this year. Among City of Boulder residents,
this year a greater concentration lives in the Central/West area of town, a reversal of a trend of geographic
diversification within the City seen the past few years.
The proportion of Boulder County (non-City) residents declined from last summer. Boulder County
residents outside the City of Boulder represented LO percent of downtown users this year, down from 14
percent in 2001. This trend is noted in the face of the increasing population in the towns outside tfie City
of Boulder, such as LaFayette, Louisville, Longmont, etc, which suggests that perhaps residents of these
towns are shopping elsewhere, either retained within their respective towns or visiting the growing
number of shopping alternatives in the County.
People visiting forjust the day (returning to their home that night) represented 24 percent oF users, up
from 17 percent last summer. Overnight visitors staying with family or friends in Boulder accounted For
14 percent of downtown users, stable from last year. Overnight visitors staying in commercial todging in
Boulder were 8 percent of the total, nlso flat from a year ago. The proportion of visitors From outside the
county is an indication of the continued appeal of the downtown area to visitors, both from other parts of
Colorado and outside the state, including International visitors.
A final group, downtown employees living outside Boulder County, representedjust l percent of
downtown users, a slight decline from the past few summers. The graph below illustrates the patterns of
these o oups in the downtown area over the past four years.
RRC ASSOCIATGS
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVEY
2002
FfGORE I
VISITOR TYPE
1996 ro 2000
Percent Responding
Yearround resident
af Ciry of Boulder
Visitor to Boulder }or the day
Rasident of Boulder County,
outside City
Visitor to Boulder, staying
ovamight wiih frlends/family
Visitor to Boulder, staying
in commercial iodging
Dawntawn emplayae,
living outside county
Summer residem
of Ciry ot aaulder
Looking just at those users who live in Boulder County, 80 percent live in the City of Boulder, followed
by 6 percent in Longmont and three percent each in Louisville, Lafayette, and Superior. The remainder of
Boulder County residents were scattered among various communities.
Demographic Characteristics
Some minor variations were noted in the demographic makeup of the downtown user sample. Most
notably, the proportion of singles without children declined For the second straight year, and the median
age increased by one year. These and other patterns are displayed in the table on the following page, with
figures of interest highlighted.
The average age of visitors downtown is 35.6 years, nearly identical to last year (35.5 years). However,
the average obswres a pnttern of interest in terms of age. Downtown Boulder users are both younger and
RRC ASSOCIATES
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURV~Y 2002
older compared to last year. In other words, p eater proportions were observed both in the younger and
older age cohorts, whi]e the middle part of the age range saw some weakness this year. Specifically, 27
percent were under 25 years old (up from 26 percent last year), 39 percent were in the 25- to 44-year-old
cohort (down from 44 percent), and 3] percent were 45 or older (up from 27 percent a year ago). As well,
the median age increased by one year, to 34 years from 33 years. Despite the softness in the 25 to 44 year
old segment, this e oup remains the largest and most important age group in the Downtown Boulder area.
City of Boulder residents are the youngest segment, with an average age of 32.6 years, followed by
Boulder County (non-City) residents (36.6 years), overnight visitors (38.2 years), and day visitors (38.9
years). This pattern has remained largely similar to prior years' research.
Household income figures rose slightly compared to last summer. Iri particular, the higher income
segments ($SQ000 and above) were up slightly, whi]e the lower income segments ($49,999 and below)
were down slightly, with the exception of the under $iQ000 income segment, which increased to 17
percent of all users from 14 percent in 200I. In total, the median income among Downtown Boulder
users is just over $50,000.
City of Boulder residents interviewed downtown have the lowest average income, which is consistent
with the more youthful age profile of this segment. However, this pattern would seem to indicate that the
upper tier of wage earners in the City are not being captured in the research, either because they are not
being interviewed or they are not present downtown. (They also might have paRicipated in the survey,
but declined to answer the income question.) This observation was first made in the 2001 research report,
and it continues to hold true this year. For example, l5 percent of City residents earn in excess of
$100,000, compared to 25 percent of day visitors and 26 percent of overnighters. City of Boulder
residents, especially the more wealthy ones, should be a real target for the downtown area, and this
pattern might warrant further investigation to determine where this segment of city residents is shopping,
if they nre, indeed, shopping elsewhere.
Singles without children continue to be the largest household status segment in downtown Boulder,
though they declined on a proportionate basis for the second straight year to 43 percent of downtown
users. While singles without children are the largest individual segment, the majority are not singles with
children. Households with children at home comprise the next largest d oup, at 26 percent, followed by
couples without children (17 percent) and empty nesters (14 percent). The percentage of empty nesters
has grown each oF the past two years in Downtown Boutder, consistent with the observations made above
about the increase in the older age segments.
The gender split among 2003 downtown users was 53 percent female and 47 percent male, a reversal
from the distribution a year ago.
Home ownership is consistent at 54 percent among downtown users. Consistent with the younger age
profile, City of Boulder residents are the least likely to own their home (42 peccent), while non-City
County residents have the highest rate at 70 percent.
RRC ASSOCIATES 8
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVGY
TABLE 1
RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHIC/ SOCIOECONONfIC CHARACTERISTICS
YEAR OF SURVEVS 2002 VISITOR TVPE
City of Boulder Boulder County Day
2002 2001 2000 1999 Resident Resident Visitor
GENDER
Male 47% 54% 49% 54%
Female 53 46 51 46
HOUSEHOLDINCOME
$0 • 9,999 17% 14% 10°/a 18°/a
$10 • 14,999 5 7 7 9
$15 • 24,999 6 9 12 14
$25 - 49,999 2i 23 19 18
$50 • 74,999 18 17 19 18
$75 - 99,999 14 13 13 10
$100,000 and over 19 18 20 14
AGE
14-17 4% 4% 7% 5%
18•20 12 9 18 10
21 -24 15 17 1fi 15
25-34 22 24 23 25
35-44 17 20 18 20
45 - 54 20 17 9 14
55 and over 11 10 9 11
Average age 35.6 35.5 32.0 35.1
Median age 34 33 29 33
HOUSEHOLDSTATUS
Single, no children 43% 46% 51-% 44%
Cauple, no children 17 16 12 14
Household w/children at homa 26 26 27 27
Empty Nester 14 12 10 16
HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS (City of Boutder only 2a~~ and prior)
Own 54% 52% 54% 39°/a
Rent 43 43 46 61
Other 4 5 n/a n/a
EMPLOYEE IN THE DT AREA (Boulder CitylCounty Residents Only)
Yes, fuil-time 20% 26% 17% 22%
Yes, part-time 9 9 19 13
No 71 66 64 64
ARE YOU A STUDENT? (Boulder City/Cou nty Residents Only)
Yes, high school 5% 5% 7% 5%
Yes, callege/universiiy 24 21 30 22
No 71 74 62 73
2002
Overnight
Visitor
49% 41 % 44°/a 47%
51 59 56 53
' 22% .. 4% 11% 16%
7 2 4 3
7 6 3 7
22 37 15 18
16 25 23 16
11 18 18 14
15 , 8 25 26
5% 5% 3% 2%
17 6 6 11
19 10 14 12
22 26 21 19
14 31 17 15
17 10 22 28
6 13 18 13
' 32.6'" - 36.6 38.9 38.2
` 31` 35 36 36
56°/a 26% 29% 42%
14 21 22 15
22 37' 30 24
8 16 19 19
42% 70% 65% 58°/a
56 30 34 33
3 0 1 8
21 % 15% n/a n/a
11 2 n/a n/a
68 84 n/a n/a
5% 5% nla n/a
27 12 nla n/a
68 83 n/a n/a
RRC ASSOCIATES 9
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVEY
2002
Mala
~ER
Female
14 -17 years
18 • 20 years
21 ~ 24 years
25 • 34 years
35 ~ 44 years
45 • 54 years
55 yeers or over
RRC ASSOCIATES 10
F[GURE 2
VISITOR CHARACTERISTICS
GENDER/AGE
PercentResponding
0% 10 % 20% 30% 40% 50 % 60 %
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVEY
Single, no chiltlren
Couple, no children
Household with children at home
Househald with grown children
no longer at home
$0 - 9,999
$70,000 -14,999
$is,oao • 2a,sss
$25,000 - 49,999
$50,000 - 74,999
$75,000 - 99,999
$100,000 or more
2002
RRC ASSOCIATES 11
F[cuaE 3
V fSITOR CHARACTERISTICS
HOUSEHOLDSTATUS/HOUSEHOLDI[VCOME
Percent Responding
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% fi0%
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVEY
Employees ancl Stitdents
2002
Employees of the downtown area continue to represent a substantial group of users. This year, 29 percent
of Boulder County residents interviewed work downtown, or about 15 percent oF all survey p~rticipants.
Twenty percent work downtown full time and 9 percent wark part time; these figures show a decline in
the proportion of interviewees in the sample compared to last year. Downtown area employees 1re an
important segmenkto consider whe~ formulatittg strategies [argeted at the various segments of customers
of the downtown area. Employees represent ~ segment that is in the downtown area regardless of the time
of year or the weather conditions, making them an appealing e oup during certain traditionally slow
periods, such as the winter or other times of inclement weather.
Despite the fact that the surveys were primarily conducted during August, before most schools were in
session, 29 percent of Boulder County respondents indicated that they were stndents - 34 percent college/
university students, and 5 percent high school students. In total, about IS percent of the respondent
sample was students. The student population; while fluctuating somewhat from year to year, is basically
stable with past years. While not specifically asked, it can be assumed that most of the college students
are affiliated with CU, either as summer session students or traditional academic year students who
remained in town for the summer. Tlie student population represents another important a oup of
customers that could be segmented for separate advertising messages and promotions.
RRC ASSOCIATES 12
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVEY
2002
Geographic Origin
The majority of downtown mall users are residents of the State of Colorado. Outside of Colorado, the
origin of visitors is quite varied, including visitors from other countries. The mall user population
continues ta be more geogrlphically diverse, with a greater proportion of visitors from outside Colorada
than seen in past years.
State of Oriein '
In 2002, 73 percent of mall users lived in Colorado, about even From the 74 percent recorded a year ago.
California was the single largest contributor to Downtown Boulder this year, supplying 4 percent of all
mall users, up from just 2 percent last summer. International visitors represented 2.4 percent. No other
state represents more than two percent of mall users, illustrating the diversity oP people in the downtown
area. Overall, 1.6 percent of this year's survey sample was from New York and Texas, followed by
Florida, Missouri, and New 7ersey, Most of the top states fluctuate from year to year, with the specific
patterns shown in the tabte below.
TAB[.E ?
STATE OF ORIGIN
2002 2001 2000 1999
Colorado 72.6% 73.5°/a 82.4°/a 78.8%
California 4.1 ' 1.7 2.0 2.7
International 2.4 2.4 22 1.9
New York 1.6 1.8 1.2 0.8
Texas 1.6 1.7 0.4 0.6
Florida 1.3 0.8 0.2 2.1
Missouri 1.3 0.8 0.0 0.7
NewJersey 1,1 0,8 0.6 0.1
Illinois 1.0 1.7 1.6 2.7
Michigan 1,0 1.1 0.6 0.7
Pennsylvania 1.0 0.6 1.0 0.6
Massachusetts 1.0 0.6 1.2 0.4
Ohio 1.0 0.4 0.2 0.2
Washington 0.8 0,8 0.2 1.2
Other US States 8.2 9.9 7.6 5.8
100,0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Cit~ of Origin - Colorldo Residents Onl~
Isolating Colorado residents shows the various cities in the state where downtown users live (utilizing ZII'
codes, which approximate, 6ut are not always conterminous with, actual city boundazies). Overall, 56
percent of Colorado residents live in Boulder, down from 59 percent in 2001 and 66 percent the year
beFore, continuing to show the pattern of geographic diversity discussed in the state-level analysis above.
Again, an increasing proportion of people on the mall from Colorado are from outside the City of
Doulder.
RRC ASSOCIATES 13
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVEY
zoaz
Several of the cities in the surronnding area account for the majority of the remainder of state residents.
Denver (8.7 percent), Louisville (4.9 percent), Longmont (4.7 percent), Fort Collins (3.8 percent), and
Lafayette (2.0 percent) were all major contributors to the downtown population. Also important were
Broomfield (1.8 percent), Nederland (1.8 percent), Arvada (1.6 percent), Golden (1.6 percent), Greeley
(1.6 percent), Colorado Springs (1.1 percent), Erie (1.1 percenC), and Littleton (1.1 percent). Similar to
the non-Colorado states, the non-Boulder cities tend to fluctuate from year to year, with different
proportions in any given year but generally certain cities remaining relatively important to the downtown
area. However, some consistent patterns did emerge; of note, Denver and Fort Collins continue to grow
as cities among Colorado users, up to 8.7 and 3.8 percent, respectively, this year. Also interesting to note
is the increase in the proportion from Louisville concurrent with the decline in those from Lafayette.
TABLE3
C[TY OF ORIGIN
COLORADO RESIDENTS ONLY
2002 2001 2000 1999
8aulder 55,9% 59.1% 66.0% 66.9%
Denver 8.7, ' 7.1 ,4'.4 3.9
Louisville 4.9 3.7 2.0 4.1
Longmont 4.7 5.8 4.4 4.9
FortCollins 3.8 1;5 ~.~Mt.2~ 0.4 ~..
Lafayette 2.0 2.9 3.7 4.0
Nederland 1.8 1.3 1.2 12
Braomfield 1.8 3.3 4.9 4.1
Arvada 1.6 1.6 1.0 1.0
Greeley 1.6 0.3 0.0 0.0
Golden 1.6 1.4 1.0 0.9
ColoradoSprings 1.3 0.4 1,0 0.1
Erie 1.1 1.2 0.7 0.0
Littleton 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.2
Other CO City 8.1 97 8.5 7.4
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Countv of Origin - Colorado Residents Onlv
The tinal geographic analysis looks at the county of residence of those from Colorado, which shows that
the majority is from Boulder County (72 percent). The primary takeaway from this analysis is the
declining share of Colorado visits from Boulder County and the increasing share from other counties. In
particular, more distant counties such as Larimer, Weld, and even EI Paso Counties are becoming
increasingly important to the downtown mix.
Denver County (6.0 percent of Colorado visitors) and Jefferson County (5.4 percent) are the two largest
contributors from Colorado to the downtown user population. Larimer (5.1 percent), Weld (3.8 percent),
and Adams (2.7 percent) counties are the next most important. While some of the b owth from Weld
County is from people living in Erie; Greeley is a substantial contributor as well.
RRC ASSOCIATES 14
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVEY
TABLE 4
COUNTY OF ORIGIN
COLORADO RESIDENTS ONLY
2002 2001 2000 1999
Boulder 71;6% 76:4% 82.3% 85.6%
Denver 6.0 5.2 17 2.9
Jefferson 5.4 6.1 4.4 2.6
Larimer ' -5.1 " 2.6 1.2 i.i
Weld 3.8` 1'.9 1.7 , 0.3`,
Adams 2.7 2.0 3.9 2.1
EI Paso 1.6 0.4 1.0 0.1
Arapahoe 1.1 1.2 1.7 0.9
Other CO County 27 4.6 3.1 4.5
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100,0%
Boulder City Residents
2002
Among only City of $oulder residents, the proportion of downtown users from the central part of the city
increased this year, reversing a trend from the past few surveys. Diversifying and strengthening the visitor
base within the City was one of the objectives of the advertising campaign this year "Find YourselF in
Boulder." The relative success oF this campaign is uncertain based on these figures. While the areas
around the downtown core appear to have increased proportionately compared to last year, the peripheral
and outlying areas of hhe city have declined in their contribution to the downtown user population.
This year, ubout half of City residents said they live in the Central/West portion of Boulder, up from
40 percent a year ago. The primary area of Boulder showing weakness this yeaz was South Boulder,
traditionally one of the neighborhoods with an afFinity for the downtown area; just 14 percent of City
residents were from South Boulder (Table Mesa, Martin Acres, etcJ, down from 25 percent last year.
While residents of this section of town visited Downtown Boulder with ~bout the same frequency as other
City residents, it is also the case that South Boulderites, with easy access to US 36 South, were more
likely to head to the big box stores in Superior or to FlatIron Crossing. (Note: These and other shopping
patterns of downtown users will be covered in more detail in the section below on "Visits to Downtown
Boulder and Other Shopping Areas"J
The distribution of the remainder of City residents included nineteen percent From North Boulder, 12
percent from East Boulder, and 7 percent from Gunbarrel. East Boulder was up 50 percent from last
summer, while the other two areas of town are basically stable from last year. The a aph below illustrates
the pattern of distribution from the City of Boulder.
The average length of residence in Boulder was 8.1 years, down from 9.8 years tallied last year. The
primary shift wns an increase in those living in the City a relatively short time, which brought the average
down. The proportion of City of Boulder residents living in Boulder three years or less was 48 percent,
up from 38 percent Iast year.
RRC ASSOCIATES 15
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVEY
2002
FIGURE 4
IN WHAT PART OF THE CITY DO YOU LIVE'?
Percent Responding
CentraVWest Boulder
North Boulder
South Boulder
East Boulder
Gunbarrel
RRC ASSOCIATES 16
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
DOWNTOW~ BOULDER USER SURVEY
2002
SPENDING PATTERNS
Shopping is one of the top activities of downtown users. Overall, average spending by shoppers and
diners fell by 14 percent, to $40.51, the second year of decline among spenders in Downtown Boulder.
This decline was observed in an environment in which a stable proportion of downtown users said they
were spending money. When asked directly, 86 percent said they had or would make a purchase
downtown on the day of the interview, a figure stable from the 87 percent recorded the year prior. This
indicates that while downtown users still spent money with the same frequency, the amount theyspend
fell.
F[cu2E 5
ARE YOU SPENDING MONBY TODAY'?
L 999 To 2002
iaoro
so ie
m
~
~ so°re
0
a
N
a
R
d 40°~
u
`w
a
2~0~
0°/
RRC ASSOCIATES 17
Yes No
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVEY
2002
Overnight visitors and day visitors were the most likely to say they would be spending money, as 93
percent of each segment indicated an intention to spend money. Boulder City and County residents were
less likely to be making a purchase, at 80 and 82 percent, respectively. Nevertheless, all segments were
quite likely to be making a purchase while in Downtown Boulder.
F[cuaE 6
ARE YOU SPENDING MONEY TODAY'?
BY VISITOR TYPE
100%
80 %
a
N
N
L
U C
1 V~~
N
m
Y
N
~ 4Q ~
C
a
U
W
a
20%
0%
Spenders were asked to indicate the types of purchases they made (or were planning to make), while non-
spenders skipped the specific spending pattern question. The three categories of spending were:
1) restaurandbar/coffee shop; 2) retail store/art gallery/shop; and 3) `bther° spending.
Most people spending money were buying food or drink; 88 percent of spenders were making a
restaurant/bar/coffee shop purchase. The average purchaser spent $12.68 on food or drink, down
30 percent from $18.06 last year. This decline in food and beverage spending is responsible for the
overall drop in spending this year; other spending, including retail, was flat or up slightly compared to a
year ago.
The median figure for food and beverage spending was $ IQ meaning that about half the people were
spending less than $10, and half spending more than $]0. The median food and beverage spending has
been consistent the past several years, indicating that the decline in the average food spending figure this
year is due to a drop in the very highest food spenders. The average food spending is directly correlated
with geographic proximity to Boulder; City resident spend the least ($9.97 on average), County residents
the next most ($12.02), and day and overnight visitors spend the most on average ($15.45 and $1430,
respectively).
RRC ASSOCIATES 18
Yes No
DO W NTO W N BOULDER USER SURV EY 2002
$0
(no purchase)
$1 -$5
$6-$10
$11-$15
$16 ~ $20
$2Y ~ $30
$31 • $40
$41 ~ $50
$51 - $75
$78~$100
$101 ormore
Fewer spenders were making a purchase at a retail store or art gallery - over half (52 percent) were not
planning to buy anything in a retail store on the day of their interview. ThereFore, the median retail store
spending was $0, the same as last year. However, the average spending in a store among all spenders was
~24.64, up 3.5 percent from an average of $23.80 last summer. Again, day and overnight visitors spend
the most in retail stores, on average. For day visitors, average spending in retail stores was $34.95, while
overnighters spent $28.91 on nverage. The median figure for each group was $20.00.
RRC ASSOCIATES 19
F[GURE ~
AMOUNT SPENT IN RESTAURANTS/BARS
Percent Responding
0% 5% 10% 15% 20°/ 25% 30%
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVEY
$0
(no purchase)
$1-$5
$6-$10
$Y1 ~$15
$16~$20
$21~$30
$31~$40
$41~$50
$51-$75
$76 - $100
$101 armore
2002
Even fewer - only 6 percent - spent money on any other services. Tl~e average amount spent on other
items was just $0.57.
aRC .~ssocc,~TES 20
FIGURE 8
AMOUNT SPENT IN RETAIL STORES/GALLERIES
Percent Responding
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVEY 2002
The sum of the three spending categories results in total spending. Overall, total spending by shoppers
and diners fell by 14 percent, to $40.5 l, the second year of decline among spenders in Downtown
Boulder. The graph below shows the decline in total spending for the past several years, a pattern that is
consistent with declining sales tax collections in the downtown Pearl Street Mall area. As seen in the
graph below, average retail spending was stable in comparison to last year, while restaurant/bar spending
declined. It is apparent, then, that the overall decline is attributable to the dip in restauranUbar spending,
rather than a decrease in tetail spending. This pattern is interesting to note in that the 2001 study isolated
a drop in retail spe~ding as the cause for the overall spending decline (restaurant/bar spending was
~ctually up in 2001 versus 2000, as seen in the graph below).
F[auRE 9
AVERAGE SPENDING PATTERNS (AMONG ALL SPENDERS)
BY SPENDING CATEGORY
(999 ro2002
$~o
$so
~
~
0
~ $50
3
0
e
3
p $40
~
m
.c~
~ $30
v
a
x
w
rn $20
A
d
~
a
$10
$~
While the average spending figure was down, the median spending was actually up, a pattern that
indicates weakness in the upper spending levels but strength in the more moderate spending amounts.
The median this year was $21.50, up from $20.00 in 2001. Fewer survey respondents were spending
large amounts in total (over $100), and fewer were spending small amounts (under $25). Thus, the
median edged up slightly as a result.
Quite a number of fluctuations were observed in the spending levels by visitor type. Spe~ding by City of
Boulder residents, which fell dramatically a year ago, recovered to a more respectable level of $31.94 on
average (median $15.00). Boulder County residents (non-City) had the lowest average spending, at
$26.79 per person, down from $42.93 a year ago. Total spending by day visitors was highest ($5391
average, $34.00 median), followed by overnight visitors ($46.28 average, $30.00 median). Last year
overnighters outspent day visitors; in 2002 the reverse was true. Note that overnight visitors were not
asked about spending on lodging accommodations.
The e aph below illustrates the pattern of total average spending by visitor type over the past four years.
It is clear From this graph that the decline in overall spending was not attributable to a single user category
RRC ASSOCIATES 21
Total RestaurantlBar Retall Othar
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVEY 2002
(as it was in 2001 - City of Boulder residents). Rather, declines were noted for day visitors, overnight
visitors, and BouMer County (non-City) residents. The weakness in these three categories all contributed
to the decline in average per capita spending this year.
F[cuae 10
AVERAGE SYENOING PATTERNS (AMONG ALL SPENDERS)
BY YEAR BY VISITOR TYPE
$100
$90
$80
:J $70
rn
c
~ $60
m
n
~ $50
0
~
ef $40
N
W C
Q W30
~2~
$10
$0
Viaitor Type
Profile of Spenders
A particular group of interest is the group that indicated they did or planned to spend more than $50
downtown on the day of the interview. That group is profiled in this section, including the characteristics
that make them distinct from other mall users. Understanding the patterns of those spending money
downtown will help to make decisions designed to accommodate the needs of those helping to fund the
downtown area through their purchases. In this section, those spending over $50 are referred to us
"spenders." Many of the topics addressed here will be presented in b eater detail later in the report.
Those spending more than $50 were much more likely to be from outside Boulder County compared to
those spending under $50 or not spending. Colorndo spenders are more likely to be from Boulder,
Denver, or Fort Collins, while out of state spenders tend to be from California or Texas. Spenders tends
to be visiting for the day, not spending the night in Boulder, Spenders from the City of Boulder are more
likely to live in North Boulder.
Spenders visit the Downtown Boulder area with about the same frequency as other downtown users. The
only shopping area spenders indicated frequenting more often than the downtown population as u whole
was Cherry Creek, with an average of 13 visits in the past two months among spenders, versus 0.5 visits
overall. They tend to visit other shapping areas with about the same, or slightly lower, frequency as the
overall survey sample. The average number of visits to downtown Boulder among spenders was 113
times, with a median of 6 visits.
RRC ASSOCIATES 22
Dey Ovemight Total Ciry of Boulder Boulder County
visitar visitor residenY resident
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVEY 2002
When asked for the primary reason for coming to Downtown Boulder, spenders are four times more
likely to say "shopping" compared to other respondents. Shoppers also were eating a meal, hanging
out/enjoying the ambiance, having a coffee/ice cream/snack, and watching street entertainment with about
the same frequency as the overall survey sample. That is to say that not only were spenders coming
downtown to shop, but they were also partaking in other common downtown activities.
Spenders are much more likely to drive downtow~ (85 percent did, compared to 71 percent overall),
highlighting the importance of maintaining infrastructure tailored to the driver. It appears that the current
parking infrastrucmre is adequate for the spenders, as they are much more likely to give the parking
situation downtown more positive ratings than did the average user.
Spenders tend to be very satisfied with the aspects of the downtown experience, even more so than the
typical user. In fact, in all categories average ratings among spenders were at least as high, if not higher,
than the overall survey slmple. Particularly liigh among spenders are ratings for feeling of safety/
security and ease of walking around (each averaged 4.8 out of five), overall atmosphere/ design quality
(4.7), overall cleanliness and maintenance (4.5), and variety of restaurants (4.4). That the spending
segment is quite satisfied with the downtown area is a positive t7nding. Not only is the Feeling of security
and safety rated quite highly among spenders, but the behaviors of panhandlers do not appear to bother
spenders, with 39 percent saying their behaviors have no impact on their enjoyment of the downtown
area.
Spenders were actually slightly more likely that the average downtown user to be aware of advertising
and information sources pcior to their visit. Nineteen percent said they saw ads or info for the Downtown
Boulder area in general (as opposed to a specific downtown merchant). Of those, 50 percent saw the ad
in the newspaper, 25 percent saw a bus panel, 21 percent saw a brochure, and 13 percent saw a general or
feature article.
In terms of demographic patterns, spenders tend to be older (average age 38. I), households with children
or couples without children, female, homeowners, and to have incomes in excess of $1OQ000 in
comparison to the typical downtown user.
VISITS TO DOWNTOWN BOULDER AND OTHER SHOPPING AREAS
(Boulder City/County Residents Only)
An are~ of continuing concern of the downtown merchants is the shopping patterns of downtown
customers. All Boulder County residents were asked how frequently in the past two mo~ths they had
visited the Downtown Boulder area and a list of other regional shopping centers. For the second year, in
response to the shifting retail marketplace, the list of other regional shopping areas included both FlatIron
Crossing and the "Big Box" stores at Superior/Louisville.
The average number of visits to the Downtown Boulder (not including visits for employment of work)
area was down compared to a year ago, to t2.2 visits from 14.9 visits. As well, the median figure fell to 8
visits from 10 visits. In particular, the decline was noted in the very highest frequency visitors (31 to 60
visits in the past two months), to 9 percent From 12 percent last year. The average and median figures For
2002 are below those recorded in 2001, higher than those collected in 2000, and about equivalent to those
seen in t999.
RRC ASSOCIATES 23
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVEY ~ 2002
With the high average and median figures, it is clear that the downtown area enjoys a loyal segment of
local visitors who provide vitality and character to the area through their continued patronage and
paRicipation, something few other rival shopping areas can boast.
However, as the population of the county hus grown, especially in towns to the east of Boulder
(Longmont, Lafayette, Louisville, Broomfield, etc.), the retail shopping offerings have also a own in
those areas, potentially both luring Boulder City residents and retaining residents of those towns, who
once came to Boulder for some of their shopping needs, in their respective towns. Sndeed, some of these
patterns are seen in the research, though a complete inventory of such patterns cannot be presented in this
report, as it profiles only those who were in Downtown Boulder. Such findings would Uave to come from
an out-of-market tetephone survey.
The shopping area outside of the Cicy of Boulder with the most competitive attraction, measured by the
average visits by users of Downtown Boulder, was FlatIron Crossing. The average number of visits to
FlatIron Crossing in the past two months is 2.2 visits among all Downtown Boulder users, up from 1.8.
Last year, 43 percent said they had not visited FlatIron at all in the past two months, while this year only
37 percent had not been to F1atlron. When the figvres are analyzed by geography, however, a more clear
pattern emerges: City of Boulder residents averaged 2A trips to FlatIron Crossing, while Boulder County
(non-City) residents averaged 3. L visits. Just 30 percent of County residents had not been to FlatIron in
the past two months. Within the City of Boutder, East Boulder and Gunbarrel residents were most apt to
patronize FlatIron Crossing, with an average number of visits of 3.0 and 2.4, respectively.
While much focus has been on F1atIron Crossing, the second most popular shopping area among
downtown users (behind Downtown Boulder) was actually the Arapahoe Village stores (McGuckin's,
etc J. This area averaged 3.1 visits in the past two months, up from 2.8 visits last year and 2.0 visits the
year prior. Arapahoe Village is especially popular among City residents, who visited on average 3.6
times, as opposed to County (non-City) residents, who made only 1.1 visits in the past two months to
Arapahoe Village.
Other shopping areas were also queried on the survey. Not surprisingly, Crossroads Mall continues to
slip, with only 40 percent of respondents having been there in the past two months, for an average oFjust
0.9 visits during that time period. Louisville/Superior posted an average of 2.0 visits. Downtown Denver
also averaged 2.0 visits, up from 1.4 visits last year and 0.8 visits the year prior. No other single shopping
area averaged over 1.0 visits from Downtown Boulder patrons.
RRC ASSOCIATCS 24
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVEY
2002
F[GURE l l
VISITS TO DOWNTOWN BOULDER AND OTHER REGIONAL SHOPPMG A2EAS W PAST TWO MONTHS
BOULDER CITY/COUNTY RESfDENTS ONLY
90%
80 %
70%a
m fi0%
c
V
y 50%
N
Q.
~ 40%
U
W
~ 30~0
20%
10%
0%
Downtawn
BoWder
FIGURE l2
VISITS TO DOWNTOWN BOULDER AND OTHER REGIONAL SHOPPING AREAS IN PAST TWO MONTHS
BOULDER C(TY/COUNTY RESIDENTS ONLY
14
12
10
Z
C
8 ~
O
6 ~;
N
4
2
RRC ASSOCIATES 25
Arapahoe Flatlron Louisvillel Oownrown Crossroads Westminster Charry
Village Crossing Superior ~enver Mall Promenade/Mall Creek
Arapahoe Flatlron louisville/ Downtown ,Crossroads Westminster Cherry
Village Crossing Superior Denver . Mall PromanadelMall Cresk
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVEY
2002
Respondents were asked several follow-up questions about the shopping area they visited the most in the
question discussed above (other than downtown Boulder). First, they were asked what they liked about
the area and why they visited it most often. Second, respondents were asked to note the strengths of
downtown Boulder compared to that other area, and third, the weaknesses of downtown Boulder in
comparison. All the questions were of an open-ended nature, and are summarized in the section below.
A Pull text of the comments in response to these questions is presented in the appendix section of this
report.
In general, the strengths of Downtown Boulder were the pedestrian aspect, the unique atmosphere, the
variety of shops, restaurants, galleries, and bars, quality of restaurants, and the outdoor aspect. The
genera] weaknesses inc(uded lack of parking, more expensive stores, and homeless peopla.
Village Shopping Centers
Why do ~ou like to visit?
Generally, people mentioned a speciFic store or two in the Village Shopping Centers, including most
Frequently McGuckids. The Village was notable in tl~at people mentioned specific stores they Iiked in
that shopping area, indicating the functio~ality of the area for shoppers. Also, several mentioned the
movie theaters as reasons to visit the Village. It is generally seen as a good place to shop for a variety of
goods and services, and a convenient place to run enands.
A good variety of locally owned shops
Convenient, has what she needs at McGuckin's
LePeep, movies, McGuckin's, Boulder Chill
They jusf have convenient shops - i.e. grocery and hardware
McGuckin's, Great Harvest, Juice Stop
Nice variety of stores, McGuckin's
Strengths of Downtown'Boulder in Comparison
Compared to the Village Shopping Centers, survey participants noted that downtown Boulder's strengths
include:
Accessible by walking, atmosphere, more shops/restaurants
Has character, good food, bars, people, live music
Boulder Bookstore, Pedestrian Shop, entertainment
More boutique shops, cafes, pedestrian friend/y
The afmosphere is nicer
Pedestrian zone, dining, hanging out
Weaknesses of Downtown Boulder in Comparison
Weaknesses of Boulder were noted to include the lack of parking, transient and homeless people,
expensive stores, high rents driving up retail prices, lack of practical items to buy, and lack of n movie
theater. Examples include:
Expensive shops, elitist attitude
Pay for parking
Parking and homeless people
Not a lot of inexpensive restauranis and shopping
Expensive chain stores
RRC ASSOCIATES 2G
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVEY
2002
Flatlron Crossing
Whv do you like to visit?
Downtown users who visit FlatIron Crossing frequently said that they like the area for the variety of
stores, amount of stores, and the newness of the mall.
Great shopping environment
The stores are what 1 like
Nice uppervend restaurants
New environment, new movie theater
High quality and amount of stores
StrenQths of Downtown Boulder in Comparison
The strengths of Boulder mentioned by those who visit F1atIron Crossing were similar to those noted
above: the atmosphere, outdoor setting, better restaurants, the pedestrian aspect, and the general
personality of the downtown area.
A lot of interesting shops and stores - unique
Friendlier, betteratmosphere
Outdoors, nice scenery
Sma/ler atmosphere, street entertainment, open late, good food
Restaurants much beiter than the food court!
Weaknesses of Downtown Boulder in Com~arison
Hometess people were seen as the primary weakness of downtown Boulder according to this segment of
users. Others said that downtown Boulder doesn't have as many practical stores. One perceptive
respondent noted that downtown Boulder has no set hours for stores to open or close.
No movie theater
Inconvenient parking
High prices
Constructron going on for too long
Nightlife centers around drunk college kids
Panhandlers, beggars, too many chains, needs more local
Louisville/Superior
Wh,~o ~ou like to visit?
Costco was the most frequently mentioned reason for visiting the Louisville/Superior area. Many also
said that the location is convenient and cbse to home for them. The movie theater was mentioned
mnltiple times as a reason to visit.
Clase to home, convenient
DiscounUwarehouse shopping
Super Target is awesome!
The huge movie theater, etc.
Convenient; stores that are needed and well-priced
RRC ASSOCIATES 27
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVEY
2002
StrenQths of Downtown Boulder in Comparison
Again, similar strengths of Boulder were noted among those who visit Louisville/Superior most often.
The environment, the outdoor and pedestrian aspects, the community feel, culture, diversity, pleasant,
unique were all mentioned as strengths of Downtown Boulder.
Atmosphere, great restaurants
Origina/ity, charm, diversity
Lots of activities and specialry shops
Quaint, get something unusual, artistic
Weaknesses of Downtown Boulder in Com~arison
Compared to Louisville/Superior, Boulder is seen to be dif6cult to find pnrking and having more
expensive stores. Also, respondents thought that the stores are oriented towards tourists and therefore
don't have practical goods.
Expensive, parking during week, traffic
No Bulk shopping; draws a different crowd
No movie theater
Not convenient at a/l, hard to find parking
Traffic, parking, higher tax and prices
Downtown Denver
Wh~do ~ou like to visit?
People like to visit downtown Denver for a variety of reasons: to go to a ball game, the feel of a bigger
city, dance clubs, late nighC nightlife, shows, concerts, and ganerally more things Co do. Several
mentioned that they have friends who live in Denver.
Lots of options, food and play
Baseball games, music
Lots more variety than Boulder, Rockies games
Good friends in Denver
Family, friends, Rockies games, bars
Stren~ s of Downtown Boulder in Comparison
Boulder is seen as having a better atmosphere than Denver, and it is also seen to be friendlier, safer, and
claaner than Denver,
Cleaner, less congested, less unsavory types
More coffee shops, cool atmosphere, more stores to offer
Saferin Boulder
Like the people better
Mellow laid back atmosphere
Weaknesses of Downtown Boulder in Com~arison
Boulder does not have a late night scene or enough dance clubs, which is seen as a weakness among those
who like to visit Denver. Other weaknesses are expensive stores and lack of parking in Boulder.
RRC ASSOCIATGS ZS
DOWNTOWIV BOULDER USER SURVEY ' 2002
The homeless kids all over the place and the parking is horrific
Expensive stores, it's not a p/ace to shop
Not as many bars/restaurants and social activities
Transients
It me/lows out too much during the summer
PARTICIPATION IN DOWNTOWN BOULDER ACTIVITIES
The question about what activities people participute in while downtown was revised again year, with a
primaty reason for coming to Downtown Boulder and other activities participating in while downtown.
This differs slightly than the way the question was asked in prior years, limiting the historical
comparisons. The (ist of activities was identical to last year with the exception of the addition of "special
event" as an activity. This addition was intended to capture the Farmer's Market, the Labor Day weekend
Fall Fest, and other activities.
In terms of the primary reason for coming to Downtown Boulder, three motivations were all quite
important: shopping, hanging ouUenjoying the ambia~ce/people watching, and eating a meal. Each of
these three activities has been populaz throughout the past few years, and the fact that the three are so
closely tied as reasons for coming downtown illustrates the unique characteristics of the Downtown
Boulder area. Overall, 23 percent said they came primarily for shopping, 21 percent for hanging out, and
20 percentfor dining.
Day and overnight visitors continue to be more likely to say they are shopping compared to City and
County residents. In fact, both City of Boulder residents and non-City County residents were leust likely
to s1y they were primarily shopping (each 17 percent), but their frequency of visiting downtown makes
up for their shortcoming in frequency of shopping on any given day.
RRC ASSOCIATES ~ 29
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVEY
2002
FtauaF 13
PRIMA2Y REASON FOR COMING TO DOWNTOWN BOULDE2 TODAY
BY 2002 VISITOR TYPE
Percent Responding
0°/ 5% 10°/ 15% 20% 25°/ 30% 35% 40%
21%
Meal-sitdownoriakeout ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~~'~~~ 25i
19%
~20%
19/
EmploymenUjoh ~~~ ~~
12%
n~a
ShoPP~~9 ~, .,., .,... _17i
Hanging ouUenjoying tha 20 / ~
settinglpeopla watching ' ~i'~i 31 %
27 %
7/ I
Coffeelicecream/snack 5/ ~
(notafullmeaq ~r.:~r~.2% ~ ^CityofBoulderFesidant
2%
- ~ Boulder County Resitlent
6% ~
7 ~ ~ Day Visitor
Persanal services ,,,,,, ~ ~
^ Ovemight Visitor
1/
Special event ~~ ~
~a/
~2 %
3%
Professionalservices 3~
1 1%
1%
Nightentertainment ~~ 5%
J 1%
~t%
Watchingstreetentertainment ~~
a%
0%
Other ; 7/ i
~7a/
~ 10%
~11%
A follow-up question asked what other activities the interviewee was doing while downtown. This year,
41 percent added that they were hanging oudenjoying the ambiance/people watching, and 40 percent said
they were eating a meaL Another 34 percent were having a snack, 33 percent were shopping, and 29
percent were watching street entertainment. Other activities generally had light participation, as seen in
the graph below.
RRC ASSOCIATES 30
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVEY
2002
The combination of the two questions this year ("primary reason" aod `bther activities") provides resutCs
that are comparable to past years, wl~en a single question was posed about all activities Yhe respondent
was participating in. In this combined form, the top three activities this year continue to be hanging out
(53 percent), eating a meal (51 percent), and shopping (49 percent). These three activities continue to be
the cornerstone of the Downtown Boulder experience, and they appear to be as healthy as ever, as seen in
the historical graph below.
Other important activities include coffee/ice crenm/snack (31 percent), watching street entertainment (23
percent), and employmenY/ job (12 percent).
RRC ASSOCIATES 31
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVEY
Hanging ouUenjoying ihe setting!
' ~ people watching
Sihdown restaurantl
take out meal
Shopping
Coffeelice cream/snack
(not a full meal)
Waiching sireet entertainment
EmplaymenVJob
Night entertainmant
Persanal services
Professional services
Special event
Other
2002
The participation in activities was also segregated by visitor type. This segmentation allows for an
understanding oF what the various visitor b oups are doing downtown. Day and overnight visitors
generally indicate more activities than do City and County residents, probably indicative of a b eater
length of time spent downtown. These users are more likely to say they are hanging out and enjoying the
setting, eating a meal, shopping, ~nd watchi~g street entertainment. Boulder City and County residents
are mora likely to be downtown for ajob and nbout as likely to be having a snack, but generally less apt
to participate in other activities. The a aph below shows these patterns from the research this summer.
RRC ASSOCIATES 32
F[cuxa 14
WHAT ACTNITIES ARE YOU DOING THIS VISIT?
1999 To 2002
Percent Responding
0% 10% 20% 30% 40 % 50% 60 % 70% 80 %
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVEY
2002
Hanging ouUenjoyingthe settinc
peopie watching
Sit-down restaurant
take out meal
Coffeelice cream/snacl
(not a full meal)
Shoppinc
Employmentljot
Watching ireet anterteinmen~
Professional service:
Night entertainman
Personalservice:
Special even
RRC ASSOCIATCS 33
FtcuRe IS
WHAT ACTN[TIES ARE YOU DOIN6 TH[S VISIT'?
BY VISITOR TYPE
Percent Responding
0% 10% 20% 30 % 40 % 50 % 60% 70% fl0%
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVEY
RATINGS OF THE DOWNTOWN EXPERIENCE
2002
An important and ongoing part of the research downtown is rating the level of satisfaction with various
aspects of the experience. The monitoring and tracking of the satisfaction with the downtown experience
is important to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the area. It also provides a sense of the overall
impression of the downtown and of how users perceive tha downtown, which allows for an effective and
cohesiva marketing pian for the area as a whole.
These satisfaction ratings have baen tracked each year in the research program. Respondents were asked
to rate the aspect on a five-point scale, with one representing "poor" and five representing "very gaod."
"Dodt know" responses were also recorded, but not included in the averages.
General Rcitings
The ratings in general remained quite good again this year; in Fact, nearly every ratings category
improved in comparison to last year, and none averaged lower than 2001. These findings are on top of a
strong ratings performance recorded last year. Particular improvements were noted for overall cleanliness
and maintenance, feeling of security and safety, ease of getting downtown, ease of walking around,
directory information and signs, and family orientation/ kids activities.
Ease of walldng around received an average rating of 4.8 out of five, making it the highest rated aspect of
downtown again this year, up from an average of 4.6 in 2001. In fact, this year 79 percent of the
respondent sample rated the ease oF walking around a five out of five. The feeling of safety and security
was had the next highest aJerage, at 4.6 out of five, up From 4.4 a year ago. Overall atmosphere and
design quality averaged 4.5, up from 4.4, and overall cleanliness and maintenance received an average
score of 4.4, up from 4.2 a year 2go. These four aspects were quite strong this year, and speak to the
recent physical improvements, added police patrols, and increased budget for cleaning the mall. These
ratings are quite strong and are an accomplishment of which the downtown area can be proud.
Other mall aspects fared very well, including variety of restaurants (4.3), ease of getting downtown (4.2),
variety of reCail shops (4.1), family orientation/ kids activities (4.1), and variety oP outdoor enCertainment
(4.1).
Other attributes averaged four or below. These included variety of art galleries/shops (4.0), special events
and Festivals (3.9), variety of entertainment in bars and restaurants (3.7), and directory information and
signs (3.6). Though these attributes were among the lesser-rated aspects of Downtown Boulder, they all
improved in comparison to last summer, as seen in the graph below.
RIZC ASSOCIATES 34
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVEY
FicuaE 16
GENERAL RAT WGS OF THE DOWNTOWIY EXPERIENCE
1999 ro 2002
Ease of walking amund
Feeling of securiry/safery
Overall atmosphere and design quality
Overall cleanliness antl maintenance
Variery of resteurents
Ease of getting hare
Variery of outdoor entedainment on mall
Variery of retail shops
Family orientationikids activities
Variery of ad gallerieslshops
Special eventslfestivals
Variary of entertainment in bars/restaurents
Direcrory informapon antl signs
2002
In general, day and overnight visitors tended to give ratings scores higher than those of City or non-City
County residents. Some attributes, however, were consistently high despite the visitar status. These include
ease of walking around, overa(1 atmosphere and design quality, and overall cleanliness and maintenance,
RRC ASSOCIATES 35
Mean Rating
(1= Poor/2 = Below Average /3 = Average /4 = Good/5 = Very Good)
1 1.5 2 2,5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVEY
2002
Parlcing Ratings
Opinions of parking among downtown visitors have been an area of continued interest. Again this summer,
three aspects of parking were rated: cost, convenience (ease of finding a space), and adequacy/
availability. The ratings showed continued improvement this year, besting last year's all time highs across
the board.
Satisfaction with parking cost averaged 3.1 out of five (up from 2.9), followed by parking adequacy/
availability (3.0, up from 2.8) and parking convenience (2.9, up from 2.7). These three categories
represent a dramatic improvement from the summer of 2000, when parking ratings were at an all-time
low. The graph below shows the patterns of improvement.
FIGURE 17
PARKING RATINGS
1999 ro 2002
Mean Hatlng
(7 = PooN2 = 9elow Average /3 = Average /4 = Good/5= Very Good)
Cost
Adequacylavailahiliry
Convenience/
eesa of finding a space
Parking ratings varied by where the person parked. Not as much distinction in the ratings is observed
compared to past years, further reflecting the moderation of negative feelings about parking downtown.
Those who parked in a surface lot or free in an adjacent neighborhood were more apt to indicate a higher
level of satisfaction with the cost of parl<ing. Otherwise, little difference is observed by the location of
the parked vehicle.
RRC ASSOCIATES 36
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 '.
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVEY
F~cuae l8
PARKING RATINGS
BY LOCATION OF PARKED VEHICLB
Adeq uacylavailabiliry
Cost
Convenience/
ease of tind~ng a space
2002
Similar to patterns noted in past years, local residents (Boulder City and County) tend to be more critical
of parking than do day and overnight visitors. The figure below shows the patterns of ratings by visitor
type.
Fraua~ I9
PARKING RATINGS
BY VISITOR TYPE
CoSt
Adequacylavailabillty
Convenienca/
ease of finding a space
RRC ASSOCIATES 37
Mean Rating
(1= Poor/2 = Below Average /3 = Average /4 = Goad/5 = Very Good)
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Mean Rating
(1 =Poar/2=BelawAverege/3=Aveiage/4=Good/5=VeryGood~
I 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVEY
TRANSPORTATION DOWNTOWN
2002
The proportion of mall users who used a personal vehicle to get downtown increased to its highest rate
this year, 71 percent. However, this finding is consistent with the higher proportion of users From outside
the City of Boulder. The proportion dnving a personal vehicle rose from 66 percent last year.
As wetl, the proportion taking the bus feil, continuing a pattem of dec[ine that has been noTed for the past
few years. However, this finding is also consistent with the greater concentration of City of Boulder
residents within the Central/West section of town. These users tend to walk or bike downtown with
greater frequency, whereas those in the peripheral areas of the City (North Boulder, South Boulder, etc.)
tend to be the bus riders. Thus, the decline in bus ridership c1n be explained by this pattern.
FIGORE 20
MODE OF TRANSPORTATfON DOWNTOWN
1999 ro 2002
Percent Hesponding
Personalvehicle
Walk
Bus
Bicycle
In•line skatesl
scootedskateboard
Other
Boulder County residents outside the City and day visitors are most likely to say they drove to reach the
downtown area, at 90 and 93 percent, respectively. Overnight visitors and City of Boulder residents are
least likely to drive downtown, with driving rates of 73 and 54 percent, respectively. In fact, overnighters
were the visitor segment that was most likely ro say they walked downtown (21 percent did). Many
overnight visitors captured on the downtown mall were clearly staying in lodging or with family/Friends
within walking distance of the mall. Note that nearly half the City of Boulder respondents utilized
alternate modes of transport to reach the downtown area.
RRC ASSOCIATES 38
0°/ 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVEY
Personalvehicle
Walk
Bus
Bicycle
In-line skatesl
scootedskatehoard
Other
Personal Uehicle
2002
Those who drove a personal vehicle were asked how many people came in their car, where their car was
parked, and if they owned a parking permit. Twenty-seven percent of respondents drove alone, the lowest
percentage recorded in the past six years. As well, 43 percent drove with one other person, up from 33
percent last year and illustrative of the increased caipooling and decline in single occuQant vehicles.
Despite the greuter number of multi-occupant vehicles, the average persons per car declined to 2.2 from
2.4, largely due to a smaller number of vehicles carrying a very high number of total persons (5 or more).
The median number of peaple per car remained 2, consistent the past
RRC r\SSOCIATES 39
FIGURE 21
MODE OF TRANSPORTAT[ON DO WNTO WIV
BY VISITOR TYPE
Percent Responding
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70°/ 80% 90% ~100%
DOWNTOWN 80ULDER USER SURVEY
~[GURE 22
INCLUDING YOURSELF, HOW MANY PEOPLE CAME IN YOUR CA2? (CARYOOLING PATTERNS)
1999 To 2002
~o r
so r
50 %
a
e
a
0 40%
a
N
N
2
e 3~°~
v
~
d
a
20 %
10%
0%
Numher of Peaple
Four percent of drivers said they owned a downtown parking permit, and the other 94 percent did not.
2002
In terms of where people parked when they drove downtown, on street metered spaces remained the most
popular, with 44 percent of drivers parking in a metered space, up from 42 percent in 2001 and 34 percent
the year prior. Day and overnight visitors are most likely to park on the street in metered spaces. Parking
structures were the next most popular facility with drivers, as 27 percent said they used a structure.
Twelve percentsaid they parked on-streetfree in an adjoining neighborhood,and 11 percent used a
surface parking lot.
The following graph shows the historic patterns of parking in the downtown area.
RRC ASSOCIATES 90
1 person 2 peapla 3 people 4 people 5 or more
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVEY
2002
F[cuaa 23
LOCA'CION OF PARKED VEHICI,E
1999 ro 2002
Omstreat metered space
Parking siructure
On-streat free in neigh6orhaod.
Surface parking lot
Employee parking lot
Allay
~ropped off
Oiher
Suggestions to Improve Pctrking Downtown
As a follow-up to the parking ratings question, people were asked if they had any comments or
suggestions regarding parking in the downtown area. The comments were segregated by local residents
and visitors.
Suseestions from Residents
Comments about parking were relatively negative from residents. Many centered on the fact that parking
in downtown is so bad that they walk or take the bus whenever possible. Others noted how strict the
enforcement is on the parking meters. Some sample comments include:
RRC ASSOCIATES 41
Percentage
0% 10°/a 20 % 30 % 40% 50 %
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVEY
2002
Add more free parking garages
Free parking at meters on Sat.
I refuse to drive here
I try to avoid it
I choose not to drive but / don't think I'd like it if I did
Raising meter rates doesn't free up spaces
They are too strict on meters
Too much of a pain and makes me not want to come as often
Some of the comments were positive and complimentazy in nature.
Parking is good - p/enty of space
Others were realistic about the parking simation.
In a tourist p/ace, parking is inevitably going to be a problem
I hate to park here but what can you really do about it?
I don't mind the minimal parking idea, less peop/e drive that way
Suggesrions from Visitors
Comments from visitors were more mixed, with some positive feedback as well as some criticism of the
parking situation. Perhaps visitors have a difFerent perspective on the parking situation.
Free parking on Saturday is good
1 found it really easy to get a spot right away.~
Easy to find a space on Sunday
We tound a space re/atrve/y easily
Cheaper meters, no parking Nazis
If people didn't have to pay for parking, they would spend more time at the mall
More free public parking
More public parking spots and signs to tel/ you
1 don't live here but 1 can tell the parking isn't very good
Alternate Modes of Transport
Walking is the most common alternate method of transport to the downtown area in 2001, with 14 percent
overall saying they walked, Overnight visitors were the most likely to walk (21 percent), showing that an
important source of downtown users is guests of neazby lodging propeRies and people staying with family
or friends in the immediate vicinity. Nineteen percent of City of Boulder residents walked downtown,
indicating a strong draw From the surrounding neighborhoods. Targeting these two segments to continue
to utilize the downtown area, and to walk to reach the area, could be an effective strategy in increasing
participation downtown without adding to vehicle traffic. Other alternate modes included 9 percent who
rode the bus, 5 percent biked, and one percent rode a scooter, skateboard, or other means of transport.
The majority of bus riders had a pass allowing them free usage of the RTD service. Overall, 48 percent
said they had an Eco-Pass, and 18 percent had a student bus pass (Buff OneCard). Though bus ridership
RRC ASSOCIATES 42
DQWNTOWN BOULpER USER SURVEY
2002
is down among the overall downtown sample, these bus passes appear to be important in the decision to
take the bus.
Thirty-five percent oF riders took the Hop, while another 27 percent rode the Skip. Another one-third
took one of the numbered or lettered RTD buses, with the remainder coming on the Leap, Jump, or
Bound.
DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENTS
Several new questions of interest were added to the survey, and they are discussed in this and the
following sections.
Sixty-four percent oF inall users (only those who had been visiting Downtown Boulder for more than one
year; sea below for more details) said that they noticed the recent improvements to the mall. The
proportion of affirmative responses co this question rose considerably among City residents (79 percent)
and non-City County residents (70 percent).
Of those who did notice some of the recent improvements, 26 percent said they stay longer or come more
frequently as a result of the improvements. This result is impressive and should provide some aFfirmation
to the Downtown Boulder area for the recent improvements that have been completed.
Those who noticed some of the improvements were posed a follow up question, asking them to identify
the speciFic improvements they noticed. The most commonly cited improvements were the Fountain for
the kids, flowers, brickwork, general cleanliness and maintenance, and new parMng structures.
RRC ASSOCIATES 43
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVEY
F~cuRE 24
AWARENESS AND IMPACT OF MALL IMPROVENIENTS
BY V [SITOR TYPE ~
Percent Responding
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Yes
79 %
15% I ~ I I
No 22i° Have you noticed any of the recent
_ `g; """""""""~ 45 i° improvements to the mall?
Don't knawlnot sure
Yes
p~ / ^ City of Boulder Resident
~ Baulder Counry Resident
L1 Day Visitor
^ Ovemighl Visiror
33%
No
~ o~~° (1( yes) Do you stay langer or come
Don~t knowmoc sure 8,° ~~,~ mare frequenNy as a resulM.
2002
RRC ASSOCIATES 44
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVEY
ADVERTISING AWARENESS
2002
Overall, I9 percent said fhey saw an ad or information source for powntown Boulder prior to their visit,
with another 12 percent saying they saw an ad for an individual downtown merchant. Awareness of the
Downtown Boulder ads was highest nmong City residents, as 28 percent of this segment indicated
awareness prior to visiting downtown. The penetration of the ad campaign within the city appears to be
quite strong based on these results.
Among those who saw an ad or information source for powntown Boulder, 57 percent saw a newspaper
advertisement, 25 percent saw a bus panel, and I 1 percent cited a general or feature article about the
dawntown area. Overall, 26 percent also cited an `bther" source of the information. Radio, brochures,
television, web pages, and direct mail were not selected very frequently as advedising or information
sources.
Among city residents (who were most likely to have seen an ad or information source), the types oF
1d/info sources were similar to the overall, but the peaetration was higher. Among this segment, the most
commonly cited source was a newspaper article (67 percent), a bus pane! (32 percent), a generaU
feature article (13 percent).
RRC ASSOCIATES ~5
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVEY
No
Yes, general Downtown 8oulder
adlinfo
Yas, spacific merchant atllinfo
Newspaper
Othar
Bus panel
GeneraV teaNre article
Radio
Brochure
Direct mail
Television
Web page
Dodt remember
2002
RRC ASSOCIATES 46
FIGURE 25
ADVERTiSING AWARENESS
BY VfSITOR TYPE
PercentResponding
0% 10 % 20% 30% 40 % 50 % 60% 70% 80 % 90 %
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVEY
2002
PANHANDLER BEHAVIOR
A finul new topic was the issue of panhandlers and transients downtown. The objective was to try to
measure the impact that the behaviors of these individuals have on the downtown users. The question
was phrased, "On a scale From one to five, to what degree to the activities or behaviors of panhandlers or
transients impact your experience or enjoyment downtown?" The scale used was one meaning,
"Not at all" and five meaning, "Severe impact."
Ftcuxe 26
IMPACT OF BEHAVIORS OFTRANSIENTS ON ENJOYMENT DOWNTOWN
BY VISITOR TYPE
Percent Responding
1 •Notatail
5 - Savera impect
The results show that the reaction to the presence und behaviors of panhandlers is largely mixed. Thirty-
five percent said "Not at all," and another 22 percent rated the impact a two out of five, meaning that
about half of the respondent sample said there was little or no impact. Twenty-one percent gave a
response of three and I 1 percent each gave the question a four or five out of five. Thus, for nbout half the
respondent sample indicated a moderate to severe impact.
A follow up question asked if the respondent had ~ny comments about the panhandler issue. In general,
the comments indicated either that the behaviors did not bother the respondent, or that the respondent
thought they should be removed. In par[icular, several cited the negative impact on their children.
Some caution in interpreting the results is needed, however, because it appears that a few people
(particularly out of towners) thought that the term "panhandlers or transients° was referring to the street
performers on the mail. Comments such as, "Diddt sing very well," "Should be licensed to perform,"
and "They are funny to watch" suggest that these respondents were talking about street performers. The
quantity of such comments, however, was not significant enough to skew the results.
12RC ASSOCIAT~S 47
0% 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60%
DOWNTOWtV BOULDER USER SURVEY
2002
As well, a few comments indicated that the rating of a more severe impact (four or five out of five) was
actually a positive severe impact - that they like having transient people around. Again, such ratings
were not substantial enough to alter the results.
SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING THE DOWNTOWN AREA
A genernl question was asked of all survey respondents about any suggestions for improvements to the
downtown aren. The responses were qui[e broad in nature, but some common themes emerged in the
responses.
Suegestions from Local Residents
Local residents of the Boulder County area tended to focus their comments on eliminating homeless
people, more patrolling of the mall, especially at night, making the mall safer for women aC night, and
having a better directory of the stores on the matl. Notably, the responses included very few specific
references to parking. Some sample comments include:
Too many sfreet people. Businesses should post notices that they give Eco-Pass discounts.
Put back the grass, too much brick creates too much heat. Fountain is good.
Need mare directory signs, better info
More techno dancrng clubs
More patrolling of transients at night
Make it safer for women at night
Front of courthouse is sketchy - clean it up. Too many punk kids.
More live music at all times of the day
S~¢gestions from Visitors
Visitors a[so tended to focus on the street people in the suggesfions to improve the downtown area. The
other primary suggestion included making better maps, signage, or directories of the downtown area.
A fun place to visit - need more signs
More posters and inform people of events
More signs to direct people - like in malls
More street entertainment and music
Get rid of panhandlers
Don't change a thing, iPs beautiful
More restaurants - less chains. Get more bars with entertainment/music.
Not much to complain about, but 1 heard parking is terrib/e so we rode the bus
RRC ASSOCIATES 48
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVCY 2002
OTHER DOWNTOWN PATTERNS
Hozv Long Have Yoat Been Visiting Downtozvn Boulder?
A question asked all respondents how many years they had been visiting Downtown Boulder. With some
minor fluctuations, the patterns are largely similar to last year. Thirteen percent were maMng their first
visit, and another 10 percent have been visiting less than a year. The distribution of the remaining
participants is spread out among a number of years, including 29 percent who have been visiting more
than ten years. The average number of years is 6.3 a~d the median 5, flgures comparable to the past
several summers of research.
Is the Downtown Experience Improving or Declining?
Those who indicated that they have been visiting more than two years were asked if they thought the
downtown experience over the past several years has been improving, staying the same, declining, or
improving in some respects and declining in others.
Respondents were more likely to say that the downtown experience has been improving, and less likely to
say that it is declining. Overall, 43 percent said it was improving over the past several years, up from 33
percent last year. As well, only 7 percent said it was declining, down from 18 percent last year and 21
percent in 2000. The proportion responding that the downtown area was improving in some respects, but
declining in others was 18 percent, up from just 2 percent last year (when it was phrased "both" rather
than "improving in some respects, and declining in others."). The following grnph illustrates the pattern
of response to this question for the past four years.
FIGURE 27
OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS, HAS THE DOWNTOWtV BOULDER AREA
BEEN IMPROVING, DECLINING, OR STAYCNG TH8 SAME'?
1999 'ro 2002
so°io
5o io
~ aai
a
5
a
~ aoio
~
v
~
a 2o°ro
iaio
o^r
Improving Staying the same ~eclining Bolh
No matter the response, participants were asked why they felt the way they did about the direction of the
downtown experience. The results of the open-ended question are summarized below segregated by
RRC ASSOCIATES ~ 49
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVEY
2002
whether the survey participant is a resident of Boulder County or from outside the county. The reader is
encouraged to read the entire list of comments in the appendix section.
Qualihj of Experience Improving
Comments from Visitors
Comments from visitors about the improvements were varied, generally noticing the overall construction
and improvement efforts. Some comments are included below to give a tlavor of the types of things
visitars who thought downtown Boulder was improving said.
Fountain, stores look newer and cleaner, niCe lights
Lots of remodelrng
The appearance has rea/ly c/eaned up
Safer, better security, less panhand/ers or transients
People more pleasant, not as many young people
New bathrooms, f/owerbeds by the Bou/der Bookstore
Comments from Residents
Generally, comments from residents also included noticing many of the general improvements in the past
several years, atong with some comments about a better variety of shops, Some representative comments
include:
Appearance has improved
Gradually it just appears to be getting nicer
Lots of new addifions
New parking garages, renovations
Starting to clean up more, improvements are good
I've jusf noticed the improvements in landscaping
More uservfriendly, better variety of shops
Qualihj of Experience Improving in Some Respects, and Declining in Others
Comments from Visitors
Both visitors and residents with mixed comments noted that the number of transients was increasing
(which was a decline in the quality), though other facets of the experience were getting better.
Entertainment better, dirt and trash worse
Improving as she gets older; transients are more noticeable, less outdoor entertainment
The bums are still around, yet ihe landscaping is nicer
The transients seem to be growing in number, but it's still pretty
Comments from Residents
1 used to remember less homeless people who were also in your face
Corporate stores coming in (decl.); nice construction (impr.)
More crowded and noisy, but more new stores
Nightlife, good walking (impr.); trendy, high-end shops (decl.)
Too many people, prices are higher, less independent business '
RRC ASSOCIATES 50
DOWNTOWN BOULDER USER SURVEY 2002
Qatality of Experience Declining
Comments from Visitors
More chains
Too many cars. More than remembered on previous visit.
Number of stores and what they're se/ling - quality - tax too high
Overall fhings, clean/iness and transients
Comments from Residents
The comments about the area declining generally centered on the perceived preponderance of chain stares
in the downtown area.
Absence of independent businesses
Run down, more beggars, too many chains, rent too expensive for stores
Less variety, chain stores not good, pricey restaurants
Boulder is not allowing people to move in. Too many rich stuck up people.
M:WOBS1BOUIqe~Clry\~owntown Bouldar Visitor~2002 (1632~0~\firsl dralt 02.doc
RRC ASSOCIATES 51
City of Boulder
Sales & Use Tax Revenue Report
~~ ~~~'G~
~ ~~~~~
July, 2002 .
Issued September 12, 2002 ~
This report provides information and analysis related to sales and use tax collections for the fiscal year 2002. Any
questions should be directed to Tom Hagerty, Deputy Finance Director, at (303) 441-3001.
As illusuated in the following chart, July 2002 actual year-to-date sales and use tax revemie has decreased by 8.25°/o
over the comparable period in 2001.
The following excetpt from the Office of State Planning and Budgeting succinctly defines the past (and our
assumptions regarding the future) status of the economy in the State of Colorado.
The Cotorado economy has faltered and tl~e evidence of an economic turnaround at the national level still
eludes our state,... Economic conditions in the state declined quickly and dramatically in the fourth quarter
2001. While the events of September 11 certainly exacerbated the fall, the state economy was already
decelerating at the same time as the attacks.,.. The timing of the Colorado economic tumaround will
depend in large part on how the state's prominen[ advanced technology and tourism/travel sectors ---
sectors that that are among the hardest hit during this recession --- fare during the coming months. The
state economy was fueled by tl~e strength of these sectors, particularly telecommunications. The
precipitous economic downturn in Colorado occurred in part because of the dramatic heights to which the
stnte had climbed.... We wntinue to expect a slow recovery to materialize in the latter half of 2002 and
into 2003. ~
` JULY YEAR-TO-DATE COMPARISONS - 2002 VERSUS 2001
TA$ CATEGORY . % CHANGE . "/o of TOTAL
Retail Sales Tax -8.76% 78,74%
Business Use Tax -33.46°/a 10.81%
Cons[ruction Use Tax 109.38% 7.46°10
Motor Vehicle Use Tas -4.46°/a 3.07%
Refunds -76.13% -0.08%
Total Jul Sales/Use Tax -8.25% 100.00%
Of greater significance for idenYifying crends is the petcent change month by momh for the year.
REVENUE CATEGORY JAN FEB MAR APRIL MAY JUNE~
Retail Sales Tax -8.45% -13.04% -20.64% -1.96% -2.94% -5.51.%
Consumer Use Tax (incl. motor vehicles) -38.55% -37.05% -26.98% -13.72°/a -44.08% -23.52%
Constmction Use Tax 11J6% 70.66% 63.52% 158.60% 8.71% 531.06%
Total -1337% -10.74% -20.19% 1.47% -8.78% 1,52°/a
REVENUE CATEGORY JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC
Retail Sales Tax -1.85°/a
Consumer Use Tax (incl. motor vehicles) -20.03%
Constntction Use Tax -13.94%
Total -5.51 °{a
• Retail Sales Tax: Year-to-date growth is at -8.76% in the retail sales tax category, which makes up
approximately 79% of sales / use tax revenue. Althou~h several geographic areas in the City are positive
compared to 2001, there are no industry rypes. However, July showed the best monthly data for retail sales tax
in 2002 when compared to 2001.
~"Colorado Close-up, An Economic Newsletter, OfJice of Stnte Plnnning and Bt~dgeting, March 2002, p. 4.
Weakness are seen in the foliowing retail categories:
• "Poad Stores" decreased by 1.53%
~ "Eating Places" decreased by 2.22°/a
~ "Apparel 5tores" decelsed by 9.64%
• "Home Furnishings" decreased by 6.76%.
• "General IZetail" decreased by 12.62°l0
• "Transportation/Utilities decreased by 13.77°/a.
• "Consumer Electronics" decreased by 32.62%
• "Computer Related Business" decreased by 13.55%
• As with mnny other categories, core consumer retail (appnrel stores and general retail) suffered from both:
- competition from Flatiron Crossing Mall and new retail in surrounding communities, and
- the current recessionary environment.
The following chart details the "core consumer retail" components.
`CITYWIDE CORE RETAIL SALES TAX- JUGY YTD 2002 VEASUS 2001
Cate or 2001 2002 Variance
A arel Stores 1,424,622 1,287,321 9.64%)
Home Furnishin s 1,556,998 1,451,729 (6.76%)
General Retail 8,069,948 7,051,483 (12.62°/o)
Total 11,OS1,Sb8 9,790,533 (11.41%)
Given delays in redeveloping Crossroads Mall, interest exists regarding performance in the BURA area. The
following charts provide such information for the year:
CROSSROADS MALL - JULY Y'PD 2002 VERSUS 2001
Cate or 2~~1 2002 Variance
Retail Sales Tax 1,137,813 743,620 (34.64%)
Consumer Use Tax 9,385 6,724 41.02%)
Conshuction Use Tax 2,068 31 (98.50%)
Total 1,149,266 75Q376 (34.71%)
BURA EXCLUDING CROSSAOADS MALL - JULY YTD 2002 VERSUS2001
Cnfe or 200t 2002 Variance '
Retail Sales Tax 8,305,951 8,303,297 (0.03%)
Consumer Use Tax 174,314 215,806 23.80°fo
Consmiction Use Tax 76,688 86,603 12.93%
Tota1 8,556,953 8,605,706 0.57°/o
TOTAL BURA - JULY YTD 2001 VERSUS Z000
Cate o- 200Y 2002 Variunce
Retail Sales Tax 9,443,763 9,046,918 (4.20%)
Co~sumer Use Tax 183,700 222,530 2114%
Construction Use Tax 176,382 86,634 (50.88%)
Total 9,803,845 9,356,082 (4.57%
Motor vehicle use tax is currently showing a year-to-date decrease of 4.46% compared to 2001.
Constniction use tax is showin~ an increase of 109.38%. This increase is due to a laz~e number of projects being
built such at the hospitaL expansion at 47`h and Arapahoe and the activity at Williams Village by the Universiry.
Business use tax (the complement of B to B retail sales tax) has experienced a yeaz-to-date decrease of 33.46%.
The total s~et sales & use tax decrease of 8:L5% for the year does compare very favocably to the 9.98°/a decrease in
our revised budget. Plans to cover this decline have been implemented as required to live within resource constraints
for 2002.
The following graphs illustrate trends by t1x category over the three-year period, 2000 - 2002 through July and the
proportion of the total generated by each category of tax.
120,00%
100.00%
~
a~i 80.00%
T
~
~ 60.00%
a
5 40.00%
0
..
u~i 20.00%
rn
c
t 0.00%
u
o -20.00%
-40.00%
-60.00%
~Retail Sales
Tax
^Business
Use Tax
^ c;onstru~
Use Tax
p Motor
Vehicle Use
Tax
~ Total
Sales & Use Tax by Area
a 20. 00%
.`
~ 0. 00%
o ~
y T
-20.
00%
~
~ -40. 00%
~
° -60. 00%
~Crossroads
i~owntown Mall
^University Hili
aAll Other
^Total
Year
SALES/USE TAX BY CATEGORY
Consttuction Motor Vehicle
U~_ T.... I1.... T~X
Business Use
Tax
'~1%
Retail Sales
Tax
79 °/a
SALES & USE TAX TRENDS
YTD RETAIL SALES TAX
STRENGTHS: WEAKNESS~S:
• East Downtown up by 10.97"/o Core Retail Categories(General Retail, Appare]
• Basemaz up by 2.85°!o Stores & Home Furnishings) down by ll.41°/a
Downtown up by 2.03% • Bttilding Materials Retail down by 1.12%
• Basemar up by 2.85"/0 • Food Stores down by 1.53%
• Airport up by 9.13% • Eating Places down by 2.22°Jo
• The 211 other industry type category is down by
10.97%
• Consumer Electronics down by 32.62%
~ Computer Related Business down by 13.55%
• Pearl Street Mall down by 8.41%
• Crossroads Mall down by 34.64%
• Public Utilities down b 13.49%
YTD USE TAX '
STRENGTHS: WEAKNESSES
• Metro Denver is up by 66.24% Gunbarrel Industrial down by 29.18%
• The Meadows is up by 20836% • Boulder County down by 71.65%
• University of Colorado is up by 306532°/o ~ Boulder Industxial down by 0.99°l0
~ Construction Use is ttp by 96.72% • Public Utilities down by 66.26%
• North Broadway is up by 192.06"/0 • Pearl Street Mall is down by 31.18%
• BURA is up by 20.48%
COMBINED SALES & USE TAX
STRENGTHS: WEAKNESSES:
• Construction Use Tax is up by 10938% • General Retail down by 15.84°/o
• Downtown is up by 9.66% • Appazel Stores down by 9.59%
• North Broadway up by 15.14°/o • Food Stores down by 1.06%
• University Hill up by ~.97% • Pearl Street Mall down by 1127%
~ University of Colorado up by 349.59°/a • Public Utilities down by 18.97%
• The Meadows up by 4.13% • Crossroads Mall down by 34.71 %
• Business Use Tax down b 33.46%
OTHER TAXES
. Admissions Tax is down by 1.88%
. Accommodations Tax is down by 10.24%.
02_07STXI:doc
JULY 2002 SALCS AND US~ TAX RGVENOES
Totnl Net Sules/Use Tax Receipts by Tax
Sales Tax 35,A07,803 32,672,433 -8.7G% 78.74%
BusinessUseTlx 6,742,608 4,486,197 -33.46% 10.81%
Construction Use Tax 1,479,085 3,096,872 10938% 7.46%
Motor vehicle 1,331,328 1,272,O12 -4.46% 3.07"/0
Reftmds -135,254 -32,279 -76.13% -0.08%
Totnl Sales und Use Tax 45,225,570 41,495,236 -8.25'% 100.00%
Totnl Net Sales/Use Tax Recei
h'ood Stores - 5,252,! 12 5,196,662 -1.06% 12.52%
EatingPlaces 4,846,368 4,693,302 3.16% 1131%
Apparel Stores ~ 1,430,266 1,293,074 -9.59% 3.12%
Home Furnishings 1,562,594 I,458,917 -6.63°/a 3.52%
GeneralRetail 8,818,586 7,422,073 -I5.84°/a 17.89%
Transportntion/Utilities 4,364,393 3,575,697 -18.07"/0 8.62%
Automotive Trade 3,531,497 3,433,941 -2.76% 828%
Bnilding Material-Retail 1,049,747 1,035,740 -133% 2.50%
Construction Use Tax 1,577,048 3,102,403 96.72% 7.48%
Construction Sales Tax 185,671 185,180 -026% 0.45%
ConsumerElectronics - 971,110 771,638 -20.54"/a 1.86"/0
Computer Related Business Sector 4,265,836 3,292,082 -22.83°/a 7.93%
A110[her 7,505,597 6,066,806 -1917% 14.62%
Refunds -135,254 -32,279 -76.13% -0.08%
Total Net Sales/Use Tax
Area
Downtown(formerCAGID) 2,573,046 2,821,724 9.66°/ 6.80%
Downtown Extension 334,066 281,942 -15.60% 0.68%
UHGID (the "hilP') 491,641 496,402 0.97% 120%
East Downtown 341,513 339,625 -0.55% 0.82%
N.28thSt.Commercial 2,747,637 2,489,191 -9A1% 6.00%
N. Broadway Annex 82,392 80,967 -1.73% 020%
University of Colorado 322,457 1,449,724 349.59% 3.49%
Busemar 71Q009 699,176 -1.53% 1.68%
BURA (w/o xrds) 8,556,953 8,G05,706 0.57% 20.74%
Cmssroads 1,t49,266 950,376 -34.71% 1.81%
Table Mesa 1,013,599 991,797 -2.15% 239°/a
TheMeadows 602,I20 626,961 4.13% I.S]°/a
All Other Boulder 2,443,294 2,209,504 -9.57% 532%
BoulderCounry 1,214,181 524,586 -56.80"/0 1.26%
MetroDenver 1,944,885 1,811,151 -6.88% 436%
Colorado Atl Otlier 156,616 81,389 -48.03% 0.20%
OutofStute 5~322~948 4~266~162 -I9.85% 10.28%
Airport 10,628 9,436 -11.21% 0.02%
Gunbarrellndustrial 2,794,547 2,036,218 -27.14% 4.91%
GunbarrelCommercial 507,924 479,351 -5.63% LI6%
Penrl Street Mall 1,465,169 1,300,004 -11.27% 3.13%
Boulder Industrial 4,505,564 4,261,052 -5.43% I0.27°/a
Unlicensed Receipts 748,818 221,983 -70.36°/a 0.53%
County Clerk 1,331,328 1,272,012 -4.46% 3.07%
PublicUtilities 3,439,619 2,787,103 -18.97% 692%
Refunds -135,254 -32,279 -7613% -0.08%
Total Sales and Use Tux 45,225,570 41,495,236 -8.25% 100.00%
Miscelianeous Tax Statistics ~ ZU01 ~~.~ ~: -. 2002 ~~ ~' ~. ~ °l Change
Total Food Service Tax 219,963 216,847 -1.42%
BURA Area Food Service Tax 52,429 48,925 -6.68%
AccommodntionsTax 1,565,014 1,404,748 -10.24"/0
Admissions T~x 236,917 232,453 -1.88°/a
License Fees 15,650 16,250 3.83'%
TOTALCRYSALESAN~USETAXGOLLECTIONS ~ I I ~
REVENOECAtEGQRY' 3 I YEkR EI JAN ~ ~Kf6 I MAR ~ AP0." I MRY .~: JUN I ::3131 I A[!G ~ SfP [_I n(.`F I:. ii NOV ~ -CEC ~ 7dYAE ~°/aEHG :
RETAILSALESTAX
i 19~ ; 2899080~ 39263~2- 3,]016]6 3,'It9,126i 3,220,459~ 3,929,526 4,206,102~ 6,Ofii.i92i 3,988,229 3,496,5~0; 3348,9]11 5,522,692; 44.923,595I 16.]4%
__
,__._ ~
__ 1995 !_ ,
31125]6
~
31t840t
4,201918
3,233.841~
3,393,302~ I
4,33],509
3,228,000 3,]15,299 4,4~0,000 3,598,588:,
_ 35509]9~ _5,268,]34i 4572].153
~ 0.68%
RateCM1g2.86/>3A1h 1996 3,68]063~~~
__
3,534,942 4,630,]24_ 3,960,402: 3,836,O61i __
4,]66,298 __
3,960,OA0~ 4,133,563!
_
5,263,630 4,021,1]0'~
; 3,8]3,452j 6,01],666~
_
51,68501 5.~9%
_.- _"___-_- -__
~
_ -
19W
4,021,t98;
3,490,839I
4.549.082'
4,104,956'
-
4,029,425 ____ _
4,94],334 -___._..
4211,869 ..
4.3G0.040' ____-_
S,248,68] _ _.__
..
4,052,fi25'. ..__-
4,249,481~'~,
_..... ..
6,502388~
__
53,]61,930i
d.~3%
-
RateChg3d1%>326% ~ _
1998 _~-_
~ 4115,t42 ~
4,142,135 Sp55302'
~ ___
428],e9] 4514,65/j 5,480,11] 4,346,353 _
4,~61165- ...___
5,616,609 4,048,]99 4826,835~i 6,]04,344i ,
5],899,464i 2.]3%
- _ _
Rate326% ~
1999 -_
4342t50
' -
4112965 --
5.693583
. . ._.._
4694,105 ___
5235'l92~
61t03S/
4886659
5,039,548 _'
6,125,483 _
9909.120- '
5t644fi4 ~"_
],~32320
64,946345~_
11.31a
_.
_ _ _
~
_ - _ _ _ .
2000 ,
_
- 4,450553: ....
51t6135. _-_
6,066890 -_
4,126,230 ___ '
484]958~ __
63]3594I, _ ..
4942506 __.
5,153,202 6,056,21~ 5,225099' 4858t52-
- __. ._
8,0801]4
~ _....
66,6961701 3.49%
-
_. _...
j
~ _ ~ _- J
2001 - .._
~~. 495/526 .-
4,089,252~
6,24]3J1. .__..._
9,635,636 .._..""
6826,201I . _~_._
fi1900d~~ _.
~
4,4fi36851 -_
y,gqp,590;
5,888,513- .; _
4,~92.0]6i .
d.5t8,6501 -
6,822.30]I
62,669,849I
-6.ad%
_.
Z002
45
46
.
39
3
.....
4,956202
45C6,590
__ ,
4682,3~0~ 56 43
' I-... . . 32.6]2433
._~
Cha ge_fmmpnoryear(MOnN) ~~ ~
~% -L96/ 290% A.51%
9 1 65Y ..
~ ~ 10000%
~ ~ ~ 10000% _
10000/j 10000% I _
Cha gefrom or ear
_ P Y I~) ~
_ ..
~45Y
._
1063%^
1461Y
..
11.]3/
-
1004%~
6%
]6%
-8
~
19,62k
-
2919%
3635Y, i
-9150/~ __
-418]%
_
-
T
LONSUMERUSETA% ~
..' _-
1990 _
361090 _
306029i
5]p402
304,0531 ~"
2602]1
~ -_
1011]58
MSfi40
480664 -
515,000
566103~
~
0.598N
1
_ ~
~~5.430
_ ~
5,943310I
-
21d%
i
~ 1995 345126~ 426,090, ]26612
'
,
4]3,103
__' _
_
552.789
_.
2.022,038
-
.
T16,4]]
-._
_ _
$G2181
. .
. _"-
660,456 ]55,310~
.
_ 6594d0
' 969.]99 8.929 d19 ~
~
RateChg2.86/ 311/0
~ 1996 , 486245. 549494'_ ]08~84 593,865~ ~
86498] 802344 51]t24 5/0263 ]41,822 G]]G90~'. 61]010i t,111.226 8,240654 15.13%
. __ .. .. - _-
-._.... I
19W ,_
- 54891]i
- . ' ' _
496254 -__
]03565- '
___
f
667G87
~ ... __
{
469,656I
- ....
1.OA5.788 _
_.
754.834 __._...
659312
8]6,052
698,353~
SS174]i -
~.01134~
.~...." - -
8,480]O6
2.91%
-
RateCh93.11/>326% I
_ .__ ._ 1998 ]3~.55~1 521.621~ 1.060.009i
.'. ..._
908.628'~ 6G1.896 181.]5t 698.WO~I ]61.515i 838.403' 616.103~ ]22.449~1 1,29].6231 9.6322211 835°k
' '
Rte3.2fi%
~
i999 ' _ _i_
_ 686fi231 .
]18,6t2
8]9496 ___
585,8fi3 --_ _
608,465 -____. _
914,Ofifi __-__ __
969,355I _-
8fi]fi92. _-
1086,901
686517 -
5]2380~, .__
1,4]6495 _.
- _
10.132610I ...
5490
,
. .___ I
......
2000 .
~ 699142~
-..
- _
-
784,SW -
988545 _. ..__-
809.7221 ___'_
113,927~
ip54,603
78],906
946Z77.
--
1,295,039
~
69~305~
..... .
90 9
.. -
1620215
11,098124I
9.53%
~ 2001 116593] 899129 1,R1836 908.fi29 8891911 142]618 101168]i 3/52]2 955683 1.4t5169~i 148]A8. t.090556~ 13.259454~ 19.4]%
_ __ 2002 1164fi2~ 565916 ~,293800 ]83.956 49]23] 491~]9 808999~ ~ - i 5,958209i ~
CM1 g fr mp o y ar~MOnlh~
.
. ._
3855/I
3]OS/
-2698h
13.]2kl
-0408b ~
2352/
...~..
20~3/1
_
i40.00/
..~....
10000%
10000Y
10000/
40000T
- - _'__ I
"
- ~
CM1an efiom tt
g
proryear~ D) ~
. _ - ..._
3855%- -
d~90%~. -3286Y _... _-
29d9/
_ " -_'
3154%I
_i
. 2992°h
. II 28fi6Yi_ _36.3]/ 42.45%
...
.___ ~49.58%,-
_ 5266k. -565]Y~ ~
~ i
, l 151.5321 i
I
~ 92988; 234.322~1 1.]042931 3.fi4°o
_ _
1 _. _
. __
' _, _ _
._
_
385539 _
t13,800
1t0505
_
'~246 103,600I 1736669I 1.90%
_
Rz[eChg2.86Y 311 0
_ 1996 '~ 190,399~ 84~48 139]68I T
~03,638' -
1~4,901~ 131,546 18h,8
t8
~ 135581 293,2fie 29596T
~
~
101310~
- '
225212
"'"-"-
2.061155~
9.14%
.._._...
_ 19W
~ ,
~_ 160.391'~, 138.63fi~ 1852]6; _
162.0]1. 222.809 I 4 5 ~99663
1 2.14308]I 3.98%
I_
11°/a
>326%
'.,_
_
~ . 26]
9]5' 1]9
]00 -~~~
~~ ~-
~
9
~~ 262
~48
~~ t]8
061 280231 192
~ 2421fi9 2
5/3501 14
56%
-
_
-
~ 1
] .
....-~" .
I _
,
,
..f_ ,
..- ,
- , T ,
._ ;
-
Ra[e3.26o
~ ~9 . 154,009 1
]
.
06
~ 223
83~ 213
553- 240
980 315896 1
0tW 216
111 419,966 136124 158510~ t44611 2,5656t0 -0.31%
._._..",____--_ I
2000 _.
r 239,212i _ '_
4]Q528' ,
168969 .
364,250 .
355225i
140,920I
388A10 ,
,
253,94AI __
229,0]0 _
259,312~ - _
1]3,901 "-'_
249]441
~
3,298682
28.58%
_""" 2001 ' 191496: 331,3]6: 1~2.691 1]t.14] 198.124; 18I243
r 22].009~ 31t.433
~ ~ 411.44fi 319.~83_ 194.510. 166293~ 2.941850
..
.~ -00.82%
_
___.- _
2002 ..
274010 _
5655t9
~
- 282.392 442.58] 2153841~ 1187.606 _
t95.3141 _,
~' ' -. ._ _~ ..3.0968]2~
~ _......_
Changefmmpnoryear(MOnth)~ ,
, 11]6% ...._
]066%
~~ -
6352/0'
~58.60%
8.7'I/~
~ -
4%~
400.00% -
t00.00%
10000%
10000%
40000%~
~
.
....
Chan9efmmPnorYearl~) ! ii]6%; 49.09%: 526]k~~ ~ ~ 13.59/0 6152%i 131]3%I~~ 109.38%~I ~2.96%~il~ ....36.91% 1999%, t158Y S.T/%j ~
TOTAL FOR MONTH 8 CHANGE
.......... _ .._ FROM PRE1/IOUS YEAR MONTH & YTD
.--~ -
~ - I
,
I '
I ~
' '
'
I '
'
...__"
-..__
1990 _ 34068~i~. ..,
3,8fi8640_ ""-
4,396229: _
3,544,256. 3,62Q253~, 5098816~ -_"
4189449 _-
4,65]13T ...____'"_
4,632,142 4t]8,592'~, 3,901,ffi9. 6,4]244t~ 52,S11198 t2A6%
- _- ._...... _.
~
- .
. _ ._ _
-_
~
~
~
. _.....
.._ .... .
._._.._
-___ _
' -_. ... ....._
--
5'.893241i
~
6ffi%
Rate2_._86%>311/
.....__...
i996
d,363]OB
~
''_
41fi9184
-
6
5,4]9215.
4,651,905
_-
98~5,949
~_
57~O,t88
~-
466t982~
- ~
t
6,B39401
~
9
R
6,298,]20
]2 _
4.934,62]! _ '
4591J12
6 i
~.35C.1 61,986822~ t99%
_
i 1991 ~ 4,]30506_ _'
4,
23$29: _- _
5,q31,923 4,928,514; _
4,
]21
,890
~ __
6,1653]31 5,16
335! "___
22,6
~
S.
- _
6,32A2 4,80480! 5002,09
~ ~
1,93,19 64.39t.]22i 388%
--
Rate311%>326/0 1998 4,981.403' ._
48]0405~ 6,365d]T, _ .
5.464,499I 5,362,333I T
6.4]5,655', 5234.9961 5,185668. ___'-'_
6,633,0]4- _
4,945,]33'~, 5,~41~9]9~', 8,240,186 ]4,105,iB61 3.86%
@Rate3~26/
I 1999 `
]82 5,fi03Ae1 6
596915~' i 6
165
236 ]
340.319~ 6025
922~ 6,123351 ]632,350 5,131]5~1 5&95,354' 9,353,3]61, T/,144365~ 10.06%
-
_. __
~ 2000 ~
~'' S,30890]' _
63TT1]0 _
],223905'' 5~9002~z
I ,
,
5,9R,~ ,
~
1,569,ii61~ ,
fiii8.521 6,353423 8380,325 6,181775'~. 5932,990~~. 9,'l50.132r 81,0935'IS 5.12%
~~, 6,314,951:
5,]19]56-
8,191,903.
5,]15,410
5,911,516
],804,901
5)02,381
___
6,12],295'
],315.641-
6,526,3281
~
_
5461,90
9: B,W915
6, ~8,8]1153 -214%
20U2
5,469.216;
5035449:
6,534,394-~
5,]I1133,
5,394,991I
7,936,839
5385A93i
Q'_
O
O
~
~
~
I
_
41
LessrePonds&L¢ensefee
-'_ - 1999 - -05525 30111 -102N8 24,856' -09,329 E261j J634i -3]5] -],500 2150 51252
_ ' 2T/5~1
- -3302]31
__
..._._._
LessreFundsonly ~
' 2000 _'
- 1191_ _"_
3666 -1463t, "__
-21,632~ 0 i~,]6]~ d2201I 192 3,824 59]0~ tT]481, ]038I -295999i
...
Lessrefundsonly
~~ ~~~~~
...._ 2001 ~ 2981~ '~
~8930 ~~~
-20.4]4` -21,8fi0 ~~~~~
-0,W6 -04]~ ~
3486i ~-8226 -3.2]9 5182:~ ~ 0' ~~~3839
~ t5]780~
- _ _ _
_
~~-'~--
2002
_ i.t54
~
230 ~ 3.23T •~3I 32] . . _.... , ~: -32.219~
_
__
AdJUSt¢dfOfel
1 1998 ~'~
' 4864980.. .6.354.63fi -
Sp51.853
. 5,252,39~ 6,420,446 5214.661
~ __
5,]836]3 ..._
6483,640 4,941969 5624035~ 8,2233]2~ ]5,91201~I
°
......... ....._-.
1999
_
;
S~]25]'
S5]33]0' ...__
6.494p91~, ___ ~
Sp68,665~~ _.__ _ _
6,it5,90]I ..i
].334,053i
6p21,2891~
.
6,119.595. __
].624.850
5,]29,6W;
5044102'
9,3506011
]6,814092~
__
1.19%
'-
°
-_ -- 2000 j 5,38],110- - ._.._.'"_
63]3504: ],2092]d~ 5,8]8,n0' S,91],HO ].551.399~i 6,W6,321r 6,353231. 83]6,5011 6,1]5.~0.5i __
5,~55.5091 9.]43a94~ T
80.]9Z51]I
._. 5.19%
_.._
-
•
' _ _ _ .. _
. ._
2001
_ '
; 6,311,9]6
.
~5,640826.
8,1]1,429
-_ _..._ . .
5,68],550 _
5.910.A39 _--,_
~804,65q
_
5698,8951
~
6,119,069
-
_
],312,362
__
6S2t.i0fi'
54619031
_
....
6.W33t]j
]0.Tt3.3]3I
.
-2.58°/a
. .
-20U2~ ' S468062.~ _ _
5035219 _ _.
6,521Z58 5,]]1,t33 5391,]52 ],922,846 __
__
5,384,96~1i __
0 _
0 .
0~ 0 0~ 41.495,2361
/Gnange(manN) I ' -133]%~~ 10]4%. -2019/ 1.41/~ -8.~8%1 1.52%l 'S.St%I
. -10000%- 400.00% 14000%~ t0000o; -10000/i
....__ i
...._
_"__
%Chan9e(YTD)
I 133]%I
' 1213% -
1540% ..
4'1.69Y ....
it tbb ___
~
-864 o A25%, -1418/: -
2926% ~634Y
_ "
-4126Y -0128/ r
~
i _ . :., -
.... ~
_
__"_
I
~
I
--
-.- .
..
USE >< SALES
COMPARISON OF YLAR-TO-DATE ACTUAL RGVENUE FOR THE YEAR 200Z TO COMPARABLE YEN[OD IN 2001
USE TAX BY CATEGORY
SALES TAX BY CATEGORY
~l1QI 217(f2 ;i Standard Industriut Code I!2001 2Q02 1ncr~(Decc}:j
45,672 69,978 53.22% Food Stores 5,206,440 5,126,684 -1.53°/a
178,132 128,877 -27.65°/a Eating Places 4,668,236 4,564,425 -2.22%
5,644 5,753 1.93% Apparel Stores 1,424,622 1,287,321 -9.64%
5,596 7,188 28.45% HomeFumishings 1,556,998 1,451,729 -6.76%
748,638 370,590 -50.50°/a General Retail 8,069,948 7,051,483 -12.62%
410,655 166,241 -59.52% Transportation/Utilities 3,953,738 3,409,457 -13.77%
1,351,262 1,280,355 -5.25% AutomotiveTrade 2,180,235 2,153,585 -1.22"/0
9,655 7,312 -24.27% Building Material-Retail 1,040,091 1,028,428 -1.12%
1,577,048 3,102,403 96.72% Construction Use Tax 0 0 na
0 0 na Construction Sales Tax 185,671 185,180 -0.26"/0
-75,994 66,072 -186.94% ConsumerElecuonics 1,047,104 705,566 -32.62°/a
2,107,097 1,425,916 -3233% ComputerRelatedBusiness 2,158,738 1,866,166 -13.55"/0
3,189,615 2,224,395 -30.26°/a AllOther 4,315,982 3,842,411 -10.97%
9,553,021 8,855,082 -7.31°/o Total Sales and Use Tax 35,807,803 32,672,433 -8.76%
USE TAX BY CATEGORY SALES TAX BY CATEGORY
2~~~ ~ 21D¢2 ~ ;;IricrF(DdaC} ;: Geographic Code I2001 ~ ;ij 2p0~ ;;;I ~cr/(D~9t};;
44,442 129,798 192.06% NorthBroadway 506,160 504,174 -039%
184,336 384,541 108.61"/o CAGID 2,388,710 2,437,183 2.03°/n
31,641 8,239 -73.96% Downtown Extension 302,425 273,703 -9.50%
5,195 12,295 136.68°/a UHGID (the "hill") 486,447 484,108 -0.48%
71,320 39,798 -44.20% East Downtown 270,193 299,827 10.97%
84,984 131,067 54.23% N. 28th St. Commercial 2,662,653 2,358,123 -11.44%
1,867 660 -64.64% N. Broadway Annex 80,524 80,306 -0.27°/a
36,815 1,165,315 306532% UniversityofColorado 285,642 284,409 -0.43%
33,505 3,720 -88.99% Basemaz 676,204 695,456 2.85%
251,003 302,408 20.48% BURA 8,305,951 8,303,297 -0.03%
11,453 6,755 -41.02% Crossroads 1,137,813 743,620 -34.64%
2,154 5,540 157.24% Table Mesa 1,011,446 986,257 -2.49%
16,953 52,276 208.36% TheMeadows 585,167 574,685 -1.79%
1,162,387 997,346 -14.20% AllOtherBoulder 1,280,908 1,212,157 -5.37%
460,218 13Q450 -71.65% Boulder County 753,964 394,137 -47.72%
83,026 138,024 6624% Metro Denver 1,861,859 1,673,128 -10.14%
7,657 6,046 -21.03% Colorado All Other 148,959 75,343 -49.42%
365,742 72,688 -80.13% OutofState 4,957,206 4,193,474 -15.41%
2,089 117 -9438% Aixport 8,540 9,319 9.13%
2,328,512 1,649,169 -29.18°/o GunbanelIndustrial 466,035 387,049 -16.95%
1,045 19,692 1784.77% Gunbarrel Commercial 506,879 459,660 -932%
184,035 126,658 -31.18% PearlStreetMall 1,281,134 1,173,346 -8.41%
2,028,761 2,008,639 -0.99% Boulder Industrinl 2,476,803 2,252,413 -9.06°/a
465,150 71,337 -84.66% UnlicensedReceipts 283,668 150,646 -46.89%
1,331,328 1,272,012 -4.46% County Clerk 0 0 -
357,104 120,489 -66.26"/o Public Utilities 3,082,514 2,666,614 -13.49%~
9,553,021 8,855,082 -7.31"/a Total Sales and Use Tnx 35,807,803 32,672,433 -8.76%
Sales Tax Revenues Generated on the Downtown Mall by SIC Code
Food
Eating
Apparel
Home
Gen. I
~~,
Stores Piaces Stores Furnish. Merchandise All Others GR4ND TOTAL
2000 (sales Wx rate of 326 %)
January 3,022 62,358 36,138 73,766 42,65D 7,168 159,702
Febmary 3,911 57,3'16- 36,463 '15,'181 46,647 1,854 16'1,372
March 3,681 67,414 - 47,828 15,954 51,268 '15,857 202,756
April 3,942 71,447 47,302 16,464 4A,6'I1 2,978 '186,745
May 3,268 6'1,904 47,897 18,253 59,424 7,591 192,336
June 3,695 86,573 68,486 '19,'14'I 78,333 14,2'it 271,'117
July 3,428 89,225 51,880 21,405 6D,405 425 226,768
August 3,481 82,769 52,594 '19,144 68,390 152 226,529
September 3,379 70,486 45,233 18,966 59,699 8,667 208,844
October 3,481 89,848 44,255 t8,233 47,560 410 203,788
November ~ 3,491 58,396 35,'138 22,308 47,469 '102 166,904
December 7,717 6Q521 60,427 46,059 '101,330 32,832 3'16,929
2000TOTAL 46,496 866,256 573,642 244,875 707,786 8Q248 2,522,592
2001 (sales taz rate of 3.26 %)
January "1,674 56,532 32,6'17 12,4'i6 42,158 1,374 146,772
Febmary 1,701 60,970 27,331 '13,791 45,466 (59) 149,260
March 6,852 77,876 36,595 18,'152 39,893 19,778 '199,146
April 3,694 75,748 3'1,870 14,630 35,964 '1,095 163,001
May 3,206 75,382 39,473 16,089 50.,073 222 '188,A45
June 3,7~5 80,883 49,307 17,639 63,980 5,767 221,285
July 3,430 93,'157 38,808 19,669 58,268 ('106) 213,226
August 3,386 89,772 43,421 21,027 54,~2'1 285 21"I,g}2
September 3,393 75,863 39298 '16,228 49,377 8,559 192,719
Oc[ober 3,220 72,962 31,048 16,845 40,414 793 '165,282
November 3,185 59,080 29,685 20,423 45,418 46t 156,250
December 7,375 58,901 46,473 40,872 99,86'I 10,452 263,934
2001 TOTAL 44,832 677,125 445,92'1 227,780 628,913 48,661 2,273,230
2002 (sales tax rate of 326 % ~
January 2,5~1 54,76'I 22,545 12,836 34,775 39 127,470
February 3,473 57,608 22,745 12,841 30,698 ~75 127,539
March 2.234 61,752 25,790 13,945 43,'132 7,859 '154,713
A ril 4,525 78,832 31,453 13,948 49264 386 778,407
May '1,950 84,922 29,221 '16,333 51,347 448 184,220
June 4,983 87,935 39,344 15,875 61.90'I 10,216 214,254
July 3,224 86,784 26,302 75,956 53,737 740 186,744
Auqust ' ' ' - ' - _
September - - - - - _ _
October - - - - - - _
November
December - - - - - - _
200'I TOTAL 22899 506593 '19740'I 101735 324854 '19863 '1,173.346
Total % Change from 2000-2001- I -3.58%I 1.25%I .-22.27%I -6.98%I -11.14%
Total % Change from 2001-2002 -5.66% -2.68% -22.89% •9.48% -4.40%
% Change from previous year month -6.00% -6.84°/, ~222% -18.88% -7.78%
Sales TaY Revenues Generated in CAC~ID (Excluding the Mal1) by SIC Code
of 326 % )
of 326 % ~
of 326%)
Apparel Home Gen. Auto: GRAND
Food Stores Eatinp Plares Stores Furnish. Merchantlise Trensport All Others TOTAL
1,868 721,920 47,7t3 20,160 100,003 772 10,975 297,585
1,868 743,078 38,402 28,507 95,772 2,936 77,052 329,325
2,t00 15t,400 47,550 34,377 776,338 699 29,007 383,272
2.t76 144.246 49.937 78.336 98.898 7,986 70.444 326.787
2,373 748,850 48,065 '15,65'I 7'17,546 7,476 74,389 342,]38
2,379 768,576 57,566 27,876 140,585 1,550 32,872 431,558
2,422 t56,695 49,495 ~8,~14 772,960 1,644 ~7,953 352,084
2,267 761,667 47,358 14,052 772,239 1,fi56 13,722 353,261
2,400 763,433 48,256 39,183 727,868 7,423 32,055 408,624
2,250 78t,352 58.618 20,073 117,337 1,627 77,9t5 367,330
7,84fi 726,707 40,585 13,187 170,955 1,038 17,839 306,744
2,174 769,934 53,533 43,778 201,045 909 84,245 55fi,fi69
26,003 7,039,745 587,0]2 293,828 7,433,485 1~,]75 276,407 4,474,777
1.883 132,767 32,590 17,272 ~ 87.887 572 t3.408 286.319
7.814 129,935 34,55t 77.520 91.327 552 13,4'IB 289.1'17
2.792 167.828 43.276 27.427 708,9]4 681 25.829 3]8.057
2,395 150,610 42,0'IS 75,452 96,605 746 15,549 323,372
2,503 760,712 47,618 76,943 709,383 796 11,391 349,345
2,586 t67,640 37,078 22,fi73 147,885 839 39,413 408,653
2.676 165,75~ 45,055 14,093 116,677 934 9,72g 354,908
2,752 t78,906 46,852 i5,fi2t 1U,229 926 11,631 374,173
2,588 165,810 50,342 20,074 t38,722 805 20,147 398,576
2,375 t57,35~ 50,410 22,980 706,830 569 9,82fi 350,339
2,177 t48,674 38,334 42,052 114,490 662 8,459 354,787
2,475 153,074 56,885 26,419 784,208 464 18,233 442,443
28,4'I6 '1,878,996 525,004 258,406 1,474,270 6,567 792,034 4,370,090
1,996 t36,362 32,160 78,789 92,083 658 t3,fi96 29fi,222
2,188 15D,103 33,044 13,793 87,867 - 8,72t 295,828
2,243 163,049 41,522 79,420 107,865 749 23.669 359,339
2.481 Ut.628 46,844 78,667 94.414 727 17.897 346,652
2,564 177,56~ 45,733 17,703 t08,719 857 1~,886 365,342
2,582 786,485 44,528 28,Ofi8 133.776 880 25,086 422,082
2,748 '164,5t4 38,742 19.262 t16p18 853 9.139 351,719
76.802 ~ 7.749.707 ~ 282,573 ~ 135,695 ~ 740.542 I 4.724 I 702,495 I 2.437,~83
TotalkChangefrom2000-2U07 I 9.28% 2.13% -9.65% -12.06% -7.34% -57.64% 30.52% 3.68%
Total % Change from 200'I-2002 4.69% 6.92% 0.14% 3.36 % -'1.62% -7.74% -'17.'17 k 1.98q
%Changefrompreviousyearmonth 2.70% -0.75% -14.01% 36.68% -0.22% -8.74% -6.06% -0.90%
In the frst quarter of 2001, an adjustmenc of $72,908.62 was matle to the "all othef' category for sales tax revenue from uniicensed ventlors who were inadvertantly induded
in CAGID. The City's infortna[ion has not been adjus[ed, therefore, fheir numbers wiil always be higher and different [han those in this report.
Downtowns of the Future
Mary Jo Waits
Morrison Institute for Public Policy
Morrison Institute for Pub{ic Policy - Arizona State University
The 4 Faces of Downtowns
Morrison Institute for Public Policy - Arizona State University
The 4 Faces of Downtown~
2. Retail/Service (1970s)
Economic identity - Place for commerce & goods
Main Customers
Key Amenities
- Real estate developers
- "Mom & Pop" stores
- Retail centers
- High rises
- Shopping centers
- Parking
Downtown Leadership - Cornpetes for real estate &
big retail
Morrison Institute for Public Policy - Arizana State University
The 4 ~aces of Downtowns
Creative (1990s-2010s)
Economic Identity
Main Customers
Key Amenities
- Place to create & incubate new
knowledge
- "Knowledge workers"
- Entrepreneurs
- Universities
- fnfiormation-based services
- Artists
- Cultural diversity
- Night life -
- Fiber-optics -
- Compact -
Networks
Live-work
Density
Downtown Leadership - Competes for talent, soft- technology
firms & smaller-scale amenities
Morrison Institute for Public Policy - Arizona State University
The Challenge for
Economic Developm~nt
How do ideas come about?
We know 2 very pertinent things:
• Ideas require intelligent seeding;
• Ideas that sit on the shelf are worthless. ideas
have to move, grow, and touch lots of people
and businesses ~o provide benefi~s.
Morrison Institute for Public Policy - Arizona State University
Cities Leading in the Digital Age
First tier: Manhattan, San Francisco, Boston,
Los Angeles and Chicago traditionally held
"the strongest appeal for artists,
creative individualists and
predominately younger educated people."
Emerging: Omaha, Qoise, Baltimore and ~ayton
(cities near or less than 500,000 persons)
"They offer several advantages to firms,
knowledge workers and enterprises over
their first-tier counterparts." Lower costs
of living, a supportive business
environment, and often concerted effort~to
lure and nurture new industries.
Source: The Milken Institute, 2001
Morrison Institute for Public Policy - Arizona State University
What a Difference a
Decade Makes
Important Trends for powntowns
of the Futu re
• 3 key demographic trends
• 4 business trends
Morrison Institute for Public Policy - Arizona State University
Demographic Trends
2. Place still matters:
Though highly mobile, t~lented people will
set down roots in regions and
communities that provide a rich and
supportive environment for their
endeavors. ~
"Very sophisticated consumers of place"
-- Edward Glaeser
Morrison Institute for Public Policy - Arizona State University
Amenities & Education
Level/Knowled e I ntensity
g
Median ~louse Pri
~iv~i°~it~r Iricl~x
Climate
Recreation
Source: Richard Florida, Competing in the Age of Talent, January 2000
Morrison Institute for Public Policy - Arizona State University
Business Trends
1. No indu~try i~ "bolted down":
Information, multi-media, telecom, and
software companies are extremely
footloose in comparison to yesterday's
economic leaders.
Morrison Institute for Public Policy - Arizona State University
Business Trends
3. There is a"soft" side of the
technological revolution
The "hard" side includes ac~ivities such as the
production of fiber optics and chips, while the
"soft" side is "focused primarily on such
fundamentally creatively drawn fields as media,
fashion, advertising and design."
-- "Knowledge-Value Cities in the Digifal Age"
The Milken Institute, 2001
Morrison Institute for Public Policy - Arizona State University
What Are Creative/Innovation Services?
Creative/Innovation services rely heavily on human capital,
talent, and creativity.
• Advertising agencies • Legal services
• Architectural services • Management consulting
• Business associations services
• Colleges and universities • Management services
• Commercial art and • Multimedia
graphic design ~ Outdoor advertising services
• Commercial nonphysical • Theatrical producers and
research services
• Commercial photography • Professional membership
• Engineering services organizations
• Software • Public relations services
Morrison Institute for Public Policy - Arizona State University
3 Ingredients for Cr~ativity
• EXPERTISE means
talented people
• INTERACTION is part of
the creativity equation;
when people come
together, there's a better
chance for the passionate
exchange of ideas &
synergies that create new
business models,
marketing plans or
p rod ucts
• DIVERSITY is important
in generating the "Next Big
Thing"; people learn most
by interacting with people
less like themselves.
Morrison Institute for Public Policy - Arizona State University
"It's at the intersections of
disciplines where sparks fly."
Telecommunications, biotech,
soft~nrare, the Web, great music,
architecture, and art.
Morrison Institute for Public Policy - Arizona State University
~ Grow Your Expertise
• Tap knowledge assets in the midst
• Build real estate "products" that fit with
small, fiast-growing new economy
companies
• Make livability a hallmark of downtown
development
• Build clusters of skill~d workers and
firms quickly
• Fix schools at the core
Morrison Institute for Public Policy - Arizona State University
G row You r I nteraction
• Ramp up telecommunication capacity
• Design public and private spaces so as
to promote interaction
• Seed networks and alliances
Morrison Institute for Public Policy - Arizona State University
The Future at a Giance
• New Economy: Technology advances mean new
chatlenges for regions.
- Small is "in"
- Places to network
- 24/7
• New Faces: New groups are changing the way
things are done
- Yuppie baby-boomers
- Different melting pot
- Talent shortage
~ New Geography: Place still matters--but for
different reasons
- Quality of place
- Regional imperative
Source: Morrison Institute, Milken Institufe, Coflaborative Economics, Joel Kotkin
Morrison Institute for Public Policy - Arizona State University