It was this guy who helped raise DTSF from the dead
Mayor Huether will tell you, and take credit for making DTSF in to what it is today. He has said on a several occasions that when he was campaigning for mayor (3 years ago) that downtown was dead.
Hardly the truth.
I will give him credit for a couple of things downtown, with the help of the city council they were able to hand out a couple of TIF’s and tear down a parking ramp, but other than that, Downtown’s success was well in full swing when Mike was sworn into office. As for the rail relocation project, there hasn’t been a purchase agreement signed yet because we are waiting for an appraisal. Even if the city decides to move forward with the project, it will take several years before construction can resume on that location.
So when did DTSF start to become more successful? In 1991 when I moved here, I used to live behind Gigglebees on Duluth, I would walk DT about once a week. There was Zandbroz and Minerva’s and that was about it. A few years later, a lady named Carol Pogones had this vision to help redevelop DTSF, I believe at that time (1993-4?) the occupancy rate was about 15-25% DT. In 1993 I worked at a print-shop in the old Lewis building (it is that fancy-smancy dessert shop now). You would see Carol quite often pounding the streets of DT.
Carol was instrumental in convincing Mayor Munson and the city council to put more into DT. The redevelopment of Falls Park, approving Phase 1 of the River Greenway, the bump-outs on Phillips, the new sewer and water and road construction were all approved of and started during the Munson administration.
The Washington Pavilion has also been successful on one front, bringing more diners to downtown which has created a lot more restaurants and pubs.
Not sure WHAT downtown Huether was campaigning in, but DTSF certainly wasn’t dead 3 years ago. But this shouldn’t surprise anyone that Huether was clueless about the success of DT before he became mayor, when his bosom buddy, Darrin Smith first started working at City Hall, he was rumored to have said, “Where does anyone eat or have a cup of coffee DT anyway?†Oh, and he was serious.
Not certain DT is alive and well…at least not quite yet. High taxes and the extortion money paid to DTSF makes eeking out a living DT pretty tough. The high turnover rate of new business should tell you something.
I’d say it’s doing pretty well………. Lofts are all booked……. new apartments/lofts going up on Dakota and Phillips…. Just walk down Phillips on a weekend and that will tell you how well it’s doing
You do make a point Poly, the extra property tax assessment that goes to DTSF is kinda silly when you consider they also require membership. If you giving them property tax money, I think that qualifies as ‘membership’.
There is a high turnover DT, but I also blame that on poor business plans. I also think they should only charge parking meters on Phillips ONLY and make the ramps free. I also think that businesses should change their hours. If I owned a shop, I would open at 1 PM until 9 PM and all day on Saturday and Sundays.
If you’re gonna be there receiving goods, stocking, shipping, ordering, bookkeeping, etc. in the AM anyhow, might as well be open – might even make a sale or two. Making ramps free flies in the face of the whole “making everyone else (taxpayers) subsidize” the DT “special” business community. Out-of-towners using ramps pay nada?
Sorry… aren’t the ramps already free outside of weekday working hours? It makes perfect sense to charge higher rates during times when demand is high (M-F 9-5), and then lower them in low-demand times (evenings and weekends). Of course, any sensible strategy for downtown should include both densifying surrounding neighborhoods (to create a base of residents who can get there by bike or on foot), intensified transit in the core (like my ambitious streetcar proposal), and market-based parking rates like what has been implemented in San Francisco.
Basically, I feel that DTSF is successful because it’s the only legitimately urban neighborhood in the city – and this despite the decades-long efforts to suburbanize it with tons of cheap parking. I’m happy to give some credit to Munson (especially for Phillips to the Falls, which will be successful someday, I believe), but by and large the success of DT is attributable to larger nation-wide market forces and demographic shifts which show that urban locales are gaining in favor by both Baby Boomers and Millenials.
If you really think DT is successful (and I do), you should be trying to both enhance and replicate that success. There are tons of nodes – for example, 33rd & Minnesota – begging for walkable, mixed-use redevelopment. The lack of any coherent plan for creating and enhancing neighborhood centers outside of downtown is enough proof for me that the success in downtown is more in spite of city leadership than because of it.
When you have downtown stores adding locations in the mall or in strip malls on the South side of town it seems obvious they understand in order to be profitable they need to go where the customers are. Which in turns tells us where the customers aren’t.
Downtown is great if you want to grab a drink or a meal – and it is improving in that regard, but shopping is not something that is a huge hit down there. Sure there are people who like to browse the quaint little shops, but browsing doesn’t always equate to buying which is why the turnover rate continues to be so high.
This isn’t a problem unique to Sioux Falls however. Even smaller towns have seen their main streets go vacant while new stores and shops are built along the main highways running through town. Strip malls have supplanted downtown shopping districts, and although there are things cities and leadership can do to attract people to these areas, one has to wonder if it will ever be enough.
Then again maybe DTSF needs to just be a bit more welcoming to those who want to try new things. Instead of focusing on art gallaries and kitchen gadgets they could focus on being a destination for those seeking a great meal or some live music in an intimate setting. Like it or not, adding another marketing company or a photograpy studio downtown is not going to bring the crowds.
Absolutely agree, Craig. I remember reading an Argus article a few weeks ago talking about turnover DT and they talked to the owner of the Irish place about what might be a good fit downtown and the answer was something like “well, maybe a business that sells German stuff, to go with the business that sells Irish stuff and the business that sells Norwegian stuff.”
I mean, no disrespect, but that’s not the kind of stuff that draws anyone downtown except old retired biddies.
As DL mentions, a lot of these businesses run wonky hours and are closed during the time of day when most people do their shopping. If the purpose is to drive the public DT, they’d be way better off embracing the entertainment district concept – more restaurants, more bars, more live music. As the city continues its efforts to move employers and residents downtown, it’ll help to provide the clientele necessary to provide robust lunchtime business. Then focus on bringing in retailers that fit that demographic – get rid of the art galleries and high end furniture and stores that sell tchotchkes.
Building senior housing downtown doesn’t help draw people either.
Any housing downtown helps draw people and there wouldn’t be the influx of new residential that there has been if not for the process that was started under the Munson Administration.
It’s part of the cycle, more rooftops = more services to support them = more traffic = more retail draw. Most of the businesses that turn over are replace pretty quickly, and rents reflect that.
Specialty retail has been tough to lure in but it’s slowly coming. I also agree that walkable, mixed use, attractively designed multi-story development is what we want to see coming in and I think we’re well on the way to the next wave of that.
A lot of good ideas here to bring DT back to life. One thing missing tho. A thriving middle class. Was looking at this mornings Argus. Deep in its bowels, (after the tdenny tribute) was a story about DT development. I was fixated on a picture of the original Lewis Drug buildings opening. The street was packed. With what? The true middle class.
When I was a kid I had a pt job DT. Spent nearly all that money in one form or another down there. Clothes at Shrivers, Weatherwaxs. Movies on Saturday night at the State or Hollywood. Dances on Friday nite at the coliseum. A cherry coke at Woolworths, a dime burger at the Hamburger Inb, before going to work. Point is, a 20 hour a week pt job when you’re 15 allowed me and a ton of others to virtually live and spend our money there.
All of that started to die slowly starting I’d say around the summer of 63??? (think that was the year, close anyway) when K Mart opened on South Minnesota. Took a few years, but by the early ’70s it was over. Why? I’d say its because slowly the middle class turned into the working poor and shops at Walmart, not because they want too, just have too.
Can kids spend money DT? Can the true middle class of today spend money or live DT? That answer is no. And until they can, this talk is all just that…TALK.
Poly – great post. We’ve created a city where driving is the only way to get anywhere. Once you’re in your car, there’s no reason to stay within your neighborhood – it’s more convenient to just head out to Walmart or Target and get everything done in one shot. Walkability – that is, areas in which it’s desirable to walk, not just possible – is the first step in recreating solid local economies at the neighborhood level. That’s pretty much the definition of ‘mom and pop’ shops.
Munce. Great Mayor. He supported a PUBLIC indoor pool too.
Hate to say it, but that will never be built unless there is a private partnership.
I think people will hold their ground on this issue, it is the one issue where the voting public has said, we don’t need it at taxpayer expense. It’s time the ‘specials’ in town pay for their own way.
December 2005 $32m Rec Center voted down 2 to 1.
April 2007 $11.2m Indoor Pool voted down 2 to 1.
April 2014 $19.4m Indoor Pool vote ???
It should be noted that the ‘2 to 1’ defeat margins are likely inflated over true public opinion, due to the self-selection effect of many strongly-opposed (and mostly older) voters turning out in very high numbers. They still would have likely been defeated, even with 100% turnout, but true public opinion was probably more like 55-45 than 65-35.
Tom H. on 11.18.13 at 10:24 am
It should be noted that the ‘2 to 1′ defeat margins are likely inflated over true public opinion, due to the self-selection effect of many strongly-opposed (and mostly older) voters turning out in very high numbers.
I always find this to be a WEAK argument.
ALL registered voters had an opportunity to cast their votes in both elections.
As always, those who put in the effort to show up, make the decision as it should be!!