Portland State University PDXScholar
Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses
1977 The Effects of a Political Boundary Running Through a Metropolitan Area: A Case Study of the Establishment and Functioning of the Jantzen Beach Shopping Center
Rose Romaine Reed Portland State University
Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds
Part of the Physical and Environmental Geography Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y
Recommended Citation Reed, Rose Romaine, "The Effects of a Political Boundary Running Through a Metropolitan Area: A Case Study of the Establishment and Functioning of the Jantzen Beach Shopping Center" (1977). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 2568. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.2565
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Rose Romaine Reed for the Master of Science in Geography presented June 30, 1977.
Title: The Effects of a Poli~ical Boundary Running through a Metropoli tan Area: A Case Study of the Establishment and Functioning of the Jantzen Beach Shopping Center
APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE THESIS COMMITTEE:
a ugh
D. Richard Lycan
Jantzen Beach Shoppi:ng Center is. an anomaly on the landscape ,-~ challenging_ traditional criteria for the location of regional shopping centers.- Located on Hayden Island on the Oregon side of the border, it has access from only one exit in each direction off the Interstate 5 freeway. The predominantly industrial and recreational land use of the region within a five minute travel time from the shopping center results in an exceptionally small adjacent residential population. Its poten.
tial ·trade area is further limited by the intervening shopping oppor- - J tunity for Washington residents afforded by the Vancouver central 2 business district which lies adjacent to the Interstate freeway two miles to the north. . ~ The retail sales of the Jantzen Beach shopping center exceed
165 percent those predicte~ by the Huff allocation model for deter- . . ·mination of intraurban trade areas. The success of Jantzen Beach Shopping Center appears to rest upon economic effects of the state boundary between Oregon and Washington. The Columbia River, which forms the boundary, acts as a physical barrier because it has o~ly one automobile crossing within the Portland-Vancouver SMSA, the Interstate 5 freeway. A psychological barrier to interaction between the two states is created by their difference in tax structures. Washington has a 5 percent tax on retail sales whereas Oregon has none. To detennine the significance of the state boundary in explain ing the unusual success of the Jantzen Beach shopping center a customer survey was conducted and interviews were held with a number of indivi duals involved in its establishment. The survey of a customer sample identified residences,, shopping frequency, reasons for shopping at Jantzen Beach, and patronage at other centers. The results indicated
that the majority of customers were Clark County, Washington, reside~ts
who shopped at Jantzen ~each for the following reasons in order: 1) its large selection of goods; 2) its closeness to home;, and 3) the lack of a sales tax on retail goods. Interviews established that because of the uneven economic growth within the SMSA, ·the shopping center was located on the Oregon side of the border due to Portland's. larger population and the propensity for • k " .. Clark County residents te ·shop -in Oregon -to_-avoid the-sales -tax-. 3· Jantzen Beach Shopping Center was effectively located in the first
available area for a large shopping center to intercept Washington~ consumers traveling to Portland for.shopping •
. The thesis concludes tha~ the~excellent perfonnance of Jantzen Beach Shopping Center is due as much to traditional factors of shopping center success as to the effect of the boundary. The former include: 1) good accessibility; 2) "good management and marketing; 3) an early start pre-empting the development of other centers; and 4) the use of the center as a recreational place. However, the role of the political boundary has been a significant contributing factor to its success. The variations in tax structures between the two states has encouraged Washington residents to shop in Oregon and concurrently has inhibited shopping center development in Clark County prior to this time.
-""":.
~~ >! ~ i J
. .• t i,,_ ~ ":¥ • """- ",f THE."EFFECTS OF ·A POLITICAL BOUNDARY. RUNNING THROUGH A METROPOLITAN AREA: A CASE STUDY OF THE ESTABLISHMENT AND FUNCTIONING OF THE JANTZEN BEACH ·SHOPPING CENTER
by ROSE ROMAINE REED
A thesis submitted in .partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE ·in GEOGRAPHY
Portland State University 1977 TO THE OFFICE OF GRADUATE STUDIES AND RESEARCH:
The members of the CorllTlittee approve the thesis of Rose Romafoe
Reed ,presented June 30, 1977.
Tnomas M. Poiflsen-;-chalrman
D. Richard Lycan
APPROVED:
D. Richard Lycan,- Head, Department of Geography
Sf Studies and R~seiirCll ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to thank a11 of my friends in the Geography Department who helped me. finish this thesis. In particular, I want to thank Al Card- . - we 11 for spending many 1ong nights helping me prepare the graphics and offering encouragement when I was tired and ready to quit. Also I want to thank Dan Vorheis for his h~lp with the questionnaire, and to express my gratitude ·to Dr. Poulsen for hi~ patience wi·th me and help in clari fying my thoughts. Finally, I want to thank my parents for their faith in me and never-wavering support in my endeavors. TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS • . . iii LIST OF TABLES . vi LIST OF FIGURES viii
.CHAPTER
I INTRODUCTION ...... 1 The Jantzen Beach Shopping Center ... 2 II LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . 11 Boundary Studies .. 11 Evaluating Trade Areas 16 III PROBABILITIES OF SUCCESS OF A REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER ON HAYDEN ISLAND IF NO STATE BOUNDARY EXISTED ...... ·. . 23 The Allocation Model .. 23 Data Utilized in the Allocation Model Simulation of the Model ...... 31 Comparison of Success Probabilities of a Hayden Island Site w.ith the Actual Performance of Jantzen Beach Shopping Center ...... 45 IV THE ROLE THE STATE BOUNDARY PLANS ON THE SUCCESS OF JANTZEN BEACH SHOPPING CENTER . . 47 Survey of Jantzen Beach Customers . 49 Results of the Survey ...... 50 The Impact of the State Boundary on the Development of Clark County 58 v CHAPTER PAGE Other Factors Influencing Site and Success of Jantzen Beach Shopping Center ...... 64 Future Impacts on Jantzen Beach Shoppjng Center ...... ~ . -65 V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 68
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 71 APPENDICES ...... 79
I ALLOCATION BY RETAIL LOCATION AND MARKET AREA; AND ALLOCATION BY RETAIL LOCATION AND TIME ·DISTANCE ...... 80
II QUESTIONNAIRE AND CALCULATIONS 96
,... UST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE I Number of Families and Median Income by Census Tract within a Five-Minute Time-Distance of Jantzen Beach Shopping Center ...... 6
II Travel Times between Sixty-Seven Consume~ Residential· Areas and Thirteen Shopping
Centers 26
III Selected Regional Shopp~ng Centers: Sales and GLA in the Portland-Vancouver SMSA .. 27 IV Percentage Available of Consumer Dollar by Income
for ~urchases of Shopping Center Goods ...... 32 v Percentage Income Available for Consumer Shopping by Residential Area ...... 33 VI Projected -Share -Of the Market--Jantzen Beach ....•.. 42 VII Estimated Sales, Jantzen Beach ...... 43 VIII Estimated Sales for Jantzen Beach by Time- Distance (Millions of 1972 Dollars) ...... 44 IX Locational Efficiency--Jantzen Beach ...... 44
~ Place of Residence of Jantzen Beach Customers . . . . . 52 XI ·State of Residence of Jantzen Beach Customers . . . . . 52 XII Weighted Rankings of Reasons for Shopping at Jantzen Beach Shopping Center ...... 53 vii
TABLE PAGE XIII .. Population Trends: Clark County-Portland- Vancouver SMSA ...... 58 XIV Property Taxes Paid per $1,000 of Personal Income 59 XV Shopping Centers that Clark County Residents Patronize ...... 61 XVI Clark County Residents' Reasons for Shopping for Assorted Goods ...... 62 XVII Clark County Residents' Choice of Shopping
· Centers fo~ Shopping for Assorted Goods 63 LI ST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE 1 Jantzen Beach Shopping Center--Portland-
Vancouver SMSA ...... 3 2 Number of Families per Market Area, 1970, Portland-Vancouver SMSA ...... 3 Average Income per Market Area, 1970, Portland-·
Vancouver SMSA ...... 9 4 Regional Shopping Centers, Portland-Vancouver SMSA . . . 28 5 Consumer Residential. Areas, Portland-Vancouver SMSA . . 30
6 Jantzen Beach, Predicted Sh~re of the Market
Exponent of Distance--1.5 ...... ~ ...... 36 7 Jantzen Beach, Predicted Share of the Market Exponent of Distance--2.0 ...... 37 . 8 Jantzen Beach, Predicted Share of the Market
Exponent of Distance--3.0 ...... 38 9 Jantzen Beach, Predicted Share of the Market Exponent of Distance--4.0 ...... 39 10 Jantzen Beach, Predicted Share of the Market Exponent of Distance--5.0 '· 40 11 Residence of Shoppers at Jantzen Beach
Shopping Center ... ·...... 51 12 Frequency of Shopping Centers Cited from
Customer Survey 56 CHAPTER I
INiRODUCTION
The delimitation and demarc~tion of political boundaries result in a variety of behavior for residents living in the immediate area as well as for those some distance away. Boundary behavior will be reflected in the perceptions, attitudes, and forms of interaction if there is some special significance attached to the political space irrmediately beyond the border itself ... Unless boundaries a·re purely functional,. that is, only administrative as for police or fire or water districts, there is likely to be some significance attached to the ways in which they affect individual and group be havior. Many boundaries in a city or state do not result in dif fering behavior for those who move across these during the course of a day or week. On the other hand, suburban limits or state lines may affect a resident's decision where to live because of lower property taxes, where·to purchase major household colllllOdities because of lower sales taxes, or where to find certain types of recretation that are outlawed within his own space (Brunn, 1974, p. 191). . The Oregon-Washington state boundary running through the Portland Vancouver metropolitan region provides an interesting example of the ef fects upon human behavior created by a political boundary. Oregon and Washington are separated by the Columbia River which forms the boundary between the. two states. One of the major territorial distinctions be-· tween the two states is the·i r sources of revenue for government fi nanc i ng. Revenue is generated in Washington by a 5 percent retail sales tax and property taxes, whereas Oregon relies upon taxation of personal income and property taxes. This discontinuity in taxation seems to have created certain spatial anomalies in the Portland-Vancouver metro politan area. Thus, consumers appear to have been induced to alter pre dictable behavior patterns in order to take advantage of opportunities 2 created by taxation differences. This thesis examines the significance of the discontinuity 1n taxation to the establishment and functioning
~f the Jantzen Beach.Shopping Cen~er on the Oregon side of the border between the two states.
THE JANTZEN BEACH CENTER
Jantzen Beach Shopping Center was constructed in 1~72 on Hayden Island in the Columbia River. Hayden Island is in the state of Oregon, being part of the unincorporated area of Multnomah County. It lies five miles north of the CBD of the city of Portland and two and one half miles south of the CBD of the city of Vancouver, Washington. In
terstate 5 passes over thi~ island with the Hayden Island Exit being the first exit in Oregon when traveling south. All Portland-Vancouver metropolitan area intra-urban traffic passes over the Interstate Bridge and across Hayden Island (see Figure 1). Hayden Island Amusement Co. was incorporated in 1927. A large amusement park was built in 1928 and occupied the current site of Jant zen Beach Shopping Center until 1970. Around 1945, Waddle's Restaurant was constructed on the island. After the Vanport Flood of 1948, a small grocery store and some temporary housing were built for people who were
left homeless by the flood. However~ Hayden Island had very little de velopment prior to 1958. In 1962, a Safeway store was constructed on the island. In 1964,
Hayden Island, ~nc., under new management, set forth the objectives to develop commercial establishments and residences on the island. Con struction started in 1967. In 1969, Denny's Restaurant was opened; in
! ' "'I J · (OJantzen Beach Shopping Center
,•• ~.·,..•"'!"'·""71 l j I l
. I
·-·-·----~·-·-·
'.I- County Boundary I ·-·-·-·-·-·- ·areron -Washington ~ta,teBou~darj ··-·-·-•-•11!111•-· ~...... '·- ....,.:.~.: -., i ~ i Fl·au RI I
JANTZEN BEACH s·HOPPING CENTER - 'PORTLAND-VANCOUVER SMSA. w 4 1970, the Thunderbird Inn was opened; and in 1972, Jantzen Beach Shop ping Center was opened. By 1977, 144 apartments and 500 mobile homes had been constructed on the island. Currently under construction is another large motel complex, The Red Lion. Jantzen Beach Shopping Center has approximately 500,000 square . feet of gross leasable area and currently another 200,000 square feet are under construction.· It contains two major department stores, eighty-two smaller specialty shops, an ice rink, and a movie theater. On Hayden Is 1a_nd, there a re a1 so a 1a rge motor hote 1 with 279 rooms , a bank, six service stations, restaurants, and a supermarket. In addi
tion, there is a resident population of approximately 740 persqns liv
ing in a to~nhouse complex and mobile court on the island. Jantzen Beach Shopping Center is a successful regional shopping center. Its policy of being "all things to all people," according to Peter Van Dyke, President of Jantzen Beach, Inc., has made it thrive (Interview). However, its success appears to be anomalous, particularly when considering its location in relation to major residential areas. Criteria for the establishment of this shopping center do not
follow· traditional models~ Cohen and Applebaum {in Kornblau, 1968) suggest five major considerations in evaluation of potential sites for shopping centers: (1) accessibility, (2) population, (3) competition, (4) economic stability, and (5) trade area boundaries. (1) Accessibility is a term used to mean "easily reached" by cus tomers and employees. · It embraces factors of convenience to shoppers including short distances and ease of driving. Other· components include
road surf~ce conditions, time-distance, traffic flow, and visibility. 5 The role of access from arterial and feeder streets is also important (Ho 1d ren , 1968) . Hayden Island is accessible only from the Interstate 5 freeway with one interchange for automobiles, buses, and trucks. Therefore, for any customer to shop at Jantzen Beach, except for the 740 residents on the island, he or she must get onto and off of the freeway. As the Interstate Bridge is the only crossing of the Columbia River· in the Portland-Vancouver SMSA, congestion during the morning and afternoon rush hours is quite significant. According to Jim'Baker, a local real estate broker.and commercial finance counselor, this congestion on the . ' bridge is a strong barrier to off-island shoppers (Interview). Jantzen Beach is helped in accessibility by being located on the only road between Portland and Vancouver. Approxfmately 89,000 cars pass over the Interstate Bridge daily with about 28,000 vehicle trips measured entering and exiting Hayden Island each day (Buttke, 1975). However, because its only access for automobiles is the freeway, the lack of feeder arterials or back streets onto the island hurt it during congestion hours. Jantzen Beach Shopping Center does enjoy·good visi bi1ity from the freeway. People who travel by it are aware of it, al though to reach the center it is necessary to anticipate exits off the freeway. (2) Population of the immediate trade area is another important factor to be considered in the estimation of the.likely success of a shopping center. The number of.people withi~ a five-minute time dis tance is particularly important. In addition, one needs to consider also its composition, density, growth, income, expenditures, and buying 6 habits in order to determine potential consumer dollars spent at a re gi ona 1 shoppi'ng center.·
The area around Hayden Island exhibits a relatively small popula~ tion within a five-minute travel time due to the prevailing industrial and recreational land use of the area. Southern Vancouver is in pri marily commercial usage with lower income housfog. Population and me dian income figures from census tracts adjacent to Hayden Island show that within the fi~st five minutes travel time, the area most likely to draw shoppers, a rather sparse population. has median incomes 1ess than the SMSA averages (see Table I).
TABLE I NUMBER OF FAMILY AND.MEDIAN INCOME BY CENSUS TRACT.WITHIN A FIVE-MINUTE TIME-DISTANCE OF JANTZEN BEACH SHOPPING CENTER Tract No. No. of Families Median Income 159a $ 9 ,8,13 72.00 755 <596b 10,059 34.01 873 6, 103 37.01 1'104 . 9,583 37.02 664 9,833 38.01 871 . 8,084 38.02 901 9,259 TOTAL 5,158 families within SMSA Median Income, a 5-minute time-" $10,458 distance
SOURCE: Bureau of Census 1970 Census Tracts. aPopulation not on Hayden Island. bpopulation on Hayden Island.
The population within the first five minutes is quite small and is not expected.to increase because of the zoning of the area. For 7 areas further than ten minutes away, the Lloyd Center, downtown Port-· 1and, and downtown Vancouver provide a1 ternati ve opportunities for po tential customers in the Portland Metr9politan Area. A cursory exami nation of population and income maps (see Figures 2 and 3) reveals a disproportion.ately s·mall population and low income in the first ten minutes of travel time than would normally be expected for a regional shopping center. (3) Competition: Jantzen Beach Shopping Center faces its compe- .tition primarily from other shopping areas in Oregon. Portland down town, with over 2,000,000 square feet Gross Leasable Area (GLA), is ap proximately six miles away from Jahtzen Beach. Lloyd Center, approxi-. mately 1,500,000 square feet GLA, is located five miles from Jantzen Beach in the northeast Portland area. Vancouver has a relatively small central business district with only one major department store, and one shopping center, Tower Mall, with approximately 250,000 square feet GLA. The new Vancouver Mall, scheduled to open·in late 1977 with 800,000 square feet GLA, is expected to provide Jantzen Beach with com petition for Vancouver patronage. (4) Economic Stability: The concept of econqmic stability encom passes the overall economic health of an entire region rather than only the inrnediate area surrounding a shopp1ng center site. Shopping center . developers are interested· in population growth rates, employment rates, and other economic characteristics which are indicative of stable econ omies. The Portland-Vancouver SMSA, in which Jantzen Beach is located,
due to its economic div~rsification has maintained a fairly stable growth rate and has experienced no large fluctuations in employment. j- .
I "1• Market Ar ea 1 I - 6 7 ·
Tim• - Dl1tance In mlnutu
""I J ~.._ ~ .,. J'" r Number o~Fa mlli•• I I l . l I . 0. 1,499 5,000- 6, 999 . f I 1,600· 2,9 99 - 11,000-e,999 \. \ . l l , . I ·•· I s,ooo- 11,e>oo l ...... - -~,ooo-4,999.. I •. ·~·.'~--4- .. FJGURE 2
NO. OF FAMIL.IES PER MARKET AREA, 1970 1 PORTLAND-VANCOUVER SMSA· ca
------~--~~--- ., ...---·- .... ~ ~ ..-M- ...... - ~-----·-- -t...... _ .,...._ ~ ... • ___ ... __ t,..,. - 11 111 Market Areas 1i I I- 67
Time - OI 1ta nee In minute a .
In 19 70 D ollara
I
• ~2,000-14, 999 .. f5,000-19,999 l 1 20,000- 24,999 ml !10,000-11,999 .. I~...... ------·------'f:IGURE 3
AVERAGE fNCOME PER MARKET AREA,1970, PORTL.AND-VANCOUVER SMSA"" 10 This factor thus would not be a negative one affecting the establish ment and functioning of·a center on Hayden Island. (5) Trade Area Boundaries: Determination of intraurban trade areas is of prime importance in the decision of site location for re gional shopping centers. A trade area is simply the area served by a particular shopping center. Trade areas fluctuate due to barriers, both psychological and physical,' accessibility, and competition from other centers. Altha.ugh the term "boundary" indicates a discontinuity in patterri, .in the case of a trade area boundary what generally occurs is a fading· out or overlapping between shopping center trade areas rather than an abrupt stoppage of consumer patronage. Important considerations in viewing a trade area are its popula tion and potential expenditures, accessibility to site, and effects of competition from other shopping centers. Approximations of the trade area are made to determine potential sales and optimality of location of the center. Jantzen Beach, located in an area of relatively low population, would appear to have an unusually small trade area.
From the criteria advanced by Cohen and Applebaum, it thus woul~ appear that Hayden Island is an unlikely site for a ·regional shopping center. Jantzen Beach's establishment and apparent success seem clear ly related to its state border location. This role played by the bound ary with its discontinuity in system of taxation will be explored first by establishing a more pr.ecise predicted degree of success .for a shop-· ping center on Hayden Island without regard to the presence of .the ·boundary, and then by examining the considerations and motivations of a representative sample of consumers at the shopping center. CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
BOUNDARY STUDIES
The literature of political geography provides an ~ssortment of perspectives concerning the nature and function of boundaries. Inter national border disputes particularly have been the focus of most bound ary studies. Rarely have geographers dealt primarily with the political and economic functions of internal boundaries. The few studies of such borders have dealt mainly with approaches to delimiting them. Some of the observations concerning international borders do have relevance to the problem considered in this thesis, however. Thus, Losch discusses implications and examples of national boundaries as a factor in the lqcation of industrial ent~rprises. In his discussion on the role of national boundaries he cites as an example the reasons that led Swiss entrepreneurs to move their enterprises or branches to Germany and the· reasons for establishin·g them precisely in the border region (Losch, 1954, 388). The distinct advantage was a savings in German cus tom duties which in 1926-27 approximated 5 percent of sales. Another, more questionable element was the cheap labor in.southern Germany. In a discussion of the Canadian-American boundary, Losch again points to the savings of cu~toms or ·tariffs as a reason for the location of branch offices in Canada. 12 The importance of the frontier is further shown by the fact that of . more than 1,000 American-owned Canadian factories, approximately 9 percent are in border towns. and 32 percent are in Toronto, which is virtually on the line (Losch, 1954, 384). The classic example is the American automobile branch plants in Windsor, which lies across the Detroit River from Detroit. Accentuating the im portance of location within .Canada is the fact that Canadian branches enjoy tariff preferences in the British Empire (Losch, 1954, 385). In discussing effects on retail trade along the border, Losch compared retail sales a~d discovered the preponderance of certain types .of transactions occurring in each of the two states. For example, wool clothing, jewelry, and furs were less expensive in Canada, whereas
' ' shoes, women's clothing, and tobacco were considerably less expensive in the United States, thus promoting a border retail migration. Losch al so discusses the effect of the border in encouraging th.e development of twi.n cities where one would have been satisfactory (Losch, 1954, 448). In a more recent study, Ayer and Layton (1974) examine the effects of the border on a U.S.-Mexican border town, Nogales, Arizona. Because of the U.S. government's restriction on Mexican migrant farm labor en tering the United States, the Mexican government provided a twelve-and one-half-mile border zone where all parts and raw materials could be brought in for manufacture duty free as long as the production was ex ported. The United States also lowered its restrictions on import du ties to the value added in manufacture. The lower cost labor encouraged plants to migrate to Mexico.
In some cases twin plants have built up~ where
. ~ . U.S. firms can take.advantage of both cheap Mexican labor as well as relatively inexpensive µ.s. capital by. locating labor 13 intensive operations in Mexico, and those operations which are capi .tal intensive and for which special tariff advantages are not avail abl~~ in a ·U.S. twin plant (Ayer & Layton, 1974, 109). The impact of these twin plants on Nogales has been (1) a drop in unemployment in the border area, {2) a rise in demand for retail ser vices~ and (3) decrease. in the level of poverty. The authors conclude that the border industries have had a positive impact on the living standar~s of both states in the border area. Economic effects of internal boundaries have been examined by Edward Ullman (1939) in the border area between Rhode Island and Massa chusetts. He explained regional differentiation between the two states as an effect of the boundary, including differential tax laws account ing for some instances of industrial site location. He also cited fun damental qifferences in belief structures between the two ·states as a factor in site location of some types of entertainment. For example, within the Rhode Island border area is Boston's nearest race tr~ck. Several other studies have been made concerning the effect of state and local taxes on industrial location (Floyd, 1952; Williams,
1967; Campbell, 1958; Due, 1961). Most have found that, in gen~ral, the amount and type of taxation does n.ot have a determining impact on site location but does constitute a contributing factor. However, unfavor able images of certain states, such as those of Massachusetts, Pennsyl vania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and, to some extent, Minnesota, have hin dered industries from locating there (Due, 1961, 168). A study comparing state and local taxes among the states and Minnesota found that although taxes in Minnesota are considerably high er, differences in production cost~ among states vary so much that even 14 if taxes were eliminated in Minnesota, there would not be any major changes in Minnesota's relative cost position (Williams, 1967, ~6). Campbell, using the New York Metropolitan Region as a study area, discussed the role of taxes in industrial site location. The New York Metropolitan Region encompasses three states havfng varied taxing sys tems. New Jersey receives its revenue from property tax, whereas com panies in New York pay a corporate income tax. Connecticut finances its services by a combination of both property and income taxes. Using a sample of twenty-five manufacturing establishments., Campbell ·selected sixty-four sites in all parts of the region and estimated state and lo cal taxes for each of the twenty-five plants. Average costs for the states were similar and variation was not due to differences in taxation between the states. However, in specific types of industry, such as those establishments with high personal property i.n relation to total taxable property, would find it beneficial to locate in New York. His study indicated that this in fact did occur, but he is careful to state that "it would be a mistake to assume that this locational pattern was caused by the differences in the New Jersey and New York tax struc tures" ( Campbe 11 , 1958, 205) . Another type of internal boundary study is Nelson's· (1952) exami nation o.f the anomaly of Vernon, California. Due to incorporation, and to sp~cific intent of the political leaders of the town, it has become. an industrial and transportation center. Seventy-five percent of the developed land is in manufacturing and wholesaling usage. This can be compared with an average city which has approximately 6 percent of its land in such use. Manufacturing concerns appear immediately at the city 15 limits. Nelson concludes in his study that the city limits of Vernon are important in understanding land usage in the Los Angeles area due to the town's unique historical development. An early quantified study on internal bounqary effects on spatial interaction was J. Ross MacKay's "The lnteractance Hypothesis and Bound aries .~·n Canada: A PreHminary Study" (1958). He proposed that inter actance can be studied by means of a modified gravity model where:
K T PA PB AB I------D I = interaction of any type (trade, social, recreational educational) · K = a constant equal to the reciprocal of. the total number · of interactions of the group T = time period over which interactions are measured
PA PB = populations of the two interacting groups
AA ~B = specific indices of per capita activity of the popula tions PA and P8 D = space dimension, measured in distance, miles, travel time, etc.
In any type of gravity model, "distance is assumed to be a smooth ly continuous function and can nevertheless be expressed as a straight line" (Lowe, Moryadas, 1975, 185). MacKay tested the hypothesis that boundaries, both internal and international, interrupt this linear func tion and inhibit spatial interaction. Using telephone calls between pairs of Quebec.cities as a base, ca1ls were then examined between Quebec cities and Ontario cities. In teractions dropped 80 percent between the two provinces. T~is decrease 16 became even more evident when comparing calls across the international · boundary. Measuring the frictional effect of the boundary as an equiva ... lent of distance, MacKay estimates that between Quebec and English Cana-
. ' da the frictional effect of the boundary is equal to an increase of distance of from· five to ten times. MacKay.'s use of a modified gravity model represented a new ap
proach to understanding bounda~ies and their· impact on circulation pat terns. Recent studies of.the political boundary have become more func tional, stressing the separation of two politic.al entities and its im
pact on·border areas (Symanski, 1974). However, ~here is a lack of .literature concerning a political boundary's impact on circulation pat .terns· in border areas. Moreover, although some studies have concerned themselves with the mosaic of laws within the United States, few have dealt with specific features of the border landscape.
EVALUATING TRADE .AREAS
Studies concerning retailing trade areas started with Reilly's Law of Gravitation for interurban .trade areas (Huff, 1961). His formu- 1ati on was based on the relative pulling power between competing cities. The intervening population would be attracted to th·e cities in direct proportion to the population of the two cities and in· an ihverse pro portion to.the squares of the distances between the two cities.
2 Ba = ( Pa ) ( Db) Bb Pb Da 17
Where: B = the proportion of the trade from the intermediate city at- · a tracted by city A; Bb = the proportion of the trade from the intermediate city at tracted by city B; .Pa= the population of city A;
Pb =. the population of city B;
Da = the distance from the intermediate town to city A; and
Db = the distance from the intermediate town to city B (Huff, 1961).
Later.Reilly's.Law of Gravitation was modified by Curtis Publish ing Co. to determine breaking points between retailing establishments. within urban areas by using a modi~ication of square footage for each retail center rather than population size,and travel time between cen- ters, rather ·than phy'sical distance (Huff, 1961). This allowed the bounding· of trade areas for an analysis of numbers of people who lived within them. Later studies focused on characteristics of consumer spatial be- havior and "utility," which i~ measured in degrees of consumer satis faction. The concept of "utility" embodies a number of assumptions, some of. which are questionable. Among these· is an assumed logical re lationship between ~ypes of ·satisf~ction, i.e., if A is preferable to Band Bis preferable to C, then A is preferable to C (Quandt, 1956). Secondly, it assumes that it is possibl_e for an individual to know all the alternatives from which he has a choice. Third, it assumes that he is· able to choose the alternative that maximizes his utility _or 18 satisfaction (Hansen, 1972). This theoretical concept of "utility" has \ problems because it is apparent that consumers do not exhibit a logical ordering of .preferences, that they do not have full knowle.dge of oppor tunities open to them, and that they are not able to ~eigh rationally choices that are presented. It cannot be ruled out that the traditional utility model may re flect individual consumer choice behavior in some special situa tions, but it is very unlikely that it represents the kind of cog nitive process consumers most comnonly apply (Hansen, 1972). A more realistic appraisal of human behavior involves a combina tion of "bounded rationality" and "satisficing behavior." Bounded ra- tionality assumes "that an individual's behavior is based upon his per 'ception of the environment and not upon the environment as it actually exists" (Cadwallader, 1975). Satisficing behavior assumes decision making that adequately meets a perceived need, but is not necessarily optimal. Difficulties in operationalization of satisficing behavior has left bounded rationality as a primary concept in analyzing man's actions. Applying the concept of bounded rationality to a consumer's choice of shopping areas, Thompson (1964) has identified five major elements: (1) broad or large selection; (2) the perception that heightened compe-· tition may result in lower prices; (3) geographical location of shop ping centers, i.e., friction of distance; (4) existence of non-metered parking; and (5) prestige of shopping at new centers (Thompson, 1964). Hansen (1972) suggests other less quantifiable factors al influencing individual consumer~choice: the value of time traveled and effort ex- pended i~ finding a consumer good; the likelihood of success in finding the good· wanted at a particular center; the choice between alternatiyes; . 19 and the willingness.to face risk as related to self-esteem in choosing among the alternatives. David Huff (1961) devised a probability model of consumer spatial behavior using size o.f shopping center as a variable,_ based principally upon an assumption of large~ess of selection and attractiveness ("bigger is better"), and a time distance variable for ascertaining the effects of competition, accessibility, and utility for consumer behavior. His analysis utili.zed the conceptual properties of the gravity model with its focus upon consumer behavior rather than ·upon the retail shopping center i tse1 f .· The formula for his model is: _l T •• A p •. = !J lJ }:l T;jA
Where: p .. = the probability of a consumer at residential area i trav 1J eling to a shopping location j
Sj = the size of the shopping center j
T .. = the travel time involved in getting from a· consumer's resi lJ dential area to shopping center j
A = a parameter, which reflects the effects of travel time on various kinds of shopping trips
Huff's model is built on the· assumption that consumer ·spatial be
havior can best be.described as a probabilistic phenom~non and that the likelihood of a consumer selecting to shop at one of two centers is not
determined by the presence of any other shoppin~ centers. It is assumed that the consumer is. using bounded rationality. The consumer cannot 20 detertnin~ choices perfectly or maximize his utility because .perceptual differences between choices are so small that when confronted with a choice he will tend to choose randomly among the altern~tives .in some constant proportion in a relative utility. The assertion in Huff's .model is "that the utility is proportional to the.probability of being . . chosen" (Huff, 1961, 4). · Huff asserts that two variables exert so much. influence on a con- sumer's choice of shopping centers that they are the only ones that need be considered in evaluating their potentials. These are number of items carri.ed by shopping centers (largeness of selection) and travel time from consumer's·residence to shopping center. Because of the prob· lems of measu~~ng the number of items, Huff substitutes size of the shopping center (S.) in terms of gross leasable area ·(GLA). Size re- . J lates directly to consumer risk taking and ease of finding th~ wanted article in Huff's view. The concept of convenience and doing all one's shopping in one place is another important supposition contained within the size of shopping center.
The impact of travel time (T1j) on the utility of a trip can be viewed as a form of opportuni~y cost in which the utility of shopping at a particular center is inversely related to the effort, time, and. expense of getting to the center. Travel time is weighted in Huff's model by a distance exponent, A, that takes into account the different frictional impacts of distance for different types of goods and differ ent types of competitive situat.ions. . . It may be expected that consumer travel would exhibit steep distance-decay functions. Additionally, the location of competing facilities, differentiated by price, quality, variety and other· 21 attributes, has been demonstrated to have a crucial role in.consumer travel behavior (Lowe, Mo-ryadas, 1975, 188.). Because the frictional effect of ·distance varies so widely, a distance exponent must be determined for any specific type of shopping or inte.rac.tion· measured. Lakshmanan and Hansen (1965a}, in a model de terminihg consumer dollars allocated in the Baltimore metropolitan area,
deter~ined a distance exponent value of 0.91 for shopping trips. Huff, in a study in .Los Angeles, determined a distance· exponent of .82 for furniture shopping and a distance exponent of .66 for clothes shopping (1961) .. The consumer's willingness to travel for a particular good, or the utility.he can expect to receive and the :costs of travel, will de termine the frictional effects· of distance, and the distance exponent to be used.
T~e gravity model serves as an analytical device to predict inter
action betw~en areas (Lycan and Weiss, 1974). Most studies have been used to replicate existing behavior (Lakshmanan and Hansen, 1965; MacKay, 1958). The use of. the gravity model or one of its modifications can provide a predictive basis for shopping center location. By insert ing the proposed center.into the model, the effects upon its drawing powers of. competition and travel time can be ·estimated. Usually it is ·important to use a variety of .distance exponents in the function because
th~ distance exponent also varies according to type.of good sought, in tervening opportunities, and topographic features. "The· output of the model is initially a percentage or fractional allocatiory of trips from one origin to each of several specific destinations" (Lowe and Moryadas, 1975, 187). With this information it. is possible to determine shopping
dollars spent in each residential are~ at a particular shopping center. 22
This can be done by esti~ating the consumer doll_ar available per area ·and multiplying it .by the percentage allocated to each center. Total ing residential area dollars per· center provides the researcher with ·shopping dollar. potential for the proposed ceriter. Few geographers have studied· the relationship of political bound aries to consumer behavior. Politi·cal boundaries as a hindrance to human interaction have been obseryed (Losch, 1954; Whittlesey,. 1935;
Hartsho'.ne, 1933; Nelson, 1952.) a~d to some extent quantified (MacKay, 1958). Variation in laws between political units have been seen to create interruptions in patterns of circulation. Gravity models measur ing potential interactions have been used for analyzing potential retail sites and for measuring effects .of political boundaries. 1
CHAPTER II I
POSSIBILITIES OF SUCCESS OF A REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER ON HAYDEN ISLAND IF NO STATE BOUNDARY EXISTED
The unusual degree of success of Jantzen Beach Shopping -Center can be measured by comparison of its actual performance with the probable performance of its site based on a theoretical model of retailing de veloped by David Huff. Huff's model for.measuring store location effi ciency··was chosen because it includes within its inputs three of the major· elements in successful shopping center operation: population,
acce~sibility, and competition. The model's expected locational effi
~iency for a shopping center site on Hayden Island will be compared with the actual performance of Jantzen Beach Shopping Center.
THE ALLOCATION MODEL
The model used is actually a modification.of Huff's model devel oped by Dr. Richard Lycan and Dr. Jim Weiss (1974) at Portland State University. Its formula is:
s. _J_ T •. )!. p •. = 1J !J
E~T • • A. lJ 24 where: Pij = the probability of a consumer at. residential area i trav . el~ng to a shopping location j; .sl = the size of the shopping center j measured in dollar sales;
T •. = the travel time involved in- getting from a consumer's resi lJ dential area to shopping center.j; A = an ·exponent which reflects the differing frictional effects of trav~l .time on various kinds of shopping trips.
The. share PlJ.. is applied to. the shopping dollars originating in · each defined consumer's residential area in order to predict shopping expenditures at each shopping center. The formula is:
m E. = l: P .. • C. J i=l lJ 1 where:
Ej = expected shopping expenditures at shopping location j;
Ci = consumers.' expenditures originating in residential location i form locations .
. The optimality of the site location (locational efficiency) as predieted by the mode 1 is rendered in percentages by the· formula:
Locational _ (sales at location sum of all sales Efficiency - (size-of location sum of sizes of all retail locations)
these percentage values allow one to evaluate relative perfor mance. A value of 100 percent or greater means that a center is re ceiving a greater market share than would be expected for its size (Lycan and Weiss, 1974). 25 Data Utilized in the Allocation Model
Thirteen s~opping center~ in the Portland-Vancouver SMSA are ana lyzed us.ing the following data. Tiroe Dista·nce. Time distance values, Tij' are based on data ob
tained ~rom the Oregon Department of Transportation. The 1975 Portland- · Vancouver Metropolitan Area Transportation Study provides travel times between 738 regions into which the metropolitan area was divided. A selection of sixty-seven PVMATS regions was made based on their central
location within s~xty-seven groups of census tracts utilized for popu lation and income data. If the central PVMAT region was bisected by a highway or major arterial, an adjacent PVMAT region was chos.en to bet ter represent consumer traffic.for .the group of census tracts. Travel times were then computed between the sixty-seven PVMATS regions and
thirtee~ principal shopping centers (see Table II). A constant of 5.0 minutes was added in the model to include preparation and parking time. Size of Retail Locations. Sj, the size of the retail locations, was compiled from a variety of .sources and expressed in millions of dol
lars of sales. The thirteen shopping centers, both planned and un~ planned, were chosen on the basis of having more than 200,000 square feet of gross leasable area (GLA). True sales values were established for ten of the thirteen-- shopping centers from the 1972 Census of Retail
Trade .. The other three shopping c~nters were determined by multiplying the GLA area by national median sales value per square foot for regional
shopping centers as given in Dollars and Sense published by ~he Urban Land Institute (1972). (See.Table III and Figure 4). 26
TABLE II TRAVEL TIMES BETWEEN SIXTY-SEVEN CONSUMER RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND THIRTEEN SHOPPING CENTERS
OISHM:t::!i - J St 33.00 35.0(I '56. ()(I 35.0IJ 34.00 29.CJO 2o. !JO 37. !)(} 47.00 t 5 0 00 36.00 uz .o·o 13.GO (10 52 30.00 ~t.oo 4 7. c Ii . 4f). ~6.0C .~El. r; 1) 3<).00 ~~.QO c;,11 0 OCi 51.00 2a.oo C:J0.00 49.00 53 29.(10 !;=(). 00 t!h. VO 45 0 1)0 ~;7 .uo 3c;.r;o 3tl. oo ~4.0(/ ':13. 00 s1.110 23.00 l q. (j(\ qt;. 00 54 3\.00 53. (lf.l Cl<.J.00 IH.QO 60.00 i.l (r. i.: (/ 41 • vc 56.vO ')~. {l(J s.s.oo 2i;,.oo c?O • l . Sales in Millions J Shopping Centers GLA sg. ft. .of Dol lars2 Jl Jantzen Beach 500,000 $ 31. l*~ J2 Eastport Plaza 286,520 31.0 J3 Mall ·205 289,000 23.6 J4 Gateway 250,000 25.8 J5 Oregon City Shopping Center 207,930 15.6 J6 Lloyd Center 1,600,000 ' 104.8 . J7 Portland Downtown 2,747,000 149.5 'J 8 K-Mart-Levitz 270,000 16.8** J9 Gresham Mall 237,605 12 .1 JlO Washi.nQton Square 1,100,000* 68.5** Jll Vancouver Downtown 717 ,oooa 1·6.0 Jl2 Tower Mal 1 250,000b 9.6 Jl'3 aeaverton C~mplex NA 14.4 . Total Sales J 518.8 .· 1Data from affidavit given to Oregon Land Conservation and Devel opment Commission by John Hansen, Professor, Urban Studies Department, Portland State University: LCDC No. 75-002. 2Data from 1972 Census of Retail Trade. *GLA for Washington Squar~ received from David Leland, a local Portland Marketing Consultant. *~Sales determined by median value for shopping centers as deter mined by Dollars and Sense, Urban Land Institute, 1972, p. 14. NA = Not available. aData· from Down.town Vancouver: .. An Appraisal and Opportunity, Re gional Planning Council of Clark County, 1973. · bData from Clark County Consumer Attitudes Toward Shopping in Downtown Vancouver, Human Resources Planning rnstitute, 1973. T I lfJe - D11 t anc • ...In mlnutu .. I , Shopping Center 1 - .I IL------Jt1 ~ 200,00 0 aqua re t •et GLA JANTZEN llEACH JI 1i<-MAltT, LEVITZ J9 EASTPORT PLAZA J2 GRESHAM SHOPPINQ .CENTER Jg MALL 208 J3 WASHINQTON SQUARE J10 1 GATEWAY J41 VANCOUVER CID J11 ii-·~······.. ORUON CITY SHOPPING CENTER--- Js TOWER MALI; J12 l·- • -:o.:~"::"".:- ., LLOYD CENTElt "6 BEAVERTON COMPLEX J 13 i ~·L PORTLAND CBD J1 , . ~ - . .. .FlGURE 4 N REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTERS, PORTLAND-VANCOUVER SMSA CX> 29 Allocation of Shopping Expenditures .. The amount allocated.in the model among the thirteen shopping centers, ESj' is $518.8 million,. which is the sum of only their own total annual sales. Although it is appar ent that these ce.nters do not hand1 e a 11 the· retai 1ing expenditures made in the SMSA, it was decided to ignore the sales volumes of conmer cial strips along arterial streets, free-standi~g· s~ores,and smaller malls. This assumes that such· establishments will continue to receive a proportional aniount of the total .retail sales for SMSA. Also, allo cating the total retail sales for the SMSA among the thirteen shopping centers would have the impact of overestimating their sales. By using their combined annual ~ales, one can examine the relative pulls of the shopping centers among themselves. A p~oblem in using only the sum of sales at shopping centers is that sales in parts of the city·will be overestimated and in other areas· underestimated. This is most noticeable when dealing with lower income.areas because such shoppers ar~ more constrained·in their re sources and are therefore more likely to shop within their own neighbor hoods at discount stores rather than shopping at regional shopping cen ters (Berry, l972) .. Size of Market Areas .. Values for Ci, potential consumer dollars for area i, were determined from 1970 Census of Population and Houses. The study· area was divided into sixty-seven areas containing census tracts having similar income levels (see Figure 5). The mean income was determined f~r each. of _the sixty-seven areas. This was multiplied by· t~e number of families in each area. As different income levels spend a different·percentage of their income on items found in shopping 11 "1 Market A re as I - 67. Residential Market Artas determined by .~-e.~tanIncome frorn 1970 Cen1u1 ..... -= .• ------·------··-~---- .flGUR.£ 5. w 0 C.9~§l) MEB R ~§ID~MIJAb. AR EA Si _:.fQ ft.J~AND..- 'i_AliCQJJV.E R SJ~.SA_ - 31 .centers, a method was used to approximate the different consumer expen diture patterns. From the Bureau of Labor Statistics 1972 Consumer Ex pe~diture Survey a percentage figure for expenditures in shopping cen ters was determined by deducting from each income group's available · funds those expenditures that definitely would not be made at a regional shopping center, including rent or house payments, utilities, medical expenses, food at home, etc. (see Table IV). This percentage was multi plied by t~e mean income and the number of families to determine each . . of the sixty-seven market sizes and their relative weighting within the model (see Table V). c. = dolla:s spent in = (% by income\ x (n~m~e: ofl x (~verage) 1 shopp1 ng centers 1eve1 ) fam1l1 es ) 1ncome J Exponents of Distance. A range of exponents of distance (A) from 1.5 to 5.0 were used as weights for the frictional effect of travel time in the allocation model. This range reflects maximum and minimum degrees of effort a consumer will expend in shopping for a good. The variability of the distance exponent in the model is due to differing effects of the type of good.soug~t, the degree of substitutability for the good, and the time and expense involved in traveling to a center. Calculation of an exact value for A was not considered essential for this study. Such calculation would require the laborious use of succes sive approximation solution analysis. SIMULATION OF THE MODEL The model predicts the market share of a Hayden Island site with 500,000 square feet GLA in each of the sixty-seven residential areas. JABLEIV PERCENTAGEAVAILABLE OF COUSUMERDOLLAR BY rncOME FOR PURCHASES OF SHOPPING CENTER GOODS I I I I I I I I I I ~o bm OO"I ·oO"I OO"I OO"I Oen om OO"I OO"I om 0 Q)O om OO"I 00"\ OO"I OO"I Om .om 00"\ 00"\ OO"I 0 "'00 om om OO"I OO"I OO"I OO"I OO"I OO"I OO"I OO"I 0 s:: ...... ft ft ft ft ~ ft .. :::>M Mtv),. o:::to:::t i.n i.n \0\0 ...... COO"I Or- No:::t LOO"I Oo:::t I.(') Family Income ----~--~--~------~ Before Taxes 1,17~___ __3~!60___ 4,468 5,443 6,457 7,462 8,959 10,934 13,377 17,170 _22,076 __ _30_l494 Food-Total {6tr3T- -T93-6}---n-;o2QJTGTll} (l,153) (1,237) (1,307) (1,546) (l,668) (l,896) (2,153T~T2,433) -Away from (-34) (-53) (-66) (-85) (-99) (-112) (-143) (-181) (-208) (-239) (-290) (-443) Home Total ---- w - 629- - -883- - -960- -i-;-026- - f,054- -r;12s- -T,T64- -T,365 - -T,460- -T,657- -T,863- -T,990 - Shelter 725 796 863 971 1,043 1,006 l,139 l,164 l,446 l,467 1,644 2,684 Fuel and Utilities 218 258 279 310 313 364 356 413 452 510 . 554 639 Housing Expenses 137 176 180 186 231 245 262 273 322 359 413 - 724 Laundry, Ory Cleaning 50 60 68 69 85 73 88 80 79 98 113 163 Transpor tation "455 616 803 967 1,061 J ,289 _J,469 - 1,712 -----~_t00!1_~__f_t269 2,620 2,792 Health Care 208 300 343 363 _420 .406 484 470 520 574 630 853 Total Recreatio.D. (144) (227) (300) (339) . (345) {421) . (523) (532), (724)__ (947) (1 ,288) (1 ,943) - Other Rec. 1.. a11 1-122) (-1321 1-200) (-1841 1-198) .. (-2441 (-250' (-3331- (-3961 '-526) (-7231 low------~63 - To5- - -168 - ~T39- - -161 - ~223- - -279 -- -2a2L- - -391 - -5!1 - .lo: /62- - -r;t20 Education 13 7 16 13 27 39 46 68 82 158 277 534 Persona~ Insurance Pensions 218 249 297 327 384 457 566 756 917 1~152 1,466 -~265 Tota-1 Expense Not Spent In Shopping ,. '7'70 ______Centers ·2,716 3,450 3,977_ _'4_,S71 ~'- .. , ... !:\L227 5,853 _§_,58_3 7 ,673 8,795 10,341 13,864 %-Consumer Dollar Pos sible for Shopping 53% 65% w Centers 0% .03% 11% 20% 26%' 30% 35% 40% 43% 49%' N ·33 TABLE V PRECENTAGE INCOME AVAILABLE FOR CONSUMER SHOPPING BY RESIDENTIAL AREA - -:=.-:::=--...z=~:::::::::z:=::;:::::c _ .. :::"':: -~-:-::--==a:::: --==a:= ~~~..::--==.::z::s=~=':ac:a-:.::~-z::=:..:z::::::----:&:::L Percentage of No. of Average Income Spent in Market Size Area ·Families Income Shopping Centers In $ Millions 1 3,304 ·$ g·, 765 35% 11..29 2 2,953 15, 153 49 21. 93 3 8,431 9,392 35 27.71 4 10, 303 10,112 40 41.67 5 11 ,470 . 9,889 35 -40~05 6 .. 4;648· l l,860 40 22.05 7 1,923 8,490 35 5.71 8 10,927 .12 '595 43 59.18 9 4,671 10,364 40 19.36 10 798 6,221 26 1.29 11 . 6 ,843 10,802 40 29.57 12 4,477 10,835 40 19.40 13 2~949 . 7 ,398 30 6.55 14 . 6,746 9,341 35 22.06 15 5,353 11 ,222 40 24.03 16 3,433 9 ,451 35 11 • 36. 17 755 11 ,613 40 3. 51 18 581 11'330 40 . 2.63 19 5,675 11,392 40 25.86 20 7 '212 . 13,445 43 41.70 21 7,308 11,309 40 33.06 22 241 10 ,601 40 . 1.02 23 1'714 11 , 214 40 7.69 24 3,453. 11,827 40 1.63 25 4~349 11 '145 40 19.39 26 321 11 ,322 40 1.45 27 2,533 8,620 35 ' 7.64 28 1,450 12 '123 43 7.56 29 3 ,936 . 23,798 53 49.64 30 1,324 21,084 53 14.80 31 973 10,983 40 4.27 32 8,834 17,899 49 77 .48 33 504 19. 719 49 4.87 34 4,715 11 '961 40 22.56 35 1,819 10, 776 40 7.84 34 TABLE V--Continued ---~ ... ----.------~--~ ""'~ .. __ ;: - ... -- :a ,_ - .. - - • - ... - -~---=---=----;::;---. -- -- ·- - -·-· -· Percentage of No. of Average Income Spent in Market Size . Area Families · Income ·shopping Centers In $ Mi 11 ions 36 8,022 $12'175 . 43% $42.00 37 5j884 1.7 ,305 49 49.89 38 2,974 10,674 40 12. 70 39 738 10 ,286 40 3.04 '40 4,733 13'107 43 . 26. 68 41 5,090 14,206 43 31.10 42 7,103. 16,664' 49 58.00 43 2,380 15 ,960. 49 18. 61 44 3,309 11'232 40 14.87 45 2,692 11 ,905 40 12.82 46 2,848 12 ,847 43 15. 73 47 1,384 10 t477 40 5.80 48. ' 637 11 '149 40 2.84 49 2, 173 12,289 43 11.48 50 1,968 l1 ,677 40 9.19 51 553 11. 255 40 2.49 52 . 1 '773. 10, 114 40 7 .17 .53 638 10,7ll 40 2.73 . 54 1,084 10 '724. 40 4.65 55 839 10,895 40 3.66 56 l '512 11'723 40 7.09 57 2,176 9,829 35 7.49 58 4,382 12,550 43 .23. 65 59 2,473 11 ,324 40 11. 20 60 2,.357 13 ,485 43 13.67 61 ·2 ,695 8,723 35 8.23 62 l,843 8,583 35 5.54 63 1 '175 11,544 40 5.43 64 460 8,378 35 1.35 65 .· 2,521 13 ,379 43 14.50 66 1 ,534 11 ,282 40. 6.92. 67 1,714 12 ,404 43 9.14 ( I ' 35 (See Appendix I ·for de~ailed compute~ ~ri~tout.) Dollars are in 1972 values because -0f the use of .197? Census ·of- Retail Trade data. Since the predittion is based on past situatio~ and no future predictions are . . being put into the model, the criteria for population·-growth rates, .changes in travel time b~t not travel_ behavior, and expansion criteria in shopping centers are not considered. Varying treatments of travel behavior are incorporated by using different exponents of distance lying between 1.5 and 5.0. The results of the .model should be representative of the effects of competition and travel time on market sh~re. It is important-to,rea·lize tha·t the model .is only able to evaluate a site lo cation in r~lationship to competition from other retail locations and the size of.market areas. Thus attractiveness,_an intangible va~iable, is not taken into consideration in the simulation and neither are other variables such a.s effects of political boundaries or managerial abili ties considered in the model. Figures 6, 7, .8, 9, and 10 show sha.re of market under varying treatments of travel behavior. The market share per area is in the per centage· of the. consumer dollar available that is to be spent at Jantzen· Beach. However, because total consumer dollars were not used but rather only shopping center sales dollars (S.)' were allocated, the results must . J . be viewed as showing relative pull of Jantzen Beach Shopping Center in relationship to competition from other region~l shopping centers. Figure 6 is for a distance exponent of 1.5 which assumes a high degree of mobility and little constraint of travel time on comparison shopping. Consumers can be expected to be drawn from all over the SMSA. -At the other extreme, Figure lO uses a distance exponent of 5.0 which ---·--- -- ... ----·,..-- ....·--·- .._ - -- --· ...___ _ \ ------t E~ponen!of DI stance - " SHOPPING CENTERS JANTZEN !EACH JI EASTPORT PLAZA J2 MALL 2oe J5 GATEWAY J4 OREGON CITY SHOPPING CENTER--- Js LLOYD C£NT£ft -'6 PORTLAND CBD J7 i<-MAftT,LEVITI J9 GRESHAM SHOPPINQ CENTEft .It WASHINiTON SQUARE J10 VANCOUVER CBD Ju TOWER MALL; J12 BEAVERTON COMPLEX J15 "111 MARKET AREAS I· 67 • '5.0~ ;~J Ins than 2.5 % 8.4% I 2'>s · w< . I z. 8 - 3.-4 .O/o Ill l~.fS- 't.4% ·1 J and Mii 3.5 - 4. 9 ..111.5 above ~ .. % 11.___ . .. 'f1GU-R ~ 6 w JANTZEN BEACH, PREDICT-~O~~ARE OF THE ~fARKET,In °/o °' ...... -- -- ..- ...... _.._- ..- ...~ ... ·----- ...... - ...... ··-· ------...... ' ------______Exponent of Of stance ..... 2·.o SHOPPING CENTERS JANTZEN !EACH J1 EASTPORT PLAZA J2 MALL 205 ~ GATEWAY J4 OREGON CITY SHOPPING CENTER--- Je \ U.OYD CENTEft Jg PORTLAND ceo J7 Ja i<· MAftT I LEV!TZ \ ORESH AM SHOPPING CENTER Jg \ WASHINGTON SQUARE J10 VANCOUVER ceo Ju I 11 TOWER MALL: J12 BEAVERTON COMPLEX J13 "I" MARK ET AREAS I· 87 less than 2.5 % .15.0- 8.4% 1· !.8-3.-4·% 111j8.!S- lt.4% I 3.!S -4.9 % ~J'H.5and above .,... -===:i "FllURE 1 U> JANTZEN BEACH, PREDICTE 0 SHARE OF THE·M~RKET, In °/o -..J ------__.... _... __.... - . ------··--·· \ Exponent of Distance 3.0. """' IHOPPIN8 CENTERS JANTZEN !EACH JI USTPORT PLAZA J2 MALL 205 "3 GATEWAY J" OREGON CITY SHOPPING CENTER--- Js LLOYD CENTER Je PORTLAND CBD J7 i<·MART, LEVfTZ J9 GRESHAM SHOPPINi CENTER Jg WASHINQTON SQUARE J10 VANCOUVER CBD J11 TOWER MALL: J12 BEAVERTON COMPLEX J15 .... MARK ET AR EAi·---, - 87 less tHan 2.5 % • 1~·0-8.4% 2. 6 ·- 3.-4 ·0io .. 18.!S· I t.4% 3.5 • 4. 9 % 1·1.l.!Sand aboVI Miiot Im ~ --,.. "FIGURE 8 ~ w JANTZEN BEACH, PREDICTED SHA-RE. OF THE'MARKET, In % . Cf:l". .~I \ Exponent of Of stance .. ,Jt 4·.o SHOPPING CENTERS JANTZEN llEACH JI EASTPORT PLAZA J2 I MALI. 2015 J3 I GATEWAY J4 OREGON CITY SHOPfllNG CENTER--- Je \ l U..OYO CENTEft Jg PORTLAND CID J1 l 1HtAltT, L!V[TZ J9 GRESHAM SKOPfllHt CENTtft "9 WASHINOTOH SQUARE J10 VANCOUVER CID J11 TOWER MALl; J12 BEAVERTON COMPl.EX J13 11 11 1 MAR ICET AREAS I - 87 n ' less than 2.5 % • Ill·o • 8.4% 2. 6 ·- 3.-4 ·% -!e ..e. lt.4% ...... I ~ a.!5 .. 4. 9 % jll.ll and above - - . ----- ....-.-.~-·-- .. , - _ ~------T-- --.FIGu RE 9 ·W JANTZEN BEACH, PREDICTE 0 SHARE OF THE :MARKET, In % ·~ .:t! . -~------lo- -- .... ------__ ..___ -- .,._ -- .\ \ ------Exponent of Distance 5·.·o SHOPPING CENTERS JANTZEN !EACH J1 EASTPORT PLAZA J2 MALL 2011 J3 GATEWAY J4 OREGON CITY SHOPPING CENTER- Je U.OYD CENTER -'6 PORTLAND CBD J1 i<-MART, LEVITZ J9 GRESHAM SHOPPING CENTER Jg WASHINGTONSQUARE J10 VANCOUVER CID Ju TOWER MALL: J12 BEAVERTON COMPLEX J13 ------"I" MARKET AREAS I· 67 I f' ....:~~, I 1ess than 2. 5 % • !!l.O • B.4% I L - J I ·t I . 8.!S - I t.4% 2. 6 - 3.--4 ·% I I 3.5 -4.9 % ;·11.5 andabove .. I ~ Mlleo .FllURE 10 ..si=. JANTZEN BEACH, PREDICTE.O SHARE OF THE.MARKET, In °/o 0 4·1 signi.fies a· highly constrained mobility.· Consumers will probably shop - ' selectively, and li~tle comparison shopping will occur. If the current ener~.~hortage continues and travel costs become more expensive, per- . haps·this more highly constrai~ed. pattern could occur •. Figures 7, 8,. and 9 repres.ent inte~mediate expone.nts. · · Comparison among the five maps shows a marked contrast, as local retaili~g monopolies develop with an increase in travel costs. ·Figure 6 .wit~ a distance exponent- i.5 shows consumers traveling . from· the entire.SMSA to shop at Jantzen Beach. It is interesting to . note that areas with the ot~er shopping centers show less percentag~ of potential consumers. Area 13 is shown as higher than area 14 although it is closer. This. occurs. due to calculations of travel time from a ·point off center in area 14. A distanc~ expon.ent of 2.0 (Figure 7)- shows the· start of location al monopolies occurring aroun~ the Lloyd Cent~r and a ·greater ·amount of Vancouver residents are spendi~g a larger proportion 'of their ~hopping dollar at_a Hayderi Island site~ Most of south~est, southeast, and north~ast.Portland drop out from sh6ppi~g at Jantzen Beach with a distance exponent.of .3.0 (Figure 8). The market area becomes more oriented to Clark County residents and areas of .l~ttle population. ~ith higher constraints on travel (Figure 9), areas around the To~er Mall in Vancouver lower their percentage of shopping at Jantzen Beach. With 5.0 exponent of distance (Figure 10), which means that travel is highly constrained, Clark County areas where the population 42 resides decrease their patronage. A 5.0 exponent level is extremely high and is not expected to occur in reality. Table VI. ·shows p~edicted percentage share of the .market under ·dif- ferent con.strai nts on travel behavior. TABLE VI P~OJECTED SHARE OF THE MARKET--JANTZEN BEACH Distance Ex~onent % Total Market 2 1972 1.5 .5.0 2.0 4.7 2.5 4.5 ·3.0 4.2 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.8 4.5 3.7 5.0 3.5 . Based on relative floor space alone, Jantzen Beach, a center of 500,000 square feet, would be expected to pull app.roximatel.Y 6 percent ... of the market or $31.1 million (see Table III). However, the model predicts that Jantzen Beach would only draw from 3.5 percent to 5.0 per~ cent of ·the total shopping ~ollar. In retail sales, a range from $18.54 million to $26.12 milli~n is predicted. The expected $31.1 million for the.size of the shopping center is not reached according to the model due to the effect of competing-shopping centers and lack of population ·(see Table VII). It is interesting to note that for Jantzen Beach Shopping Center, an increase of the distance exponent in the model caused a marked de crease in estimated shares. However, for many of the shopping centers, 43 TABLE VII ESTIMATED SALES, JANTZEN BEACH Distance Ex2onent 1972 Dollars in Millions 1.5 $26 .12 2.0 24.59 2.5 23.19 3.0 21.93 3.5 20.83 4.0 19.89 4.5 19.13 5.0 18.54 an increase of the distance exponent actually increased sales. For , 1.5, example, predicted sales for Eastport Plaza, J2 with a distance of was $35.25 million, which increased to $45.85 million with a distance exponent of 5.0. Table VIII indicates some interesting consequences of the impact of increased cost on travel behavior. For Jantzen Beach, with a highly mobile consumer (1.5 to 2.0), the majority of consumer dollars would come from twenty to thirty minutes away, whereas as the exponents of distance increase, the majority of consumer dollars is predicted to come from the ten- to fifteen-minute range. Few consumer dollars are available in the first five minutes. Table IX, Locational Efficiency, reveals that under all conditions · of travel beh~vior, a site at Hayden Island (Jantzen Beach) does not ap proach 100 percent locational efficiency. Even under a highly mobile populace, locational efficiency is only equal to 84 percent. With a J 5.0 distance exponent it is equal to 60 percent. This indicates that 44 TABLE VIII ESTIMATED SALES FOR JANTZEN BEACH BY TIME-DISTANCE (MILLIONS OF 1972 DOLLARS) Minutes from Exponents of Distance Jantzen Beach 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5 $ .27 $ .35 $ .45 $ . 56 $ .. 68 .' $ .79 $ .90 $ . 01 , 10 2.40 2.96 3.58 4.26 4.99 5.75 6.54 7.33 15 4.56 4.64 4.57 4.34 3.98 3.55 3.09 2.64 20 4.·79 4.54 4.26 3.94 3.56 3.16 2.77 2.40 25 7.04 6.16 5.38 4.71 4.14 3.67 3.27 2.92 30 4.85 4.01 3.28 2.65 2 .15 l. 74 1.43 1.19 35 1.89 1.69 1.51 1. 37 . 1.26 1.17 1.10 1.04 40 .27 .20 .14 .09 .06 .04 .03 .02 45 .05 .04 .03 .02 .02 .01 . 01 .00 Total $26 .12 $24.59 $23 .19 $21.94 $20.83 $19.89 $19 . 13 $18 . 54 it is, according to this model, in a suboptimal location and is off cen ter to the major market (residential) areas. Because of the expected lack of population growth in nearby areas due to the industrial develop ment and Delta Park, it is expected that the center would not be able· to increase its locational efficiency by the criteria of the model. TABLE IX LOCATIONAL EFFICIENCY--JANTZEN BEACH Distance Ex2onent 1972 1.5 84% 2.0 79% 2.5 75% 3.0 70% 3.5 67% 4.0 64% 4.5 62% 5.0 60% 45 COMPARISON OF SUCCESS PROBABILITIES OF A HAYDEN ISLAND SITE WITH THE ACTUAL PERFORMANCE OF JANTZEN BEACH SHOPPING CENTER A comparison between the predicted locational efficiency and that which is present at Jantzen Beach is startling. Peter Van Dyke, Presi dent of Jantzen Beach, Inc., stated that as of December, 1976, Jantzen Beach Shopping Center was earning $119.00 per square foot s~les or ap proximately $60 million. Translating to 1972 dollars so that cons~sten cy with the allocation model can be maintained, locational efficiency measured by actual sales in relation to square footage for Jantzen Beach was 139.7 percent of national averages for comparably-sized shopping centers as determined by the Urban Land Institute. 1972 Dollar Value with 1967 Base of 100 127.3 1977 Dollar Value -- x $119. 00 per square foot = $86. 91 1967 Base 174.3 Locational = $86.91 per sq. ft. x 500,000 sg. ft. x = 9 3 Efficiency $31.l million 100 13 · 7 The allocation model of Huff predicted only an 84 percent locational efficiency, so that actual performance is actually 165 percent of wh~t would be predicted by considerations of population, center size, and travel times. Another confirmation of the success of Jantzen Beach Shopping Cen ter is the traffic generated by the center. If the center is performing successfully, it should be comparable in traffic generation to the na tional average. In this regard, Carl Buttke notes the following: The primary mode of transportation to regional shopping centers has been the private automobile, with over 95% of the shoppers .!I>-""' 46 arriving this way. Walking, bus and taxi have represented less than 5% of the total shopping trips .. Shopping center vehicle trip gener ation has been found to vary with the type and size of the center. Average daily vehicle trip generation for centers of regional char~ acter, having over 80% of its developed building area devoted to the handling and sale of shopping goods and over 500,000 square feet of gross leasable area has been found to vary between 36 and 56 trip-ends per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area. In other words, these regional centers attract between 18 and 28 vehicles ·per .average day per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area (Buttke, 1972). Buttke cites his own.measurements of approximately 14,800 two-way vehicle trips entering and exiting Jantzen Beach on an April day in 1975. Due to fluctuations in weekly and monthly traffic, "it was determined that this center, on the average, generates approximately 40 two-way ve hicle trips per 1,000 G·.s.F. of leasable floor area and is typi_cal to the national average" (Buttke, 1975). Jantzen Beach Shopping Center is thus surpassing the median value of dollars/sales per square foot for the national average and is compar able to similar centers in generation of vehicular trips. Moreover, it is continuing to expand. Sales have grown steadily at 15 to 20 percent annually (Peter Van Dyke, Interview). Expansion has been continuous. When first opened the center had thirty-six stores. Presently there are eighty-four stores and with the additional 200,000 square feet ex pected to open in the fall of 1977, the number of stores is expected to increase to 120 (Oregonian, 20 April 1977, p. Bll). CHAPTER IV THE ROLE THE STATE BOUNDARY PLAYS ON THE SUCCESS OF JANTZEN BEACH SHOPPING CENTER The success of Jantzen Beach Shopping Center is far above expecta tions, considering its intnediate population density, competition, and other criteria used in shopping center location. Its success would ap pear to be related to functions of the state boundary between Oregon and Washington. A political boundary will have both operational and psychological effects on the inhabitants within the border area. In this specific case, the boundary separates regions having differing means of taxation. The existence of a 5 percent sales tax in Washington appears to encour age Washington residents to shop for goods in Oregon which does not have a sales tax. Jantzen Beach Shopping Center has the fortunate position of being the first shopping center encountered when entering Oregon from Washington on Interstate 5. Its proximity to Washington and distance· from its main competing centers in Oregon--Lloyd Center and Portland Downtown {approximately fifteen minutes)--cuts travel time in half for Washington residents. Thus it is able to intercept customers by provid ing an intervening opportunity. Its location in Oregon appears to have a major influence on its success. Roger Martin, CCIM, in an interview, stated that Jantzen Beach's "unique drawing card is that a four- or five-minute drive 48 escapes a sales tax." Whether the extra time involved is worth it be comes a value judgment but the psychological aspects of saving on the sales tax plays a part. "Sales tax is definitely the reasonil as far as he is concerned for the success of Jantzen Beach Shopping Center. An other aspect of the effect of the sales tax is that with inflation ris ing as fast as it has, real income for most families has decreased and "in today's family economy, the sales tax is a determining factor" ( Gaunt , 19 74 , 22 ) . The fact that the state boundary is the Columbia River also ap pears to have an impact on circulation patterns in the Portland Vancouver SMSA. The river has traditionally been a barrier to mobility between Portland and Vancouver. The present existence of only one bridge crossing in each direction has hindered traffic flow between the two citi'es and has created a bottleneck for traffi'c durtng the rush hours or whenever accidents occur on the bri'dge. However, it ha.s had the benefit for Jantzen Beach of focusing traffic flow over Hayden Is land. However, because of these limitations on circulation, it is my impression that for most Oregonians Vancouver is further away from Port la~d than Portland is from Clark County residents. In order to determine the importance of the political boundary in making Jantzen Beach such a successful shopping center, a survey was taken using a questionnaire designed to locate residences, travel times, origin of trips, shopping frequency, patr.onage of other shopping cen ters, and reasons for shopping at Jantzen Beach Shopping Center by its customers. 49 SURVEY OF JANTZEN BEACH CUSTOMERS The questionnaire was designed to elicit straightforward answers concerning the customer's shopping behavior (see Appendix II). There fore, concise questions were asked which had all possible answers within them. Subjects were requested to respond to questions read to them from an interview questionnaire while being able to read the questionnaire at the same time. · Originally Eastport Plaza was selected for the pre-test because of the similarity of the two centers, each being enclosed malls catering to consumers arriving by automobiles. However, consumer surveys were not allowed at Eastport Plaza. Therefore, Portland Downtown was selected for the pre-test for te~ting proper and natural wording of the question naire. Due to the nature of the CBD shopper, difficulties were experi enced in obtaining interviews, and applicability of some of the ques tions. However, experience in approaching customers and interviewing was gained. Permission was obtained from Jantzen Beach, Incorporated to inter view approximately one hundred of its customers during the week March 20-26, 1977.· Because of Jantzen Beach's standing policy of not allowing harrassment of the customers, i.e., consumer surveys, it was fortunate to be allowed to interview at all. Data were obtained by randomly in terviewing shoppers. Interviews were conducted during three time peri ods: Tuesday, March 22, 1977, 11:30 A.M. to 2:30 P.M.; Thursday, March 24, 1977, 4:30 P.M. to 7:00 P.M.; and Saturday, March 26, 1977, 12:00 noon to 3:00 P.M. This was ·done in order not to focus exclusively on a particular type of class of shopper. Customers were questioned 50 individually by two interviewers working together. This was done for two reasons: (1) moral support and encouragement, and (2) holding the map to determine the residential area in which the consumer lived. The a.na1ysis of data was done by Chi Square contingency tables when comparing Question 1 with 8, 3 with 8, 4 with 8, and 6 with 8 {see Appendix II). Question 2 uses a weighted ranking. Question 8 was used as an independent variable in all comparisons because of its ability to separate pop~lations into two distinct categories {Portland .and Vancou ver). In all Chi Square computations, an alpha level of .05 was used as the standard value. RESULTS OF THE SURVEY A total of 113 interviews were completed during the three days se lected. There were 26 percent from the Oregon part of the SMSA, 55 per cent were from the Cl ark County, Was hi nqton part of the SMSA, and 19 per cent were from outlying areas (Montana, .New Jersey, Klamath Falls, Se attle, etc.). This seems like a relatively high figure for the, outly ing area, because usually 90 percent of sales are to customers within the first seven miles from a regional shopping center (Baker Interview). However, conferences at the motel on Hayden Island and visibility from the Interstate 5 freeway help to account for this figure. School vaca tion may also have had some effect on this proportion. See Table X and Figure 11 for residences of local population. That data were comparable with those of surveys done earlier by Jantzen Beach, Incorporated, in 1975 and 1976 (see Table XI). Their -- - -· ------~--..-- ~..-'---·------·- - - --.. 11 · 1" Market Areas ~ I - 67 L..- •.• In a custo.me r 1urv1y1 Mar ch 2 0 • 2 6, I 9 7 7, 93 out of 113 ahoppera Interviewed, were from the 1tu d y a re a. 6 3 were fr om Washington and 30 were from Oregon. The other 20 •hoppers were ftom o·utlyfng ar 1 a a. • equals I Portland, OR. SMSA Ruldent • •qua I 1 I CI ark C o., WA. S M SA R es Id en t ~ Mllt1 FIGURE ·II RESIDENCES OF SHOPPERS AT JANTZEN BEACH SHOPPING CENTER __,01 52 TABLE X PLACE OF RESIDENCE OF JANTZEN BEACH CUSTOMERS Dal Portland Vancouver Outlling Total Tuesday 7 21 5 33 Thursday 9 26 6 41 Saturday 14 16 9 39 TOTAL 30 63 20 113 Percent 26% 55% 19% 100% sample populations were much larger, 433 and 522, but results.were simi lar when comparing theirs with this survey's more generalized place of origin. TABLE XI STATE OF RESIDENCE OF JANTZEN BEACH CUSTOMERS Jantzen Beach Survels This Survet, 1975 1976 1977 Washing- Washing- Washing- Oregon ton Other Oregon ton Other Oregon ton Other 40% 59% 1% 36% 63% 1% 34% . 63% 3% Responses from persons from outlying areas were discarded in ana lyzing data, leaving ninety-three usable questionnaires. Comparisons of where subjects were coming from (home, work, or other) were made by separating the populations between those from Port~ land and from Vancouver. The category of "work/other" was initially separated, but had to be combined because of an inadequate number of responses (less than five for the work category), and small relative frequencies for the work category occurring in the Portland population. ,,,,, 53 No distinction was found to exist between Portland and Vancouver resi- dents concerning whether they were coming from 11 home 11 or "work/other." Inquiry into reasons why vario.us shoppers patronize Jantzen Beach was also undertaken. Shoppers were asked to rank their reasons from l to 3 from a selection of possible responses for their reasons for shop ping. Weighted rankings are presented in Table XII. TABLE XII WEIGHTED RANKINGS OF REASONS FOR SHOPPING AT JANTZEN BEACH SHOPPING CENTER Large Selec- No Sales Close Special- Close Recre- Special Rank tion Taxes to Work ty Shops to Home Other at ion Sales Portland 1 3 5 3 5 10 0 4 2 3 4 6 2 2 3 l 1 1 2 Weighted Not Rank 15 Ranked 15 10 23 43 5 17 Vancouver l 20 4 5 2 22 6 4 2 13 11 l 3 5 8 2 2 3 6 2 3 8 1 2 Weighted Rank 86 40 19 12 79 42 5 20 The results as presented by median ranking in Table XII showed that Portland shoppers shopped for the following reasons, ranked in or der of importance: 1. Other reasons 2. Close to home .$ 54 3. Special sales 4. Closeness to work (they worked at Jantzen Beach) and large selection (these rankings were tied) 5. Specialty shops 6. Recreation Vancouver shoppers shopped for the following reasons (in order of importance) : 1. Large selection 2. Close to home 3. Other 4. No sales tax 5. Special sales 6. Close to work 7. Specialty shops 8. Recreation The overall results of the ranking shows that Portland and Van couver shoppers shop at Jantzen Beach for different reasons. Above all, Vancouver shoppers do not appear to believe that they shop at Jantzen Beach explicitly to avoid the Washington State sales tax. However, it appears to be a secondary and contributing factor. In a comparison of Portland area residents versus Vancouver area residents regarding how often a subject shopped at Jantzen Beach, a re lationship was found to exist when using "weekly," "monthly," and "less often" as the dependent variables. This occurred, however, after com bining some of the initial categories due to inadequate frequencies in some cells in the Portland population. In fact, the relationship ,,,.. 4 G 55 extended to a probability of .005, suggesting that there was little likelihood of making an alpha error. A Chi Square analysi~ was used to' test the hypothesis that there is no difference between the two populations. It appears that Vancou ver shoppers differ significantly in their shopping frequency at Jant zen Beach. Shopping frequency in general was also compared in a Portland vers-us-Vancouver manner. There was no relationship found to exist in shopping frequencies between Portland and Vancouver. Again, however, certain categories had to be combined because too few frequencies ex isted for some categories of the Portland population. A comparison of these two categories, "shopping frequency at Jantzen Beach" and "frequency of shopping in general," suggests that Vancouver shoppers frequent Jantzen Beach Shopping Center more often than Portland shoppers, but that for frequency of shopping in general, Portland and Vancouver residents are not significantly different. In Question 5 on the interview questionnaire, shoppers were asked to tell which three shopping centers ,in the Portland/Vancouver area they frequented most (Figure 12). A list of large shopping centers was then offered. However, not all shoppers responded with three choices, so percentages of frequencies were computed by using the total number of cited shopping centers rather than the total number of shoppers. The following four comparison (in order of importance) represent the find ings in general. Vancouver residents mentioned Jantzen Beach 41.6 per cent of the time while Portlanders did so only 18.3 percent. Vancouver shoppers noted Lloyd Center 24.1 percent compared to Portland's 25 ""'"' 56 -. S hoppino Centers FREQUENCY in % 20 40 60 80 JA.NTZEN BEACli 41 EASTPORT PLAZA· .MALL 205 GATEWAY LL.OYD CENTER PORTLAND DOWNTOWN GRESHAM M'ALL WASHfNGTON SQUARE VANCOUVER DOWNTOWN TOWER MALL OREGON' CITY K:'"MART - LEVITZ BEAVERTON COMPLEX OTHER --YOncouv-er Shoppers Portland Shoppers FIGURE 12. FREQUENCY OF SHOPPING' CENTERS CITED FROM CUSTOMER SURVEY, 1977 ...J 57 percent. Vancouver shoppers cited Washington Square 7.3 percent, while Portland shoppers mentioned it 18.3 percent. Other shopping centers, including K-Mart (Vancouver), G.I. Joe's, and various Fred Meyer stores, were identified·l2.4 percent by Vancouver subjects- and 14.l percent by Portland subjects. Subjects were asked to look at a map and give the number from the group pf sixty-seven areas that included where he lived. Travel times to Jantzen Beach were calculated from the PVMATS data. It was found that for Vancouver residents, 11 percent lived 1-10 minutes away from Jantzen Beach, while 51 percent lived 11-20 minutes away, and 35 percent lived 21-30 minutes away. For Portland area residents, 30 percent lived 1-10 minutes away, 23 percent lived 11-20 minutes away, and 37 percent lived 21-30 minutes away. As the customer survey indicated, the majority of shoppers patron izing Jantzen Beach Shopping Center are Clark County, Washington, resi dents. Their reasons-~closeness to home and large selection--become ex tremely important when considering the effects of a political boundary running through a metropolitan area. The success of Jantzen Beach Shop ping Center thus appears to rest upon economic effects of a political boundary. The primary reason that Clark County residents shop at Jant zen Beach is because of the lack of large selection for comparison goods (those found in regional shopping centers) in Clark County (Smith, 1972). The question then becomes: why hasn't there been any large shopp~ng center development in southern Washington prior to this time? - 58 THE IMPACT OF THE STATE BOUNDARY ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF CLARK COUNTY Vancouver is part of a four-county metropolitan region consisting of Multnomah County, Clackamas County, Washington County, Oregon; and Clark County, Washington. In 1970, Clark County contained 12.7 perce~t of the SMSA's total population. Between 1960 and 1970, its population increased 37 percent from 98,800 to 128,400 people. Table XIII indi cates that Clark County has been growing faster than the metropolitan area as a whole. It has increased from 11.4 percent in 1960 to 12.7 percent in 1970 of the total SMSA population. Approximately 70 percent of the population resides in the southern part of the county within five ·miles from the Columbia River (Smith, 1972). TABLE XII I POPULATION TRENDS: CLARK COUNTY-PORTLAND-VANCOUVER SMSA Clark Co. SMSA % Clark Co. Year {in OOO's} % Increase {in OOO's} % Increase of SMA 1910 26. l 303.8 8.65% 1920 32.8 25.67% 372.8 22.71% 8.8 1930 40.3 22.86 455.0 22.04 8.8 1940 49.9 23.82 501.3 l 0.17 9.9 1950 85.3 70.94 704.8 40.59 12 .1 1960 93.8 9.96 821.9 16. 61 11.4 '1970 128. 5 36.99 1 '009. 1 22.77 12.7 SOURCE: Columbia Region Association of Governments, Economic In dicators: An Illustrated Statistical Abstract of the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area, 1970, pp. 1-5. An estimated 11,500 people daily commute to work in Oregon across the Interstate Bridge. This is a substantial number of Washington -· _,...... 59 residents working in Oregon and represents approximately one-quarter of the residents of Vancouver. Clark County's growth rate "reflects subur ban development patterns in evidence in essentially all urban areas of the country" (Smith, 1972). This is a result particularly of cheaper land at the periphery as opposed to more central locations. In the case of Clark County, differentiation in taxes between Oregon and Wash ington may account for some of its increase. Washington has some tax advantages not present in Oregon, specifically, lower inheritance taxes and property taxes. Property taxes are approximately 40 percent lower in the Washington portion of the Portland-Vancouver SMSA which encour ages new home buyers to locate in Clark County. Also taxes on inheri tance are lower. Thus wealthy residents are encouraged to locate north of the Columbia River (Smith, 1972). According to Table XIV, which com pares average property tax rates, Oregon is approximately 40 percent higher. TABLE XIV PROPERTY TAXES PAID PER $1,000 OF PERSONAL INCOME State Amount Washington $36.30 Oregon 50.65 California 65.21 SOURCE~ Oregon Department of Comnerce, A Brief Comparison of Taxes in Oregon, Washington and California, August 1968. Lack of a state income tax in Washington encourages population growth even though income earned in Oregon is taxed. Washington compen sates for its lack of income tax by taxing retail sales at 5 percent of >~~ 60 the sales price (inclu~ing a local sales tax of 1/2 of 1 percent). Ore gon, lacking a sales tax, has a progressive graduated income tax. The political boundary has had a number of observable effects on the development of Clark County. In particular, Clark County has not been able to retain its share of the market in retailing comparison goods. A moderate population base and the tax differential between Washing ton and Oregon discouraged the development of major shoppin9 facili ties in the county, with the result that county (trade area) resi dents had to purchase the bulk of their comparison goods in Portland stores (Smith, 1972). In an interview with Jim Baker (CCIM), a number of ideas came out concerning.the question of why there had been no large shopping center development in southern Washington. Until recently, Vancouver did not have the population to support a regional center. Secondly, the politi cal boundary had a number of effects: the boundary being a river made it a natural barrier keeping Portland residents on the Oregon side due to the inconvenience of crossing the river. The existence of only one bridge between the two states is the result of political decisions and the effect of the new bridge 1~205 to be built is also due to these de cisions. The impact of the I-205 bridge will be discussed later. The differentiation in taxes has had a number of effects: (1) the sales tax in Washington ca~ses construction costs to be less in Oregon; and (2) people are more willing to drive to Portland to avoid the sales tax than Oregon residents are willing to obtain permits to purchase items in Washington tax free. This is due to.two factors: ignorance concerning the permits and the time expended in obtaining them. This lack of .shopptng centers has created the situation that "Clark County ,,,,..~ 61 has been able to retain less than 50 percent of the total comparison good potential generated there" (Smith, 1972). A 1973 report, Clark County Consumer Attitudes Toward Shopping in Downtown Vancouver, reveals the fact that the majority of households in Clark County spend 20 percent or less of their money in the Vancouver CBO. The failure to capture a larger share of the consumer's spending dollar may be attributed, in part, to a limitation on the variety and selection presented to the consumer by downtown Vancouver busi nesses. Hence~ the consumer shops elsewhere (Clark County Consumer, etc., 1973, 20J. The report also states (Table XV) other places where Clark County resi dents shop. Jantzen Beach and Lloyd Center are the most important for consumers who shop downtown,and for consumers who do not shop downtown Vancouver, neighborhood centers around Vancouver weigh more heavily. TABLE XV SHOPPING CENTERS THAT CLARK COUNTY RESIDENTS PATRONIZE Percentages of Clark Percentages of Clark County Households Who County Households Who Say That They Do Not Say That They Shop in Shop in Downtown Downtown Vancouver Also ShoE in These Areas Vancouver 54% Lloyd Center 49% 54% Jantzen Beach 52% 22% Downtown Portland 16% 10% Eastside Portland 16% 3% Westside Portland 5%. 2% Ridgefield 2% 10% Battleground 10% 8% Camas-Washougal 7% 30% Hazel dell 32% 13% Local 16% 53% Vancouve~--not downtown 62% 4% Clark County--other . 2% SOURCE: Clark Coun~ Consumer Attitudes Toward Shopping in Down town Vancouver, 1973, p. 2 . ;,,,. 62 Influences on shopping are related to the types of goods and ser vices wanted (see Table XVI). Important for Clark County residents for purchases such as .food, drugs, and variety items commonly classified as convenience goods are the reasons: close to home or work, and personal service. For higher value items, large selection and low prices are more important and distance traveled becomes less important. Shoppers are more.willing to travel for these items (see Table XVII). TABLE XVI CLARK COUNTY RESIDENTS' REASONS FOR· SHOPPING FOR ASSORTED GOODS Clark County When They Shop for Househo 1ds Say ------.::.---=------That They are Furni- Most Influenced Person- Medicine ture & as to Where They. al Ser- and Cloth- Variety Appli- Automo- Shop by vices Food Drugs ing Items ances biles Nearness to work or residence 51% 60% 58% 27% 61% 20% 18% Good service 34% 21% 24% 21% 12% 29% 32% Low prices 21% 55% 36% 36% 39% 41% 41% Habit 16% 9% 11% 7% 6% 8% 7% Large selection 11% 20% 11% 46% 24% 26% 17% Pleasant sur- roundings 7% 6% 5% 7% 4% 6% 3% Convenience 5% 4% 5% 4% 5% 3% 2% No traffic problems 8% 11% 8% 9% 9% 4% 3% No sales tax 3% 5% 2% 7% 3% 10% 5% Quality brands 2% 5% 1% 13% 2% 11% 11% Advertising 2% 6% 2% 4% 3% 4% 5% Credit avail- able 1% 1% 3% 8% 1% 8% 1% All other reasons 3% 2% 4% 5% 2% 4% 5% SOURCE: Clark County Consumer Attitudes Towards Shopping in Down town Vancouver, 1973, p. 25. /'""' ':* TABLEXVII lo 'l\ CLARKCOUNTY RESIDENTS' CHOICE OF SHOPPINGCENTERS FOR SHOPPING FOR ASSORTED GOODS Usuall~at These Places Percentages of Clark Downtown -Other All County Households Vancou- Vancou- Hazel- Jantzen DowntownPortland Lloyd Other Shoe for These Items ver ver dell Beach Portland East Center Places Total Furniture 53% 6% 3% 3% 11% 13% 1% 10% 100% Children's clothing 47% 13% 11% 7% 7% 5% 6% 4% 100% Women's clothing 47% 10% 10% 5% 13% 3% 9% 3% 100% Men's clothing 42% 14% 10% 5% 11% 5% 7% 6% 100% Autos 39% 8% 7% - 17% 4% - 25% 100% Appliances 37% 8% 7% 5% 10% 20% 1% 12% 100% Television 36% 14% 3% 4% 11% 15% 2% 15% 100%. Drug & medical supplies 21% 46% 20% - 1% 1% - 11% 100% Variety items 13% 48% 29% 1% 1% 1% - 7% 100% Food 7% 37% 29% 3% 5% 1% - 18% 100% SOURCE:Clark County Consumer Attitudes Toward Shopping in DowntownVancouver, 1973, p. 26. °'w 64 Due to differences between Oregon and Washington, Clark County has not until recently been the site of any major regional shopping centers. Thus, a lack of large selection for comparison goods plus the Washington State sales tax have encouraged Clark County residents to shop in Ore- gon. OTHER FACTORS INFLUENCING SITE AND SUCCESS OF JANTZEN BEACH SHOPPING CENTER Jantzen Beach Shopping Center was located on the first available site in Oregon beyond Vancouver in order to intercept customers from Clark County (Peter Van Dyke, President, Jantzen Beach, Inc., Interview). The lack of competition in southern Washington has encouraged consumer mobility,and Jantzen Beach's accessibility from Interstate 5 to both Oregon and Washington shoppers has helped make it a success. An em ployee of Hayden Island, Inc. noted that another factor in the location of the center on Hayden Island includes the decision made in 1964, by Hayden Island, Inc., to make it a conmercial and residential center (Pat Domine, Interview). The availability of this large tract of land in a very accessible location also had its impact on the decision. Other tracts of land of this size were not available within North Port- land and tracts that were available in Washington were north of Vancou ver or in East Clark County. The phenomenal success of Jantzen Beach can be rel·ated to other factors besides the effect of the political boundary. Jantzen Beach, Incorporated began business in 1972. This early start had the effect of preempting possible development elsewhere. /'""' 65 The good management and marketing program have also played a role in the success of Jantzen Beach Shopping Center. A well-selected vari ety of stores offers a diverse a~sortm~nt of goods and services to cus tomers. Group advertising informs people of the center and encourages them to shop there. The planning of varied exhibits and displays makes Jantzen Beach a fun place to go and a pleasant place to shop. The de velopment of recreational facilities primarily for children has encour aged parents to bring their children to Jantzen Beach Shopping Center for pleasure. FUTURE IMPACTS ON JANTZEN BEACH SHOPPING CENTER As situations change, what future impacts will Jantzen Beach Shopping Center face? Presently two major changes are occurring: first, the opening of Vancouver Mall located in East Clark County at the inter section of I-205 and Fourth Plain Boulevard; and secondly, the future building of the I-205 bridge connecting East Clark County with East Multnomah County. Vancouver Mall, a regional shopping center under construction in East Clark County, is expected to contain 848,000 square feet of gross leasable area.(GLA). It will include five major department stores and a vari"ety of sma 11 er speci a 1ty stores (Fri scher, 1973). It will be more than 100,000 square feet larger than downtown Van couver, and with its major department stores will out-compete Vancouver downtown which presently has only one department store. Reaction to the impact of competition from Vancouver Mall on Jant zen Beach sales varies. It is expected to cut into some of its sales. /•' 66 Roger Martin considers the Vancouver Mall a "dangerous spot to open a shopping center" (Interview). He feels that Vancouver Mall will have some effect on Jantzen Beach but that it is more likely to affect Lloyd Center. He believes this to be true because the quality of department stores is to be higher in the Vancouver Mall. "The affluent are more time conscious than the less wealthy." Higher income Vancouver shoppers are more likely to patronize Vancouver Mall as opposed to Lloyd Center, Washington Square, or Portland Downtown, where the store mix would be of similar quality. With eastern Clark County containing more wealthy families,_ they can support the shopping center. However, the less wealthy people in central Vancouver are less likely to be drawn to the Mall, since proximity and the continued lack of sales tax at Jantzen Beach will be a strong drawing card (Martin, Interview). It is expected that with the opening of Vancouver Mall, Jantzen Beach's sales will lessen for a period of time and then build up due to customer familiarity with the shopping center. Also, expansion of Jantzen Beach to include another large department store (K-Mart) and another large specialty store (Nordstrom's Place 2) will also help to draw customers. The impact of the 1-205 bridge, scheduled to open in 1981 or 1982, is expected to be totally positive. Peter Van Dyke, President of Jantzen Beach, believes this because it will detour the interstate truck traffic off Interstate 5 over to Interstate 205, thus lessening traffic congestion on the freeway (Interview). Current expansion of Jantzen Beach Shopping Center, customer fa miliarity with the center, lack of a sales tax due to its location in /'. 67 Oregon, and traffic flow across the Interstate 5 bridge will keep Jant zen Beach a viable center. The success of Jantzen Beach Shopping Center is related to the ef- fects of differences in taxation between Oregon and Washington. The customer survey indicated that the majority of shoppers patronizing Jantzen Beach Shopping Center are Clark County residents. Their reasons for shopping at Jantzen Beach Shopping Center--la.rge selection, close to home, other reasons, and no sales tax--~elp to demonstrate the role the political boundary plays both on customer perception and lack of compar ison goods retailing in Clark County. The difference found between Portland and Vancouver customers in their shopping frequency at Jantzen Beach indicates a role difference the center plays in their shopping patterns .. Because there was little difference between their shopping frequency in general at all shopping centers, it appears that for Van couver shoppers, Jantzen Beach is a regular shopping place whereas Portland customers shop at Jantzen Beach Shopping Center more infre~ quently and patronize other centers in Portland more. Due to the previous lack of shopping center development in Clark County, Jantzen Beach was able to .locate where it would be able to in tercept customers from other centers in Portland. Of course it is nec essary to realize that the availability of a large tract of land and good management practices· have played an important role in the success of Jantzen Beach. However, it appears that the role the political boundary has played in customer perceptions and lack of shopping center development in Clark County is a· significant contributing factor to the success of Jantzen Beach Shopping Center. / CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The politi'cal boundary between the states of Oregon and Washington has had a significant effect on the success of Jantzen Beach Shopping Center and on the development of the Portland-Vancouver metropolitan area. The differentiation in taxation between the two states has ere- ated variations on the landscape. Differences in income taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes have created situations where locations have com- parative advantage as compared to others. This is particularly apparent in the area of comparison goods retailing. One of the effects of the Washington State sales tax has been to encourage Washington shoppers to shop in Oregon in order to save on the sales tax. Yet differences in property taxes and lack of a state income tax have encouraged residen tial growth in Clark County, Washington. Jantzen Beach Shopping Center has been able to locate in an area very accessible to Clark County con sumers, and to provide an intervening opportunity for customers who would otherwise travel to Portland for shopping. Jantzen Beach Shopping Center is an anomaly on the landscape in terms of traditional retailing geography.· Located on an island in the center of a large river with a relatively small population within a five-minute travel time, Jantzen Beach has defied traditional criteria for locations of regional shopping centers. The use of Huff's model for determination of intraurban trade area boundaries established Hayden ,,,..,.,,, l __:_::.::__ _ __.,1_____ ow., 69 Island as a relatively poor site for a regional shopping center. The model predicted a locational efficiency that varied between 60 and 84 percent depending upon the exponent of distance used. This suggests that Jantzen Beach is locat~d off-center to consumer residential areas. However, comparing Jantzen Beach's actual locational efficiency of 139 percent with its predicted figure of 84 percent, Jantzen Beach is a very successful shopping center. The success of Jantzen Beach Shopping Center relates to a number of factors: its accessibility to Interstate 5; a good management and marketing program which includes cr:eating a good store mix; advertising; exhibits and activities which make it an interesting place for shopping and recreation. The effects of the political boundary dividing its mar ket area into two states are also important. The sales tax in Washing ton and the lack of development of large shopping centers in Clark Coun ty prior to this time are particularly significant. Clark County resi dents have traditionally had to shop in Portland for comparison goods. Jantzen Beach Shopping Center has effectively located in the first available area for a large shopping center in order to intercept Wash ington shoppers traveling further south to Lloyd Center, Portland Down town, and other shopping areas in Portland, Oregon. A survey of Jantzen Beach customers showed that the majority of shoppers at the center are Clark County residents who shop at the cen ter because of its large selection of goods, because it is close to their homes, and because-there is no sales tax at the center. This thesis has explored the effect of the state boundary between Oregon and Washington on the success of Jantzert Beach Shopping Center. r"'-' 70 This has been done by running a marketing model; testing Jantzen Beach's actual performance with its predicted performance by the model; analyz ing Jantzen Beach's customer shopping patterns, reasons for shopping, frequency of shopping, and residences; and looking at the development of Clark County. The conclusion of this thesis is that the success of Jantzen Beach Shopping Center has been a combination of factors. Tradi tional reasons for exceptional shopping center success have played a role: good and innovative management, accessibility, and an early start prior to·any competitive shopping center development: However, a prin cipal element is the effect of the political boundary marking variations in tax structures, in particular the existence of a Washington State sales tax while none is present in Oregon . ./' AHdV~90Il818 G3l3313S SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Books and Articles t Applebaum, William. Shopping Center Strategy: A Case Study of the 1. Planning, Location, and Development of the Del Monte Center, Mon terey, California. New York: International Council of Shopping Centers, 1970. Ayer, Harry, and Layton, M. Ross. "The Border Industry Program and the Impacts of Expenditures by Mexican Border Industry Employees on a U.S. Border Community: An Empirical Study of Nogales." The Annals of Regional Science 7 (June 1974):105-17. ~ Beard, Charles A. The Enduring Federalist. New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., 1959. · Berry, Brian J. L. Geography of Market Centers and Retail Distribution. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1967. Boeing Computer Services, Inc. Clark County, Washington, Employment, Population and Land Use Forecasts. Final Report Prepare Brunn, Stanley D. Geogra~h' and Politics in America. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 9 4. Bucklin, Louis P. Shopping Patterns in an Urban Area. University of California, Berkeley: lber Special Publications, 1967. Buttke, Carl H. "An Approximation of Re~ional Shopping Center Traffic." Traffic Engineering 42 (April 1972):20-23. . Report on Transportation Access and Circulation, Hayden Is --...... 1-and, Multnomah County, Oregon. Portland, Oregon: Carl Buttke, ~onsulting Engineer, 1975. Cadwallader, Martin. "A Behavioral Model of Consumer Spatial Decision Making." Economic Geography 51 (1974):339-49. Campbell, Alan K. "Taxes and Industrial Location in the New York Metro politan Region." National Tax Journal 11 (September 1958):195- 218. __.-· 73 Carr, Robert K.; Berstein, Marver H.; Morrison, Donald H.; and Mclean, Joseph E. American Democracy in Theory and Practice. New York: Rinehart &Company, Inc., 1959. Cesario, Frank. "Linear and Nonlinear Regression Models of Spatial In teraction." Economic Geography 5l(January 1975):69-77. Columbia Regional Association of Governments. Gener~l Plannin~ Data and Projections: Population, Employment, and Land Use for t e CRAG Area. Portland, Oregon: CRAG, 1976. Cox, Kevin R. Man, Location, and Behavior: An Introduction to Human Geography. New York: John Wiley &Sons, Inc., 1972. de Blij, Harm J. Systematic Political Geography. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley &Sons, Inc., 1973. Due, John F. "Studies of State-Local Tax Influences on Location of In dustry.11 National Tax Journal XIV (1961):163-73. Engel, James F.; Kollat, David T.; and Blackwell, Roberto. Consumer Be havior. 2nd ed. ·New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968. Fiser, Webb S.; Brown, Stuart G.; and Gibson, John S. Government in the United States. New ·York: The Ronald Press Co., 1967. Floyd, Joe Summers, Jr. Effects of Taxation on Industrial Location. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1952. Fowler, Jim. Facts at a Glance about Vancouver Mall Regional Shopping Center. Vancouver, Washington: James F. Fowler &Associates, 1972. . Frischer, Donald. Traffic Engineering Study, Vancouver Mall, Clark County, Washington. Prepared for Newman Properties, September, 1973. Gaunt, H. M. Untitled market study concerning potential of Sheetz Property, in East Vancouver, as a shopping ce.nter site. H. M. Gaunt, Consultant, February, 1974. Hansen, Flemming. Consumer Choice Behavior: A Cognitive Theory. New . York: The Free Press, 1972. Hanson, John A. Affidavit of John A. Hanson, LCDC No. 75-003, 1976. j _I / 74 Hartshorne, Richard. "Geographic and Political Boundaries in Upper Silesia." Annals of the Association of American Geographers XXIII (December 1933):195-225. 11 11 ___• Recent Deve 1opments in Po 1 iti ca 1 Geography, I I. The Ameri - can Science Review XXIX (December 1935):943-66 . . "Suggestions on the Terminology of Political Boun.daries. 11 -----A-nnals of Association of American. Geography XXVI (1936) :56-57. . "The Functional Approach in Political Geography." Presiden- --~tial address delivered before the Association of American Geog- raphers at its forty-sixth annual meeting in Worcester, Massachu setts, 7 April 1950. Harvey, David. Society, the City and the Space Economy of Urbanism. Commission on College Geography Resource Paper, No. 18. · Washing ton, D.C.: Association of American Geographers, 1972. Hinks, Arthur. "Notes on the Technique of Boundary Delimitation." Geographical Journal 58 (1971):417-43. Holdren, Bob R. The Structure of a Retail Market and the Market Behav ior of Retail Units. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1968. Huff, David L. Determination of Inter-Urban Retail Trade Areas. Los Angeles: Regents of the University of California, 1962. 11 ___• A Probability Analysis of Shopping Center Trading Areas." Land Economics 39 {February 1963):81-90. · 11 ___• Defining and Estimating a Trading Area." Journal of Market- i!!.9. (1964):34-38. Human Resources Planning Institute. Clark County Consumer Attitudes Toward Shopping in Downtown Vancouver. Seattle, Washington, 1973. Jantzen Beach, Incorporated. Jantzen Beach Center Customer Survey. · Portland, Oregon, 12 October 1976. Jenkinson, Tom. Downtown Vancouver: An Appraisal and Opportunity. Vancouver, Washington: Regional Planning Council of Clark County, 1973. Jones, Stephen B. "The Cordilleran Section of the Canada-United States Borderland." Geographical Journal 89 (1937):439-50. ___. "The Description of International Boundaries." Annals of Association of American Geographers 33 (1943):99-117 . .;-.,; ,• 75 Jones, Stephen B. Boundary Making: A Handbook for Statesmen, Treat, Editors and Boundary Conmissions. Concord, N.H.: Rumford Press, 1945. ___. "Boundary Concepts in the Setting of Place and Time. 11 Annals of American Association of Geographers 49 (1959):241-55. Kornblau, C., ed. Guide to Store Location Research. Reading, Massa chusetts: Addison-Wesley., 1968. Kristof, Ladis K. D. "The Nature of Frontiers and Boundaries." Annals of American Association of Geographers 49 (1959):269-82. Lakshmanan, T. R., and Hansen, W. G. "A Retail Market Potential Model." Journal of American Institute of Planners 31 (1965):.134-43. Linden, Fabian, ed. Market Profiles of Consumer Products. The National Industrial Conference Board, New York, 1967. Losch, August. The Economics of Location. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1954. Lowe, John C., and Moryadas, S. The Geography of Movement. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1975. Lycan, Richard, and Weiss, James. A Market Potential Study for a Pro posed Shopping Center. 2 April 1974. MacKay, J. Ross. "The Interactance Hypothesis and Boundaries in Canada: A Preliminary Study. 11 Canadian Geographer 11 (1958):1-8. Massam, Bryan H. The Spatial Structure of Administrative Systems. Com mission on College Geography Resource Paper No. 12. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Geographers, 1972. McNeal, James U. An Introduction to Consumer Behavior. New York: John Wiley &Sons, Inc., 1973. McWhinney, Edward. Comparative Federalism, States' Rights and National Power. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; London: Oxford University Press, 1962. Mi nghi, J. V. "Boundary Studies in Poli ti ca 1 Geography." Annals of Association of American Geographers 53 (1963):407-28. Muir, Richard. Modern Political Geography. New York: Halsted Press/ Wiley, 1975. Nelson, Howard J. "The Vernon Area, Califorr:iia--A Study of the Politi cal Factor in Urban Geography." Annals of Ass-ociation of American Geographers 42 (1952):177-91. /"""' 76 Oregon Department of Conunerce. A Brief Comgarison of Taxes in Oregon, Washington and California. August 19 8. Oregon Department of Transportation. 1975 In-Vehicle Travel Times be tween Selected Tracts. Salem, Oregon, 1975. Prescott, J. R. V. The Geography of Frontiers and Boundaries. Chicago: Al dine Publishing Co., 196-S. · ___. The Geography of State Policies. London: Hutchinson &Co. Ltd., 1968. ___. Political Geography. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1972. Quandt, R. E. "A Probabilistic Theory of Consumer Behavior." The Quar- terly Journal of Economics 70 (1956):507-36. · Saarinen, Thomas F. Perception of Environment. Convnission on College Geography Resource Paper, No. 5. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Geographers, 1969. Scott, Peter. Geography and Retailing. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1970. Smith, David M. Industrial Location: An Economic Geographical Analysis. New York: John Wiley &Sons, Inc., 1971. Smith, Larry. Memorandum Re: Shopping Center Development Opportunities East Vancouver, Washington. Los Angeles: Larry Smith &Co., Inc., 1972. Soja, Edward W. The Political Organization of Space. Corrmission on College Geography Resource Paper, No. 8. Washington, D.C.: Asso ciation of A~erican Geographers, 1971. Sorensen, Donald J. 11 Jantzen to Add K-Mart, Nordstrom." (Portland) Oregonian, 20 April 1977, sec. B, p. 11. Spykman, Nicholas John. "Frontiers, Security, and International Organi zation." Geographical Review 32 (1942):436-47. State of Oregon, Department of Economic Development. Oregon County Eco- . nomic Indicators .. Portland, Oregon, May 1976. Steffanoff, Nick, and Horning, William Franklin. Hayden Island Compre hensive Plan. Portland, Oregon: Hayden Island, Inc. and Communi ty Systems Planning and Design, December 1975. Stores, Robert F. "Practical Location Analysis in New Market Areas!" Journal of Marketing 36 (November 1971):15, 40-41. / 77 Symanski~ Richard. "Prostitution in Nevada." Annals of American Asso ciation of Geographers 64 (1974):357-77. Tauber, Edward M. "Why Do People Shop?" Journal of Marketing (October 1972) :46-49. Thompson, D. L. Anallsis of Retailing Potential in Metropolitan Areas. Berkeley: Inst tute of Business and Economic Research, University of California, 1964. Ullman, Edward L. "The Eastern Rhode Island-Massachusetts Boundary Zone." Geographical Review 29 (April 1939):291-302. Urban Land Institute. The Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers. Wash ington, D.C.: U.L.I., 1972. U. S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Po ulation and Housin : 1970 Census Tracts. Final Report H . Port an , regon- Washington SMSA. U. S. Department of Co11111erce, Social and Economic Statistics Administra tion, Bureau of the Census. 1972 Census of Retail Trade, Major Retail Centers in Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, Oregon. U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Expen ditures for Commodity and Service Groups Classified by Nine Fami ly Characteristics, 1972 and 1973. Report 455-3, 1976. . Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical ---w-orkers, U.S. City Average, All Items--Series A. Webber, J. J.; Symanski, Richard; and Root, James. "Towards a Cognitive . Spa ti a1 Theory." Economic Geography 51 (1974):100-116. Weinberg, George H., and Schumaker, John A. Statistics: An Intuitive Approach. 2nd ed. Belmont, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., 1969. Wheare, K. C. Federal Government. New York and London: Oxford Univer-. sity Press, 1947. Whittlesey, Derwent. "The Impress of Effective Central Authority upon the Landscape." Annals of Association of American Geographers 25 (1935):85-97. ______,,,... "Reshaping the Map of West Africa." In Geographic Aspects of International Relations. Edited by Charles C. Colby. Freeport, New York: Books fo.r Libraries Press, 1938 . . The Earth and the State. New York: Henry Holt and Co., --,...... 944. /"' 78 Williams, William V. "A Measure of the Impact of State and Local Taxes on Industry Location." Journal of Regional Sciences 7 {1967): 49-59. . sis 1n Human Geou- Yeats, Maurice H., and Garner, Barry J. The North American City. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1971. Interviews Baker, Jim. CCIM, Certified Counselor of Investment Marketing; Jim Baker Real Estate; Instructor for the Commerical Investment Divi sion, Realtors National Marketing Institute. Interview, 29 March 1977. Domine, Pat. Hayden Island, Incorporated. Interview, 31 October 1977. Horning, Bill. Planner,.Hayden Island, Incorporated. Interview, Octo ber 1976. Martin, Roger. CCIM, Property Investments; Instructor for the Commer cial Investment Division, Realtors National Marketing Institute. Interview, 29 March 1977. Van Dyke, Peter. President, Jantzen Beach, Incorporated. Interview, 24 March 1977. ,,,,...... ,,,../ . I S3JION3ddV APPENDIX I ALLOCATION BY RETAIL LOCATION AND MARKET AREA; AND ALLOCATION BY RETAIL LOCATION AND TIME DISTANCE ALl.OCATIO~ SY RETAIL LOCATION A~D MARICET AR.EA lC'CATJor; ll A 1 E S 4LLOCAHO EXP. cor-.sr. JAf'.iTZI~ H t.C:ti \ 977 518.800 1.so s.oo COVMENTS • l' RETAILl"-G LOCHIC11':8 1 SHARE AREA 1 2 ! 4 5 b 7 p. 9 10 l1' 12 13 1 .OllQ • Ot>7 • (.111 .oa2 .034 .273 .278 .C~3 .012 .111 .Olb .(101\ .021 2 .038 .1 '>0 .C57 .053 .021 .21s .332 .0119 .01s • 0711 .o l7 .ooK .015 3 .035 .1 ?.7 .(178 • 07 t , 1)34 .210 .245 .011q .020 • 073 .O\b .voa .Ot4 4 .02t- .2"13 .toll .08b • O?.O .1 s~ .111 .037 .024 ,0'53 .011 • OO'ii .011 s .034 .011-i • (, ~;tt .os2 • I) 11 • 28"1 .333 .o~ir, .014 •Ob :S • Cl t !> .1.101 .01-;, 'b .(131 .t39 .124 • 1iJ0 .919 .232 .221.1 • v.54 .021 .049 .1)1 II .OOb .011 7 .<132 .032 • C.3.? • 1)39 .009 ,tUlb. • 323 • Ci 12 .006 .oq1 .u11 .no~ • 0•)9 8 .036 • •l&O ,Ob4 • 070 .ot3 .323 • 321 .020 .012 .0119 .014 .OOb .011 9 .03ll .oao , t Ob • 11 & .ou .21~ ,259 .<•2'5 .01& ,01a• .0111 • 00"' • 01 u 10 .os2 .03t • u .s" • 0 39 ,010 •.578 .350 ,013 .ooa ,053 .Olb .001 .012 l1 .047 .ua2 • C•l 3 • 05i3 .v•Jq .2lv • .:iqb . ,.,. "' 81 ------ ALLOCATION RY RtTAlL LOCATIGN A~O M~R~~T ANEA LOC4TIO:. (1 ti. T..: $ ALLOCATED £XP. (;QNSle J AfH Z '" f\F. AC•i 1'177 51R.600 2.00 5.t>O . COM~E~TS • kEGl~NAL CENT~R, VAIUECJ .~EIGHTS RETAJLl~G LOCATIO~S, SHAWE AREA l 2 .5 4 s b 7 8 q 10 11 12 13 l • (1'3Q .o,,q • •"l39 • (.•39 .OJS .~91 .271 .'>&2 .010 .103 .013 • (10" • (J l'l i .031 • t1 b .ObO .C53 .026 .21q • jql) .oss .otl .ObO .013 .oos .012 3 .02a .1157 .v9o .011 .033 • c?l)L& .1.~ 3 0 0n!> .016 .os1 • 0 l C! .oO'> .011 4 .011 .420 • \15 .oee • 014 .11 ti .tn .ll3~ • Oi?O • 033 • OI) 7 .003 • 0I)1 5 • 02P.o • I)(\,, • (JC, 1 .0\4 • j t,, •.Hl.f 0 0cM .012 • 04t\ .011 .ooci .012 f> .023 .110 .160• "" 1 .111 .ots • c!2S • t Jib • '}32 .ota .o:n .010 • 0011 • ooa 7 .ozq • 02ll .020 .o.ss • Oil& .":>24 • 51•5 • (J(.ll\ ,oo~ .02s .001 .003 .OOh 8 .02q .os1 .oi:.s .075 .ooq .3&1 .H6 • 0 l It .010 .034 • 0 t 1 .004 .oos q .0?7 .01n • 132 .145 .010 .c82 .23'3 .0~1 .014 .o:so .010 ,004 .001 10 .Oll1 • 01!?4 .02~ • (•34 .oo& ·"37 .351 0 lH19 .oos .037 .012 .oos .ooq 11 • OtlQ .03b .u3q • (15 7 • OOt- .coo .558 .010 .ooa • 02e;, .011 .001.1 .uu& 12 .011 • Q4 (1 .042 • c,5q • O(lo .• 1140 .231' .012 • (109 .042 • o 1 7 .007 .016 13 .12L& • <•?!> .02q .03S .ous • "l 'J .c':>o .010 .001 .0&15 .021 .oo~ .011 14 .osa • 027 .028 .03q .001 .so~ .259 .OH• .001, • 037 .01~ .oos ·• 009 15 .160 .r;~2 • '130 .03q .010 .31~ .21:18 ·'113 .ooq .055 .u3q .01q .015 lb .165 .034 .031 .040 • 011 .:so3 • ?.1.19 .014 • ,, 10 .010 .• 01.12 • 01 '5 .Olb 17 .2?1 .c12q • 0 Sl • 03 7 • 011{1 ,301\ • !110 .ooe .• 044 .01-11 .ou .011 ·' 59 l8 • (l'I& .1i&Q .oe2 .102 .on .2~8 .213 .022 .019 .047 • (J2 7 .010 .011 1q .021 • ~e.o • l'H .2&6 • (1ijq .201 • \7 l • 0 lt.i .CJ 1 q .03'4 .010 .004 .ooa 20 .032 • \16 .14':> .\92 .012 .195 • t E>S .022 ,OS3 .o:iq .012 .oos .oos 21 • 02~ • 1 7 (J .158 .124 .01s • 1 7 b .l~b .020 .068 .03b .011 .oos .008 2·c! .Oll8 .088 .093 .130 .o lll .c.v7 .211 .0211 • oa1 .os1 • u 1 C} .ooa .019 2.S .o~o .!'Id? • {IQ2 .112 • (I 1 lt .2112 • 2or, • 02:~ • t "1 .CJS? .Otb • QIJ 1 .011 21.1 .o:n .123 • (,':f4 .063 • 0 l7 .1 bO • \ 41\ .028 ,2£13 ,Ot;3 • 01 t• .oo& .ooq 25 .02b .1b4 •Of'':>. .001 • 050 .150 .1~"> .145 .020 .010 .011 .oos .013 2b .Cl~2 .ocq .OC:b .03q .0\3 • 2 31 .3qz .017 .007 . ,/"" 82 ALLOCATJOU 8Y RETAJL LOC~TlOh A~O MAW~~T •RlA LUtAflllil 011H S ALL OtATEO t, lCP • c111 ST, J H1 T I. I • li f. A C i1 l '111 ~lfl.hOO 2. '>l1 ~.v1> CQ~~~~TS - QECIO~Al tE~Tt~, v~~Ifb ~~,~~ts ~tTAJLING LUCAT[~~s, Stl~Rf AREA l 2 ;) 4 '5 6 7 8 q \0 11 12 13 l .034 .010 • fl.~, .031- .036 • 520 ,2f,(! .012 .ona ,f1C)4 .oro • 00&1 • !11 7 2 .02b .134 • v&3 .o~c> • \'l2"1 .n i .3,.~ • ('t, 1 .011 .(i48 .010 .ooci .010 3 .022 .1oq .101 .081 .o:B • 'q3 • ttrn .t03 .tH 6 ,C·Cl4 ,ooq , OOll .ooA ll .010 .si1q .\17 .06\ .GlO .081 .uu.S .021> • u 1 b .01q .U04 .002 .004 5 .022 ,Oh4 ·''1)4 • 05(1 • t• l 1 • 542 • 3£11 , I•~ l • onq • 03r, • (I(•(\ ,(103 ••·0~ & .011 e2l•(J .J9C} , l 32 .011 .210 .15l .Oc9 • :>t b .021 • t>IJ 7 .003 .ooi; 7 .011 .011 , O:?O .026 .ou3 .~o~ • 21 ·; , Ol•S • OCl'S • (Jl C:, .... ,,,, ,002 , uo,. 8 .02~ .O~tl , ll72 .079 .oob , '39 I ,310 .(113 .001 .021 .ooa .003 ,OOb ~ .020 ,Oc\4 , l bO .175 .oo7 • 2fHI .~r.7 • 0 le. • (J 1 t ,02(1 .001 • (10'3 ,00&1" 10 .041 .on .0211 .02q ,Ou4 • ti~3 .343 • C1 ut. • oo:s ,(:25 .c,oq ,003 • uOf> 1\ .030 ,029 ,035 .055 • tj(IQ • l 8t> • bl') • 007 .&Ob .015 • (J08 .oo.s .(104 l? .010 .o.;ci .!.13q .056 ,005 .~11 .213 • (,OQ ,007 , Cr39 • 0 I 4 .oos • vo 7 13 • l 4(1 • Cl?.0 ,024 ,03(• • ljl)~ • c.i 7 1 .. c2n ·'h•7 • Ol•S • l) :s3 .0?.4 • 0 (J7 .l)•>d 1 (l ,04d .021 .0?3 .034 .oua .5&~ .23C! • 007 .004 ,024 • () t l .003 .oo& 15 ,1q5 .o~& , 0?.6 .035 .ooa • .S3b .25~ • Cl 1. Cl • (JIJ 1 • IJ42 • 0 .SCI • I) 13 ,O}? lf> .20.:i .O?-d .CJ27 .03b ,l)f.iij .szo .230 • tJ t 1 .001 • (•";>7 • \)£13 ,013 .014 .17 .2ii4 • Cl.?2 • ·J~6 .03C' • oos • : k ...... 83 ALLOCATION SY RETAlL LOCATIOtt A~O M~RKET ARtA LllCA 1101• !"IA I•. .\ ALLOCATED 1£ XP • Ctli-;S f • HHT1114 oEACH l q·17 ~!8.800 J.110 ':) .1iO .COMME~TS • R~~IU~-L C~~T~~, VAfflfO •~IGHTS RETA1Lt~IG L\:ICATI0~1s, St1ARE AREA 1 2 :i 4 5 & 1 8 . q 10 1'' 12 13 1 .O:!O • (171 • <1 :s4 .03.S .03~ • .S44 .2!:11 .062 .oo& -~'J6b .ooa .0113 .Ol& 2 • (121 .1 s2 .tif.5 .051 .023 .207 .347 .C&7 .ooq .038 .ooa .oo 3 .ooa 3 • 017 .?23 .• t 11 0 0R3 • o:s 1 .\co .172 .121 .01q .033 .oo& .oo3 .oo& .. .0(15 .fl&3 • 1 ci'J • "f><) 0 0(Jb .li52 .oso • (I l q .011 .010 .002 .oot .ov2 5 .011 .oJn .(l;.b .o4a .ooq .3b& 0 34V • v 1 c, • CIOt> .u21 .uo& .002 • (J07 ll .012 .22~ .23<) .1 t.13 • 01)1\ .11\'1 • t l q .Ct25 • Cl 13 .013 .004 .002 0 OC13 7 • 012 .012 • lrl 5 .021 .002 obi~ .2u7 .003 • OCic? .ouq .003 .001 .oo~ 8 .018 .oso • \17'5 • 0£q ~ .lll5 .Oo?. .1 b9 .207 .ovs • 2 7<~ ~17d • 0 l ll .OCt9 .Ole .oos .002 .uo.-s 10 . ./""' 84 ALlOCATlOH flY RETAll. L(tCATIC\t.i At.;0 ttAIOE.T •WF.A LUCATl01-.. OAH :. ALUICATEO F.XP. COlllST. JANlZ'~ t1fACh 1977 Sll\.800 :s.so 5.uo COt.lt>lf.NT~ .. Rf.G Irtf\.AL CH: TEW, VAIHFD i\'f.lljlHS ~ElAlLJ~G LOCATIU~S, SHA~E AREA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ~ q \ 0 1't 12 13 l .02& .372 .03Z .oJn .1')3& .3E:& ~23q .oq4 .oos .o79 .on& .ooa • (J \4 &! .011 .\72 .On7 .c,49 .021 .2\ll .34& .(174 .ooa .030 .oo& .002 .oo& 3 .012 .256 • 11 'J .()6.:l .02q .1'>3 .14~ .140 .012 .024 .oos .002 .005 .003 .754 • C9t· • O':>b .003 • IJ:S2 • Clc>l'- • 0 t 3 • uoa .oos .001 .ooo • 0 ll t 'i»" .013 .M~ts •Ob I .Otib .001 .3as .33b .011> .oo& .020 .oos .('101 .oos 6 • Of•A .253 • i!1q • t 'j \ .oo& • 1 t-6 • liq t •II i? \ .010 .006 .003 .001 • 0•12 1 .0(16 .OQE! • (! 11 • 01 b .001 • 7 30 .214 ·"02 • 001 .oos .002 .001 .001 8 .Ottt .~46 • (•7 7 .064 .003 .C16) .zu" · .ooa .004 .010 .ooa .001 • 00 .s q • U11 • 07'1 .210 .239 .004 .2&8 .149 .011 .1)(17 .001 .003 .001 .ov2 10 .c~o .ooq .012 .020 .001 .59S .310 .C'<>3 .uo1 .011 .oos .001 • 003 11 .oz3 .019 .(127 .oqq • 0(1 l .1 ~3 • 711> .ll03 • 00.S , Oilb .004 • (l0' • 0ll1 12 e llb3 .023 .Q~l • {15?. .002 .o.H • lt>1 • voi. • 0 01.1 • 01., • 0(•9 • Ov2 • 0 •JI.I 13 .1t-1 • 011 • 01 f) .1.120 .002 .5&2 • 175 • (1(>:5 .002 .0th .019 .ooca .004 14 • 036 .011 • (\ 14 .024 0 0J2 • 71 ~ • 1 71 • (Jo:~ .002 • 011) • 00() .001 .003 15 .275 • C>lb • 01 e .021 • 0·)4 .3&2 .210 .• 006 .004 .023 .037 • 01 () • (11)6 lb .2qt1 • (116 • (J 2(• .028 • ·)0 a • 3a () .PH> • !l (I., • 004 • 0 56 .u43 .010 .Of)<} 17 ·"2b • (l l?. .011 .022 .ou2 • 30':> e 1 ~I) .uuJ • 003 .014 .OH • ll07 • UU•l 1 t\ .11a .Obb .11<• .151 ,OClb .324 .1-4 7 .• u 14 .014 .oiq • (;21 .OCI& .ous 19 .008 .os& • t qq .s2s • 0(12 .11 :' .o~s • Qvfi .00<1 .ou7 .002 .001 .ou2 20 .013 .1 Z7 .225 • 344 • 0(•4 .124 • (17 0 .010 • 0&14 .010 • 0"'' .001 • 0 n.2 21 • ()10 .2':>4 .2&3 .160 .OOb .10~ .(J7 2 .<117 .oqq ,O\O .003 .001 • 0\1?. 22 .(133 .093 .1~5 .212 ,007 .1 t-f> .138 • c• 1 '> • 1 &4 .020 ,Oto .003 .012 23 .020 .o 71 .10~ • l ti 0 • 'J Ob • 136 .100 .012 ,3bii • 011; .001 .002 • 01.iQ 24 .ooq .(195 .C.73 .oss .oos .(\b 1 .oa1 .ut\ .&3b •Oil? .003 .001 .002 25 .010 .242 .(,94 .010 .os1 • v8.3 • ti92 • 3(J, .012 .031) • 00 .S .001 .o.ii, 26 ,oqs • o t ~ • l' 1 b • (124 .OClb .2 3 7 .4c;e • 0 l •J • 0() 3 • 07\ • 031) • (• l 0 .019 27 .(\ 18 .oo& • C• OCf .012 .oct • 41,4 ·"':>8 .002 .001 .01q .003 .001 .oo& 28 • 011 •(•Oh • !'Cl7 .ooq .001 .17h • 1 E.-4 • 01)2 .001 .• (J 14' .002 .001 .oos 29 .023 • ('23 • (11 ~ .02? • ;) 1 (J .c~~ • ~7 q • ,, 1 ~ .002 .210 .oc9 .003 • Ob';i 30 .O?.b • 0211 .01S • (122 • 009 .i:!2.S .3b0 .012 .002 .210 .010 .OCJ4 .Ob5 31 .018 • (J 1 ~ • u 1 (j .021 • 0 Ot- .2c;~ • 540 • •} 11 • (10~ .Of>b • l•Ob .ou2 .Oto 32 • 018 .018 .01~ .011 .ooq .177 .25'3 • (I\ 5 .'102 .qoa .001 .002 .obs 33 .101 • I! t q .Gt': .021 • 1104 .231 • 3.)v • IJ 13 • 0(14 .1 ~I .040 .012 • Otl() 34 .012 • 2i.l(f • Mt • Ob'I • 04l· .11 c;, .2~2 • i?4 3 .1)10 .038 .004 .002 .001 3S .010 .OB6 • (• 39 .C.32 .1 bl! .v7':J .vqs • LI lilt • (1(1q • Oju ,003 • u (j \ • (JI) ti 3b • 013 .053 .(;26 .021 • 42 r, .100 .12q .t~t • OOtl • 041.1 • / 85 ALLOCATION OV RET~IL LOCATION A~O ~ARKET A~tA LOCH IUN tlATE S Al.LllC.\(£0 CXP • C.CJl ...n • JANTZ'~ bEAC~ t METAlLl~G LOCATIO~S, StU~E AREA 1 2 3 4 lj I; 1 13 q 10 11 \ 12 13 1 .023 .071 • c1r.q .021 .1.1.5'3 • 31\.,) .C27 • I Of\ .004 .011 • ons .002 .0\2 2 .ou .1 qq .o&~ .048 .01q .1 ~'~ .343 .oao .oo& .oz.s .oos .001 .O\lS 3 .ooq .2'}3 .126 .08Q ,02'1 • 11.1.,, .122 • t 59 .010 • 011'.I .003 .oot • 01'.13 4 .001 • e.21 . /"' 86 ALLOCATIO~ av REfAIL LOCAllON ANO MAN~~' ARfA LOC• 1 JO~' (IATE S ALLOCATED EXP. coi~sr. JAl1lZN tltAC~ 1'H I !:>t fl .8110 "• ':>O '.:>.oo COM~EWTS • REGIO~Al C:tt. H.R 1 VAf.ilEO wE.IGliTS REl•ILlNG LOCATI ,..,...... 87 ALLOCATION UY ~ETAIL LOCAfION AhD MAHKEl ARtA LOCl\TI(lt.. liAH S ALLOCATED F.XP. CUf\lST. HNTz:., fl(ACI~ r91·1 518.RCIO s.ou '>.uu COf.~1'11:.NTS • t RETAlLI~G LOCATIONS, SH"RE AREA 1 2 3 4 5 b 7 ti q 10 t1 \ 12 13 I .on • U7 0 .u7.S · .021 .035 • •1?7 .200 • CB .ool •."..'? 7 • 003 .001 • 0•)9 2 .ooq .239 ·''*'q .01n • 0 l f. • \ 7t- .BO .092 .004 ,ot4 .003 .oot .003 3 • 005 .3~B .134 .078 .021 • 111.: .os1 .1q5 .007 .oo'I .002 .ooo .002 4· • OCIO ."105 • 0 ')II .024 • 0 1>1 •Ci Ob o (/()I~ • t! Oil ,002 • (l 0 (1 • 01)0 .ooo • (100 5 .0()6 .Ci92 • (J ll• .03q • 003 • ~'.>t. • 31" • () 1 \ .003 .0(18 .002 .ooo .<>ll2 6. • ll(i2 .:Mo • 31i l! • , ~& • (•02 • r, c,7 , l•3n • Ci 11 • fJO~ • 0111 • \)Cl 1 .ooo • 0 (10 7 .002 .002 • Ol•4 • 001 .ooo .1-.55 .121 .ot10 .ooo .001 .ooo .ooo ·• O'JO . 8 .onb • C1 Si: .01:0 .087 •(IO 1 • ~£17 .23ll ,\103 .002 • 00~ .001 .ooo • 001 . q .004 .063 • :St• 1 .529 • 00 l .2n .079 .oos .003 .002 .001 .ooo .ooo 10 • 017 .(103 .ut·S • 010 .ooc, • 71 t- .2'•2 • 0'11 .ooo .003 .002 .ooo .001 11 .012 .CCJC.J .011 .V38 • OOC' o 1 Of;> .~13 .out .001 • 0 (11 .001 .ooo .01)0 12 • 011 • o;.;o .<.:40 .oni • /7 !i ,v'H4 • llV 1 .oc1 • (\04 • OOl< .001 • o 01 13 .lQ'5·""~ .ooa •(IC.• 7 • c 1 t . .001 .f.56 .lOb • () i) 1 .oQt .oCJ~ • 011 .002 • (I :"1 t 14 .020 .OOcJ .vl'o • 012 • Oll(J • f;'::J7 .eicis • Uil 1 .ooo • O•l.2 .002 .ooo • 0 I) l 15 .410 .001 • 01 (I .Otb .001 .3E>l .142 .co2 .001 .009 .032 .OOEi .uu3 16 .a47 • (108 . • C• 11 .Ct7 , 0 O.?. • 3C'8 • \1b • ll02 .002 .011:- .03q .006 •Out.I 17 .,,36 .OQ4 • ov 7 .010 .ooo • C::S~ • li13 • l• 0 t .001 • 0()3 .02~ .003 ell 0 l 18 .132 .058 .1:!5 .ZOLi .002 .:333 .oq2 • tlOb .009 • 001 .n s .J03 ·''02 19 .002 .021 • 1 f'b • 7t 5 • (100 • (1 (l 7 • •.1 11 • roe? • 003 ,out • 00(1 .ooo .ooo 20 • uo I.I .105 .2~6 .'l72 .001 • C•ov .023 .OOll .060 • (102 • uC> 1 • 000 • (Jl)(t 21 .(J03 .2q1 .3u4 .1 &3 .002 .C1ae .024 .Q08 .114 .002 .• 001 .ooo • (•00 22· .1118 • <.'~ll .1:<5 .282 .002 .1 O'i .072 .voe .271 • (l(lf, • 005 .001 • 00& 23 .'107 .Q41 • Ut· 1 .11& .0111 .\Jt.>2 .v38 • •)\•£« .b41 • 001.1 .ou2 • 1Hd • l· c 1 24 • (J(l 1 .oJ•l • O:!O .01q • OC• 1 • ,. t 2 ,OOb .002 .aa1 .001 .ooo .1)1)0 .•lVO 2'5 • ''(J3 .2bh • 07 7 .048 .038 • ll34 • .)31.t .t1d3 .oo& • (l(1q • O(l 1 .Ol\0 .ul)2 2b • , (16. • C·OB .0(.9 .01& .(Jl.)3 .23.:! .s12 • 'lt•o • 00 l .o~G .o35 .001 •,, 'Q 27 .CIC9 • (•0?. • 0 f;ll .oos • (1•)0 .~.?b .al43 • t) (1 l • CoOO • flOf! .001 .ooo .co~ 28 • (Iii 4 . / \ ALLOCAlION bY RETAIL LOCATION A~D Tl~EOI51AhC~ LUCATICIN DATl s ALLOCi\HD lXP. ~Or~~r. JANTZlll !':F.ACM 1977 518.tlllO J .i;c,., !J.r)tJ COMME~TS• ~EGI~l•lCtNT~R, VA~)E~ ~EIGHTS RETAILlhG LOCAT10~5,MILLIONS OF OOLL~~s MIN. 1 2 3 . 4 5 b q 7 8 10 11 t~ \J 5 .21 5.52 3.% :~.23 1.\9 &.7;, 1.8. o.oo .11 .S.42 .so 1.q2 2.(14 32~b7 10 2.40 l3.59 tt. "/'j Q.70 2.65 25.?.3 18.4& s.4q 2.ot. n.21 ? .!>u .sq 5.t 15 4.5& 3.00 4 .c.tq ':>.44 2.47 13.36 27.7& 2.21 .q1 8.71 1.42 • 77 3. 71 .7CJ.3() 20 Q. 79 3.25 .b2 1.06 t.56 37.06 4~.63 2.t>-S 1.15 A.l.>O 1.75 .74 1.4a 1cq.sl\ 25 7.0Q 5.03 4.?.0 5.&5 2.79 2~.86 30.78 2.43 .92 ct.81 3.07 .&q 1.bq q&.90 30 Q.85 .93 1.hQ 1.28 1.50 6.4& 12.4~ 1.01 .48 b.57 1.76 ,75 1.bS ~1.2~ 35 1.89 1.67 1.64 1.67 .59 1.79 .S.G6 .S7 .88 3. t 0 1.h7 1.15 .&7 22.75 40 .27 1.49 .86 .hb .17 1.32 1.83 .~3 • 75 1.'n .32 .6~ .qo 21.21 45 .05. .43 o.oo .01 .49 .C15 .&2 .ss .57 1.23 .13 .23 .22 5.0b 50 o.oo .01 .30 .27 .20 o.oo G.oo .21 .32 • l 5 o.oo .01 .13 1.7~ 55 o.oo .2~ o.oo o.oo .12 o.oo o.oo .u& .oq .02 o.oo o,oo .o~ 1.23 60 o.oo o.oo ~.oo o.oo .11 o.ou o.oo .11 .03 o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo .2n 65 o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo .04 o.oo o.oo· o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.o°\ o.oo .oq 10 o.oo o.oo ri.oo o.oo o.oo u.ou o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo 75 O.OO O.OQ 0.00 o.oo l>• 0 0 0 • 0 " 0 • o.o 0 • (}0 o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo 80 o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.uo ~.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.o~ as o.oo o.ol) · r,.oo o.oo ~.oo o.ou o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo ·o.oo o.oo o.oo 90 9.oo o.o~ a.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.vo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo u.oo o.oo u.oo 95 o.oo o.oo o.c~ o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.on ** o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.~o o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo 2&.12 35.25 26.76 29.23 13.73 115.29 143.Cl2 tS.93. 8.27 &8.40 13.llS 7.70 JS.Z2 00 00 L__ \ ALLOCATl ON DY ~U ATL LOCATION t.,l·1U Tri-IF. fllS TA!1CE LOCATIO~ OATE 'ALLOCAlt~ tX~. tu~s1. JANTZN HEACH 1q77 ~1~.~002.00 ~.oo COMM~NTS• R~GIONALCENTf~, VARlEO 4EIG~1S RETAILI~GLOrATIO~s, MILLIONS OF DULLA~S MIN. 1 2 j· 4 5 6 7 8 ') 10 11 12 1.S s .35 7. 91 'I. 47 4.36 1.q4 1.q~ 2.06 o.oo .18 &.1q 1. 26 3.17 2.77 43.c?b 10 z.qb is.no 10.22 11.1" 3.8& 21.4s 19.32 1.1& 2.ss 2&.83 3. ti 0 .83 4 • ~f) 1 :s5 • 'i"I\ 15 4.b4 2.ss s.21 4 .tHI 2.8& 13.&?. 27.&0 2.0A .79 9.79 1. 73 1.os 4.2& ~1.43 20 1.1.s11 3.oo .57 • <) /\ 1935 34.51 40.~2 2.l:t2 .94 9,.311 1.83 .64 1.~9 l02.t14 25 &. lb 4.2q 3.&o 4.6s z.20 21.ob 21.43 2.02 .1& s.23 2.s9 .&1 · 1.31 as.21 30 0.01 .71 1.35 1.os .q9 &.12 11.01 .~1 .38 4.62 1.33 .54 1.2~ 34.40 35 1.&q 1.29 1. 47 1.ss .11& 1. 74 .. u .. 1'3 .t11 .&2 2.2n 1.31 .79 ·"q 18.69 40 .20 1.2\ :1s .sq .14 1.32 l.81 .i4 .54 l.53 .. 25 .&1 .~2 9.~1 45 .011 • 3h o.oo .o& .3& .45 .01 .Ab .41 1.01 .11 .17 .in 4.2? 50 o.oo .o& .~7 .2s .1s o.oo .v.oo .11 .2& .13 .o.oo .os .11 1.ct- SS o.oo .2s o.oo n.60 .~9 o.oa o.oo .us .06 .~~ o.oo o.oo .04 1.v~ bO o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo .09 o.oo o.oo .10 .03 o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo .22 6S o.oo o.no o.oo o.oo .03 o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.co o.oo o.oo .o~ 70 o.oo o.uo o.. 00 o.oo . o.oo a.o~ G.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.~o o.~o b.oo 0.60 75 o.on o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.ou o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo ~.oo o.uo 80 o.oo o.oo o.oo O.OO O.hO Y.OU o.uo OebO o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.~~f' 85 o.oo o.oo Cl. \JO o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.~o o.oo ~.o~ o.o~ 90 o.ou o.oo 0. i)O o.o~ o.ou v.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.no o.oo o.oo o.oo 95 o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo. o.oo o.oo o.no u.oo o.oo o.oo o.PO o.oo o.oo o.OQ 11• o.oo o.oo O.i>O o.oo o.oo o.oo o.~o o.oo o.oo o.oo o.bo o.oo o.oo o.ob 24.Sq 37.72 27.92 2q.53 1a.s3 114.23 135.~1 1&;1s 7.~3 7\.21 13.~'I 8.&7 lb.4'4 CX>\0 \ ALLOCATIO~~y R~l~ILL~CATION A~O rt-E Dt~TA~CE Lr.CATJON oArE $ ALLOCATEO fXP. cu~s1. JA~TZ~REACH 1917 5l8.SOO 2.50 5.to COM~ENTS- REGIOhAL CE~TER,yARJEU wElG~r~ RETAILI~GLOCATIO~S, ~lLLIO~S OF DOLL~RS ., MIN. 1 2 3 . 4 5 o . 8 9 lO 11 ll \3 5 .45 10.34 S.40 5.bS 2.85 9.07 2.21 o.oo .21 7 .cu> 1.62 4.86 3.55 ~4.45 10 3.58 17.87 11.4& 12.41 ~.qo 29.41 1q.~o 1h01 3.0fi 31.3~ 4.3b 1.1\ ~.oo 153.96 15 4.57 2.67 ~.:Sb 5.5'> 3.~9 13.&o 21.1& 1.92 .&4 10.87 2.10 1.38 ~.85 83.94 20 4.26 2.68 .52 .69 1.14 3t.a3 lb.IV 2.37 .1& 10.11 1.qe .qs i.11 qs.s1 2S 5.38 3.&1 :s. \)1 ... 13 1.70 18.62 25.bb 1.6~ .n2 &.es 2.i?3 .b4 . 1.09 73.42 30 3.26 .52 1.10 .in .10 s.~1 9.41 .bO .29 3.46 l. 0\1 .3q .qz 2s.11 35· 1.s1 .9n 1.13 1.24 .36 1.&5 ~.52 • 31\ .43 1.48 1. 0•) .53 .34 tS.51 40 .14 .9& .&5 .52 .11 1.29 1.7& • lb .36 1.1a • t q .45 .2~ 1.qa 45 .03 .zq o.oo .ob .26 .44 .60 .35 .28 .a1 .09 .12 .15 3.4q 50 o.oo .os .24 .23 .tl o.oo o.oo .13 .20 .11 o.oo .04 .10 1.23 SS o.oo .2l o.~o o.oo .01 o.o~ o.~o • (>4 • 07 • 47 0.60 o.oo ~03 !qo 60 o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo .u1 o.oo o.oo •Of\ .02 o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo .1~ &5 o.oo 1).00 o.oo I). 00 .Q3 o.oo o.oo o.c.o o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo n.oo .o:s 70 o.oo o.oo (j .oo o.oo o.oo o.~o o.oo tt.or. o.oo o.oo 0. 00 o.oo o.oo o.oo 75 o.oo o.no o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.no o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo eo o.oo (\. 01) I.). 00 (I. 00 o.oo o.oo o.oo o.• 00 o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.o~. 85 o.oo o.Go O.QO o.oo o.oo o.oo v.oo o.ov o.r10 o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo 90 o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo 95 o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.no u. oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.~o •• o.oo u.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo O.OO U.O(l o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo 23.tq ~0.18 28.69 31.SO 16.~9111.J~ 125.qa lb.71 1.02 74.&4 14.78 10.45 11.qq ~ 0 1 ALLOC ATl 0~'e.Y Rf.TAIL Lf CAT IC1N ANI.' 1 I Mf. 0 IS Ti.lllCE. \ LOC,lION DATe s ALLOCAlEO EX~. c~~st. JANTZN eLAC~1977 ~tH.600~.oo s.no co~~ENTS- REGIOh~L LE~T~R, VARIED W~IGHTS RETAIL1"-1G LftOTl<'NS, Mll.L1CiN5 OF COLL/.l 10 4.26 19.7\ t~.qQ 13.4q 7.20 31.14 2~.25 lU.94 3.57 35.51 s.21 1.44 5.%. 171.23 15 ll • .54 Z.47 S.42 5.46 3.75 13.35 2~.51 1.1a .49 11.~9 ?.• 51 1.7E> !>.Q8 85.17 20 3.Q4 <'.31 .41, .7A .q7 26.18 3?.~b '\ 2.13 .bl 10.89 2.16 1.07 1.'33 88.01 25 4. 71 3.02 2.4~ 3.aa 1.29 lY.76 lo.29 1.3& .49 5.7A 1.97 .10 .~1 &2.15 "\ 30 2.6'3 . ·.8!3 • 38 .64 • a~ ~-1~ 7. 18 .q3 .21 2.45 • 7 lj .28 ohb 22 0 79 35 • {1~ 1.37 .69 .96 .21 1.~3 4 •. ! 4 • 30 ) .29 .95 • 75 .35 .22 12.&b 40 .09 • 75 .55 .4~ • 09 1.26 1.69 .11 .2& etll .ta .30 .16 &.b7 45 .02 • 211 (I. 00 .05 .18 .43 .57 .26 .19 ~&3 .01 .os .t3 2.86 50 o.oo .vs .2~ • ?. l • 118 (i(J 0. o.C(J .10 .lb .10 o.oo .03 • nq 1.02 SS o.oo • l A o.oo o.oo .os o.oo o.oo .03 .o& .ao o.oo o.oo .03 .7~ &O o.oo o.oo o. Gil o.oo .Ob (i. (,I) 0. OCJ • <11 .oi? o.oo c.oo o.oo o.oo .1 ~ &5 o.oo o.oo 0. (I(! ., o. on .02 ().oo (•. (10 0.110 o.oo u.oo O.OlJ o.oo 0.110 .02 70 o.oo 11.00 (J. oc t1.00 (I. (l(,1 0. oo t· .o" c.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo 0. 00 o. 1)0 o.oo 75 o.oo (J .oo 0. Otl 0 • Oll o.oo o .O•J (J. (10 o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo 0. 00 0. 1)0 o.oo 80 o.oo (J. (!('I Ci. 01) o.oo (). oo 0. (l(I o.oo o.~ u2.2~2~.58 11S.A4 21.qa 32.44 ts.1& 101.qz 11.aa b.72 7~.24 lb.09 12.85 19.77 ~\.0 ALLOCAUOt. t:'f REHll LCtATlOll:_AdU Tl~EtiJ~T.HvC.:E. \ LOC~TIONO•Tt 'ALlOC~TEOEXP. CQkSI. JANTZN ~EACH 1q77 518.60C 3.sn 5.bb COMMENTS• ~~GIO~ALC~hT~R, V~RlED WElGHI~ RETAILtru; l1..lt•T10t•s, lw!ILLI0t:8 OF 00L.Lil!{3 MIN. 1 ~ .$ . 4 ~ El 7 .ij 9 10 11 12 q -5 -.68 14.21) 1 .c.3 8.23 4.42 11.00 2.&1 o.oo .47 9.Ll3 3.02 s.tts 5.u4 1ci.fi& 10 4.qq 21.26 13.27 14.3B 9.11 32.~~ 20.43 12.~3 "·05 3q.16 ~.011 1. 77 &.Q2 tf'b.86 15 3.'l8 2.211 5.4•) 5.2h 4.23 12.?6 25.74 1.SC) .3& 12.H2 2.C)4 2.1~ b.15 ~5.86 20 3.~& 1.ql 0 25 c;~ 4.14 2.so \. 2 .8 3 ~98 tJ.77 lh.12 1.12 .$~ 4.q3 1.80 .81 .70 S2.03 30 2.15 .28 .11 .48 .32 4.b?. b.30 .30 ~is 1.12 .&3 .20 .4& 18.33 35 1.2& ·"'> .fJ~ .B .l~ 1.38 J,Jl .23 .19 .56 .ss .23 .l4 10.32 40 .l)b .57 .45 .36 .~7 l.lo \.bu .01 .is .s~ .11 .20 .12 s.s~ 45 • 02 .1 Q I.I. I)\) • 1)4 .1~ .q1 .~4 .20 .13 .48 .06 .os .10 2.33 50 .04 o.oo .1q .16 .06 o.oo o.no .oe .12 .oa o.oo .03 .01 .6~ 55 O.(.•U 0 00 o.'10 .1s 0 .o~ o.~~ o.ou .o.s .o~ .j4 o.oo o.oo ·.03 .&3 60 o.oo o.o 65 o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo .02 o.o~ o.oo c..oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo .02 70 0.•)0 O.QI\ o. 75 0.011 1) (11) . o.oo '>.oo o.oo 0 1).00 ll.ilO O.i>O O.Ov .O.QO O.OO o.oo o.~o o.oo 80 o.oo o.oo o.oo 0.01) o.~o o.oo ~.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.~o o.oo 85 0.01) :i.Ot) O.OO o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o~oo o.~o o.oo qo t>.~9 o.oo o.oo o.oo 0.00 0 0 )0 O.OO o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo 95 O.f)t} 0.00 o.oo o.oo o.oo o.or, ij.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo ~.~o o.oo •* . o.oo o.oo '>.Cv 0.00 o.oo o.~o 0.06 o.oo o.vo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.~o o.oo ?.Q.qq 10~.Q6 1~ 40 20.ij3 43.84 3Q.Dt 33.20 163.01 0 &.~8 81.73 17.58 15.51 21.11 ~ N \ ALLOCATIONbY RtlAJI. lOCATIO~A\O TIME OI51~N~~ LOCA1lON 0A1~ $ ALL~tATEO~XP. co~sr. J.At1TZ~1l'EACU t RETAILI~GLOCATl~~S, MILLIO~S OF DOLLARS MIN. 1 2 3 4 S b 7 .8 9 10 11 12 13 s .1q 15.47 (.60 9.37 4.91 11.76 2.74 o.oo ..s~ 9.17 3.sa 10.&& s.10 .~3.01 10 13.SS 1s.11 33.97 20.4~ 1u.~e s.1s ?2.Sl 10.qa 4.49 42.2f. ~.&2 2.oe. 1.61 200.s& 15 3.ss ;:i.o?. 5.30 s.02 4.7& 12.49 iQ.9\ 1.47 .25 "13.64 3.38 2.b2 b.83 8&.~5 20 3.1& .311 1.ss .56 .&9 2z.12 2~.s2 1.13 .37 t2.3& 2.&9 t.32 2.tl 74.Sq 25 3.67 2.ns 1.53 2.31 .10 11,47 12.90 .91 .30 4.31 1.10 .CJS .~8 4.5.43 30 1.74 .21 • 57 .36 .~1 4.10 s.oo .20 .11 1.19 .54 .15 .:Si 14.7~ 35 t .17 • 35". .44 .ss .15 1.21 3.2& .16 .13 .3~ •Cl.(, .15 .oq l'.42 40 .011 .43 .37 .31 .Ob 1.13 1.49 .oo .12 • .St- .OP .14 .oe 4.&G 45 • ('}1 .14 o.oo .04 .o~ .36 .so .14 • o~ • 31!; .o~ .04 .oa 1.90 50 o.oo .03 .tfi .1 & .~~ o.oo o.oo .Ob • (J-1 • Cl& o.oo .02 • (lb .6" 55 o. CJO 0.(10 .13 o.oo .03 o.oo o.oo .02 .04 .28 o.oo O.(IQ . 19.69 44.69 30.24 33.80 22.71 98.64 9&.d5 19.59 &.54 84.94 19.0~ 18.13 23.74 w"'° \ ~LLOCATIO~BY PET4tL LOCATION.AND TI~fOISTA~CE ~# LOCAflON OATE $ ALLOCATED EXP. CO~Sl. JA~TZNR~ACH \q77 S18.~00 4.50 s.oo COM~ENTS• REGIONAL C~~TER,VARIED WEIGHl~ RETAILI~GLOCATIO~s, MILLIONS OF OULL~ws MIN. 1 2 3 4 5 b . 8 9 to 11 12 13 5 .9o t6 ... n 6.23 10.38 s·.23 12.41.1 Z.85 (i,0(1 •.H t),q2 4.07 12.1& E>.32 8CJ.50 10 6.54 23,47 14.Z6 t5,71 12.~& 3~.ll iO.Q3 1~.14 ti.81 44.8ll 7,03 2.3& a.79 z12.2~ 1s 3.09 1.&o 5.13 q,72 ~.3~ 11.Q1 24,07 1.39 .17 14.B 3.6·1 3.QS 7.S.5 &b,41 20 i.77 1.?2 .?.9 .4b .59 1q.s2 ;.2.so 1.~6 ,2CJ ll.Ot 2.q& 1.45 2.zs &e.s1 25 3.27 . t.b8 1.18 1.87 .s& 9.s1 io.2s .75 .22 3.q1 l.b& 1.12 .SO 3b.4A 30 1.43 .ts ,Q& .21 .14 3.&o a.04 .13 .01 .82 .so .11 .21 11.94 35. 1.10 .25 .32 .t11 .11 1.04 ~~~2 .1 ll .oa .20 .?.9 .10 ,0') b.9l\ 40 .03 .33 .29 .26 .04 1.0~ l.3b .02 .08 .23 • (lf) .09 .os 3.89 45 .01 .21 G.oo ,03 ,Qb .j5 ,45 .11 .os .2b ,l 1 4 .03 .o& 1.ss 50 o.oo .02 .13 .\4 .02 o.oo o.oo .04 • 0 7 • OS O,CtO ,02 .os .sc 55 o.oo .10 v.10 o.oo .oa o.ou o.oo .02 .03 .23 o.oo o.oo .02 .41 60 O.oo O.OO O,QO. o.oo .03 o.oo o.~o • 03 .01 O,OCI o.oo 0,00 o.oo .01 65 o.oo o.oo o.oQ o.oo .01 o.uo o.oo o. 0(• o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo .01 70 O.OQ o.oo O,QO 0,00 o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.r.o o.c.o o.oCI o,oo o.oo o.oo 75 o.oo o.~o O.OG o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o. o.o o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo eo o.oo o.co o.~o o.oo o.oo o.ov o.oo o.o~ o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo c,.oo es o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo u.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo qo o.oo o.oo .o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.Cio o.oo. o.oo o.uo o.oo 95 o.oo o.oo O,QO O.OO o.oo o.oo o.oo o.uo o.oo .. o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo ** o,oo ~.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo u.oo o.oo o.oo o.ov o.oo o.vo o.oo 1q.13 45,52 30.31 34.24 2q.a1 94,&1 8b.7& 20.34 &.~, 87,81 20,42 20.49 2~.64 '°.i:::- \ AL.LOCATION f RETAILING LOCA TIOMo\, M!Ll. I vt-•S OF L'ULL/l~S MIN. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ii CJ 1 (I 11 12 13 5 1.01 11 .• on H.68 11.21J 12.~" s.q2 2.q3 o.oo .f>~ 9.9b ·4.q7 13.32 6.A8 94.62 10 7.53 24~171q.bo 1&.10 1q.oe 36.lb 2~.3111.so 5.18 4&.~i. 7.32 2.~o. ~.6~2i2.o6 15 2.64 1.E>O 4.91 4.37 S.96 11. 4q 2.~.2~ 1. :S4 .12 14.'H 4 .?1 3.u7 8.24 &b.4& 20 .qq 2.40 .24 .3~ .~1 17. ~'l l '>. l't 1 1."\ .23 13.57 3.2<. l.57 2.3q &3.~1 2'5 2.92 1.37 ~" 1.s2 .43 1.~1 Me . l3 .b2 .17 3.f.'i 1.f>~ 1.32 .. • 44 3! .o'..'I 30 1.1q .11 .37 .20 ~1.193. \:S .s.211 .Oil .os • 57 .1.i1 .OQ .14 CJ.73 35 1. 0<1 .18 .23 .31 .08 • IH 2.3q .11 • 06 • 1 I .21 .v& .r.3 5.b7 40 .02 .25 .• 23 .21 .04 .94 1.22 • r,1 .Ob .1 ll .o~ • (lb ••13 3.2& 45 • no • 03 o. (j (1 • 03 .11 • lit\ .os .uo .Q3 • 18 .o:.s .02 . • G4 1.c?~ 50 o.oo .02 .11 • 11 .02 o.oo (/. 00 .o:s .o5 .o~ <1.0ll • (I\ .li4 .43 55 o.oo .o~ o.o.; 0. 00 0.0,1 .01 o.o .o3 .01 o.oo o.oo o.eio o.oo .Ob bS o.oo o.oo o. 01) (i. 00 .01 o.oo l). 00 ().O(I fl .0(1 o.oo o.oo o.o\ o.oo • 01 70 o.oo 01) o.oo 0. o.oo o.oo o.oo <>.oo 0. •>0 o.oo O. l'Ct o.oo c...00 o.ou o.to 75 i). 00 o.oo o.oo o.oo 0. 00 (). (•0 o.oo o.vG O.CIO 0. fl(J 0. 00 o. 85 C1 o.oo o.oo • 00 o.oo o.oo 0. CIO (/. 00 o. '>0 o.oo o.oo 0 .oo o.oo o.oJ o.oo )iO o.GO 0(\ o.oo o.oo 0. n.oo 0 .Oil 1,1.00 0 .ll(I o.oo 0 • UO o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo 95 o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo 0.1.10 o.oo .o.oo 0 .(10 o.flu o.oo o. Q(i. * l'O iJ. \) *t- °'•QO 0. c o.oo o.oo o.oo (J. (JQ 0 • C·O l>•CPO o.no oo o,o(~ o. "· 00 O.OIJ 18.54 45.S~ 30.27 34.55 2~.7091.Cl 81.~921.~J &.&2 qo.2s 21.~3 l2.5? 21.qq ==-•SOFF \0 U1 APPENDIX II QUESTIONNAIRE Hello, my name is , and I.am doing a study on shopping pat- terns in the Portland area for my graduate thesis in Geography at Port land State University. May I take a few minutes of your time and ask you some questions? · 1. Where are you coming from--home, work, or some other place? Home \fork __Other (specify) · 2. Why do you shop at Jantzen Beach? Please look at this card and rank them from 1 being the highest to 3 in order of your reasons. Large selection Specialty shops Sales --No sales tax --Closeness to home --Recreation · Closeness to work Other -- 3. How often do you shop at Jantzen Beach? (Ask question first, and if no response, probe.) Weekly? Monthly? Twice a week? 3 or more times a week Once in two weeks --Twice a week ---Monthly --Once a week --Less often 4. How often do you shop a month excluding food? Please think back over this last month and estimate from that. One time 8-9 times --2-3 times --10-12 times --4-5 times --12 or more times --6-7 times 5. What shopping centers do you patronize the most? Could you tell me the three most important? a. Jantzen Beach f. Portland k. Oregon City Shop --b. Eastport Plaza Downtown . ping Center --c. Mall 205 · g. Gresham Mall l. K-Mart-Levitz --d .. Gateway --h. \tJashi ngton (S.E. 82nd and -~e. Lloyd Center Square Johnson Road) i. Vancouver m. Beaverton Complex Downtown (S.W. Western ~-j· Tower Mall Avenue) n. Other-Specify__ _..r 97 6. When you go shopping normally, do you come from home, work, or some other place? · Home Work Other 7. How many minutes does it take you to get to Jantzen Beach from home? minutes 8. Would you please look at this map and give me the number of the area .in which you live? (If the person does not live in the area on the map,.say:) Could you figure out where you live on·this smaller map approximately and give me the number of the area? <. 98 CALCULATIONS Origin of Consumer Trip to Jantzen Beach Shopping Center Home Work/Other 44.71 1s-:-29 Vancouver 16 63 8. Portland 19 11 30 66 27 93 Total 2 2 2 2 x2 = (47 - 44.71) + (16 - i~.29) + (19 - 2~.29) + (11 - 8.71) 44.71 18.28 21.29 8.71 = .117 + .287 + .246 + .602 2 X calc = 1.252 D.F. =la= .05 X2 crit - 3.84 , 99 Shopping Frequency at Jantzen Beach Weekl~ Monthl* · Less Often . I 18. 911 I 28 . 5 I I 15. 58 Vancouver 23 I 34 I 6 I 63 I 9.03 01! Portland I 5 I 8 I ·11 I 30 Total 28 42 23 93 2 2 2 2 x2 = (23 - 18.97) + (34 - 28.45) + (6 - 15.58) + (5 - 9.03) 18.97 . . 28.45 15.58 9.03 2 2 + (8 - 13.55) + (17 - 7.42) 13.55 . 7.42 2 x calc = .086 + 1.083 + 5.891 + 1:799 + 2.273 + 12.369 2 2 X calc = 23.501 D.F. = 2a = .05 X crit = 5.991 2 a = .005 X crit = 10.5966 100 ShOQQ1ng Freguencl in General . Shopping Trips a Month 0 - 3 4 - 7 8 and above 55 I 33.19 I 116. 56 I I 13. Vancouver 13 I 63 I 15.S1 I L7.74J Portland 17 I 6 I 7 I 30 49 24 20 93 Total 2 2 2 2 x2 ·= (32 - 33.19) + (18 - 16.26) + {13 - 13.55) + (17 - 1s.a1) 33.19 16.26 13.55 15.81 l 2 2 ' . (6 - 7.74) + (7 - 6.45) 7.74 6.45 2 x ca 1c = .043 + .186 + .022 + .09 + .391 + .47 2 - 2 .. X calc - . 779 D. F. = 2a = •0 5 X cr1 . t . · = 5 . 991