Over the past two
years, I have become very much aware of rising vacancy and flat percentage
rental overages in major malls. I am not alone. Many insurance companies,
REITS. investment trusts, and other shopping center landlords are experiencing
the same. The sameness and boring nature of many malls has seen a decline
in customer attraction and sales resulting in slipping occupancy. Fortunately,
not all are fully affected. Well-located dominant malls with strong department
and specialty store tenants generally are experiencing firm rents and mixed
percentage rental overages increases. Furthermore, it appears that leasing
representatives are working harder and more creatively to keep occupancy
levels up.
Some pundits say
that mall supply and demand will simply solve the issue before it becomes
a problem. Their belief has been that very few new malls are being built.
Therefore, given a stagnant supply and growing house- holds and household
income, any ad- verse change would be short lived. Unfortunately, they
have ignored the power center and its acceptance by the consumer.
The average mall
is experiencing rising vacancy, some rent pressure, declining or flat rental
overages, and increasing complaints about CAM charges. Recent trips throughout
the U.S. and discussions with major REIT and insurance executives reflect
this problem. Management is pressing its leasing people harder to fill
vacant space or soon-to-be-vacant spaces quickly. Furthermore, management
is much more hesitant to push a tenant out because finding a replacement
can be difficult. Also, with more malls owned by REITs, investor scrutiny
is becoming more intensive. Many malls are now focusing upon unrated independent
retailers (where they can find them) and non-retail uses to help solve
their occupancy needs.
Another problem in
the occupancy / vacancy equation is common area charges (CAM). In many
malls, CAM has risen to levels that are forcing mall tenants to seek alternative
locations or fail.
There are numerous
reasons why this is happening. However, some stand out more than others,
including:
- Most markets are
overbuilt with too much retail space;
- Big box category
killers have hurt many small conventional specialty retailers;
- Other than the
first quarter of 1997, the consumer has been frugal for at least the past
five years, as reflected in limited retail sales gains;
- The time-pressed
consumer is focused upon "convenience and value";
- Household income
has not been seeping pace with real or perceived lifestyle demands;
- Demographic changes,
such as the aging of the population, are affecting retail demand;
The "dressing down"
of America has resulted in a major change in apparel purchasing;
- Under performing
department stores are not generating an adequate frequent customer;
- The improvement
of catalog service, returns, and customer handling;
- Many malls were
bat too large at the onset; and
- The acceptance
of stores such as Target and Wal-Mart for women's apparel purchases has
hurt some department and specialty apparel stores.
The above reasons
have occurred in varying degrees throughout U.S. markets.
Base rent pressure
is the result of .vacant space, industry consolidation. mergers, failures,
and the impact of power centers on major malls. Very simply, in my opinion,
there are fewer rated specialty store tenants seeking mall locations in
places other than the dominant malls. Malls are not alone in this dilemma.
Power centers are experiencing major vacancies, which, because of their
size, are much more visible than in a mall.
Flat overages - once
unheard of - are now more a rule than an exception, especially for older
malls with secondary department stores. Overage rentals are what have driven
mall values for the past three decades. Now only the top malls are experiencing
consistent increases in overage rents. Even the best located, tenanted,
and managed malls are experiencing changes in who is paying overage increases.
Many apparel stores that were consistently paying increasing overage rent
are not only no longer paying increasing overage rent, many are not paying
any overage rent.
Vacancy pressure
is resulting in some subtle and not so subtle tenant changes. A fair amount
of experimentation is underway with stores that were previously ignored
by malls. Some have been successful and others not. In one case, a mall
added a food court, cinema, and a family entertainment center to an area
of the mall that was essentially dead. This has had a very positive impact
upon mall revenues and customer activity. Moreover, it has rejuvenated
the dead section and improved income and value.
Other malls have
added outlet and big box stores, much to the consternation of existing
retail tenants. In one such case, a major mall permitted a large shoe outlet
into the mall. The outlet shoe store filled a good deal of vacant space,
but adversely affected the sales of many of the conventional shoe stores
in the mall. Mall management ended up adjusting the rents of many of the
shoe stores because of the continuing negative impact on their sales.
In yet another case,
a mail added a cinema where a department store had been. The cinema is
doing great. Unfortunately, the cinema customers now taking all of the
evening parking near a major mall entrance. This has hurt many of the nearby
retailers, who rely heavily upon the same evening parking for their customer
parking. A considerable uproar is underway. One solution has created another
major headache. The cinema may have helped some of the restaurants and
food court tenants. However, it did not help the retailers in that section
of the mall.
In one of the more
drastic situations that I have evaluated, a mall with over 1.5 million
square feet and six anchors has over a 30 percent vacancy. The anchors
are generating average to below-average sales. Over 8OO,000 square feet
of big boxes have been built on the single major artery to the mall. They
have decimated the ranks of specialty retail stores in the mall. The market
is substantially overbuilt and even the big boxes are starting to fail,
as well they must.
Generally, mall redevelopment
strategy can only successfully
accomplished if
a major new generator is added or the existing anchors are revitalized
while all of the mall's areas are improved. The result should be an improvement
in the mall's overall attraction, customer frequency, shopper spending,
and total sales. Unfortunately, for many mails this has not or will not
occur until someone has taken a substantial asset write down.
De-malling is also
a major option for many poorly performing malls. I have yet to see a de-malling
that has returned the property to its prior asset value. Instead,
it may be the only way to protect a large part of asset value without losing
more. Also, changes in the market may dictate that such an action must
be undertaken to retain and expand the mall's customer attraction.
Regardless of the
dilemma, malls will continue to be the facility of choice. Solutions to
the mall's dilemma will be addressed in a future issue.
|