University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An Economic Analysis Of The Changes In Retail Store Sales And Location Inthe Central Business Districts Of One Hundred And Nine Central Cities In The United States, 1948-1958

(USC Thesis Other)

An Economic Analysis Of The Changes In Retail Store Sales And Location Inthe Central Business Districts Of One Hundred And Nine Central Cities In The United States, 1948-1958

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content This dissertation has been 64-6236 m icrofilm ed exactly as received BARKER, Edward Hill, 1915- AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE CHANGES IN RETAIL STORE SALES AND LOCATION IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS OF ONE HUNDRED AND NINE CENTRAL CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1948-1958. University of Southern California, Ph. D ., 1963 Economics, general University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan Copyright by EDWARD HILL BARKER 1964 AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE CHANGES IN RETAIL STORE SALES AND LOCATION IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS OF ONE HUNDRED AND NINE CENTRAL CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1948-1958 by Edward Hill Barker A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Economics) August 1963 UNIVERSITY O F S O U T H E R N CALIFORNIA GRADUATE SC H O O L UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANG EL ES 7. C A LIFORNIA This dissertation, written by EDWARD.. .HILL. .BARKER. under the direction of his....Dissertation C o m m ittee, and a p p r o v e d by all its m em bers, has been presented to and a ccepted by the G raduate School, in partial fulfillment of requirements fo r the degree of D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y Dean Date DISSERTATION COMMLTTE TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED ......................... 1 The Problem .................. 2 Statement of the Problem.......... 2 Importance of the Study .......... 3 Objectives of the Study .......... 4 Scope of the Study .............. 4 Methodology ......................... 5 Library Investigations ............ 5 Statistical Analysis .............. 7 Personal Interview .............. 7 Definitions of Terms Used .......... 8 Production ......................... 8 Marketing ......................... 8 Distribution...................... 10 Retailing ........................ 10 Retailer ........................ 11 Producer ........................ 11 Brand 11 iv CHAPTER PAGE Chain Store System ............... 12 Type of Retail Stores ............. 12 Department store ............... 12 Discount house ................... 12 The limited-line store ........ 13 Specialty store ................. 13 Supermarket ................... 13 Types of Consumers' Goods ........ 14 Convenience goods ............... 14 Shopping goods ................. 14 Specialty goods ................. 14 Product Motives ................... 15 Patronage Motives ................. 15 Central City ..................... 15 Satellite City ................... 16 Impulse Buying ................... 16 Ecology .......................... 16 Conurbation ....................... 16 Umland 17 Hinterland.......................... 17 Location .......................... 17 Site .............................. 17 V CHAPTER PAGE Trade Center ............ ..... 18 Trading Area .................... 18 Drawing Power of a Retail Store . . 20 Market Saturation 20 Linkage .......................... 20 Region ........................... 21 Review of the Literature .......... 21 Character of the Literature .... 21 Books 22 Economic theory ................ 22 Economic explanations of urban concentration 25 Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort .............. 26 Urbanism in the United States . . 26 The current structure of retailing. 27 i i Determinants of retail structure and retail store location . . . 28 Periodicals 28 Government Publications .......... 30 Publications of Learned Societies and Other Organizations . ........ 31 vi CHAPTER PAGE Miscellaneous Sources ............. 33 Organization of the Following Chapters. 33 II. SOME IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF THE CAUSES OF URBAN CONCENTRATION .......... 38 A Synopsis of General Location Theories .......................... 40 An Introduction to the Concept of Location ................... 41 Early Economic Inferences Regarding Location ............... 42 The German School of Economic Location......................... 46 Johann Heinrich von Thtlnen .... 47 Alfred Weber ................... 48 Andreas PredBhl ................. 52 Oscar Englander ............... 52 Werner Sombart ................... 53 Toward Palander 54 Hans Weigroann ................... 55 August Ltisch ................... 56 Conclusions regarding these theories 57 vii CHAPTER PAGE Other-Than “German Writers .......... 58 Edward A. Ross 58 Edgar M. Hoover .................. 61 Walter Isard .................... 62 Melvin Greenhut .................. 63 Conclusion Regarding These Theories . 64 The Concept of Urbanization .......... 64 A Multiplicity of Similar and Near- Similar Words and Terms .......... 65 Some Leading Points of View ........ 66 The political science approach . . . 67 The urban geography approach .... 67 Sociology's approach ............ 68 The economic approach.............. 70 The mathematical approach ........ 71 The fusion of these . .......... 71 A Proposed Concept of Urbanization . . 72 A Summary of Some of the Leading Explana tions of the Causes of Urban Concentration . .................. 73 Noneconomic Explanations ............ 74 Geographical forces. . . . .... 75 viii CHAPTER PAGE 1) Harbors and rivers ........ 75 2) Climate ................... 76 3) Topography ................. 76 4) Raw materials and natural resources ............... 77 Social forces ................... 78 Other forces ................... 79 Economic Explanations ............. 80 The exchange process ............. 81 1) T r a d e ....................... 82 2) Transportation ............ 82 a) Water transportation . . 83 b) Railroad transportation . 84 c) Motor transportation . . 86 d) Air transportation . . . 88 e) The nodal theory . . . 88 3) Finance and insurance .... 90 Manufacturing ............ . . . 92 1) Household s t a g e ............ 93 2) Guild stage .............. 93 3) Domestic stage ............ 94 4) Factory stage ............ 94 ix CHAPTER PAGE Agglomerating forces .......... 95 1) Alfred Weber ........ 96 2) August Lttsch .............. 96 3) Edgar M. Hoover............ 97 4) John R. P. Friedmann .... 98 Economies of urban concentration . 99 A supplier of services .......... 101 Conclusion ......................... 102 III. A SUMMARY OF SOME OF THE LEADING ECONOMIC EXPLANATIONS OF THE DIFFERENCES AMONG URBAN CONCENTRATIONS ........ 103 Introduction ....................... 104 Various Classifications of Urban Concentrations.............. 104 Classification by Location ..... 105 Classification According to Dominant Function .............. 106 Van Cleef's classification .... 106 Chauncy D. Harris .............. 108 John Fraser Hart .............. 109 John R. P. Friedmann............ 110 X CHAPTER PACE Classification by main activity . 113 Classification by Effect on Economic Growth and Cultural Change . . . 114 Classification by the Support of the City ....................... 114 An Ecological Classification .... 115 An Economic Function Classification . 116 Some Leading Theories of the Growth of Urban Concentrations.................. 118 The Concentric Zone Theory............ 119 Ernest W. Burgess .................. 119 William M. Dobriner ................ 122 The Sector Theory .................. 122 The Multiple-Nuclei Theory............ 123 Functional Theories .................. 124 Van Cleef's thesis ................ 124 The Saarinen theory ................ 126 Aspinwall's rule of uniformity . . 126 Some Economic Explanations as to the Size, Spacing and Type of Urban Concentrations ................ 128 Central Place Theory ................ 129 xi CHAPTER PAGE Christaller's thesis .......... . 129 1) Classification of goods and services............... 130 2) The development of the central place.............. 131 3) Classification of central places .......... 131 4) The hierarchy of central places .................. 131 5) The shape of the service area. 133 6) The number of telephones as a measure ............ 135 7) Application of his thesis . . 136 Additional studies .................. 136 1) Ullman .................. 136 2) Brush.................... . 137 3) Vining .................... 137 4) Duncan .................... 138 5) Berry and Garrison ........ 139 6) C a r o l............... 141 7) Ring ...................... 141 The range of the good ............. 142 xii CHAPTER PAGE The rank-size rule ................ 144 Conclusion concerning the central place theory................... 146 The Principle of Least Effort . . . 147 The forces of unification and diversification ............... 147 The least-work center ........... 149 Irregular urban s i z e ............. 150 Several Other Approaches ........... 151 Accessibility ....................... 152 Expansion of local markets .... 153 Specialized business services . . 153 Technical and retail linkages . . . 153 Cultural advantages ................ 154 The total effect .................. 154 Conclusion .......................... 155 IV. A BRIEF RECAPITULATION OF URBANISM IN THE UNITED STATES .................. 157 Introduction ........................... 158 A Sunsnary of Certain Aspects of Urban Growth in the United States............ 160 xiii CHAPTER PAGE The Development of Cities Prior to 1900 161 The pre-railway era ............ 162 1) Prior to 1800 162 2) 1800-1850 163 3) By 1850 164 1850-1900 165 1) 1850-1860 165 2) 1860-1900 . .'.............. 165 Recapitulation................... 166 The Development of Cities Since 1900. 167 1900-1920 . .............. 170 1920-1960 170 Urban Deconcentration and Decentralization .................. 171 The Suburb ....................... 172 The concept of the suburb .... 173 Suburbs prior to 1920 177 Suburbs since 1920 178 A summary of the leading causes of suburbanization .......... 184 1) Permissive aspects . . . . . 184 xiv CHAPTER PAGE The Satellite City .................. 186 The Development of Metropolitanism in the United States.......... 187 The Creation of the Standard Metro politan Statistical A r e a ... 188 The metropolitan district of 1910 . 189 The 1920 census .................. 189 The 1930 metropolitan district . . 190 The 1940 census .................. 191 Special census terms used prior to 1950 191 1) "Satellite areas" .............. 191 2) "Areas outside metropolitan districts" .................. 192 The 1950 standard metropolitan statistical a r e a .......... 193 The Concept of Metropolitanism . . . 195 The hypothesis of metropolitan dominance ......................... 195 1) The characteristics of a metropolitan area . . . 196 CHAPTER PAGE 2) Gras's "metropolitan economy" 197 3) McKenzie's "metropolitan community"...... ........... 198 4) Bogue's "metropolitan dominance" ........... 199 5) The "Gradient Principle" . . . 201 The growth and distribution of population............. 202 1) The growth of standard metro politan statistical areas . 203 2) The changes in the population size of standard metropolitan statistical areas ....... 204 3) The change in the distribution of population within the standard metropolitan statistical areas ....... 205 Conclusion ......................... 207 V. THE CURRENT STRUCTURE OF RETAILING IN THE UNITED STATES .................. 208 Introduction........................ 208 The Economic Basis of Retailing . . . 209 xvi CHAPTER PAGE The Insufficiency of Form Utility . . . 210 The Necessity for the Other Utilities . 211 Conflicting aims of producer and consumer..................... 212 The process of regrouping ........... 21.3 Assorting ............................ 214 The Creation of These Utilities by Retailing ........................ 214 Retailing functions ................. 215 1) Buying..... ..................... 215 a) Determining needs .... 216 b) Selecting sources of supply 216 c) Determining the suitability of g o o d s .......... ' . . 216 d) Negotiating with sellers and transferring of title 217 2) Selling ..................... 217 a) Stimulating demand .... 217 b) Locating buyers . 217 c) Negotiating with buyers and transferring of title . . 218 xvii CHAPTER PAGE 3) Risk taking............ 218 4) Financing ............. 218 5) Storage ...................... 219 6) Transportation ................ 219 7) Market information ......... 219 How the retailer creates utility . 220 1) Place utility.......... 220 2) Time utility ................ 221 3) Possession utility . . . 221 4) Form utility ............... 221 Conclusion Regarding the Economic Basis of Retailing.......... 222 The Current Spatial Structure of Retail ing in the United States...... ......... 223 The Large City ...................... 223 The central shopping or business district ................ 224 The secondary shopping district . 226 Specialty centers .................. 226 The neighborhood retailing center . 227 The scattered retail section . . . 229 xviii CHAPTER PAGE The "string-street" retail section. 229 The Small City ....................... 230 The Rural Trading Center .............. 231 The Shopping Center .................. 232 The submetropolitan shopping center ........................... 233 The community shopping center . . 235 The neighborhood shopping center . 235 The Highway-Oriented Retail District. 236 Conclusion ............................. 239 VI. DETERMINANTS OF RETAIL STRUCTURE AND RETAIL STORE LOCATION .................. 241 Introduction ............................. 241 A Summary of the Principles of Retail Structure and Retail Store Location . 242 Reilly's Law of Retail Gravitation . 243 The original law .................. 243 1) The law ....................... 244 2) Determination of a trading center's pull .............. 244 3) Other factors........... 246 4) Its application .............. 246 xix CHAPTER PAGE The Curtis Publishing Company's revision....................... 247 Converse's new l a w .............. 250 Huff's thesis .................. 251 1) Impact of merchandise offerings .................. 252 2) Impact of travel time .... 252 The Theory of Site Rent .......... 254 Chamberlin's Thesis of Spatial Monopoly............................ 255 The Principle of Least Effort . . . 256 The Theory of Cumulative Attraction . 258 Retail Locations .................. 258 The Theory of Compatibility .... 260 Statement of the theory ........ 260 The principle stated as a formula . 261 Theoretical application of the formula . . . . . . . . 262 Other factors .................. 263 Results of research . ........ 264 The Principle of Efficient Congestion 268 Metropolitan Dominance . . ........ 269 XX CHAPTER PAGE A Summary of the Forces Affecting Retail Structure and Retail Store Location . 271 Population Characteristics ............ 271 Market location .................... 272 Income of the population... 275 1) Size of disposable income . . 276 2) Distribution of personal income ....................... 276 3) The use of personal income . 278 4) The source of personal income ....................... 282 5) The geographic distribution of income .................. 282 Education level and type of occupation .................... 283 Age distribution .................. 284 Merchandising Techniques .............. 285 The Nature of the Demand for the Product ....................... 288 Transportation ....................... 291 Industrial Plant Location ............ 292 xxi CHAPTER PAGE A Summary of Factors Influencing Indi vidual Retail Store Location . . . 293 Basic Factors....... ................ 294 Size of the retail trading area . 294 Character of the population of the trading a r e a ......... 296 The purchasing power of the trading a r e a ............. 296 The competitive structure of the trading a r e a ............. 297 The progressiveness of the community ................... 297 The buying habits of potential customers .................. 298 Secondary Factors... ................ 298 Conclusion ......................... 299 VII. A SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN RETAIL STORE SALES AND LOCATION IN SELECTED CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS: 1948 THROUGH 1958. 301 A Summary of Changes in Retail Store Sales and Location Prior to 1948 . . 302 Introduction ....................... 303 xxii CHAPTER PAGE The 1933 Census ....................... 303 The 1935 Census ....................... 306 A Summary of Changes in Retail Store Sales and Location in the Selected Districts: 1948 Through 1958 . . . 307 Methodology Employed .................. 308 A Description of the Census of Business.................... 309 Format of the publication .... 310 Summary reports .......... .. . 318 The differences between 1948 and 1954 census .................. 319 Differences between the 1954 and the 1958 census........ 325 A Summarization of the Results of the Research .................. 326 The central business district master table ..... ............ 327 Absolute changes in total number of retail stores ..................... 331 Absolute changes in total retail dollar sales ..................... 332 xxiii CHAPTER PAGE Percentage differentials in changes in total retail dollar sales of the central cities tnade in their central business districts . . . 333 Percentage differentials in changes in total retail dollar sales of the standard metropolitan areas made in the central business districts ............ 334 Summary of changes in the central business districts by kind of retail business: 1954-1958 . . . 335 1) Summary of changes in number of retail units: 1954-1958. 335 2) Summary of changes of total retail dollar sales: 1954-1958 340 Conclusion ......................... 341 VIII. THE RANKING OF CENTRAL CITIES BY CHANGES IN THE RETAIL CLASSIFICATIONS IN THEIR CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS.......... 343 xxiv CHAPTER PAGE The Ranking of the Central Business Districts by Changes in Units . . . 344 Introduction ..................... 344 Ranking of Central business districts as to changes in retail units of SIC Major Group 52: lumber, build ing materials, hardware, and farm equipment dealers ........ 349 Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail units of SIC Major Group 53: general mer chandise group retail stores . . 349 Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail units in SIC Group 531: department stores 350 Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail units in SIC Group 533: limited price variety stores .................. 351 XXV CHAPTER PAGE Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail units in SIC Major Group 54: food stores 352 Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail units in SIC Major Group 55 (except 554): automotive dealers ................ 352 Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail units in SIC Group 554: gasoline service stations....................... 353 Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail units in SIC Major Group 56: apparel and accessories stores ............ 354 Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail units in SIC Major Group 57: furniture, home furnishings, and equipment stores.............. 355 Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail units in xxvi CHAPTER PAGE SIC Major Group 58: eating and drinking places .................. 355 Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail units in SIC Group 591: drug and proprietary stores... ............ 357 Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail units in SIC Major Group 59: other retail stores (except SIC Group 591) . . 357 The Ranking of the Central Business Dis tricts by Changes in S a l e s ............ 359 Over-All Rankings .................. 359 Ranking of central business districts as to changes in sales in all of the selected retail classifica tions: 1948-1954 ........... 359 Ranking of central business districts as to changes in sales in all selected retail classifications: 1954-1958 360 xxvii CHAPTER PAGE Ranking of central business districts as to changes in sales in all selected retail classifica tions: 1948-1958 ....... 370 Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail sales of SIC Major Group 52: lumber, build ing materials, hardware, and farm equipment dealers: 1954-1958 373 Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail sales of SIC Major Group 53: general mer chandise group retail stores: 1954-1958 376 Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail sales of SIC Group 531: department stores: 1954-1958 377 Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail sales of SIC Group 533: limited price variety stores: 1954-1958 . . . 378 xxviii CHAPTER PAGE Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail sales of SIC Major Group 54: food stores: 1954-1958 .... 379 Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail sales of SIC Major Group 55 (except 554): automotive dealers: 1954-1958 . 381 Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail sales of SIC Group 554: gasoline service stations: 1954-1958 382 Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail sales of SIC Major Group 56: apparel and accessories stores: 1954-1958 . 383 Ranking of the central business districts as to changes in retail sales of SIC Major Group 57: furniture, home furnishings, and equipment stores: 1954-1958 384 xx ix CHAPTER PAGE Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail sales of SIC Major Group 58: eating and drinking places: 1954-1958 . . 385 Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail sales of SIC Group 591: drug and proprie tary stores: 1954-1958 .... 387 Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail sales of SIC Major Group 59 (except 591): other retail stores: 1954-1958 . 388 Conclusion ......................... 389 IX. AN ANALYSIS OF THE CHANGES IN RETAIL SALES AND RETAIL STORE LOCATION IN THE SELECTED CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS 1948 THROUGH 1958 391 An Analysis of the Rankings of the Central Business Districts by Total Changes in Sales and Units .............. 392 XXX CHAPTER PAGE A Comparison of Central Business Dis tricts Having the Greatest Gains in Retail Sales During the Several Census Periods ................... 393 A Comparison of those districts having the greatest gains in retail sales in 1948-1954 to their rankings in 1954-1958, and 1948-1958 . . . 394 A comparison of those districts having the greatest gains in retail sales in 1954-1958 to their rankings in 1948-1954, and 1948-1958 . . . 396 A comparison of those districts having the greatest gains in retail sales in 1948-1958 to their rankings in 1948-1954, and 1954-1958 . . . 402 A Comparison of Central Business Districts Having the Greatest Losses in Retail Sales During the Several Census Periods ................... 402 CHAPTER A comparison of those districts having the greatest losses in retail sales in 1948-1954 to their rankings in 1954-1958, and 1948-1958 . . . A comparison of those districts having the greatest losses in retail sales in 1954-1958 to their rankings in 1948-1954, and 1948-1958 . . . A comparison of those districts having the greatest losses in retail sales in 1948-1958 to their rankings in 1948-1954, and 1954-1958 . . . A Comparison of Central Business Dis tricts Having the Greatest Gains in Retail Sales to Their Rankings in Gains of Retail Units: 1954-1958 A Comparison of Central Business Dis tricts Having the Greatest Losses in Retail Sales to Their Rankings in Losses of Retail Units: 1954-1958 . xxxi PAGE 405 407 410 416 417 xxxii CHAPTER PAGE A Comparison of Central Business Dis tricts Having the Greatest Gains in Retail Units to Their Rankings in Gains of Retail Sales: 1954-1958 420 A Comparison of Central Business Dis tricts Having the Greatest Losses in Retail Units to Their Rankings in Losses of Retail Sales: 1954-1958. 423 Conclusions Regarding These Comparisons ................... 429 A Comparison of the Changes in Retail Sales and Retail Units of the Selected Central Business Districts to the Total Retail Economy: 1948-1958 . . 430 A Comparison during the period 1948-1954 431 The total retail economy: 1948 . . 434 A comparison of the total retail economy: 1948-1954 ............. 434 xxxiii CHAPTER PAGE A comparison of the central business districts to the total retail economy: 1948-1954 437 A Comparison During the Period: 1954-1958 440 A comparison of the total retail economy: 1954-1958 440 A comparison of the central business districts to the total retail economy: 1954-1958 441 An Analysis of the Data Used in This Study ..................... 446 A Summary of the Causes of the Shift in Retail Trade ................... 451 Conclusion ......................... 453 X. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .............. 455 Summary . . ......................... 455 Some Important Aspects of the Causes of Urban Concentration .......... 455 Some Explanations of Differences Among Urban Concentrations . . . 457 CHAPTER XXXIV PAGE Urbanism in the United States . . . 458 Current Structure of Retailing in the United States ............... 459 Determinants of Retail Structure and Retail Store Location ......... 460 Changes in Retail Store Sales and Location ................... 461 Ranking of Central Cities by Changes in Retail Classifications . . . 464 An Analysis of the Changes in Sales and Location ................... 465 Final Summary ................... 467 Conclusions .......................... 468 A Look into the Future............ 468 A summary view of predicted changes in the total economy's population ................... 469 1) Continuing deconcentration . 469 2) Interurbia ............... 470 3) The extent of interurbia . . 472 A sunmary view of predicted changes in the total economy's income . . . 473 XXXV CHAPTER PAGE Conclusions ....................... 474 The impact on retailing in general ................ 475 The effect on retailing in the i central business districts of our larger cities............... 480 1) The continuing declining impor tance of the central busi ness district....... 481 2) The renaissance of the central business district ........ 483 This investigator's conclusions . 483 Future studies .................. 487 BIBLIOGRAPHY................................. . 489 APPENDICES ......................... 522 Appendix A. Classification of Retail Trade . 523 Appendix B. Ranking of Central Business Dis tricts by Selected Retail Clas sifications as to Increases and Decreases in Units and Retail Dollar Sales: 1954 Through 1958 . . 550 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I. A Functional Hierarchy of Cities .... Ill II. Christaller's Classes of Central Cities . 132 III. United States Population Trends: 1790-1960 168 IV. Per Cent Distribution of Amount of Popu lation Change in Standard Metropolitan Areas, by Distance Zone, 1900-1950 . . 179 V. Per Cent Distribution of Population in Standard Metropolitan Areas, by Distance Zones, 1900-1950 180 VI. Population of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas by Size of Area: 1950 and 1960 182 VII. Hypothetical Data Used In Delimiting Trading Area of Proposed Shopping Center ..................... 249 VIII. A Hand-Selected Comparison of Several Types of Retail Units and Sales: 1929-1933 . 305 xxxvii TABLE PAGE IX. The Central Business District Master Table ............................... 328 X. Ranking of the Central Business Districts by Absolute Increase in Total Number Retail Establishments: 1954 through 1958.... ...................... 345 XI. Ranking of the Central Business Districts by Absolute Decrease in Total Number Retail Establishments: 1954 through 1958 346 XII. Ranking of the Central Business Districts by Absolute Increase in Total Dollar Retail Sales: 1948 through 1954 . . . 361 XIII. Ranking of the Central Business Districts by Absolute Decrease in Total Dollar Retail Sales: 1948 through 1954 . . . 363 XIV. Ranking of the Central Business Districts by Absolute Increase in Total Dollar Retail Sales: 1954 through 1958 . . . 366 XV. Ranking of the Central Business Districts by Absolute Decrease in Total Dollar Retail Sales: 1954 through 1958 . . . 368 TABLE XVI. XVII. XVIII. XIX. XX. XXI. xxxviii PAGE Ranking of the Central Business Districts by Absolute Increase in Total Dollar Retail Sales: 1948 through 1958 . . . 371 Ranking of Central Business Districts by Absolute Decrease in Total Dollar Retail Sales: 1948 through 1958 . . . 374 Change in Total Number Retail Units in the Central Business Districts by Retail Classification: 1954-1958 . . . 336 Change in Total Retail Dollar Sales in the Central Business Districts by Retail Classification: 1954-1958 . . . 338 Ranking of the Central Business Districts as to Increase in Number of Lumber, Building Materials, Hardware, and Farm Equipment Retail Dealers (SIC Major Group 52) 1954 through 1958 551 Ranking of the Central Business Districts as to Decrease in Number of Lumber, Building Materials, Hardware, and Farm Equipment Retail Dealers (SIC Major Group 52) 1954 through 1958 552 xxxix TABLE PAGE XXII. Ranking of the Central Business Districts as to Increase in Number of General Mer chandise Group Retail Stores (SIC Major Group 53) 1954 through 1958 . . 554 XXIII. Ranking of the Central Business Districts as to Decrease in Number of General Mer chandise Group Retail Stores (SIC Major Group 53) 1954 through 1958 . 556 XXIV. Ranking of the Central Business Districts as to Increase in Number of Retail Department Stores (SIC Group 531) 1954 through 1958 558 XXV. Ranking of the Central Business Districts as to Decrease in Number of Retail Department Stores (SIC Group 531) 1954 through 1958 559 XXVI. Ranking of the Central Business Districts as to Increase in Number of Retail Limited Price Variety Stores (SIC Group 533) 1954 through 1958 . 561 xl TABLE PAGE XXVII. Ranking of the Central Business Districts as to Decrease in Number of Retail Limited Price Variety Stores (SIC Group 533) 1954 through 1958 562 XXVIII. Ranking of the Central Business Districts as to Increase in Number of Retail Food Stores (SIC Major Group 54) 1954 through 1958 564 XXIX. Ranking of the Central Business Districts as to Decrease in Number of Retail Food Stores (SIC Major Group 54) 1954 through 1958 565 XXX. Ranking of the Central Business Districts as to Increase in Number of Automotive Dealers (SIC Major Group 55, Except 554) 1954 through 1958 568 XXXI. Ranking of the Central Business Districts as to Decrease in Number of Automotive Dealers (SIC Major Group 55, Except 554) 1954 through 1958 570 xli TABLE PAGE XXXII. Ranking of the Central Business Districts as to Increase in Number of Retail Gasoline Service Stations (SIC Group 554) 1954 through 1958 572 XXXIII. Ranking of the Central Business Districts as to Decrease in Number of Retail Gasoline Service Stations (SIC Group 554) 1954 through 1958 ............. 574 XXXIV. Ranking of the Central Business Districts as to Increase in Number of Apparel and Accessories Stores (SIC Major Group 56) 1954 through 1958 .... 576 XXXV. Ranking of the Central Business Districts as to Decrease in Number of Apparel and Accessories Stores (SIC Major Group 56) 1954 through 1958 .... 577 XXXVI. Ranking of the Central Business Districts as to Increase in Number of Furniture, Home Furnishings, and Equipment Retail Stores (SIC Major Group 57) 1954 through 1958 .................. 580 xlii TABLE PAGE XXXVII. Ranking of the Central Business Districts as to Decrease in Number of Furniture, Home Furnishings, and Equipment Retail Stores (SIC Major Group 57) 1954 through 1958 581 XXXVIII. Ranking of the Central Business Districts as to Increase in Number of Eating and Drinking Places (SIC Major Group 58) 1954 through 1958 ............ 584 XXXIX. Ranking of the Central Business Districts as to Decrease in Number of Eating and Drinking Places (SIC Major Group 58) 1954 through 1958 ............ 586 XXXX. Ranking of the Central Business Districts as to Increase in Number of Drug and Proprietary Stores (SIC Group 591) 1954 through 1958 ....................... 588 XXXXI. Ranking of the Central Business Districts as to Decrease in Number of Drug and Proprietary Stores (SIC Group 591) 1954 through 1958 589 TABLE XXXXII. XXXXIII. XXXXIV. XXXXV. Ranking of the Central Business Districts as to Increase in Number of Other Retail Stores (SIC Major Group 59, Except 591) 1954 through 1958 . . . Ranking of the Central Business Districts as to Decrease in Number of Other Retail Stores (SIC Major Group 59, Except 591) 1954 through 1958 . . . Ranking of the Central Business Districts by Absolute Increase in Total Dollar Sales of Lumber, Building Materials, Hardware, and Farm Equipment Dealers (SIC Major Group 52) 1954 through 1958 ................ Ranking of the Central Business Districts by Absolute Decrease in Total Dollar Retail Sales of Lumber, Building Materials, Hardware, and Farm Equip ment Dealers (SIC Major Group 52) 1954 through 1958 ............ xliii PAGE 592 594 596 598 xliv TABLE PAGE XXXXVI. Ranking of the Central Business Dis tricts by Absolute Increase in Total Dollar Retail Sales of General Merchandise (SIC Major Group 53) 1954 through 1958 . . . 600 XXXXVII. Ranking of the Central Business Dis tricts by Absolute Decrease in Total Dollar Retail Sales of General Merchandise (SIC Major Group 53) 1954 through 1958 .... 603 XXXXVIII. Ranking of the Central Business Dis tricts by Absolute Increase in Total Dollar Retail Sales of Department Stores (SIC Group 531) 1954 through 1958 604 XXXXIX. Ranking of the Central Business Dis tricts by Absolute Decrease in Total Dollar Retail Sales of Department Stores (SIC Group 531) 1954 through 1958 605 xlv TABLE PAGE L. Ranking of the Central Business Districts by Absolute Increase in Total Dollar Retail Sales of Limited Price Variety Stores (SIC Group 533) 1954 through 1958 606 LI. Ranking of the Central Business Districts by Absolute Decrease in Total Dollar Retail Sales of Limited Price Variety Stores (SIC Group 533) 1954 through 1958 607 LII. Ranking of the Central Business Districts by Absolute Increase in Total Dollar Retail Sales of Food Stores (SIC Major Group 54) 1954 through 1958 609 LIII. Ranking of the Central Business Districts by Absolute Decrease in Total Dollar Retail Sales of Food Stores (SIC Major Group 54) 1954 through 1958 611 LIV. Ranking of the Central Business Districts by Absolute Increase in Total Dollar Retail Sales of Automotive Dealers (SIC Major Group 55) 1954 through 1958 . . . 614 xlvi TABLE PAGE LV. Ranking of the Central Business Districts by Absolute Decrease in Total Dollar Retail Sales of Automotive Dealers (SIC Major Group 55) 1954 through 1958 . . 616 LVI. Ranking of the Central Business Districts by Absolute Increase in Total Dollar Retail Sales of Gasoline Service Stations (SIC Group 554) 1954 through 1958....................... 618 LVII. Ranking of the Central Business Districts by Absolute Decrease in Total Dollar Retail Sales of Gasoline Service Stations (SIC Group 554) 1954 through 1958 621 LVIII. Ranking of the Central Business Districts by Absolute Increase in Total Dollar Retail Sales of Apparel and Acces sories Stores (SIC Major Group 56) 1954 through 1958 623 TABLE LIX. LX. LXI. LXXI. Ranking of the Central Business Districts by Absolute Decrease in Total Dollar Retail Sales of Apparel and Acces sories Stores (SIC Major Group 56) 1954 through 1958 .................. Ranking of the Central Business Districts by Absolute Increase in Total Dollar Retail Sales of Furniture, Horae Furnishings, and Equipment Stores (SIC Major Group 57) 1954 through 1958 .................. Ranking of the Central Business Districts by Absolute Decrease in Total Dollar Retail Sales of Furniture, Horae Furnishings, and Equipment Stores (SIC Major Group 57) 1954 through 1958 .................. Ranking of the Central Business Districts by Absolute Increase in Total Dollar Retail Sales of Eating and Drinking Places (SIC Major Group 58) 1954 through 1958 .................. xlvii PAGE 624 627 629 631 TABLE LXIII. Ranking of the Central Business Districts \ by Absolute Decrease in Total Dollar Retail Sales of Eating and Drinking Places (SIC Major Group 58) 1954 through 1958 . . . ............. LXIV. Ranking of the Central Business Districts by Absolute Increase In Total Dollar Retail Sales of Drug and Proprietary Stores (SIC Group 591) 1954 through 1958 ................... LXV. Ranking of the Central Business Districts by Absolute Decrease in Total Dollar Retail Sales of Drug and Proprietary Stores (SIC Group 591) 1954 through 1958 ................... LXVI. Ranking of the Central Business Districts by Absolute Increase in Total Dollar Retail Sales of Other Retail Stores (SIC Major Group 59, Except 591) 1954 through 1958 ............. xlix TABLE PAGE LXVII. Ranking of the Central Business Districts by Absolute Decrease in Total Dollar Retail Sales of Other Retail Stores (SIC Major Group 59, Except 591) 1954 through 1958 642 1XVIII. A Comparison of Central Business Districts Having the Greatest Gains in Retail Sales in 1948*1954 to Their Rankings in 1954-1958, and 1948-1958 397 LXIX. A Comparison of Central Business Districts Having the Greatest Gains in Retail Sales in 1954-1958 to Their Rankings in 1948-1954, and 1948-1958 400 LXX. A Comparison of Central Business Districts Having the Greatest Gains in Retail Sales in 1948-1958 to Their Rankings in 1948-1954, and 1954-1958 403 LXXI. A Comparison of Central Business Districts Having the Greatest Losses in Retail Sales in 1948-1954 to Their Rankings in 1954-1958, and 1948-1958 408 1 TABLE PAGE LXXII. A Comparison of Central Business Dis tricts Having the Greatest Losses in Retail Sales in 1954-1958 to Their Rankings in 1948-1954, and 1948-1958 ........................... 411 LXXIII. A Comparison of Central Business Dis tricts Having the Greatest Losses in Retail Sales in 1948-1958 to Their Rankings in 1948-1954, and 1954-1958 414 LXXIV. A Comparison of Central Business Dis tricts Having the Greatest Gains in Retail Sales to Their Rankings in Gains of Retail Units:1954-1958 . 418 LXXV. A Comparison of Central Business Dis tricts Having the Greatest Losses in Retail Sales to Their Rankings in Losses of Retail Units: 1954-1958 421 TABLE li PAGE LXXVI. A Comparison of Central Business Dis tricts Having the Greatest Gains / in Retail Units to Their Rankings in Gains of Retail Sales: 1954- 1958 424 LXXVII. A Comparison of Central Business Dis tricts Having the Greatest Losses in Retail Units to Their Rankings in Losses of Retail Sales: 1954-1958 . . 427 LXXVIII. Number of Retail Stores and Average Sales Per Store . ...... . ...... 432 LXXIX. Retail Stores by Kind of Business in the United States: 1948 . . . 435 LXXX. Retail Stores by Kind of Business in the United States: 1948-1954 . . 438 LXXXI. Retail Stores by Kind of Business in the United States: 1954-1958 . . 442 LXXXII. Distribution of C.B.D., and the Cities, and Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas in Which Located, by Per Cent Change in Retail Store Sales: 1954 to 1958 .............. .. . 484 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. 2 . PAGE The Growth of the City ............. 121 Multiple-Nuclei Pattern ............... 125 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED Retailing in the United States is, in almost all instances, a highly-competitive, dynamic aspect of the total economy. It is an important segment of our economy in that it utilizes a considerable amount of the economy's factors of production. As an activity, it is a vital part of the total marketing phase of the economic activity of producing goods and services to be consumed. The most common form of retailing in the United States is the retail store, and traditionally the retail store has been located in or near clusters of people. As these clusters of people have moved and relocated, this has had a decided effect upon retailing. This has been particularly true in the more urbanized areas of the United States, and it is regarding a phase of this aspect with which this study is concerned. 2 I. THE PROBLEM This is an economic analysis of the changes that have transpired in retail activity in 109 central business districts of selected central cities in the United States during the period of 1948-1958. Statement of the Problem There have been a number of changes in the retail activity in the selected business districts during the 1948-1958 period. These changes have been brought about by a series of forces impinging upon the total retail hierarchical structure within each series of market or trading areas. Most of the retail changes that have occurred in the 1948-1958 period have resulted in a decline in retail activity in the central business districts of the larger central cities, and an upsurge of retail activ ity in the outlying areas. One aspect of the problem is to ferret out the basic forces operating upon the retail structure. This is necessary in order to be more capable of predicting the future trends in the retailing activity in the central business districts, as visualized through the projection 3 of the future trend of these forces. A second aspect of the problem Is to validate the surmises and conclusions regarding what has transpired and what is likely to occur in the future insofar as retail activity within these central business districts. Most discussions to date concerning this particular aspect have assumed the decline without too much effort to quantify it, let alone to qualify it. To state this aspect in another manner, there have been many recommendations for methods by which to revive the central business district with insufficient consideration given to the basic forces at work. Tmportance of the Study The importance of this study lies in the fact that it is an economic analysis of the changes in retail activ- ity during the 1948*1958 period in the central business districts of our central cities. As an economic analysis, this study must consider the basic forces at work as well as quantify the changes that have occurred. Projects running into the millions of dollars have been started, or are being contemplated, to attempt to "save the down town business district." The importance of this study 4 centers around the possibility that the changing economic function of the central city may be of such a nature as to render fruitless the hoped-for results of certain aspects of any rehabilitation or renewal plan. In other words, the forces at work may be of such a nature as to preclude the possibility of reviving to a former level the retail activity within the central business district. Objectives of the Study One of the objectives of the study was to establish the economic theories that pertain to retail store loca tion, while another one was to assess and point out the forces impinging upon that portion of the retail structure located in the central business district. This entailed the scrutiny of both direct and indirect forces, with special emphasis upon those that were mainly economic. A third objective was to quantify the changes in retail activity in the central business districts of the selected central cities during the 1948-1958 period, while a fourth was to analyze these quantified changes. Scope of the Study This study places emphasis on the economic aspects of the changes in retail activity in the central business districts studied. It is recognized that there are other aspects, such as geographical, sociological, and political, that could be considered, but this study emphasizes the economic ones to the relatively complete exclusion of the others. This study further recognizes that there are other phases of the entire retail hierarchical structure, but the emphasis is on the central business district of the selected central cities, with only the other portions of the structure being considered when pertinent. II. METHODOLOGY The methodology utilized in conducting this study included: 1. Library investigations 2. Statistical analysis 3. Personal interview Library Investigations The material available on the various objectives of this study are dispersed in several libraries in Los Angeles county. The United States Department of Commerce has a small library located in its offices in downtown Los Angeles. Copies of the Census of Business are avail able for scrutiny, and one is able to purchase some of the Department of Commerce's summary reports for a nominal sum. At the University of Southern California, the Edward C. Doheny, Jr. Memorial Library carries a consider able portion of the pertinent material. This includes not only the various issues of the Census of Business, but also most of the periodicals and special studies made in connection with the economic aspects of changes in retailing. The School of Architecture library is small but excellent as a source of certain segments, including discussions on cities and shopping centers. The reading room of the School of Business Administration also pro vides some select materials pertaining to the fields of retailing and real estate. The main library of the University of California at Los Angeles, in addition to carrying most of the same source materials as found in the University of Southern California libraries, has some government publications that are excellent background material. The City of Los Angeles Public Library duplicates, to some extent, the libraries of the University of Southern California and the University of California at Los Angeles. Thus, though the data in the libraries in Los Angeles county are dispersed, they are still sufficiently concentrated as to make the use of each of them both worthwhile and convenient. Statistical Analysis The analysis of pertinent statistical data, con sisting of sumnary reports by the Census of Business, reveals in quantitative form the changes in retail activ ity in the central business districts of the selected central cities. From this quantitative report, a limited amount of analysis is then presented. Personal Interview Due to the nature of the problem involved, use of the personal interview as a research technique had limited application. This study placed much heavier reliance on secondary source materials than on the use of the personal interview. Where it was applied, the personal interview helped verify the results obtained through the use of secondary source materials. Furthermore, practical experience by this investigator, plus conferences with Professor Arthur L. Grey, Jr., of the University of Southern California, helped supplement the results of the research. III. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED The following definitions are basic to this study. Production The term "production" means different things to different people. In this study, "production" is thought of as all of the activities connected with the creation of any good or service demanded by the population of a given economy. This means that "production" includes the creation of form, time, place, and possession utili ties. Thus, marketing of the goods and services, for example, is as much a part of "production" as is the creation of the final product itself. Marketing The term "marketing" also has multi-varied mean ings. One authority has defined "marketing" as including "all the activities necessary to place tangible goods in the hands of household consumers and industrial users, excluding only such activities as involve a significant change in the form of goods. This authority does admit that services are normally included in the marketing concept. The Comnittee on Definitions of the American Marketing Association has adopted a rather simplified definition in its statement of "marketing” as "the per formance of business activities that direct the flow of goods and services from producer to consumer or user." The variations of this above-stated type of definition are almost endless. However, since this study is an economic analysis of a particular institution or phase of our economy, "marketing" is considered as the distributive portion of the total economic function of production. Consequently, instead of attempting to isolate or insulate the process of marketing from the process of production, this study considers the process of ^Charles F. Phillips and Delbert J. Duncan, Mar keting. Principles and Methods (Fourth edition; Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1960), p. 4. 2Ibid.. pp. 4-5. ^The Committee on Definitions of the American Mar keting Association, Marketing Definitions (Chicago, Illi nois: American Marketing Association, 1960), p. 15. 10 marketing as an integral part in the total productive process. Distribution The term "distribution” has two distinct meanings, one of which is not used in this study. The economic meaning of "distribution" concerns itself with the alloca tion of the value of the output among the factors of production, and in this context the word will not be used. Instead, "distribution" is assumed as being synonymous with "marketing."4 Retailing Constant reference throughout this study is made to "retailing." "Retailing" is concerned with all those activities involved in selling directly to the ultimate consumer.** Many institutions and people may be involved in retailing, including, producers, wholesalers, and retailers. "Retailing" is an activity not an institution. 4Ibid.. p. 12. 5Ibid.. p. 19. 11 Retailer A "retailer" is a person or an institution, usually referred to as a middleman, "whose main business is selling directly to the ultimate consumer."** The retailer is an institution. Producer A "producer" is a firm, institution, or individual whose main activity is concerned with the creation of form utility. Brand A brand is "a name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or a combination of them which is intended to identify the goods or services of one seller or group of sellers. . . There are several types of brands, including, among others, the producer's brand and the distributor's brand. A pro-* ducer's brand is one that is promoted by the producer, while the distributor's brand is one that is promoted by the retailer or the wholesaler. **Ibid.; Phillips and Duncan, op. cit.. p. 113. ^The Comnittee on Definitions of the American Mar keting Association, op. cit.. p. 9. 12 Chain Store System A chain store system is a group of retail stores of the same type which are centrally owned and, for the Q most part, centrally operated. Types of Retail Stores Department store. A department store is a retail unit which is departmentalized, offering a large amount of "free service," and selling a wide variety of shopping and specialty goods, including home furnishings, furniture, piece goods, men's and boy's wear, and women's ready-to- 9 wear accessories. Discount house. A retail unit which "features a large selection of well-known brands of merchandise at less than 'list' prices." It is able to do this by not offering the amount or extensiveness of "free services" to its customers. It originally concentrated on appliances, home furnishings, and sporting goods. More recently, Q Ibid., p. 10; Phillips and Duncan, op. cit.. p. 180. 9 Phillips and Duncan, op. cit.. p. 202; The Com mittee on Definitions of the American Marketing Associa tion, op. cit.. p. 11. 13 however, it has branched into £ood and "soft goods. The limited-line store. The limited-line store is a retail unit which is nondepartmentalized and has the bulk of its sales in a certain broad line of merchandise, such as food, drugs, dry goods, hardware, and so on.^ Specialty store. A specialty store is a retail unit which handles a broad selection of a restricted class of goods, such as millinery, lingerie, hosiery, or 1 2 gloves. Supermarket. A supermarket is a large depart mentalized retail store "selling mainly food and grocery items on the basis of the low margin appeal, wide variety and assortments, self service, and heavy emphasis on merchandise appeal."^ ^Phillips and Duncan, op. cit.. pp. 217-218. 11Ibid.. p. 116. 12 Ibid.. p. 146; The Committee on Definitions of the American Marketing Association, op. cit.. p. 22. 13 The Committee on Definitions of the American Marketing Association, loc. cit. 14 Types of Consumers1 Goods Convenience goods. Convenience goods are those types of consumers' goods which the consumer desires to acquire with a minimum of effort. They are bought fre quently, in most cases, and with a minimum of comparison shopping. They are of small unit value with little, if any, fashion involved. Examples include: tobacco products, soap, newspapers, chewing gum, small hardware items, and many food items.^ Shopping goods. Shopping goods are those types of consumers' goods which the consumer likes to acquire only after deliberation and comparison as to suitability, quality, price, and style. Such categories include: furniture, women's clothing and shoes, piece goods, mil linery, jewelry, and major household appliances.^ Specialty goods. "Specialty goods are those which have a particular attraction for the consumer so that he will go out of his way to purchase them."16 Examples of 14Ibid.. p. 11. ^ Ibid. , p. 21; Phillips and Duncan, op.cit.. p. 59. l^Phillips and Duncan, op.cit.. p. 60. 15 this type include: men's high-quality clothing and shoes, photographic equipment, certain types of sporting goods, fine watches, expensive perfumes, and fancy groceries.^ Product Motives Product motives are those influences or considera tions which explain why the consumer buys the goods and 18 services he does. Patronage Motives Patronage motives are those influences or consid erations which explain why the consumer buys from a par ticular firm.^ Central City A central city is a large city in which the major social and economic activities of an urban area are 20 centered and concentrated. ^ Ibid.; The Committee on Definitions of the American Marketing Association, op. cit.. p. 22. ^Phillips and Duncan, op. cit.. p. 52. 19Ibid. 20 Harland Bartholomew, Land Uses in American Cities (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1955), p. 8. Satellite City A satellite city is a relatively small city adjacent to a central city. Impulse Buying The term "impulse buying" is a difficult term to define because of the conceptual problems encountered. For purpose of this study, "impulse buying" is the act of unplanned purchasing based upon the reaction of seeing the good on display.22 Ecology Ecology is that division of biology which deals with animal societies and their adjustment to their envi- 9 Q ronroents. "Human ecology" emphasizes the human societies rather than the animal societies. Conurbation "Conurbation" is a continuously built up urban area. The English refer to it as a "brick and mortar 22wroe Alderson, Marketing Behaviors and Executive Action (Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1957), pp. 166-167. 23Ibid.. p. 29. Umland "Umland" is "that portion of the surrounding country which is linked culturally with the town as a centre."25 Hinterland The term "hinterland" is used in this study in the same manner as "umland." Location The term "location" is used in this study with reference to a regional position.2* * Site The term "site" is used in this study to refer to a topographical position within a certain segment of a 27 region. ^6. W. S. Robinson, "British Conurbations in 1951," The Sociological Review (December, 1953), 15. 25 Griffith Taylor, Urban Geography (New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc., 1946), p. 216. 2*>Eugene Van Cleef, Trade Centers and Trade Boutes (New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, Inc., 1937), p. 15. 27Ibid. Trade Center A "trade center" is a center whose activities "involve the exchange of commodities, services, or ideas.'**® It does not have fixed boundaries if viewed in the geo graphical sense. If viewed in the political science sense, it is synonymous with a "city."29 Trading Area The term "trading area" is a difficult one to precisely define. It may be thought of as "an area pro vided with means for the movement of persons and com modities , and occupied by people who have common and daily economic interests."®® A narrower definition has been suggested by the Community Builders Handbook in which it is regarded as "that area from which is obtained the major portion of the continuing patronage necessary for steady support of the shopping center."®^- It is observable that this particular 28Ibid., p. 31. 29Ibid.. p. 27. ®®John Paver and Miller McClintock, Traffic and Trade (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1935), p. 5. 31 Community Builders' Council, The Comnunity Build ers Handbook (Executive edition; Washington, D. C.: Urban Land Institute, 1960), p. 243. 19 definition was applied to a given portion of a region's retail hierarchical structure. This definition can be made applicable to a city, a central business district, a neighborhood shopping center, and so on. The concept of a trading area may also be applied to an individual retail store. One authority has claimed it is the geographic boundaries within which the retail store's customers live or are likely to shop.32 Applebaum and Cohen have defined the trading area of a retail store as "the area from which a store gets its business within a given space of time."33 A trading area is an ever-‘ changing physical unit. It is different for the different types of retail centers or retail stores. It is not a geometrically-definable pattern but is irregular in shape. It is determined, to a great extent, by: the types of merchandise the retail 32 G. Henry Richert, Warren G. Meyer, and Peter G. Hames, Retailing. Principles and Methods (Fourth edition; New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1962), p. 380. Gillian Applebaum and Saul B. Cohen, "The Dynamics of Store Trading Areas and Market Equilibrium," Annals of the Association of American Geographers. LI (March, 1961), p. 75. 20 unit sells; the manner in which it sells this merchandise; the shopping habits of its customers; the existing compe tition; and the type of location it has.34 Drawing Power of a Retail Store The term "drawing power of a retail store" is used in this study to denote "the percent of sales that a store obtains from a specific area in relation to its total sales. "33 Market Saturation The term "market saturation" means the per cent of total available sales that a store obtains of a given trading area. Linkage The term "linkage" refers to "a relationship between establishments characterized by recurrent inter actions which require movement of persons or goods or the exchange of information."3^ * 34Ibid., p. 74. 35Ibid. 3*\john Rannells, The Core of the City (New York: Columbia University Press, 1956), p. 20. 21 Region The term "region" has many slightly different definitions. A region is thought of and used in this study in the geographic sense. It must possess cohesion among its occupants to a sufficient degree that it is able to deal with common problems and thus differentiate itself from other regions. However, in the geographical sense it is of sufficient size that it embraces diverse physical areas that have a common interest. Hence, the word "Pacific Coast Region"; for example, would adequately describe the concept in which the term "region" is used in this study. IV. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE There are relatively few publications that concern themselves about the subject of this study, insofar as covering the entire scope of the subject. In contrast, there is a wealth of material on certain phases and even more on the peripheral aspects. Character of the Literature The sources of literature available are many and diverse. Most of these sources deal with some specific 22 portion of the central business district, or its activity in the realm of retailing, and none cover it as an economic analysis of retail activity of the 109 treated in this study. Furthermore, the closest approach to any comparison of the retail activity within these districts for the periods used in this study comes from only one source. In reviewing the literature available, this sec tion is constructed as follows: books, periodicals, govern ment publication, publications of learned societies and other organizations, and miscellaneous sources. Books Books in many ways are the richest source of information on the subject of this study. Yet, none of them cover the subject matter involved to such a specific degree that it can be listed as the basic source. Economic theory. The economic theory of location is treated in excellent manner in a series of books, many of which are the original source. Included in the group of original works on the subject of economic theory of location are: Edward Hastings Chamberlin, The Theory of 23 Monopolistic Competition;^ Melvin L. Greenhut, Plant Location in Theory and in P r a c t i s e Edgar M. Hoover, 39 The Location of Economic Activity; Walter Isard, Loca tion and Space-EconomyAugust LHsch, The Economics of Locationand Glenn E. McLaughlin, Growth of American g O Manufacturing Areas. There are a considerable nunfeer of excellent books in which a discussion by the author reveals interesting insights in various of the writers on the economic theory of location. Included in this group are: Carl Joachim 37 Edward Hastings Chamberlin, The Theory of Monopolistic Competition (Fifth edition; Cambridge, Massa chusetts: Harvard University Press, 1947). ®®Melvin L. Greenhut, Plant Location in Theory and in Practise (Chapel Hill, North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 1956). 39 Edgar M. Hoover, The Location of Economic Activ ity (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1948). 40 Walter Isard, Location and Space-Economv (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1956). ^August LHsch, The Economics of Location. Trans. William H. Woglom and Wolfgang F. Stolper (Second revised edition; New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1954). 42 Glenn E. McLaughlin, Growth of American Manu facturing Areas (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: University of Pittsburgh, 1938). 24 Friedrich, Alfred Weber's Theory of the Location of Indus tries;^ Melvin L. Greenhut, Plant location in Theory and in Practise:^ Lewis H. Haney, History of Economic Thought:^ John A. Howard, Marketing M a n a g e m e n t ; ^ Walter Isard, Location and Space-EconomyFerdinand F. Mauser, AO Modern Marketing Management: ° Philip Charles Newman, AQ The Development of Economic Thought;^7 Edward W. Sraykay, Donald J. Bowersox, and Frank H. Mossman, Physical Dis tribution Management. Logistics Problems of the Firm;^ ^Carl Joachim Friedrich, Alfred Weber's Theory of the Location of Industries (Chicago, Illinois: The Uni versity of Chicago Press, 1929). ^Greenhut, loc. cit. 45 Lewis H. Haney, History of Economic Thought (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1949). 46 John A. Howard, Marketing Management (Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1957). ^ Isard, loc. cit. ^®Ferdinand F. Mauser, Modern Marketing Management (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1961). ^Philip Charles Newman, The Development of Eco nomic Thought (New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1952). ^Edward W, Smykay, Donald J. Bowersox, and Frank H. Mossman, Physical Distribution Management. Logistics Problems of the Firm (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1961). and Edmund Whittaker, Schools and Straama of Economic Thought.51 Economic explanations of urban concentration. Economic explanations of urban concentration are not treated with as much effort in the typical book. However, there are some excellent sources, included among which are the following: Nels Anderson, The Urban Community:5^ Robert E. Dickinson, City Region and Regionalism. A Geo- graphical Contribution to Human R^olojry• The City, edited by Robert E. Park, Ernest W. Burgess, and Roderick D. McKenzie;5^* Cities and Society, edited by Paul K. Hatt and Albert J. Reiss, Jr.*55 and George Kingsley Zipf, 51Edmund Whittaker, Schools and St****™** of Eco nomic Thought (Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally & Company, 1960). 52 Nels Anderson, The Urban Community (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1959). 55Robert E. Dickinson, City Region and Regionalism. A Geographical Contribution to Human Ecology (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Tubner & Co., Ltd., 1947). 5^Thc City, eds. Robert E. Park, Ernest W. Burgess, and Roderick D. McKenzie (Chicago, Illinois: The Univer sity of Chicago Press, 1925). 55Cities and Society, eds. Paul K. Hatt and Albert J. Reiss, Jr. (Second edition; Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1957). 26 Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort.^ Urbanism in the United States. The subject of urbanism in the United States is treated with some care and detail in many of the traditional urban real estate and urban land economics books. Included in this category are the following: Raleigh Barlowe, Land Resource Eco nomics;^ Herbert B. Dorau and Albert G. Hinman, Urban 58 Land Economics; R. D. McKenzie, The Metropolitan Com munity ;^ Richard U. Ratcliff, Urban Land Economicsand Eugene Van Cleef, Trade Centers and Trade Routes.^ ^George Kingsley Zipf, Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Addi- son-Wesley Press, Inc., 1949). -^Raleigh Barlowe, Land Resource Economics (Engle wood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1958). 58 Herbert B. Dorau and Albert G. Hinman, Urban Land Economics (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1928). cq R. D. McKenzie, The Metropolitan Community (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1933). ^Richard U. Ratcliff, Urban Land Economics (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1949). ^Eugene Van Cleef, loc. cit. 27 The current structure of retailing. Books are very useful and plentiful In the discussion of the current structure of retailing. Among the more important ones are the following: Theodore N. Beckman and William R. David- 62 6 son, Marketing; John A. Howard, Marketing Management; E. Jerome McCarthy, Basic Marketing. A Managerial Approach:^ Charles F. Phillips and Delbert J. Duncan, Marketing. Principles and Methodsand William J. Shultz, American Marketing.66 McCarthy's concepts in his book are of extreme significance, since they are the basis for the discussion of "The Economic Basis of Retailing." John A. Howard presents very similar ideas and concepts in his book to that in Howard's. 62 Theodore N. Beckman and William R. Davidson, Marketing (Seventh edition; New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1962). ^Howard, loc. cit. <*E. Jerome McCarthy, Basic Marketing. A Managerial Approach (Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1960). ^Phillips and Duncan, loc. cit. ^^William J. Shultz, American Marketing (San Francisco, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1961). 28 Determinants of retail structure and retail store location. There are several outstanding books that treat the subject involving the determinants of retail structure and retail store location. Richard L. Nelson's, The Selection of Retail Locations^ contributes considerably with the theories of Cumulative Attraction and Compatibil ity. Richard U. Ratcliff, Urban Land Economics;88 and Edgar M. Hoover and Raymond Vernon, Anatomy of a Metropo- 69 lis; are also excellent sources in this area. Periodicals Periodicals, like books, are a rich source of information in many of the areas of this study, and of relatively little value in others. They serve as the basis for much of the discussion concerning economic explanations of differences among urban concentrations. Examples are: Chauncy Harris, writing in The Geographical ^Richard L. Nelson, The Selection of Retail Locations (New York: F. W. Dodge Corporation, 1958). 68Ratcliff, loc. cit. 69 Edgar M. Hoover and Raymond Vernon, Anatomy of a Metropolis (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1959). 29 Review;^ John Fraser Hart, writing in the Annals of the Association of American Geographers John R. P. Fried mann, writing in Land Economics:^ Bert F. Hoselitz, writing in Economic Development and Cultural Change: 74 E. L. Ullman, writing in American Journal of Sociology: Brian J. L. Berry and William L. Garrison, writing in Economic G e o g r a p h y :^5 and Robert Murray Haig, writing in The Quarterly Journal of Economics. ^^Chauncy Harris, "A Functional Classification of Cities in the United States," The Geographical Review. XXXIII (January, 1943), 86-99. ^John Fraser Hart, "Functions and Occupational Structures of Cities of the American South," Annals of the Association of American Geographers. XLV (September, 1955), 269-286. 72 John R. P. Friedmann, "Locational Aspect of Eco nomic Development," Land Economics. XXXII (August, 1956), 213-227. ^Bert F. Hoselitz, "Generative and Parasitic Cities," Economic Development. Ill (April, 1955), 278-294. l. Ullman, "A Theory of Location for Cities," American Journal of Sociology. XLVI (May, 1941), 853-864. ^~*Brian J. L. Berry and William L. Garrison, "The Functional Bases of the Central Place Hierarchy," Economic Geography. XXXIV (1958), 145-154. Robert Murray Haig, "Toward and Understanding of the Metropolis: Some Speculations Regarding the Economic Basis of Urban Concentration," The Quarterly Journal of Economics. XL (February, 1926), 179-208. 30 Periodicals are singularly significant in sum marizing the current trends. Homer Hoyt's articles in Business HorizonsArthur L. Grey, Jr.'s article in Land Economics:^ Eugene J. Kelley's article in Journal 79 of Marketing; and Eli P. Cox s article in Business 80 Topics; all of these are typical of the rich source of material found in periodicals in this particular area. Obviously, the advantage of periodical articles in an area such as current and future trends is evident. Government Publications This study would not have been feasible if it had not been for government publications. The basis of deter mining changes in retail activity in the central business districts for a given period of time relies upon the ^ Homer Hoyt, "Urban Growth in the Next 15 Years," Business Horizons. Ill (Sunnier, 1960), 29-36. 7®Arthur L. Grey, Jr., "Los Angeles: Urban Prototype," Land Economics. . XXXV (August, 1959), 232-242. ^Eugene j. Kelley, "The Importance of Convenience in Consumer Purchasing," Journal of Marketing. XXIII (July, 1958), 32-38. 80 Eli P. Cox, "The Decline of Metropolitan Retailing," Business Topics. IX (Spring, 1961), 33-42. 31 United States Department of Commerce1s Census of Business. This census is published at each period of time when a census of business is taken by the Bureau of the Census. Commencing in 1954, it has been published in seven separate volumes,covering both retail and wholesale activity. The basis and determination of the conclusions reached in this study came from this particular publication. A rather complete description of the most important volume, Volume 81 VII, appeared in Chapter VII of this study. Publications of Learned Societies and Other Organizations Certain publications of learned societies and other organizations proved of special value in Chapter IV of this study on urbanism, with special reference to metro- politanism. Donald J. Bogue, writing for the Scripps Foundation Studies in Population Distribution, is one of 82 the leading authorities in this special area. Another 81 See Chapter VII of this study. 82 Donald J. Bogue, Metropolitan Decentralization: A Study of Differential Growth. Scripps Foundation Studies in Population Distribution (Oxford, Ohio: Miami University, August, 1950). 32 excellent source in this same aspect is that of Jerome P. Pickard, writing for the Urban Land Institute.®® A very useful special study on shopping centers is the one written by Eugene J. Kelley for the Eno Founda tion for Highway Traffic Control. In this particular monograph, the author reviews many of the economic explana tions of location theory and then applies them, indirectly, to the shopping center.®^ Two other special studies on shopping centers are worthy of noting: Richard Grant Thompson, A Study of Shopping Centers and Urban Land Institute, The Dollar and Cents of Shopping Centers.®® One of the best studies on the economic function 87 of the central city is by Ray Vernon. Paul Hardeman 83 Jerome P. Pickard, Metropolitanization of the United States (Washington, D. C.: Urban Land Institute, 1959). ®^Eugene J. Kelley, Shopping Centers. Locating Regional Centers (Saugatuck, Connecticut: The Eno Founda tion for Highway Traffic Control, 1956). 85 Richard Grant Thompson, A Study of Shopping Centers. Institute of Business and Economic Research. (Berkeley, California: The University of California, 1961). 86 Urban Land Institute, The Dollar and Cents of Shopping Centers (Washington: Urban Land Institute, 1959). ®^Ray Vernon, The Changing Economic Function of the Central City (New York: Comnittee for Economic Develop- ment, n.d.). Sisco*8 The Retail Function of Memphis**** is slightly out of date, but it is still a valuable source in this same general area. Another valuable source in the area of the economic function of the city is Samuel Pratt and Lois Pratt's Suburban Downtown in Transition. Miscellaneous Sources There were several encyclopedia articles that were of specific aid in definitions, especially Thomas Harrison Reed, "City," The Encyclopedia Americana.^0 An article in the Wall Stree Journal by Alfred L. Malabre, Jr. is of special interest in the area of industrial dispersion. V. ORGANIZATION OF THE FOLLOWING CHAPTERS Having spelled out the importance, the objectives, and the scope of this study, as well as considering the 88 Paul Hardeman Sisco, The Retail Function of Memphis (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago, August, 1954). oq Samuel Pratt and Lois Pratt, Suburban Downtown I in Transition. Institute of Research (Rutherford, New Jersey: Farleigh Dickinson University, 1958). 90 Thomas Harrison Reed, "City," The Encyclopedia Americana. VI (1958), 710-713. 34 methodology that was employed and the type of source materials utilized, the last section of this chapter is devoted to a discussion of the following chapters, namely Chapters II to X. To appreciate the problems involved in retail store location, it is necessary to first establish the economic foundation for retail store location. Chapters II, III, and IV chronologically and academically build up to the point of explaining, in economic terms, the reason for retail store location, including a brief history of urban ism in the United States. Economic theory of location, as reviewed in Chapter II, explains very little, if any thing at all, concerning the theory of retail store loca tion. It discusses the economic theories of location as they pertain to plant location and industrial concentration. Chapter III, utilizing the economic theories of location discussed in Chapter II, summarizes some of the leading economic explanations of the differences among urban concentrations. It is in this chapter that the thesis is developed that retail store location depends upon urban clusters, and this necessitates the discussion concerning the differences among these urban concentrations, which 35 leads to an effect upon retail store location. Chapter IV, relying upon Chapter III, presents a recapitulation of urbanism in the United States, with special emphasis upon the development and concept of metropolitanism in the United States. One of the dynamic aspects to retail activity in the United States is its hierarchical structure. To under stand why there have been changes in retail store location, the retail hierarchical structure must first be explored. This must begin with an understanding of the economic basis of retailing. Having accomplished this, the next step is to fit this economic explanation of retailing into the current spatial, hierarchical structure of retailing in the United States. Chapter V of this study presents this summary as a prologue to Chapter VI which discusses the determinants of retail structure and retail store location. In Chapter VI the several economic principles and theories applying to the retail structure are reviewed. The review of these economic principles and theories establishes the groundwork for the last portion of Chapter VI which summarizes the forces at work affecting the retail structure and retail store location. With 36 Chapter VI, the theoretical discussions of principles and theories explaining urban concentration, retail structure, and retail store location are concluded. The next logical step is to present the findings of the research, which is done in Chapter VII. Chapter VII summarizes the changes in retail store sales and retail store location in the 109 central busi ness districts of the selected central cities for the period of 1948-1958. The reliance upon the Census of Business as the sole source of information concerning these changes necessitates a description of it. The sum mary indicates the changes in both retail units and retail sales in the central business districts. Chapter VIII utilizes the summary results of Chapter VII and ranks the central cities by changes in retail activity in their respective central business dis tricts. This ranking is by each of the selected retail classifications. After ranking the central cities in Chapter VIII, Chapter IX analyzes the results obtained in both of these chapters. In this chapter, it arrives at some definite conclusions concerning these changes, including a summary 37 of the causes of the shift in retail trade. Chapter X reviews the other chapters in the form of a summary and then concludes with some proposed projections for the future of retailing in the central business district. CHAPTER II SOME IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF THE CAUSES OF URBAN CONCENTRATION Location of an activity becomes important due to the simple fact that human population does not distribute itself evenly over the earth's surface. Whatever may be all of the causes of them, population clusters have occur red almost since the beginning of man. These clusters of people create special locational problems involving time and space, including the distribution of goods and services. These clusters are known as markets. It is in the dis tribution of goods and services within and between these clusters that marketing results, and one of the major phases of marketing is retailing. Retailing is the eco nomic activity in the distributive process that is closest to the ultimate consumer, and over a period of time the major share of retailing has developed into specialized 39 market locations known as retail stores.^ Thus, it can be seen that retail store location does not come about by accident. The location of retail stores both as a static and as a dynamic phenomenon is but a portion of a nation's entire economic, social, and political system. As this structure changes, it has pro* nounced effects upon retailing and retail store location. To analyze effectively the shifts that occur in retail store location entails an understanding of the concepts that explain the why and the wherefore of retailing. This leads naturally to an exploration of some of the theoreti cal and empirical discussions concerning location and the clustering of people. In presenting a summary of the more important aspects of the causes of urban concentration, this chapter is organized into the following major divisions: (1) a synopsis of general location theories, (2) the concept of urbanization, (3) a summary of some of the leading explana tions of the causes of urban concentration, and (4) conclusion. ^This is not to overlook the fact that some retail ing is done in other than retail stores, such as factories, wholesalers' warehouses, door-to-door selling, and mail 'order. 40 I. A SYNOPSIS OF GENERAL LOCATION THEORIES This study is basically concerned with retail store location, and, unfortunately, most economic theories of location have emphasized plant location or industrial concentration to the almost complete exclusion of the eco nomics of retail store location. Nevertheless, these general location theories, in emphasizing industrial plant location and resultant industrial concentration, contribute much to an understanding as to how and why there is urban concentration. Furthermore, urban concentration is the basis upon which the existing retail structure of our economy rests. The value, therefore, of a brief considera tion of these general location theories is in its indirect yet powerful effect upon retailing through its effects on urban concentration. The consideration of these theories divides itself into five areas: (1) an introduction to the concept of location, (2) early economic inferences regarding location, O As will be indicated later on in this chapter, there are many noneconomic explanations of urban concen tration. 41 (3) the German school of economic location, (4) other-than- German writers, and (5) conclusion regarding these theories. An Introduction to the Concent of Location Most everyone takes the word "location" for granted. Yet when a scrutiny of this word occurs, it becomes complex and varied. There are so many approaches to a discussion of the concept of location that an arbitrary formulation becomes necessary. For the purposes of this study, there fore, location will be considered as a specific, fixed, immobile, physical area which is designated in respect to place and purpose. When discussing locations as "a specific, fixed, immobile, physical area," it can be viewed, for example, as an entire land mass, such as Africa; an entire country, like Canada; a regional area, such as the Pacific Coast of the United States; a local area, such as a state, county, or city; or as a particular parcel of land within a local area, such as a city lot. In analyzing the second portion of the definition, location in respect to place and purpose simply means that a specific activity is per formed on a specific parcel of land. This specific 42 activity can be manifest in the form of an industrial plant, a warehouse, a government building, a retail store, and so on. However, this obviously over-simplified definition of location leaves much to be desired. Why is location important? Why has economics in recent years become increasingly interested in it? One authority has answered these questions in the following manner: Activity needs space. Where several activities are to be carried out jointly, their relative position in space is important in influencing the efficiency at which they will perform. Thus, the spatial incidence of investment, production, dis tribution, and consumption activities is crucial to the effective functioning of these activities in the economy. Always from the interaction of people in pursuit of economic goals a spatial pattern of relationships arises. It is the task of location theory to describe and explain these patterns. Early Economic Inferences Regarding Location When one considers the wealth of material that has been accumulated over time on most economic subjects, it comes as somewhat of a disappointment to discover that economic theories of location are relatively sparse and John R. P. Friedmann, "Locational Aspects of Economic Development," Land Economics. XXXII (August, 1956), 213. 43 fragmentary, especially in English-speaking literature. Yet, they are a necessary part of the total body of received economic doctrine. Probably the main reason for the inadequate atten tion is due mainly to the fact that English classical economists never devoted attention to the subject of loca tion. This was due primarily to their assumption of a static society in which time and.space are given. Alfred Marshall, many years later, continued in this tradition by accepting their position, at least to a considerable extent, when he observed that the influence of time on markets is of more importance than space.^ Writers in the field of general equilibrium theory also have ignored location theory on somewhat the same grounds as the English classical and neoclassical writers. Economists, such as Cassel, Pareto, Hicks, Lange, and Samuelson, have assumed that the factors of production, the products, and the consumers meet in one location, and, as Newman observed, "there is further assumption that there Alfred Marshall, Principles of Economics (New York: The Macmillan Company; eighth edition, 1920), p. 496. 44 are no transport costs and no spatial resistence. Thus, it is that until relatively recent years German writers dominated this field, and to such an extent that even today most people still assume they have been the sole contributors. However, the German writers were not the first ones to recognize location and its place in economics, but they were the first to develop economic concepts and theories concerning it. It is possible to discover inferences to location dating back prior to Christ. The earliest writer on record discussing location was Xenophon, who wrote his famous work, On the Means of Improving the Revenues of the State of Athens, about 355 B.C. In this work, Xenophon discussed the advantages that the city of Athens possessed for the development and encouragement of more trade. He emphasized the excellent harbor his city possessed as well as the efficient market facilities to aid in bartering.** ^Philip Charles Newman, The Development of Economic Thought (New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1952), p. 127. ^Xenophon, "On the Means of Improving the Revenues of the State of Athens," Earlv Economic Thought. Selections from Economic Literature Frior to Adam Smith. Arthur Eli This discussion was apparently never carried on because location theory did not appear again in economic literature for centuries thereafter. When Adam Smith introduced his well-known work there were some inferences to location, but only as a casual and unrelated part of his thesis. Smith did precurse the German writer Weber regarding the agricultural stratum as being the basis of society, but he did not develop this point into any sort of theory of location. When Ricardo refined Smith's con cept of rent into a differential rent theory, it was accepted so overwhelmingly by most English writers that it sealed off any possible influence that von ThUnen might have had on the Classical School concerning location's place in economic theory.^ Therefore, development of a rational, full-bodied economic theory of location came from a group of German writers who* over a period of time, developed a workable explanation of its importance. Monroe, editor (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Univer sity Press, 1945), pp. 33-49. ^Adam Smith, An Inquiry Into the Mature and Causes of the Wealth of nations (New York: Hie Modern Library, 1937), p. 357. The German School of Economic Location While there is no recognized economic school by the name, "The German School of Economic Location," it has most if not all of the prerequisites to so qualify it. The founder, Alfred Weber, has been recognized as its leader. Other German economists, influenced and challenged by Weber's thesis, have taken up the torch and improved upon their founder's original position. However, not one of these writers has attempted to abrogate or overthrow Weber's thesis; instead, they have modified, expanded, and modernized it. The fact that all of the followers in this group are German, except for one, further demonstrates the cohesiveness and continuity it possesses. While Weber is considered as the original founder, he was not the first writer of economic locational theory, this honor going to Johann Heinrich von Thunen. Thus, it is that this section commences with a brief summary of his thesis. The economists reviewed in this section include: (1) Johann Heinrich von Thunen, (2) Alfred Weber, (3) Andreas PredHhl, (4) Oscar Englander, (5) Werner Sombart, (6) Toward Palander, (7) Hans Weigmann, and (8) August Losch. 47 Johann Heinrich von Thunen, The first economist to stress economic locational theory was Johann Heinrich von Thunen in his book, Per Isolierte Staat in Beziehumg auf Landwirtschaft und Nationalokonomie. written in 1826.8 In this work, von Thunen assumed a homogeneous mass of land so surrounded by an impenetrable wilderness as to allow him to title it the "isolated state.There is a large city located at the center of this land mass which must supply all of the area with manufactured products, while the areas surrounding it are the only source of raw material. The question that von Thunen posed was con cerning what agricultural production will be developed in what areas. He felt that the crops raised will be in relation to their value, their value being affected by the cost of transportation. From this position, von Thunen then constructed a series of concentric circles around the city to prove this point. Von Thunen argued that as one moves farther away from this central city, production becomes less intensive Q Melvin L. Greenhut, Plant Location, in Theory and in Practise (Chapel Hill, North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 1956), p. 5. 9 vv A phrase associated with von Thunen. 48 and is concentrated on those items that are nonperishable in nature and of sufficient value to bear the expense of transporting to the city. The price obtained for a good at any given point is sufficiently high so that the land used for its production could not be used more profitably in any other manner. The eventual limit of all cultivation is at that point where the price obtained for the output, when shipped to the city, is not sufficient to cover the cost of transportation to the city plus the land-rent on that parcel of land.^ Alfred Weber. Apparently von Thunen's thesis went unnoticed by economists during the remainder of the nine teenth century, for it was not until 1909 that Alfred Weber introduced his general theory of location based upon what von Thtinen had proposed although differing from it to some * Facts concerning von Thtlnen's thesis obtained from: Greenhut, op. cit.. pp. 5-8; Johann Heinrich von Thiinen, "The Isolated State," Source Readings in Economic Thought. editors, Philip C. Newman, Arthur D. Gayer, and Milton H. Spenscer (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1954), pp. 320-330; Richard T. Ely and George S. Wehrein, Land Economics (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1940), pp. 66-71; Edward W. Smykay, Donald J. Bowersox, and Frank H. Mossman, Physical Distribution Management. Logistics Problems of the Firm (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1961), p. 117; Lewis H. Hanney, History of Economic Thought (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1949), pp. 361-373. extent. In his book entitled, Uber den Standort der Industrien, Weber based his thesis upon manufacturing rather than agriculture. In developing a theory of location, Weber con tended that there are three basic forces at work in an economy which determine the location of economic activity, namely, transportation costs, labor costs, and agglomer ating forces. The last force is a local one, while the other two are general in nature. In establishing his model, Weber assumed that the following conditions were present: (1) many centers of consumption within the given economy, (2) an uneven dis tribution of raw materials, (3) equal costs of raw mate rials at their deposit sites, and (4) the cost of trans portation as being uniform and dependent upon distance. From these assumptions, he concluded that if the material used by the firm is "weight-losing" in nature, the firm will locate near the source of the material, while the firm which uses materials that are the opposite in nature -^Newman, op. cit.. p. 128; Walter Isard, Location and Space-Economv (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1956), p. 27. 50 will tend to locate near the point of consumption. To calculate this, Weber created a "material index" of pro duction, which is the ratio between the weight of the localized material to the weight of the finished product. He concluded that transportation costs are determined by the material index and the distance to be covered, indus trial production being located where transportation costs 12 are the lowest. Weber admitted that if labor costs at a given location are sufficiently low, they could offset the transportational cost advantage of a different site, and this could pull industry toward and to it. He recognized that this will only be a sufficiently powerful force if the labor cost is so low that it means a net saving to the 13 firm to move from the lowest transportational cost site. The third factor Weber titled "agglomeration." An agglomerative factor is an advantage which is gained by 12 This would partially explain the site location and the growth of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for example. 13 This would partially explain the location of certain industries that use a considerable amount of cheap labor, for example, dress manufacturing in New York City. 51 carrying on production in one as compared tp many loca tions. To Weber, agglomeration is a net concept of more advantages to it than to deglomerative factors. Agglomer- ative forces are of two stages, the first stage being merely an enlargement of the firm's productive capacity and the second and higher stage being brought about by the advantages of having firms in close proximity to each other. Again, as in the case of the other two factors, if the agglomerative forces are of sufficient strength or weight they will tend to pull the location of the firm to that site. Weber concluded from all of this that the firm will locate at a site depending upon the results of these previously-described forces. It may be a compromise loca tion between the three and not at the actual site of any of them, or it may be at the actual site of one of the three.^ As a result of Weber's great work, many economists turned their attention to this specialized portion of eco nomic theory, among them being Andreas Predohl. l^Carl Joachine Friedrich, Alfred Weber's Theory of Location (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1929), pp. 48-219. 52 Andreas Predohl. Among the men influenced by Alfred Weber was Andreas PredBhl, who was a professor at the University of Kiel. He published an article in 1925 entitled, Das Standortsproblem der Wirtschaftstheorie, in which he applied the Walrasian general equilibrium approach to location analysis. PredBhl's main tenet was to the effect that the problem of location is a problem of com bining the factors of production in such a manner so as to yield the least cost. Then, by applying the principle of substitution, the minimum cost location point is discovered and is maintained.^ Oscar Englander. About one year after PredBhl's work, Oscar Englander introduced some concepts which attempted to refute most of PredBhl*s conclusions. In an article printed in 1926 entitled, Kritisches und Positives zu einer allgemainen reinen Lehre Von Standort. Englander attempted to combine von ThUnen's agricultural model with the industrial location thesis of Alfred Weber. In his model, Englander assumed that the first stage of an economy is that of primary production in which are the ^Newman, op. cit.. pp. 132-133; Isard, op. cit.. pp. 31-36. self-sufficient households. Eventually, specialized prod ucts on particular sites are produced and there is a resultant readjustment of location. As an economy moves through these stages of agriculture, mining, manufacturing, and so on, the firms involved are affected by these changes which in turn affect their locations. The firm takes into account the various prices of the factors at the various locations that it might desire to utilize, as well as considering the various prices the firm may obtain for its products at various locations. The location decision of the firm is the net result of the two, and once the firm has located at a certain site it influences the prices of inputs and outputs.^ Werner Sombart. One year after Englander, another German writer by the name of Werner Sombart published a monumental work entitled, Per Moderne Kanitalismus. in which he classified all industries into two groups: "bound industries" and "free industries." Bound industries select their locations near natural resources, as in the case of the coal or timber industries. Free industries, on the 16Isard, on. cit.. pp. 29-31. 54 other hand, are not tied to this fact and are free to fol low the consumer, as is the case of roost service indus tries. ^ Toward Palander. The only non-German writer of this school was Toward Palander, a Swedish economist. In his book entitled Beitroge Zur Standortstheorie. he attempted to refine Weber's thesis and, at the same time, refute the general equilibrium use of pure competition.^-® In commenting on Palander's contribution, Edgar M. Hoover made the following observation: As Palander has shown more clearly than anyone else, the location situation at any time is determined very largely by the relative rates of adjustment of the factors concerned. The greater the lag in adjustment, and the greater the diversity among the lags of the several factors, the more the maladjustment there is likely to be.^ ^Ferdinand F. Mauser, Modern Marketing Management, An Integrated Approach (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1961), p. 363. 18 Isard, op. cit.. pp. 42-43; Newman, op. cit.. p. 133. 19 Edgar M. Hoover, Location Theory and the Shoe and Leather Industries (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1937), pp. 295-296. Hans Weigmann. A rather obscure German contributor was Hans Weigmann, who, in two separate writings nine years apart, presented an extremely complicated thesis centered around the concept of the Gestalt core. His first effort was entitled Kritischer Beitrag zur Theorie dee inter net ionalen Handles, while the second one written in 1935 bore the shorter title, Politische Raumsordnung. Weigmann contended that any space economy must include a theory of limited competition because the ability of any physical good or factor to compete with other goods and factors at various physical locations is incomplete. This incomplete ness can be economic, social, cultural, or political in nature, but, regardless of its nature, it creates immobili ties . The locational economy is a series of spatial markets viewed in its totalness, and the central basic Gestalt core is composed of the markets for the factors of land, labor, and capital. These markets overlap, inter sect, and super-impose themselves on this core and on other space economies from time to time.20 20 Isard, on. cit.. pp. 39-41. 56 August LBsch. The last of the present-day German writers in this area was August LBsch, who, in many ways, represents the zenith of the German school. LBsch wrote Die raumliche Ordning der Wirtschaft in 1940, but it was not until 1954 that an English translation appeared. His approach, while based upon the theories of von Thiinen, Weber, and others, was somewhat of a departure since he did not assume a purely competitive market. He was so greatly influenced by Edward Hastings Chamberlin's thesis of monopolistic competition as to incorporate it as one of the underlying foundational cornerstones of his theory. LBsch contended that there are several types of agglomeration, namely, towns, belts, and regions. Towns are created due to a variety of agglomerative factors, including: (1) a large individual enterprise mass pro ducing a single commodity, such as iron; (2) an agglomera tion of similar enterprises, which results in advantages of numbers; and (3) an agglomeration of different enter prises, which also brings an advantage in numbers. Belts, such as the wheat belt in the United States, are also agglomerations. Regions are the third type of agglomera tion and they are, in reality, market areas. While LBsch claimed that the hexagon was the theoretically most 57 efficient shape of the market area, he recognized that in actual life the size and shape of market areas are irregu lar and overlap each other. Cities tend to be shaped in similar irregular shapes, so that the true economic region is not the result of a natural subdivision of political states but is the result of other forces by accident.^ Conclusions regarding these theories. Alfred Weber, as the founder and leader of the German school of economic location, believed that the forces determining the location of economic activity are: transportation costs, labor costs, and agglomerative forces. Modifica tions of Weber's thesis were basically minor until the writings of August LBsch. LBsch expanded Weber's thesis to include not only plant location but also urban con centration, markets, belts, and regions. There were other-than-German writers which, by the time LBsch appeared on the scene, had already con tributed to general locational theory— a brief review of which is presented in the next section. 21 August LBsch, The Economics of Location, trans. ; William H. Woglom (second revised edition; Hew Haven, Connecticut: Tale University Press, 1954), p. 10. 58 Other-Than-German Writers In spite of the apparent dominance of the German writers, there have been contributions from other coun tries that are distinct and separate from them, especially here in the United States. While the two most well-known American writers are Isard and Hoover, there have been many others who have made contributions including, Ross, Fetter, Epstein, Hotelling, Greenhut, Friedmann, Locklin, Howard, Chinitz, Vernon, and Chamberlin. While much of what these writers contributed is similar to that of the German school, there are some dis tinctive features. This section will not attempt to present a summary of each of the above-listed writers, but will attempt to stress only the outstanding and sig nificant features of those deemed to have made a note worthy contribution. Edward A. Ross. An article by Edward A. Ross of Stanford University in California in the April, 1896 issue of The Quarterly Journal of Economics attracted little if any attention. However, in light of present-day accepted location theory, it was a milestone. It was in many ways much more advanced than the German school, and it was 59 written considerably before the German school was fully established and accepted. In this article, Ross declared that there are a number of factors which affect the loca tion of industries, including: natural deposits, soil and climate, raw ore auxiliary material source, perishability of materials, source of fuel energy, water energy, sup plementary industry, waste material utilization, the con sumer market, wage rates, favorable environment, and the dearth of technical know how. Ross believed that the pro cess of concentration is when one type of industry has advantages over another, while the process of migration concerns the advantages of one location site over another. The forces of concentration can either aid, oppose, or be neutral in their effect on the process of migration or location. Industrial expansion has a limit, and, in the long run, it may well be that the forces of location may select an entirely new site, although to be successful the new site must offer sufficient advantages to more than offset "the power of a locality to hold an industry" which "greatly exceeds its original power to attract."22 I • 22Edward A. Ross, "The Location of Industries," iThe Quarterly Journal of Economics. X (April, 1896), 247-248. 60 Ross was much ahead of his time for these are the very ideas with which economists today are viewing location problems.23 In spite of this excellent article, locational economics was to receive practically no attention prior to Edgar M. Hoover's book entitled Location Theory and the Shoe and Leather Industries. which was written forty-one years after Ross. In this forty-one year interval there did appear several articles concerning location that must be mentioned. Frank A. Fetter wrote an article in 1924, entitled "The Economic Law of Market Areas," in which he claimed there are two forces at work in the market area, O / centrifugal and centripetal. Ralph C. Epstein appeared five years after that with the thought that there are two stages of location in the development of industry, the first one being increased concentration in a given area, while the second is a redistribution and decentralization 25 away from that given area. Harold Hotelling's article, 23Ibid., 247-268. 2^Frank A. Fetter, "The Economic Law of Market Areas," The Quarterly Journal of Economics. XXXVIII (May, 1924), 520-529. 25 Ralph C. Epstein, "Locality Distribution of Industries," The American Economic Review. XIX (March, 1929), 172-178. 61 which appeared in 1929, precursed Edward Hastings Cham berlin's thesis of monopolistic competition, although Hotelling applied it to a much more limited area than Chamberlin. Differences in price do not necessarily mean that the firm will lose all of its business to other firms, because consumers may still buy from this firm for a variety of reasons, including proximity of location. ° Edward Hastings Chamberlin1s famous book, The Theory of Monopolistic Competition, introduced the concept of "spatial monopoly" in regard to the seller's location being exclusively his to the exclusion of other competi tors . Edgar M. Hoover. With the publication of Location Theory and the Shoe and Leather Industries in 1937 by Edgar M. Hoover, a series of studies and books in the field of locational economics commenced, being independent, of course, of the German school. Eleven years later Hoover ^Harold Hotelling, "Stability in Competition," The Economic Journal. XXXIX (March, 1929), 41-57. 2?Edward Hastings Chamberlin, The Theory of Monopo listic Competition (fifth edition; Cambridge, Massachu setts: Harvard University Press, 1947), pp. 62-63. 62 published another book in the same area entitled The Location of Economic Activity. In these two books it was Hoover's contention that the firm's location is deter mined by transportation and production costs. He divided industries into four major types: (1) market-oriented, (2) material-oriented, (3) labor-oriented, and (4) foot loose. He asserted that the type of industry which will locate on a given site is the one which can pay the highest rent over that of competitive users, this principle being 28 applicable to retail store location. Walter Isard. One of the more recent contributors has been Walter Isard, who, in 1956, published Location and Space-Economy. Isard stressed the role of substitution in formulating his thesis. A space-economy is composed of clusters of economic activity, including such clusters as business firms, farms, manufacturing establishments, urban concentration, and so on. The major cause of these clusters is the distance factor and the cost necessary to Hoover, op. cit., pp. 3-111, 281-300; Edgar M. Hoover, The Location of Economic Activity (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1948), pp. 1-185. overcome it. Thus, argued Isard, the business firm must take this transport cost factor into account in employing the substitution principle to select the site location which yields the maximum net profit over the long run.29 Melvin Greenhut. By an amazing coincidence, a book entitled Plant Location in Theory and in Practise. The Economies of Space, was published by Melvin L. Green hut in the same year as Isard's. Greenhut felt that the factors affecting location can be divided into three groups, demand, cost, and purely personal considerations. Greenhut believed that of all the possible explanations of the selection of plant location, the maximum-profit theory is the most universally applicable. If this is the case, then the economy in its entirety will tend to spatial equilibrium, with firms continuing to enter a given area so that pure profits are eliminated.^® There have been other contributors to this field and each has made a contribution to the over-all theories of general location. The ones summarized were deemed ^®Walter Isard, Location and Snace-Economv (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1956). ^Greenhut, on. cit.. pp. 5-280. 64 to be the more significant. Conclusion Regarding These Theories There has been a development of economic literature concerning locational theory, with special emphasis upon the individual firm. As will be observed in the next division of this chapter, these theories explain in part the resultant concentration of people into clusters. As the forces that affect industrial plant location and industrial concentration change so do areas of urban concentration, which in turn affect the structure of retailing. II. THE CONCEPT OF URBANIZATION Urban concentration is a phenomenon that, for the most part, does not come about by accident. There are basic, underlying forces in a given economy that are con stantly at work in shaping and reshaping the structure, size, clustering, and location of its population. Before analyzing some causes of the clustering of a given popula tion, referred to commonly as urbanization, it seems wise to define the concept of urbanization. The idea of just what the word "urbanization'* means encompasses many areas of somewhat divergent yet generally agreed upon concepts. Urbanization means different things to different people. This makes it difficult to formulate a definition or concept that does justice to all of these divergent views. This section, in briefly summarizing some of the leading opinions on urbanization, is divided into the following areas: (1) a multiplicity of similar or near-similar words and terms, (2) several leading points of view, and (3) a proposed concept of urbanization. A Multiplicity of Similar and Near- Similar Words and Terms Since the word "urbanization" is a difficult one to define precisely, several other words and terms have invaded the literature which imply by usage as being synon ymous or equivalent to it. Many authorities, for example, use the word "city" as the manifestation of the process of urbanization and, in a vague manner, use both words interchangeably. The word "community" has been introduced also in connection with urban concentration. Some authori ties have seen fit to use the term "trading area" as more illustrative of really Vhat urbanization means, while many 66 use "region" or "market area" in some related yet abstract manner as employing urban concentration. Finally, the word "metropolitanization" is many times associated with it also. Possibly the best way to clarify the problem is to present several leading divergent views and then establish a proposed concept or usage for this study. Some Leading Points of View These differing viewpoints unfortunately do not use a common base or denominator. Some view urbanization from a definitional aspect while others use more of a con ceptual approach. Still others attempt to measure the degree of urbanization by a mathematical expression and thus conclude that an economy is urbanized after a certain mathematical expression is obtained or reached. To make the picture even still more confusing, some authorities attempt to synthesize some of the leading divergent opinions into one established definitional concept. Nevertheless, an attempt is made to segregate these differing viewpoints into the following areas on the basis of emphasis: (1) the political science approach, (2) the urban geography approach, (3) sociology's approach, (4) the economic approach, (5) the mathematical approach, and (6) the fusion of these. The political science approach. The political scientist tends to view urbanization in its legal form as manifest in the town or village, and the city. This view emphasizes the legal aspects of urbanization. Urbaniza tion in the form of cities is classified by a particular type or class of municipal corporation.^ This definition recognizes that there are varying degrees of urbanization, but it is extremely narrow in its use in this study. The urban geography approach. The urban geographer views urbanization as a focal point in the occupation and utilization of the earth by man. It is an area viewpoint and the city is described by the geographer as a series of relationships between man and the total environment in 32 which he is situated. Convenience is an active urbanizing 31 Thomas Harrison Reed, "City," The Encyclopedia Americana (New York: American Corporation, 1958 edition), p. 710. 32 "City," Encyclopaedia Britannica (Chicago, Illinois: Encyclopaedia Britannica Incorporated, William Benton, publisher, 1961), Vol. V, p. 893. 68 force that the geographer stresses in discussing concentra tions of people. Sociology's approach. Sociologists have contrib uted much in the field of urban life. They are concerned with human ecology and how and what the structure of the city really is. The sociologists, for the most part, look upon the city as a form of human community. In this human community the inhabitants acquire certain behavioral pat terns because of certain forms of social organizations, which are referred to characteristically as the urban way of life. It is a process of population redistribution with the resultant concentration acquiring the character istics described in the previous sentence.33 Louis Wirth has given a very excellent sociological concept of urbanization as follows: Urbanization refers also to that cumulative acceleration of the characteristics distinctive of the mode of life which is associated with the growth of cities, and finally to the changes in the direction of modes of life recognized as urban which are apparent among people, wherever they may be,.who have come under the spell of the influence which the city exerts by virtue of the 33Ibid.. pp. 893-894A. 69 power of its institutions and personalities operating through the means of communication and transportation.*4 Wirth did recognize that density of population is a factor that also must be considered, and this condition he described as a prerequisite for a city. A city to him has three factors that are interrelated: (1) numbers of popu lation , (2) density of settlement, and (3) heterogeneity of inhabitants and group life.33 A much simpler definition in the same vein has stated that "Urbanization in its minimal meaning is the concentration of population and 36 human activities at focal points in space. However, not all sociologists have agreed with this concept. Robert E. Park, for example, commented that in his opinion urbanization is not a sociological concept but a statistical or geographical one. Tet he did admit that people come to the city to not only shop but also to ^Louis Wirth, "Urbanism as a Way of Life," Cities and Society, Paul R. Hatt and Albert J. Reiss, Jr., eds. (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1957), p. 48. 35Ibid.. pp. 49, 52. 33ftupert B. Vance and Sara Smith, "Metropolitan Dominance and Integration," The Urban South. Rupert B. Vance and Nicholas J. Demerath, eds. (Chapel Hill, North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 1954), p. 114. 70 meet people and learn of the latest happeningsOther sociologists, such as R. D. McKenzie, have felt that urban ization when viewed from the economic and cultural aspect is more of an influence rather than some defined number 38 of concentrations of people. The economic approach. Richard U. Ratcliff, an urban land economist, has stated unequivocally that urban ism is an economic phenomenon.^ Raleigh Barlowe observed in equal simplicity that urbanization is the nonagricul- tural use of land.^® Another author stated it a little more expansively when he observed the following: "Spe cifically urbanization means the transfer of workers from (1) agriculture to (2) manufacturing and (3) the service ■^Robert E. Park, "Urbanization as Measured by Newspaper Circulation," The American Journal of Sociology, XXXV (July, 1929), 61-62. ^®R. D. McKenzie, The Metropolitan Community (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1933), p. 25. ^Richard U. Ratcliff, Urban Land Economics (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1949), p. 368. ^Raleigh Barlowe, Land Resource Economics (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1958), p. 77. 71 and distributive occupations."^ Most economists look upon urbanization as a result arising from the forces of trade, commerce, and manufacturing. They emphasize the justifica tion of the city as performing economic functions for not only its own inhabitants but those of its hinterland. This view will be expanded upon in subsequent portions of this chapter. The mathematical approach. Certain authorities have seen fit to attempt to explain urbanization on the basis of a mathematical expression or formula. One of the best known of these is the one that has been formu lated by Davis and Golden. Urbanization to them is the ratio of the urban people of an economy to the economy's p total population, expressed as: , in which Pc is the Pt city population and Pt is the total population. This does not explain the process of urbanization but merely measures the degree to which a country has become urbanized. The fusion of these. It is unwise as well as unnec essary to attempt to recapitulate the numerous explanations ^Lorin A. Thompson, "Urbanism, Occupational Shift and Economic Progress," The Urban South, on. cit.. p. 38. 72 of urbanization which embrace many if not all of these previously-described concepts. One economist has written about urbanism in the following manner: Urban life is centered about the want-satisfaction of people living together. Urban activities include the manufacture and distribution of goods, attendance at religious ceremonies, and attendance at university classes.4^ Professor Martin summarized this point by asserting that rural life cannot be compared to that of the urbanite.43 To him, urban areas come into existence for a variety of reasons, including such factors as technology, trade, need for fortification, and so on.44 A Proposed Concept of Urbanization For the purposes of this study, urbanization must be viewed from primarily an economic point of view. It is recognized that urbanization does include much more than the economic concept. Urbanization is both a process and a result. It is a dynamic situation. It is in a constant state of flux. Placing emphasis upon the economic phase ^Preston Martin, Real Estate Principles and Practices (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1959), p. 3 43Ibid. 44Ibid., p. 6. is done so as to more clearly point up how the dynamic urbanizing process is constantly causing changes in the intensity and directional impact of the forces that affect retail store location. Since urbanism is a continuing, dynamic process, the next section of this chapter is devoted to a summary of some of the leading explanations of urban concentration. III. A SUMMARY OF SOME OF THE LEADING EXPLANATIONS OF THE CAUSES OF URBAN CONCENTRATION While it can be observed that people have had a tendency to associate in clusters since almost the begin ning of time, some of the reasons for this concentration have remained potent and foundational while others have either faded into relative insignificance or forged to the fore. For example, religion was once a powerful urban izing force, but in more modern times it has become of relatively little import. A summary of these forces, therefore, must consider all types regardless of relative strength and importance. Furthermore, just as the concept of urbanization has different meanings to different groups 74 of people, so has the relative importance of each of the many causes. The sociologist, for example, views them from a different perspective than does either the economist or the geographer. Any recapitulation of the causes must take into account these varying viewpoints. Even though these causes are both many and varied, it is possible to con struct a rough analytical framework by which to present them in a logical order. With this in mind, a summary of these causes is directed from two major divisions: (1) noneconomic, and (2) economic. It must be remembered that this portion of the discussion concerns itself primarily with the causes of urban concentration and why they con tinue to exist rather than with any explanation as to their size, spacing, and function. Noneconomic Explanations An entire book could be written on the noneconomic causes of urban concentration. This study, for obvious reasons, can attempt only the briefest of summaries of some of the more important ones. Nevertheless, recognition of these noneconomic forces is essential, since they have played, and are continuing to play, an important role in 75 the clustering of people. The noneconomic causes given all too brief summarization in this section include: (1) geo graphical forces, (2) social forces, and (3) other forces. Geographical forces. There are several major geo graphical factors that very definitely help create and locate urban concentration. Some of these factors are: (1) harbors and rivers, (2) climate, (3) topography, and (4) raw materials and natural resources. 1) Harbors and rivers. The continuing, as well as initial, importance of trade to the United States cannot be underestimated. It was the main cause of urban concen tration prior to the Industrial Revolution, and in order to facilitate it, urban clusters developed at good harbor sites and on navigable rivers. This can be readily seen by tracing the founding and growth of cities such as Boston, New York, and New Orleans. While these urban clusters were located at natural harbor sites, man has created artificial harbors in recent times as a means of obtaining the original physical advantage. Los Angeles is a good example of this. Lest one gain the impression that an excellent harbor has been the only geographical advantage of this 76 category, it should be noted that many cities have been founded and have prospered on the banks of navigable rivers. St. Louis in modem times is a good example of how a navigable river can cause a locational advantage. A further observation must be made about rivers. For many years it was the major source of power in many industrial areas. Those types of industries that needed a large amount of cheap power located at those points on rivers where electricity could be generated inexpensively. 2) Climate. Climate is not too significant a factor today in determining, as well as causing, urban clusters. Some cities originally flourished on the strength of their climates, including among others, Nice, Los Angeles, and Phoenix. One important aspect of it, however, is that if the climate is too severe, it may increase the cost of manufacturing and add to the discomfiture of the inhabitants to such an extent as to cause a movement of population and industry from that particular area to some more temperate region. 3) Topography. Natural physical barriers have a tendency to affect the location of urban concentration. In the United States, for example, there are relatively few urban concentrations of any consequence that are 77 situated in the high mountains. This is probably due to the fact that, since most of our cities were founded originally as trading centers, this type of location was not at all feasible. 4) Raw materials and natural resources. The location of raw materials and natural resources has been another contributing factor in the location of urban con centration. Pittsburgh, for example, was created primarily because of the location of certain valuable raw materials. These extractive types of raw materials were of such a physical nature that it was economically more prudent to refine them at the location than to transport them to other areas. Yet relatively few large cities have been created at the site of raw materials because of the geo graphic physical limit connected with this type. Today, the necessity of having an urban center at the site of raw materials is even considerably less. This has been due primarily to both improvements in transportation and in the refining processes of raw materials themselves. In the case of those raw materials that are extractive in nature, such as iron ore and timber, their impact on our total economic picture is less today due to a variety of 78 technological developments in alternate and many times superior products. For example, the introduction of the plastic industry has invaded the field formerly thought to be secured by the timber and paper industries. Even in the case of metals, plastics have made a successful intrusion. Another factor lessening the importance of extractive raw materials is the importing of raw materials from foreign lands, many times at a net lower cost to the American firm than if they had been produced in the United States. Furthermore, today we are moving away from being a heavy-industry to a light-industry nation. Consequently, "weight-losing" raw materials are not nearly as important as they once were in determining where industry and people must concentrate. Likewise, in the case of energy, it was originally economically impracticable to transport coal over long distances and physically impracticable to transport steam to distant places. However, the advent of new sources of energy, such as oil, gas, and electricity, has removed to a great extent these impracticabilities. Social forces. There are certain social forces which have had, and still have, influence upon urban con- 79 centration. The first one of these is the nature of man himself. Man by nature is gregarious. He has never wanted to be alone or remain aloof from his fellow beings. A second social force is that of fear, and that is why man believes in "safety in numbers." A third force is defense against enemies. While this is not a strong, or possibly even a logical, force today, it was probably the most powerful social force in more primitive times. A desire for recreation may be a reason for people to locate or at least patronize those areas where this is possible. The fifth social force is that of religion, although in the United States this has not had significant impact. Cul ture is another important force that has caused urban concentrations and today is a powerful influence on the retention of the city as we know it. Other forces. There are, of course, other classi fications of noneconomic forces that have caused urban clusters. Philadelphia and Washington, D. C., are notable examples of the effect of the political force. These noneconomic factors contributing to urban concentration are, for the most part, ever present and, even though this study dpes not give special attention to 80 them, they are, nevertheless, very important.^ What is of more pertinent importance to this report are the eco nomic forces and factors effecting and affecting urban concentration. Economic Explanations From the early writings of von Thtlnen, economists, in addition to expounding on general location theory, have either inferred or directly indicated why urban concentra tion exists. As many nations have moved from agrarian to industrial societies, the economics of urban concentration has become more important and noticeable, causing econo mists recently to devote more thinking to this area than in the past. Basically, of course, urban concentration can exist only if other portions of the total space economy produce sufficient necessities of life for both the agriculturalist and the urbanite. One authority, Homer Hoyt, has observed, "Cities can come into existence only when there is an agri cultural surplus which can be transported to a population ^"*Ely and Wehrein, op. cit., pp. 415-417; Herbert B. Dorau and Albert G. Hinman, Urban Land Economics (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1928), pp. 11-19, 44. 81 which does not raise its own food directly."^6 Hoyt reflected in the twentieth century what von Thttnen had claimed in the nineteenth. This is the underlying assump tion which is the basis for all economic explanations of the reasons for urban concentration. It does leave, however, much to be explained. Assuming, therefore, that it is economically pos sible for a portion of an economy's population to con centrate in such a small physical area as to make it impossible for them to produce their own food, the question then arises as to why, economically speaking, urban con centration does exist. Some of the more fundamental explanations of the causes of urban concentration include: (1) the exchange process, (2) manufacturing, (3) agglomer ating forces, (4) economies of urban concentration, and (3) a supplier of services. The exchange process. Most economists agree that the process of exchange of goods and services is one of the most fundamental causes of urban concentration, and ^Homer Hoyt, "Forces of Urban Concentration and Decentralization," American Journal of Sociology. XLVI (May, 1941), 844. 82 it is in the culminating of this process that causes people to live and work near each other. The exchange process involves the economic functions of: (1) trade, (2) transportation, and (3) finance and insurance. 1) Trade. Trade dates back to the beginning of man's economic development. When he first settled in villages there was little trade, and it was not until the creation of the market place that trade became significant. In the ancient world it was predicated primarily upon the exchange of raw materials. The discovery of America empha sized even more the development of trade, and it was the most powerful economic function in determining urban con centration prior to the repercussions resulting from the Industrial Revolution. These urban concentrations were trading centers which were situated on good harbors, navigable rivers, and inland trade routes. 2) Transportation. Trade, even in its simplest of forms, has always required the physical movement of goods, and this is accomplished by the function of trans portation. Transportation is another means by which urbanization can take place through its facilitating relationship with the exchange process. The function of 83 transportation takes several forms, including: (1) water (2) railroad, (3) motor, and (4) air. Furthermore, trans portation is the primary cause of nodals. a) Water transportation. Prior to the intro duction of the railroad, water was the most efficient and widely used mode of transportation. This can be readily seen by tracing the growth of cities such as Boston, New York, and New Orleans, each of which possessed an excellent harbor. They became centers of water transportation. Another transportational advantage can be obtained by utilizing navigable rivers. Canals have been used, also, to a great locational advantage. The Erie Canal, for example, "fixed the destiny of New York, energized Buffalo and Albany and stimulated city growth along its ,,47 routes. Yet water transportation in and of itself is not sufficient. As one authority has observed, "What is needed is a hinterland with goods seeking a market outlet and demanding goods in exchange."^8 4^Ely and Wehrein, op. cit.. p. 426. 48Ibid.. p. 425. 84 Water transportation was not without its limita tions. In the case of river and canal forms of water transportation, there were some rather severe ones: (1) traffic had to follow the direction established by nature; (2) only riparian land within a short distance of the water could be served by rivers and canals; (3) water transportation was slow; (4) many rivers were of shallow draft; and (5) many rivers were iced over during certain times of the year and 49 low in water content during the dry season. Yet it was the best and most widely used method of trans portation prior to the advent of the railroad. b) Railroad transportation. The concept of land transportation was radically changed with the introduction of the railroad. It was able to reach into hinterlands, undeveloped areas, potential raw material source areas, and other land areas which were heretofore almost inaccessible because of the lack of proper transportational facilities. With the rail road proved as an economically feasible method of transportation, much of the area west of the 49Ibid., p. 427. 85 Mississippi River became available for settlement and as potentially new markets. At first the railroad, serving as feeder lines for water transportation, connected existing cities. Soon afterward it became an important factor in determining new urban sites. Today the railroad is viewed as having affected urban concentration in two ways: (1) it has made it possible for quick and cheap transporta* tion within the hinterlands; and (2) it has made it possible for traffic between cities, thus greatly 50 increasing the size of markets. The innovation of the railroad has had a pro nounced effect on urban concentration through its rate structures. The larger cities have enjoyed a decided advantage over the smaller ones, in that those being served by competing lines and other forms of transportation have enjoyed a definite advantage in their bargaining ability with the railroads. The railroad, then, as a particular form of trans portation, not only has played a tremendous role in ^®Dorau and Hinrnan, op. cit., pp. 19, 37. 86 the economic unification of the United States, but has helped make possible also the creation and location of centers of population. c) Motor transportation. As in the case of water transportation being confronted with the railroad as a competitor, the development of the motor vehicle has meant competition for the railroad and other forms of transportation. Furthermore, the motor vehicle has had two different effects on urban concentration, one being effected through the use of the passenger automobile and the other being effected through the advent of the motor truck. In the former, it has meant the movement of large individual segments of our population both intraurban and interurban. No longer did it become necessary for the worker to have his home within physical sight of the factory where he was employed. He was able to live in an entirely different urban cluster than the one in which he was obtaining his livelihood. The automobile, not being subject to the limitations of railroads and water transportation, has been able to tie together various localities, which heretofore were either inaccessible or only reached by an indirect route. 87 The motor truck has competed successfully not only with the railroad In certain areas, but it has also brought the hinterland's products closer to the urban market, especially with respect to the time involved. This means, in other words, that more distant rural lands are now able to be employed to serve urban con centration, as in the case where goods which in the past were thought to be too far distant for use in a particular city are now just an overnight haul.^^ Contemporis with the motor truck and the passenger automobile, was the development of highways. Originally these highways paralleled railroads and thus reinforced the location of certain cities. Later, however, the creation of these highways as routes away from urban clusters had a tendency to isolate rather than reinforce them. The United States is continuing to feel the impact of both these forms of motor transpor tation, as it has been both a centripetal and centri fugal force for the city. -^Ely and Wehrein, op. cit., p. 430. 88 d) Air transportation. The airplane, being free from those factors limiting land and water trans portation, has diminished the economic frictions of space insofar as the element of time is concerned. Nevertheless, its effect upon urban concentration has been minimal because it is still not an economically feasible method of transporting mass shipments of finished goods or raw materials.^2 This is true in spite of the fact that those consumer goods with a high degree of fashion perishability can economically justify the use of the airplane due to the tremendous savings in time. e) The nodal theory. So far in this dis cussion of transportation as a force in urban concen tration, the approach has been to summarize the manner in which the various types of transportation cause urban concentration. In essence, these are manifesta tions of the actual function. What is really basic is that through the existence of transportation, regard less of mode, the development of nodals becomes eco nomically feasible. 52Ibid., p. 431. 89 A nodal is a physical spot or a physical location where scattered goods are brought together or, to put it another way, the performance of the economic func tion of assembly occurs. The economic activity at a nodal may involve one economic distributive function or it may involve several. An illustration of the performing of a single economic distributive function may serve best to further explain this concept. For purposes of illustration, there exists 100 cattle ranchers in northwest Arizona. Each of these ranchers wishes to supply four cows apiece to the market in Kansas City. There are two alternatives available to them. First, each cattle grower may load a truck separately with his four head and drive it to the market in Kansas City. The second possibility would be for the 100 cattle ranchers to each individ ually drive their four head to a centrally located spot in northwest Arizona through which the railroad passes. At this point all of these cattle would be comingled and loaded into appropriate cattle cars and shipped to the market in Kansas City. It should be obvious that the latter method is the much more 90 economically feasible method of assembling the com modity, even though this assembling process does not occur at the final destination. In this particular illustration, the only economic distributive function performed at this nodal was assembling. The typical citrus packing house serves as an excellent illustration of a nodal at which several economic distributive functions are performed. Here goods are first of all graded, then sorted into homo geneous lots, and finally packed for shipping to the market place. When these goods reach the central market, there need not be any additional performance of those particular economic distributive functions that were performed at the nodal. From the previous discussion it becomes apparent that transportation, as an economic activity, has a dual relationship to urban concentration. On the one hand, it serves as a facilitating function, while on the other it can directly influence population clusters through the creation of nodals. 3) Finance and insurance. The facilitating func tions to the exchange process are finance and insurance, 91 for without them the entire process would come to an almost grinding halt. The history of finance can be traced back to at least 1,000 years before Christ to a time when the Babylonians had developed the practice of lending on valuables. Traces of the elements of our modern banking system are to be found also in Assyria, Phoenicia, and Egypt. Greece and Rome perfected this loaning, or money changing, function to its peak. One authority has stated that the practice of banking was in existence long before the actual creation of a bank.53 in Rome, banks were established under official regulation. They received deposits, issued bank notes, discounted paper, and made loans. Capital seeking investment from the hinterlands and abroad sought its ways to this financial center. Even though the first American bank was not founded in New York City, this did not deter this particu lar location from eventually becoming the financial center of the United States, and, as in the case of London, 53 Roy L. Garis, Principles of Money. Credit. and Banking (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1934), pp. 517-518. 92 becoming one of the financial centers of the world.^ There is more to being a financial center than just commercial banking. Financial activities such as the stock exchange, originally a mercantile exchange for selling goods, was organized for the financing of trading operations. Insurance has developed into a vast and far- flung financial activity.One becomes cognizant of the influence of financial activity upon urbanization when he views the typical central business district of the larger cities in the United States where most of this activity is usually centered. Manufacturing. The exchange process was the original primary economic urbanizing force, while manu facturing, prior to the introduction and development of mass production techniques, played a very minor role. It is true that the Middle Ages gave rise to the development of the guild system, and cities during this time were noted as guild centers with increased local specialization. Yet 54Ibid., pp. 529-533. ^Richard U. Ratcliff, op. cit.. pp. 19-25; Dorau and Hinman, op. cit.. pp. 34-41. 93 it was not until the Industrial Revolution, with its machine methods and resultant division of labor, that manu facturing became an active force leading to urban con centration . The growth and development of manufacturing as an economic factor affecting urban concentration can be classified into the following areas: (1) household stage, (2) guild stage, (3) domestic stage, and (4) factory stage. 1) Household stage. Originally, manufacturing was carried on by the family who provided most of their own goods for consumption. The raw materials were either grown or produced by the family. The family, being self- sufficient, had little if any surplus for trade; conse quently, city life did not develop because of this activity. 2) Guild stage. With the advent of the guild stage, certain manufacturing operations were divorced from individual families. They began to specialize in particu lar crafts, thus supplanting the household system of out put. Gradually these families formed associations or guilds, thereby protecting themselves and restricting or excluding competition. These guilds had a tendency to locate themselves in clusters, either within a particular city or certain parts of several cities. 94 3) Domestic stage. While the domestic stage did not have any significant influence on urban concentration, its contribution was the introduction of capital and the entrepreneur, these acting more as a facilitating and coordinating economic function rather than necessarily improving direct productive effort. 4) Factory stage. Even though the domestic stage did introduce certain entrepreneurial functions, it was not until the factory stage that the factors of production were brought to a centralized location. This period was also marked by the developments in mining of iron ore and the vast improvements in transportation— the building of canals, the commercial applications of steam to transporta tion, and the introduction of railroads. The development of manufacturing processes has necessitated the concentration of large number of people in a relatively small land space. Because manufacturing activity has developed specialization, this has meant that the worker in the city does not produce all the goods and services he requires. Yet it is through this specializa tion and this ever-increasing output of the worker that people living in these urban areas are able to exist. This 95 continued ability to live in clusters was enhanced greatly by the spread of the Industrial Revolution to the farm, which made it possible for the release of large numbers of the population from this category of work. Manufacturing, therefore, has been probably the most significant economic factor affecting urban concen tration since the Industrial Revolution. It has provided a means of giving employment to a vast number of people and has provided urban areas at the same time with financial concentration and revenue. It must be recognized, however, that even though manufacturing has been this dominant factor, its position is predicated upon these other eco nomic and noneconomic factors. Agglomerating forces. The advent and resultant effects of the factory stage of manufacturing brought with it some agglomerating forces. These forces have a tendency to cause industries to locate in close proximity to each other, thus creating a powerful urbanizing force. The concept of agglomerating forces has been developed over a period of time and some of the explanations of it are briefly reviewed, including: (1) Alfred Weber, (2) August Lttsch, (3) Edgar M. Hoover, and (4) John R. P. Friedmann. 96 1) Alfred Weber. Alfred Weber was the first econ omist to develop a thesis concerning agglomerative forces. That portion of his thesis pertaining specifically to this area he termed "social" agglomeration. Social agglomera tion is the location of plants in close proximity to each other.^ Spengler, in commenting on this point almost forty years later, referred to it as "the economies of spatial concentration," in which he developed the following thesis: "When a number of unlike but essentially economic activities are carried on in the vicinity of one another. ..57 • • • 2) August Ldsch. August Lttsch developed this con cept of agglomerative forces in a much more refined and detailed manner about twenty-nine years after Weber had first introduced it. Ltisch contended that there are three basic types of agglomeration that cause urban concentration. The first of these types he referred to as "Large Indi vidual Enterprises," which would cause a town to be ^See pages 11-14 for a more complete discussion of his thesis. Joseph J. Spengler, "Monopolistic Competition and the Use and Price of Urban Land Service," The Journal of Political Economy. LIV (October, 1946), 399. developed. He cited Anaconda, Montana, a huge copper ore center, as a prime example of this type. The second cate gory LBsch called "Punctiform Agglomeration." In this type all firms of the same industry locate together to take advantage of their numbers and associations, which leads to economies of transportation, economies of raw material acquisition, economies of internal competition, and so on. The third type, he felt, is the agglomeration of different enterprises, which also lead to economies derived from 58 association, number, and close proximity advantages. 3) Edgar M. Hoover. The third major economist to stress these agglomerative forces as a cause of urban con centration was Edgar M. Hoover. In his The Location of Economic Activity (1948), Hoover pointed out that these forces can be segregated into three groups. The first group he called "linkage of industries by transfer econo mies."^ Hoover cited the location of manufacturers of automobile parts being in close proximity to automobile manufacturers as an example of this type of linkage. The 58LBsch, op. cit.. pp. 68-75. 59 Hoover, The Location of Economic Activity. op. cit.. p. 117. 98 second group he referred to as "linkage by complementary use of labor.In this instance, Hoover referred to the relocation of the silk mills in Pennsylvania in order to be able to utilize the services of the wives of the anthra cite coal miners as an example. The third category he designated as the "concentrating effect of the structure of transfer costs.This is where industries associate in close proximity to lower their freight handling and transportation costs. 4) John R. P. Friedmann. In 1956 John R. P. Friedmann published an article in which he discussed some of the locational aspects of economic development. While most of his discussion is presented more appropriately in another section of this chapter, there was one interesting observation by Friedmann in his discussion of technical linkages that is worthy of special attention. He contended that a strong urbanizing force is when these technical linkages lead to a situation "where the products of one industry become the raw materials of another, and where this 60Ibid.. p. 118. 61Ibid.. p. 119. 99 relationship can be consummated with greatest efficiency 62 by a clustering of complementary production processes. Economies of urban concentration. Hoover and Friedmann have recognized economies of urban concentration as a continuing urbanizing force, and both have devoted space to it in their writings. The basic premise of this thesis rests upon the contention that a city possesses certain large-scale economies to offer to firms which desire to utilize them. Included in these economies are: (1) better transfer services; (2) broader, more flexible labor markets; (3) auxiliary services available to the firm, including banking, utilities, fire and police pro tection, and so on; and (4) usually lower interest, 63 utility, and property insurance rates. Hoover expanded this thesis by explaining that the economies of urban concentration are based upon three basic principles: (1) the principle of multiples, (2) the principle of massing reserves, and (3) the principle of 62 Friedmann, op. cit.. p. 225. 63 Hoover, The Location of Economic Activity, op. cit.. p. 120; John Friedmann, "Economy and Space: A Review Article," Economic Development and Cultural Change. VI (April, 1958), 251. 9 100 bulk transactions. In the case of the first principle, the specialization of functions between firms is able to be carried further if there is concentration. The principle of massing reserves states that in areas of concentration the individual firm is able to operate on a lower amount of materials and supplies on hand because it knows that more are available on a short notice. The last principle, the principle of bulk transportation, is simply that eco nomic advantages arise from bulk handling and transferring of goods.^ While economies of urban concentration may not be considered as a primary cause of original urban concentra tion, it does follow that once the urban concentration is established, its economies tend to assure both its con tinuance and possible expansion. As Colin Clark has indicated, the city may have been founded to perform, or as a result of, one function, but it tends to take on new functions when the original one becomes obsolete.^ 64 Hoover, The Location of Economic Activity, op. cit., pp. 120-121. ^^Colin Clark, "The Economic Function of a City in Relation to Its Size," Econometrica. XIII (1945), 97-114. 101 A supplier of services. Another method of viewing the economic causes of urban concentration is on the basis of its being a supplier of services, not only for its own inhabitants, but also for its surrounding hinterland. The most famous authority that is associated with this thesis is Robert Murray Haig. Haig's contention was that the urban concentration, the center, exists because essential services must be performed for the surrounding area. It is the city that most economically overcomes the frictions of space involved in the distribution process. Haig extends this point by bringing up the concept of discrep ancy of assortments as being an urbanizing force. He contends the following in support of this point: To persuade a sufficient number of persons to remain on the farms and in the mines, it is necessary to offer them an assortment of con sumption goods comparable with that obtainable in the city. . . It is the relative cost of delivering such assortments which is a factor influencing the development of urban concentration. ^Robert Murray Haig, "Toward an Understanding of the Metropolis: Some Speculations Regarding the Economic Basis of Urban Concentration," The Quarterly Journal of Economics. XL (February, 1926), 187. 102 The discussion of economic explanations of urban concentration helps explain why these concentrations occur. IV. CONCLUSION In this chapter the groundwork has been established by which retail store location can be explained. Retailing is dependent upon clusters of people. The causes and forces behind urban concentration affect retailing both directly and indirectly. A recognition and an understand ing of these forces is the first step. In the next chapter a further examination of urban concentration will occur which will set the stage for the chapters after that to analyze the movements in retail store location within these urban concentrations. CHAPTER III A SUMMARY OF SOME OF THE LEADING ECONOMIC EXPLANATIONS OF THE DIFFERENCES AMONG URBAN CONCENTRATIONS Chapter II provided an insight into the fact that urban concentrations are caused and continued by a series of forces. It is evident to everyone that not all urban concentrations are alike as to size, shape, and type, any more than the identical force or array of forces that initiate their existence. In this chapter an effort will be made to summarize some of the leading economic explana tions as to the differences that can and do exist among urban concentrations. The chapter is divided into the following sections: (1) introduction, (2) various classi fications of urban concentrations, (3) some leading theories of the growth of urban concentrations, (4) some economic explanations as to the size, spacing, and type of urban concentrations, and (5) conclusion. 104 I. INTRODUCTION Urban concentration in the United States is marked by contrasts. Not only are urban clusters different in size, but their location, the arrangement of their physical location, and so on, also vary. Yet through it all there are some common tendencies. For the purposes of this study it is important to briefly review both the differences and the similarities, for this helps explain why retail store location also varies as to type, size, and location. One point is certain, there are a considerable number of methods by which these various urban concentrations can be classified. With this in mind, the first major section of this chapter will briefly summarize some of the more important ways of classifying them. II. VARIOUS CLASSIFICATIONS OF URBAN CONCENTRATIONS The previous section indicated that not all urban concentrations are identical in several basic ways. There have been numerous attempts to classify or categorize these concentrations, and it must be remembered that most 105 I authorities refer to urban concentrations as cities. This section of the chapter will attempt to summarize some of these attempts by briefly reviewing the following classi fications: (1) classification by location, (2) classifi cation according to dominant function, (3) classification by effect on economic growth and cultural change, (4) classification by the support of the city, (5) an ecologi cal classification, and (6) an economic function classi fication. Classification by Location A rather general method of classifying cities is by their topographical location. One authority has seen fit to divide all cities into two major divisions: interior and coastal. Under these two major divisions are several subdivisions as follows: Interior Land Plain Valley Highland Water Lake River Sea Coastal Continental River mouth Embayment Island^" This classification, while obviously of aid in describing the geographical location of a city, contributes only little to distinguishing cities from each other on the basis of economic, social, and political activity. Classification According to Dominant Function This method of classifying cities is not only the most widespread in use, but also the most acceptable. There are a considerable number of variations under this method, and some of the more important ones are herein presented. Van Cleef's classification. Probably the broadest and the most comprehensive is the one that Eugene Van 2 Cleef established in 1937. Van Cleef's classification by dominant function is summarized in the following manner: ^Eugene Van Cleef, Trade Centers and Trade Routes (New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, Inc., 1937), p. 7. 2 Ibid., p. 6. 107 Class 1 Administration: Capital cities, revenue cities Class II Defense: Fortress towns, garrison towns, naval bases Class III Culture: Class IV Production: University towns, cathedral towns, art centers, pilgrimage towns, religious towns Manufacturing towns, craft centers Class V Communication: Group A Collection: Mining towns, fishing towns, forest towns, depot towns Group B Transfer: Market towns, full-line towns, break of bulk towns, naviga tion-head towns, etc. Group C Distribution: Export towns, import towns, supply towns Class VI Recreation: Health resorts, tourist resorts, holiday resorts 108 Chauncy D. Harris. Utilizing the activity of greatest importance as the basis for classification, Chauncy D. Harris classified cities in the following manner as to the relative amount of total employment in their most important activity: Manufacturing cities (M1 subtype): Seventy-four per cent of the total employment in manu facturing, wholesaling, and retailing; Manufacturing cities (M subtype): Sixty per cent of the total employment in manufacturing, whole saling, and retailing; Retail centers: Fifty per cent of the total employment of the previously stated three types, and this employment being 2.2 times as great as wholesaling; Diversified cities: With manufacturing and retailing about equal, plus twenty per cent wholesaling; Wholesale centers; Transportation centers: At least eleven per cent of employment in transportation and communication; Mining towns; University towns; and Resort and retirement towns. 109 Harris concluded that manufacturing cities are the most 3 numerous.J John Fraser Hart. Utilizing the identical tech nique of Chauncy D. Harris, John Fraser Hart established a functional classification for cities as follows: M type: At least 38 per cent of employed labor force in manufacturing group, being twice as large as retail trade. M* type: The manufacturing group is one and one- half times as large as the retail group, with 26 per cent of the labor force employed in manufacturing. D type: The manufacturing group is greater than the retail group, with manufacturing employing from 19-28 per cent and retail utilizing 16-22 per cent of the labor force employed. R* type: The retail trade force exceeds the manu facturing, with at least 19 per cent of the total labor employed in retailing. R type: The retail trade force is twice that of the manufacturing, employing at least 21 per cent. T type: At least 14 per cent of the labor force is employed in transportation and commmication. ^Chauncy Harris, "A Functional Classification of Cities in the United States," The Geographical Review. XXXIII (January, 1943), 86-99. 110 S type: At least 11 per cent of the labor force is employed in mining. W type: At least 8 per cent of the labor force is employed in wholesale trade. P type: At least 24 per cent of the labor force is employed in education) public administration, and professional services. E type: At least 17 per cent of the labor force is employed solely in education. A type: At least 10 per cent of the population is in the armed services. Hart concluded that manufacturing, retail trade, and personal services are the three leading industry groups in the southern part of the United States.^ John R. P. Friedmann. A very interesting method of classifying cities was developed by John R. P. Fried mann in 1956. He established a hierarchy of cities based upon size and function, Table I illustrating this classi fication. From this chart, Friedmann concluded that by grouping cities according to population they also were John Fraser Hart, "Functions and Occupational Structures of Cities of the American South," Annals of the Association of American Geographers, XLV (September, 1955), 275, 277. Ill TABLE I A FUNCTIONAL HIERARCHY OF CITIES Locational Matrix Approximate Size and Examples (1950) Major Economic Functions Primate City Regional City (dominant) 3,000,000 and over Los Angeles, Chicago, New York 500,000 - 3,000,000 Atlanta, Dallas, New Orleans, St. Louis, Houston Provincial 100,000 - 500,000 City Roanoke, Montgomery, (subdominant) Columbus (Georgia), Richmond, Nashville, Memphis, Louisville Local Ser vice City (sub sub dominant) 25,000 - 100,000 Paducah, Asheville, Jackson (Term.) , and Greensboro Center of mfg. and specialized services (finance, publishing, science, arts, com munications, fash ions) ; areas of greatest market potential Regional service cen ter, especially wholesaling; large dept, stores serving regional market; regional administra tive center Subregional service center and center of manufacturing; often state capital Local, often rural services; some manu facturing (rural and labor-oriented) Source: John R. P. Friedmann, "Locational Aspects of Economic Development," Land Economics. XXXII (August, 1956), 215. 112 TABLE I (continued) Locational Approximate Size and Major Economic Matrix Examples (1950) Functions Satellite Communi ties and other Spe cialized Cities 5,000 - 100,000 Alcoa and Oak Ridge, Tennessee (mfg.); University, Ala. (educa.); Gatlinburg, Tenn. (resort); Big Stone Gap, Virginia (mining); Norris, Tenn. (dormitory) Manufacturing; edu cation; resort; mining; dormitory 113 grouped according to major economic function.^ Classification by main activity. A very similar classification to that one proposed by Chauncy D. Harris, previously described in this chapter, has been offered by Nels Anderson in which he has cited Camille Rosier*s classification of cities by their main activities. Rosier'i classification of these cities breaks down into the fol lowing categories: Cities of consumption (residential or resort) Cities of production (mainly manufacturing) Mixed activity cities (consumption and production) Cities of storage and distribution (Wholesaling) River and seaport cities Receiving and forwarding cities (Le Havre, France) Cities of finance and credit Cities of working men or artisans (residential) Military cities (Malta, Verdun) Thermal or bath cities (health centers) Climatic cities (Nice and Miami) Museum cities University cities® ■\john R. P. Friedmann, "Locational Aspects of Economic Development," Land Economics. XXXII (August, 1956), 215, 217. ^Nels Anderson, The Urban Community (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1959), p. 63. 114 Classification by Effect on Economic Growth and Cultural Change A rather unique way of classification of cities was developed in 1955 by Bert F. Hoselitz. He classified cities as to their effect on economic and cultural growth into generative and parasitic. A generative city is one in which the impact on economic growth is favorable, while a parasitic city is the opposite. Using this as a base, Hoselitz defined his classification even more by dividing cities into four categories: (1) fostering both economic growth and cultural change, (2) fostering cultural change but exerting an unfavorable impact on the economic develop ment of their hinterlands, (3) fostering economic growth but resisting cultural change, and (4) the opposite of (l).7 Classification by the Support of the City Harris and Ullman, in an article entitled "The Nature of Cities," classified cities as to the amount of support they give their hinterlands. As one might suspect, ^Bert F. Hoselitz, "Generative and Parasitic Cities," Economic Development and Cultural Change. Ill (April, 1955), 279-280. 115 I this will vary considerably between cities. Harris and Ullman classified them into three major groups: (1) cities as central places performing comprehensive services for m a surrounding area; (2) transport cities performing break- of-bulk and allied services along transport routes; and (3) specialized-function cities performing a particular service, such as mining, manufacturing, or recreation. The authors admitted that most cities represent various combinations of these three categories.** An Ecological Classification R. D. McKenzie, writing in the middle 1920's, proposed an ecological classification of cities which embraces some aspects of previously discussed classifica tions. The following is a brief description of his four major categories: (1) the primary service community is an agricultural town or a fishing, mining, or lumbering community, serving as both the original step in the chan nel of distribution of the basic commodity and as the 8 Chauncy D. Harris and Edward L. Ullman, "The I Nature of Cities," Cities and Society. Paul K. Hatt and iAlbert J. Reiss, editors (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free jPress, 1957), pp. 237-238. final stage of the distributive process of the final good (2) the commercial community, which is the second step in the channel of distribution of the raw or basic commodity an assemblage function; (3) the industrial town, which serves as the center for finished products; and (4) a city which lacks an economic base, such as an educational or a recreational center.^ As will be seen in the next and last classification, the last one of McKenzie's clas sification is today considered as economic. An Economic Function Classification This proposed classification concentrates on the economic aspects of urban concentrations. It classifies cities with the basic methods by which the populace of the cities earn their livelihood. One of the better- defined classifications of this category is the one that has been submitted by Nelson and Aschman. In their approach urban concentrations are categories as follows: (1) manufacturing centers, in which the major emphasis is ^R. D. McKenzie, "The Ecological Approach to the Study of the Human Community," The City. Robert E. Park, Ernest W. Burgess, and Roderick D. McKenzie, editors (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1925), pp. 66-67. 117 on the fabrication of products, the processing of food, and all of the economic activities connected with the processing of products; (2) commercial centers, are those areas in which the primary economic activity is concerned with the distributive process of goods and services; (3) transportation centers, in which the urban concentration arises due to their extreme importance as a nodal point in the several modes of transportation used in the economy (4) regional trading centers, where the urban concentra tion is concerned with the final distributive step in the marketing of goods and services to final consumers. This center offers specialty and shopping goods to a wide market area; (5) financial and cultural centers, which perform in the financial area what the regional trading centers perform in the final goods area, as well as those that emphasize the cultural aspect such as a university town; (6) special function communities in which the urban center offers special functions, such as recreation, health, insurance, military, and so on; and (7) smaller communities, which include such economic activites as: rural trading centers, county seats, one-industry towns, | railroad junctions, residential communities, to name a few. 118 Nelson and Aschman recognized, and so stated, that an urban concentration could be a combination of two, and sometimes more, of the previously-described functional classifications. They attempted to base their classifica tions on the dominant economic activity of the city, rather than assuming that each category was the only economic function in that particular grouping.^ This brief suimnary of the various classifications of urban concentrations indicates the common tendencies among all classifications, while pointing out some of the differences that do exist. This fact leads to the next major section of this chapter, namely, some leading theories of the growth of urban concentrations. III. SOME LEADING THEORIES OF THE GROWTH OF URBAN CONCENTRATIONS One of the major distinguishing features between rural and urban areas is density of population. As has been just discussed, it is difficult to classify urban concentrations on density of population alone. Further- ^Richard L. Nelson and Frederick T. Aschman, Real Estate and City Planning (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1957), pp. 24-29. 119 more, all urban concentrations had to have a beginning. They have not all grown at the same rate, into the same type of physical shape, or for the same reason. This section of the chapter will review some of the leading theories of the growth of urban concentrations, and, for that purpose, is divided into the following divisions: (1) the concentric zone theory, (2) the sector theory, (3) the multiple-nuclei theory, and (4) the functional theories. The Concentric Zone Theory Ernest W. Burgess. One of the most widely-held theories or explanations of the physical structure of urban areas is the ecologically conceived concentric zone thesis, which was popularized by Ernest W. Burgess. It describes the forces of concentration, deconcentration, and decentralization as affecting the growth of an urban area. It assumes that a city grows into and forms differ ent zones radiating outward from the central business district.*'* This growth is known as the "Principle of ^Ernest W. Burgess, "The Growth of the City: An Introduction to a Research Project," TheCity, eds. Robert E. Park, Ernest W. Burgess, and Richard D. McKenzie (ghi^ago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 120 Succession," in which each inner zone tends to extend its 12 area by invading the next outer zone. This expansionary development results from the antagonistic-complementary process of concentration and deconcentration. Figure 1 clearly illustrates this process. Zone I is the central business district, referred to by Burgess as "The Loop." Zone II is called the Zone in Transition where business and light manufacturing have invaded from Zone I. Zone III is composed of independent workers1 homes who have invaded it from the slums of Zone I and II. Zone IV is the residential zone of high class apartments and exclusive residential districts, while Zone 13 V is the commuters zone. Burgess did recognize that there can be additional developments of what he called "sub-business centers," which were outside "The Loop" and are a "telescoping of several local communities into a larger economic unity. IkM*» P* 50; Preston Martin, Real Estate Prin ciples and Practices (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1959), p. 13; Eugene J. Kelley, Shopping Centers. Locating Controlled Regional Centers (Saugatuck, Connecticut: The Eno Foundation for Highway Traffic Control, 1956), p. 56. 14 Burgess, op. cit.. p. 52. 121 z. oug. -ZV -TRPjtiSirtod ZL&tfe O F Wok k ( a / 6 - w £ * j ' s _ Homes RGSlDEVriflL. -z-OtJG _ FIGURE 1 THE GROWTH OF THE CITY Source: Ernest W. Burgess, "The Growth of the City: An Introduction to a Research Project," The City, edltois Robert E. Park, Ernest W. Burgess, and Richard D. McKenzie (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1925), p. 51. 122 William M. Dobriner. Utilizing the Burgess tech nique, William M. Dobriner developed a concentric circle thesis on a somethat similar yet different basis. In the inner circle is the central city. The next radiating circle includes the city limits and this is followed by another circle including the suburban zone. The outer circle is known as the rural-urban fringe. Dobriner further refined this concept by indicating that suburban conmunities overlap the suburban zone and the rural-urban fringe.^ The Sector Theory This theory is a modification of the concentric zone thesis. Homer Hoyt felt that "the ecological areas rather than being concentric circles tended to be func tional ’sectors' which radiated out from the central city along the transportation routes of 'least resistance."1^ These functional sectors are rent areas and tend to be arranged in sectors or wedges which radiate from the central ^William H. Dobriner, "Introduction," The Sub urban Community. Editor William M. Dobriner (New York: G. P. Putnam s Sons, 1958), p. xviii. ^ Ibid., p. xvii. 123 city. Low rent areas are generally found In the center and adjacent parts of the city, while high rent areas are found also In the center and grade downward outward. These rent area patterns vary, however, from city to city.^ The Multiple-Huclei Theory As a result of the concentric circle and sector theories, there developed an integration of these two into the multiple-nuclei explanation. A nucleus of an object is its central core around which the rest of the object 18 builds. Applying this to the urban structure, the initial or original nucleus may be a factory, a harbor, a nodal, and so on. Then from this original nucleus other nuclei form. These separate nuclei are caused by the fol lowing four factors: (1) certain activities require spe cialized facilities, (2) certain similar activities group together because they profit from this, (3) certain dis similar activities are detrimental to each other, and (4) certain activities are unable to afford the rents of the most desirable sites. The urban area, as illustrated by ■^Kelley, op. cit.. p. 58; Martin, op. cit.. p. 14. ^Martin, op. cit.. p. 10. 124 Figure 2, is built around these various nuclei. This theory appears to explain much more satis factorily the actual structure of an urban area today than either the concentric zone or the sector theories. Functional Theories A somewhat similar but different approach than the multiple-nuclei pattern thesis are the so-called functional theories. These are divided into three groups: (1) Van Cleef's thesis, (2) the Saarinen theory, and (3) Aspinwall's rule of uniformity. Van Cleef's thesis. Eugene Van Cleef, in dis cussing the functional structure of a trade center, con tended that there are certain elements common to all of them, including: (1) a railroad station, (2) government buildings, (3) a public market, (4) a hotel district, (5) a central retail district, (6) a factory area, (7) a sub retail district, (8) a residential area, and (9) a sub- 19 urban area. This classification did not present a spatial structure and order, so that it left much to be 19 Van Cleef, op. cit.. p. 59. 125 KEY: Dominant Function 1. Central Business District 2. Wholesale and light manufacturing district 3. Low class residential district 4. Medium class residential district 5. High class residential district 6. Heavy manufacturing 7. Outlying business district 8. Residential suburb 9. Industrial suburb FIGURE 2 MULTIPLE-NUCLEI PATTERN Source: Eugene J. Kelley, Shopping Centers> Locations Controlled Regional Centers (Saugatuck, Con necticut : The Eno Foundation for Highway Traffic Control, 1956), p. 58. 126 desired. It remained for Saarinen and Aspinwall to pre sent much more meaningful aspects of Van Cleef's original thesis. The Saarinen theory. The Saarinen theory assumed that a city grows and develops in a cellular pattern, adding cells as it expands on to its periphery. Each cell has its own nucleus and is self-sufficient. Thus, the organization of the urban area is the result of the development of these many self-sufficient cells. These cells are not necessarily the same, as some may be indus trial, others cultural, and others residential. This theory interestingly enough disregards the concept of the central business district, which, among other things, 20 serves more than its own inhabitants. Aspinwall's rule of uniformity. Leo Aspinwall borrowed portions of the Saarinen thesis and coupled them with the concentric zone and sector theories to develop 20 Leo Aspinwall, "The Functional Organization of Cities," Explorations in Retailing, editor Stanley C. Hollander (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1959), p. 432. what he called the "rule of uniformityAccording to this approach, cities perform>certain functions and these functions are fused by a framework of axes. Transporta tion is the essential ingredient to urbanization and because of this the major axis is formed. Heavy industry will be closer to this major axis than light industry. Warehousing and wholesaling follow outward beyond the two industry groups. The principle axis provides the goods and services required, and this leads to the creation of the high point of value. This point is formed by the intersection of the major and the principle axes. The high point of value is not static, because, as the city grows, this point moves along the principle axis, away from the major axis, toward the better residential areas. Aspinwall noted that there would be string development along the principle axis. Minor axes develop due to the growth of the city. These axes manifest themselves in the business growth on the more important crosstown streets parallel to the major axis. Aspinwall made special note of the fact that higher 128 class retailing operations tend to move in the direction of the best and highest paying traffic.22 These have been brief summaries of some of the more important theories of the growth of urban concentra tions. As was stated at the beginning of this section, not all urban areas are of the same size, shape, type, or structure--a discussion of which follows. IV. SOME ECONOMIC EXPLANATIONS AS TO THE SIZE, SPACING AND TYPE OF URBAN CONCENTRATIONS The discussion to date has centered primarily upon the reasons why urban concentration occurs and continues to exist. This leaves much to be desired in explaining the actual scene of urban concentration today, in which all sizes, types, and spacings of it have developed. Many explanations of these differences have been forthcoming over a period of time, and the purpose of this section is to briefly review some of the more important economic ones. This discussion is divided into the following areas: (1) the central place theory, (2) the principle of least 22Ibid., pp. 432-436. \ 129 effort, and (3) several other approaches. Central Place Theory It has been Indicated previously that one of the major causes of urban concentration Is that it is an economical means of supplying services to not only its own inhabitants but also to those of its hinterland. This explanation may justify the existence and continuance of urban concentration, but it does not explain why these urban clusters differ in size, in spacing one to the other, and in type. Probably the most widely-known and widely-used theoretical explanation of the differences among these urban clusters is the one that was offered by Walter Christaller in the 1930's. Christaller's theory was complicated, precise, and rigid in its application. A summary of it is divided into the following divisions: (1) Christaller's thesis, (2) additional studies, (3) the range of the good, (4) the rank-size rule, and (5) conclusion concerning the central place theory. Christaller's thesis. This recapitulation of Walter Christaller's central place theory must, of 130 necessity, present only the briefest of discussions, and it is approached from the following areas: (1) classifi cation of goods and services, (2) the development of the central place, (3) classification of central places, (4) the hierarchy of central places, (5) the shape of the service area, (6) the number of telephones as a measure, and (7) application of his thesis. 1) Classification of goods and services. Chris taller believed that goods and services can be separated into two distinct groups, dispersed goods and central goods and services. Dispersed goods to him were those types that are directly connected with the location of natural resources, namely, extractive industries. Central goods and services, which includes the assemblage of goods, assumes a minimum number of consuming units within some given range of the site of that activity. These central ized services include, among other things: administration, culture, health, social service, organization of economic and social life, trade, finance, service industries, and 23 the organization of the labor market and traffic. 23 Robert E. Dickinson, City Region and Regionalism. A Geographical Contribution to Human Ecology (London, 131 2) The development of the central place. Chris taller contended that a certain amount of productive land supports a central place, and the central place exists due to the fact that these previously-described services must be performed for the inhabitants on this productive land. Christaller termed these services as "central functions," and the cities that perform them as "central places. 3) Classification of central places. Christaller asserted there is a definite tendency for the creation and continuation of these central places to conform to a fairly rigid pattern based upon the amount and type of services they render. He developed a classification based upon this concept that is illustrated by Table II. 4) The hierarchy of central places. It can be observed from this systematic arrangement that as the grade England: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd., 1947), ip. 53; Rutledge Vining, "A Description of Certain Spatial i Aspects of an Economic System," Economic Development and Cultural Change, III (January, 1955), 160. ^E. L. Ullman, "A Theory of Location for Cities," American Journal of Sociology. XLVI (May, 1941), 855. 132 TABLE II CHRISTALLER'S CLASSES OF CENTRAL PLACES Distance Service Area Approxima€e Apart in Square Grades of Towns Population (miles) Miles I Marktort 1,000 4.5 18 II Amstort 2,000 7.5 54 III Kreisstadt 4,000 13 160 IV Bezirksstadt 10,000 22.5 480 V Gaustadt 30,000 39 1,500 VI Provinzstadt 100,000 67.5 4,500 VII Landstadt 500,000 116 13,500 Source: Robert E. Dickinson, City Region and Regionalism. A Geographical Contribution to Human Ecology (London, England: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd., 1947), p. 55. of the town becomes larger in population both the distance apart and the service area increases. Christaller ranked each service according to grade. Thus, the centralized functions of the lowest grade include: a registrar's office, a police station, a doctor, a dentist, a small hotel, a post office, and a local branch of a district bank. The centralized services of the next grade serve three of the central places of the lowest order. These services include: a police court, a library, an elementary school, a museum, a theater, and several specialized shops. 25 This hierarchy continues on up the scale. 5) The shape of the service area. At first blush it would appear logical that the tributary area of each of these central places would be circular. Instead, Christaller developed these market areas in the shape of a hexagon. One authority explained this concept of Chris taller in the following manner: . . . but towns with the same service stations will be equally spaced from it (the town) and from each other, and will compete with each other in their intersecting border zones, where centres ^ Ibid.. p. 54; Vining, on. cit.. 161. 134 of lower status can supply certain local services more efficiently than centres of higher order. Thus, one of the latter will be surrounded on the periphery of its service area by six equally spaced service centres of a lower order, equally spaced from each other and from the town in the centre. On this theoretical basis, towns will be equally spaced, in different orders, with hexagonal-shaped market areas.^6 This would leave the impression that each area is unrelated, such not being the case. The Kreisstadt city provides those services to the cities of lower rank, Amstort and Marktort, that they themselves do not provide. This sets up both the arithmetic and the geometric rela tionship. The Marktort area is one third of the Amstort 27 area and one ninth of the Kreisstadt area. This dis tribution of centralized services accounts, therefore, for the spacing, size, and functions of these cities, and Friedmann has observed that Christaller believed "that any inhabited area would exhibit a certain structure of settle ment which may be read as a hierarchy of central places ^Robert E. Dickinson, "The Social Basis of Physi cal Planning-I," Sociological Review. XXXIV (January- April, 1942), 61-62. 27 John E. Brush, "The Hierarchy of Central Places in Southwestern Wisconsin," The Geographical Review. XLIII (July, 1953), 392. 135 standing In a mutually dependent relationship to each other. ° Consequently, the centrality of a place is the services it performs over and above the needs of its local 29 inhabitants. 6) The number of telephones as a measure. Chris taller attempted to validate his thesis by suggesting that the number of telephones in use in each of these areas is the best measure of the relationship of one central place to another, since telephones are used for business. To do this Christaller established the following formula: Let Zz “ the centrality of a place Tz * the number of telephones in the place Eg « the number of people in the place Tg - the number of telephones in the area served by it Te = the number of people in the area served by it T Thus: Z„ * T - E times g z z z = ; — Ae T Now: Ez times g « what the importance of the Te center ought to be in pro portion to its population 28 John R. P. Friedmann, "The Concept of a Planning Region," Land Economics. XXXII (February, 1956), 7. 29 Dickinson, City Region and Regionalism, p. 53. 136 Tz = the actual importance T~ Therefore: the difference between Ez times q _ T 30 e the centrality. 7) Application of his thesis. Christaller felt that his thesis was, for the most part, applicable. He did modify this stand slightly by acknowledging that long distance trade and administration could disrupt the even arrangement of the central place theory.^ Additional studies. Too many years did not elapse before various studies and experts attempted to validate, refine, or refute Christaller's thesis. Several of these later studies and writings are herein summarized in the following order: (1) Ullman, (2) Brush, (3) Vining, (4) Duncan, (5) Berry and Garrison, (6) Carol, and (7) King. 1) Ullman. In 1941, E. L. Ullman published a paper in which he discussed Christaller's thesis. Ullman concluded that population alone is not a true measure of the central importance of a city. He believed that the ^ Ibid.; Ullman, op. cit.. p. 858. 31 Dickinson, City Region and Regionalism, p. 57. 137 central place theory works best in poor, thinly-settied farm districts. The theory may be distorted by industrial concentration or by main transport routes. Ullman empha sized that in highly industrialized areas the central place theory is distorted by industrial concentration, which in turn is greatly influenced by resources and trans- . portation. Thus it was that Ullman discarded Christaller's ideas on explaining variations in the size, type, and 32 spacing of urban concentrations. 2) Brush. Twelve years after Ullman's rejection of Christaller's thesis, John E. Brush reported his con clusions from a study he made of central places in south western Wisconsin. Brush concluded that small towns and villages justify their existence as central places for the exchange of goods and services. He felt that the spacing and size of these villages validate the central place thesis. 3) Vining. Rutledge Vining followed Brush by three years and he also validated Christaller's thesis. 3^Ullman, op. cit.. 858-860. 33Brush, op. cit.. 380-402. 138 He claimed there is an inter-connected system of centers that produces a hierarchical order similar to that posed by the central place theory.^ 4) Duncan. Christaller's thesis suffered a set back in 1939 at the hands of Otis Dudley Duncan. Duncan concluded from his field study that the central place theory is a very inadequate explanation of the differ entiation and specialization of service trades within a city as the size of the city increases. He believed that in large cities there emerges certain specialized ser vices that replace the more generalized service estab lishments found in smaller urban centers. This is due primarily to two factors: (1) life in larger centers generates needs not typical of smaller centers; and (2) as cities increase in size certain services originally performed by the business or the household in smaller areas are not demanded in sufficient quantity to allow 35 specialization. ■^Vining, op. cit.. pp. 147-195. 35 Otis Dudley Duncan, Some Service Industries and the Urban Hierarchy," Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science Association. V (1959), 105-120. 139 5) Berry and Garrison. Brian J. L. Berry and William L. Garrison have contributed much to the expansion and refinement of the central place theory. In one of their articles they suggested that the central place theory could be made more meaningful if the assumption by Chris taller of the uniformity of purchasing power basic to the hexagonal trading area be discarded. This would make the theory applicable to areas within a city as well as between cities. These two authorities researched a county which validated even further the central place 0 7 theory. They confirmed this again in 1960 when they summarized empirical studies they had made which showed the follwoing results: (1) there is a hierarchy of urban centers and business districts within cities, (2) there are trade areas which encompass like total demands for centers at any given level of hierarchy, (3) there is a "nesting" of lower ranking trade areas within trade centers of a high level in the hierarchy, and (4) there 3*>Brian J. L. Berry and William L. Garrison, "Recent Development of Central Place Theory," Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science Association. IV (1958), 107-120. ^7Brian J. L. Berry and William L. Garrison, "The Functional Bases of the Central Place Hierarchy," Economic j Geography. XXXIV (1958), 145-154. 140 is an even spacing of centers of the same level where the major economic base of these centers consists of OQ central place functions. ° It is interesting to note that Berry did dissent from the application of the central place theory in one important area. He felt that the theory did not explain stretches of highway-oriented or urban arterial businesses. Berry further concluded that it did not validate special ized functional areas, such as the automobile row. Thus Berry suggested that certain refinements to the central place theory should be made. It was his contention that there should be a clear line of demarcation between the demands impinging upon normal urban centers and those accruing as flows along arterial highways. Berry also insisted that there should be an evaluation made of the competitive pulls between the spacing of complementary uses in the shopping centers and business districts of the hierarchy and the agglomeration of like uses into functional areas.^ 39 Brian J. L. Berry, "Ribbon Developments in the Urban Business Pattern," Annals of the Association of American Geographers. XLIX (June, 1959), 154. 141 6) Carol. A very excellent paper was presented by Hans Carol in 1959 that validated the central place theory. He specifically emphasized the relationship between the demand for a central service and the spacing of the urban center. If the demand is frequent, the centers are more closely spaced, whereas, if the demand is infrequent, they are more widely spaced because it requires a greater number of people to support them. As Carol summarized it "The difference in demand between the more general and the more specialized needs creates a hierarchy of central services."^® 7) King. The last writer reviewed is Leslie J. King, who, in 1961, summarized a study he made of two hundred towns and cities, drawn at random, and ranging from 5 to 467,000 inhabitants. In this study he assumed each town or city to be a central place, and he also assumed a positive relationship between the size of the city or town and the number and complexity of goods and ^Hans Carol, "The Hierarchy of Central Functions Within the City," Annals of the Association of American Geographers. L (December, i960), 420. 142 services offered. King's thesis concerning the spacing of various sized cities followed along the same lines as that of Hans Carol. However, the results of his study showed that towns and cities cannot be viewed as purely service centers, since a majority of them are manufacturing centers. In this capacity these urban centers are apt to be much more closely spaced than if they existed solely as service centers.^ The range of the good. One of the off-shoots of the central place theory is the concept of "the range of the good." The range of the good is defined by the bound ary or tributary area around an urban center from which persons will travel to the center to purchase the good. Berry and Garrison contended that there is an upper and a lower limit to this range. The upper limit is the maximum distance, and beyond this distance from the center the price increases to a point where the consumer will not buy it, or the consumer is closer to a competing urban center. The lower limit of the range is that radially- 41 Leslie J. King, "A Multivariate Analysis of the Spacing of Urban Settlements in the United States," Annals of the Association of American Geographers. LI (June, 1961), 223-227. 143 shaped area which includes a sufficient number of people V to assure a sales volume adequate for a profitable supply of the good to be forthcoming from the central place. This minimum population has often been referred to as the "threshold population for the good."42 The relationship of the size of the threshold to the lower limit, sometimes known as the inner range, is many times obscure, and these two factors establish the critical level of demand for a good that is provided for by an urban center. The diseconomies of scale are so great below this critical level that the good is supplied by some more complex urban center.^ Berry and Garrison concluded that "the concept of inner range relates to a demand function that describes an increase in total demand as the zone served by the urban center increases in J. L. Berry and William L. Garrison, "A Note on Central Place Theory and the Range of a Good," Economic Geography. XXXIV (October, 1958), 304. 43Ibid.. p. 306. 44Ibid.. p. 307. 144 The rank-size rule. The other offshoot to central place theory is the rank-size rule of cities. This theory assumes that there is a definite hierarchical order in urban concentrations in a given region. If these concen trations are arranged in descending order by size of popu lation, then the rank-size rule is expressed as follows: SR = S^/ R, in which R = the rank in size of a given city = the size of the largest city SB = the size of the city having the R rank of R Utilizing this formula, the second largest city is 1/2 the size of the largest, and the third largest city is 1/3 the size of the largest. The fiftieth largest city would be 1/50 the size of the largest. In attempting to explain this arithmetic-hierar chical order, one author has stated that it develops due to: (1) transport and certain transfer costs; (2) costs associated with labor, power, water, taxes, insurance, interest, climate, topography, and social forces; and C. T. Stewart, "The Size and Spacing of Cities," The Geographical Review. XLVIII (1958), 222-245; Vining, op. cit.. p. 148. 145 (3) agglomerative and deglomerative tendencies brought about by economies of scale, localization economies, and 46 urbanization economies. Another authority expressed it in more general terms when he observed that there appears to be an interconnected system of centers, in which from a major center lines of communication extend outward to smaller centers, which in turn extend lines of communica tion to even smaller centers.^ Carl H. Madden has done some research in an attempt to validate the rank-size rule theory. He claimed that his studies showed conformity to the rule, even though individual cities do move around in rank. Utilizing 1950 as a base, Madden tabulated that, among cities of 100,000 population and over, fourteen showed stability in rank position, 10 showed extreme variation, and 22 exhib ited medium stability.^® 46j0hn Friedmann, "Economy and Space: A Review Article," Economic Development and Cultural Change. VI (April, 1958), 251. ^Vining, op. cit.. p. 160. ^®Carl H. Madden, "On Some Indications of Stability ;in the Growth of Cities in the United States," Economic Development and Cultural Change. IV (April, 1956), 238, 242. 146 However, not all authorities agree that the rank- size rule is applicable in all cases. Stewart has con tended that it has no logical basis since,it breaks down at the extremes, the largest and smallest towns. He felt that the determinants of town spacing, which have caused this divergence from the rank-size rule, have been: (1) the commercialization of agriculture, (2) the level of living, (3) the stage of economic development of the town, (4) the rural population density, and (5) the urban-rural ratio. Since these vary not only between regions but within a region, Stewart contended the rank-size rule could not be applied with any validity. Conclusion concerning the central place theory. The central place theory is an attempt to explain the size, spacing, and type of urban concentrations in a given economy. There appears to be logic to it, but sufficient doubt as to its universal application has been raised as to cause one to stop short of adopting it without reserva tion. Nevertheless, it helps explain, in part at least, why there are these differences. The next explanation will approach it from a different viewpoint--The Principle of Least Effort. 147 The Principle of Least Effort A basic explanation as to why cities vary in size, spacing, and type is to be found in George Kingsley Zipf's "The Principle of Least Effort." This principle is concerned with the continual movement of matter-energy in a person's body. The person in solving his immediate problems will try to do this in such a way as to minimize the total work that must be expended to solve not only these immediate problems but also his future ones. Much of what Zipf has discovered and contended has already been discussed in this chapter. Therefore, his thesis is herein presented in very brief detail, and it is divided into the following areas: (1) the forces of unification and diversification, (2) the least-work center, and (3) irregular urban size. The forces of unification and diversification. The forces of unification and diversification are one of the major foundational blocks to Zipf's thesis. He assumed that the goal is for all goods to be moved only by an amount that will yield the lowest work-distances. Since every person can be assumed to be both a producer and a consumer, it follows that the individual should live as 148 close to his place of employment as possible, so that the effort of going to and from work is minimized. On the other hand, as a consumer the individual should reside as close to the finishing plant as is possible so as to reduce to a minimum the work of transporting his share of finished goods to him. This dual responsibility of location creates an impossible situation, especially in a growing population where the diversity of raw materials needed increases. Zipf noted that this problem of the most economical loca tion consists of two opposite courses of action. The first of these two courses of action is to move the total population to the immediate location of raw materials so as to minimize the cost of transportation. This action was termed by Zipf as the Force of Diversifi cation, since it compels the population to be divided into large numbers of small, widely scattered, independent communities. The second course of action is known as the Force of Unification, in which all materials are moved to a gigantic urban center consisting of the entire region's population. Zipf recognized that neither of these extremes is logical. Thus, the location of the economy's population will depend upon the extent to which 149 materials are moved to people and people to materials. The least-work center. Utilizing the concept of the forces of diversification and unification, Zipf then constructed his so-called "least-work center." Zipf believed that the cost of each type of goods will be deter mined for the most part by the location of the individual in relation to the site where the goods are being produced Some goods are more economically transported than others, and this type will be delivered to the consumer. However, if the cost increases, then it is more economical for the consumer to migrate to the point where the goods are produced. Zipf asserted that the more that the cost of trans portation increases, the more production centers there will be in a given region. Furthermore, the cost of labor must not be overlooked. Combining the labor and the transportation cost, Zipf contended that the number of different production centers is determined by the limita tion of the distance over which goods can be traded eco nomically. Labor-saving devices will cause, of course, production centers to be located in fewer communities. 150 Irregular urban size. Irregular urban size develops when the economy continues to attempt to reduce all costs and to increase the diversity of goods. Zipf termed this effort "The Force of Innovation." This force will have its effect by tending to decrease the number of urban centers and thus increasing their size. As there is an increase in the diversity of goods, there is an increase in the total area of the region because the probability of finding these diversities all in one physical spot is highly improbable. Zipf believed that this in turn leads to an increase in labor in the larger centers, since the larger centers are more able to employ them. These laborers will have a double effect on the size of the urban center since they are both producers and consumers, which will cause an increase in the number of establishments due to increased demand. Zipf added another significant point to the irregu larity of urban size by noting that those consumers goods that are frequently used tend to not only be the cheapest in price but also located nearest to the consumer. If the consumer desires rare goods and services, he must make his way to a large urban center for them. These rare 151 * types are found in these larger urban centers mainly because the vendors know that if they locate them there there Is an increased probability of finding people who want them. Zipf argued that this followed the principle of least effort since people try to minimize their time and effort in shopping for desired goods. Thus, they either make maximum purchases for any given expenditure of effort or, to put it another way, they will make the least effort for routine type of buying, such as conven ience goods. Thus it is that the consumer will be willing to make the trip to the larger urban center when in the quest of shopping £>r specialty goods of a rare or limited sort Several Other Approaches In addition to the two previously-described theories, there are many other explanations of the phe nomenon that attempt to explain either partially or com pletely the differences in size, spacing, and types of 49 George Kingsley Zipf, Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort (Cambridge, Massachusetts: |Addison-Wesley Press, Inc., 1949), pp. 1-18; 347-444; ;Reavis Cox, "Consumer Convenience and the Retail Structure | of Cities," The Journal of Marketing. XXIII (April, 1959) , 3 5 9 - 3 6 1 . ______________________________________; 152 urban concentrations. Instead of attempting to segregate each of these explanations, this section will briefly synthesize them. Friedmann, Haig, and others have suggested that as cities grow and their regions of interdependency form, it is due to the economic development of the region or the entire economy. Their concepts concerning this devel opment are herein summarized in the form of five general conditions that have been touched upon to a certain extent in Chapter II, these conditions revolving around the forces of agglomeration and economies of urban concentra tion. These five conditions that contribute to the ascendancy of cities in the hierarchical structure are: (1) accessibility, (2) expansion of local markets, (3) specialized business services, (4) technical and retail linkages, and (5) cultural advantages. Accessibility. Cities tend to be situated at nodal points of a transportation network. The more impor tant the nodal point, the larger is the city, especially if the nodal point is an important one in the national system. This facility of access to sources of supply and to markets is a very important cause of the hierarchical 153 structure, and industrialization tends to improve the accessibility of an area by encouraging the provision of a wider variety of transportation. Expansion of local markets. Another condition that contributes to the hierarchical structure is the expansion of local markets for goods and services. The higher incomes in cities coupled with the greater numbers of people help create local markets and extend them. Specialized business services. The larger cities offer specialized business and professional services as well as labor skills. These specialized business services include, for example, the services and skills of distribu tion. The processes of collecting, sorting, and allocating from this central point not only effects economies but also helps develop special skills. Haig has termed this the most efficient method of overcoming the frictions of space and the cheapest method of laying down the desired assortment of consumers goods. The larger the city the more specialized the professional services as well. Technical and retail linkages. The larger city represents a special factor of agglomeration--technical 154 and retail linkages. These linkages manifest themselves in the form of complementary firms, be they industrial or retail. Industrial linkages occur when the finished or processed products of one firm become the raw material or fabricated part for another. This relationship is able to be done with greater efficiency by the close proximity of these firms to each other. In the case of retailing, the close proximity of both similar and complementary stores allows the consumer to minimize his effort in acquiring the goods and services desired. Cultural advantages. The inhabitants of the region look to the larger city for such cultural advantages as operas, night clubs, excellent eating establishments, huge athletic events, and so on. These cultural advantages are usually found only in the larger centers where they serve a much larger area than just their own inhabitants. The total effect. The total effect of all this is to establish a hierarchy, and once this hierarchy has been established the basic structure tends to remain. As larger cities become more complex and varied, the smaller cities within its sphere of influence become more 155 specialized. Friedmann has stated it in the following manner: Some grow into "satellites" of the center, others into specialized service, industrial, or market cities. While the center of economic power in this pattern is the metropolis, all the communi ties within its economic reach are mutually dependent upon one another and upon the metro politan center in its turn. 1 Others have stated it in different ways, but the concensus seems to be that there is some form of hier archical order. V. CONCLUSION There are various types of urban concentrations. Thes* urban concentrations differ in size, shape, and spacing throughout an economy, especially a highly indus trialized one. There have been many explanations regarding ^Friedmann, The Concept of a Planning Region, p.9. "*^Ibid.: Friedmann, "Locational Aspects of Economic Development,f * 213, 224-226; George Fisk, "The Replanning of Center-City Shopping Districts," Journal of Retailing. XXXV (Summer, 1959), 81-82; Robert Murray Haig, ‘ 'Toward an Understanding of the Metropolis: Some Speculations Regarding the Economic Basis of Urban Concentration," The Quarterly Journal of Economics. XL (February, 1926),, 184, 186; Reavis Cox, on. cit.. p. 359. 156 these differences and several writers have suggested a systematic pattern of hierarchical order. Two of the more basic theories of this hierarchical order are the central place theory and the principle of least effort. Other explanations are less structural and more functional in their approach. Throughout these explanations runs the thread of retailing and retail store location, for much of this hierarchical structure or pattern of economic development affects the type and location of retail stores. The next chapter briefly reviews urbanism in the United States and sets the stage for a discussion in Chapter V of the current retail structure in the United States. CHAPTER IV A BRIEF RECAPITULATION OF URBANISM IN THE UNITED STATES In Chapter II a discussion was presented concerning urbanization and the causes of it. This theme was con tinued in Chapter III with a discussion of some of the leading economic explanations of the differences among urban concentrations. This chapter is concerned with a brief summary of the development of urbanism in the United States. The discussion is not intended to be a complete and exact chronological history from all of the possible ramifications involved. Instead, it is a summarization of those portions of the development that seem pertinent to a better understanding of retail store location in the United States. This discussion is divided into the fol lowing five major sections: (1) introduction, (2) a sum mary of certain aspects of urban growth in the United States, (3) urban deconcentration and decentralization in the United States, (4) the development of metropolitan- :ism in the United States, and (5) conclusion. 158 I. INTRODUCTION The urban growth in the United States has developed over a several hundred year period. In its development, certain phases have appeared with sufficient distinctive ness as to be able to note them. This is not to be con strued as indicating that each phase of urban growth was peculiarly autonomous. These phases that have occurred overlap each other and sometimes run concurrently. The first phase of urban growth in the United States may be termed '’concentration." Concentration is a centripetal force in the creation of and maintenance of urbanism. It is the tendency of and the result of people clustering in urban concentrations, referred to as cities. The second phase may be referred to as "centraliza tion." This phase has been best described as "the drawing together of institutions and activities, i.e., the assembly of people to work rather than to reside in a given area." It has manifest itself in the central Robert E. Dickinson, City Region and Regionalism. A Geographical Contribution to Human Ecology (London, England: Kegan Paul, French, Trubner & Co., Ltd., 1947), p. 94. business district, the commercial subcenters around the central business district, and the concentration of factories in certain areas. The third phase of urban growth in our country may be called "deconcentration." This is the "tendency of people and institutions to shift out from the existing urban area to the open land on its outskirts." This started to develop in the United States about 1850, and has been referred to frequently as "the suburban movement." The fourth phase may be referred to as "decentral ization." This is the process whereby there is "the shedding of certain of the city's activities--such as industry or commerce and administration— to a distinct and separate town that itself functions as an independent local and regional centre." This phase is best seen in the development of our so-called satellite cities. The fifth phase is one that defies a descriptive term that quantifies as well as qualifies the condition being described. For want of a better term, this study 2Ibid. 3Ibid. 160 will refer to it as "metropolitanism." As will be dis cussed later in this chapter, metropolitanism is a term used to describe both an evolutionary and a statistical phenomenon that has developed in the United States, especially since 1920. Keeping these phases of urban growth in mind, the next section discusses a summary of certain aspects of urban growth in the United States. II. A SUMMARY OF CERTAIN ASPECTS OF URBAN GROWTH IN THE UNITED STATES Every great civilization on record has always been noted for the development of urban clusters. In the previous chapter consideration was given to the causes of these clusters, commonly referred to as cities, and some of the explanations as to why they develop. One aspect that must be noted at the outset is that even though cities may approach each other in size, their structure, composition, and specific reasons for existence vary. So it has been with the development of cities in the United States. To more accurately trace certain aspects of this growth, this section is divided into the 161 following areas: (1) the development of cities prior to 1900, and (2) the development of cities since 1900. The Development of Cities Prior to 1900 The average American takes our way of life today for granted. He tends to look with some disdain upon those countries where a greater portion of the population are still tied to the soil and are agrarian in nature. If this average American would reflect but for one moment, he would be forced to recognize that our type of urban and suburban living is a phenomenon that has developed, at best, since 1920, even though we did have large cities prior to that time. In fact, it was during the decade of 1910-1920 that finally more of our population lived in urban than in rural areas. * * Therefore, the development of our urban areas prior to 1900, while significant, did not urbanize a sufficient number of our people to the point that the United States could be referred to as urbanized. Nevertheless, the groundwork was established during the nineteenth century by which it was possible to have it occur in the twentieth. ^Herbert B. Dorau and Albert 6 . Hinman, Urban Land Economics (New York: The Mscmillan Company, 1928), p. 86. 162 In tracing the development of cities in the United States prior to 1900, this discussion is divided into the following sections: (1) the pre-railway era, (2) 1850- 1900, and (3) recapitulation. The pre-railway era. The main reason for dividing the discussion of city growth by the advent of the rail road will be demonstrated later. Suffice it to say that the discussion of the pre-railway era follows the follow ing pattern: (1) prior to 1800, (2) 1800-1850, and (3) by 1850. 1) Prior to 1800. For a considerable period of time after the first settlement was established in the United States, our economy was a dependent one, dependent on trade and commerce from overseas.* * Our great cities on the eastern seaboard today were either mere villages or nonexistent at that time. By 1700 three of these vil lages had become towns of more than 4,000 in population,^ ^Eric E. Lampard, "The History of Cities in the Economically Advanced Areas," Economic Development and Cultural Change. Ill (January, 1955), 116. ^ J e a n Gottmann, Megolonolis. The Urbanized North eastern Seaboard of the United States (New York: The Twentieth Century Fund, 1961), p. 18. 163 but the growth between then and 1790 was not too marked, because by 1790 less than one out of twenty lived in so- called urban areas,^ and prior to 1800 only six cities o had populations of 8,000 or more. 2) 1800-1850. The fifty year period of 1800-1850 was one marked with irregularities in the growth of our cities. The growth of the number, as well as the size, of the cities up to 1810 was fairly steady. By 1810, there were eleven cities with populations of more than 8,000, which was almost double the number just prior to 1800. Furthermore, by 1810 the cities of New York and Philadelphia were almost at the 100,000 mark in population However, the decade between 1810 and 1820 showed a rela tive decline in urban to rural population growth and only New Tork City increased in size to more than 100,000. It was not until the decade of 1840-1850 that urban popula tion increased rapidly once more, and it increased during this ten-year period by 92.1 per cent.^ t ^Raleigh Barlowe, Land Resource Economics (Engle wood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1958), p. 64. ^Dorau and Hinman, on. cit.. p. 92. 9 Lampard, o p . cit.. pp. 117-119. 164 3) By 1850. This was the foreshadow of what was to happen, because by 1850 two cities, New York and Philadelphia, had more than 300,000 people, and four others had between 100,000 and 200,000. By 1850, fifty-five cities had populations of from 10,000 to 100,000,^ or to recapitulate it in a different manner, 85 cities had more than 8,000 inhabitants.^ Yet in spite of this apparent growth, the population remained relatively rural and in the eastern portion of the country. As late as 1850 about 90 per cent of the 23 million people were still residing east of the Mississippi River and 80 per cent of the total population still lived in communities of less than 8,000 inhabitants.^ The guide line of 8,000 was the population point used by the United States Bureau of the 13 Census until 1880 in defining an urban area. This was the dawn of the introduction of the railroad, which was to have a tremendous impact on city growth. ^ G o ttm a n n , i b i d . ^^Dorau and Himnan, ibid. 12 R. D. McKenzie, The Metropolitan Conmunitv (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1933), p. 3. 13 Dorau and Hinman, loc. cit. 165 1850-1900. The era of 1850-1900 has been termed by some authorities as "the railroad expansion" era.1^ In discussing this era the study Is divided into the fol lowing time periods: (1) 1850-1860, and (2) 1860-1900. 1) 1850-1860. In the first ten years of this era, 1850-1860, cities grew both in size and in nunber. By 1860 there were one hundred cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants; 15 cities with more than 50,000; 8 cities with more than 100,000, and New York City was over one million in size.^ The Industrial Revolution and the railroad were having their effect, both on the location of the population in relationship to urban and rural placement and on the spread of it westward! 2) 1860-1900. This growth of the cities and the westward movement continued during the 1860-1900 era. Between 1860 and 1900 there were heavy investments in railroads, iron and steel operations, the coal and meat packing industries, and in machinery in general.*6 By ^McKenzie, loc. cit. 15Lampard, op. cit.. p. 119. 16Ibid.. p. 120. 166 1880, the urban to rural ratio had been reduced so one person out of every three lived in cities, ^ and cities with more than 100,000 residents claimed 42.9 per cent i Q of the total urban population. G ottm ann h a s c o n t e n d e d t h a t t h e p e r io d o f t h e 1880's and the 1890's is rightfully called the "rise of 19 the city." This statement appears to be substantiated by the fact that at the start of 1890, 43.5 per cent of the total urban population was in cities of more than 100,000 population and by 1900 this figure had increased to 46.8 per cent. To emphasize urban growth during this period, cities with more than 8,000 increased from 85 in 1850 to 547 in 1900.20 Recapitulation. It can be noted that, during the era of 1850-1900, the effect of the Industrial Revolution was most pronounced. The many ways in which it was felt ^Eugene Van Cleef, Trade Centers and Trade Routes (New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, Inc., 1937),p. 80. 18 Dorau and Hinman, op. cit., p. 93. 19 Gottmann, op. cit., p . 19. 20 Dorau and Hitman, op. cit., p. 92. 167 t created the economic climate favorable to a significant trend from the farm to the city. At the turn of the twentieth century most cities were still rather compact 21 and self-contained, a situation which, while already having commenced to change, was to change with marked degree in the period to follow. Another way of summarizing the development of cities up to 1900 is by reference to Table III. Commencing in 1790, when the comparison or urban to rural was 5.1 per cent as contrasted to 94.9, the percentage of urban popu lation gradually increased so that by 1900 the amount of urban was 39.7 per cent of the total population. This certainly is manifestation of both the concentration and the centralization phases. The Development of Cities Since 1900 The cities in the United States continued to grow both in number and in size after the turn of the century. Probably the outstanding change in the growth of the American cities was the lateral rather than the vertical 21 ^Leo F. Schnore, "Metropolitan Growth and Decen tralization," The Suburban Community, ed. William M. Dobriner (New York: G. P. Putnam*s Sons, 1958), p. 6. TABLE III UNITED STATES POPULATION TRENDS: 1790-1960 Year Total Population in Millions Amount of Increase in Millions Per cent of increase Percentage Urban Distribution Rural 1790 3.9 - - 5.1 94.9 1800 5.3 1.4 35.1 6.1 93.9 1810 7.2 1.9 36.4 7.3 92.7 1820 9.6 2.4 33.1 7.2 92.8 1830 12.9 3.2 33.5 8.8 91.2 1840 17.1 4.2 32.7 10.8 89.2 1850 23.2 6.1 35.9 15.3 84.7 1860 31.4 8.3 35.6 19.8 80.2 Source: Raleigh Bariowe, Land Reaource Economics (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1958), p. 60; United States Bureau of the Census, United States Census of Population: I960. United States Summary (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1961), p. xxv. 168 TABLE III (continued) Year Total Population in Millions Amount of Increase in Millions Per Cent of Increase Percentage Urban Distribution Rural 1870 39.8 , ) 8.4 26.6 25.7 74.3 1880 50.2 10.3 26.0 28.2 71.8 1890 62.9 12.8 25.5 35.1 64.9 1900 76.0 13.0 20.7 39.7 60.3 1910 92.0 16.0 21.0 45.8 54.2 Rural Non- Rural Farm Farm 1920 105.7 13.7 14.9 51.2 18.7 29.9 1930 122.8 17.1 16.1 56.2 19.0 24.8 1940 131.7 8.9 7.2 56.5 20.3 23.2 1950 150.8 19.0 14.5 64.0 20.7 15.3 1960 178.5 27.8 18.4 70.2 18.4 11.4 170 expansion. This is not to Infer that the major cities did not develop skyscrapers, but rather that the greater por tion of their growth was outward. This rather brief section is divided into two areas in dealing with this period: (1) 1900-1920, and (2) 1920-1960. 1900-1920. It can be observed by referring again to Table III that by 1910 the percentage of the total population in the United States in cities had increased to 45.8, and by 1920 it had reached 51.2 per cent. Com paring it on a slightly different basis, by 1910 the population in cities of more than 100,000 had increased to 48.2 per cent, and it climbed to 50.5 per cent by 1920.^ This marked the year that experts term the United States as being urbanized! 1920-1960. In spite of two world wars, the Korean conflict, and the depression of the 1930's, urban areas continued to grow, not only in absolute terms but also relatively, until the urban areas stood at 1960 with a little over 70 per cent of the total population in the 22 Dorau and Hinman, loc. cit. United States. It is interesting to note that in eighty years an exact reversal took place in the relative ratios. In 1880, 28.2 per cent was urban, and in 1960 70.2 per cent was urban. Gottmann has described what took place in brilliant fashion: From 1900 to 1950 the urban population of the United States increased by 66 million. ... It was the equivalent of resettling in fifty years the total populations of the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Norway, and Ireland. In prac tice it involved much more than such an opera tion, for a constant churning moved people around within urban territory during this half century.23 As Gottmann indicated, the figures do not reveal the real significance of what occurred, especially since 1920— the way in which our urbanization manifests itself. III. URBAN DECONCENTRATION AND DECENTRALIZATION Thus far in the discussion of urbanism in the United States a very brief recapitulation has taken place concerning certain aspects of the historical development of urban areas. This has emphasized the concentration and centralization phases of urban growth. If urban growth ^Gottmann, op. cit.. p. 22. 172 had continued to concentrate and centralize, this portion of the chapter could not be written. However, as is well known to everyone in this country, there has been what Bogue has referred to as "the spread of cities."^ This spreading process has involved the next two phases of urban growth, deconcentration and decentralization. It is deemed necessary to assert again the fact that even though urban growth divides itself into five phases, it does not mean that these phases developed and occurred autonomously of each other or in separate chrono logical order. This is especially true concerning the phases of deconcentration and decentralization. They did develop somewhat in unison as will be demonstrated in the following pages. This development manifests itself in two related but somewhat distinct forms,the suburb and the satellite city. The Suburb The development and growth of the American suburb has been a deconcentration phenomenon of the last forty ^Donald J. Bogue, "The Spread of Cities," The American Economic Review. XLVI (May, 1956), 284. years. This is not to state that there were suburbs in the United States prior to this period, but their presence did not have the effect on the city to which they were adjacent to the degree that took place from 1920 on. Con sideration of the suburbs will be covered in the following manner; (1) the concept of the suburb, (2) suburbs prior to 1920, (3) suburbs since 1920, and (4) a summary of the leading causes of suburbanization. The concept of the suburb. Suburbs are not a phenomenon of recent times. Their existence dates back to at least the Hellenic period in history. This impulse to escape from the congested environment of the city has been a common one to most civilizations that had cities. For example, during the thirteenth century a three mile circle of rich estates surrounded the city of Florence. The dreaded Black Plague in England caused a mass migration of the populace to the areas surrounding the cities because of the hygenic superiority of the country. Even today 61 per cent of Cleveland's suburbanites prefer to live in suburbs because of their desire "to live in a cleaner, 174 25 healthier neighborhood." Thus it is that the suburb is an old institution. However, when one attempts to define the modem suburb in the United States much difficulty is encountered. The suburb means different things to different groups of people, and, due to the impact its development and con tinuing growth has had on retailing, it must be considered from all aspects. As would be expected, the sociologist views the suburb from a different perspective than does the political scientist, and the economist views it from a slightly dif ferent viewpoint than does the demographer. The sociol ogist, for example, approaches it from the actions, customs, and habits of the populace living in these sub urbs. Duncan and Reiss have viewed suburbs in the follow ing manner: This study takes the point of view that the suburb is a specialized area within the larger economic city. . . . If central-suburban differ ences are simply functions of differences in 25 Lewis Mumford, The City in History. Its Origins. Its Transformation, and Its Prospects (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, Inc., 1961), p. 487. size o£ place, then suburbs would be expected to differ systematically from central cities in the same way that small places differ from large. . . . This expectation is confirmed with regard to those characteristics related to family organi zation and functions. It is not confirmed with regard to economic characteristics.26 Harlan Paul Douglass viewed the suburb from a slightly variant point of view to that of Duncan and Reiss when he observed: The important fact is the increasing social separateness and the consciousness of independ ence which arise within the continued fact of dependence upon the city and the continued realization of it. . . . A suburb is more than a distant fringe of the city. It is a com munity developing according to a distinctive social pattern which it more or less distinctly realizes. . . . The imperialism of the city over the minds and imaginations of its suburban popu lation is a unique fact. It emancipates them from local ties and gives them an enlarged citizenship and sense of metropolitan relation ship. . . . Their neighbors demand a social output from them unlike their counterpart on the city. Therefore they have ties with the city and with the suburb.27 Otis D. Duncan and Albert J. Reiss,Jr., "Social Characteristics of Urban and Rural Communities," The Sub urban Coeeaunlty. ed. William M. Dobriner (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1958), p. 62. 27 Harlan Paul Douglass, "The Suburbian Trend," The Suburban Community, ed. William M. Dobriner (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1958), p. xvii. 176 Probably the best and roost complete summarization is the one offered by William M. Dobriner, when he observed that suburbs are "those urbanized, residential communities which are outside the corporate limits of a large central city, but which are culturally and economically dependent upon the central city."28 Another authority went a step further and classified suburbs into two major types: (1) residential, and (2) employing. This authority defined the employing type of suburb as suburban centers of educa tion, mining, recreation, manufacturing, and so on, but OQ he considered the residential type more important. The suburb then is that portion of the populace that is situated outside of the legal limits of the city but is culturally and economically linked to it in spite of the fact that it is considered as a distinctive way of life. ^®William M. Dobriner, "Introduction: Theory and Research on the Sociology of the Suburbs," The Suburban Community, ed. William M. Dobriner (New York: G. P. Putnam'sSons, 1958), p. xvii. 29 Leo F. Schnore, "The Growth of Metropolitan Suburbs," The Suburban Community, ed. William M. Dobriner (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1958), p. 30. Suburbs prior to 1920. Prior to 1920 the growth of suburbs around large cities did not take on much sig nificance. The railroad was the chief contributing factor to their growth during this period. These "railroad sub urbs" were discontinuous for the most part and were spaced three to five miles apart with a natural greenbelt in 30 between them. In spite of the creation and development of these suburbs, the central cities were still growing at a rapid rate so that the entire area gave the impression of still being highly cohesive and centralized.^ Yet these areas outside of the city limits were growing at a faster rate than their central cities, according to one authority,^ 33 while another viewed the relationship as just the opposite. 30 Mumford, op. cit.. pp. 503-504; Eugene J. Kelley, Shopping Centers. Locating Controlled Regional Centers (Saugatuck, Connecticut: The Eno Foundation for Highway Traffic Control, 1956), p. 53. ■^Donald J. Bogue, "Urbanism and Metropolitanism," Pie Suburban Community, ed. William M. Dobriner (New York: G. P. Putnam1s Sons, 1958), p. 6. ^Warren S. Thompson, Population. The Growth of Metropolitan Districts in the United States: 1900-1940 (Washington: United States Department of Commerce, Govern ment Printing Office, 1947), p. 5 33 "Bogue, loc. cit. 178 Regardless of which position is selected, the fact remains that the suburbs during this period were commencing to grow rapidly. A glance at Table IV clearly shows that the distance zone from the central city that increased the most, percentage-wise, was 0-5 miles, which changed from 6 per cent to 7.2 per cent in the period from 1910 to 1920. This happened while the central city was expanding also. Another method of viewing this phenomenon is to refer to Table V, which shows the percent distribution of population by distance zones. Here again the trend was the same. The 1900-1910 and the 1910-1920 periods evi denced that between three fifths and two thirds of all growth was within the central city. It can be concluded, therefore, that even though the areas around the central city were expanding so was the central city by a greater amount. Thus it is possible to surmise that suburbaniza tion during this period was more of a "spilling over" rather than a flight from the central city. Suburbs since 1920. Commencing in 1920, the trend began to gradually reverse itself. The mass introduction of the automobile was to have penetrating effects. Refer ring again to Tables IV and V, It appears that the central „ .. . ...... .. . . .. TABLE IV PER CENT DISTRIBUTION OF AMOUNT OF POPULATION CHANGE IN STANDARD METROPOLITAN AREAS, BY DISTANCE ZONE, 1900-1950 Per Cent Distribution Distance Zone 1940- 1950 100.0 1930- 1940 100.0 1920- 1930 100.0 1910- 1920 100 0 1900- 1910 100.0 1940- 1950 1930- 1940 1920- 1930 1910- 1920 1900- 1910 Central Cities 35.8 39.5 54.8 66.4 65.9 35.8 39.5 54.8 66.4 65.0 0 - 5 miles 7.5 8.0 6.5 7.2 6.0 43.3 47.5 61.3 73.6 71.9 5-10 miles 22.6 21.6 16.6 10.0 10.6 65.9 69.1 77.9 83.6 82.5 10 - 15 miles 14.4 12.3 8.6 7.2 7.8 80.3 81.4 86.5 90.8 90 3 15 - 20 miles 8.7 8.3 5.9 4.1 3.7 89.0 89.7 92.4 94.9 94.0 20 - 25 miles 5.0 5.0 4.0 2.4 2.4 94.0 94.7 96.4 98.3 96.4 25 - 30 miles 2.2 2.2 1.7 1.4 1.6 96.2 96.9 98.1 98.7 98 0 30 - 35 miles 1.8 1.3 .7 .6 .5 98.0 98.2 98.8 99.3 98.5 35 miles and over 2.0 1.8 1.2 .7 1.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Amos H. Hawley, The Changing Shape of Metropolitan America: Deconcentration Since 1920 (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1956), p. 20. MX TABLE V PER CENT DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION IN STANDARD METROPOLITAN AREAS, BY DISTANCE ZONES, 1900-1950 Per cent Distribution Cumulative Percentage Distribution Distance Zone 1950 1940 : L930 1920 1910 1900 1950 1940 1930 1920 1910 1900 Central Cities 55.9 59.9 61.7 63.7 62.8 61.4 55.9 59.9 61.7 63.7 62.8 61.4 0- 5 miles 6.5 6.3 6.1 6.2 6.1 6.3 62.4 66.2 67.8 69.9 68.9 67.7 5-10 miles 14.0 12.3 11.5 10.0 10.4 10.6 76.4 78.5 79.3 79.9 79.3 78.3 10-15 miles 9.8 8.9 8.5 8.4 8.7 9.1 86.2 87.4 87.8 88.3 88.0 87.4 15-20 miles 5.7 5.1 5.0 4.5 4.6 4.8 91.9 92.5 92.8 92.8 92.6 92.2 20-25 miles 3.5 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.9 95.4 95.7 95.8 95.6 95.4 95.1 25-30 miles 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.0 97.3 97.5 97.6 97.4 97.2 97.1 30-35 miles 1.1 1.0 .9 1.9 1.0 1.1 98.4 98.5 98.5 98.3 98.2 98.2 35 miles and over 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Amos H. Hawley, The Changing Shape of Metropolitan America: Deconcentration Since 1920 (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1956), p. 22. 181 city commenced to decline in the 1920-1930 ere, end the 3-10 mile zone showed the most rapid growth. This mas the start of deconcentration of the central city. The suburbs ceased to be neighborhood units and gradually developed inteo diffused low-density masses. This deconcentration became more marked in the 1930's. Tables IV and V reveal that during the 1930-1940 period central cities suffered a decline in population of some relative magnitude, while the distance-zones of 5-10 miles, 10-15 miles, and 15-20 miles were reflecting proportionate increases. The 1940-1950 era saw this trend continuing, and by this time the more removed distance zones, that is 20-25 miles, 25-30 miles, 30-35 miles, and t 35 miles and over, were experiencing proportionate increases. The 1950-1960 period saw central cities in these metropolitan areas have a gain in population of 5,618,692, or 10.7 per cent, as compared to an increase outside the central cities of 17,949,583, or 48.6 per cent (see Table VI). 34Mumford, op. cit.. p. 505. TABLE VI POPULATION OF STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS BY SIZE OF AREA: 1950 and I960 Size and Component Parts of SMSA 1960 Year 1950 Change Number Per Cent ALL SMSA: 112,885,178 89,316,903 23,568,275 26.4 Central cities 58,004,334 52,385,642 5,618,692 10.7 Outside central cities 54,880,844 36,931,261 17,949,583 48.6 3,000,000 or more in SMSA 31,763,499 25,788,967 5,974,532 23.2 Central cities 17,828,227 17,655,217 173,010 1.0 Outside central cities 13,935,272 8,133,750 5,801,522 71.3 1,000,000 to 3,000,000 in SMSA 29,818,571 23,858,113 5,960,458 25.0 Central cities 12,707,503 12,037,125 670,378 5.6 Outside central cities 17,111,068 11,820,988 5,290,080 44.8 500,000 to 1,000,000 in SMSA 19,214,817 14,125,628 5,089,189 36.0 Central cities 10,126,684 8,340,585 1,786,099 21.4 Outside central cities 9,088,133 5,785,043 3,303,090 57.1 Source: United States Bureau of the Census, United States Census of Population: 1960, ► - * United States Summary (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1961), p. xxv. “ TABLE VI (continued) Size end Component Parts Year Change of SMSA 1960 1950 Number Per Cent 250,000 to 500,000 In SMSA 15,829,067 12,603,137 3,225,930 25.6 Central cities 7,750,597 6,671,381 1,079,216 16.2 Outside central cities 8,078,470 5,931,756 2,146,714 36.2 100,000 to 250,000 in SMSA 14,497,817 11,525,685 2,972,132 25.8 Central cities 8,235,553 6,631,887 1,603,666 24.2 Outside central cities 6,262,264 4,893,798 1,368,466 28.0 Under 100,000 in SMSA 1,761,407 1,415,373 346,034 24.4 Central cities 1,355,770 1,049,447 306,323 29.2 Outside central cities 405,637 365,926 39,711 10.9 184 A summary of the leading causes of suburbaniza tion. Bogue has seen fit to divide the cause of suburban* ization into two groups: (1) permissive aspects, and (2) sufficient aspects. Utilizing this technique a summary of these two types of aspects follows. 1) Permissive aspects. These aspects or causes of suburbanization can be viewed as the availability of urban conveniences in rural areas. One of the most power ful of these was the advent of the mass-produced, rela tively -inexpensive automobile. This, of course, meant the construction of better roads with easier access to and from the central city. Other permissive aspects or causes included the availability of electric power, septic tanks for sewage, wells (if water not available from the city), and the telephone, radio, and television.^-* 2) Sufficient aspects. These aspects or causes of suburbanization can be described as encouraging the 35 Donald J. Bogue, "What We Need to Know about Decentralization and the Growth of Suburbs," Needed Urban and Metropolitan Research (Oxford, Ohio: Scripps Founda tion for Research in Population Problems, 1953), pp. 39-40; Rosalind Tough and Gordon D. MacDonald, "Hie New York Metropolitan Region: Social Forces and the Flight to Suburbia," Land Economics, XXXVII (November, 1961), 331; 185 move out of the central city. The following is a partial list of the more prominent forces that have encouraged the suburban movement over a period of time: (1) the high land values in the central city, (2) the high taxes of the central city, (3) the congestion of the central city, (4) the movement of wholesaling, freight handling, and warehousing outward from the central city, (5) the movement outward from the central city by industry, (6) the threat of atomic warfare, (7) the movement of retail trade and professional services outward from the central city, and (8) so on.^ It is obvious, consequently, that both the per missive and the sufficient aspects of suburbanization were forces of ample intensity as to make suburbanization almost Kelley, op. cit.. p. 48; Richard U. Ratcliff, "Efficiency and the Location of Urban Activities," The Metropolis in Modern Life. Robert Moore Fisher, ed. (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1955), p. 131; Bomer Hoyt, "Forces of Urban Centralisation and Decentralization," American Journal of Sociology. XLVI (May, 1941), 846*848. 36Kelley, loc. cit.: Bogue, "What He Need to Know about Decentralization and the Growth of Suburbs," loc. cit. Ratcliff, loc. cit.: Tough and MacDonald, on. cit.. 330- 331; Hoyt, on. cit.. 845*848. 186 an absolute certainty. In addition to the creation of suburbs the other phase of urban growth, decentralization, was happening in conjunction with and as a part of the total suburban movement. The Satellite City The decentralizing phase of urban growth developed in conjunction with and as a part of the total suburbaniza tion process, and it manifest itself in the form of the so-called satellite city.^ Between the period of 1890 and 1940 there was a shift of heavy industry outward from the central city, and this shift outward created as well as strengthened satellite cities. These cities, which were located about 10 to 15 miles distant from the central city, remained virtually independent. As rapid transporta tion of the interurban type began to develop, people work ing in the central city moved into these satellite cities. This factor, coupled with the advent of the automobile and rapid communication, caused the satellite city to lose its independence.^ ^See pp. 158-159 for a definition of this phase. 38 Schnore, "Metropolitan Growth and Decentraliza tion," op. cit., p. 7; Lampard, op. cit.. p. 125. 187 Lampard has summarized this development In the following manner: The thriving suburb and the lusty satellite, linked to their nucleus by swift currents of rapid communication, are as much a part of "the city" as the older congested downtown areas and the adjacent blighted zones.^ While the suburb and the satellite city were under** going these changes, an even more significant aspect of urbanism was developing— metropolitanism. Metropolitanism has been an integrative development of the nation's popula tion that has engulfed the suburb and the satellite city within its sphere of influence. IV. THE DEVELOPMENT OF METROPOLITANISM IN THE UNITED STATES The word "metropolis" is Greek in origin and it means "mother-city. By definition then, metropolitanism does involve a large city. Tet there is much more to metropolitanism than simply a large city. Just as the United States shifted in the last quarter of the nineteenth 39 Lampard, op. cit.. 126. ^Research and Policy Coamittee, Guiding Metro politan Growth (New York: Committee for Economic Develop- ment, August, 1960),p. 4. 188 century and the first quarter of the twentieth from a rural to an urban society, so in the last forty years it has shifted from basically an urban society to one that 41 is metropolitan in nature. In summarizing the develop ment of metropolitanism in the United States, this portion of Chapter IV is divided into the following areas: (1) the creation of the standard metropolitan statistical area, and (2) the concept of metropolitanism. The Creation of the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area The spreading of the cities outward beyond their legal limits gradually created a problem in census taking. The inhabitants of these suburbs were rural in the sense of their location and urban in their mode of living. To trace the development of the standard metropolitan statis tical area in the United States, this section is divided into the following phases: (1) the metropolitan district of 1910, (2) the 1920 census, (3) the 1930 metropolitan district, (4) the 1940 census, (5) special census terms used prior to 1950, and (6) the 1950 standard metropolitan 41 Ibid.. p. 13. area. The metropolitan district of 1910. Recognition of this problem of census taking came into being in the 1910 census, when the Bureau of the Census published mate rial relating to the population of 25 so-called "metro politan districts," containing 28 central cities of 200,000 or more inhabitants, and 19 districts having cities of 100,000 to 200,000 people. The metropolitan districts included only that area outside the legal limits of the central city which had a population density of more than 150 inhabitants per square mile, while the "adjacent territory" of the 19 cities included a ten mile contiguous zone outside of the legal limits of the city. The result was that the 25 metropolitan districts had an "outside" area of 5,519 square miles as contrasted with the "adjacent territory" of the 19 cities of 10,299 square miles. How ever, the population in the latter districts was less than 42 one third that of the former s outside area. The 1920 census. In 1920 the data published by the Bureau of the Census revealed that there were 29 ^McKenzie, on. cit.. p. 39; Thompson, on. cit.. P. 1. . __________________ ...... . . . .............. 190 metropolitan districts and 29 other cities with adjacent territories. The same relative disparity as to differ ences in outside areas was present in the 1920 census as had been in the 1910 census. The former had an outside area of 8,277 square miles as contrasted with the letter's 15,043 square miles, but the former had three times as much population in its outside area as compared to the latter. The 1930 metropolitan district. In the 1930 cen sus, this distinction was eliminated by applying the ten- mile, contiguous-outside-area 1910 rule to all districts. The Bureau changed the lower limit of population to 50,000 inhabitants but qualified it by stating that the outside area had to contain at least another 50,000, making a total of 100,000 for the district. This revision resulted in the addition of 38 new districts, bringing the total to 96. The Bureau of the Census felt that by making this change it more nearly portrayed the existing urban concen tration of population of that day.^ ^McKenzie, op. cit.. pp. 39-40; Thompson, op. cit.. pp. 1-2. 191 The 1940 census. The 1940 census utilized the definitions established by the census of 1930. Forty-three additional metropolitan districts were added by this cen sus , making the total swell to 140. The reason for the numerical discrepancy between the two census years was due to the dividing of Providence and Fall-River-New Bedford into two separate districts.^ Special census terms used prior to 1950. In reporting the census for these decades, the Bureau of the Census used certain terms to designate the distribution of the population. The term "central city" has been defined previously in this chapter, but "satellite areas," "satellite urban," "satellite rural," "areas outside metropolitan districts," "urban outside," and "rural outside" need definition and clarification. 1) "Satellite areas." This term referred to the area that was contiguous to the central city and included as a portion of the metropolitan district. It was divided into two sections: (1) "satellite urban," and (2) "satellite rural." Satellite urban referred to a minor Thompson, loc. cit. 192 civil division or other subareas within the satellite area that had more than 2,500 inhabitants, while satellite rural designated those subareas or civil divisions that had less than 2,500. It is interesting to note that the practice followed by the Bureau of the Census was to define these areas at the commencement of the decade, 1930 in the case of 1940, and to leave them in these categories even though they might qualify later on during the decade for a different classification. This practice caused the census figures reported for "satellite rural" populations to be swelled disproportionately.4^ 2) "Areas outside metropolitan districts." The areas outside of the metropolitan districts were defined as the areas of nonmetropolitan population. They were divided into two subareas: (1) "urban outside," and (2) "rural outside." The word "outside" obviously referred to these areas as being located outside of the metropolitan district. The definitions of these two subareas is obvious. "Urban outside" was that urbanized portion, civil divisions of 2,500 or more, while the remainder of the 45Ibid.. pp. 2-3. 193 area was known as "rural outside. The 1950 standard metropolitan statistical area. A great step forward toward more accurate reporting of urban concentration was taken in the 1950 census by the establishment of the standard metropolitan statistical area. Prior to 1950, it was difficult to trace population trends with other factors, such as continuing changes and developments in the growth of manufacturing. The metro politan districts of the previous census years were delimited along township lines, whereas such a census as the Census of Manufacturers provided data solely for entire counties and individual cities within counties. To alleviate this situation, the Bureau of the Budget "spon sored the establishment of standard metropolitan areas for use by all agencies compiling, analyzing and publishing data for metropolitan areas. The Bureau established the following possible alternative criteria as a means of defining a standard 46Ibid.. pp. 3, 5. 47 Evelyn M. Kitagaw and Donald J. Bogue, Suburban ization of Manufacturing Activity within Standard Metro politan Areas (Oxford, Ohio: Miami University and Univer sity of Chicago, 1955), p. 13. 194 metropolitan statistical: (1) it must contain at least one county with a city of 50,000 inhabitants; or (2) it must contain two cities which are contiguous and have a total population between them of 50,000, with the smaller city having a minimum population of 15,000. Furthermore, if two or more adjacent counties each have a city with a minimum population of 50,000 and they are within twenty miles of each other, these two counties with their cities will be included in the same area unless it can be demonstrated that the two cities are not economically and socially inte grated.^® In addition to the population criteria, the Bureau of the Census established certain other criteria, a summary of them being found in Appendix A of this study. With this new method of measuring the metropolitan area now established, the problem arose of comparison with previous census years. The Bureau of the Census solved this by redefining the former metropolitan districts as standard metropolitan statistical areas for each census ^"Metropolitan Areas, Sumnaries and Rankings," Sales Management, XXCV (July 10, 1960), 745; United States Bureau of the Census, United States Census of Population: United States Summary (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1961), p. xxiv. 195 back to 1910. The Concept of Metropolitanism From the previous discussion it is apparent that the changing character and location of urban population forced certain definitional changes in the census taking in the United States over a period of time. These defini tional changes, however, did not record the qualitative aspects of what had transpired. Economists and sociologists have been extremely interested in this aspect in addition to quantitative changes, both of which comprise metropoli tanism. This brief discussion of the concept of metro politan ism is divided into two major sections: (1) the hypothesis of metropolitan dominance, and (2) the growth and distribution of metropolitan population. The hypothesis of metropolitan dominance. The earlier portion of this chapter traced briefly the growth of cities and their suburbs in the United States from their modest beginnings until the present. It traced the gradual but increasing portion of our population that was urban in one sense and rural in the other. This fact eventually created a realization among economists and sociologists 196 that the quantitative data submitted in the form of census figures did not reveal completely or accurately the trend in the growth, distribution, and character of our popula tion, let alone any of the more specific qualitative aspects of the changing mores, customs, or habits. How then can this particular phenomenon concerning our population be explained? The hypothesis of metropoli tan dominance is an attempted answer to this question, and a very brief treatment of it occurs in the following divisions: (1) the characteristics of a metropolitan area, (2) Gras's "metropolitan economy," (3) McKenzie's "metropolitan community," (4) Bogue's "metropolitan domi nance," and (5) the gradient principle. 1) The characteristics of a metropolitan area. Much d i f f i c u l t y i s e n c o u n t e r e d in a t t e m p t in g t o d e f i n e t h e standard metropolitan statistical area. One possible way has been advanced in these words: The metropolitan area is in effect a new com munity. Its boundaries often are hard to define. In some instances they change and expand fre quently. The area ignores old geographic boundaries, jumping over and around rivers and land masses. It ignores the political lines of districts, villages, towns, cities, counties and states.49 The standard metropolitan area assumes a central city or cities and the surrounding area contiguous to it or them over which influence is cast. It is a cohesive economic and cultural unit, but it is not necessarily a politically-cohesive unit. Furthermore, economic and cultural activities within each area may differ as to type and amplitude, so that the creation of a model area is extremely difficult. It is these characteristics that have considerable influence on retailing and retail store location as will be evidenced later on in this study. These characteristics have led several authorities to attempt to propose a socioeconomic thesis concerning the metropolitan area. 2) Gras18 "metropolitan economy.1 ' Gras was one of the first sociologists to recognize this development. He felt that western civilization had progressed through a series of evolutionary stages reaching its zenith in what he termed the "metropolitan economy." Gras contended Research and Policy Committee, op. cit.. p. 13. 198 that technological change has been the means by which man has been released from dependence upon his local environ ment, but this in turn has meant an increasing dependence on a more intricate system of production and distribution over a wider area. He defined his metropolitan economy by its function and concluded that there must be a rich hinterland with adequate transportation in order for there to be a metropolitan city.^® 3) McKenzie's "metropolitan community." R. D. McKenzie carried on in 1933 with Gras's thesis. He con tended that man attempts to minimize the effort to live and to maximize the livelihood obtained by a given amount of effort, and the resulting integration of organism with organism is a community.^ McKenzie proposed that the development of a metropolitan community results from trans portation and production, and is a functional entity. It represents a constellation of centers, the interrelations Don J. Bogue, The Structure of the Metropolitan Community. A Study of Dominance and Subdominance (Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan, 1949), pp. 7-8. "**This concept was developed into a full-grown con cept by George Kingsley Zipf, as briefly summarized in Chapter V of this study. of which are dominance and subdominance. McKenzie felt that the economic unity of the region is the outcome of the new developments in marketing and that certain spe cialized functions are concentrated in the dominant central city, with the smaller cities and towns clustered C O around this central city like planets around a sun. 4) Bogue's "metropolitan dominance.” Utilizing the ideas proposed by McKenzie, Donald J. Bogue extended his thesis by formalizing the concept of metropolitan dominance. Bogue explained that to the ecologist the "dominant" exercises its control by controlling the condi tions of life rather than by ordering and forbidding. He realized that the central city has no legal authority to order the lesser urban clusters to produce a given product or service. Bogue felt that the degree of dominance which the large city exercises over its hinterland varies with the degree of accessibility of the hinterland to its central city, and this degree of accessibility affects the func tional division of labor between the two. 52 Bogue, The Structure of the Metropolitan Com munity . pp. 8-9; McKenzie, on. cit.. pp. 70-71. 200 Bogue's studies of this thesis led him to some clear-cut conclusions regarding metropolitan dominance, including the following: (1) as distance from the central city increases the number of persons per square miles decreases; (2) increasing distance means that each square mile supports decreasing average amounts of manufacturing, wholesale and retail activities; (3) metropolitan areas with large central cities (500,000 or more) have consider ably higher populace per square mile; (4) with increasing distance, the proportion of the total population which is urban decreases; (5) in large central cities the zone of positive population concentration extends as far as 165 miles; (6) central cities are more specialized in retail and wholesale than their hinterlands; (7) every zone in the hinterland is dependent upon the central city for wholesale trade and services; and (8) as distance from the central city increases the specialization of the principal 53 hinterland cities increases. There is no doubt that Bogue's thesis was provoca tive. It stimulated others to examine the growth of 53 Bogue, The Structure of the Metropolitan Com munitv. pp. 31-54. 201 metropolitanism and several Interesting principles were proposed, one of them being the "Gradient Principle." 5) The "Gradient Principle." A principle, which builds upon Bogue's metropolitan dominance theme, has been proposed and known as the "Gradient Principle." It estab lished the following postulate: "The extent of urban- influenced changes in rural areas varies inversely with distance to the nearest city and directly with the size of the city. In other words, at a given moment of time, urban characteristics of the large city will be dis tributed in the satellite rural area in such a manner as to create gradients which decrease from the center outward as the distance from the city increases. The probable cause for this diminution is linked to diminishing trans portation and communication facilities the farther the distance from the city. Metropolitanism as a cohesive entity influences a larger area than its strictly urban sector. The theory of a metropolitan community, supported by the thesis of metropolitan dominance, sets the stage for the next area ^Walter T. Martin, "Ecological Change in Satellite Rural Areas,” The Suburban Community. William M. Dobriner, ed. (Hew Tork: G. P. Putnam4s Sons, 1958), p. 71. 202 of discussion which is concerned with the growth and dis tribution of population within these metropolitan areas. The growth and distribution of population. Sec tion III of this chapter, "Urban Deconcentration and Decentralization," presented a brief summary of the gradual decrease in the relative increase in the growth of the large city and the relative increase in the growth of the suburb. Table III (supra, p. 168) graphically portrays that development. However, as has been stated previously, this aspect of reporting the changes that have taken place does not recognize the metropolitan area, which is of special interest due to its impact on retailing. This portion of the section is devoted to the development of metropolitanism in the United States and will present in the briefest of form the growth and distribution of popula tion within these metropolitan areas. In an effort to present it most effectively, this section is divided into the following areas: (1) the growth of standard metro politan statistical areas, (2) the changes in the population size of standard metropolitan statistical areas, and (3) the change in the distribution of population within the standard metropolitan statistical area. 203 1) The growth of standard metropolitan statistical areas. The creation of metropolitan districts in 1910 did not infer that the vast preponderance of the population of the United States resided in them, for in 1900 these 44 districts contained less than one third, 28.6 per cent to be exact, of the nation's total population. The 1920 census reported 58 districts and their proportion of the total population was 34 per cent. The 1930 census added 39 new districts making a total of 97 in all, and 44.7 per cent of the total population in the United States resided within their boundaries. The 1940 census reported a very modest percentage increase of the total population within the metropolitan boundaries, it being 3.1 per cent, in spite of the fact that the number of areas rose to 140. The 1950 census saw metropolitan areas claim more than 50 per cent of the total population and their number increased to 168. The last census, 1960, reflected an increase in areas to a total of 212 and an additional increase to 63 per cent of the relative amount of popula tion residing in thera.^ ^Dobriner, on. cit.. p. xiii; Thompson, o p . cit.. pp. 5-8; United States Bureau of the Census, op. cit.. p. xxv. 204 Thus it can be observed that both the number of metropolitan areas and the relative amount of the total population of the Onited States living in them increased sharply in the last fifty years. This has been the over all trend, and changes in the structure of the area will be scrutinized next. 2) The changes in the population size of standard metropolitan statistical areas. Not only have the number of metropolitan areas grown numerically, but so has their population. The 1900-1910 census revealed that of the 44 districts, 23 contained under 250,000 inhabitants, 14 had 250,000 to 500,000; 3 possessed 500,000 to 1,000,000; and 4 counted 1,000,000 and over in population. The 1910- 1920 census showed that 31 districts were in the under 250.000 category; 14 in the 250,000 to 500,000 group; 8 in the 500,000 to 1,000,000; and 5 in the over 1,000,000 classification. The 1920-1930 census reported 56 districts in the lowest ranking; 23 in the next lowest; 11 in the 500.000 to 1,000,000 group; and 7 in the 1,000,000 or more category. The 1930-1940 census indicated that of the 140 districts, 92 were in the below 250,000 group; 29 in the next higher order; 9 in the 500,000 to 1,000,000 group; 1 205 and 10 in the 1,000,000 and above. This trend continued In the 1940's and the 1950's until at the 1960 census, out of the 212 metropolitan areas, 112 were in the under 250,000 group; 48 in the 250,000 to 500,000 group; 29 in the 500,000 to 1,000,000 group; and 24 in the 1,000,000 and above.^ These changes suggest that over this period of time the largest population classification of metropolitan areas did not increase relatively to the other groups until the 1950-1960 census period. This does not reveal in what manner this population was distributed within the metro politan area— this subject being considered in the following paragraph. 3) The change in the distribution of population within the standard metropolitan statistical areas. A standard metropolitan statistical area consists of two basic elements, one or more central cities, and rings. A ring is a band of population situated outside of the cen tral city but within the statistical area. At the begin ning of the twentieth century the central cities contained ^Thompson, on. cit.. pp. 13-14; United States Bureau of the Census, loc. cit. 206 77.3 per cent of the total population of the areas, and by and large they continued during the first twenty years of this century to maintain this margin. Nevertheless there were signs of deconcentration, and yet authorities such as Thompson, Bogue, and Hawley disagreed as to the exact time at which the deconcentration trend officially started. From 1920 on, however, there was no doubt as to the trend toward deconcentration, a trend that has con tinued up to the present. At first, the deconcentration was in those areas closest to the central city. Commencing in the 1930's the more rural rings increased sharply and this continued at an unabated rate. For example, from 1930 to 1950, the metropolitan rings grew at two and one half times the rate of the central cities. In 1940, these rings contained about 20 per cent of the total population of the nation and this expanded to almost 50 per cent by 1950. Table VI (supra, p. 182) shows the components of this increase as to the population size of the various metropolitan areas. Of special interest is the fact that the areas which had the largest populations, 3,000,000 or more, had by far the slighest relative and absolute gains in their areas outside the central cities. Yet, central 207 cities did register substantial gains in the smaller metro politan areas of more than the rest of the area.^7 V. CONCLUSION The changes in the location of the mass of popula tion within the standard metropolitan statistical areas has just been reviewed. As populations shift, so must retail store location. The greater the shifting of popu lation, the greater is its impact on the location of the retail store. There are, however, more forces and factors that influence retail store location than simply population shifts, and one of these is the retailing structure within which the individual store must confine itself. This problem is the central theme of the next chapter. ^Thompson, o p. cit.. pp. 5-9; Bogue, '*Urbanism and Metropolitanism, p. 25; Bogue, "What We Need to Know about Decentralisation and the Growth of Suburbs," pp. 38- 39; United States Bureau of the Census, loc. cit.; Schnore, op. cit.. pp. 7-11; Henry B. Schechter, "Cost-Push of Urban Growth," Land Economics. XXXVII (February, 1961), 18-19. CHAPTER V THE CURRENT STRUCTURE OF RETAILING IN THE UNITED STATES Chapter III of this study has been devoted to a theoretical discussion of various aspects of urban con centration. This was followed in Chapter IV by tracing the growth of urbanism in the United States as an expres sion of the theoretical presentations of Chapter VI. In this chapter the analysis is narrowed to a consideration of the current structure of retailing in the United States. In presenting the subject matter in this chapter, it is divided into the following areas: (1) introduction, (2) the economic basis of retailing, (3) the current spatial structure of retailing, and (4) conclusion. I. INTRODUCTION The shape or structure that retailing assumes is largely the result of the shape and structure of the market area it serves. When there are shifts in this market, it has a pronounced effect upon retailing. Before 209 any meaningful discussion of retail store location can occur, consideration must be given to the structure within which the individual retail unit functions. The purpose of this chapter is to present a justi fication for the economic function of retailing, and then to review the current spatial structure of retailing in the United States today. II. THE ECONOMIC BASIS OF RETAILING The satisfaction of human wants and needs is probably the most all-inclusive element in the explanation of the purpose of economic activity. It is for this reason that production occurs, and production is viewed by the economist as having not been completed until the final ultimate form of the product or the service is in the hands of the ultimate consumer. The route that must be created in order to consummate the process by which the gathering of raw materials and natural resources are converted into a finished product or service in the possession of this ultimate consumer is a lengthy and complicated one. Enmeshed within this route is the institution of retailing. In discussing the economic basis of retailing, this section is divided into the following areas: (1) the 210 insufficiency of form utility, (2) the necessity for the other utilities, (3) the creation of these utilities by retailing, and (4) conclusion regarding the economic basis of retailing. The Insufficiency of Form Utility Many people view production as simply being asso ciated with the creation of a product or a service. How ever, economists recognize that the creation of form utility in and of itself is not the end of the function of production. In our modern society production is con cerned also with the creation of other utilities as well as that of form. A pound of ground coffee in South America has no value to a resident in the state of New York. A student trained in hotel management at Cornell University is of little or no value to a patron of a hotel in Los Angeles, California. Production, therefore, must concern itself with not only the creation of the product or the service, but the distribution of it to its ultimate user. In other words, mass production and mass distribution go hand in hand and complement each other. Distribution, as a vital segment of production, involves the creation of the utilities of time, place, and 211 possession. The creation of these utilities Is necessary if goods and services are to reach their ultimate destina tion . The Necessity for the Other Utilities In the very early days of man, the individual produced what he needed for himself. Even with the forma tion of nomadic tribes later, this situation continued to exist. Gradually trade between distant groups of people developed, but most of this trade was in raw materials. That form of distribution of final goods that did occur manifests itself in fairs and shows. With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, the scope of economic activity changed drastically. In the United States, for example, people commenced migrating to the city from the farm. New cities were formed to perform certain industrial functions. The result was twofold: (1) the urban inhabitants did not produce most of what they consumed in the way of goods and services, and (2) the emergence of specialization as both a product of and an integral part of mass production caused firms to spe cialize in their output. 212 Conflicting aims of producer and consumer. This twofold result is more clearly explained, perhaps, if one can envisage the aims of the individual producer as con trasted with the aims and the desires of the ultimate consumer. The aims of the individual producer include the creating of a product or a service to satisfy a par ticular segment of the total market. The aims and the desires of the ultimate consumer center around the need to buy a wide range and variety of goods in small amounts.^ This so-called "discrepancy of assortments" on the part of the consumer is qualified even more by the fact that the consumer wants to obtain these goods with a minimum 3 amount of inconvenience and upon short notice. A quick glance clearly indicates that the aims of the individual producer are incompatible with those of the final consumer. Thus it is that the economic functions of distribution ^Rayburn D. Tousley, Eugene Clark, and Fred E. Clark, The Principles of Marketing (New York: The Mac millan Company, 1962), p. 141. 2 E. Jerome McCarthy, Basic Marketing. A Managerial Approach (Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1960), p. 318. 3 Tousley, Clark, and Clark, loc. cit. 213 creates place, time, and possession utilities in making possible the compatibility of these two conflicting goals. This is known as matching the segments of supply to the segments of demand, and the techniques by which this matching process occurs is known as "regrouping."^ The process of regrouping. It is not the purpose of this paper to discuss thoroughly the regrouping process. Suffice it to say that this process includes: (1) sorting, (2) accumulation, (3) allocation, and (4) assorting. Sorting is done by the producer and is a process of grading heterogeneous output into homogeneous lots. The accumula tion portion is concerned with accruing substantial quantities of these homogeneous products. The activity of allocating is the breaking of these homogeneous quanti ties into smaller quantities, an activity sometimes referred to as "breaking bulk.The last segment is the assorting activity, and this is the one with which this study is most concerned, since it is associated with retailing. 4 McCarthy, op. cit.. p. 321. - *Ibid.. pp. 321-322; Wroe Alder son, Marketing Behavior and Executive Action (Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1957), p. 201. 214 Assorting. Assorting is the process of accumulating unlike products in small quantities so that the matching of consumer demand to the segments of supply is completed.** The distributive function of retailing performs this assorting activity. The retailer buys either from whole salers or producers in relatively small bulk. He buys from more than one of them because of the specialization tendency that both the producer and the wholesaler prac tice. Depending upon the market target of the individual retailer, this assorting activity ranges from a few items to a million. The Creation of These Utilities by Retailing The distribution phase of the total economic con cept of production is concerned, therefore, with the crea tion of time, place, and possession utilities. In per forming the previously-described process of assorting, retailing directly aids in the creation of these utilities and, in some instances, even plays a role in the final creation of form utility. The part played by retailing is ^McCarthy, op. cit., p. 322. 215 the justification of its existence in the distributive processes of our economic system, and the basis for its charging a price for its performance. This justification and price charged takes the form of value-added.^ Retailing functions. It is apparent, then, that the role of retailing in the performance of the functions of distribution cannot be eliminated. These functions, which are culminated in the creation of place, time, and possession utilities, include the activities of buying, selling, risk-taking, financing, storage, transportation, and market information. 1) Buying. The retailing function must include a buying activity. In acquiring small amounts of a variety of goods, retailing must perform a series of somewhat separate yet closely related activities, including: (1) determining needs, (2) selecting sources of supply, (3) determining the suitability of goods, and (4) negotiating with sellers and transferring of title. ^Theodore N. Beckman, Harold H. Maynard, and William R. Davidson, Principles of Marketing (Sixth edition; New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1957), p. 6. 216 a) Determining needs. The retailing function must anticipate what its customers will demand, not only as to type of goods, but also as to variety and quantity. This may involve forecasts of future markets and thus include research activities. b) Selecting sources of supply. The second step in the buying function occurs after it has been decided what to buy. This step involves seeking out sellers of finished products, and this often entails many long intervals of time. In some types of retail ing, the retailer must visit the producer’s factory site or travel to some organized location at which many sellers, usually producers, exhibit collectively their wares. c) Determining the suitability of goods. This step is an expansion of the previous step and, in the example already cited, involves an established routine procedure of visitation. While a considerable portion of consumers1 goods lend themselves to sale by description or sample, there are other types in which the entire output must be inspected. d) Negotiating with sellers and transferring of title. The final step in the buying function is concerned with arriving at agreeable terms of sale with the sellers. This will often include agreeing upon who will pay transportation charges and when delivery is to be made. 2) Selling. The other side of the coin is the selling function. As in the case of the buying function, there are several activities connected with selling, which include: (1) stimulating demand, (2) locating buyers, and (3) negotiating with buyers and transferring of title. a) Stimulating demand. The retailer may perform the buying function is an excellent manner, but unless the potential prospective buyers are made aware of the goods available and made to want them, the entire retailing function will fail. The use of advertising is the most widely used technique of stimulating demand. b) Locating buyers. Stimulating demand is a necessary but not a complete activity. Buyers may not be inclined to take the initiative. Thus, the retailer must assume the initiating role through such activities 218 as convenient store location, direct mail advertising, and so on. c) Negotiating with buyers and transferring of title. The final step in the selling function involves negotiating with buyers and transferring of title. Most retailing is on a one-price system, yet there are areas where some negotiating does occur, such as the amount to be allowed on a trade-in. Further, the extension of credit by the retailer is often a long and involved process. 3) Risk taking. A very vital function is that of risk-taking. The retailer, by acquiring quantities of many products from either producers or wholesalers, assumes the risk. This risk involves not only the physical deteri oration of goods, but also the possibility of loss due to fire, theft, or even going out of style. Financing. Whenever the retailer extends credit to his customers, he is performing a portion of the total financing function in the distribution system. Our market economy has become so dependent upon the role played by financing that it is almost impossible to visualize how our system would work if this were not done. 5) Storage. Another vital function the retailer performs is that of storage. Storage, while adding to the cost of distribution, leads to other off-setting economies that more than make it justifiable. Most retailers are located at such distances from producers and even whole salers that they must buy in advance of the actual antici pated sale of goods by them. Delays in transportation, coupled with seasonal output and year-round demand, also add to the necessity of storage. 6) Transportation. The function and importance of transportation has been Indicated in previous chapters. As the retailer must locate near his consumers, he is in a better position to perform the delivery of goods to the final consumer than is either the wholesaler or the producer. 7) Market information. Producers, of necessity, must "keep abreast of the market." While it is true that they help shape demand, they also are influenced by con sumers' preferences. The retailing function provides a very valuable pipeline of information regarding market conditions that the producer is able to utilize to advantage. 220 These, then, are the activities performed by the retailer in the total process of distribution. By perform ing these activities, the retailer helps create place, g time, possession, and sometimes form utility. How the retailer creates utility. It has been previously observed that retailing activity cannot be eliminated. It is in the performance of these above described functions that retailing helps create the several utilities of place, time, possession, and sometimes form— a brief discussion of which follows. 1) Place utility. The retailing function makes a substantial contribution to the creation of place utility by being located nearer to the final consumer than either the wholesaler or the producer. The retailer contributes even more to place utility when he delivers to the con sumer's home. Now it is true that the manufacturer or the wholesaler could take this activity upon themselves. How ever, the retailer, by handling assortments of goods from more than one producer or wholesaler, is able to spread 8 Charles F. Phillips and Delbert J. Duncan, Mar keting. Principles and Methods (Fourth edition; Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1960), pp. 22-32. 221 not only the costs of transportation over many different Items, but also the cost and maintenance of operation at the site where goods are sold. These costs, if assumed by either the wholesaler or the producer, would force them to raise their prices by more than these costs, since they tend to specialize. It is through this activity that retailing contributes much to place utility. 2) Time utility. Since retailing must, of neces sity, buy in advance of actual sale, it is a strong force in the creation of time utility. It places its orders with the producer in such a manner as to attempt to have the items the producer creates in the convenient retail store location at the time the consumer wishes to acquire them. The function of storage and transportation are influential in the creation of time utility. 3) Possession utility. The final consumer cannot complete the function of consumption without having pos session of the goods he wants and needs. The retailer, in performing the buying and selling functions previously described, is the link by which the consumer is able to obtain this necessary possession. 4) Form utility. The creation of form utility is assumed in economics to rest with the producer--and 222 rightfully so. There are occasions, however, when the retailer does participate in this activity. Many tiroes the manufacturer will deliver to the retailer its goods in such a fashion that it necessitates the retailer's assembling them. In other instances the retailer may take a finished good and fit it to the needs of his indi vidual customer. This is especially true in the case of carpeting, draperies, and the individual tailoring of Q men's clothing. Basically, though, the creation of form utility rests with the producer. Conclusion Regarding the Economic Basis of Retailing From the foregoing discussion it is evident that there is an economic basis of retailing. This is espe cially true in the United States where we are both urban ized and specialized. Retailing attempts to locate near the ultimate consumer. Shifts in the consumer's physical location, as well as changes in his wants and needs, has Fred M. Jones, Retail Merchandising (Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1957), pp. 8-11; William J. Shultz, American Marketing (San Francisco, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1961), pp. 64-65. 223 a profound effect upon retailing. Part of this is evident in the spatial structure that retailing assumes in meeting these changing forces. III. THE CURRENT SPATIAL STRUCTURE OF RETAILING IN THE UNITED STATES The spatial structure of retailing in the United States is an ever-changing, dynamic phenomenon, and a consideration of its basic form is necessary if explana tions of the changes in retail store location are to be understood. The components of the spatial structure of retail ing include the following elements: (1) the large city, (2) the small city, (3) the rural trading center, (4) the shopping center, and (5) the highway-oriented district. This structure includes a degree of arbitrariness, but it is, nevertheless, an accepted method of demarcation. The Large City The principal cities in the United States, those with more than 100,000 inhabitants, possess a fairly definable, yet overlapping, series of retail Structures i that comprise a hierarchy. This hierarchy is usually 224 composed of the following groups: (1) the central shopping or business district, (2) several secondary shopping dis tricts, (3) specialty centers, (4) neighborhood retailing centers, and (5) scattered retail sections. The central shopping or business district. This fairly small, loosely-defined physical area is considered as "symbolic of the modern urban center."^ It is known as the "100% district, and is often referred to as "the heart of the retail structure of the city."^ Large department, limited-line, departmentalized specialty, and specialty stores form the nucleus of this retail district. These stores deal primarily in shopping and specialty goods, such as clothing, furniture, jewelry, photographic supplies, appliances, radio and television, and all types ^Robert Redfield and Milton B. Singer, "The Cul tural Role of Cities," Economic Development and Cultural Change. Ill (October, 1954), 55. H Richard U. Ratcliff, The Problem of Retail Site Selection," Michigan Business Studies. IX (March, 1939), 8. 12 Delbert J. Duncan and Charles F. Phillips, Retailing Principles and Methods (Fifth edition; Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1959), p. 83. Malcolm J. Proudfoot, "City Retail Structure," Economic Geography. XIII (October, 1937), 425. 225 and assortments of specialty and novelty goods. The cen tral shopping district has relied traditionally upon the remainder of the city and its hinterland as the source of the vast majority of purchases of these types of goods. ^ There are, of course, some retail stores dealing in convenience goods to serve both the relatively few residents of the central business district as well as the literally thousands of people who either work in this area or are there for other reasons. This type of retailing includes drug, variety, grocery, and cigar stores. Some service-type retailers are also situated in this section, including travel and tourist bureaus, professional offices, and hotels.^ The physical structures in which these various types of retailers are housed are multi-storied, even if the actual retail store area may occupy only a small por tion of the total physical space.15 l^Duncan and Phillips, on. cit.. p. 84; Proudfoot, :loc. cit.: Shultz, op. cit.. p. 68; and Jones, op. cit., ip. 106. ^Duncan and Phillips, loc. cit.; and Shultz, loc. cit. ^Proudfoot, loc. cit. 226 The secondary shopping district. The development of secondary shopping districts or centers within the large city has occurred for a variety of reasons. The two most frequently quoted reasons for their development center around the fact that, first, as the city increases in size and covers a larger physical area, it becomes more convenient for people to do a portion of their shop ping closer to their residences. The second reason given is concerned with the physical topography of the land area itself. Such physical barriers as rivers, hills, rail roads, and so on, may make it much more convenient for shoppers to go to other sections than the central shopping district. The types of stores usually located in these centers are similar to those in the central shopping dis trict, but the stores are usually smaller with less selec tion. The stress of convenience goods is apt to be greater 16 however, than in the central shopping district. Specialty centers. A rather unique development is that of the specialty center. As the term implies, this ^Duncan and Phillips, loc. cit.; Shultz, loc. cit.: Proudfoot, loc. cit.; and Jones, op. cit., p. 107. 227 type of retail center tends to specialize. It may be an "automobile row," a group of interior decorating stu dios, a cluster of book stores, and so on. The patronage of this type of retail center is definitely for that pur pose only. Its location, henceforth, is difficult to predict. It may be on the outskirts of the central business district, between the central business district and the secondary shopping district, or between the resi dential and the secondary shopping district. Nevertheless, it is an important segment of the retail store hierarchy of our larger cities.^ The neighborhood retailing center. This type of retail center takes on many forms and titles. It is some- 1 ft times referred to as a "subcenter," and "urban arterial business district,"^ a "principal business thoroughfare"^ ^Shultz, op. cit.. p. 69. 18_ . , Ibid. 19 Brian J. L. Berry, "Ribbon Developments in the Urban Business Pattern," Annals of the Association of Ameri can Geographers. XLIX (June, 1959), 147. ^°Proudfoot, loc. cit. 228 21 retail district, or "neighborhood business street center." This type of center is many in number and is located at a strategic site on some major urban traffic artery. It usually consists of a grouping of hardware, drug, grocery, stationery, bakery, and similar type of retail stores. The emphasis is on those types of goods that lend themselves to convenience shopping, although there may be some small- scaled specialty stores included that will deal in shopping or speciality merchandise. There will definitely be some retail service units, such as a dry cleaning establishment, 22 beauty and barber shops, a dentist, and a physician. An offshoot of this type of retail district is the urban arterial business district, especially when located adjacent to the central shopping district. In this particular case the more common type of retailer deals in office equipment and supplies, music, furniture, and 23 automotive parts and supplies. 21 ADuncan and Phillips, op. cit.. p. 85. 22 Berry, op. cit.. p. 146; Shultz, loc. cit.: Dun can and Phillips, loc. cit.: Proudfoot, loc. cit.: and Jones, loc. cit. ^Berry, op. cit.. pp. 148-149. 229 The scattered retail section. The scattered retail section is a smaller grouping than the neighborhood retail ing center. These sections usually consist of a drug and a grocery store. They rely almost entirely upon the residents within walking or easy driving distance. Con- 24 sequently, they emphasize convenience goods. The “string-street" retail section. A rather unique retail development is the so-called "string-street1 1 retail section, sometimes also known as a "ribbon devel opment." This development can occur as a result of an extension neighborhood retailing center "filling in" along a main traffic artery. It may occur gradually in one linear direction along a major traffic street. Whatever may be the manner in which it develops, it is a retail section that extends along a major traffic artery, without any depth. The retail stores all face on the main through street. They derive their trade from both the nearby residents as well as "through traffic" to some other part of the city. One of the more famous "string-street" devel opments is the one along Ventura Boulevard in Los Angeles, ^Duncan and Phillips, loc. cit.: and Proudfoot, loc. cit. 230 California. The "string-street" may or may not be entirely within the legal limits of the city within which it is located. With the advent of superhighways, throughways, turnpikes, and freeways, a similar retail development, in idea at least, has developed. This is discussed later in this chapter. The Small City Urban concentrations ranging in size from 2,500 to 100,000, usually referred to as cities, will have varying degrees of the previously-described retail hier archy found in the larger city. There is no clear line of demarcation as to when a city ceases to be a small one and becomes a large one. Generally speaking, these cities must rely upon the hinterland for a considerable amount of their retail trade support. The larger ones have a greater variety of shops and stores dealing in more of the shopping and specialty goods than their smaller counterparts. The breadth and depth of the goods offered varies as well as 25 Gerald J. Foster and Howard J. Nelson, Ventura Boulevard: A String-Type Shopping Street (Los Angeles, California: University of California, 1958), p. 39; Jones, loc. cit. does the category of city size. The largest of this cate gory features at least one junior department store, as well as several limited-line and specialty stores. Within varying degrees of size, consumers are able to find satis factory selections of practically all of their normal needs.^ . The Rural Trading Center A small village is characteristically different in its retail structure from either the large or the small city types. There is a stress on convenience goods items, with little or no shopping goods involved. The minimum of service retailers are usually found, especially in the larger ones. These are incomplete trading centers. In Chapter III, attention was directed to the hierarchy of central places. The study made by Brush revealed that these small centers structure themselves into three groups: (1) hamlets, (2) villages, and (3) towns. Hamlets have at least one retail unit, such as a grocery store, along with the possibility of a tavern and a gasoline station. Villages have a minimum of ten retail 26 Shultz, on. cit.. pp. 67-68. 232 and retail service units, while towns have upwards of 50 such units, 30 of which are other than the type found in hamlets. In these small towns of about one thousand in population, there are to be found at least one barber, 27 dentist, doctor, and veterinarian. The Shopping Center Since World War II, there has been a widespread development of a special type of retail cluster of stores known as a shopping center. This cluster is peculiarly significant in that it is developed in an extremely short period of time, as compared to the other types of retail clusters. The Community Builders Handbook has defined a shopping center as: A group of commercial establishments, planned, developed, owned and managed as a unit, with off-street parking provided on the property; and related in its location, size and type of shops to the trade area which the unit serves. 27 Shultz, loc. cit.; John E. Brush, "The Hierarchy of Central Places in Southwestern Wisconsin," The Geo graphical Review. XLIII (July, 1953), 385-387. 28 Community Builders' Council, The Community Builders Handbook. The Executive Edition (Washington, D. C.: Urban Land Institute, 1960), p. 212. This clear-cut definition does not reveal, however, the many and diverse types of shopping centers that have come into existence. While there is no perfect method of classifying all of these types, the following is one method that seems to be somewhat universally accepted. In this particular method of classifying, shopping centers fall into one of the following three types: (1) sub- metropolitan, usually known as regional, (2) community, and (3) neighborhood. The submetropolitan shopping center. The sub metropolitan shopping center, commonly referred to as the regional shopping center, is the largest of the three 29 types. This cluster of stores attempts to present "one- stop shopping" in the variety of retail goods and services offered. It includes a minimum of one major department store, usually two. This store is the hub of the center. Other types of retailers tend to both complement and com pete with the department store. Many of these centers are of sufficient size as to include professional offices, 29 The word "region" is being used here in the geographical-economic interpretation as defined in Chapter I of this study. 234 restaurants, movie theaters, and auditoriums. It is, in essence, a miniature retail central business district of a central city. It tends to situate itself at a sufficient distance from it, however, so as to successfully compete against the central business district. Authorities have established the following char acteristics as being representative of the submetropolitan shopping center: (1) the combined retail store square footage area, known as the Gross Leasable Area, averages 400,000 square feet, with a range of 300,000 to over 1,000,000; (2) the minimum site area covers between thirty and forty acres; (3) the minimum market area support requires 100,000 population; (4) there is a minimum of forty retail establishments; (5) there is a parking area to accommodate from 1,000 to 9,000 automobiles; and (6) an attempt to attract customers from a wide trading area based upon an automobile driving time of upwards of twenty to thirty minutes. ^ The Community Builders Handbook, pp. 216-220; Harvey L, Vredenburg, Shopping Centers - An Evolution in Retailing," Iowa Business Digest. XXIX (April, 1958), 2-3; and Gordon H. Stedman, "The Rise of Shopping Centers," Changing Patterns in Retailing, ed. John W. Wingate and Arnold Corbin (Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1956), p. 170. The community shopping center. The community shop ping center is much smaller than the regional. Its chief characteristics include: the combined retail store square footage area ranges from 100,000 to 300, 000; with an average Gross Leasable Area of 150,000 square feet; the average minimum site area covers 10 acres; the minimum market area support is 5,000 families, with a range of 20,000 to over 100,000 population; a range of 20 to 40 stores; the leading tenant is either a variety or junior department store; and an area to park anywhere from 500 o - t to 1,000 automobiles. This type does not attempt to cover as large a market area and, for that reason, there are more of them in number than the regional shopping center. It does include a variety of retail stores, however, including apparel stores and sometimes profes- 32 sional offices and a movie theater. The neighborhood shopping center. The neighbor hood shopping center is the smallest by far of the three types. Its chief characteristics include: the combined ^^Vredenburg, loc. cit.; The Community Builders Handbook, pp. 215-216, 217. 32 Shultz, on. cit.. p. 70; Stedman, loc. cit. 236 retail square footage area ranges from 30,000 to 73,000; with an average Gross Leasable Area of 50,000 square feet; the average minimum site area covers 4 acres; market area support is a range of 7,000 to 40,000 in population; a range of 8 to 12 stores; and the leading tenant is either a supermarket or a drug store. This center appeals to convenience goods shopping and includes various retail services such as barber shops, self-service launderies, 33 and dry cleaning establishments. These centers are many times situated within the central city and compete with the neighborhood retailing center. The impact of the shopping center upon the more traditional types of retail structure will be discussed later in this study. Another retail district development that is of recent vintage is the highway-oriented district. The Highway-Oriented Retail District The increasing use of the automobile, coupled with suburbanization of residence and industry, has caused another itmovational type of retail structure, the highway- 33 Stedman, loc. cit.; Vredenburg, loc. cit.; The Community Builders Handbook, pp. 215, 217. 237 oriented district. The location of this type of retail structure is along the edges of highways, freeways, and turnpikes. It has been generated into existence by the tremendous amount of "through traffic" moving over these surfaces. This site knows no political boundary and is not associated with any legal form of government. It may be located within or without the legal limits of a city. Resident population concentration is not necessarily a factor in determining its site. The traffic, in moving along these surfaces, generates needs for such goods and services as are pro vided by gasoline service stations, garages, restaurants, motels, fruit and produce stands, and novelty shacks.^ The obvious appeal is one of convenience of site, and the spacing and location of them is many times dependent upon the physical nature of the highway as to ease of ingress and egress. The duplication of these districts along a given superhighway has generally tended, in certain instances, to assume the effect of a continuous ribbon or strip of 34 Berry, on. cit.. p. 148. 238 retail establishments, and, in catering to this "through traffic," has created a linkage of smaller country cities to each other. Yet their development cannot be attributed solely to serving this type of customer. There has been a tendency for the populace residing near these districts to patronize them. Grocery stores and auto repair estab lishments are used by local residents, and recreational and restaurant facilities also draw heavily from them. One study has claimed that the trading area of a highway-oriented retail district is dependent upon the following characteristics: (1) the services it performs, (2) its site with regard to the highway, (3) its location with regard to the local area, (4) its reputation, and (5) its appearance. J In the retail districts studied this study also came to the following significant conclusions: (1) the number and variety of services offered exceed by a great deal the demand of "through traffic"; (2) many retail firms cater almost entirely to the local residents; (3) those districts that are most developed are ones easily Andreas Grotewold and Lois Grotewold, "Commercial Development of Highways in Urbanized Regions: A Case Study," Land Economics, XXXIV (August, 1958), 236-244. 239 accessible from nearby cities; (4) those establishments which provide services for the "through traffic" customer are also patronized by the local residents; and (5) these retail developments are not bound as rigidly by zoning laws as the more formal city types, thus having a wider 36 variety of establishments at a given site. IV. CONCLUSION This has been a brief review of the economic basis of retailing, coupled with a description of its spatial structure. It has been somewhat arbitrary of necessity and there are exceptions to the hierarchical structure that was summarized. Nevertheless, the hierarchical retail structure is of sufficient validity to warrant its use in this study. Chapter VI, the following chapter, will review certain forces, factors, and principles of retail structure and retail store location. This review is the final stage upon which all previous chapters have been built, with 36 Ibid. special emphasis in each of these former chapters as how the area under discussion related to retail store location. CHAPTER VI DETERMINANTS OF RETAIL STRUCTURE AND RETAIL STORE LOCATION Chapter V, after presenting an analysis of the economic basis of retailing, reviewed the current retail spatial structure in the United States. The purpose of this chapter is to coordinate certain portions of the two previous chapters into a presentation of the determinants of retail structure and retail store location. This chapter is divided into the following major sections: (1) introduction, (2) a summary of the principles of retail structure and retail store location, (3) a summary of the forces affecting retail structure and retail store loca tion, (4) a summary of the factors influencing individual retail store location, and (5) conclusion. I. INTRODUCTION In considering the determinants of retail structure and retail store location, this chapter will not delve into the specifics of the individual retail store site. 242 Consideration of which side of the street upon which to locate in a given downtown business district, for example, is not within the confines of this study. Once the par ticular locational area has been determined, individual store site selection is unimportant to this study. What is of importance to this study are the determinants which cause a store to locate in one type of retail structure as compared to another. Furthermore, it is difficult if not virtually impossible to separate the determinants of the retail structure from those of the retail store. Hence, they are both considered and whenever occasion throughout this chapter arises to distinguish between them, it will be presented in that manner. The first method of viewing the determinants is to summarize the principles of retail structure and retail store location--a discussion of which follows. II. A SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPLES OF RETAIL STRUCTURE AND RETAIL STORE LOCATION A principle can be defined as a source or cause from which a thing proceeds. Applying this definition to retail structure and retail store location, the following 243 ; i so-called principles are summarized: (1) Reilly's law of retail gravitation, (2) the theory of site rent, (3) Chamberlin's thesis of spatial monopoly, (4) the principle of least effort, (5) the theory of cumulative attraction, (6) the theory of compatability, (7) the principle of efficient congestion, and (8) metropolitan dominance. There is no inference intended by this arrangement that one prin ciple is of more importance than another. As a matter of fact, there is considerable overlapping among some of these principles that makes it logical to present them in the order arranged. Reilly's Law of Retail Gravitation Dr. William J. Reilly proposed a law of retail gravitation in 1928 as a result of a series of empirical studies he conducted at the time as a staff member of the University of Texas Bureau of Business Research. This section reviews this law in the following manner: (1) the original law, (2) the Curtis Publishing Company's revision, i(3) Converse's new law, and (4) Huff's thesis. The original law. The original law of retail gravitation proposed by William J. Reilly concerns itself 244 with the "pull" of a city upon the territory surrounding it as compared to other cities. The discussion concerning this law is divided into the following areas: (1) the law, (2) determination of a trading center's pull, (3) other factors, and (4) its application. 1) The law. Converse has stated Reilly's "Law of Retail Gravitation" as follows: Two cities attract trade from any intermediate city or town in the vicinity of the breaking point, approximately in direct proportion to the populations of the two cities and in inverse proportion to the squares of the distances from these two cities to the intermediate town.^ 2) Determination of a trading center's pull. Reilly's law depends upon the determination of the trading center's pull. He constructed a formula to determine this pull, which is stated as follows: Let B = the proportion of trade attracted by a City A = the proportion of trade attracted by City B P^ = the population of City A *P. D. Converse, A Study of Retail Trade Areas in East Central Illinois (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois, 1943), p. 13. 2Ibid.„ pp. 13-15. Pb * the population o£ City B Da « the distance from the intermediate town to City A - the distance from the intermediate town to City B Utilizing this formula, the following problem is solved as an illustrative case in point. Assume that Town C is an intermediate town between cities A and B. If City A has a population of 37,366 and City B has 39,851, and Town C is 31 miles from City A and 34 miles from City B, then: This means that City A attracts 1.128 times as much trade from Town C as does City B. To express this in relative terms: »b 39,851 Ba 37,366 times 1.128 City A - ----- - 53% 2.128 3Ibid.. p. 15. 246 3) Other factors. It can be observed from this formula that population and distance influence greatly the amount of retail trade secured by a city. Reilly recog nized nine other factors that had a bearing upon this, and they were: (1) transportation facilities, (2) lines of communication, (3) classes of consumer territory surround ing the city, (4) the density of population in the area, (5) the proximity of larger cities, (6) business attrac tions of the city, (7) social and amusement attractions of the cities, (8) topographic and climatic conditions, and 4 (9) leadership of businesses in the city. 4) Its application. Reilly studied the buying habits related to fashion goods. There seems to be fairly common agreement among authorities that this law is more applicable to high-priced merchandise, in which delibera tion and comparison are more apt to be found, than to low- priced goods. One autrhority has made the following state ment regarding Reilly's law: "Through the years little, if any, evidence has been presented which conflicts with 4 Ibid., p. 13; Paul Hardeman Sisco, The Retail Function of Memphis (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago, 1954), p. 14. 247 this law."^ Yet this authority felt that some studies showed that Reilly's law cannot be applied without con sidering other factors. From this law, it is possible to observe that, since people will travel further for fashion goods and high-priced merchandise, this explains, in part at least, why there is a movement of retail trade from smaller towns to larger ones in which greater assortments are to be found especially of fashion goods and higher priced items. As application of Reilly's law became more difficult due to the rise of the shopping center, certain revisions of it have been proposed, including the one submitted by the Curtis Publishing Company. The Curtis Publishing Company's revision. In 1947, the Curtis Publishing Company adapted Reilly's formula to determining the breaking point between two cities. Con verse stated this breaking point as being "a point up to which one city exercises the dominating retail influence, ^Allen F. Jung, "Is Reilly's Law of Retail Gravi tation Always True?" Journal of Retailing (October, 1959), 62. 248 and beyond which the other city dominates."*’ Curtis Pub lishing Company developed a formula which is illustrated as follows: Let: 6. = the breaking point between City A and City B in miles from B D b= the distance separating City A from City B Pb = the population of City B PP^ = the population of City A Then: ab To illustrate the method by which this formula works, a simple mathematical example is proposed in which the population of City A is assumed as 400,000 and that of City B as 200,000. A further assumption is made that the distance between the two cities is 80 miles. Substi tuting this information into the formula, the breaking point from City B is: Converse, op. cit.. p. 13. 249 \ - ------22-------- « 33.3 miles 7460,000 V 200,000 City A's breaking point would be 46.7 miles. This Curtis revision has been widely used in estimating the trade area of shopping centers within a specific city, especially with regard to the development of a new shopping center. The square footage of each retail center is substituted for population and the travel time between shopping centers replaces the mileage portion of the formula. In developing the breaking points from the proposed shopping center to each of the existing centers, the results are mapped to delineate the potential trading area as follows (see Table VII). As8time the following data: TABLE VII HYPOTHETICAL DATA USED IN DELIMITING TRADING AREA OF PROPOSED SHOPPING CENTER Shopping Center Square Footage of Selling Space Travel Time From A Breaking Pt. from Shopping Center to A A 200,000 0 0 B 100*000 15 6.2 C 150,000 20 9.3 D 50,000 10 3.3 E 306,000 25 13.8 250 From these data (Table VII) a hypothetical trade area map is constructed of the proposed shopping center as follows: N> e P r o p o s e d s h o p p in g c e n t e r o s Competing shopping centers Trade area boundary Curtis's revision was an advance forward from the original one proposed by Reilly.^ Converse's new law. P. D. Converse proposed another revision to Reilly's law in an article written in 1949. He stated his "new law of retail gravitiation" as follows: A trading center and a town in or near its trade area divide the trade of the town approxi mately in direct proportion to the population 7 P. D. Converse, "Hew Laws of Retail Gravitation," Journal of Marketing. XIV (October, 1949), 379; David L. Huff, "A Probabilistic Analysis of Shopping Center Trade Areas," Land Economics. XXXIX (February, 1963), 82-84. 251 of the two towns and inversely as the squares of the distant factors, using 4 as the distant factor of the home town.8 Converse believed that this "new law" could be applied to satellite cities and other towns inside the trading area of a larger town. He felt this eliminates the need to take a market survey and would enable the retail merchants to see how they stand in relation to com- 9 petition from larger cities. Huff*s thesis. David Huff, of the Graduate School of Business Administration, University of California at Los Angeles, recently published a new method of delineating trade areas of proposed shopping centers. Huff centered his attention on the spatial behavior of the consumer, that is the observable courses of action that consumers take in choosing a shopping center. He built his thesis upon two main variables that exert sufficient influence on the consumer's spatial behavior as to be the only two which need be considered: I(1) the number of items of the kind of a good a consumer ^Converse, "New Laws of Retail Gravitation," p. 382. 9 Ibid. 252 desires that are carried by various shopping centers, and (2) the travel time that is involved in getting from a consumer's travel base to alternative shopping centers. 1) Impact of merchandise offerings. Huff believed that a consumer makes many shopping decisions under con- ditions in which he does not know in advance whether a particular shopping center will be able to satisfy a spe cific purchase desire. The consumer does reason that cer tain shopping centers probably will be able to satisfy specific demands. The larger the center, the probability of more items being carried, which would lead the consumer to assume that his needs could be adequately met. Huff concluded from this that the consumer is willing to travel a greater distance for various goods and services if the shopping center offers a greater variety than a nearer one. 2) Impact of travel time. Huff felt that the anticipated costs of transportation, the effort involved in preparing for and making the trip, and foregoing other opportunities for the use of the time, all tend to detract from the appeal of the shopping center the farther it is from the consumer's travel base. Utilizing these two variables, Huff constructed a series of mathematical formulas by which to determine 253 their effect, and from this he developed a model in the following series of steps: (1) divide the area surrounding the shopping center into small statistical units, such as census districts; (2) determine the square footage of retail selling space of all shopping centers included within the area of analysis; (3) determine the travel time involved; (4) ascertain the probability of consumers in each of the statistical units going to the particular shop ping center for the purchase of a given product; (5) map the trading area of the shopping center in question by drawing lines connecting all statistical units having like probabilities; (6) calculate the number of households within each statistical unit; and (7) calculate the annual average per household incomes for each of the statistical 10 units. Huff concluded that a retail trade area is not a fixed boundary line but rather a "series of radial zonal probability contours."11 1QHuff, on. cit.« 85-90. U Ibid.. 90. The Theory of Site Rent The theory of site rent explains to a very sig nificant degree the reason that certain types of retailers, dealing in certain kinds of merchandise, locate in certain areas of the region's total retail structure. The utiliza tion of land is determined eventually by the efficiencies of the many uses at various locations, and efficiency of use is measured by the rent-paying ability of the site. Each urban cluster adjusts to this most efficient land use through the competition of uses for the various locations. Obviously the use which can obtain the greatest return 12 from a given site will be the successful bidder. Applying the theory of site rent to retailing explains in part why the department store, for example, traditionally has been located in the heart of the down town business district, while the grocery store has located itself elsewhere. The maximum rent that a retailer can afford to pay is based upon: (1) the volume of sales, and (2) the selling prices of the merchandise. These two 12 Richard U. Ratcliff, Urban Land Economics (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1949), p. 369; Preston Martin, Real Estate Principles and Practices (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1959), pp. 25-26. 255 factors have helped create a hierarchy of rent-paying abilities among different types of retailers. Ratcliff has defined this point in the following manner: Correctly defined, the hierarchy is not one of retail uses alone, but of retail uses on appro priate sites. Though department stores pay higher rents than grocery stores, this situation obtains only when department stores are properly located, for were a department store situated in a neighborhood retail cluster it could pay no rent at all. It should be further stated that for each site there exists a hierarchy of uses based on their rent-paying ability on that site and that there is a hierarchy of sites based on differential productivities under the appropriate uses.13 Since the productivity of the retail firms is affected by location, there usually are many retail bidders for the more preferred sites. The successful retail bidder will be the one who is willing to pay the most rent because of anticipated and continuing ability to exploit that site.^ Chamberlin1s Thesis of Snatial Monopoly Closely allied with the theory of site rent is Edward Hastings Chamberlin's thesis of spatial monopoly. ^Ratcliff, on. cit.. p. 384. 14Ibid.. p. 376. 256 While it emphasizes the importance of convenience, it nevertheless is a distinctive theoretical application. Chamberlin has stated it this way: The availability of a commodity at one location rather than at another being of consequence to purchasers, we may regard these goods as dif ferentiated spatially and may apply the term "spatial monopoly" to that control over supply which is a seller's by virtue of his location. A retail trader has complete and absolute control over the supply of his "product" when this is taken to include the advantages, to buyers, of his particular location. Other things being equal, those who find his place of business most convenient to their homes, their habitual shop ping tours, their goings and comings from business or from any other pursuit, will trade with him in preference to accepting more or less imperfect substitutes in the form of identical goods at more distant places. ...15 The Principle of Least Effort It will be recalled that a discussion of Zipf's "Principle of Least Effort" was presented in Chapter V of this study. Zipf contended that consumers will attempt to follow this principle in their actions, including con- sinning. Thus the consumer wishes to minimize his effort 15Edward Hastings Chamberlin, The Theory of Monop olistic Competition (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1947), fifth edition, pp. 62-63. 257 and maximize his gain in the acquisition of goods and services. Zipf concluded from this that "deliberate goods"*-** are to be found in retail centers where the con sumer will seek them out, while convenience goods will be located as close as possible to the consumer. This explains why a department store will be located in a location from which the greatest number of consumers in that region will seek it out, because the department store will stock and carry a larger assortment of goods, in wide style and variety ranges, and in a wide range of prices, than a store in a smaller community.^ Other writers besides Zipf have noted this thesis even though they did not label it as he did. Ratcliff noted in this book, published in 1949, that customers wish to reduce to a minimum their "disutilities of pur chasing. Disutilities of purchasing to the consumer involves time and money costs, and Ratcliff believed that the importance of minimizing them depends upon: (1) desire *^A term used by Zipf. ^George Kingsley Zipf, Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Press, Inc., 1949), pp. 372-373. *-®Ratcliff, o p. cit.. p. 377. 258 for comparison, (2) immediacy of the need, (3) economic importance of the article, (4) frequency of purchase, and (5) patronage preferences. He noted, among these above stated factors, that the greater the frequency of acquiring a certain article, the more important is the convenience 1 g of location. Convenience, being closely related to the Principle of Least Effort, leads to a consideration of the next principle, namely, the Theory of Cumulative Attraction. The Theory of Cumulative Attraction One of the better and more widely known explana tions of existing retail structure is the theory of cumu lative attraction. Many writers over a period of time have referred to it but none has done as thorough a job as Richard L. Nelson. Mr. Nelson devotes an entire chapter to this theory in his book, The Selection of Retail Locations. The theory of cumulative attraction explains why several retail stores selling the same lines and types of merchandise located in close proximity to each other 19 Ibid. 259 will do more business than if these same stores were scattered. Nelson used retail shoe stores as a good example of this theory. Host people prefer to buy shoes through comparison shopping in which they can examine different styles, colors, qualities, and designs of shoes, whereas those stores that exhibit more standardized and lower priced items, such as most food stores, are likely to be located in intercepting ring positions not necessar ily clustered with other similar or complementary stores, but nearer a given residential area. Furthermore, a retail shoe store is considered as low in generative 20 power, so that a cluster of them aids each of them. Ratcliff has illustrated this theory in the same manner as Nelson by referring to it on the basis of con venience. Since the customer desires convenience, he is more apt to shop for a shopping good, such as a suit, where he can compare at his convenience— this convenience being a cluster of men's clothing stores.^ 20 Richard L. Nelson, The Selection of Retail Loca tions (New York: F. W. Dodge Corporation, 1958), p. 58. ^^Ratcliff, on. cit.. p. 380. 260 Nelson did adroit that the theory of cumulative attraction is not necessarily applicable to all types of retailing. He observed that some clustering of this type has commenced to disintegrate, such as the music row around the vicinity of Wabash and Jackson in Chicago. Offsetting this trend, however, is the rise of the modem shopping center, which, instead of linking together a group of similar retailers, brings together a group of retailers with complementary types of goods and services. Thus, Nelson has argued that the theory of cumulative attraction need not apply solely to a music or automobile row but 22 also to a shopping center. This newer application of the theory dovetails, to a considerable extent, in with the next principle to be reviewed, the theory of compatibility. The Theory of Compatibility Statement of the theory. The idea of retail store affinity is clearly present in the theory of compatibility, as proposed by Richard L. Nelson. Dependent upon the theory of cumulative attraction to a certain extent, this 22 Nelson, op. cit., pp. 63-64. 261 theory of compatibility has been stated by Nelson in the following words: Two compatible businesses located in close proximity will show an increase in business volume directly proportionate to the incidence of total customer interchange between than, inversely proportionate to the ratio of the business volume of the larger store to that of the smaller store, and directly proportionate to the sum of the ratios of purposeful pur chasing to total purchasing in each of the two stores.23 Nelson defined purposeful purchasing as "one made by a shopper who, when interviewed, states that a visit to the store was a major purpose of the shopping trip."2** He observed that this is in contrast to total purchases which includes both purposeful as well as incidental and impulse ones.23 The principle stated as a formula. Nelson, after proposing this theory in the form of the previously- quoted statement, then established it further by expressing 26 it in the following mathematical formula: 23Ibid., p. 66. 24Ibid. 25Ibid. 26Ibid.. p. 67. i 262 Let: V = volume of larger store (total purchasing) L PL = purposeful purchasing in larger store Vg = volume of smaller store (total purchasing) P = purposeful purchasing in smaller store V = increase in total volume of two stores I = degree of interchange VS Pt Then: V » 1(VT + V ) x _ x _ Theoretical application of the formula. Applying this formula to life-like situations will yield some meaningful results. Nelson illustrated this by citing the situation in which if one customer in a hundred makes a purchase in each of the two side-by-side retail stores this will result in each store doing one per cent more business than if they were so widely separated from each other as to preclude this interchange. Yet if the two stores are of radically different size, one large and one small, the volume of dollar sales will vary as compared to the previously-assumed mathematical ratio. Nelson illus trated this point by citing an example in which a 263 department store is assumed to be doing $5,000,000 busi ness per annum next door to a variety store doing $500,000 per year. Their total would not double even if there were a 100 per cent interchange of customers, because while the total increase in business between the two would be directly proportional, it would be inversely propor tional to the ratio of their volumes or, in the illustra tion, 10:1.^ The measuring of the degree of retail compatibility depends upon, among other things, the theory of cumulative attraction. Yet this alone does not fully determine the degree of compatibility. Other factors. There are other factors which must be considered in measuring the degree of retail com patibility. While these appear to be minor they are, in reality, extremely important. Any existing physical con dition which deters or discourages the flow of pedestrian traffic from one store to the next affects the compatibil ity of the two stores. Physical conditions that lead to this situation include: (1) dead frontages, such as a 264 vacant store; (2) physical breaks in the sidewalk, such as an alley; (3) cross traffic; (4) physical hazards, noise, odor, smoke, unsightliness; (5) a business which uses a proportionally high amount of trucks, automobiles, or people who are not customers; and (6) types of business which generate long use by customers of available parking 28 space. Results of research. In an effort to substantiate this theory, Nelson conducted a series of comprehensive surveys of more than 10,000 shopping trips by customers in four types of shopping districts and centers in differ ent areas of the United States. These districts were catalogued as: (1) a rural trading center; (2) a neigh borhood convenience center; (3) a large shopping center, including major outlying shopping districts and the down town center of medium-sized cities; and (4) a retail section of the central business district of a large city. The attempt of this research was to measure the degree of compatibility. It did not, or could not, measure JO Ibid.. p. 68. the size of the market area. Furthermore, one of the major, but apparently understandable, limitations of the research was that the size of the store could not be taken into account, only the level of interchange between the different types of retail stores. In measuring this com patibility, Nelson established five degrees of compatibil ity based on the following criteria: (1) highly com patible, 10 to 20 per cent of the total customers of both establishments are interchanged; (2) moderately compatible, 5 to 10 per cent; (3) slightly compatible, 1 to 5 per cent; (4) incompatible, negligible interchange; and (5) deleterious, one of the retail stores has a deleterious effect on the other. In an attempt to have as logical and as accurate a measuring device as possible, Nelson established a compatibility table for each of the four retail districts described above. The structure of each compatibility table was made essentially the same. It is divided into five major divisions entitled: (1) convenience goods, (2) shoppers' goods, (3) services, (4) auto sales, services, and (5) miscellaneous. Under each of these five divisions are listed the more typical types of retailers handling certain types of those goods, or offering those types of services, of that division. The types of retailers vary slightly from one retail district to the other, but many types are common to all four. The convenience goods division, for example, is subdivided into such types of retailers as: drugs, supermarkets, bakery, grocery, meat, liquor, hardware, gardening, and so on. As would be expected, the shoppers' goods division includes such retailers as: apparel, shoes, variety, appliances, eating and drinking, and so on. This division increases its scope of retailers as the research study moves from a rural trading center to a retail section of the central business district of a large city. In the rural trading center there are only seven types of retailers, but by the time the retail section of the central business dis trict of a large city is reached this number has reached a total of twenty-seven. The same trend in categorization as in the shoppers' goods division holds true for the services division, but the division of auto sales, services remains almost identical and the miscellaneous division is identical from one compatibility table to another. 267 Upon tabulating the results, Nelson arrived at several interesting and useful conclusions. Assuming the validity and accuracy of the research techniques employed, he showed that some types of retail stores affect other types without receiving a similar effect from them. Thus, a department store is a highly compatible neighbor for a nearby drug store, but a drug store is only a moderately compatible neighbor for the department store. With the 29 exception of the rural trading center district, 7 the retail stores classified under the shoppers' goods division reveal more stores having a highly compatible rating to each other in the same division than other retail stores 30 show to each other in each of their respective divisions. This seems to bear out the fact that shopping goods are by definition comparison-shopping goods. Perhaps another way of stating it is to propose that the types of retailers that traditionally are known as handling shopping goods continue to handle and emphasize those types of goods that do lend themselves to comparison-shopping buying, even 29 There are no department stores categorized under this division. 30 Nelson, op. cit.. pp. 68-78. 268 though this may mean the discarding of some types and the adoption of other types of goods over a period of time. The theory of compatibility sheds much light on why certain types of retail stores are to be found in cer tain retail structures within a given economic region. Closely allied with this theory is another one which Reavis Cox has termed "The Principle of Efficient Conges tion." The Principle of Efficient Congestion The "Principle of Least Effort" has been described previously as one of the reasons for retail stores cluster ing , and this principle embodies, among other things, the desire for convenience on the part of the consumer in his shopping and buying practices. Now the clustering of retail stores enables people to come into contact easily and in rapid succession with a large number of retail out lets that offer a variety of goods and services. This congestion of stores means contacts and these contacts are what consumers want when they enter a retail cluster. Cox has formulated this concept into a principle that he has 269 termed "The Principle of Efficient Congestion."^* He claimed that if cities and other urban clusters would follow this principle it would aid in retaining retail business in those particular areas. Cities must concentrate on those aspects of retailing which need con gestion , for, according to Reavis Cox, "congestion means contacts, and contacts are what people seek when they crowd into the city in the first place. Metropolitan Dominance Chapter IV of this study presented the concept of metropolitan dominance. It is a very thorough explanation of the apparent influence that a large city, usually a central city, exercises over its contiguous hinterland. In explaining this sphere of influence, the thesis pro poses that there is a hierarchy. Woven into its general thesis are bits of assertions that pertain to retail structure and retail store location. Bogue, who is con sidered the author of this concept, makes several con clusions which are germane to the present discussion. ^*Reavis Cox, "Consumer Convenience and the Retail Structure of Cities," The Journal of Marketing. XXIII (April, 1959), 360-361. 32 Ibid.. 361. 270 He concluded from his research the following postulates: (1) central cities are more specialized in retail trade than is any zone of their hinterlands; (2) within 35 miles of the central city, the populace tends to have a low retail specialization index, which means a dependence upon the central city for the purchase of many of its retail needs; (3) beyond 35 miles, the central city does not function to any significant degree as a retail center; (4) in the 25 to 44 mile zone, the population obtains 98 per cent or more of its retail needs locally; (5) at about 65 miles from the central city there begins a rise in retail specialization; and (6) beyond 65 miles, the normal retail goods are provided locally and the central city supplies only the extremely specialized 33 ones. These, then, are some of the important and logical principles that help explain retail structure and retail store location. Integrated within these principles are certain forces and factors which also explain this ^^Don J. Bogue, The Structure of the Metropolitan Community. A Study of Dominance and Subdominance (Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan, 1949), pp. 38-54. phenomenon. A discussion of certain forces follows in the next section of this chapter. III. A SUMMARY OF THE FORCES AFFECTING RETAIL STRUCTURE AND RETAIL STORE LOCATION Certain active forces within our dynamic economy have a direct effect upon retail structure and retail store location. It is the purpose of this section to summarize some of the more active and influential ones. With this in mind, the following forces will be reviewed: (1) popu lation characteristics, (2) merchandising techniques, (3) the nature of the demand for the product, (4) transporta tion, and (5) industrial plant location. Population Characteristics Probably the most powerful force in an economy, which has direct repercussions upon retailing, is the force of population with its attendant characteristics. There are many characteristics to population, and each of them has an effect upon retail structure and retail store location. Some of the characteristics which will be considered include: (1) market location, (2) income of the population, (3) educational level and type of occupation, and (4) age distribution. 272 Market location. Of all the characteristics of population, market location probably has the greatest impact on retail structure and retail store location. Bogue summarized its influence in a very succinct but forceful manner when he stated: The function of retailing is so intimately related to the current needs of the population that it tends to be distributed much as the population is distributed.^ A review of the growth of urbanism in the United States, as presented in Chapter IV of this study, clearly spells out the concentrating and deconcentrating phases. During the concentration phase, the retail structure was extremely centralized in the more heavily-populated areas with a vast majority of retail stores located in this type of area. True, there were some retail units located in the rural and satellite areas, but these were mostly those that performed a daily, routine service or handled con venience goods. Futterman has described this phenomenon 34 Ibid.. p. 38. 273 with the words "some retailing spreads with the popula tion . He was referring to such retailers as grocery, drug, and candy stores, along with dress shops and local haberdasheries.36 Another authority has stated it in this manner: "If the service is rendered frequently to individuals of all classes in the community, then it will be located in the midst of its clientele in immediate contact with it."*7' These retail types include small shops, doctors, barbers, and so on.38 With the advent of gradual deconcentration, the growth of the retail structure in the central city com menced to decrease. As this deconcentration continued, retail stores started to locate in the suburbs. Several articles written during this era give clues to this trend. 35 Robert A. Futterman, The Future of Our Cities (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1961), p. 65. 36Ibid. 37 Robert B. Dickinson, City Region and Regionalism. A Geographical Contribution to Human Ecology (London, England: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd., 1947), p. 28. 38Ibid. 274 Malcolm J. Proudfoot observed In an article, written in 1937 about the outlying business centers of Chicago, that these outlying centers were favored for several reasons, one of them being their proximity to the decentralized 39 population. A similar article was written four years later describing the conditions in the Los Angeles area. This article indicated that Los Angeles downtown retail stores enjoyed 29.6 per cent of the total Los Angeles county retail business in 1929, but that this relative position had dropped to 21.97 per cent by 1935. The authors assigned much weight to the effect of the redis tribution of population outward from the city of Los Angeles proper. Halted by World War II, both population and retail stores "exploded" into the suburbs in the late 1940's and 1950's. The change in retail structure was the decline of the central business district in the central city and 39 Malcolm J. Proudfoot, "The Analysis of Outlying Business Centers of Chicago," Journal of Land and Public Utility Economics. XIII (February, 1937), 57-70. ^William K. Bowden and Ralph Cassady, Jr., "Decen tralization of Retail Trade in the Metropolitan Market Area," The Journal of Marketing. V (January, 1941), 272-273. 275 its miniature erected out in the suburbs in the form of the controlled shopping center. As more of the population continued to move out of the central city, more shopping centers of all types developed. This rapid growth commenced to have an effect on the central business districts of the smaller, satellite cities as well as the larger central ones, until, at the present writing, suburban shopping for almost all types of retail goods and services is an accepted fact. Market location of population, therefore, has a pronounced effect upon the retail structure and retail store location. As Inez K. Rolph observed many years ago "population density was found to be the primary factor in retail structure. . , ..41 Income of the population. A second major char acteristic of population is its income, and its effects on retailing are many and varied. As the size, sources, and distribution of it changes, this directly affects how 41 Inez K. Rolph, The Population Pattern in Rela tion to Retail Buying," American Journal of Sociology. XXXVIII (November, 1932), 372. 276 consumers will dispose of it, which in turn affects retailing. A quick glance at these elements will strengthen this argument. 1) Size of disposable income. The most important aspect of personal income to the retailer is that portion of it known as disposable personal income. It is no secret that the size of disposable personal income deter mines the absolute amount of dollars spent on goods and services, because over a period of time there has been a remarkable consistency as to the relative amount of disposable personal income that is allocated in this manner. Since 1880, the total size of disposable personal income in the United States has increased by at least 42 three times. This represents a considerable increase and has had an impact on retailing through the development of the mass middle market. 2) Distribution of personal income. Size of total personal income in and of itself is not a complete deter mining factor of income's effect upon retailing, for the 42 E. Jerome McCarthy, Basic Marketing. A Managerial Approach (Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1960), p. 63. 277 distribution of it will have considerable impact on how much of certain types of consumers' goods and services can be acquired by how many households. Since the 1900's there has been a dramatic shift in the distribution of total personal income. In 1900, for example, about 50 per cent of all households had less than $2,000 per year personal disposable income, using 1959 as a base. During the 1920's, this improved, but even by 1929, of the total of 38 million households, over 80 per cent of them received less than $4,000 income (in 1959 dollars), and this represented only 46 per cent of the total personal income.^3 The real shift occurred after World War II, brought about in part by many factors, such as the rise of labor unions, the welfare legislation of the New Deal, and the war itself. By 1953, the $4,000-$7,500 household income bracket had jumped from 15 per cent of the total in 1929 to better than 35 per cent, and the less-than- $4,000 bracket had declined from 80 per cent in 1929 to 43 The Editors of Fortune, The Changing American Market (Garden City, New York: Hanover House, 1953), p. 15. 278 25 per cent of the total. By 1954, one year later, the $4,000-$7,500 income bracket had reached approximately 40 per cent of the total.^ These proportions have remained fairly constant since then, although recent estimates show a continuous increase in the $4,000-$7,500 bracket as well as the above $7,500 one. Applying the law of diminishing marginal utility, it can be seen rather readily that as more and more families see their disposable incomes rise, a lesser amount of their total income will be spent on the "neces sities of life," and more will be spent on other goods and services, an area about which the next portion of this discussion focuses its attention. 3) The use of personal income. As the distribu tion of personal income of the United States has seen the remarkable development of the mass middle-income group, it has made our level of living more affluent. It would appear, at first blush, as if this would argue strongly for maintaining the existing retail structure, and, to a 44 Ibid.« p. 16; The Editors of Fortune, America in the Sixties (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1960), pp. 83, 92. 279 degree, it does. However, this affluence has brought with it an increase in spending on already-existing goods and services coupled with a demand for a wider variety of them, especially services. This trend does not argue well for the maintenance of the current existing retail structure, since many of these new demands are not, and have not been, offered by existing retailers. A glance at the following list of expenditures on services, for example, shows a mixture of the new and the old: (1) shoe cleaning and repair; (2) cleaning, dyeing, pressing, alter ations; (3) laundering; (4) barber shops, beauty parlors; (5) housing; (6) electricity; (7) gas; (8) water; (9) telephone, telegraph; (10) domestic service; (11) physi cians; (12) dentists; (13) private hospitals; (14) funerals; (15) personal business (the largest by far); (16) auto repair; (17) admission to spectator sports; (18) religious and welfare activities; (19) private education; (20) foreign travel; and (21) so on. George Stigler has offered a law which he has pro posed as an explanation to this increased spending on services phenomenon: As between two countries with equal real incomes, the service industries will be larger, we may 280 predict, the greater the urbanization, the higher the level of education, the lower the degree of inequality of income distribution, the larger the relative numbers of children and aged in the population, and so forth. 5 To bear out this contention of Stigler's, one need only look at the following trends of expenditures on these types of services. Many of the services offered today are not much different, for example, than in the 1920’s. It is the relative use of them in recent years as compared to then that is the crucial point. As has been previously noted, the greater proportion of the households for many years received incomes that we would consider today as sub* sistence level only. As time progressed and households received higher incomes, there developed a discretionary aspect to these increases. One could argue at great length over the semantics and philosophical concepts behind such terms as, "sub sistence level," "disposable income," "discretionary income," "spending on niceties," and so on. Suffice it ^"The Service Industries— the Unknown Half of the Economy," Business Week (September, 21, 1957), 194, 196. 281 to say, the level of living for the average household has risen since the earlier days, and it has not necessarily risen relatively to the increase in income in the areas of those items considered to be of subsistence in nature. A three-year view of the amount spent on services, some of which are considered as "necessaries," reveals that the percentage of personal consumption expenditures spent for services has ranged from 38.4 per cent in 1960, or $114.7 billion, to 39.1 per cent in 1962, or $124.5 billion.^ One of the largest items in this group of expenditures is known as "personal business." This con sists of bank service charges, brokerage charges, interest on personal loans, and so on. In 1959, for example, it amounted to $17 billion.^ Therefore, our increase in disposable income per household unit has brought with it demands for more of the same types of goods and services plus demands for new and varied ones. It has had a tremendous effect upon retailing. ^United States Department of Commerce, Survey of Current Business* LXIII (February, 1963), 5. ^The Editors of Fortune, America in the Sixties. p. 191. 282 4) The source of personal income. These continu ing increases in personal incomes have had another impact upon retailing, particularly with respect to location, and this stems from the source of this personal income. One of the major factors, if not the major one, of this increase has been due to the supplementary worker of the household, and about 50 per cent of these workers are married women. It has been noted by one authority that the rapid increase in the $4,000-$7,500 income bracket during the 1950's was due largely to this worker.48 Since many of the workers are married women, this has placed a premium on her time in the home, including the time spent in the acquisition of goods and services. This has meant a stress on convenience, not only in the type of goods and services acquired, but where they are acquired. The rise and popularity of the typical shopping center can directly point to this element of convenience of location as a mighty potent factor. 5) The geographic distribution of income. The geographic distribution of income in the United States is of lessening importance as a force affecting retailing. 48Ibid.. pp. 61-63. 283 The disparity of income that has traditionally existed between the North and the South is lessening. Further more, the use of income per capita as a guide to the cor rect location of certain types of retail institutions may be misleading, as in the case of the states of North Dakota, and Nevada. Yet there is still a sufficient difference between certain geographical regions as to make it necessary to recognize it. Income, therefore, in these aspects discussed, is an important characteristic of a population's effect upon an economy in general and retailing in particular. How ever, there are other characteristics of population besides income that affect retailing and one of these is the educational level and type of occupation of the head of the household. Education level and type of occupation. Two household units may have identical incomes, and yet the manner in which these incomes are used may vary consider ably, due to the educational level and/or type of occupa tion pursued by the head of the household. For example, there is a tendency for professional people to spend less on food and clothing and more on house and automobile 284 than their noncollege counterpart. To state it in another manner, the blue-collar worker tends to spend more of his income on food, tobacco, and beverages than the white- collar worker, even though both have the same level of income.^ As a population, such as ours, grows away from blue-collar workers, this will have an impact on what type of goods and services are demanded, which will, in turn, affect retailing. Age distribution. The age of the household head, and the number of each age bracket in the total composite of an economy's population, also affects the demand for different types of goods and services, as well as the magnitude of the demand for each type. The "teen-age" market is considerably different from the "over-sixty-five" one in many important ways, and younger families differ in desires and needs from older ones. There are other population characteristics that could be noted, but, by and large, these are the more important ones. There are other factors besides population characteristics that have a decided effect upon retailing, 49 McCarthy, op. cit.. pp. 73-75. and one of these is merchandising techniques. 285 Merchandising Techniques Retailing in its early forms in the United States was a far cry from what it is today. Most retailers were small in size and specialized in a particular limited field. Consumers bought from these retailers on the basis that each one was an expert in his particular field and knew where to obtain what they wanted. Even with the growth of the large city, retailing continued to function in this manner. The advent of the department store in the middle of the nineteenth century did not alter this format, since it was just "many specialty shops under one roof." These specialty stores and department stores were located, during these times, in the heart of the large city, many of them in its central business district. Con sumers came downtown to shop and buy. The impact of the mass-producing techniques of the Industrial Revolution was slow in making itself felt on the retailing structure. However, the mass producer gradually realized that the then existing retail structure, comprised mostly of specialty and department stores, did not lend itself to the necessity of mass distributing a 286 vast amount of homogeneous, standardized, mass-produced goods. The introduction of the chain store in the last part of the 1910's, and its meteoric rise in the 1920's, gave the producer his answer. Here was a new type of retail unit which wanted to buy standardised, homogeneous, mass-produced goods in bulk. With that, the producer com menced to advertize directly to the consumer, relying upon the chain store to buy in bulk and sell at a relatively low mark up. This was the birth of the so-called "standard brand." Nelson has specifically pointed out the fact that the development of mass media techniques made possible the development of the standard brand.^ The major pur pose of the development of this standard brand by the producer was so that the consumer would buy that producer's item regardless of how or where it was distributed. It was an attempt, and a successful one in many areas, to switch the consumer's loyalty to a product and away from a particular retail store. Today the effect of this development can be easily noted in the type of retail structure and retail store ^Nelson, op. cit.. p. 10. 287 location in existence. Self-service is due, to a great extent, to producers1 brands. People do not feel the necessity of traveling distances to acquire the identical, or nearly the same, product. One important fact often overlooked in this regard is that the producer's standard brand makes price and quality comparison feasible and relatively easy when comparing one retailer to another. This has allowed the locally-situated retailer to compete against its brothers downtown. In many types of retailing, food and drug items in particular, the consumer has come to rely on the producer's brand name more than the retail er's name. As a result, the retail store has been able, in fact was forced to, get closer to the consumer, because convenience now became an important factor in consumers' decisions as to where to shop. This convenience became a convenience of time and distance. One final point, which has been considered in previous chapters, is that as a good becomes standardized and producer-branded, there is a tendency for it to become a convenience good. This is not to state that all ^Eli P. Cox, "The Decline of Metropolitan Retail- ; ing," Business Topics. IX (Spring, 1961), 41. 288 producers' brands are convenience goods— far from it. If the item does become a convenience good, especially in the sense that it eliminates comparison shopping, then it will be handled by retailers in those locations that are nearest to the consumer. Taylor and Shaw have stated it this way, "Convenience-goods retail institutions follow 52 people closely.’ Practically all producers of mass merchandise attempt to create in the consumer's mind that their particular brand can be bought as a convenience good. Then, the producer by creating brand loyalty in the con sumer's mind, assures himself of widespread distribution by utilizing retailers that are closest to the consumer. In other words, the central city has become a jobbing distribution center of convenience goods rather than a S3 retailer of them. The Nature of the Demand for the Product Closely allied with the previous discussion is the influence on the retail structure and retail store ^^Weldon J. Taylor and Roy T. Shaw, Marketing (Cin cinnati, Ohio: South-Western Publishing Company, 1961), p. 532. J. McCarthy, "Development of Trading Areas," The National Marketing Review, I (Summer, 1935), 80. 289 location by the nature of the demand for the various goods and services which are offered to consumers. Consumer demand both influences and is influenced by producers.^ If the consumer demand for a good or a service is of suf ficient magnitude and is constant, then a retail unit will establish itself as near as is possible to the consumer. This can be seen in the location of food stores, barber and beauty shops, dry cleaning establishments, gasoline service stations, and so on. On the other hand, if the demand is infrequent, or is "thin," then the location of the retail store must, of necessity, be at a central point in the entire market region, so as to draw upon as much of the total market as is economically feasible. Hoover and Vernon have sum marized this point excellently: In New Tork in the early nineteenth century this principle that created outlets for flour, sugar, and kerosene in every neighborhood was not the principle applicable to the sale of fine fabrics or pianos. The uncertainty of demand in the matter of taste means that no neighborhood store could predict the demand for any fine fabric it might carry. . . . So, even in those early times, ^There are, of course, other forces influencing ; consumer demand. 290 certain kinds of goods were being sold at central locations: style goods, at some com mon point where many purveyors of rival products were clustered; goods great in value but thin in demand, at central points which could most readily tap a larger market. ^ The major point that must be remembered in this discussion is that many goods are, for example, thin in demand today but constant in demand tomorrow, hence, as the demand for them changes, so does the retail structure, and retail structure must constantly keep abreast of con sumer demand. An unstandardized product is more apt to require comparison shopping than a standardized one. Hence, retail stores with unstandardized products are more apt to locate close to each other and in central locations than spreading themselves outward and, many times, in isolation to one another. Consumer demand, therefore, is a tricky element in the framework of the forces at work which affect retail structure and retail store location. It is an independent, dynamic force, on the one hand, and a pliable, flexible, ^Edgar M. Hoover and Raymond Vernon, Anatomy of a Metropolis (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1959), pp. 114-115. 291 relatively easily-influenced force on the other. As the nature of it changes, so does retailing. Transportat ion The effect of transportation upon retailing has been indirectly discussed under the forces affecting urban concentration. There is no need, therefore, to be redundant concerning it. One special aspect of it, how ever, should be recognized, and that is the effect it has had on central business district retail operations. At first, automobiles solidified the downtown district and the automobile was considered as an asset to the mainte nance of the central business district. As people moved into the suburbs and downtown areas became more congested, the expediency of the regional shopping center based almost exclusively upon the automobile became possible. In addition, the gradual failure of rapid mass transporta tion systems to serve adequately the changing shape and location of metropolitan populations led to a further decline in the central business district of the large city. Thus, transportation has acted as both an aid and as a detriment to the existing retail structure, and, at the same time, has been a force in creating new segments to it.. I n d u s t r i a l P la n t L o c a t io n One of the most basic of all forces that affects retail structure and retail store location is the location of industrial plants. Manufacturing's effect on urban con centration has been previously discussed. Its effect on urban concentration indirectly affects retailing, since retailing is dependent upon urban concentration, and urban concentration is directly affected by industrial plant location. Chinitz and Vernon observed in an article in 1960 that industries in the aggregate, as well as indi- 56 vidual ones, have been spreading out. This movement of industrial plant location out of the central city has freed the worker from allegiance to the central city, as he now does not earn his livelihood in it. Hence, he is more apt to disassociate himself from the downtown area in his buying and shopping habits.^ Coupled with the spreading out of the industrial plant has been the departure of the wholesaler, a long-time ■^Benjamin Chinitz and Raymond Vernon, "Changing Forces in Industrial Location," Harvard Business Review. XXXVIII (January-February, 1960), 127. ^This, of course, is not the only reason for his preference to shop near where he lives and works. 293 resident, from the central city. Due to a variety of reasons, wholesalers have been moving out into the less- congested, less-centralized areas, and this has had an additional impact on retailing. This has been a brief recapitulation of some ^of the more important forces present in our economy that affect retail structure and retail store location. The next section will summarize the factors influencing indi vidual retail store location. IV. A SUMMARY OF FACTORS INFLUENCING INDIVIDUAL RETAIL STORE LOCATION The individual retail store must operate within the given economy. The previous description of the forces affecting retailing are, at any given time, beyond the control or the influence of the individual retail firm— it must accept them as given. Bearing this in mind, the following is simply a summary of the factors influencing individual retail store location. As was previously stated CO Raymond Vernon, "The Economics and Finances of the Large Metropolis," The Future Metropolis, ed. Lloyd ; Rodwin (New York: George Braziller, Inc., 1960), p. 45. 294 in this chapter, this study is not concerned with the selection of the individual store site. It is concerned with those factors which determine the location of the retail store in one certain segment of the retail struc ture, be it the central business district, a submetro politan shopping center, or an isolated site on a highway. In choosing the particular retail segment in which to locate, there are many important factors to be taken into account, and these are divided into two groups: (1) basic factors, and (2) secondary factors. Basic Factors 59 Size of the retail trading area. The size of the trading area of the retail segment of the retail structure in which the retail store wishes to locate is of utmost importance. Each retail segment has a different trading area, as does each retail store within each retail segment. These differences are conditioned by many factory including the nearness of other competing retail segments, the size of the trading area of the largest retail store See Chapter I for a definition of a "trading area." 295 located at the core of the given retail segment, and so on. Some retail stores require a much larger trading area from which to draw their patronage than do others. A super market, for example, does not require nearly the trading area size that a full-line major department store does. Yet the supermarket will require a greater market satura tion of its trading area than does the department store.^ A department store does not expect as large a per cent of its total trading area potential sales as does a super market of its trading area. Therefore, if the trading area of a given retail segment has a very limited trading area, one will not find a department store located at the core of that retail segment. This is reflected in the fact that the submetropolitan shopping center and the central business district will contain one or more major department stores, whereas, the neighborhood shopping center will have none. The trading area of the latter is too limited to economically justify the existence of the major department store. **^See Chapter I for a definition of "market saturation." 296 The trading area of a retail segment does not remain fixed or static. A variety of forces can cause it to be altered. Shifts in population, changes in the shopping habits of the population, changes in the incomes of the population, changes in the transportation facili ties, changes in the structure of the competitive retail segments, and changes in the profitable dollar margin expectations of retailers all have a profound effect upon the size and shape of the retail segment's trading area. Character of the population of the trading area. Another factor concerning the population within the trading area is its character. The following characteristics are of importance: (1) the education level, (2) the size of families, (3) the extent of home ownership, and (4) the stability of the population. The purchasing power of the trading area. The purchasing power of the trading area is also an important factor. Included in this factor are such characteristics as: (1) the dispersion of wealth, and (2) the sources of income. If, for example, the income and the wealth are 297 well dispersed, then there is an excellent basis for a healthy retail climate. Furthermore, if the sources of income are also widely dispersed, this adds to the vigor ousness of the retail trading area. The competitive structure of the trading area. If the competition in a given trading area is strong and active, this may deter the entry of additional retail units. The strength of the retail competition is deter mined, in part, by the number of retailers in the same competing lines. In addition, the practices of these already-existing retailers, as well as their type of ownership, chain or single unit, is another determining factor. The progressiveness of the community. Certain communities are much more progressive than others. Such items as the following determine a community's progressive ness: (1) police and fire protection, (2) the school system, (3) the abundance of public parking, (4) the condition of the streets and sidewalks, (5) the strength and forcefulness of the chamber of commerce, merchant associations, service clubs, and so on, and (6) hospitals 298 and churches. The buying habits of potential customers. There are differences between groups of people in different localities. Some of the favorable factors that affect the buying habits of them include: (1) the use of credit, (2) store loyalty, and (3) willingness to drive to a site location. Secondary Factors The secondary factors, which help determine the trading area in which a given retail store will locate, are almost self-explanatory, so that a listing of them is sufficient. Included among them are the following: (1) legal restrictions, (2) taxes, (3) facilities for credit and collection services, (4) condition of the labor market, (5) type and number of advertising media and their respective costs, (6) consolidated delivery system, (7) proximity to wholesale sources, (8) availability of banks, and (9) average rentals.^1 ^Data for this section obtained from: Nelson, op. cit., pp. 80-110; Richard 0. Ratcliff, "The Problem of Retail Site Selection," Michigan Business Studies. IX (March, 1939), p. 63; Pearce C. Kelley and Norris B. 299 Both the basic and secondary factors play an impor tant role in determining in which trading area an individ ual retail store will locate. This discussion has not been presented with the implication that these factors are static, or that they are of equal importance to each type of retail operation. Some operators and operations require more of these factors to he favorable than others. How ever, they are a determining feature of the retail struc ture insofar as the individual retail unit is concerned. V. CONCLUSION This chapter, in presenting a discussion concerning the determinants of retail structure and retail store location, considered at the outset some of the more impor tant principles involved which attempt to explain retail Brisco, Retailing, Basic Principles (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1957), pp. 122-125; Delbert J. Duncan and Charles F. Phillips, Retailing. Principles and Methods (Fifth edition; Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1959), pp. 73-78; G. Henry Richert, Warren G. Meyer, and Peter G. Haimes, Retailing. Principles and Methods (Fourth edition; New York: McGraw-Hill Book Com pany, Inc., 1962), pp. 381-382; William R. Davidson and Paul L. Brown, Retailing Management (Second edition; New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1960), pp. 50-51. 300 structure and retail store location. This was followed by a summarization of some of the more important forces at work in our economy which affect retailing. The final section presented some of the factors involved which influence retail store location. Chapter VII, the next chapter in this study, will summarize the results of the research done in this study insofar as the behavior of retailing in selected central business districts for the period of 1948-1958. Following Chapter VII will be several chapters analyzing the results of the research reported in it. It is in these last two chapters that reference to what has been discussed in this chapter, Chapter VI, will be taken into consideration. CHAPTER VII A SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN RETAIL STORE SALES AND LOCATION IN SELECTED CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS: 1948 THROUGH 1958 The previous chapters have been primarily concerned with summarizing various economic theories, principles, and forces dealing with location, both from a general point of view as well as specifically applying to retail stores. Also, there has been a review of the development of urban concentration and retail structure in the United States, in addition to which there has been a discussion of the principles and factors applicable to retail store location. Whenever theories and principles are supported by statistical research such as has been cited in the previous chapters, it fortifies the very foundations upon which a thesis rests. This chapter is basically concerned with a summary of research done in retail store activity within 109 selected central business districts of the larger and more important central cities in the United 302 States. The time period involved in this study is the era of 1948 through 1958, and it is hoped that this research will add to the already"existing body of knowledge in this area. In presenting the results of this research, this chapter is divided into the following major sections: (1) a summary of changes in retail store sales and location prior to 1948; (2) a summary of changes in retail store sales and location in the selected districts: 1948 through 1958; and (3) conclusion. I. A SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN RETAIL STORE SALES AND LOCATION PRIOR TO 1948 In as dynamic an economy as ours has been, it is unfortunate that certain data regarding the growth and changes which have occurred in American retail business are not available, this being due in part to incomplete records. The greatest dearth of records concerning retail store sales and location is prior to 1948, especially with regard to the central business districts in our larger cities. In offering a discussion of retail store sales and location during this period, this section is divided 303 into the following areas: (1) introduction, (2) the 1933 census, and (3) the 1935 census. Introduction The first census of business in the United States was taken in 1840, which disclosed that there were 57,565 retail stores in a population of seventeen million, or 3.4 stores per thousand population.^* This census was nothing more than an estimate of the macro aspects of retailing without any significant analysis of the composi tion of these over-all activities. It was to be some time before any significant attention was directed to an industry which employs a considerable portion of the total population of the labor force of our economy. The 1933 Census Some ninety years later, 1935 to be exact, the Bureau of the Census of the United States Department of Commerce published a census of American business, in which, among other things, it contrasted retail distribution for *Paul H. Nystrom, "Retailing in Retrospect and Prospect," Changing Perspectives in Marketing. Hugh 6. Wales, ed. (Urbane, Illinois: The University of Illinois Press, 1951), p. 125. 304 the years 1929 and 1933. Amazingly enough, the years 1929 and 1933 could hardly be recognized as being representative years of normal retail activity. Although this comparison of extremes is apt to be very misleading, this census did establish the pattern and format to be followed from then on until the present. Table VIII shows a hand-selected comparison of certain retail store classification between the years 1929 and 1933. As would be expected, retailing suffered heavily with the advent of the depression of the 1930's, when retail sales by 1933 had declined to approximately twenty- five billion dollars from a 1929 mark of $48,329,652,000.^ As can be observed on Table VIII all five classifications suffered heavy losses of dollar sales. Food stores showed the greatest dollar decline, while apparel stores experi enced the largest negative percentage change. In spite of these sizeable dollar losses, two categories, automotive dealers and restaurants, eating places, showed increases in their relative positions to total retail sales, with 2 United States Department of Commerce, United States Census of Business 1948. Retail Trade - General Statistics. Vol. I (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1952), p. 9. TABLE VIII A HAND-SELECTED COMPARISON OF SEVERAL TYPES OF RETAIL UNITS AND SALES: 1929-1933 Retail Clas sification Number of Retail Units Net Sales Per Cent Per Cent Retail of Total Sales 1929 1933 1929 1933 Change 1929 1933 Food Stores 481,891 473,916 10,837,421 6,973,010 -37 22.07 27.13 Restaurants, Eating Places 134,293 200,335 2,124,890 1,429,938 -33 4.33 5.71 Department Stores 4,221 3,544 4,350,098 2,544,960 -41 8.86 10.16 Apparel Stores 114,296 86,548 4,240,893 1,923,333 -55 8.63 7.68 Automotive Dealers 257,685 305,403 9,615,810 4,419,249 -54 19.58 17.65 Source: United States Department of Commerce, Census of American Business: 1933. Retail Distribution. United States Summary: 1933. Vol. I (Washington: Government Printing Office, May, 1935), p. 15. 306 food, of course, having the largest relative increase. The other two categories, apparel stores and automotive dealers, experienced relative declines, although the decline shown by apparel stores was less than one per cent. The experience as reflected in Table VIII substan tiates the economic principle that as the income of con sumers declines, a relative larger percentage of it will go to necessities, food especially. The 1935 Census The 1933 census had reported that there were 1,326,119 retail stores doing an annual retail business of $25,037,225,000.^ Evidence of the fact that the total economy was beginning to recover was shown in the 1935 census when there was reported a total number of retail stores of 1,653,961 doing a retail dollar business of 4 $33,161,276,000. This represented a gain of $8,124,051,000 ^United States Department of Commerce, Census of American Business: 1933. Retail Distribution. United States Summary: 1933. Vol. I (Washington: Government Printing Office, May, 1935), p. 15. 4 United States Department of Commerce, Census of Business: 1935. Retail Trade Survey. Vol. II (Washington: Government Printing Office, April, 1937), p. 1. 307 in retail sales and an increase in retail units of 127,842 The 1935 census was reported in the same type of format and with approximately the same classifications and divi sions as was the 1933 census. Unfortunately there was no attempt to define the central business district of a central city, and this was not done until the 1954 census with arbitrary assumptions reverting back to the one in 1948. II. A SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN RETAIL STORE SALES AND LOCATION IN THE SELECTED DISTRICTS: 1948 THROUGH 1958 This section is the heart of this chapter, in fact, it is the heart of the entire study. As a summary of the research done into the changes in retail store sales and location in the 109 central business districts of the selected central cities, an attempt is made to reveal these changes in the briefest form possible without sacrificing either completeness or accuracy. In an effort to accomplish this purpose, this section is divided into the following areas: (1) methodology employed, (2) a description of the census of business, and (3) a summarization of the results of the research. 308 M e th o d o lo g y E m p lo y ed Investigating the changes in retail store sales and location in the 109 central business districts of the selected central cities in the United States from 1948 through 1958 rested, for the most part, upon secondary source materials. This type of information was derived primarily from the United States Department of Commerce, Census of Business, for the years 1948, 1954, and 1958. Certain of the seven volumes of the census proved to be of more value than others. Volume VII, entitled Central Business District Reports, was the most germane, while Volumes I, Retail Trade - Summary Statistics; II, Retail Trade ~ Area Statistics; V, Selected Services - Sumnary Statistics; and VI, Selected Services - Area Statistics, did provide some background and over-all statistical information. Many books, periodicals, and monographs also rendered some aid in helping to summarize the Census of Business reports. Yet in no instance did any of these sources present a summarization and/or an analysis to the degree of comprehensiveness that is attempted in this study. 309 The major source of primary materials consisted of: (1) personal interviews, and (2) this Investigator's own personal background and experience. The results of interviews with the various individuals added mostly sup plementary material. While this is not to infer that the information obtained from these interviews was not helpful, the fact remains that in almost every case it merely validated the conclusions that this investigator had already gleaned from the use of secondary sources or from the know-how gained from personal retail store business experience over a number of years. A Description of the Census of Business This study, then, relied upon the Census of Busi ness for much of the statistical information regarding retail stores. Thus, an analysis of this most important source is of primary concern and it relegates, to a cer tain extent, all other source materials into the back ground. There is no need to again review source materials from a descriptive point of view as this has been presented in Chapter I. This section, therefore, is an analysis of the Census of Business, and it is divided into the follow ing areas: (1) format of the publication, (2) differences j 310 between the 1948 and 1954 census, and (3) differences between the 1954 and 1958 census. Format of the publication. It has been noted previously that the Census of Business is constructed of a series of seven volumes. These volumes are concerned with both retail and wholesale trade, Volumes III and TV concerning themselves with the wholesaling activity in the United States, while the remaining five volumes con centrate on retailers. Furthermore, it has been previously indicated that Volume VII was the most pertinent of the group insofar as use in the subject area of this study. It is on Volume VII that the remainder of the discussion on format will concentrate. A special consideration will be given later on in this section to the fact that there was never published a Volume VII for the 1948 census. Volume VII is a summary of the reports of indi vidual retail businesses, which are located in 109 central cities of 97 selected standard metropolitan areas. These retail firms are divided into specific classifications based upon certain definitional characteristics as defined in the Bureau of the Budget's Standard Industrial Classi fication Manual. Volume VII summarizes the activities 311 of retailers that are categorized in this aforementioned manual in major groups 52 through 59. There are certain other types of retailing activity that are not included in these major groups, hence, not included in Volume VII. For example, those places of business which are operated solely for the benefit of their own members are not con sidered as retail establishments. School cafeterias, establishments operated by the federal government on military posts and in hospitals, bars and restaurants operated by private clubs, and eating places operated by commercial firms on their own premises for use by their own employees are typical examples of the excluded group. The determination into which retail classification a particular retail establishment falls is done under the basic rule that the primary source of the firm's income is the ruling factor. Therefore, even though food stores sell nonfood items they are classified as food stores because the primary source of their sales is in items that are designated as food. The following are the types ^United States Department of Commerce, United States Census of Business: 1958. Retail Trade - Summary : Statistics. Vol. I (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1961), pp. 2-3. 312 of retail firms as defined by these major group classifica tions in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, and reported in Volume VII: (1) Major Group 52--Lumber, Building Materials, Hardware, Farm Equipment Dealers; (2) Major Group 53--General Merchandise Group; (3) Major Group 54— Food Stores; (4) Major Group 55 (except 554)--Automo tive Dealers; (5) Group 554--Gasoline Service Stations; (6) Major Group 56— Apparel, Accessories Stores; (7) Major Group 57--Furniture, Home Furnishings, Equipment Stores; (8) Major Group 58— Eating, Drinking Places; (9) Group 591— Drug Stores, Proprietary Stores; and (10) Major Group 59 (except 591)--Other Retail Stores.** One very important aspect concerning reporting the retail establishment under a given category is that of the situation in which there are separate and distinct industry classifications carried on by this single retailer under the same roof. In this event there are separate establishment reports for each of these separate and distinct activities. It should be noted that each retail establishment is reported regardless of its ownership. g See Appendix A, for a complete description of each of these groups. 313 In reporting the retail sales, net sales are used, and these sales Include all merchandise sold, Including receipts from repairs and other customer services regard less of the fact that they may not have been paid for In the census year. Included In the net sales total are all federal, state, and local taxes collected by the retailer, plus those passed on to the retailer by the manufacturer and wholesaler. These net sales also include receipts from other than the sale of merchandise at retail, among such items being sales to industrial users, sales to other retailers, service receipts, and so on. Since Volume VII is concerned with the central business districts of the previously defined central cities most of the summaries use the central business district as the point of reference. Due to the fact that some of the 97 standard metropolitan areas have more than one central city, the format of reporting these central business districts is alphabetical by the name of the standard metropolitan area rather than the central city. The following is the order in which these areas are reported: Albany-Schenectady-Troy, New York Akron, Ohio Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Pennsylvania New Jersey Area Atlanta, Georgia Austin, Texas Baltimore, Maryland Baton Rouge, Louisiana Birmingham, Alabama Boston, Massachusetts Bridgeport, Connecticut Buffalo, New York Niagara Falls Canton, Ohio Charlotte, North Carolina Chattanooga, Tennessee Chicago, Illinois Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky Cleveland, Ohio Columbus, Ohio Corpus Christi, Texas Dallas, Texas Dayton, Ohio Denver, Colorado Des Moines, Iowa Detroit, Michigan El Paso, Texas Erie, Pennsylvania Evansville, Indiana-Kentucky Fall River, Massachusetts-Rhode Island Flint, Michigan Fort Wayne, Indiana Fort Worth, Texas Fresno, California Gary-Hammond-East Chicago, Indiana Hammond Grand Rapids, Michigan Hartford, Connecticut Honolulu, Hawaii Houston, Texas Indianapolis, Indiana Jacksonville, Florida Kansas City, Missouri-Kansas Kansas City, Missouri Kansas City, Kansas Knoxville, Tennessee Little Rock, Arkansas Los Angeles-Long Beach, California Los Angeles Long Beach Glendale Pasadena Louisville, Kentucky-Indiana Memphis, Tennessee Miami, Florida Milwaukee, Wisconsin Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota Minneapolis St, Paul Mobile, Alabama Montgomery, Alabama Nashville, Tennessee New Bedford, Massachusetts New Haven, Connecticut New York City, New York Manhattan Brooklyn Yonkers New Orleans, Louisiana Newark, New Jersey Norfolk-Port8mouth, Virginia Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Omaha, Nebraska-Iowa Paterson-Clifton-Passaic, New Jersey Peoria, Illinois Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Philadelphia Camden Phoenix, Arizona Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Portland, Oregon-Washington Providence, Rhode Island Reading, Pennsylvania Richmond, Virginia Rochester, New York Rockford, Illinois St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois Salt Lake City, Utah San Antonia, Texas San Diego, California San Francisco-Oakland, California San Francisco Oakland Berkeley San Jose, California Savannah, Georgia Scranton, Pennsylvania Seattle, Washington Shreveport, Louis iana South Bend, Indiana Spokane, Washington Springfield-Holyoke, Massachusetts Syracuse, New York Tacoma, Washington Tampa-St. Petersburg, Florida Toledo, Ohio Trenton, New Jersey Tulsa, Oklahoma Utica-Rome, New York 317 Washington, D. C., Maryland-Virginia Waterbury, Connecticut Wichita, Kansas Wilmington, Delaware Worcester, Massachusetts Youngstown, Ohio Each of these 97 standard metropolitan areas is treated in Volume VII as separate entities. The informa tion given for each separate standard metropolitan area includes, among other things, a description of the ter ritory included in the metropolitan area, the central city, and the central business district. Supporting these descriptions is a map showing the location of the central city, or cities, and the geographical boundaries of the standard metropolitan area. Following this there are a series of tables in which the major retail groups, previously described, are summarized. These tables cover the following areas: Table 1, Retail Stores and Selected Service Establishments: Central Business Dis trict; Table 2, Retail Stores and Selected Service Establishments: Entire City; Table 3, Retail Stores and |Selected Service Establishments: Standard Metropolitan ;Statistical Area; Table 4, Retail Stores and Selected j Service Establishment: Per Cent Change in Sales, Central 318 Business District, Entire City, and Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area; Table 5, Retail Stores and Selected Service Establishments: Central Business District Sales as a Per cent of the City and the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area; Table 6, Retail Stores and Selected Service Establishments: Percentage Distribution of Sales, by Kind of Business: Central Business District, Entire City, and Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area. In the 1958 census an additional table was added: Table 7, Retail Stores and Selected Service Establishments: Major Retail Centers in the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas.^ Summary reports. The retail activity in each of the central business districts of the 109 central cities in these 97 standard metropolitan areas are reported in the above-described manner. In addition to Volume VII, the United States Department of Commerce has seen fit to publish summary reports for the census years of 1954 and ^United States Department of Commerce, United States Census of Business: 1958. Central Business Dis trict Statistics. Vol. VII (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1961). and 1958. These summary reports do not attempt to cover the retail stores and selected service establishments to the degree done In Volume VII. They do review the sales percentage changes between the standard- metropolitan area, the central city, and the central business district in each of the 109 central cities for both the census year being summarized and the previous census year. In certain instances these summary reports proved to be of some aid, but, in the main, Volume VII was the major source of information. This is in general the format of the Census of Business. However, there have been some differences between the census years of 1948, 1954, and 1958 that are of such importance as to be noted. The differences between 1948 and 1954 c e n s u s . One of the major problems that faces any researcher is to maintain consistency in the gathering of the data. The changes made in the 1954 census as compared to.the previous one in 1948 presents such a problem. The comparability of these two census periods has been impaired, although not to an irreparable degree. A discussion of some of the more important differences follows. 320 One of the major differences between these two census years was in the minimum sales requirement to be reportable. In the 1948 census no retail store was included if its sales were under $500.00 for the entire year, while in 1954 the sales had to be below $2,500.00 before it was excluded. To make matters more complicated on this particular point, the 1948 census reported only those retail stores who were in business during the entire calendar year and the 1954 census reported those that did $2,500.00 or better in sales during the calendar year regardless of the fact that they might not be in business during the entire year. The result of this difference was to distort the comparison both as to the number of retail units and to their sales, because an estimate was made that in the 1948 census there were approximately 100,000 retail establishments with sales from $500.00 and $2,500.00 A second major difference was in the Kind of Busi ness Classification area. One of the changes of this type made a difference in the number and sales of retail units in the Food Store group. In 1948 those dairies that not only processed and bottled milk and cream but also 321 delivered a majority of it to consumers' homes were included, whereas in the 1954 census they were deleted and included in the Census of Manufacturers. Another classificational shift was between food stores and "General stores." The 1954 census relied more heavily upon the establishment's own evaluation of its retail clas sification than in 1948. As a result, the Census of Business admitted that because general stores carried considerable inventories of food there was a shift in the direction of general stores which distorted the totals of both retail groups. Another minor but distracting change in the Kind of Business Classification area was in the Eating. Drinking Places group on the one hand and the Food group on the other. In 1954, "Eating Places (except refreshment stands)," was enlarged to include "lunch counters" which had been previously classified in the 1948 census in the Eating. Drinking Places rather than in the Food group. A third major difference concerned the leased department. In the 1948 census these leased departments were automatically included in the retail store in which they were housed. The 1954 census, however, did away 322 with this and counted them as separate retail store loca tions. Fortunately, by 1954 a great majority of depart ment stores no longer utilized leased departments as compared to the earlier years. Nevertheless, this was another distortion. A fourth major difference concerned what was included in the total dollar sales at retail. In this particular case it did not affect the retail units but only the dollar sales. Sales and excise taxes were included in 1954 and not so included in 1948. A fifth and by far most noticeable change between the two periods was the lack of central business district statistics in 1948. There was no published information on central business districts in 1948 except for compara tive percentages that were issued in conjunction with the 1954 census. Consequently, it became necessary to mathe- ! matically calculate the retail sales in dollars for 1948 by taking the percentage change from 1948 to 1954 and Q multiplying it into the 1954 dollar retail sales. Howevei; Q United States Department of Commerce, United States Census of Business: 1958. Central Business Dis trict Statistics. Summary Report (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1961), p. 3. 323 there was no feasible method by which to determine the number of retail store units that comprised these sales. One could surmise that there were more retail stores in 1948, but this would only be at the best an "educated guess." It can be noted that in the preceding paragraph the words "published information" were used in referring to certain aspects of the 1948 statistics. According to the Bureau of the Census, an attempt was made in the 1934 census to calculate 1948 central business district figures by a rather unique process. Since many of the larger cities contained no officially designated and defined area known as their "central business district," the Bureau of the Census found it necessary to arbitrarily establish them. Census Tract Committees of these larger cities provided the Bureau of the Census with the help it needed. These cousittees delineated these central business districts by obtaining the help of local business firms, newspapers, planning agencies, and the like. While there were no hard and fast rules by which to determine I exactly of what a central business district consisted, i the Bureau of the Census did feel that the area must 324 contain the following elements: (1) a high land valuation, (2) a high concentration of retail businesses, theaters, offices, hotels, and service establishments, and (3) have a heavy traffic flow. The Bureau of the Census also recommended that the central business district be so q defined that it follows existing tract boundaries. This definition of the central business district means, there fore, that it may include more than one census tract. The Bureau of the Census did recognize that in using this arbitrary method of defining the central busi ness district there might be some area included that did not fit the previously-described qualifications, or might not include some of the area that would meet the qualifi cations. They believed, however, that it did not cause much distortion. If it appeared that it did, the tract was split. These changes were of sufficient consequence as to make comparisons between the census years of 1948 and 1954 not as meaningful as might be hoped. Nevertheless the variances are not of such great magnitude as to render any comparison totally invalid. 9 United States Department of Commerce, loc. cit. 325 Differences between the 1954 and the 1958 census. The differences between the 1954 and the 1958 census years were much less extensive than those that occurred between the 1948 and the 1954 years, in that they were limited to several areas only. The major difference was the additional number of central business districts that were delineated between the two census years. Data was available in the 1954 census for 95 central business districts, while by the 1958 census the number had increased by 14 additional cities to a total of 109 central business districts. One of the more difficult changes to pin down was the change in the physical areas in a number of central cities that transpired between the two census years. This makes exact comparisons impossible. A third difference concerned leased departments. In the 1954 census, they were counted as separate estab lishments , but in the 1958 census, they were included with the retail business in which they were housed. The Bureau of the Census estimated that this change altered the retail unit count by 25,000 establishments, even though they only accounted for less than one billion dollars 326 of sales in 1 9 5 4 . There is no way of ascertaining whether this change of 25,000 retail units influenced the 1958 census with a bias favoring the central business district, the central city, or the remainder of the area in the standard metropolitan statistical area. It is this investigator's opinion that the bias did not favor the central business district but would work against it by showing comparatively that it had fared better than it actually did. Unfortunately, there is no method available to validate this position. While these changes between all three census years have had an influence on the complete validity of the figures reported, the trend in sales and units of retail stores since 1948 in the central business district is unmistakably clear. The next section will attempt to sunutarize the results of the research done in this area. A Summarization of the Results of the Research Utilizing the Census of Business as a base, a summary of its data was created. The purpose of this 10Ibid., pp. 24-25. portion of the section is to present this summary, which covered the changes that occurred in retailing for the decade of 1948-1958 in the aforementioned areas. This summary is taken from a consolidation of the statistical data included in Volume VII of the Census of Business for these census periods. On the basis of the information thus obtained, this summary is organized into the follow ing areas: (1) the central business district master table, and (2) a series of tables covering the groupings of retail stores as listed on page 312 of this chapter, in which the central business districts are ranked arithematically as to increase, decrease, or no change for these census periods. The central business district master table. This master table, known as Table IX, was developed as the means by which to consolidate and present the pertinent statistical data concerning the 109 central business dis tricts. The table is a summarization of all retail store activity in these areas irrespective of the retail group to which each unit is assigned under the Standard Indus trial Classification Manual. The table is divided into the following areas: (1) retail units: 1954 through to liafarj.HetrowltotuiUtlal i m D M lttl O m , u w k it h on c o m cm: H k n y S t U t t t n i j r t r ^ , Ut 1 » r i f i t f fi *f S i k r o , O h i o 0 jH - is AUatwlitMikirlutM, t o i j l v i a i i * l w J h h j i A r u ill . 7 M m U , 6 *or|ta U S Ilf - lol isitti, Ii u i f # j/J - f; kltimt, Itorjlud Jf a , 7 ;; . u lit*tagt, I n U U u X U 111 - t<f i t a t o H u , 4Mm m f t ) - w l*tW, MlllKkMtttl lilt I If It - l n \ M i w f f t , CNMttlnt 't)f ‘sit - f/ S t a w i , M* j /| J7/ - f OtarlMti, fcrtt Cinllu ^ if if » I C t o a N p , t o u t * ^ 439 _ / / I ffil'SL*, Mil Mi,’ ■% i S B * * $ | ; i W***,mi 7 J f 47f - < f C m m Ckrlitl, Toil m xtf - it Wto,teu $ii w ~ li t o * , » i < » j f j m - < f i C o l o r a d o m IV - f t I IhMn,Im r i i I l f - f7 : «MU,ltlchl»« U tl Iff'i . Ill I HRw,Thm VI ' f t f - #7 i 1 ^ , t o q l m i i if* j/j _ ,/ I tnwlUi, I b i M H t a t o c k ; h] jit „ / I M l liwr, IkttMtotti* 1 MllilHi m - J7 M b, UcMpt gii gig a . t o l q M , M I m J } ] hrt M U , T a u f / / « . / ; t o n , Cilitoti m / j f f - 1 / ft* tatM ’.»<U |* iff 10 - f t toto, C o M M t i n t fit H* - ft toto, kwu f j e f i e - f e to' I f i t I J t l W/f MtopUl, M i l l l 'fit *ifl m m e M w nlH i, i l w U i 0 jff „ gj Mill, Inmmm JtS 1« » ft Uttlt lock, bktttti j f f | /p „ m g MwlUi, (ntadyMUu / Wf iff ~ tf toM i, Tmwmi > ? * ■ jfx _ j c ■w,riKUi : |k tv m M M * , U M W t l lie lift m / U tortlU, Im m h m # j » f t < — /# K*MM,toKtotti IIX J . J h I* f e r n , C o M H t i a t l fff jJJ +J| t t tU U I Bran wu* h mjwct mwu u i l e t o t a t t ( e t t j r S a l M l i C w t n l I hI mii M i t r l c t taM i f l i u t e i ktnpHta l u t t f f l a l I n i ( i b i l i C M M I22L h f t « u i » SnKh” iwMM M s m . m m A t o m H U m i • • * • < < * < • » h w i r t i f i hnnun M — Stress__Bt iw Wtew mi m M/9 tllV {nt )//} tVIS ill] m |/u w v UH li H I v ts & I in fit fn m r« I h ( < l ) XI Ht U s i , i i t * Xt Hi A > to w ■ *» t o ■ M S £ « ( ! ) #i % X At HI Hi 'tU S 6 3 i f * MS t l «f #» s i i US Hi X* HI ur siJ ( • > • f.r ■it./ F J ' f a • U fl ■ tJ ■ li ■ M ■ C l • 7 , 1 • It ■//.I ■ f / . l ■ /» r - / f l j • 4 • i s • i f • % i ■ t o ■ it.( ■ ■ s - u ■ l U . / * . « ■ /,* f W ■ ? . f • / . » • / . f ■ I S ■ V ■ f.t • ax ■ * / • },l IM f t * «/ f t f W If./ A / /I.)1 % A/ sU m HI US m n» V.l V,f SlJ 4 S M Xt X I t u xi HI il,i SIS MJ Hi M .I l l S fo Hi Ml i» us M X} '#* $1 % % H i ( D ) XI Ju H it Xt SU H > Its Xt H I Xt * f , 1 1 1 i/j h i ill )1 .1 *J lit M l H i at s s i . m to.i m u s (II HI X t US fiS Hi Hi Stt M l Hi > g * Hi H i I/J Jf.i £ - a - AT - 1.1 - 1,1 - 7 , 1 ■•» - a I- u - s i - * f - u - s . 1 “ / • ! - I t - At -A 3 - */ - I S - V - u - u -At - u - i s Ml - a - i t - l b - r t f - V i - / . I - « ( . / - *» - ; . f - « / - At - / . I - u - V - S 3 “ <f - ftf -XI - IM : * [ ( * i t s m if % % Xt /« ! x t - ss IU [ v ) to - M to, -lt.t Art (Vi to ( V ) m ~a,t a s - f.t to fa nt fa vis - IU XV - u IU - i n »i - t s A t - X I to - A / HI -IS.I Xt - Its H3 - I I I US -lt.1 m -(1,1 x t - I S HS - / U I t - % HI - t l At -At.1 Xt - At.1 Ait ; -tV.t m - M XI -/« .< fa ss «- is Xt - a s a t -IS,/ u i -H,t at m fa - tit %t - a t HI fa to - u s XS <- AX At - M w - X i M l - m xt - u xt - *rt m t i t & /b f t * Hi HI Hi ? # (t) fit 3 t S At ^ * S 3 Si t to m I t t H i Hi $ t m to x* «f iu m m a t to x t m m % & m xt a/ its V ■ u (t) 0 W - g . - « * -S “ if - 4 / ~ « - «f - t / - V - H - At/ - u - X / - f . l - s . t - / / . I - u - j t * 1 : l - w ( f i -Kf - tl - * • { * > » ? , « : * - x; - IS -ft m t,t t m i t XI to - a At Hi - n Xi XV it Hi 0 - X to tl.i • 3 ,1 Xt Xi • i t Ml to - it to n t - is At to Mi S -i to - Li Vtt - U XI as - Vi M u - is Hi to — u to to - u ill to — it 9f. to . - u to l/S — V m to M. At a t to ■ — U 0 #F - u t.t u — L I Xt x t ' - SS x t At . MB it x s At MB Vi XI Xl • „ & t HI a t It t o a t -i to a s to u a t a t It m i Al,i ^ — li a t to «M u x t x t — «l HI US II to At — s< a t w 1 ft to a f m Sts — i,t m to — ti At x t _ to III ts - u 10 l/.i — V I y HI - VI a i m si Hi x*. — At m to 1 ,1 t o XV » t,1 fa u x t /a ® m «f x t H I 3tl f t i1 '1 i s ) i t s 3tl lit 0.1 m X t m i t s k l to X ! AS Its u m n i XI / ( . I ns j u m x t x i Its )iS x t sit a,) S 1 .S sf.t tSS M to m hi nt HI HI AS XI to x t m us fa i% t Ht ».t S L H A fa hi m x t tAl u s ttj set x t tit fa m m % s S L i X t fa M U S IS n.t a HI HI u.t a t « / to a* x s a* iu fa) ■ t.i (o• ) ■Af to S i ■ V tf ■iu 11 ■ V /i i s ■ / u / / . I ■ f t ? • to ■xt ■ M ■ It ■to ■IU ■ M ■ V ■ IIS ■ to fa ■ It • /t.l fa • U ■ t o •to M fa ■IU ■ At fa lit ti • U Hi M IS S .1 b u l l h l t i “ C l t b u l l b l U t b l u ' a C U bt \n w Owl \ Iw Orient, Iwiilui IlSI 1 1 1 in ! bw k, hv Jtrnj / « / 1/9 H | iHblHerttaMtb, Tlrjlili ( 1 1 Stl - ( 0 OUihu Cltj, O k lib o M 1 1 1 Hi * n > O mU, Mrnkflew bUrm*CUfM*hwilc, bv Jtricy sa tic _ si Sit S1 1 4 n I t a i l , UllKli ill U3 - it ^ FUnli, liliou 1 1 1 vh _ si i HtUbrik, h n ilm ii h i 7 * 1 — 1 0 1 brtUU, Ort(M*biUi|tM l?s HI - /Is h n ib u t, Ibodt Itlaoi St* fit - IS tu t 1 *|, Itmjrlnilt V S7 vm /( tlrboU, Virglali ill Its H bcbitn, In Ink T V S ( 1 1 • ■ i n bcklKi, lUlnli lit w — is htm ute, CtllfonU IS) (H n it, bill, Klnwl'IUtMii h it U» City, D ub h i sU - n VH Vil - n in hloile, Teui h i M cge, CiltlmU ivs- fw - i a s S3 ! - n i InJcu, Cillfmlt S7 I S So n imwh, CnrjU n l m a ! io n tu , haujflmli SSI IV) _ u ! hlUlt, Vuhli|tn th til n i i ftrmpnt, Inltlut 311 l/s k. u b u t Ini, ld tu i n o m •u V S yakiM , V nhlB |too OS S S V - 1 1 i|lil|iblMoljwb, Hiiuclwietci 31 ! )W - 3 1 b rn w , b»I«k ill SS3 (1 IMM, bihli|tn «7 ill Jo h b r tt. bttnbri, flnlb Itl IM - i t UWt, C k lo til Vlt * si Im tu , bv JKtt]f m ■ V ll - () b ln , O tlikcM m mu - 0 KiCfbu, bv Ink bikli|tN, D .C ., hrjluH lrjlili Stl n i — )i V IZ 1 ,3 1 ) - i bUfbrjf) Conntlat r vfi w — it IHtUb, b u ll W bli|tn, bliwri S S O v v • m it sit S V1 i t brtnttr, biucbutu III w - si TM|ltM, O k ie M 1 1 5 - 1 mui vm no comut cmcs: hllilt, bv Ink ! M //ts - I lb |tn blit III Itl » 1 CnrbaM l'bit Cblei|o, M ini Jtl ill — Jl b a n t » *1 us — ii b u n City, MliiovrMuui UI fll 1 0 bun 1 1 1 1 1 1 _ s MmifoHfSt. Ini, M immu 1ft fit — li b ,tu l VS( VSf 4 J VUlifelyhii, fnujrlvnli ) . i u m IVV Coin •Uo 'vn - 1 3 M ISL m m ' tkiA: w ' M M M l ft m » o v> i t i , i n s n , i i i It! 1 U til if» /o;; m m l i t n i a i n a i m l ( w ill M dtn s i . n l a iV J i % V m o h . V) 0 / f t / i f 1 k i l t If dm m He $to n ( h i /», W m n o ( » ) t \ t n n M M T A VS**o ht ..ami.. wii« +l i s t s n l,w - in i i*o,viT fv) nnv -h ie n i , m A i m t u n -4#»» i l i a i n ) / / ( i f l + lM m s ti .ffin m w - A / . I / / / / { / i f - / I » / (i,?H -n, in w,** 4 H I 1 0 1 , I l f | KMl s i m -li/H ivt,if1 4 s,rs m m - m u Ml -I s i l m e ti - h tt n h tv - HIM + I % W J , s t l H + ( / < / . (t,(ti - l« ) V, - <*» m m d m HUH i ( m i { at /u rn * in H I, D l f o h m i n ht J o b . M UiL bt M l h i til i i l / f t , M . 4 y f l («) t fl'Hf y VS + (I w . Jiaf + nisi / i i i U + /*«* tv . fit . r in f$/M I - It/lo I I , H o - m/91 - i t i n it,Hi (V ) io,m 4 '? /? shn It) n u n - t y a s»,ih +/I, its MM i t ) us,nr h) i ti. in -nsrss sift! + 0*1 w ,m xn,m itejffi 11,111, 'tef k m n i ,m ntjsi v i m t } t « S / v s / a m n s si,m miff m m m / m ns,nv mil s l , t v t U , l H m , t i i i t , e i f /* > , m m m a m m m a, m tlu i t i K M W ? tn, h i t u t t m ? % tn M i l t ) f t v v i A m nu> HI, M It, V i! T O . lit s i m i r ( m m/tv i A , n n s n r V > , Vt 4 t n V i , m + S,IS1 M in - i,sh l i m - S.ill n ns +t,tvi i n , ft) - i x t i If,VI +($){ U M +6,17! I ll,fli + / J , f*o 3 )0 ,M iilfit l % l l l - I 1 1 1 m ,it! _ * vu V,™ +i,iir !% W - 3,ni u r n - Ltii st, ni + I,In /si,us m m ity/i -i/D . in, ni + ( i t f w,w+v,n<> fUM - v f i e (1,111 + i,»H mi + S f i i s mm m,/tl k t w Ilf. I /O + v« u , n i - i , t h nsvri + i,(n k ftI - vvl V , V t l - I t , H i h i m -it,v n KVH + /, a s HltS -ISM IL W + % W iilti) - I , ill t C i t i * v.m i o f , i t t - i t , i n A m + i tn h . m - Aw - i f i t / < 1^117- I , H I 3 ns - i,m tlo - VH f / a , f n - n,m , W - f f antts VU + l, v / o W,1V1 lie, ii ( («) ; inifv t » , m /vi, tie (v) t ti ,M m v i i M , IU III, ho b, oi? /issn l( h i I V o , 1*1 a m Httf / t i n s m ts/ K, H i sv,t?l ( l ,hi m tsi i h n • b n ti a t m k . (v) /st, u i iv,lll m in iH ) («) a , n i /of, t n IS a* HI, l i t lot, 1 1 1 l o y i o in) 6% W U M ill l \ o l l ( 4 ( 4 7o\ US v+,m v w + w t V W ~ i s ( s i --- w /x l,f tl (S,)S7 ((.111 1 1 /M . , f) ,tl f - I f i f r.. . > m - f t ,S D . . . . . (tl) III, Hi + 1 3 ,7 1 1 IX ,/U - Vt,iSS IV .Ill - M U d m * 4 m n i f f - i m M i n ~ l i e / /13.VS3+ (fit ft,Oil - 3/.JW /st, us ± 4 sit m,m - som l t t $ > >*. "ft “ ft? t o m + n ,s u ([ni 4 7 ,Hi (tia- ion » \ / t t + utl i I i t o + m it.m I* ) m io +is,7iv i l . v t i i * ) ‘m + t w b , u i I * ft til (1) /u,ni - I \1 H & - P j l i f t l ( 0 i i o t s - sH / O f , t i t — i , s i t nxn + i m kft) "if,?ri A'f t -/ % f/V / % , U 1 - i L c l i 3 3 A / S W 4 , m - m 5 7 , 7 0 ( 9 ) 1 ( 1 , S t - ( 2 , 1 1 1 S I , t i t + 1 2 , ( 1 * as,ni >1 n ( , m m lot,iff - i m o , f f / + (m MUBM mO arm— hi c u t • ( C i t y hlu l i (Wil l I wI mii D l i t r l c t fifiw ht c u t i t HWui htrwllUi i u t l i t l e i l A i u hbt U C H I IHI m hrcnti|i Mffiriwi htcmii' J t e L J S L J L htcwiti J 2 i a s L J W Hit htmti|i J l t e L IM Hit htcntifi Wltewci m ‘ Si sn m n ) ? ? 1 iss fit IU m iet t v 113 to? m S3o 0/3 S i? Sit oil ett v l w w w V w »; o ) f* m f )n m 1/7 1 1 1 S I? 6) i ‘ ) m * ) nt ip ill ft/ « f 9i? f til it) V.l jti a t 33.» * U S iA 3 t.3 m itj XI ill m m m tt.x «.i il,9 M S I . t in n t a t w a t w v s 3 1 .7 tot XU a t i s ? m «s to IU tot « a k t w M x t m t o t k x j ( 0) a? a? n . i Ml Hi m mi m &t k t n t it,t a? a s » > ? m xt tot M e W Mi M S tot $ s s in tot ms as M tot % ’ !) i l l ? a , l a t u I ts 5 .3 I") - 1 1 .3 - l . t (o ) (0 ) - at - 1 .7 - t , f - (.7 - f . o - a - a - (.0 (0) - 7 .9 - to? -/?.? - M -IU - 19 - X t - t s - 1 .1 (o ) - to? ( 7 ) - H (0 ) H - u - m - / / . < w - ?.i - 7 .3 - 1 7 -1 - 1 .3 - t o x - t o ? X I (o ) 0 f ! u o.l a t to? a t m x.s a t lit t i t tot a t tot m HI #.l x.s a t HI Ml s).t an iX3 H i to? a s S i Hi He £ h i x.t A ? a? Us » . i n.? a t a t a t » ff to t (ti) tot tot Ht M i . a t X t m ft? xt w t o I 3 t i t?.l Kt a t /U n . t »t ' toi a t s s s nt W ,o ju SI? tot 3S.7 a t xt xt J f.e a t i?.t k,x - S ,S - I . t - H - i . t - s . t + AJ + i . s - /».t + 0 . 1 - 1* - u - IS - S .? - JU • 8 - S .I - ts (o ) - U - U = B - It - i.7 - t.t - It + If - ts - OS - S . t -tl - ts + At - < h t ~ 0 .1 its M HI tot a s % its it,i tot » i - i.t fa - i t Hi - P Xt - X I a t - M m + ft? a s - i s M - jt.e *1 - W - i.t % ■/it ■ IIS in. t Mf -n o ,J tot - d) a t iSA lt.1 Hi lie ( 0 ) f l . i (A m S 3 .1 l?.7 tot jt.t s.i a t to» a t an tot t o t us #.i x.t sit a t if.i tot lit a t fci t i t tot n l to! tot S.7 fu ip ) tot a t n x i - % m i») - iu til a? (V) ( • D . to n til jit a t S i ill lt.1 a s ti> ni xi to? a t f m M 3/.0 at x t Hr m nt xj tot mi , m a t u s m (f no (ill XI u.i x.t X \ Mt i s 3U xs a t Hi m IX it 7 .1 /os ti? V f.J IJ .1 P 1 7 .1 tit lf.1 ill) (« ) 1 .1 to? V). I i 1.1 8 ■IV • I t ■t/s & . U ■ m ■Xi • /./ ■ 1 1 .3 ■iu ■ u ■ I s 7 .1 i,t a s too - le too a ? - L l u a t Ml OS - u (» ) a t H i) til lit -7.1 v,l 1 7 ,1 -0 .5 n t tot - 3 ,o M a * - S , f u s a.? - ?l 1 0 ) i.i (0) % * u - u (P ) ».i (0) ■ ti? IU - f.1 Ml 1*S — I* ,? MS ll,? - U a t o s - 5.? n s aJ - ft? a? > 0 .1 -S.o M IV - w 0.1 0.1 - 9 .7 0.1 0.1 - 1 .0 3 0 ,1 1 1 .1 - U 1 1 .1 OS - U i n.) v.} - IS y.i Hi - IS tot 3 3 .1 - S . 1 tit toi - 5 ,9 Mf to! - V its a? - (.1 1 1 ,0 til -It,? Ml u s - 1 ,9 lit 0.1 - u ftJ 0,1 - 1 .1 Sit tit -lt.1 H-t ii.i - U ?u XI -IfJ its u s - 5J a ? Ml - 1 .0 0,1 v j o s - if Mf 1 1 .1 - 1 .1 S.I - 1 .1 n.i HI - 1 0 ,1 ill x t - (.1 u s tot - is it.i U.l - U at OS - 1 .3 0.3 H a - 1 .1 m til - a s Hi »s - u (0) to! (? ) nr 3 3 ,9 - 5 .1 at ~ ft tot 3*1 - 0 J (0) 0.3 M 0,3 ti? -1,1 % tot - t i t lit tit -1 1 tit lit US - ?s 1 3 . t (el tot 1 .1 - 3 .1 Me V.f - U to? tot - S .? Ml tot - 7 ,9 13 .1 tlJ - 1 .? ft to? - t i l 111 til - 1 .3 (0 ) t v (v) H I 1 1 .1 - I.t tot t it - i t til /U - 9 ,1 HI O.l - 1 ,0 }1.l toi - 1 ,1 lit 3 3 .1 -13.3 3 3 ,t uJ - 1 .1 » ? til - 7 ,1 t i l n s - 3 .1 n s t i ? - M Jfcf 1 3 .1 - IS 1 1 ,3 /ti - 11 0.1 tot - IX a t 0.1 - U to? tot - 9S (* » u {« ) 1 .1 u - t.) PS M ns t.i - o .f M 1 0 .1 1 0 ) tot 1 ,3 - 1 .3 U i /i.t - 3 .1 tot N - 1 .1 V ~ M 0S 9 .1 - 0 .? I 0.1 7 .1 % 1 1 .7 1 .1 M t.1 - 3 .3 - hi Ml Ml ~ 3 ,1 M l I3.e - li 1 ,1 U - 0 ,1 IS 1 .1 - t j toe J S L 1 « OS til li.i HI tot 3 1 .1 t i l M i.t ( W 1 1 . 1 Ml IV /Li tot til 1 7 .3 IV O S Ml i*S tot til tot ii.? U.I l\1 V? .t tu !l.e ft.l 1 1 . 1 at tot a* 1 3 . 1 /tj US I fJ t ? . 1 3 1 1 US M l til tot m ha k a* Ht tit ( 0 ) it.? tot » .i M M S 1 0 ) 1 . 1 Ht it,, Ml 1/.I tot n.i I ’ 0 / t i l tot /t.i HI J W n i mi x ? US tot ti? i / . s s . i it,l 0.1 ti I.t ( 0 1 li.l IW 1 .3 til It.? 1 . 7 1 . 1 (e l /i.i (e ) (.7 J e .7 /i.t /.? I.I -Hi W ti -to! -IS ft) ti -ns -Li - 1 . 1 -t.1 -fo,l -too -lt.1 -IS -It, I -7.1 -/u -I1J - 0.1 -It.? -HI - 1.3 - 0,1 -% -tot ti ti - l i o - 1 .1 -U .9 iv - ll -111 - t i l •XI -IU - 5 . 7 - 7 .0 ti M ti -I.) - 0 . 1 0 -7,7 -0.3 . j mi""" MlU Wti,aC N "M— . Mill M l« UliHm — . m IWotl HtttoooUtoi lutlitliil tow ffit Iffl M JML uuinniuutamuciim: loo fttoclico-Oiklttl. Collfotolo: taftoocitco uifj iifS - ifi MW f UJ V “/ > / MWoy for +'// hv Tort City, Itv lorti takottoo booklyo TMiri ic,he itm - si let u s - ii Hi ill - f m u vith root araua cnits: loo totelti-lmt lath, CoUforolo; III ioplti lM| Moth ( W o l t h utni / / / / I He m s t i sis vis m l i e - s i - i t -n M 1 « * TT JfeML M I f i L M 2 m I M J2L TT ( M u ■ B K > nw <^ ft/.tti m jn - mt tn sit w tfi+ w M w.tct m i l + W * W it! I tf, Ilf-nit* Ilf 1 1 1 lUjCSt+ (id W hJ ili tSi -/Slfl A ill %(n i l,1tf «!/tt #,111+1,1(1 3 1 , w fa n + j,ui in) I M i n (v) ti) (») If If I 31, v s - l » l i'U ijlt i M ? s i i n n i e trim m u + u ni Am HHei t ' f l f (1) l , M i l l tu t Hilt I V ) ( i i ) mt O f ) t in )fW ill Wfn* JU Jts-tiSn Jisits im s-io.sse Him h s j h - h h t f t in i i i ^i in i n n i , i n / » , t n + ( n i t t y s i u , f n + W ft. I d t») f i t f t f a n + ( h i lttj,1f / ii, fit - H I tit' HI I A Ilf + 1,113 $) letiff ff.Hl (VI i t i , n s + ( I ) D o t o i r l t U n U . ( I ) IU n p o t t r i . ( D h f N i l b l i t o c o l c o U U , ( I ) H t t o l o g l t i i t o c o h o r t t u t t o e t a | * 1 * t c r t i t o t l o l I t f l o l t i o o . t l o t t a i j f , MU t X ( w t i t t H ) hr cat ft tttj hk i ttfetril taltnr Hitrict hrmti|< h m U f i t * t # W H U m W to w c i 1 1 5 4 H H W th m w I M !-i ! M — E S M L hr t t t ii itnhH M apliM iutlittal Im blu li 00 “ fttM MfT' M m m ii hrcttu(i m m wthtM, m w rntm w W M m 11 }ti till -1 A &l JtJ +/,/ HJ 3 1 .1 -J1 . 7 iij m - 1.1 m Ac - i.t )U 4} - 1 / tv %f -/.* n . t i t . / -i j nt iV -/,/ (n) , if.t ( » ) «y - t.1 (tl t i t ft) 0 > ) u (v) i t *.f + (a) K,t to) if.t xi.i - 1 ,1 . *l.i IV -1.1 It 1 > V " A W t v n . t l i t D.6 - M 1.1 u - f . t u % -6 .1 1.1 / • i -6 .3 1.1 ID -0.1 (n) I V (W lt .f I U - 1.3 (n) u w u 0 -0.1 f.i t,S * ■ 6.1 6,3 + M I3.c h U I . t / • ! ( H ) lU I U ) */ i . i 0.3 -ay & if It /tJ t u W is.t ( v ) m fi.) u.t -U - f . t (») -/ t J DA U l b i l . t m m HD III - 3 . 1 — / . I -u - J . I UJ f.l I V ii .l O H H.1 SU 11.1 —16 ,* - 1 . 1 M ~/u 1 . 1 f , l w , I.t on i.j 1 . 1 / . s ■u •AS ( 1) ■ 6 , 1 f . t U I .t 0 / . { 1 . 1 t . f Itl ■ 1,1 •A) • f t ! ■as U U 1 . 0 l . f m ) i. i 1 . 1 u -Si - 0 . 1 ( * > ■af & 331 1958; (2) total retail dollar sales: 1948-1954-1958; (3) per cent of total city retail sales in central business districts: 1948-1954-1958; and (4) per cent of standard metropolitan area total retail sales in central business districts: 1948-1954-1958. In addition, calculations have been inserted to compare these three census periods wherever feasible. In the case of retail units and total retail dollar sales, these comparisons take the form of net absolute changes, while in the case of percentage changes, these comparisons are drawn up in the form of percentage differentials. Using these areas in Table IX as a base, a series of additional tables have been constructed in which the central business districts are ranked arithmetically as to increase, decrease, or no change in the nunfcer of retail units and total retail dollar sales for these census periods of each of the ten retail groupings devised by the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. Absolute changes in total number of retail stores. It has been noted previously that there are no published statistics on the total number of retail stores in the central business districts of these central cities for 332 the census year 1948. Therefore, these particular summary tables only show increases and decreases in total retail store units for the census years of 1954 and 1958. Tables X and XI (see Chapter VIII) clearly indicate the trend in the number of retail units in the central business districts between these two census periods. Only five out of the 109 districts showed increases in the total number of retail stores in their central business dis tricts, and this increase amounted to 82 stores, whereas, 104 central business districts showed a total decrease of 5,657 retail units in the same period. Absolute changes in total retail dollar sales. As data are available for the census year of 1948 concerning total retail dollar sales, Tables XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, and XVII show the changes in retail dollar sales for the periods of: (1) 1948-1954; (2) 1954-1958; and (3) 1948-1958.'*''*' It should be noted that these sales are reported in current dollars for that particular census year, and, thus, include changes in prices as well as in sale units. "^These tables are constructed from data in Area II of Table IX and are to be found in Chapter VIII. 333 i | In the period of 1948-1954, 40 central business districts showed increases in total retail dollar sales of $423,231,000, while 47 districts revealed total sales decreases amounting to $1,100,286,000 (see Tables XII and XIII in Chapter VIII). In the period of 1954-1958, 55 central business districts experienced increases in total retail sales amounting to $588,529,000, contrasted with 54 districts showing a decline of $457,644,000 (see Tables XIV and XV, Chapter VIII). For the decade of 1948-1958, 39 districts increased in total retail sales by an amount of $483,883,000, whereas 46 showed declines totaling $1,222,105,000 (see Tables XVI and XVII, Chapter VIII). Percentage differentials in changes in total retail dollar sales of the central cities made in their central business districts. Another method of demonstrating the change in total retail sales for these census periods is by calculating the amount of sales done by the central business districts of the total amount done in their cen tral cities. Then, by noting the differential changes between the census years an arithmetical relationship can be established. Area III of Table IX was formed to show this relationship. The results are conclusive. Not one 334 central business district showed a positive percentage differential gain for the period of 1948-1954, and 83 districts showed negative percentage differentials. The period of 1954-1958 was almost the same with 94 districts showing negative percentage differentials and only 8 dis tricts positive figures. For the decade of 1948-1958 only one showed a positive differential change, while 80 were negative (see Table IX). Percentage differentials in changes in total retail dollar sales of the standard metropolitan areas made in the central business districts. When viewing the relation ship of the central cities to their standard metropolitan areas for total retail sales the same trend is to be noted. In the period of 1948-1954, 81 districts showed a negative percentage differential and not one district has a positive differential, while for the period of 1954-1958, 107 dis tricts had negative percentage differentials and only one showed a positive. As would be expected, the decade of 1948-1958 reflected this trend by showing 81 districts negative and not one positive percentage differential. It can be concluded, therefore, that retailing in the central business districts of the selected standard 335 metropolitan areas definitely declined during the decade of 1948-1958. However, these aggregate figures do not reveal the kinds and types of retail stores most affected as compared to those that more or less held their own. Summary of changes in the central business dis tricts bv kind of retail business; 1954-1958. In Volume VII of the Census of Business, summaries have been reported of the 12 types of retail institutions as previously described in this chapter. Utilizing this information for the two census years of 1954 and 1958, Table XVIII shows a summary of changes in the total number of retail units by kind of retail business in the central business districts, while Table XIX summarizes the changes in total retail dollar sales by the same retail classifications for these same districts. 1) Summary of changes in number of retail units: 1954-1958. Hone of the 12 retail classifications revealed a net increase in the number of retail units in the central business districts for the period of 1954 through 1958. This is not intended to imply that all of these districts suffered losses. Each retail classification had some gains in some of the districts, but the departures in TABLE XVIII CHANGE IN TOTAL NUMBER RETAIL UNITS IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS BY RETAIL CLASSIFICATION: 1954-1958 Increase of 1958 over 1954 Decrease of 1958 over 1954 S. I. C. Group No. of Cen tral Cities Units No. of Cen- Units In No. of Cen tral Cities tral Cities Net Change in Units 52 Lumber 31 53 43 General Merchandise 531 Department Stores 15 533 Limited Price Variety 15 54 Food Stores 17 55 Automotive Dealers 42 96 118 15 34 151 139 66 51 35 59 86 61 518 246 46 114 1109 226 -35 - 8 -20 -44 -69 -19 -422 -128 - 31 - 80 -958 - 87 336 TABLE XVIII (continued) Increase 1958 over of 1954 Decrease 1958 over of 1954 S. I. C. Group No. of Cen tral Cities Units No. of Cen tral Cities Units In No. of Cen tral Cities Net Change in Units 554 Gasoline Service Stations 47 210 56 223 - 9 - 13 56 Apparel, Acces sories Stores 1 2 103 2859 -102 -2857 57 Furniture 32 166 72 793 - 40 - 527 58 Eating Places 43 485 62 1009 - 19 - 514 591 Drug Stores 19 36 73 299 - 54 - 263 59 Other Stores 43 538 63 882 - 19 - 344 TABLE XXX CHANGE IN TOTAL RETAIL DOLLAR SALES IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS BY RETAIL CLASSIFICATION: 1954-1958 Increase of 1958 over 1954 Decrease of 1958 over 1954 S. I. C. Group No. of Cen- Sales tral Cities (000) No. of Cen- Sales tral Cities (000) Net Change in No. of Central Cities 52 Lumber 33 53 General Merchandise 77 531 Department Stores 22 533 Limited Price Variety 20 54 Food Stores 41 55 Automotive Dealers 38 23,206 446,258 135,933 19,780 57,154 104,336 62 30 14 55 68 55 46,640 209,250 121,173 32,939 75,104 177,932 -29 447 + 8 -35 -27 -17 U 3 u> 00 TABLE XIX (continued) Increase 1958 over of 1954 Decrease 1958 over of 1954 S. I. C. Group No. of Cen tral Cities Sales (000) No. of Cen tral Cities Sales (000) Net Change in No. of Central Cities 554 Gasoline Service 65 33,004 39 10,595 +26 56 Apparel, Acces sories 30 60,886 78 266,821 -48 57 Furniture 58 60,088 51 114,063 + 7 58 Eating Places 55 120,379 54 47,186 + 1 591 Drug Stores 70 45,244 38 18,131 +32 59 Other Stores 54 177,410 38 53,934 +12 340 every retail classification were greater than the addi tions, hence a net decrease. Major Group 56, Apparel, Accessories Stores, had the most decisive trend of all in that only one central business district had a gain, and that of two stores, whereas 103 districts experienced declines amounting to 2,859 retail units— a net loss of 2,857 stores. Other S. I. C. classifications were some what more evenly matched between gains and losses. Group 554, Gasoline Service Stations, for example, enjoyed gains of 210 stores in 47 central business districts, offsetting losses of 223 units in 56 districts. 2) Summary of changes of total retail dollar sales: 1954-1958. The trend in total retail dollar sales by retail store classification in the central business dis tricts for the period of 1954 through 1958 was mixed rather than decisive in a certain direction. Table XIX shows that of the 12 classifications, 7 gained in dollar sales while 5 declined. Major Group 53, General Merchan dise, had the largest gain not only in the number of dis tricts but also in the total dollar sales. Major Group 56, Apparel, Accessories Stores, on the other hand, suf fered the greatest decline. III. CONCLUSION 341 This chapter has endeavored to present a summariza tion of the results of a study into the changes in retail activity in 109 central business districts of selected central cities of the larger and more important standard metropolitan statistical areas. It covered the census years of 1948, 1954, and 1958. Special note was made in this chapter as to the inconsistencies of reporting on the part of the Census of Business. Furthermore, note was made of the fact that these inaccuracies and inconsisten cies were due in part to the changing each census year of the definitions and classifications of various retail businesses. In spite of these weaknesses in the Census of Business reports, the trend is clear. Retail stores have lost dollar sales by a greater amount than those stores which reported gains. This was due in part to the departure of retail stores from the central business districts of these central cities. It was also due in part to the fact that retail stores in the central business districts did 342 not even hold their own in annual sales for the period of 1948 through 1958. The next chapter will present a ranking of the j central cities by changes in each of the retail classifi cations used in this study. CHAPTER VIII THE RANKING OF CENTRAL CITIES BY CHANGES IN THE RETAIL CLASSIFICATIONS IN THEIR CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS In the previous chapter, Chapter VII, one of the results of the research was the ascertainment that the retail classifications studied all experienced declines in retail units in the selected central cities central business districts for the 1954-1958 period.* It was observed that this did not mean that all central business districts showed losses in a given retail classification, nor did it mean that the magnitude of the loss was the same for each retail classification (see Chapter VII). Furthermore, the change in total dollar retail sales was a mixed trend, with there having been a net decrease for the entire period of 1948 through 1958, even though there was a net increase for the period of 1954 through 1958. *It must be remembered that it is impossible to calculate the number of retail units in the central business districts for 1948. 344 The purpose of this chapter is to summarize the findings reported in Chapter VII by ranking the central cities in the standard metropolitan statistical areas studied by changes in each of the retail classifications in their central business districts used in this study. It will be divided into three main sections: (1) the ranking of the central business districts by changes in units, (2) the ranking of the central business districts by changes in sales, and (3) conclusion. I. THE RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS BY CHANGES IN UNITS Introduction One of the summary statements in the previous chapter was to the effect that only 3 central business districts showed gains in retail units in the period 1954 through 1958, while the remainder experienced losses. These losses totaled 5,657 and the gains were only 82, resulting in a net loss of 5,575 retail units to the central business districts for the period of 1954 through 1958. Newark, New Jersey, led all central business dis tricts in increases by having 48 of the total of 82 units, 345 or 58.1 per cent, which was 31 units more than the dis trict of Paterson-Clifton-Passaic in New Jersey. The decreases, on the other hand, were much more evenly dis tributed over the remainder of the central business dis tricts, with the largest district only having 267 losses of the total 5,657 units, or 4.7 per cent of the total (Tables X and XI). These aggregate totals do not directly reveal the performance of the several types of retail classifications in the central business districts during this period, and the major purpose of this section is to present such a summarization and analysis. TABLE X RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS BY ABSOLUTE INCREASE IN TOTAL NUMBER RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS: 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Standard Metropolitan Area Increase Newark, New Jersey 48 Paterson-Clifton-Passaic, New Jersey 17 Berkeley, California 11 Flint, Michigan 3 St. Paul, Minnesota 3 Total 82 346 TABLE XI RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS BY ABSOLUTE DECREASE IN TOTAL NUMBER RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS: 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Standard Metropolitan Area Decrease Chicago, Illinois 267 Detroit, Michigan 196 Boston, Massachusetts 192 Portland, Oregon-Washington 185 Houston, Texas 185 San Francisco, California 150 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 144 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 142 New Orleans, Louisiana 139 Oakland, California 131 Los Angeles, California 128 Seattle, Washington 114 Atlanta, Georgia 108 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 101 Hartford, Connecticut 98 Des Moines, Iowa 97 Austin, Texas 97 Bridgeport, Connecticut 91 Denver, Colorado 90 Kansas City, Missouri 90 San Diego, California 87 Sacramento, California 86 Providence, Rhode Island 85 Fort Worth, Texas 82 Brooklyn, New York 82 Memphis, Tennessee 80 Wichita, Kansas 79 Spokane, Washington 79 Baltimore, Maryland 79 Indianapolis, Indiana 75 Little Rock, Arkansas 74 TABLE XI (continued 347 Name of Standard Metropolitan Area Decrease Knoxville, Tennessee 73 Nashville, Tennessee 69 Columbus, Ohio 65 Fort Wayne, Indiana 63 Dallas, Texas 61 Norfolk-Portsmouth, Virginia 60 Omaha, Nebraska-Iowa 59 Toledo, Ohio 59 Phoenix, Arizona 58 Long Beach, California 56 Trenton, New Jersey 52 Manhattan, New York 51 Honolulu, Hawaii 50 Rochester, New York 48 Jacksonville, Florida 47 El Paso, Texas 47 Dayton, Ohio 46 Louisville, Kentucky-Indiana 45 Birmingham, Alabama 44 Camden, Pennsylvania 43 Peoria, Illinois 39 Springfield-Holyoke, Massachusetts 38 Fall River, Massachusetts-Rhode Island 37 Charlotte, North Carolina 36 Rockford, Illinois 35 Miami, Florida 31 Fresno, California 31 Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky 31 Gary-Hammond-East Chicago, Indiana 31 Worcester, Massachusetts 31 Utica-Rome, New York 31 Tacoma, Washington 30 Richmond, Virginia 29 Wilmington, Delaware 28 Tampa-St. Petersburg, Florida 28 Savannah, Georgia 26 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 26 Akron, Ohio 25 TABLE XI (continued 348 Name of Standard Metropolitan Area Decrease New Bedford, Massachusetts 24 South Bend, Indiana 23 Montgomery, Alabama 22 Mobile, Alabama 22 San Jose, California 21 St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois 21 Glendale, California 20 Newark, New Jersey 19 Waterbury, Connecticut 16 Scranton, Pennsylvania 16 Reading, Pennsylvania 16 Erie, Pennsylvania 16 Chattanooga, Tennessee 15 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 14 Pasadena, California 12 Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota 12 Shreveport, Louisiana 12 Grand Rapids, Michigan 12 Youngstown, Ohio 9 Canton, Ohio 9 Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Pennsylvania- New Jersey Area 7 Niagara Falls, New York 7 Evansville, Indiana-Kentucky 6 Yonkers, New York 5 Kansas City, Kansas 5 Buffalo, New York 2 Washington, D. C., Maryland-Virginia 2 San Antonio, Texas 1 Total 5,657 349 Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail units of SIC Major Group 52: lumber. building materials, hardware, and farm equipment dealers. Thirty-one central business districts reported increases in retail units of the SIC Major Group 52: lumber, build ing materials, hardware, and farm equipment dealers. The largest district had 8 additional units, which amounted to an increase of 8.33 per cent, while there were grada tions down to 11 districts with only an increase of one each. Sixty-six central business districts showed decreases in retail units amounting to 518. Detroit, Michigan, suffered a loss of 196 retail units which was 37.8 per cent of the total, while the next closest, Des Moines, Iowa, lost 97 or a 18.7 per cent of the total. The remainder of the districts revealed losses of 10 units or less, with 18 of them having lost only one retail unit (see Tables XX and XXI, Appendix B). The net result was that 35 districts had more losses than gains, and the net unit loss totaled 422. Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail units of SIC Major Group 53: general merchandise! group retail stores. The SIC Major Group 53: general 350 merchandise group retail stores enjoyed an increase of 118 retail stores in 43 central business districts, with San Francisco, California, leading the districts with 9 additions, or 7.6 per cent of the total, only to be closely followed by Los Angeles, California, with 8, or 6.8 per cent of the total additions. Fifteen of the 43 districts increased their number by only one new addition. In the matter of losses of retail units, it was a slightly dif ferent matter. Of the 51 central business districts which suffered retail unit losses amounting to 246, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, had 22 of them, or 8.9 per cent of the total, which was 13 higher than that of the next group of dis tricts (see Tables XXII and XXIII, Appendix B). This resulted in there being 8 more central business districts that had decreases than increases and a net decrease of 128 retail units. Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail units in SIC Group 531: department stores. The data concerning changes in retail units in the SIC Group 531, department stores, an important subclassification of the SIC Major Group 53, are severely limited due to the disclosure rule of the Census of Business. Therefore, there was information on only 50 of the total number of central business districts. Fifteen of these districts showed an increase of one department store each, while 3 districts showed losses of 3 retail units each out of the total decrease of 46 units (see Tables XXIV and XXV, Appendix B). Department stores thus experienced a net decline of 31 units with 20 more districts figuring in decreases than in increases. Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail units in SIC Group 533: limited price variety stores. Another subclassification of SIC Major Group 53 is SIC Group 533: limited price variety stores. Manhat tan, New York, had 11, or 32.3 per cent, of the total increase of 34 retail stores in this classification. New Haven, Connecticut, followed Manhattan with an increase of 4 units, while the other 13 districts divided the remaining 19 units between them rather evenly. Twenty-nine of the 59 central business districts revealed a loss of only one retail unit and the greatest number lost by any district out of the 114 total was only 6 (see Tables XXVI and XXVII, Appendix B). This resulted in 44 more central business districts experiencing declines rather than gains,; 352 with a net decrease of 80 units. Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail units in SIC Major Group 54: food stores. There was a dramatic change in retail units of the SIC Major Group 54: food stores during the 1954 through 1958 period. Seventeen central business districts reported a total gain of 151 retail units, with Washington, D. C., Maryland- Virginia, leading with 30 stores, or 19.8 per cent of the total. This was followed closely by Manhattan, New York, with 29 units, or 19.2 per cent, and Cincinnati, Ohio* Kentucky, with 28 units, or 18.5 per cent of the total of 151 units. On the other hand, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, led the decline in food stores by having only 48 out of the total loss of 1,109 units, or 4.3 per cent of the total (see Tables XXVIII and XXIX, Appendix B). Food stores, therefore, had a net loss of 958 units and 69 more districts showing decreases over increases. Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail units in SIC Major Group 55 (except 554): auto motive dealers. Automotive dealers, Major Group 55 (except 554), experienced relatively mild losses in the 353 central business districts during this period. A net decline of 87 units occurred and there were 19 more dis tricts which experienced decreases than increases. Man hattan , New York, led all districts, which had increases, with 15 units, or 10.8 per cent of the 139 total. Of the central business districts which saw a decline in auto motive dealers, Austin, Texas, had the most with 14 out of 226, for a 6.2 per cent of the total number of units (see Tables XXX and XXXI, Appendix B). Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail units in SIC Group 554: gasoline service sta tions . An important subclassification of SIC Major Group 55 is Group 554, gasoline service stations. In this clas sification, the activity during the period was high but the net change was inconsequential. Forty-seven districts had a total retail unit increase of 210, of which Manhat tan, New York; Glendale, California; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, led the group with increases of 15, 14, and 13 units respectively. The same type of spread was true for the decrease in gasoline service stations, with Mil waukee , Wisconsin; Phoenix, Arizona; and Bridgeport, Con necticut experiencing the greatest losses in the order, 354 in the amounts of 14, 12, and 11 units respectively. There were 56 central business districts reporting losses of a total of 223 units, resulting in a net of 9 more dis tricts reporting losses than gains amounting to a net decrease of 13 retail units (see Tables XXXII and XXXIII, Appendix B). Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail units in SIC Major Group 56: apparel and acces sories stores. The most significant trend by far occurred in the SIC Major Group 56: apparel and accessories stores. Only one central business district showed an increase and that amounted to 2 retail units only. The shock came in the fact that 103 other central business dis tricts revealed a decrease of 2,859 retail units. Man hattan, New York, led in the losses with 181 stores, or 6.2 per cent of the total, followed by Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, with 115. All other districts suffered losses under 100 units, but only 15 districts had losses under 10 units each (see Tables XXXIV and XXXV, Appendix B). The net result of this landslide was that 102 central business districts showed decreases of 2,857 retail units. 355 Ranking of central business districts as to change i in retail units in SIC Major Group 57: furniture, home furnishings, and equipment stores. Once again, as in the case of the other retail classifications, SIC Major Group 57: furniture, home furnishings, and equipment stores developed the same trend--a net decrease in both retail units and the number of central business districts. Thirty-two districts shared in the increase of 166 stores, with New Haven, Connecticut, leading the group with an increase of 18, or 10.8 per cent. The decrease, which was headed by Manhattan, New York, with a loss of 100 units, found 72 districts suffering a total loss of 793 retail stores. While Manhattan's loss was 12.6 per cent of the total, there were 23 other districts whose losses were greater than 10 retail units each (see Tables XXXVI and XXXVII, Appendix B) . The net result of this trend was that there were 40 more central business districts which sus tained losses than increases, with a net decrease of 527 retail units. Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail units in SIC Maior Group 58: eating and drinking; places. Eating and drinking places, SIC Major Group 58, experienced much heavier losses during this period than might be normally expected. Forty-three central business districts showed gains amounting to a total of 485 units, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, leading the list with 53 unit increases or 10.9 per cent of the total. Akron, Ohio, was next with 26 additional units, or 5.3 per cent of the total increase in units. The distribution of the total number of districts sharing in this increase of 485 retail units was fairly even, in that 18 of the 43 dis tricts had increases of greater than 10 places each. The same type of trend was true, also, for those districts which had decreases. There were 62 districts which had decreases of 1,009 eating and drinking places. Los Angeles* California, led this group with 53 departures, or 5.2 per cent of the total. Sacramento, California, was second with 45 losses, or 4.4 per cent. As in the case of the increases, a considerable number of districts had decreases of greater than 10 units each, 36 in number (see Tables XXXVIII and XXXIX, Appendix B). The net trend was that 19 central business districts had declines of 514 retail units. Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail units in SIC Group 591: drug and proprietary stores. An important subclassification of Major Group 59: other retail stores is SIC Group 591: drug and proprietary stores. Nineteen central business districts showed increases totaling 36 units, with Pittsburgh, Pen nsylvania, having the most— 5 in number. Decreases, on the other hand, totaled 73 districts in all with a total number of decrease in units of 299. Manhattan, New York, had the highest loss with 17, or 5.7 per cent of the total. Chicago, Illinois, was second with 12, and New Orleans, Louisiana, was third with 10. The net result of this classification was that there were 54 more central busi ness districts which suffered declines than advances, with a net loss of 263 units (see Tables XXXX and XXXXI, Appendix B). Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail units in SIC Major Group 59: other retail storesi (except SIC Group 591). The final retail classification studied was SIC Major Group 59: other retail stores (except SIC Group 591). The trend was no different in this group than in the others. Forty-three central busi 358 ness districts enjoyed an increase in 538 retail units, with Manhattan, New York, being the leader with 170, or 31.6 per cent. The next closest district was Philadel phia, Pennsylvania, with 46 units, or 8.5 per cent. From there on out the increases tapered off rapidly with the vast majority of them being under 15 units. The decreases did not have the extreme leader that the increases in retail units had. Although Milwaukee, Wisconsin led with 51, or 5.8 per cent of the total 882 units, it was closely followed by Boston, Massachusetts, and Portland, Oregon- Washington, each having suffered a decrease of 48 units. Thirty-three of the 64 central business districts had decreases during this period of 10 or more units (see Tables XXXXII and XXXXIII, Appendix B). Thus, this trend in decreases was general rather than attributable, to a great extent, to one specific district. The "other stores" group followed the trend by having 19 more central busi ness districts showing decreases than increases, and the decreases amounted to a net total of 344 retail units. Having summarized the rankings of the selected central business districts by changes in retail units, the next step is to use the same procedure in the changes of retail dollar sales. II. THE RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS BY CHANGES IN SALES Over-All Rankings The 1954 census provided the means by which sales in the central business districts of most of the central cities in this report were reconstructed for the 1948 census. As a result, it is possible to present a compari son of both the 1948-1954 as well as the 1954-1958 period. Ranking of central business districts as to changes in sales in all of the selected retail classifications: 1948-1954. The period of 1948-1954 was one of an actual net loss in total retail dollar sales in the central busi ness districts, and this occurred during a high level of retail activity. Forty central business districts enjoyed increases of$423,231,000 in total retail sales. Flint, Michigan, led all the districts with an increase of $30,353,000, or 7.1 per cent of the total. Louisville, Kentucky-Indiana, and Long Beach, California, followed with increases of $30,161,000 and $23,447,000 respectively. Of the 40 central business districts, 18 of them had increases 360 that were greater than $10,000,000. The remaining had increases that were below this figure, with the smallest increase belonging to Cleveland, Ohio, with $320,000 in sales. These data are presented in Table XII. Decreases in sales for this period totaled $1,100,286,000 for 47 central business districts. Chicago, Illinois, was the hardest hit, losing $154,275,000 or 14 per cent of the total. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Los Angeles, California, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, followed with sales decreases of $105,955,000, $83,515,000, and $73,217,000 respectively. Twenty-four of the 47 dis tricts had decreases which were greater than $10,000,000, while the other 23 were below this figure, with 4 districts losing less than $700,000. These data are presented in Table XIII. This resulted in a net loss of $677,055,000 in retail sales with only 7 more central business districts experiencing losses as compared to gains. Ranking of central business districts as to changes in sales in all selected retail classifications: 1954-1938. The experience for the period of 1954-1958 by the central business districts in sales in all selected retail clas sifications was the reverse of that of the 1948-1954 TABLE XII RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS BY ABSOLUTE INCREASE IN TOTAL DOLLAR RETAIL SALES 1948 THROUGH 1954 Name o£ Central City Increase (000) Flint, Michigan $ 30,353 Louisville, Kentucky-Indiana 30,161 Long Beach, California 23,447 Houston, Texas 19,984 New Orleans, Louisiana 19,525 San Jose, California 17,448 El Paso, Texas 17,095 Rochester, New York 16,449 Charlotte, North Carolina 16,237 Montgomery, Alabama 15,917 Wichita, Kansas 15,552 Spokane, Washington 12,598 Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky 12,448 Miami, Florida 11,774 Mobile, Alabama 11,205 Kansas City, Kansas 11,145 Corpus Christi, Texas 10,346 Columbus, Ohio 10,259 Phoenix, Arizona 9,809 Chattanooga, Tennessee 6,387 Camden, Pennsylvania 6,141 Evansville, Indiana-Kentucky 5,875 Little Rock, Arkansas 5,409 Savannah, Georgia 4,868 362 TABLE XII (continued) Name of Central City Increase Austin, Texas $ 4,793 Tulsa, Oklahoma 4,762 Omaha, Nebraska-Iowa 4,608 Waterbury, Connecticut 4,358 New Haven, Connecticut 4,143 Syracuse, New York 3,758 Fresno, California 3,428 Dayton, Ohio 2,669 Shreveport, Louisiana 2,116 Berkeley, California 1,774 Gary, Indiana 1,717 Fort Wayne, Indiana 1,601 Richmond, Virginia 828 Cleveland, Ohio 302 Total $423,231 363 TABLE XIII RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS BY ABSOLUTE DECREASE IN TOTAL DOLLAR RETAIL SALES 1948 THROUGH 1954 Name of Central City Decrease Chicago, Illinois $ 154,275 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 105,955 Los Angeles, California 83,515 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 73,217 Detroit, Michigan 69,920 Paterson-Clifton-Passaic, New Jersey 62,099 Alientown-Bethlehem-Easton, Pennsylvania-New Jersey Area 49,177 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, New York 46,652 Kansas City, Missouri 44,961 St. Louis, Missouri, Illinois 42,660 Boston, Massachusetts 35,825 Akron, Ohio 34,875 Rockford, Illinois 32,586 Atlanta, Georgia 28,482 Portland, Oregon-Washington 21,811 Dallas, Texas 18,331 Providence, Rhode Island 18,201 Oakland, California 16,914 Toledo, Ohio 14,485 Youngstown, Ohio 12,547 Denver, Colorado 12,178 Reading, Pennsylvania 11,219 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 11,210 Worcester, Massachusetts 10,910 Nashville, Tennessee 8,253 364 TABLE XIII (continued) ■ P.g.ii"L-— i i ■ ■ « ■ « ■ ■ » — — -w—i— Name of Central City Decrease Milwaukee, Wisconsin $ 7,283 San Antonio, Texas 7,282 Newark, New Jersey 7,267 Seattle, Washington 6,930 Des Moines, Iowa 6,521 Honolulu, Hawaii 6,187 Scranton, Pennsylvania 6,123 Salt Lake City, Utah 5,538 San Diego, California 4,647 Erie, Pennsylvania 4,156 Fort Worth, Texas 3,405 Indianapolis, Indiana 3,323 Fall River, Massachusetts-Rhode Island 2,679 Buffalo, New York 1,819 New Bedford, Massachusetts 1,711 Yonkers, New York 1,338 Grand Rapids, Michigan 1,334 San Francisco, California 641 Birmingham, Alabama 621 Wilmington, Delaware 611 Trenton, New Jersey 375 Pasadena, California 237 Total $1,100,286 period. Fifty-five districts enjoyed increases in retail sales amounting to $588,529,000. Manhattan, New York, outdistanced the group by reporting an increase in sales of $179,470,000, or 30.5 per cent of the total. The nearest district to Manhattan was San Francisco, Cali fornia, which showed an increase of $44,714,000, or 7.6 per cent of the total. Most increases were moderate, however, as 42 of the 55 districts had increases of less than $10,000,000 for the period, with Chattanooga, Ten nessee, reporting an increase of only $113,000. These data are presented in Table XIV. Decreases for this 1954-1958 period were also led by one district out of the 54 reporting losses. Detroit, Michigan, suffered a loss of sales of $66,024,000 out of a total of $357,644,000, or 14.4 per cent of the total. Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Los Angeles, California, and Balti more, Maryland, followed with decreases in sales of $29,741,000, $20,550,000, and $18,491,000 respectively. Six districts had losses that were minimal, being less than $800,000 each. These data are presented in Table XV. For this period 1954-1958, one more central business district had an increase in sales than a decrease, but the net gain in total retail sales was $130,885,000. 366 TABLE XIV RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS BY ABSOLUTE INCREASE IN TOTAL DOLLAR RETAIL SALES 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City Increase ( 000) Manhattan, New York $ 179,470 San Francisco, California 44,714 Atlanta, Georgia 34,831 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 32,562 Brooklyn, New York 21,734 Columbus, Ohio 18,754 Nashville, Tennessee 18,406 Sacramento, California 14,014 Phoenix, Arizona 13,940 El Paso, Texas 12,853 Seattle, Washington 12,188 Birmingham, Alabama 12,038 Fresno, California 12,030 Allentown, Bethlehera-Easton, Pennsylvania-New Jersey Area 10,299 Salt Lake City, Utah 9,968 Charlotte, North Carolina 9,560 New Haven, Connecticut 9,137 Glendale, California 8,761 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 6,909 Shreveport, Lou is iana 6,855 Pasadena, California 6,713 Yonkers, New York 6,415 Peoria, Illinois 5,976 Scranton, Pennsylvania 5,035 Little Rock, Arkansas 4,896 Utica-Rome, New York 4,647 367 TABLE XIV (continued) Name of Central City Increase ( 000) Hartford, Connecticut 4,505 Hammond, Indiana 4,245 San Diego, California 4,060 New Orleans, Louisiana 3,957 Berkeley, California 3,857 Mobile, Alabama 3,763 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 3,689 Syracuse, New York 3,613 Denver, Colorado 3,576 Paterson-Clifton-Passaic, New Jersey 3,526 Spokane, Washington 3,163 Wilmington, Delaware 2,828 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 2,641 Reading, Pennsylvania 2,397 San Antonio, Texas 2,269 Jacksonville, Florida 2,253 Savannah, Georgia 2,231 Trenton, New Jersey 1,867 St. Paul, Minnesota 1,737 Long Beach, California 1,727 Kansas City, Kansas 1,695 Knoxville, Kentucky 1,505 Camden, Pennsylvania 1,410 Corpus Christi, Texas 1,380 Rockford, 11linois 1,311 Oakland, California 1,163 Fall River, Massachusetts-Rhode Island 1,055 Honolulu, Hawaii 288 Chattanooga, Tennessee 113 Total $ 588,529 368 TABLE XV RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS BY ABSOLUTE DECREASE IN TOTAL DOLLAR RETAIL SALES 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City Decrease ( 000) Detroit, Michigan $ 66,024 Flint, Michigan 31,160 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 29,741 Los Angeles, California 20,550 Baltimore, Maryland 18,491 Wichita, Kansas 18,093 Kansas City, Missouri 17,918 Boston, Massachusetts 16,147 Tulsa, Oklahoma 15,854 Toledo, Ohio 15,431 Houston, Texas 15,310 Memphis, Tennessee 15,080 Cleveland, Ohio 12,419 Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky 11,631 Miami, Florida 10,424 Tampa-St. Petersburg, Florida 10,138 Louisville, Kentucky-Indiana 9,454 Buffalo, New York 9,214 Worcester, Massachusetts 8,887 Fort Wayne, Indiana 8,520 Chicago, Illinois 8,443 Norfolk-Portsmouth, Virginia 8,197 St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois 8,182 Portland, Oregon-Washington 8,127 Dallas, Texas 7,474 Erie, Pennsylvania 7,054 Indianapolis, Indiana 5,963 TABLE XV (continued) Name of Central City Decrease ( 000) Omaha, Nebraska-Iowa $ 5,252 Youngstown, Ohio 4,967 Waterbury, Connecticut 4,944 San Jose, California 4,910 South Bend, Indiana 4,778 Bridgeport, Connecticut 4,233 Newark, New Jersey 3,586 Richmond, Virginia 3,529 Providence, Rhode Island 3,461 Evansville, Indiana-Kentucky 3,431 Des Moines, Iowa 3,105 Gary-East Chicago, Indiana 2,314 Niagara Falls, New York 2,206 Minneapolis, Minnesota 2,101 Dayton, Ohio 1,945 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, New York 1,935 Grand Rapids, Michigan 1,789 Washington, D. C., Maryland-Virginia 1,464 Springfield-Holyoke, Massachusetts 1,330 Austin, Texas 1,289 Flint, Michigan 1,160 Fort Worth, Texas 708 Akron, Ohio 630 Tacoma, Washington 448 Canton, Ohio 391 New Bedford, Massachusetts 255 Montgomery, Alabama 195 Total $ 457,644 370 Ranking of central business districts as to changes in sales in all selected retail classifications: 1948- 1958. In spite of the gains made in the 1954-1958 period, the over-all changes in retail sales for the central busi ness districts in all selected retail classifications for the period 1948-1958 was downward. Thirty-nine districts had increases in sales amounting to $483,883,000. San Francisco, California, led all districts with an increase of $44,073,000, or 9.3 per cent of the total. The two nearest districts to San Francisco were El Paso, Texas, with $29,948,000, and Columbus, Ohio, with $29,013,000. Nineteen of the districts experienced increases in sales of better than $10,000,000, while the remaining 20 dis tricts had increases of less than $9,950,000, with Cin cinnati, Ohio-Kentucky and Dayton, Ohio, having increases of under $820,000. Table XVI presents these data. The decreases in sales in 46 central business dis tricts was headed by Chicago, Illinois, which reported a decrease of $162,718,000 of the total amount of $1,222, 105,000, or 13.3 per cent. Detroit, Michigan, Los Angeles, California, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, followed with decreases of $135,944,000, $104,065,000, and $102,266,000 371 TABLE XVI RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS BY ABSOLUTE INCREASE IN TOTAL DOLLAR RETAIL SALES 1948 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City Increase ( 000) San Francisco, California $ 44,073 El Paso, Texas 29,948 Columbus, Ohio 29,013 Charlotte, North Carolina 25,797 Long Beach, California 25,174 Phoenix, Arizona 23,749 New Orleans, Louisiana 23,482 Louisville, Kentucky-Indiana 20,707 Sacramento, California 19,529 Spokane, Washington 15,734 Montgomery, Alabama 15,722 Fresno, California 15,485 Mobile, . . Alabama 14,968 New Haven, Connecticut 13,280 Kansas City, Kansas 12,840 San Jose, California 12,538 Corpus Christ!, Texas 11,726 Birmingham, Alabama 11,417 Nashville, Tennessee 10,153 Little Rock, Arkansas 9,945 Chattanooga, Tennessee 9,540 Shreveport, Louisiana 8,971 Jacksonville, Florida 8,644 Rochester, New York 7,927 Syracuse, New York 7,371 Savannah, Georgia 7,099 372 TABLE XVI (continued) Name of Central City Increase ( 000) Pasadena, California $ 6,476 Atlanta, Georgia 6,349 Berkeley, California 5,631 Seattle, Washington 5,258 Yonkers, New York 5,077 Houston, Texas 4,674 Salt Lake City, Utah 4,530 Austin, Texas 3,504 Evansville, Indiana-Kentucky 2,444 Wilmington, Delaware 2,217 Miami, Florida 1,350 Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky 817 Dayton, Ohio 724 Total $483,883 373 j respectively. Twenty-four of the 46 districts had losses in excess of $10,800,000, while the remaining group's losses were under $9,630,000. Table XVII presents these data. The net sales change for this period among the districts in all the selected retail classifications in the 1948-1958 era showed that there were 7 more central business districts which had decreases over increases, with a net sales total decrease of $738,222,000. A summary of the rankings of the districts by each retail classifi cation follows for the period of 1954 through 1958. Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail sales of SIC Major Group 52: lumber, building materials, hardware, and farm equipment dealers: 1954-195& In the 1954-1958 period, the ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail sales of SIC Major Group 52: lumber, building materials, hardware, and farm equip ment dealers showed a net of 29 districts more showing decreases than increases, and the net sales figure decrease of $23,434,000. Thirty-three districts revealed increases totaling $23,206,000, of which Oakland, California, had the greatest with $3,349,000, or 14.4 per cent. 374 TABLE XVII RANKING OF CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS BY ABSOLUTE DECREASE IN TOTAL DOLLAR RETAIL SALES 1948 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City Decrease ( 000) Chicago, Illinois $ 162,718 Detroit, Michigan 135,944 Los Angeles, California 104,065 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 102,266 Kansas City, Missouri 62,879 Paterson-Clifton-Passaic, New Jersey 58,573 Boston, Massachusetts 51,952 St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois 50,642 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, New York 48,587 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 40,655 Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Pennsylvania-New Jersey Area 38,287 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 37,024 Akron, Ohio 35,505 Rockford, Illinois 31,275 Portland, Oregon-Washington 29,938 Toledo, Ohio 29,916 Worcester, Massachusetts 19,797 Youngstown, Ohio 17,514 Oakland, California 15,751 Cleveland, Ohio 12,117 Erie, Pennsylvania 11,210 Tulsa, Oklahoma 11,092 Buffalo, New York 11,033 Newark, New Jersey 10,853 Des Moines, Iowa 9,626 Indianapolis, Indiana 9,286 375 TABLE XVII (continued) Name of Central City Decrease ( 000) Reading, Pennsylvania $ 8,732 Denver, Colorado 8,584 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 8,569 Camden, New Jersey 7,551 Fort Wayne, Indiana 6,919 Honolulu, Hawaii 5,863 San Antonio, Texas 5,013 Fort Worth, Texas 4,113 Richmond, Virginia 3,201 Grand Rapids, Michigan 3,123 Wichita, Kansas 2,541 New Bedford, Massachusetts 1,966 Fall River, Massachusetts-Rhode Island 1,624 Trenton, New Jersey 1,492 Scranton, Pennsylvania 1,088 Flint, Michigan 807 Omaha, Nebraska-Iowa 644 Gary-Hammond-East Chicago, Indiana 597 San Diego, California 587 Waterbury, Connecticut 586 Total $ 1,222,105 376 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, followed Oakland with an in crease of $2,503,000, but it fell off rapidly from there with 25 districts having increases of less than $800,000 in sales and Canton, Ohio, increased by a mere $5,000. Sixty-two districts suffered decreases of $46,640,000 in sales. Wichita, Kansas, had the greatest with $4,102,000, or 8.7 per cent. Forty-six districts had losses amounting to less than $990,000 with Norfolk-Portsmouth, Virginia, having a loss of $9,000 (see Tables XXXXIV and XXXXV, Appendix B). Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail sales of SIC Major Group 53: general merchandise group retail stores: 1954-1958. This group showed an opposite trend to that of SIC Major Group 52 in that 77 districts of SIC Major Group 53: general merchandise group retail stores had increases totaling $446,258,000. Man hattan, New York, led this group with an increase of $73,308,000, or 16.4 per cent. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, followed Manhattan but by a much lesser amount, $45,964,000, while Newark, New Jersey, was third with $26,663,000. The greater portion of the districts, however, were under an increase in sales of $9,560,000, since only 11 of the 77 districts were above this figure. 377 The decreases were led by Detroit, Michigan which had a loss of $36,671,000 of the total amount of $209,250,000, or 17.5 per cent. Los Angeles, Califomnia, was second with $18,244,000, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was third with $12,699,000. Of the 30 districts showing a total sales decline of $209,250,000, 22 of them were under $9,600,000. The net result was that there were 47 districts which were the net difference of increases over decreases, and they enjoyed a net increase in sales of $237,008,000 (see Tables XXXXVI and XXXXVII, Appendix B). Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail sales of SIC Group 531: department stores: 1954-1958. SIC Group 531: department stores, a subclas sification of Major Group 53, concluded the 1954-1958 period with 8 more central business districts having increases in sales over decreases, and these increases totaled a net increase of $14,760,000. Pittsburgh, Penn sylvania, led the 22 districts which reported increases of sales amounting to $135,933,000 with an increase of $44,732,000, or 32.9 per cent of the total. Seattle, Washington, was in second place considerably behind with $12,785,000 in sales, or 9.4 per cent of the total. Only 378 3 districts of the 22 had increases of greater than $8,550,000, while the remaining 19 were under that figure. Decreases were more evenly spread among the 14 districts which had total decrease in sales amounting to $121,173,000. Los Angeles, California, suffered the most with a decrease in sales of $18,381,000, or 15.1 per cent of the total. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Baltimore, Maryland, were second and third with decreases in sales totaling $16,230,000 and $12,045,000 respectively (see Tables XXXXVIII and XXXXIX, Appendix B). The net result was, as has already been stated, an increase in both sales and districts over those that had decreases. Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail sales of SIC Group 533: limited price variety stores: 1954-1958. This group, the limited price variety stores (SIC Group 533), suffered serious declines in both dollar sales and districts having decreases during the period of 1954-1958. Twenty central business districts enjoyed increases totaling $19,780,000, with Manhattan, New York, the prominent leader with a sales increase of $5,485,000, or 27.7 per cent of the total. San Francisco, California, was far behind in second place with $1,814,000, 379 or 9.1 per cent o£ the total. Three other districts were very close— El Faso, Texas, St. Paul, Minnesota, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, all with sales in the $1,544,000 bracket. There were 12 of the 20 districts with increases under $605,000. The decreases were considerably more, amounting to 55 districts having a total of decrease in sales of $32,939,000. Houston, Texas, suffered the greatest loss with $1,884,000 in sales, or 5.7 per cent. Jacksonville, Florida, and Indianapolis, Indiana, were close behind with decreases in sales of $1,731,000 and $1,502,000 respectively. Forty-three of the 55 districts, on the other hand, had losses that were below $1,000,000 each (see Tables L and LI, Appendix B). The net result was that there was a decrease in total sales by $13,159,000, and there were 35 more central business districts which showed losses than increases. Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail sales of SIC Malor Group 54: food stores: 1954- 1958. The showing of food stores, SIC Major Group 54, was the same as in the case of limited price variety stores with more central business districts showing declines than increases during the 1954-1958 period. Forty- 380 one food stores enjoyed sales increases totaling $57,154,000, with Manhattan, New York, being the leader having sales increases amounting to $17,859,000, or 31.2 per cent of the total. Yonkers, New York, was in second place with $2,986,000, or 5 per cent of the total. This group had the vast majority of its districts with sales increases of below $890,000 with only 6 districts enjoying increases above that figure. Decreases were much heavier than increases. Sixty- eight districts had decreases totaling $75,104,000, of which Detroit, Michigan, suffered the greatest portion, $6,116,000, or 8.1 per cent of the total. Oakland, Cali fornia, and Houston, Texas, were second and third with decreases of $4,148,000 and $2,629,000 respectively. The distribution of the total decrease in sales was very evenly spread among the 68 districts, 31 of them having losses above $1,000,000 and 37 having losses of less than this amount (see Tables LII and LIII, Appendix B). The net result was that there were 27 more central business dis tricts which suffered losses than increases, and the net total drop in sales was $17,950,000. 381 Ranking of central business districts as to changes; in retail sales of SIC Maior Group 55 (except 554): auto motive dealers: 1954-1958. The 1954-1958 period saw SIC Major Group 55 (except 554): automotive dealers suffer a net loss of sales in the central business districts of $73,596,000, with 17 more districts having losses than gains. There were 38 districts which enjoyed increases in sales of $104,336,000, in which Fresno, California, was the leader with $14,364,000 in sales or 13.8 per cent of the total. Columbus, Ohio, and Phoenix, Arizona, were close by with increases of $13,621,000 and $13,188,000 respectively. Many districts reported small increases, however, as 17 of them had sales gains of less than $970,000. Decreases were more predominant than increases in this retail classification. There were 55 central business districts which had loss of sales amounting to $177,932,000. Flint, Michigan, suffered the greatest with a sales decline of $13,657,000, or 7.6 per cent of the total. Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Los Angeles, Cali fornia, were not far behind with decreases of $11,985,000 and $11,681,000 respectively. Yet the preponderance of 382 the districts suffered relatively mild declines as 51 of the 55 were below $8,625,000 in losses and 19 of these were below $965,000 (see Tables LTV and LV, Appendix B). The net result was that there were more declines than increases, as was previously observed in the preceding paragraph. Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail sales of SIC Group 554: gasoline service sta tions: 1954-1958. Gasoline service stations, SIC Group 554, enjoyed sizeable gains in retail sales in central business districts during the 1954-1958 period. Sixty-five of the districts had gains in sales totaling $33,004,000, with Manhattan, New York, heading the list with a $3,504,000 sales increase, or 10.6 per cent of the total. Montgomery, Alabama, and New Haven, Connecticut, were second and third with sales increases of $1,962,000 and $1,784,000 respectively. However, 56 of the 65 districts had gains of less than $980,000, and Fall River, Massa- chusetts-Rhode Island, was the lowest with only $7,000. Thirty-nine central business districts suffered decreases totaling $10,595,000. Miami, Florida, was. the hardest hit, with losses in sales amounting to $791,000, or 7 per cent of the total. As In the case of those dis tricts which enjoyed sales increases, 28, the vast majority of the districts having sales decreases, had less than $113,500 drop in sales (see Tables LVX and LVII, Appendix B). The net result was that there were 26 more districts with increases in sales as compared to decreases, and the total net gain was $26,409,000. Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail sales of SIC Malor Group 56: apparel and acces sories stores: 1954-1958. The retail classification SIC Major Group 56: apparel and accessories stores had the most disastrous trend of sales declining in the central business districts of all the retail groups that suffered decreases during the 1954-1958 period. There were 48 more districts which reported decreases in sales than had increases, and the total net decreases in sales were $206,821,000. Thirty central business districts reported gains which totaled $60,886,000, and Atlanta, Georgia, was the leader with an increase of $8,907,000, or 14.6 per cent of the total. Seventeen other districts reported sales increases of more than $1,280,000, and the lowest district was Mobile, Alabama, with a modest gain of 384 $58,000. Decreases, on the other hand, were much in evidence in the 78 central business districts sharing in a total amount of decline of $266,821,000. Manhattan, New York, with $24,665,000 or 9.2 per cent of the total, Newark, New Jersey, with $22,892,000, and Detroit, Michigan, with $14,614,000 were the hardest hit. Although 14 districts had losses of less than $800,000, the bulk of the decreases were in the less than $9,100,000 bracket, where 61 dis tricts were to be found (see Tables LVIII and LIX, Appen dix B) . Ranking of the central business districts as to changes in retail sales of SIC Major Group 57: furniture. home furnishings, and equipment stores: 1954-1958. There was much less disparity in the changes in sales of the retail stores under SIC Major Group 57: furniture, home furnishings, and equipment stores during the 1954-1958 period than those experienced by the previous classifica tion. Fifty-eight central business districts showed increases in sales amounting to $60,088,000, with St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois, having an $5,376,000 increase, or 8.9 per cent of the total. Sacramento, California, and South Bend, Indiana, followed St. Louis with sales increases; of $3,428,000 and $2,309,000 respectively. Thirty-six of the central business districts had sales increases of less than $950,000 for the 1954-1958 period. Manhattan, New York, led 51 districts which suf fered decreases in sales amounting to $114,063,000 for the 1954-1958 period. Manhattan's decrease, which was $13,105,000, amounted to 11.5 per cent of the total. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Boston, Massachusetts, were behind Manhattan with respective sales decreases of $9,145,000 and $6,499,000. Thirteen of the 51 districts had sales declines of less than $915,000, while Corpus Christ!, Texas, was almost even with the small loss of $7,000 (see Tables LX and LXI, Appendix B). There were 7 more central business districts which enjoyed sales increases over decreases, but in spite of this there was a net sales decline of $53,975,000. Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail sales of SIC Major Group 58: eating and drinking places: 1954-1958. The eating and drinking places group, SIC Major Group 58, showed an interesting trend in changes in its sales in the central business districts during the 386 1954-1958 period. Of the 109 districts reporting, 55 showed increases and 54 had decreases in sales. Yet the net increase in sales amounted to the sum of $73,193,000, which was much more than the largest increase in sales by a single central business district. Manhattan, New York, enjoyed the largest increase with $40,861,000, or 33.9 per cent of the total. Chicago, Illinois, and San Francisco, California, were considerably behind Manhattan in sales increases with $11,909,000 and $10,115,000 respectively. The increases dropped off fairly rapidly after these 3 with only 4 districts having greater than $5,369,000 sales increases. Of the 54 central business districts which experi enced declines in sales in eating and drinking places in the 1954-1958 period, a considerable number, 37 to be exact, were below the $1,000,000 mark. Detroit, Michigan, had the severest decline with a drop of $6,679,000 in sales, or 14.1 per cent of the total. This was consider ably more than Baltimore, Maryland, and Miami, Florida, which had decreases of $2,544,000 and $2,277,000 respec tively (see Tables LXII and LXIII, Appendix B). f 387 Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail sales of SIC Group 591; drug and proprietary stores: 1954-1958. Drug and proprietary stores, SIC Group 591, enjoyed substantial increases in sales in central business districts as a whole during the 1954- 1958 period. There were 38 more districts that reported increases than decreases, and these increases produced a net total of $27,113,000. Seventy central business dis tricts showed increases in sales amounting to $45,244,000, of which only 10 had increases of more than $984,000. Manhattan, New York, led all districts with a sales increase of $5,922,000, or 13 per cent of the total. Oakland, California, Chicago, Illinois, and Kansas City, Kansas, followed Manhattan in that order with respective sales increases of $3,889,000; $2,130,000; and $2,012,000. Twenty-eight of the 38 districts had sales increases of less than $1,000,000, with Albany-Schenectady-Troy, New York, barely having an increase of $1,000. The 38 districts which suffered decreases in sales had a total drop of $18,131,000. There was no single district which bore the brunt of this total, although Detroit, Michigan, reported a decrease in sales of $1,827,000, or 10.7 per cent of the total. Thirty-three 388 of the 38 districts had losses of less than $905,000, so that the decreases were well distributed among the central business districts (see Tables LXIV and LXV, Appendix B). Ranking of central business districts as to changes in retail sales of SIC Major Group 59 (except 591): other retail stores: 1954-1958. The other retail stores group, Major Group 59 (except 591), also had substantial increases in sales in the central business districts during the 1954- 1958 period. Manhattan, New York, reported an increase of $72,401,000, or 40.8 per cent of the total amount of increase of $177,401,000 for the 54 districts. Two others, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and San Francisco, California, with sales increases of $18,928,000 and $12,072,000 respec tively, were the only districts with increases above $10,000,000. Thirty-one districts had increases which ranged from $7,939,000 down to $1,054,000, with the remainder below the $1,000,000 mark. Rochester, New York, led 38 central business dis tricts with decreases in sales in the "other retail" stores classification. It experienced a decline in sales of $4,439,000, which was 8.2 per cent of the total decrease of $53,934,000. Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Charlotte, 389 North Carolina, were second and third highest with decreases of $4,033,000 and $3,664,000 respectively. The distribu tion among the remaining districts was fairly even with the lowest amount, $105,000, being lost by Shreveport, Louisiana (see Tables LXVI and LXVII, Appendix B). The net result was that there were 16 more central business districts which had increases over decreases totaling a net increase in sales of $123,476,000. III. CONCLUSION Using the findings of the research presented in Chapter VII, this chapter has developed a series of rankings of central cities on a numerical basis. First, all central cities were rated on the basis of the change in retail units in their respective central business dis tricts as to increases and decreases in each of the selected retail classifications, this being for the 1954- 1958 period only. Second, all central cities were rated on the basis of changes in total retail sales in their respective central business districts as to increases and decreases in each of the selected retail classifications, this being for the period of 1954-1958, even though retail 390 classification totals were established for the periods of: (1) 1948-1954, (2) 1954-1958, and (3) 1948-1958. The resultant rankings in these several retail classifications pointed up some very interesting changes and developments. The next chapter will analyze the results of these rankings as well as the results of the research presented in Chapter VII. CHAPTER IX AN ANALYSIS OF THE CHANGES IN RETAIL SALES AND RETAIL STORE LOCATION IN THE SELECTED CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS 1948 THROUGH 1958 In the last two chapters there has been a pre sentation of the results of the research done Into the changes in retail sales and retail store location of the selected retail classifications of the previously-defined central business districts. The purpose of this chapter is to analyze these changes, and, in so doing, offer some explanations that might be meaningful for the basis of projecting retail trends into the future. In an attempt to accomplish this purpose, the chapter is divided into the following sections: (lj an analysis of the rankings of the central business districts by total changes in sales and units; (2) a comparison of the changes in retail sales and retail units of the selected central business districts to the total retail economy: 1948-1958; (3) an analysis of .the data used 392 in this study; (4) a summary of the causes of the shift in retail trade; and (5) conclusion. I. AN ANALYSIS OF THE RANKINGS OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS BY TOTAL CHANGES IN SALES AND UNITS Chapter VIII saw a ranking of central business districts as to the number of retail units gained or lost for the period of 1954-1958, as well as a ranking of them as to sales gained or lost for the periods of: 1948-1954; 1954-1958; and 1948-1958. In analyzing the results of these rankings, an arbitrary figure of the highest fifteen-ranked central business districts in each of these areas was selected. While this is not completely inclusive, it is judged to be a sufficient sample to be representative. This analysis is divided into the following sections: (1) a comparison of central business districts having the greatest gains in retail sales during the several census periods; (2) a comparison of central business districts having the greatest losses in retail sales during the several census periods; (3) a comparison of central business districts 393 having the greatest gains in retail sales to their rank ings in gains of retail units: 1954-1958; (4) a comparison of central business districts having the greatest losses in retail sales to their rankings in losses of retail units: 1954-1958; (5) a comparison of central business districts having the greatest gains in retail units to their rankings in gains of retail sales: 1954-1958; (6) a comparison of central business districts having the greatest losses in retail units to their rankings in losses of retail sales: 1954-1958; and (7) conclusions regarding these comparisons. A Comparison of Central Business Districts Having the Greatest Gains in Retail Sales During the Several Census Periods Any comparison of the central business districts which enjoyed the greatest increases in retail sales must take into account that there were different districts during each time period which had these increases. Conse quently this section is divided into the following areas: (1) a comparison of those districts having the greatest gains in retail sales in 1948-1954 to their rankings in 1954-1958, and 1948-1958; (2) a comparison of those dis- 394 tricts having the greatest gains in retail sales in 1954- 1958 to their rankings in 1948-1954, and 1948-1958; and (3) a comparison of those districts having the greatest gains in 1948-1958 to their rankings in 1948-1954, and 1954-1958. A comparison of those districts having the greatest gains in retail sales in 1948-1954 to their rankings in 1954-1958. and 1948-1958. Many central business districts scored spectacular gains in the 1948-1954 era only to fail in continuing this relatively rapid pace in the 1954-1958 period. This might be expected except that the interesting aspect is that in many cases these districts suffered losses rather than just declining in sales gains in the 1954-1958 period. Flint, Michigan, is a good case in point. Its central business district was first in sales increase in the 1948-1954 period, but it fell to sixty- second position in the 1954-1958 period due to a loss of sales of $31,160,000. This meant that Flint ended the ten year span as the forty-fifth highest central business district in increase in sales. Houston, Texas, followed Flint's example by having its $19,984,000 sales increase in the 1948-1954 period diluted by a decrease in sales 395 for the 1954*1958 period of $15,310,000. This meant that the central business district of Houston, which had been fourth in sales increases in the former period, slipped to one hundredth in the latter period to end the 1948*1958 decade with a net sales increase of only $4,694,000, being in thirty*second position. Louisville, Kentucky*Indiana, followed the trend of Flint and Houston by dropping from second position with a sales increase of $30,161,000, in the 1948*1954 period to ninety*fourth in the 1954*1958 era due to a sales decline of $9,454,000. This meant that Louisville, Kentucky-Indiana, fell miserably in the 1954*1958 era by a sales decline of $9,454,000 to be in ninety-fourth posi tion. The central business district of Louisville slipped to eighth position in the 1948*1958 decade as a result of its poor showing in the 1954-1958 portion. Summarizing the behavior of the highest fifteen central business districts in 1948*1954, not a single one of the fifteen came close to retaining its position in the 1954*1958 portion with the exception of El Baso, Texas, which only dropped from seventh to tenth. Long Beach, California, which was third, dropped to forty-sixth; Hew Orleans, Louisiana, which was fifth slid to twenty-ninth; 396 San Jose, California, which was sixth, fell back to seventy-ninth; Rochester, New York, which was eighth, declined to ninetieth; and so on. This meant, of course, that not one of the central business districts retained its original 1948-1954 position in the 1948-1958 standings. Six of the fifteen central business districts showed sales increases in the 1954-1958 period totaling $35,023,000, while the other nine suffered sales decreases totaling $79,699,000. One interesting feature was that Charlotte, North Carolina, which was ninth in the 1948- 1954 period with a sales increase of $16,237,000, had another increase in sales in the 1954-1958 period of $9,560,000 and slipped to fifteenth position. Yet, in the over-all standings of the 1948-1958 decade, Charlotte's central business district was second (Table LXVIII). A comparison of those districts having the greatest gains in retail sales in 1954-1958 to their rankings in 1948-1954. and 1948-1958. The 1954-1958 period saw dif ferent central business districts have the greatest increases in sales, with only El Paso, Texas, and Char lotte, North Carolina, remaining over from the 1948-1954 era in the first fifteen. The leader was Manhattan, New TABLE LXVIII A COMPARISON OF CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS HAVING THE GREATEST GAINS IN RETAIL SALES IN 1948-1954 TO THEIR RANKINGS IN 1954-1958, AND 1948-1958 Ranking and Amount Ranking and Amount Ranking and Amount of Gain: 1948-1954 of Gain: 1954-1958 of Gain: 1948-1958 Name of Central City Rank Gain (in $) Rank Gain (in $) Rank Gain (in $) Flint, Michigan 1 +30,353,000 62 -31,160,000 45 - 807,000 Louisville, Kentucky- Indiana 2 +30,161,000 94 - 9,454,000 8 +20,707,000 Long Beach, California 3 +23,447,000 46 + 1,722,000 5 +25,194,000 Houston, Texas 4 +19,984,000 100 -15,310,000 32 + 4,674,000 New Orleans, Louisiana 5 +19,525,000 29 + 3,957,000 7 +23,412,000 San Jose, California 6 +17,448,000 79 - 4,910,000 16 +12,538,000 El Paso, Texas 7 +17,095,000 10 +12,853,000 2 +29,948,000 u - ■ Decrease + - Increase J g ' TABLE LXVIII (continued) Ranking and Amount Ranking and Amount Ranking and Amount of Gain: 1948-1954 of Gain: 1954-1958 of Gain: 1948-1958 Name of Central City Rank Gain (in $) Rank Gain (in $) Rank Gain (in $) Rochester, New York 8 +16,449,000 90 - 8,522,000 24 + 7,927,000 Charlotte, North Carolina 9 +16,237,000 15 + 9,560,000 4 +25,997,000 Montgomery, Alabama 10 +15,917,000 56 195,000 11 +15,722,000 Wichita, Kansas 11 +15,552,000 105 -18,093,000 49 - 2,541,000 Spokane, Washington 12 +12,598,000 36 + 3,163,000 10 +15,734,000 Cincinnati, Ohio- Kentucky 13 +12,448,000 97 -11,631,000 38 + 817,000 Miami, Florida 14 +11,774,000 96 -10,424,000 37 + 1,350,000 Mobile, Alabama 15 +11,205,000 31 + 3,763,000 13 +14,968,000 u> vO 00 399 York, with its central business district enjoying a sales increase of $179,470,000. Considerably behind it was San Francisco, California, with $44,714,000. It is most unfortunate that certain limitations of the census data prevent a reporting of, and consequently a comparison of, Manhattan's central business district for the other census periods. However, this tremendous gain in the 1954**1958 period would argue for it being the leader for the entire 1948-1958 decade. San Francisco, which was second in increase in sales, had been forty-fifth in 1948-1954, while Atlanta, Georgia, which was in third position, had been seventy- fourth in 1948-1954. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, which had been eighty-fourth in 1948-1954, was fourth in 1954-1958, and so it went. Of the fifteen top central business dis tricts in 1954-1958, six made sufficient gains over their 1948-1954 showing to remain in the top fifteen for the over-all 1948-1958 period. The other nine, all lost ground from their 1954-1958 position, or, to put it more accu rately, the poor showings these districts had made in the 1948-1954 period was not overcome sufficiently by their increases in the 1954-1958 period to push them into the first fifteen (Table LXIX). TABLE LXIX A COMPARISON OF CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS HAVING THE GREATEST GAINS IN RETAIL SALES IN 1954-1958 TO THEIR RANKINGS IN 1948-1954, AND 1948-1958 Ranking and Amount Ranking and Amount Ranking and Amount of Gain: 1948-1954 of Gain: 1954-1958 of Gain: 1948-1958 Name of Central City Rank Gain (in $) Rank Gain (in $) Rank Gain (in $) Manhattan, New York 1 +179,470,000 N.L. N.L. N.L. N.L. San Francisco, California 2 + 44,714,000 45 641,000 1 +44,073,000 Atlanta, Georgia 3 + 34,831,000 74 -28,482,000 28 + 6,349,000 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 4 + 32,562,000 84 -73,217,000 76 -40,655,000 Brooklyn, New York 5 + 21,734,000 N.L. N.L. N.L. N.L. Columbus, Ohio 6 + 16,754,000 18 +10,259,000 3 +29,013,000 Nashville, Tennessee 7 + 18,406,000 63 - 8,253,000 19 +10,153,000 - = Decrease + = Increase N.L. = Not : Listed 400 PP* * " ’ 5 .. .... .. TABLE LKIX (continued) / Ranking and Amount of Gain: 1948-1954 Ranking and Amount of Gain: 1954-1958 Ranking and Amount of Gain: 1948-1958 Name of Central City Rank Gain (in $) Rank Gain (in $) Rank Gain (in $) Sacramento, California 8 + 14,014,000 24 + 5,515,000 9 +19,529,000 Phoenix, Arizona 9 + 13,940,000 19 + 9,809,000 6 +23,749,000 El Paso, Texas 10 + 12,853,000 7 +17,095,000 2 +29,948,000 Seattle, Washington 11 + 12,188,000 59 - 6,930,000 31 + 5,258,000 Birmingham, Alabama 12 + 12,038,000 44 - 621,000 18 +11,417,000 A1lentown-Bethlehem- Easton, Pennsylvania- New Jersey 13 + 10,299,000 81 -49,177,000 75 -38,289,000 Salt Lake City, Utah 14 + 9,968,000 55 - 5,538,000 33 + 4,530,000 Charlotte, North Carolina 15 + 9,560,000 9 +16,237,000 4 +25,797,000 402 A comparison of those districts having the greatest gains in retail sales in 1948-1958 to their rankings in 1948-1954, and 1954-1958. The rankings of the fifteen central business districts which enjoyed the greatest increase in sales for the entire period of 1948-1958 showed San Francisco, California, as the leader with an increase of $44,073,000. This city's central business district has a phenomenonal increase in the 1954-1958 era to pull it up from forty-fifth in 1948-1954 to the first spot in the 1948-1958 decade. El Paso, Texas, had dis played a steadier increase pattern over the two five-year periods, and it was in second place. A glance at Table LXX indicates the relative position of these fifteen leaders at other census periods. A Comparison of Central Business Districts Having the Greatest Losses in Retail Sales During the Several Census Periods The treatment of those central business districts which suffered the greatest losses in retail sales is similar to the manner in which the central business dis tricts which had the greatest gains was presented. This section is divided into the following areas: (1) a com- TABLE LXX A COMPARISON OF CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS HAVING THE GREATEST GAINS IN RETAIL SALES IN 1948-1958 TO THEIR RANKINGS IN 1948-1954, AND 1954-1958 Ranking and Amount Ranking and Amount Ranking and Amount of Gain: 1948-1954 of Gain: 1954-1958 of Gain: 1954-1958 Name of Central City Rank Gain (in $) Rank Gain (In $) Rank Gain (in $) San Francisco, California 1 +44,073,000 45 - 641,000 2 +44,714,000 El Paso, Texas 2 +29,948,000 7 +17,095,000 10 +12,853,000 Columbus, Ohio 3 +29,013,000 18 +10,259,000 6 +18,754,000 Charlotte, North Carolina 4 +25,797,000 9 +16,237,000 15 + 9,560,000 Long Beach, California 5 +25,174,000 4 +23,447,000 46 + 1,727,000 Phoenix, Arizona 6 +23,749,000 19 + 9,809,000 9 +13,940,000 New Orleans, Louisiana 7 +23,482,000 5 +19,525,000 29 + 3,957,000 Decrease + - Increase • p* o u> TABLE LXX (continued) Ranking and Amount Ranking and Amount Ranking and Amount of Gain: 1948-1954 of Gain: 1954-1958 of Gain: 1954-1958 Name of Central City Rank Gain (in $) Rank Gain (in $) Rank Gain (in $) Louisville, Kentucky- Indiana 8 +20,707,000 3 +30,161,000 94 - 9,454,000 Sacramento, California 9 +19,529,000 24 + 5,515,000 8 +14,014,000 Spokane, Washington 10 +15,734,000 12 +12,598,000 36 + 3,163,000 Montgomery, Alabama 11 +15,722,000 10 +15,917,000 56 195,000 Fresno, California 12 +15,485,000 33 + 3,428,000 13 +12,030,000 Mobile, Alabama 13 +14,968,000 15 +11,204,000 31 + 3,763,000 New Haven, Connecticut 14 +13,280,000 31 + 4,143,000 16 + 9,139,000 Kansas City, Kansas 15 +12,840,000 16 +11,145,000 47 + 1,695,000 +- o ■ p* 405 parison of those districts having the greatest losses in retail sales in 1948-1954 to their rankings in 1954-1958, and 1948-1958; (2) a comparison of those districts having the greatest losses in retail sales in 1954-1958 to their rankings in 1948-1954, and 1948-1958; and (3) a comparison of those districts having the greatest losses in retail sales in 1948-1958 to their rankings in 1948-1954, and 1954-1958. A comparison of those districts having the greatest losses in retail sales in 1948-1954 to their rankings in 1954-1958. and 1948-1958. Only one of the fifteen central business districts which suffered the greatest losses in retail sales in the 1948-1954 period ever regained suf ficiently in the 1954-1958 period to end the 1948-1958 decade with an increase in sales. All others had such large losses in 1948-1954 that even though some of them had sales increases in 1954-1958, it was not sufficient to overcome the losses originally sustained in the 1948- 1954 period. Chicago, Illinois, had the dubious distinction of leading all central business districts with decreases in retail sales amounting to $154,275,000. This severe decline was so great that even though it declined by only $8,443,000 in 1954-1958, which was twenty-first in ranking, Chicago ended the 1948-1958 decade with the greatest losses of any central business district. Philadelphia, Pennsyl vania, was second in this period, but its increases in sales of $3,689,000 in 1954-1958 allowed it to place in the seventy-eighth position in sales losses for that period. It ended in fourth position in the over-all 1948- 1958 span. Los Angeles, California, was third, fourth, and third respectively in losses for the three periods, a unique situation in the rankings to say the least. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, did a good job in the 1954-1958 period of recovering to one hundred and sixth spot from a fourth position among the greatest losses in retail sales. Detroit, Michigan, which was the fifth worst dis trict in 1948-1954 with a loss of $69,097,000 in sales, became the worst in 1954-1958 with a sales decline of $66,024,000, thus leading to a total loss of $135,944,000 for the ten-year period, second only to Chicago. Although no central business district sustained losses in the 1954-1958 period as great as they had in 1948-1954, there were nine districts which continued to 407 suffer sales declines so that only one district, Atlanta, Georgia, did not end the 1948*1958 decade being in the first fifteen among losses. (See Table LXXI.) A comparison of those districts having the greatest losses in retail sales in 1954*1958 to their rankings in 1948-1954, and 1948*1958. The losses in retail sales in the 1954-1958 period by the fifteen leading central business districts were not as large as those sustained by the leading fifteen in 1948*1958. Neverthe less the decreases in retail sales were of sufficient magnitude as to drastically effect some of the districts which had enjoyed gains or small losses in the 1948*1954 period. It has been previously noted that Detroit, Michigan, second in losses in 1948-1954, felt a continuing sales decline amounting to $66,024,000, which placed it at the top position in sales loss for the period. Flint, Michigan, showed a drastic reversal from first place in gains in 1948-1954 to second place in losses for this period. Milwaukee, Wisconsin, which had been in twenty- sixth position in sales decreases in 1948-1954, suffered a much larger slump in the 1954-1958 period to move into third place. Los Angeles, California, as was mentioned TABLE LXXI A COMPARISON OF CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS HAVING THE GREATEST LOSSES IN RETAIL SALES IN 1948-1954 TO THEIR RANKINGS IN 1954-1958, AND 1948-1958 Ranking and Amount of Loss: 1948-1954 Ranking and Amount of Loss: 1954-1958 Ranking and Amount of Loss: 1948-1958 Name of Central City Rank Loss (000) Rank Loss (000) Rank Loss (000) Chicago, Illinois 1 -154,275 21 - 8,443 1 -162,718 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 2 -105,955 78 + 3,689 4 -102,266 Los Angeles, California 3 - 83,515 3 -20,550 3 -104,065 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 4 - 73,217 106 +32,562 10 - 40,655 Detroit, Michigan 5 - 69,920 1 -66,024 2 -135,944 Paterson-Clifton- Passaic, New Jersey 6 - 62,099 75 + 3,526 6 - 58,573 Allentown-Bethlehem- Easton, Pennsylvania- New Jersey 7 - 49,177 97 +10,299 11 4> O 00 - 38,287 - ■ Decrease + ■ Increase TABLE LXXI (continued) Ranking and Amount Ranking and Amount Ranking and Amount of Loss: 1948-1954 of Loss: 1954*1958 of Loss: 1948-1958 Loss Loss Loss Name of Central City Rank (000) Rank (000) Rank (000) Albany-Schenectady- Troy, New York 8 - 46,652 43 - 1,935 9 - 48,587 Kansas City, Missouri 9 - 44,961 6 -17,918 5 - 62,879 St. Louis, Missouri- Illinois 10 - 42,660 23 - 8,182 8 - 50,642 Boston, Massachusetts 11 - 35,825 7 -16,147 7 - 51,952 Akron, Ohio 12 - 34,875 50 - 630 13 - 35,505 Rockford, Illinois 13 - 32,586 59 + 1,311 14 - 31,275 i Atlanta, Georgia 14 - 28,482 107 +34,831 58 + 6,349 Portland, Oregon- Washington 15 - 21,811 24 - 8,127 15 -29,938 • p " © vO 410 previously, dropped to fourth position from the third position it had held in 1948-1954. Only four of the fifteen districts which suffered the greatest losses had also had the same experience in 1948-1954. Thus, eleven central business districts, which heretofore had not been extremely hard hit, now experi enced it in 1954-1958 (Table LXXII). Due to incomplete census data, it is not possible to ascertain how many of the new districts would have been in the first fifteen in the 1948-1958 decade. A comparison of those districts having the greatest losses in retail sales in 1948-1958 to their rankings in 1948-1954, and 1954-1958. The comparison of those central business districts having the greatest losses in retail sales in 1948-1958 to their rankings in 1948-1954, and 1954-1958, brings to light some interesting trends. Of the first fifteen in this decade, fourteen districts were also in the first fifteen in the 1948-1954 period, while only five of them were in the first fifteen in 1954-1958. Some of these fifteen fluctuated sharply between census periods. For example, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, which finished tenth in losses and was fourth in 1948-1954, TABLE LXXII A COMPARISON OF CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS HAVING THE GREATEST LOSSES IN RETAIL SALES IN 1954-1958 TO THEIR RANKINGS IN 1948-1954, AND 1948-1958 Nane of Central City Ranking and Amount of Loss: 1954-1958 Ranking and Amount of Loss: 1948-1954 Ranking and Amount of Loss: 1948-1958 Rank Loss (oeo) Rank Loss (000) Rank Loss (00Q) Detroit, Michigan 1 - 66,024 5 - 69,920 2 -135,944 Flint, Michigan 2 - 31,160 1 + 30,353 42 807 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 3 - 29,741 26 - 7,283 12 - 37,024 Los Angeles, California 4 - 20,550 3 - 83,515 3 -104,065 Baltimore, Maryland 5 - 18,491 N.L. N.L. N.L. N.L. Wichita, Kansas 6 - 18,093 77 + 15,552 37 - 2,541 ■ Kansas City, Missouri 7 - 17,918 9 - 44,961 5 - 62,879 Decrease + * Increase N.L. - Not Listed TABLE LXXII (continued) Ranking and Amount of Loss: 1954-1958 Ranking and Amount of Loss: 1948-1954 Ranking and Amounl of Loss: 1948-1951 Name of Central City Rank Loss (000) Rank Loss (000) Rank LO88 (000) Boston, Massachusetts 8 - 16,147 11 - 35,825 7 - 51,952 Tulsa, Oklahoma 9 - 15,854 60 + 4,762 22 - 11,092 Toledo, Ohio 10 - 15,431 19 - 14,485 16 - 29,916 Houston, Texas 11 - 15,310 85 + 19,984 54 + 4,674 Memphis, Tennessee 12 - 15,080 N.L. N.L. N.L. N. L. Cleveland, Ohio 13 - 12,419 48 + 302 20 - 12,117 Cincinnati, Ohio- Kentucky 14 - 11,631 75 + 12,448 48 + 817 Miami, Florida 15 - 10,424 74 + 11,774 49 + 1,350 413 gained in sales in 1954-1958 to become one hundred and sixth, but ended up as previously stated in tenth. Allen- town-Bethlehem-Easton, Pennsylvania-New Jersey, was twenty-sixth in losses in 1948-1954, but fell sharply in sales in 1954-1958 to finish in eleventh position for the decade. Akron, Ohio, was fiftieth in 1954-1958 after being twelfth in 1948-1954, thus ending in thirteenth spot for the decade. Rockford, Illinois, had almost the identical experience with that of Akron as did Albany- Schenectady-Troy, New York. Other districts were more stable in their losses throughout the decade, with Los Angeles, California, being in third position during the entire period. The period within the decade of 1948-1958 which saw the drastic changes was the 1954-1958 portion. How ever, as has been already observed, the losses sustained by the leading fifteen central business districts were sufficiently greater than those suffered by the leading fifteen in the 1954-1958 portion as to allow the leading districts in the 1948-1954 to still lead in total decreases for the ten-year period (Table LXXI1I). TABLE LXXIII A COMPARISON OF CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS HAVING THE GREATEST LOSSES IN RETAIL SALES IN 1948-1958 TO THEIR RANKINGS IN 1948-1954, AND 1954-1958 Ranking and Amount of Loss: 1948-1958 Ranking and Amount of Loss: 1948-1954 Ranking and Amount of Loss: 1954-1958 Name of Central City Rank Loss (000) Rank Loss (000) Rank Loss (000) Chicago, Illinois 1 -162,718 1 -154,275 21 - 8,443 Detroit, Michigan 2 -135,944 5 - 69,920 1 -66,024 Los Angeles, California 3 -104,065 3 - 83,515 3 -20,550 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 4 -102,266 2 -105,955 78 ♦ 3,689 Kansas City, Missouri 5 - 62,879 9 - 44,961 6 -17,918 Paterson-Clifton-Pas- saic, New Jersey 6 - 58,573 6 - 62,099 75 + 3,526 Boston, Massachusetts 7 - 51,952 11 - 35,825 7 -16,147 - * Decrease + - Increase TABLE LXXIII (continued) i Ranking and Amount of Loss: 1948-1958 Ranking and Amount of Loss: 1948-1954 Ranking and Amounl of Loss: 1954-1951 Name of Central City Rank Loss (000) Rank Loss (000) Rank Loss (000) 1 St. Louis, Missouri- Illinois 8 - 50,642 10 - 42,660 23 - 8,182 Albany-Schenectady- Troy, New York 9 - 48,587 8 - 46,652 43 - 1,935 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 10 - 40,655 4 - 73,217 106 +32,562 Allentown-Bethlehem- Easton, Pennsylvania- New Jersey 11 - 38,287 7 - 49,177 97 +10,299 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 12 - 37,024 26 - 7,283 2 -29,741 j Akron, Ohio 13 - 35,505 12 - 34,875 50 - 630 I 1 Rockford, Illinois 14 - 31,275 13 - 32,586 59 + 1,311 Portland, Oregon- Washington 15 - 29,938 15 - 21,811 24 - 8,127 415 416 One final word of caution should be noted at this time, since the mathematical calculation for the decade is dependent upon the activity in the two periods of 1948- 1954, and 1954-1958, there is no reason to conclude that the next census will still find the leaders in losses in the first fifteen for the fifteen-year period. A Comparison of Central Business Districts Having the Greatest Gains in Retail Sales to Their Rankings in Gains of Retail Units: 1954-1958 The 1954-1958 section of the 1948-1958 decade is the only portion that can compare sales to units, this being due, of course, to certain limitations of the census data. When a comparison is attempted between the fifteen central business districts that had the greatest increases in sales for the 1954-1958 period and their relative ranking in increase in retail units for the same period, some most revealing situations develop. Manhattan, New York, which was first in sales increases for the period with $179,470,000, was sixtieth in ranking of gains in retail units with a loss of fifty-one. San Francisco, California, which was second in increase in sales with 417 $44,714,000, was ninety-seventh In ranking of gains in retail units, with a loss of one hundred and fifty. Atlanta, Georgia, third in increase in sales, was ninetieth in increase in retail units with a loss of one hundred and eight. In fact, not a single business district Which was among the first fifteen in increase in sales for the 1954- 1958 period had an increase in retail units. They all suffered losses in retail units with Allentown-Bethlehem- Easton, Pennsylvania-New Jersey, having the lowest decrease, seven in number (Table LXXIV). A Comparison of Central Business Districts Having the Greatest Losses in Retail Sales to Their Rankings in Losses of Retail Units: 1954-1958 Comparing those central business districts which suffered the greatest losses of sales with their rankings in losses of retail units has more conformity than its counterpart has on the increase side. Detroit, Michigan, which had the greatest decrease in sales in 1954-1958, had the second highest loss of retail units with one hundred and ninety-six. Milwaukee, Wisconsin, which finished third in sales decreases, was ranked eighth in TABLE LXXIV A COMPARISON OF CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS HAVING THE GREATEST GAINS IN RETAIL SALES TO THEIR RANKINGS IN GAINS OF RETAIL UNITS: 1954-1958 Ranking and Amount In Gain Ranking and Amount In Gain of Retail Sales: of Retail Units: 1954-1958 1954-1958 Name of Central City Rank Gain (in $> Rank Gain (in Units) Manhattan, New York 1 +179,470,000 60 - 51 San Francisco, California 2 + 44,714,000 97 -150 Atlanta, Georgia 3 + 34,831,000 90 -108 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 4 + 32,562,000 89 -101 Brooklyn, New York 5 + 21,734,000 79 - 81 Columbus, Ohio 6 + 18,754,000 70 - 65 Nashville, Tennessee 7 + 18,406,000 71 - 69 - ■ Decrease + - Increase N.L. - Not Listed TABLE LXXIV (continued) Ranking and Amount in Gain of Retail Sales: 1954-1958 Ranking and Amount in Gain of Retail Units: 1954-1958 Name of Central City Rank Gain (in $) Rank Gain (in Units) Sacramento, California 8 + 14,014,000 82 - 86 Phoenix, Arizona 9 + 13,940,000 63 00 to 1 El Paso, Texas 10 + 12,853,000 56 - 47 Seattle, Washington 11 + 12,188,000 91 -114 Birmingham, Alabama 12 + 12,038,000 53 - 44 Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Pennsylvania-New Jersey 13 + 10,299,000 13 - 7 Salt Lake City, Utah 14 + 9,968,000 46 “ 31 Charlotte, North Carolina 15 + 9,560,000 48 - 36 6XV losses of retail units with a decrease of one hundred and forty-two. Los Angeles, California, which was fourth in losses of retail sales, was eleventh in losses of retail units with a drop of one hundred and twenty-eight. Even though the close ranking relationship between the two variables commences to disappear from this point on, there was not one central business district which was among the fifteen highest ranking in loss of sales which had an increase in retail units, and the lowest decrease in retail units was twenty-eight (Table LXXV). A Comparison of Central Business Districts Having the Greatest Gains in Retail Units to Their Rankings in Gains of Retail Sales: 1954-1958 A comparison of the fifteen leading central busi ness districts in gains in retail units for the period of 1954-1958 also points up some interesting situations. In fairness, it must be noted at the outset that there were only five districts out of the fifteen reviewed that had increases in retail units. However, even with this limiting factor, there are some conclusions which can be developed concerning the relationship. TABLE LXXV A COMPARISON OF CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS HAVING THE GREATEST LOSSES IN RETAIL SALES TO THEIR RANKINGS IN LOSSES OF RETAIL UNITS: 1954-1958 Name of Central City Ranking and Amount in Loss of Retail Sales: 1954-1958 Ranking and Amount of Loss of Retail Units: 1954-1958 Rank Los 8 (in $) Rank Loss (in Units) Detroit, Michigan 1 - 66,024,000 2 -196 Flint, Michigan 2 - 31,160,000 105 + 3 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 3 - 29,741,000 8 -142 Los Angeles, California 4 - 20,550,000 11 -128 Baltimore, Maryland 5 - 18,491,000 29 - 79 Wichita, Kansas 6 - 18,093,000 27 - 79 Kansas.City, Missouri 7 - 17,918,000 20 0 1 Decrease + ■ Increase * N> TABLE LXXV (continued) Ranking and Amount in Loss of Retail Sales: 1954-1958 Ranking and Amount of Loss of Retail Units: 1954-1958 Name of Central City Rank Loss (in $) Rank Loss (in Units) Boston, Massachusetts 8 - 16,147,000 3 -192 Tulsa, Oklahoma 9 - 15,854,000 37 - 63 Toledo, Ohio 10 - 15,431,000 39 - 59 Houston, Texas 11 - 15,310,000 5 -185 Memphis, Tennessee 12 - 15,080,000 26 - 80 Cleveland, Ohio 13 - 12,419,000 63 - 28 Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky 14 - 11,631,000 59 - 31 Miami, Florida 15 - 10,424,000 57 - 31 422 423 Newark, New Jersey, which enjoyed the greatest number of increases in retail units with forty-eight, was ranked seventy-sixth in gains in retail sales with a loss of $3,586,000, while Paterson-Clifton-Passaic, New Jersey, which was second in increase in retail units with seventeen, was thirty-fifth in increase in sales with a gain of $3,526,000. The case of Flint, Michigan, was even more amazing. It gained three retail units during this period and lost $31,160,000 in sales, which caused it to be ranked one hundred and eighth in sales gain. Some central business districts had gains in sales and losses in retail units, while others had losses in retail units and gains in sales. Needless to say, with this mixed trend it would be difficult to draw many posi tive conclusions as to a predictable relationship between the two variables (Table LXXVI). A Comparison of Central Business Districts Having the Greatest Losses in Retail Units to Their Rankings in Losses of Retail Sales: 1954-1958 There might be reason to assume that there would be a logical relationship between those central business TABLE LXXVI A COMPARISON OF CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS HAVING THE GREATEST GAINS IN RETAIL UNITS TO THEIR RANKINGS IN GAINS OF RETAIL SALES: 1954-1958 Ranking and Amount in Gain Ranking and Amount in Gain of Retail Units: of Retail Sales: 1954-1958 1954-1958 Name of Central City Rank Gain (in Units) Rank Gain (in $) Newark, New Jersey 1 +48 76 - 3,586,000 Paterson-Clifton-Passaic, New Jersey 2 +17 35 + 3,526,000 Berkeley, California 3 +11 30 + 3,857,000 Flint, Michigan 4 + 3 108 -31,160,000 St. Paul, Minnesota 5 + 3 45 + 1,737,000 San Antonio, Texas 6 - 1 40 + 2,269,000 Washington, D.C., Maryland- Virginia 7 - 2 65 - 1,464,000 - - Decrease + - Increase £ TABLE LXXVI (continued) Name of Central City | Buffalo, New York | Kansas City, Kansas ] ! Yonkers, New York I Evansville, Indiana - | Kentucky i Niagara Falls, New York i i Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Pennsylvania-New Jersey Canton, Ohio t l | Youngstown, Ohio Ranking and Amount in Gain of Retail Units: 1954-1958 Gain Rank (in Units) 8 - 2 9 - 5 10 - 5 11 - 6 12 - 7 13 - 7 14 - 9 15 - 9 Ranking and Amount in Gain of Retail Sales: ______ 1954-1958_________ Gain Rank (in $) 83 - 9,214,000 47 + 1,695,000 21 + 6,415,000 73 - 3,431,000 70 - 2,206,000 13 +10,299,000 58 - 391,000 81 - 4,967,000 N> in 426 districts which suffered the greatest losses in retail units as also suffering the greatest losses in retail sales This does hold true in some instances but it fails to hold true in others. Chicago, Illinois, which was the first-ranked central business district in loss of units in 1954-1958 with two hundred and sixty-seven in all, was twenty-first in loss of retail sales for the same period. However, Detroit, Michigan, was consistent, in that it was second in loss of retail units and first in loss of sales. The relationship established by Detroit gradually but definitely disappears as the other central business districts are compared. There are more central business districts with increases in sales, despite high losses in retail units, than the opposite. To state it in a slightly different manner, districts, such as Atlanta, Georgia, suffered heavy losses in retail units, one hundred and eight in Atlanta's case, and yet had very excellent sales increases, $38,831,000 in Atlanta's case again. San Francisco, Cali fornia, Seattle, Washington, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Hartford, Connecticut, all follow Atlanta's example (Table LXXVII). TABLE LXXVII A COMPARISON OF CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS HAVING THE GREATEST LOSSES IN RETAIL UNITS TO THEIR RANKINGS IN LOSSES OF RETAIL SALES: 1954-1958 Ranking and Amount In Loss Ranking and Amount In Loss of Retail Units: of Retail Sales: 1954-1958 1954-1958 Name of Central City Rank Loss (in Units) Rank Loss (in $) Chicago, Illinois 1 267 21 - 8,443,000 Detroit, Michigan 2 196 1 -6.6,024,000 Boston, Massachusetts 3 192 7 -16,147,000 Portland, Oregon-Washington 4 185 24 - 8,127,000 Houston, Texas 5 185 10 -15,310,000 San Francisco, California 6 150 108 444,714,000 Philadelphia, PennsyIvania 7 144 78 4 3,689,000 - * Decrease + ■ Increase * N» s j TABLE LXXVII (continued) Ranking and Amount in Loss Ranking and Amount in Loss of Retail Units: of Retail Sales: 1954-1958 1954-1958 Los8 Loss Name of Central City Rank (in Units) Rank (in $) Milwaukee, Wisconsin 8 142 2 -29,741,000 New Orleans, Louisiana 9 139 81 + 3,957,000 Oakland, California 10 131 57 + 1,163,000 Los Angeles, California 11 128 3 -20,550,000 Seattle, Washington 12 114 99 +12,188,000 Atlanta, Georgia 13 108 107 +34,831,000 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 14 101 106 +32,562,000 Hartford, Connecticut 15 98 84 + 4,505,000 428 429 Conclusions Regarding These Comparisons It is Always dangerous to make assertions based upon limited or incomplete data, but the over-all trend during the 1948-1958 era, as presented by this study, was definitely toward a decrease in retail business in the central business districts. The remarkable increases in retail sales by Manhattan, New York, San Francisco, Cali fornia, El Paso, Texas, and Columbus, Ohio, were not sufficient to offset the losses suffered by Chicago, Illinois, Detroit, Michigan, Los Angeles, California, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The changes in retail sales and retail units played no geographical favorites, as is evidenced by the observations in the previous paragraph. There also appeared to be no positive correlation or relationship between changes in retail sales and changes in retail units, insofar as gains in sales compared to gains in retail units. Some central business districts, for example, experienced decreases in retail units while enjoying increases in retail sales. Manhattan, New York, had a decrease of fifty-one retail units in the 1954- 1958 period While having a retail sales Increase of 430 $179,470,000. Yet conznon sense would dictate that there is some eventual point at which a continuing decrease in retail units will adversely affect retail sales. Just at what point this would occur depends upon so many variables that it makes it difficult, if not impossible, to forecast. II. A COMPARISON OF THE CHANGES IN RETAIL SALES AND RETAIL UNITS OF THE SELECTED CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS TO THE TOTAL RETAIL ECONOMY: 1948-1958 The central business districts of the central cities of the selected standard metropolitan statistical areas suffered, in the main, losses of both retail dollar sales and retail store units in the period of 1948-1958, but this is only part of the total picture. When their performances are compared to the performance of the total retail economy for the same period of time, the decline becomes even more significant. The purpose of this section is to compare this performance. It is divided into the following areas: (1) a comparison during the period 1948- 1954, (2) a comparison during the period 1954-1958, 431 (3) a comparison during the period 1948-1958, and (4) conclusion. A Comparison During the Period 1948-1954 Total retail business in the United States reached a peak in 1929 of $48,329,652,000 in total retail sales done by 1,476,365 retail units. It fell drastically from this high point during the 1930's, and, even by as late as 1939, with $42,041,790,000 in retail sales done by 1,770,355 retail units, it had not regained its 1929 sales 2 level. Thus, there were more units in 1939 doing less dollar sales than in 1929, for in 1929 the average dollar sales per retail store was $50,596,000 as compared to only $44,807,000 in 1939. By 1948, however, this had all changed (Table LXXVIII). In comparing the retail changes in the 1948-1954 period in the selected central business districts as com pared to the total retail economy, the discussion is pre sented in the following subdivisions: (1) the total retail 2 United States Department of Commerce, United States Census of Business 1948. Retail Trade - General i Statistics. Vol. I (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1951), p. 9. TABLE LXXVIII NUMBER OF RETAIL STORES AND AVERAGE SALES PER STORE (Sales Adjusted to 1947-1949 Dollars) 1929 1939 1948 Kind of Business Stores (000) Sales (000) Stores (000) Sales (000) Stores (000) Sales (000) TOTAL 1,476 $ 50,596 1,770 $ 71,542 1,788 $ 96,000 Lumber, Building, Hardware 90 66,044 79 65,316 99 109,253 General Merchandise 55 181,091 50 213,780 53 292,358 Food 481 34,751 561 34,187 504 59,593 Automotive 69 15,777 60 17,481 86 22,681 Gasoline Service Stations 122 22,640 242 22,004 188 33,447 Apparel 114 57,500 107 57,467 119 82,678 Source: Weldon J. Taylor and Roy T. Shaw, Marketing (Cincinnati, Ohio: South- Western Publishing Company, 1961), p. 522. - p - ro TABLE LXXVIII (continued) ! 1929 1939 1948 Kind of Business Stores (000) Sales (000) Stores (000) Sales (000) Stores (000) Sales (000) Furniture, Home Furnishings, Appliances 59 72,169 53 61,698 86 77,977 Eating and Drinking Places 134 24,507 305 11,840 347 29,862 Drug and Proprietary Stores 58 45,035 58 50,845 56 69,468 Other Retail Stores i 175 42,869 172 38,349 164 61,409 433 434 economy: 1948; and (2) a comparison of the central busi ness districts to the total retail economy: 1948-1954. The total retail economy: 1948. By 1948, total retail sales in the United States had more than regained the 1929 level, standing at $130,520,548,000. The number of retail units had also jumped considerably to a reported 1,771,317. The average sales per retail unit had also increased to $71,542,000.3 In 1948, 70 per cent of all retail sales in retail stores were made in cities of 100,000 population or more, even though they only contained 54 per cent of all the retail units.^ Table LXXIX shows how the several retail classifications shared both in total sales and total retail units. A comparison of the total retail economy: 1948- 1954. By 1954, some important changes had occurred in the total retail economy in the United States. The total number of retail units had declined to 1,721,650, or a loss of 49,667 over 1948. Total retail dollar sales, 3 Ibid. A Fred M. Jones, Retail Merchandising (Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1957), p. 23. TABLE LXXIX RETAIL STORES BY KIND OF BUSINESS IN THE UNITED STATES: 1948 Kind of Business Retail Number of Estab lishments (000) St or e8 Dollar Sales/Year (000) Per Cent of Total Sales TOTAL 1,771,317 130,520,548 100.0 Lumber Building Materials, Hardware Group 99,043 11,151,470 8.6 General Merchandise Group 52,741 15,975,357 12.3 Department Stores 2,645 10,644,747 7.3 Variety Stores 20,294 2,506,741 1.9 Food Stores 504,902 30,965,674 22.7 Automotive Group 86,194 20,104,054 15.6 Gasoline Service Stations 188,301 6,483,301 5.0 Source: United States Department of Commerce, United States Census of Business 1948. Retail Trade - General Statistics. Vol. I (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1952), p. 102; United States Department of Cotmnerce, United States Census of Business: 1958. Retail Trade ~ Area Statistics. Vol. II (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1961), p. 7. 435 TABLE LXXIX (continued) Retail Stores Number of Estab- Dollar Sales/Year Per Cent of Kind of Business lishments (000) (000) Total Sales Apparel Accessories Stores 115,707 9,803,218 7.5 Furniture, Home Furnishings, Appliances 85,680 6,914,179 5.4 Eating and Drinking Places 346,677 10,683,324 8.3 Drug and Proprietary Stores 55,903 4,013,231 3.1 Other Retail Stores 214,603 13,267,379 9.7 436 437 however, had increased to $169,967,748,000, or a gain of $39,447,200,000.^ Table LXXX shows how the several retail classifications shared in the 1954 totals and compares this to their relative sharing positions in 1948. A comparison of the central bnsiness districts to the total retail economy: 1948-1954. Whereas the total retail economy showed excellent gains in the 1948-1954 period, the selected central business districts did not share a proportionate increase. As reported in Chapter IX of this study, the districts suffered a net loss in sales of $677,055,000. In even more decisive fashion, all of the central business districts had a negative percentage differential in the amount of retail sales they did in their central cities and their respective standard metropolitan statistical areas. This means that not a single central business district gained relatively in retail sales during the period as compared to their central cities and standard metropolitan statistical areas. When this experience in the central business districts is ^These are current dollars of each census year and thus includes price changes as well as changes in number of units sold. TABLE LXXX RETAIL STORES BY KIND OF BUSINESS IN THE UNITED STATES: 1948-1954 Nunfoer of ments Establish- (000) Absolute net Change (000) Dollar Sales (000) Absolute net Change Kind of Business 1948 1954 1948 1954 (UUU) TOTAL 1,771,317 1,721,650 - 49,667 130,520,548 169,967,748 +39,447^00 Lumber, Building Materials Hard ware Group 99,043 100,519 + 1,116 11,151,470 13,123,528 + 1,980,548 General Mdse. Dep't Strs. Variety 52,741 2,645 20,294 76,198 2,761 20,917 + 23,457 + 116 + 623 15,776,357 10,644,747 2,506,741 17,872,386 10,557,843 3,066,634 + + 2,076,245 96,904 559,893 Food Stores 504,902 384,616 -120,286 30,965,674 39,762,213 + 8,796^539 Automotive 86,194 85,953 241 20,104,054 29,914,997 + 9,810,943 Gasoline Serv. Stations 188,301 181,747 - 6,554 6,483,301 10,743,812 + 4,260,511 Source: United States Department of Commerce, United States Census of Business: 1958. Retail Trade - Area Statistics. Vol. II (Washington: Government Printing £> Office, 1961), p. 7. 00 TABLE LXXX Number of Establish ments (000) Kind of Business 1948 1954 Absolute net Change Dollar Sales ( 000) 1948 1954 Absolute net Change IApparel, Acces. 115,707 119,743 + 4,036 i ! Furniture, Home ! Furnishings, 'Appliances 85,680 97,607 + 1,927 i . i Eating and Drink ing Places 346,677 319,657 -27,020 \ * Drug and Pro prietary 55,903 56,009 + 106 I Other Retail Stores 214,603 221,093 + 6,490 9,803,218 11,078,209 + 1,274,991 6,914,179 8,994,332 + 2,080,153 10,683,324 13,101,051 + 2,517,727 4,013,231 5,251,791 + 1,238,560 13,267,379 15,611,554 + 2,344,175 ■ p* u> 440 contrasted with the total retail economy, it definitely shows that the central business districts, as a group, did not share in the increase in retailing in the United States, in fact, they lost ground. To make matters even worse, it must be remembered that the net loss in retail sales was reported in current dollars, thus, not even talking into account the price inflation which occurred during that period. If constant dollars had been used, the net loss would have been a larger absolute dollar amount. A Comparison During the Period: 1954-1958 Total retail business during the period of 1954- 1958 in the United States rose by approximately thirty billion dollars, fro^j $169,967,748,000 in 1954 to $199,646,463,000 in 1958. This section, as in the case of the previous one, is subdivided into the following areas: (1) a comparison of the total retail economy: 1954-1958, and (2) a comparison of the central business districts to the total economy: 1954-1958. A comparison of the total retail economy: 1954- 1958. As was just previously stated, retail sales 441 Increased by about thirty billion dollars during the 1954- 1958 period. Retail units also increased in number by 66,675, from 1,721,650 in 1954 to 1,788,325 in 1958. This sales increase of 17.5 per cent was done while the popula tion of the economy was increasing by 7.5 per cent and personal income was rising by 25 per cent. Since the retail selling price of goods increased during this period, on the average, between 5 and 6 per cent, this meant that there was an over-all increase of 10 per cent in the number of units of goods sold.** Table LXXXI shows how the several retail classifi cations shared in the 1958 totals and compares this to their relative sharing positions in 1954. A comparison of the central business districts to the total retail economy: 1954-1958. Once again, as was the situation in the 1948-1954 period, the 1954-1958 period saw central business districts fail to keep pace with the total retail economy for the same period. Not ^Clement Winston, "Retail Trade and Use of Ser vices: Regional Fatterns of Consumer Purchasing," Survey of Current Business. XXXXI (May, 1961), 23. TABLE LXXXI RETAIL STORES BY KIND OF BUSINESS IN THE UNITED STATES: 1954-1958 Number of ments Establish- (000) Absolute net Dollar Sales 1948 (000) 1954 Absolute net Kind of Business 1948 1954 Change (000) Change (000) TOTAL 1,721,650 1,788,325 + 66,675 169,967,748 199,646,463 +29,678,715 Lumber, Building Materials, Hard ware Group 100,519 108,248 + 7,729 13,123,528 14,309,206 + 1,185,678 General Mdse. 76,198 86,644 + 10,446 17,872,386 21,879,106 + 4,006,720 Dep't Strs. 2,761 3,157 + 396 10,557,843 13,359,467 + 2,801,624 Variety 20,917 21,017 + 100 3,066,634 3,620,600 + 553,966 Food Stores 384,616 355,508 - 29,108 39,762,213 49,022,333 + 9,260,120 Automotive 85,953 93,656 + 7,703 29,914,997 31,807,877 + 1,892,880 Gasoline Service Stations 181,747 206,302 + 24,555 10,743,812 14,178,203 + 3,434,391 Source: United States Department of Commerce, United States Census of Business: 1958. . p . Retail Trade - Area Statistics. Vol. II (Washington: Government Printing £ Office, 1961), p. 7. TABLE LXXXI (continued) Number of Establish- Absolute Dollar Sales Absolute • ment8 (000) net (000) net Change (000) Kind of Business 1954 1958 Change (000) 1954 1958 Apparel, Acces. 119,743 118,759 - 984 11,078,209 12,525,451 + 1,447,242 Furniture, Home Furnishings, Appliances 97,607 103,417 + 5,810 8,994,332 10,074,227 + 1,079,895 Eating and Drinking Places 319,657 344,740 +25,097 13,101,051 15,201,481 + 2,100,430 Drug and Pro prietary 56,009 56,232 + 223 5,251,791 6,778,926 + 1,527,135 Other Retail Stores 221,093 240,140 +19,047 15,611,554 18,468,340 + 2,856,786 I one of the twelve retail classifications had an increase in retail units in the central business districts, whereas, ten of the twelve did have retail unit increases for the total retail economy, and the two, food and apparel, acces sories, which did have losses were of small amounts, espe cially compared to the loss of retail units in the central business districts. For example, apparel, accessories stores suffered a net decrease in retail units of 2,857 while in the total retail economy the loss was only 984. Automotive dealers, which gained 7,703 retail units in the total retail economy, lost 87 units in the central business districts. Furniture, home furnishings, equipment dealers, which gained 5,810 units in the total retail economy, suffered a decrease of 527 units in the central business districts. To put it bluntly, retailing fled from the central business districts during this period. A presumed stronghold, eating, drinking place, lost 514 units in the central business districts while the total retail economy was enjoying a substantial unit increase of 35,083 retail units (see Table XIX, supra Chapter VII). The trend in dollar retail sales was not as decisive for the 1954-1958 period. The total retail 445 economy had all of the twelve retail classifications show dollar sales increases for the 1954*1958 period. Central business districts, on the other hand, had mixed changes. Seven of the twelve retail classifications showed net dollar sales increases, while the other five had decreases for the 1954*1958 period.^ These figures, of course, reflect changes in prices as well as changes in the number of units of goods sold. This fact would have a tendency to overestimate the absolute dollars of gains in sales and underestimate the absolute dollars of losses in sales between 1954 and 1958. However, price levels were much more stable for the 1954*1958 period than they had been for the 1948*1954 era. Consequently, it is reasonably safe to assume that the gains in dollar sales during the 1954*1958 period would remain as such even if a price deflator were applied to the figures. In no single instance, nevertheless, did those retail classifications, which showed dollar sales gains in the central business ^See Table XVIII, Chapter VII, of this study for a irecapitulation of the experience of the twelve retail clas sifications in the central business districts. See, also, Table LXXXI of this chapter for the experience of the total retail economy. 446 districts, enjoy the relative increase in each particular retail classification that the total retail economy did. Therefore, even in the case of retail dollar sales, and in spite of more of the retail classifications experiencing gains rather than losses, the central business districts did not hold their own in relation to the total retail economy. The trend of withdrawal of retail activity from the central business districts continued during the 1954- 1958 period. III. AN ANALYSIS OF THE DATA USED IN THIS STUDY No researcher's data are perfect. If they were, there would be little or no value to his research, for he must attempt to fill in missing gaps, or propose areas for further investigation based on the results of his own research. Yet, a researcher is hopeful that the data which he uses are accurate and applicable to the area of his study. While this was true to a great extent in this particular study, the data available were weak in certain areas. Probably the major criticism that is to be leveled at this study is the extreme reliance placed upon the 447 Census of Business as the sole source for the empirical evidence relating to the performance of the selected central business districts. Consequently, an evaluation of the data used in this study centers around this lone source. It is true that there is a considerable amount of excel lent materials available in the peripheral areas, as well as a wealth of it relating to the theories and principles involved. Nevertheless, the absence of information on the performance of the central business districts of our larger cities is noticeable. Reliance, therefore, upon the Census of Business causes a scrutiny of its validity to be imperative. The first major defect is the fact that at each census year there have been changes from the previous census years. While some of these changes have been inconsequential, others have been of some magnitude. The change from the 1954 to the 1958 census in the reporting of leased depart ments in retail stores created a change of an estimated 25,000 retail units. The Bureau of the Census has smde absolutely no attempt to reconcile this discrepancy or to adjust reported figures. As a result, the reader is completely at a loss in accepting the changes in retail 448 units between these two census periods. An educated guess is the best that can be offered. Another defect is not singular to these data but it is typical of much of the government and private figures reported. The sales for each census period have been reported in the current dollars of that census year. Hence, price changes have so distorted any comparison between census years as to render invalid, to a certain extent, these comparisons. A third weakness of the central business district statistics has been that too many times data must be withheld. This had been particularly true in the reporting of department stores, although it is realized the necessity many times of having had to withhold this information. One need only refer back to the Central Business District Master Table IX in Chapter VIII to see how many times data were not reported but withheld. One of the more obscure limitations has been the failure of the authorities to recognize the role that the central office of the multi-unit retail store system, or the parent store of the parent-branch retail store system, plays in the successful functioning of the suburban stores 449 in the system. It is a moot question as to whether this function could ever be built into the data. A fifth linitation of the central business district statistics has been the emphasis on political boundaries rather than trading areas. The 1958 census did make a start in the right direction by recognizing some trading areas, but, by and large, it is still based upon political cities, arbitrarily defined central business districts, g and standard metropolitan statistical areas. A fundamental problem which directly involves the Census of Business is concerned with the Standard Indus- trial Classification Manual’s definitions of retail stores. It is becoming more difficult as time goes by to fit retail store operations into arbitrary definitional con cepts which will accurately describe their merchandising operations and policies. The variety store of today is a far cry from the five-and-ten store of yesterday. The same may be said of the drug and grocery stores. Everyone is in everyone's back yard when it comes to merchandising. a Robert D. Entenberg, "Suggested Changes in Census Classifications of Retail Trade," Journal of Marketing. XXIV (January, I960), 39-41. 450 Furthermore, the future even argues for more of this dis persion of the same type of goods, due mainly to the increasing number of households having some of their incomes as discretionary. This will lead manufacturers to increase their attempts at mass merchandising those items today which currently are categorized as specialty and/or shopping goods. If this does occur, the shopping good of today could easily become the mass merchandised, convenience good of tomorrow. Whether the current retailer handling these types of goods would continue to do so is a question for which there is no certain answer. Another limitation is the lack of an appreciable amount of data in the realm of the trading area of the retail store. Most of the work that has been done to date is in the field of food supermarkets as applying to the shopping centers in the total retail structure of a retail region. In spite of these limitations, there was a suf ficient amount of accurate information to make the study both valid and, hopefully, worthwhile. Recognizing that some of the data were incomplete and inaccurate, the fact remains that the data aided in validating the purpose of this study. There is no doubt retailing has been 451 deserting the central business districts of our larger central cities during the 1948-1958 period. IV. A SUMMARY OF THE CAUSES OF THE SHIFT IN RETAIL TRADE A logical question almost immediately arises as a result of the facts and conclusions presented in this study, nasely, why has the central business district of the larger central city lost its former dominant position as the retailing center for the entire area? The answer is fairly obvious when one considers for a moment what has taken place in our total economy. The forces which have caused population to shift outward from the large central cities have been the underlying factors that have affected retailing. The advent of the automobile has freed the consumer both from the railroad and the central city. The movement of industry away from the central city has severed a great segment of the total population from central city loyalties. The change in the mores of our society, especially since World War II, has led to changes in the demands upon the retail industry, a demand which has been met by changes in the retail 452 structure and changes in merchandising techniques. Self service came into its own after World War II. The demand for convenience, brought on by many households having supplementary workers, caused retail stores to move closer to their actual markets. The development of the producer's brand to the zenith it has reached has meant a lessening in the necessity of comparison shopping and individual retail store loyalty on the part of the consumer. To the extent that the loss of demand in the Central business district is accounted for by other than geographical factors the central business district has brought part of its problems upon itself. The lack of adequate parking space, coupled with traffic and pedestrian congestion, made it progressively less desirable to shop. The old, out-dated type of physical premises has been another factor. Women seem to prefer horizontal, one- level retail structures in which to shop rather than the multi-storied type such as is typical in the central busi ness district. Probably another major factor is one which has not been publicized. The typical central business district 453 merchant was asleep to what was transpiring in the total economy, so that by the time he recognized the problem the more progressive merchants had already located in the suburbs. The rash of planned shopping centers after World War II is some proof of the sudden awakening to this fact. It is true, of course, that during World War II it was not possible for expansion, but the trend had developed before that time. What the future holds for the central business district retailer will be considered in the next chapter. V. CONCLUSION This chapter has attempted to present an analysis of the changes in retail sales and retail store location in the central business districts in the selected central cities in the United States for the 1948-1958 period. The changes within the central business districts themselves have been varied and mixed, insofar as changes in retail dollar sales are concerned, with definitely a decline in retail units. To make matters worse, this trend has occurred during a decade which has witnessed an expansion of retail trade in the total economy. Whether the central 454 business district retailer can make a successful stand against further declines in number and dollar sales is a debatable issue. A brief consideration of this issue will be a portion of the discussion in the next chapter. CHAPTER X SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this final chapter is, first, to present a summary of the foregoing chapters, and, second, to draw from this summary, as well as from the previous chapters in their entirety, conclusions regarding the future of retailing in the selected central business dis tricts studied in this report. I. SUMMARY This study has attempted to be an economic analysis of the changes in retail store sales and location in the central business districts of the selected central cities in the United States for the decade of 1948-1958. Some Important Aspects of the Causes of Urban Concentration Chapter II presented a consideration of some of the important aspects of the causes of urban concentration. It was deemed advisable to begin this chapter with a 456 brief review of some of the leading economic theories that explain general location, for the location of plant and the concentration of industry has a great influence on urban concentration. A review of both German and non-German writers revealed certain tenets concerning the location of plant and industrial concentration. For one thing, cost factors play an important role, and the components of these cost factors include the cost of labor, the cost of transporta tion, and the cost of raw materials. A second factor that greatly affects the location of industry is the advantage of agglomerative forces, such as certain econ omies resulting from use of common facilities, labor, energy sources, and so on. A third major factor is the market demand. While economists differ as to the strength and importance of these three factors, there seems to be common agreement that these are the three strongest ones affecting location of plant and industry. The second major section of Chapter II concerned itself with a summary of some of the leading explanations of the causes of urban concentration. It was discovered that both economic and noneconomic forces are constantly 457 shaping and re-shaping urban concentrations. Included among these forces are the geographical ones of harbors and rivers, climate, topography, raw materials, and natural resources. Social forces also affect urban con centration and they include, among others, the gregarious- ness of man, religion, culture, the "safety-in-nuabers" concept, and a desire for recreation. Economic forces, which are very powerful, include the following: (1) the exchange process of trade, transportation, and finance and insurance, (2) manufacturing, (3) agglomerative forces, (4) economies of urban concentration, and (5) as a supplier of services. The conclusion derived from this chapter was that to understand changes in retail store sales and location an understanding of the forces impinging on an economy, which create, shape, and change urban concentrations, is essential, for retailing, as it is known today, is depend ent upon clusters of people. Some Explanations of Differences Among Urban Concentrations Even though there are logical explanations as to the causes of urban concentration, this does not explain 458 why there are differences among them. Chapter III attempted a summarization of some of the leading explanations of the differences among urban concentrations. It first presented several methods by which urban concentrations may be classified, including: (1) by dominant function, (2) by location, (3) by effect on economic growth, (4) by the support of the city, (5) by an ecological classifica tion, and (6) by economic functions. This led to a discussion of several theories that explain the growth of urban concentrations. From this point, a survey of the economic explanations as to the size, spacing, and type of urban concentration ensued. In this discussion, a brief review of the theories of central place, and the principle of least effort were offered. It was concluded that these differences in urban concentra tion directly affect the retail structure, which affects retail store location. Urbanism in the United States Chapter IV presented a brief history of urbanism in the United States, commencing with the concentration phase and continuing into the deconcentration and decen tralization phase. It developed, among other things, the 459 concept o£ metropolitanism, which included: (1) Gras's "metropolitan economy," (2) McKenzie's "metropolitan community," (3) Bogue's "metropolitan dominance," and (4) the "gradient principle." From this theoretical base, a discussion followed on the growth and distribution of population in the so- called standard metropolitan statistical areas, and, it was concluded from this that, as urbanism is no longer being thought of as being simply a series of cities, so must retailing be thought of as affecting, and being affected by, these developments. Current Structure of Retailing in the United States There is an economic justification to retailing. Retailing performs certain necessary distributive functions, regardless of the type of institution that assumes this role. Chapter V summarized this economic concept of retailing and discussed how retailing helps create the utilities of form, time, place, and possession. After establishing the economics of retailing, this chapter reviewed the current spatial structure of retailing in the United States. This included a 460 description of the retail structure in the large city, the small city, the rural trading center, the shopping center, and the highway-oriented retail district. The conclusions reached in this chapter were that there is a hierarchical order to the structure of retail ing within a given economic region. Various types of retail stores are to be found within the structure, each performing a portion of the economic function of distribu tion. Determinants of Retail Structure and Retail Store Location Chapter VI reviewed the determinants of retail structure and retail store location by first summarizing some of the important principles involved. These included, among others, Reilly's law of retail gravitation and its revisions, the theory of site rent, Chamberlin's thesis of spatial monopoly, the principles of least effort, the theory of cumulative attraction, the theory of compatibility, the law of efficient congestion, and metropolitan dominance. The second section of this chapter concerned a discussion of the forces affecting retail structure and 461 retail store location. Such forces as population char acteristics, merchandising techniques, the nature of demand for the product, transportation, and industrial plant location were reviewed. From this it was concluded that certain factors determine which portion of a retail structure of a given region a particular store will choose its site location. These factors include: (1) the size of the trading area, (2) the character of the population of the trading area, (3) the purchasing power of the trading area, (4) the competitive structure of the trading area, (5) the pro gressiveness of the community, (6) the buying habits of potential customers, and (7) so on. Changes in Retail Store Sales and Location Chapter VII presented a summary of the results of the research into the changes in retail store sales and retail store location in the one hundred and nine central business districts of the selected central cities of their respective standard metropolitan statistical areas. The basis of the research was the United States Department of Commerce's Census of Business for the years of 1948, 1954, and 1958. 462 It was observed that there was no report on central business districts statistics for the census year 1948, even though the 1954 census did reconstruct what probably was the retail dollar sales activity in the 1948 census year in the central business districts. Commencing in the 1954 census, a separate volume, Volume VII, was published which devoted itself exclusively to retail activity in the central business districts. The actual results of the research were summarized in a table entitled "The Central Business District Master Table." This table consisted of the following four areas: (1) net change in retail units, CBD: 1954, 1958; (2) net changes in retail dollar sales, CBD: 1948, 1954, 1958; (3) percentage differential changes in per cent of city sales in central business districts: 1948, 1954, 1958; and (4) percentage differential changes in per cent of standard metropolitan statistical area sales in CBD: 1948, 1954, and 1958. This table revealed that only 5 of the 109 districts showed increases between 1954 and 1958 in retail units in their central business districts amounting to 82 stores in all, while 104 districts showed losses of retail units totaling 5,657 in number. Retail sales 463 losses were more evenly divided, but for the period of 1948-1958, 7 more central business districts had losses than gains and the total net sales decrease was almost $740,000,000. Percentage differential changes demonstrated even more clearly that the central business districts were not experiencing the commensurate increase in sales as had the remainder of the standard metropolitan statistical areas. Not one central business district revealed a posi tive percentage differential increase in its relationship to its central city. This same trend was also apparent when comparing the central business districts to that of the standard metropolitan statistical areas. When viewing these changes in retail units and retail sales from the several types of retail business, based upon the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. it was noted that hone of the 12 retail classifications had net increases in retail units in the central business districts for the 1954-1958 period, but the trend in retail sales was mixed with 7 of the 12 retail classifica tions experiencing gains during the same period. 464 Ranking of Central Cities by Changes in Retail Classifications Chapter VIII presented an analysis of the experi ence of each of the 12 retail classifications in the central business districts in losses and gains of retail units and retail sales. Some of the retail classifications had losses and gains rather evenly dispersed among the central business districts, while, in others, certain central business districts had a relatively large pro portion of either the total increase or decrease. While each retail classification experienced a net decrease in retail units in the 1954-1958 period in the central business districts, there was no set pattern, as has been previously observed, as to how these net losses were dispersed among the central business dis tricts in each of the retail classifications. For example, in the case of SIC Major Group 52--lumber, building mate rials, hardware, and farm equipment dealers, 31 central business districts reported increases in retail units, with the largest district having an increase of 8, while 61 districts showed decreases totaling 518, of which Detroit, Michigan, led with a loss of 196 retail units, or 37.8 per cent of the total loss. On the other hand, SIC Major Group 53, general merchandise retail stores, there were only 8 more central business districts that had decreases than increases and no particular district over shadowed the others in either the increase or the decrease group. It has been stated earlier that the changes in retail sales in the central business districts were mixed rather than decisively in one direction or the other. Seven more central business districts had decreases than increases in all selected retail classifications for the 1948-1958 period, with a net total sales decrease of $738,222,000. The trend, concerning dispersion of losses or gains among the central business districts, within each retail classification was the same varied type as in the case of retail units. An Analysis of the Changes in Sales and Location From the data and summary presented in Chapter VIII, an analysis of these changes in retail sales and retail store location in the central business districts was presented in Chapter IX. It was observed that insofar 466 as central business districts having gains in sales during the 1948-1958 period, the group that had the greatest gains from 1948-1954 failed to continue this rate during the 1954-1958 portion. Obviously, therefore, those that experienced the greatest gains in sales in the 1954-1958 period had not had that experience in the previous census period. Those central business districts which experienced the greatest losses in sales showed somewhat the same pat tern as the districts having experienced the greatest gains. Los Angeles, California, was extremely consistent being the third largest district in sales losses for the three periods of 1948-1954, 1954-1958, and 1948-1958. A comparison of those central business districts having the greatest gains in retail sales to their respec tive gains in retail units for the period of 1954-1958 showed absolutely no positive correlation. The 15 leaders in sales gains all had losses of retail units. However, when the leaders in loss of sales were compared to their losses in retail units there was conformity to the extent that losses in sales were accompanied by losses in units. Reversing these comparisons and comparing units to sales brought about a mixed result. Three of the 5 central business districts which had gains in retail units had small gains in retail sales, while the other 2 experi enced small sales losses. The comparison of the leaders in loss of units to their losses in sales was also mixed. Some districts had losses in retail units and healthy gains in sales, while others lost both in units and sales. In comparing the experience of the central busi ness districts to the total retail economy for the 1948- 1958 period demonstrated conclusively that the retail activity in the central business districts not only did not expand commensurate with the total retail economy it also regressed. There have been many reasons offered for this reversal, including, the population shift away from the central city, the effect of the automobile, the development of producer's brands, the physical deteriora tion of the central business district, and the change in the shopping habits of the consumer. Final Summary There is little if any economic theory which applies directly to retail store location. Economic theory does explain, however, clusters of people, and these clusters have a direct effect upon retailing. Retail 468 activity in the central business districts of the larger central cities in the United States has been on the decline since 1948 in spite of the tremendous expansion in retail ing enjoyed by the total economy. What conclusions, if any, that can be drawn from this fact will be explored in the following section. II. CONCLUSIONS In attempting to arrive at conclusions derived from this study, conjecture concerning future prospects is in order prior to this final step. Consequently, this section of the final chapter is divided into two major parts: (1) a look into the future, and (2) conclusions. A Look into the Future Retail activity reflecting, as it does, changing economic conditions is, therefore, conditioned by these changes. A look into the future must take this fundamental fact into account. Recognizing this fact, this part of the second section is approached in the following manner: (1) a sunxnary view of predicted changes in the total economy's population, and (2) a summary view of the pre dicted changes in the total economy's income. 469 A summary view of predicted changes in the total economy's population. Demographers predict a continuing growth in the future population of the United States, and it is based upon this prediction that certain views of the changes in the total economy1s population are herein sum marized . The total population of the United States by 1970 has been predicted from a low estimate of 195 million to a high of 213.5 million.^ This figure is forecast to increase by 1975 to well above 200 million and by 1980 2 to almost 260 million. 1) Continuing deconcentration. Given continuing increase in total population, the next question concerns its distribution. There appear to be two basic trends forecast for our economy in this regard. The first one concerns a continuing dispersal from the central cities. ^Philip M. Hauser, "Business Implications of Popu lation Growth," Business Horizons. Ill (Summer, I960), 91; The Editors of Fortune, America in the Sixties (Hew York: Harper & Brothers, 1960), p. 2; "Sixty“Six Million More Americans," Readings in Economics. ed. Richard E. Malcahy. Revised edition (Hew York: Henry Holt and Company, 1956), p. 17. 2 Hauser, loc. cit.; "Sixty-Six More Americans," loc. cit. 470 One writer feels that by 1975 less than 50 per cent of the population in the standard metropolitan statistical areas will reside in the central cities. This does not mean that the central cities will not increase, but, rather, it means that they will increase far less rapidly than the other areas. The increase in the suburbs will con- 3 tinue. Homer Hoyt has prognosticated that between 1960 and 1975, 10 million new families will move into the 4 suburbs, Reavis Cox has surmised that there has recently been an increasingly large proportion of the population concentrating in the cities and these cities in turn have been exploding into their suburbs."* 2) Interurbia. There is, however, another trend which has been gradually developing in recent years and q Raymond Vernon, "The Economics and Finances of the Large Metropolis," The Future Metropolis. ed. Lloyd Rodwin (New York: George Braziller, Inc., 1960), p. 47. 4 Homer Hoyt, "Urban Growth in the Next 15 Years," Business Horizons, III (Summer, 1960), 31. ^Reavis Cox, "Changes in the City as an Institution of Marketing," Managerial Marketing: Perspectives and Viewpoints a Source Book, eds. William Lazer and Eugene J. Kelley (Revised edition; Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin* Inc., 1962), pp. 63-65. 471 which is destined to become, according to experts, the population distribution arrangement of the present-day larger metropolitan areas in the future--interurbia. Cox has summarized this trend by stating that most of the rural portion of our population is now "urbanized."*’ Yet interurbia is more than just an urbanizing of the people. Interurbia is the result of at least two large cities expanding laterally toward and eventually joining each other. This result occurs due to the development of strip cities along major highways between two large cities.^ These "vast belts of continuous urban development i f 8 of moderate population density have already taken shape in about fourteen to fifteen areas in the United States. There is no exact definition of interurbia, but one authority has seen fit to establish the following criteria: ^Reavis Cox, "Impact of Changes in the Size and Structure of Cities," Explorations in Retailing, ed. Stanley C. Hollander (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1960), p. 15. ^"Sprawling Strip Cities," U.S. News & World Report. LI (September 18, 1961), 73. 8 Arthur L. Grey, Jr., Los Angeles: Urban Proto- type," Land Economics.XXXV (August, 1959), 240. 472 (1) it is an area comprising of at least two adjacent cities, each having a population of not less than 100,000, or one city with 100,000 and three others with at least 25,000 each; (2) the area connecting these cities must have a density population of at least one hundred persons per square mile; and (3) the farm population of the area 9 cannot exceed 25 per cent. 3) The extent of interurbia. How far will the growth of interurbia continue? While no one seems to know for certain, some have presented short-range projec tions. One study has insisted that by 1975 interurbia will include 60 per cent of the total population of the United States and 70 per cent of the total retail sales.^ Jean Gottmann has identified statistically and ecologically the "megalopolisM of the northeastern seaboard of the ^John M. Willem, "Interurbia Is Here to Stay," Business Horizons, X (Spring, 1958), 26. ^"From These Cities Come Tomorrow's Vast Inter- urbian Markets," Managerial Marketing: Perspectives and Viewpoints, a Source Book, Eds. Eugene J Kelley and William Lazer (Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1558), p. 84. 473 United States as a possible trend for other areas.Other: authorities refer to this mass of population as the devel- : opment of large "super-cities," stretching, for example, from Boston to Washington, and from Los Angeles to San 12 Francisco. Regardless of how interurbia is defined, it has already had, and will continue to have, far-reaching effects upon retailing. A summary view of predicted changes in the total economy's income. Not only will population change and expand, but so will there be changes in the total economy's: income. The Editors of Fortune, for example, have pro jected that by 1970 about 25 million households, or two fifths of all households, will have disposable income of more than $7,500 in 1959 dollars. Further, they have pre dicted that more than half of the personal disposable income will be discretionary, and the vast bulk of this discretionary income will be held by these previously- 11 Jean Gottmann, Megalopolis. The Urbanized North- j eastern Seaboard of the United States (New York: The Twentieth Century Fund, 1961), p. xi. 12 Cox, "Changes in the City as an Institution of Marketing," loc. cit. 474 described 25 million households.^ Hoyt has extended this projection by five years to 1975, when he feels that a typical American family will have an income of $12,250.00.14 Assuming, therefore, that these two major forces develop as has been described, just what does this hold in store for retailing in general and retail store activity in the central business districts of the larger central cities in particular? Conelusions There is no doubt but that retailing will feel the impact of these ever-changing, dynamic forces. This last section of the chapter is devoted to proposing some conclusions that can be derived from not only the projec tions but also the trends noted in the previous chapters of this study. The treatment of these conclusions will be separated into: (1) the impact on retailing in general, and (2) the effect on retailing in the central business districts of our larger cities. 1 ^ The Editors of Fortune, op. cit., pp. 92-97. 14 Hoyt, op. cit., 30. 475 The impact on retailing in general. The tremendous| projected increase in population in other than the central cities clearly indicates that retail stores will continue to locate and expand in these suburban areas. Malcolm P. McNair stated it in a very succinct manner when he observed that retailing must continue to take the store to the customer.^ Therefore, if the projected distribu tion of population continues into the 1970's, retail stores, of necessity, cannot re-locate in the central business districts. Another impact on retailing in general is con cerned with the shopping habits of the population. In Chapter VI of this study, it was noted that if the consumer; is willing to forego comparison shopping between a given number of retail units, then the central business district looses much of its appeal. This can be carried a step further by stating the same thing about the large sub- metropolitan shopping center. Retail store location is taking a new tack and this one toward the lone, isolated, ^Malcolm P. McNair, "Improving the Dynamics of Retailing in an Expanding Economy," Explorations in Retail-; ing. ed. Stanley C. Hollander (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1960), p. 3. 476 highway-located retail unit, which attempts to give the impression of one-stop shopping.^ How far this trend will develop is problematical. One authority holds out a great future for it. E. B. Weiss contends that it has a freedom and a flexibility unlike the planned shopping center. The continuing growth of these solo units will, in his opinion, validate the fol lowing future developments: (1) time rather than mileage will be the factor in determining where the family shops; (2) there will be an increasing stress on convenience in shopping; (3) shopping hours will go still more toward nights; (4) there will be more drive-in shopping; (5) the concept of the grouping of stores will stop; (6) there will be more shopping on Sundays; and (7) there will be new concepts m self service. Another phase of the changing of the shopping habits of the consumer is the use by the consumer of the ^"Roadside Retailing Is Rolling Along,'1 Chain Store Age (October, 1960), E25. 17E. B. Weiss, "Highway Retailing - The Next Great Retail Revolution," Readings in Marketing, eds. S. George Walters, Max D. Snider, and Morris L. Sweet (Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western Publishing Co., 1962), pp. 624-626. 477 increased amount of leisure time. Curiously enough, the consumer has seen fit, and apparently will continue to do so in the future, not to use this increased leisure time in shopping for the normally-acquired goods and services. While there is a logical explanation to this, the fact remains that the shopping habits of the consumer are tending toward a demand for even more convenience both as to time and distance involved in shopping. While the existing types of retailers and retail structure will no doubt continually adjust to meet these convenience demands, there is also another strong possibility, the 18 "coming era of in-home retailing." This will be made feasible, according to E. B. Weiss and Eugene J. Kelley, by the use of home television, vending machines at nearby points, and the use of electronic data processing equip- 18 E. B. Weiss, "The Coming Era of In-Home Retail ing," Readings in Marketing, eds. S. George Walters, Max D. Snider, and Morris L. Sweet (Cincinnati, Ohio: South- Western Publishing Co., 1962), pp. 613-615. 19 Ibid.: Eugene J. Kelley, "The Importance of Con venience in Consumer Purchasing," Journal of Marketing. XXIII (July, 1958), 35. 478 A still third phase or impact on retailing in general is the weakening of the traditional shopping habits by consumers of "soft goods." There has always been the tacit assumption that consumers are willing to forego comparison shopping if the producer's brand has made a sufficient impact on the consumer so that patronage motives are secondary to product motives. Soft goods, which have not been a stronghold of producers' brands, have been the traditional backbone of comparison shopping. Recently, however, there has been developing the so-called self-service, soft goods supermarket. This is physically constructed along the same lines as the food supermarket, except that it emphasizes wearing apparel, especially for women and children. Other characteristics of the soft- goods supermarket are that it has located itself near the large population centers of the low-to-middle income groups and has maintained a twelve-hour store day. In spite of the fact that it offers wide assortments, wage costs are only a third of the typical, competitive depart ment store, being due primarily to self service and to the additional fact that their sales area ranges from 25,000 to 100,000 square feet. Their growth in the New 479 England area has been rapid, although by 1959 there were well over 59 cities outside of New England which had 20 them. The main point of emphasis is that these stores do not stress producers' brands and yet the consumer is willing to forego the usual comparison shopping tactics that are employed when she visits a large shopping center or the central business district of a city. A continuing impact on retailing is the constant increase in the number of households that have a segment of their disposable incomes as discretionary. This implies an increase in the demand for higher"priced items, com monly known as Mbig-ticket items." It also means though that this will continue to make these more expensive items subject to mass-producing, mass-merchandising techniques, which would tend to remove them from the shopping goods category. There are many other trends in retailing in general, but these that have been presented seem the more positive and dominant. Keeping these trends in mind, the 20 Gerald B. Taliman and Bruce Blomstrom, "Soft Goods Join the Retail Revolution," Readings in Marketing. ieds. Parker M. Holmes, Ralph E. Brownlee, and Robert Bartels (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, Inc., 1963), pp. 470-487. 480 last section draws conclusions regarding the future of retailing in the central business districts of our larger cities. The effect on retailing in the central business districts of our larger cities. The research done in this study has clearly indicated that retail activity in the central business districts of our larger cities has been on the decline since 1948, not only relatively but in most cases in absolute sales and units. The easiest prediction to make is to assume that this trend will con tinue into the near future, and this prediction has been voiced by many. Frank Lloyd Wright, for one, has taken the stand that the city of the future will be without 21 a retail central business district. On the other hand, others have taken the opposite position and predicted a renaissance. It is difficult to be certain which of the two directions, or some other modified direction, the central business districts will take. One thing is for 21 This does not mean that Mr. Wright envisaged a complete collapse of all retailing activity in the central city. Rather, he contended that as a retail entity it would disappear. certain, retailing is dynamic, dynamics means change, and change means the possibility of growth. It does not mean, however, that the existing structure will remain intact. 1) The continuing declining importance of the central business district. There is much evidence and logic to support the argument that the central business district of the larger city will continue to decline in importance as a retail center. Probably the most funda mental fact arguing for this continued trend is the con stant dispersion and greater growth of the population in other than the central city. The breakdown of the rapid mass transportation system and the relative mobility offered by the automobile tend to add credence to this stand. Furthermore, the continued dispersion of whole saling and industrial activities have been centrifugal forces. The physical layout of the typical central busi ness district has caused much of its decline. The con tinued attempt of the producer to create product loyalty as compared to patronage loyalty means that convenience of time and distance count more in the typical consumer's mind than does convenience of a close grouping of a number of competing retail outlets. Theodore Levitt stressed 482 the growing impersonalism in the retail business, an additional fact which works against the retailer in the 22 central business district. If these forces continue unabated, what, if any, retail activity would remain in the central business dis trict of the larger central city? Hoover and Vernon have contended that the retailer of tomorrow in the central business district will have to concentrate on products that are unstandardized in nature and require comparison shopping, those products that have a very thin demand. This would certainly not argue favorably for the continued importance of the large department store in the downtown district. Ray P. Cuzzort has echoed this sentiment by claiming that the central business district's role "will more and more become that of providing highly specialized goods and services to a rapidly expanding suburban 22 Theodore Levitt, "Blue Skies Approach to Tomor row's Retailing," Explorations in Retailing, ed. Stanley C. Hollander (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1960), p. 14. 23 Edgar M. Hoover and Raymond Vernon, Anatomy of a Metropolis (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Univer sity Press, 1959), p. 118. 483 territory."24 2) The renaissance of the central business dis trict . There are other authorities who hold out hope that there will be a revival or renaissance of retail activity in the central business district. They assert that there are natural advantages to the central business district if only the district would rehabilitate itself. Such rehabilitation would include: (1) improving the ingress and egress to the district; (2) improving the ease of automobile parking; (3) improve the movement of traffic within the district; (4) modernize the physical facilities; (5) create a bazaar-like atmosphere; and (6) strengthen 25 mass transportation. This investigator^ conclusions. This investigator tends to side with the continuing decline of the relative importance of retail activity in the central business dis trict. Table LXXXII clearly shows the continuing decline 24Ray P. Cuzzort, "The Size and Distribution of Standard Metropolitan Areas in 1975," Applications of Demography: The Population Situation in the U.S. in 1975. ed. Donald J. Bogue. Scripps Foundation for Research in Population Problems (Oxford, Ohio: Miami University, 1957), p. 62. ^Kelley, op. cit.. p. 36. 484 TABLE LXXXII DISTRIBUTION OF C.B.D., AND THE CITIES, AND STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS IN WHICH LOCATED, BY PER CENT CHANGE IN RETAIL STORE SALES: 1954 to 1958 Per Cent Change in Sales 1954 to 1958 C.B.D. Cities S.M.A. TOTAL 109 * 104 97 -30 to -20 1 - - -19 to 0 I - l 1 8 1 - - 9 to 0 41 4 - 0 to 9 45 46 11 10 to 19 14 33 48 20 to 29 - 15 28 30 to 39 - 4 4 40 to 49 - 1 4 50 to 60 — • 2 * Five cities not included because of disclosure of confidential information. Source: United States Department of Commerce, United States Census of Business: 1958. Retail Trade - Area Statistics. Vol. II (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1961), p. 13. 485 of the relative importance of the central business dis trict as a retailing center. Forty-one of the 109 central business districts had a per cent change in sales from 1954 to 1958 of from a -9 to a 0 per cent, while 8 dis tricts had a per cent change of from a -19 to a -10 per cent. This compared unfavorably to the central cities of these districts which had only one city in the -19 to -10 per cent change category, and only 4 in the -9 to 0 per cent change group. The standard metropolitan statistical areas in which these central business districts of these central cities are located showed none of the areas as having a negative per cent change in sales. This is con clusive evidence of the declining importance of the central business district in the larger city. Raymond Vernon has contended that the dispersive tendencies will not only continue into the future but 26 actually speed up in intensity. This investigator shares Vernon's belief, because the centrifugal forces are greater in amplitude and dominance than are the 26 Raymond Vernon, Metropolis 1985 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1960), p. 165. 486 centripetal. With all due respect to urban renewal attempts in the central city, this aspect alone will not return the suburban dweller to the central business dis trict for the satisfaction of his wants and needs of goods and services. C. T. Jonassen summarized in excellent fashion the crux to the entire problem when he observed: The great increase in suburban shopping centers around nearly all American cities has given the consumer a choice as to where he can buy goods and services, and has stirred considerable apprehension in the minds of all whose fortunes and well-being depend on the integrity of the central business district. . . . The consumer himself is the final arbiter of the fortunes of the central business district and the suburban shopping centers, and he therefore holds the secret of their fate. It is the customer who weighs the advantages and disadvantages of shop ping areas in terms of what he can get for what he has to pay in cost, time, and energy, and it is only through his eyes that such physical con ditions as parking, traffic, and crowding become meaningful motivational factors.^7 The only additional comment that should be added to that of Jonassen's is that the consumer, as presented by Jonassen, will ultimately decide the type of retail structure, be it the type that is present today or 27 C. T. Jonassen, The Shopping Center Versus Downtown (Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, 1955), pp. 1-2. 487 something different. Whether highway-oriented retailing or in-home retailing will have sufficient impact to upset the present structure is conjecture only at present writing. Future studies. This particular study is far from complete. There is need to know considerably more about retail activity in the central business districts, as well as the entire economic region. Furthermore, there is a need to know more about the forces that are continually shaping and reshaping the retail hierarchical structure. It is hoped that the results of this study have added some knowledge in that direction, for through this type of knowledge it is possible to have better urban planning for the future. What the future holds for the central business district is anyone's guess. This investigator is con vinced that if retailing continues to be as competitive as it has been in the past, there will be new and addi tional changes forthcoming. Perhaps Eli P. Cox is right ; when he suggested that there should be developed a new 488 law of retailing, which he termed, "The Law of Retail Dispersion."28 28Eli P. Cox, "The Decline of Metropolitan Retailing," Business Topics, IX (Spring, 1961), 42. »A t i lF . ?'^1 'V & ja V A -u c jd^^tCL^«<ei£i B IBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY A. BOOKS Alderson, Wroe. Marketing Behavior and Executive Action. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1957. Anderson, Nels. The Urban Community. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1959. Barlowe, Raleigh. Land Resource Economics. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1958. Bartholomew, Harland. Land Uses in American Cities. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1955. Beckman, Theodore N. and William R. Davidson. Marketing. Seventh edition. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1962. Beckman, Theodore N., Harold H. Maynard, and William R. Davidson. Principles of Marketing. Sixth edition. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1957. Beckman, Theodore and Herman C. Nolen. The Chain Store Problem. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1938. Bums, Wilfred. British Shopping Centres. New Trends in Layout and Distribution. London, England: Leonard Hill (Books) Limited, 1959. Chamberlin, Edward Hastings. The Theory of Monopolistic Competition. Fifth edition. Cambridge, Massachusetts Harvard University Press, 1947. 491 Converse, Paul D., Harvey W. Huegy, and Robert V. Mitchell. Elements of Marketing. Sixth edition. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1958. Davidson, William R. and Paul L. Brown. Retailing Manage ment. Second edition. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1960. Dickinson, Robert E. City Region and Regionalism. A Geographical Contribution to Human Ecology. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Tubner & Co., Ltd., 1947. Dolva, Wenzil K. and Donald K. Beckley. The Retailer. The Role of Modern Retailing in the United States. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1950. Dorau, Herbert B. and Albert G. Hinman. Urban Tjnd Economics. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1928. Duddy, Edward A. and David A. Revzan. Marketing. An Institutional Approach. Second edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1953. Duncan, Delbert J. and Charles F. Phillips. Retailing. Principles and Methods. Fifth edition. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1959. Ely, Richard T. and George S. Wehrwein. Land Economics. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1940. The Editors of Fortune. America in the Sixties. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1960. _______. The Changing American Market. Garden City, New York: Hanover House, 1953. Friedrich, Carl Joachim. Alfred Weber*8 Theory of the Location of Industries. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1929. Futterman, Robert A. The Future of Our Cities. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1961. 492 Gallion, Arthur B. The Urban Pattern. Princeton, New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1950. Garis, Roy L. Principles of Money. Credit, and Banking. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1934. Goodman, Percival and Paul Goodman. Communitas, Means of Livelihood and Wavs of Life. New York: Vintage Books, 1960. Gottmann, Jean. Megalopolis. The Urbanized Northeastern Seaboard of the United States. New York: The Twentieth Century Fund, 1961. Greenhut, Melvin L. Plant Location in Theory and in Practise. The Economics of Space. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 1956. Haig, R. M. Major Economic Factors in Metropolitan Growth and Arrangement. New York: Regional Plan of New York and Its Environs, 1927. Haney, Lewis H. History of Economic Thought. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1949. Hansen, Harry L. Marketing. Revised edition. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1961, Harriss, C. Lowell. The American Economy. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1953. Hawley, Amos H. The Changing Shape of Metropolis America: Deconcentration Since 1920. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1956. Hepner, Harry Walker. Modern Marketing. Dynamics and Management. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1955. Holdren, Bob R. The Structure of a Retail Market and the Market Behavior of Retail Units. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1960. 493 Hoover, Edgar M. Location Theory and the Shoe and Leather Industries. Caabridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1937. _______. The Location of Economic Activity. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1948. Hoover, Edgar M. and Raymond Vernon. Anatomy of a Metropolis. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1959. Howard, John A. Marketing Management. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1957. Husband, William H. and Frank Ray Anderson. Real Estate. Third edition; Homewood, Illinois.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1960. Isard, Walter. Location and Space-Economy. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1956. Jonassen, C. T. The Shopping Center Versus Downtown. Bureau of Business Research. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, 1955. Jones, Fr?d M. Principles of Retailing. New York: Pitman Publishing Corporation, 1949. _______. Retail Merchandising. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1957. Kelley, Pearce C. and Norris B. Brisco. Retailing. Basic Principles. Third edition; Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1957. Lazo, Hector and Arnold Corbin. Management in Marketing. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1961. Lee, Rose Hum. The City. New York: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1955. > i |Lichtenberg, Robert M. One-Tenth of a Nation. Cambridge, | Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1960. 494 Locklin, D. Philip. Economics of Transportation. Home wood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1954. LtJsch, August. The Economics of Location. Trans. William H. Woglom and Wolfgang F. Stolper. Second revised edition. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1954. McCarthy, E. Jerome. Basic Marketing. A Managerial Approach. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1960. McGregor, C. H. Retail Management Problems. Revised edition. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1957. McKenzie, R. D. The Metropolitan Community. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1933. McLaughlin, Glenn E. Growth of American Manufacturing Areas. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: University of Pittsburgh, 1938. McNair, Malcolm P. and Harry L. Hansen. Readings in Marketing. Second edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1956. Mahoney, Tom. The Great Merchants. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1955. Marshall, Alfred. Principles of Economics. Eighth edition. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1920. Martin, Preston. Real Estate Principles and Practices. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1959. Mauser, Ferdinand F. Modern Marketing Management. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1961. ,Mayfield, Frank M. The Department Store Story. New York: Fairchild Publications, Inc., 1949. Meyers, Albert L. Modem Economics. Elements and Problems. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1941. - - 495 Mumford, Lewis. The City in History. Its Origins. Its Transformations, end Its Prospects. New York: Hareourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1961. _______. The Culture of Cities. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1938. Nelson, Richard L. The Selection of Retail Locations. New York: F. W. Dodge Corporation, 1958. Nelson, Richard L. and Frederick T. Aschman. Real Estate and City Planning. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Ha11, Inc., 1957. Newman, Philip Charles. The Development of Economic Thought. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1932. Nystrom, Paul H. Economics of Retailing. Third edition. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1930. Park, Robert E., Ernest W. Burgess, and Roderick D. McKenzie. The City. Chicago, Illinois: The Univer sity of Chicago Press, 1925. Paver, John and Miller McClintock. Traffic and Trade. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1935. Perloff, Harvey S. and others. Regions. Resources, and Economic Growth. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1960. Phillips, Charles F. and Delbert J. Duncan. Marketing. Principles and Methods. Fourth edition. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1960. Rannells, John. The Core of the City. New York: Columbia University Press, 1956. Ratcliff, Richard U. Urban 1 ^ E^«nomics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1949. jRenne, Roland R. Land Economics. Principles. Problems. ! and Policies in Utilizing Land Resources. Revised ! edition. New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1958. 496 Richert, G. Henry, Warren G. Meyer, and Peter G. Haimes. Retailing, Principles and Methods. Fourth edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1962. Robinson, 0. Preston and Kenneth B. Haas. How to Estab lish and Operate a Retail Store. Second edition. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1952. Saarinen, Eliel. The City, Its Growth, Its Decay, Its Future. New York: Reinhold Publishing Corporation, 1943. Shultz, William J. American Marketing. San Francisco, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1961. Smailes, Arthur E. The Geography of Towns. London, England: Hutchinson's University Library, 1953. Smith, Adam. An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. New York: The Modem Library, 1937. Smykay, Edward W., Donald J. Bowersox, and Frank H. Mossman. Physical Distribution Management. Logistics Problems of the Firm. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1961. Taylor, Griffith. Urban Geography. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc., 1946. Taylor, Weldon J. and Roy T. Shaw. Marketing. Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western Publishing Company, 1961. Tousley, Rayburn D., Eugene Clark, and Fred E. Clark. Principles of Marketing. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1962. Van Cleef, Eugene. Trade Centers and Trade Routes. New York: D. Appleton-Century Company Incorporated, 1937. Vernon, Raymond. Metropolis 1985. Cambridge, Massachu setts: Harvard University Press, 1960. Whittaker, Edmund. Schools and Streams of Economic Thougfrt. Chicago, Illinois: Hand McNally & Company, 1960. Zipf, George Kingsley. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Addison- Wesley Press, Inc., 1949. B. PERIODICALS Alexander, John W. "Rockford, Illinois: A Medium-Sized Manufacturing City," Annals of the Association of American Geographers. XLII (March, 1952), 1-23. Alexander, John W., S. Earl Brown, and Richard E. Dahlberg. T I Freight Rates: Selected Aspects of Uniform and Nodal Regions," Economic Geography. XXXIV (January, 1958), 1-18. Alonso, William. "A Theory of the Urban Land Market," Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science Association. VI (1960), 149-157. Anderson, S. Axel. "Location Factor in the Choice of Free Port Sites," Economic Geography. X (April, 1934), 147-159. Andrews, Richard B. "Mechanics of the Urban Economic Base: The Base Concept and the Planning Process," Land Economics. XXXII (February, 1956), 69-84. Applebaum, William and Saul B. Cohen. "The Dynamics of Store Trading Areas and Market Equilibrium," Annals of the Association of American Geographers. LI (March, 1961), 73-101. Aronovici, Carol. "Business Districts in Subdivision Planning," National Municipal Review. XIX (July, 1930), 464-470. Barnes, J. and A. Robinson. "A New Method for the Repre sentation of Dispersed Rural Population," The Geo graphical Review. XXX (1940), 134-137. 498 Beckman, Martin J. "City Hierarchies and the Distribution of City Size," Economic Development and Cultural Change. VI (April, 1958), 243-248. Berkman, Herman G. "Decentralization and Blighted Vacant Land," Land Economics. XXXII (August, 1956), 270-280. Berry, Brian J. L. "City Size Distribution and Economic Development," Economic Development and Cultural Change. IX (July, 1961), 573-587. _______ . "Discussion: Ecological Analysis of Regions," Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science Association. V (1959), 133-135. _______ . "The Impact of Expanding Metropolitan Communities Upon the Central Place Hierarchy," Annals of the Association of American Geographers. L (June, 1960), 112-116. _______ . "Ribbon Developments in the Urban Business Pattern," Annals of the Association of American Geographers. XLIX (June, 1959), 145-155. Berry, B. and W. Garrison. "The Functional Bases of the Central Place Hierarchy," Economic Geography. XXXIV (1958), 145-154. _______ . "Recent Development of Central Place Theory," Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science Association. IV (1958), 107-120. Berry, J. L. and William L. Garrison. "A Note on Central Place Theory and the Range of the Good," Economic Geography. XXXIV (October, 1958), 304-311. Blankertz, D. F. "Customer Patronage of a Parent and New Branch Store," The Journal of Marketing. XVI (October, 1951), 152-157. Blood, Pearle. "Factors in the Economic Development of Baltimore, Maryland," Economic Geography. XIII (April, 1937), 187-208. 499 Bogue, Donald J. "The Spread of Cities," The American Economic Review. XLVI (May, 1956), 284*292. Boland, John Parsons. "On the Nusdber and Sizes of Radio- Stations in Relation to the Populations of Their Cities," Sociomctrv. XI (February-May, 1948), 111-116. I Bouden, William K. and Ralph Cassady, Jr. "Decentraliza tion of Retail Trade in the Metropolitan Market Area," The Journal of Marketing. V (January, 1941), 270-275. : Brush, John E. "The Hierarchy of Central Places in Southwestern Wisconsin," The Geographical Review. XLIII (July, 1953), 380-402. Carol, Hans. "The Hierarchy of Central Functions Within the City," Annals of the Association of American Geographers. L (December, 1960), 419-438. Casey, H., Jr. "The Law of Retail Gravitation Applied to Traffic Engineering," Traffic Quarterly. IX (1955), 313-321. Chambers, William T. "Shopping Areas of the New South west," Economic Geography. XVII (January, 1941), 121-129. Chinitz, Benjamin. "Contrasts in Agglomeration: New York and Pittsburgh," American Economic Review. LI (May, 1961), 279-289. Chinitz, Benjamin and Raymond Vernon. "Changing Forces in Industrial Location," Harvard Business Review. XXXVII (January-February, 1960), 126-136. Clark, Colin. "The Economic Function of a City in Relation to Its Size," Econometrica. XIII (1945) 97-114. i Converse, P. D. "Analysis of Retail Trading Areas - Some Suggested Methods With an Example," The National Marketing Review. I (Spring, 1936), 316-325. 500 Converse, P. D. "New Laws of Retail Gravitation," The Journal of Marketing. XIV (October, 1949), 379-384. Converse, Paul D. and Robert V. Mitchell. "The Movement of Retail Trade Within a Metropolitan Area," The Journal of Marketing, II (July, 1937), 61-67. Cox, Eli P. "The Decline of Metropolitan Retailing," Business Topics. IX (Spring, 1961), 33-42. Cox, Reavis. "Consumer Convenience and the Retail Struc ture of Cities," The Journal of Marketing. XXIII (April, 1959), 355-362. Cutshall, Alden D. "Industrial Geography of Lower Wabash Valley," Economic Geography. XVII (July, 1941), 297-307. Davis, Kingsley and Hilda Hertz Golden. "Urbanization and the Development of Pre-Industrial Areas," Economic Development and Cultural Change. Ill (October, 1954), 6-24. Dickinson, Robert E. "The Social Basis of Physical Planning - I," The Sociological Review. XXXIV (January-April, 1942), 51-67. _______ . "The Social Basis of Physical Planning - II," The Sociological Review. XXXIV (January-April, 1942), 165-182. Doherty, Richard P. "The Movement and Concentration of Retail Trade in Metropolitan Areas," Journal of Marketing. V (April, 1941), 395-401. Dudley, 0. D. "Urbanization and Retail Specialization," Social Forces. XXX (March, 1952), 267-271. Duncan, Otis Dudley. "Service Industries and the Urban Hierarchy," Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science Association. V (1959), 105-120. Entenberg, Robert D. "Suggested Changes in Census Classi fications of Retail Trade," The Journal of Marketing. XXIV (January, 1960), 39-43. 501 Epstein, Ralph C. "Locality Distribution of Industries," The American Economic Review. XIX (March, 1929), 172-178. Ferber, Robert. "Variations in Retail Sales between Cities," The Journal of Marketing. XXII (January, 1958), 295-303. Fetter, Frank A. "The Economic Law of Market Areas," Quarterly Journal of Economics. XXXVIII (May, 1924), 520-529. • i Fisk, George. "The Replanning of Center-City Shopping Districts," Journal of Retailing. XXXV(Summer, 1959), 80-84, 115. Foley, Donald L. "Census Tracts and Urban Research," Journal of the American Statistical Association. XLVIII (December, 1953), 733-742. "Freeway and Cities," California Highways and Public Works. XXXXI (September-October, 1962), 13-15. Friedman, John R. P. "The Concept of a Planning Region," Land Economics. XXXII (February, 1956), 1-13. _______. "Economy and Space: A Review Article," Economic Development and Cultural Change. VI (April, 1958), 249-255. _______. "Locational Aspects of Economic Development," Land Economics. XXXII (August, 1956), 213-227. Fulton, Maurice. "Plant Location - 1965," Harvard Business Review. XXXIII (March-April, 1955), 40-50. Fulton, Maurice and L. Clinton Hoch. "Transportation Factors Affecting Locational Decisions," Economic Geography. XXXV(January, 1959), 52-59. Garrison, William L. "Spatial Structure of the Economy - I," Annals of the Association of American Geographers. XLIX (June, 1959), 232-239. 502 Gault, E. H. "The Future of Small Retailing - Will It Survive?" Michigan Business Review (November. 1956), 6-10. Getis, Arthur. "The Determination of the Location of Retail Activities with the Use of a Map Transforma tion," Economic Geography. XXXIX (January, 1963), 14-22. Gillies, James. "Business and the Population Explosion," California Management Review. Ill (Winter, 1961), 53-60. Goldner, William. "Spatial and Locational Aspects of Metropolitan Labor Markets," The American Economic Review. XLV (March, 1955), 113-128. Goldstucker, Jac L. "A Study of Wholesale Trading Areas," The Journal of Marketing. XXVI (April, 1962), 22-25. Greenhut, Melvin L. "Space and Economic Theory," Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science Association. V (1959), 267-280. Grey, Arthur L., Jr. "Los Angeles: Urban Prototype," Land Economics. XXXV (August, 1959), 232-242. Grotewold, Andreas and Lois Grotewold. "Commercial Devel opment of Highways in Urbanized Regions: A Case Study," Land Economics. XXXIV (August, 1958), 236-244. Haig, Robert Murray. "Toward an Understanding of the Metropolis: Some Speculations Regarding the Economic Basis of Urban Concentration," The Quarterly Journal of Economics. XL (February, 1926), 179-208. Hampton, James H. "Petaluma Bypass, Effect on Specific Businesses and the Community Is Analyzed," California Highways and Public Works. XLI (July-August, 1962), 37-44. Harris, C. "A Functional Classification of Cities in the United States," The Geographical Review. XXXIII (January, 1943), 86-99. 503 Harris, Chauncy D. "Location of Salt Lake City," Economic Geography. XVII (April, 1941), 204-212. _______. "The Market as a Factor in the Localization of Industry in the United States," Annals of the Association of American Geographers. XLIV (December, 1954), 315-348. _______. "Orthogenetic and Heterogenetic Cities in the Modem World," Economic Development and Cultural Change. Ill (October, 1954), 76-77. Hart, John Fraser. "Functions and Occupational Structure of Cities of the American South," Annals of the Association of American Geographers. XLV (Septenfcer, 1955), 269-286. Hauser, Philip M. "Business Implications of Population Growth," Business Horizons. Ill (Summer, 1960), 87-96. Heidingsfield, Myron S. "Why Do People Shop in Dowtown Department Stores?" The Journal of Marketing. XIII (April, 1949), 510-512. Hindersman, Charles H. "The Evolving Downtown - Suburban Retail Pattern," The Journal of Marketing. XXV (October, 1960), 59-62. Holton, Richard H. "The Distinction between Convenience Goods, Shopping Goods, and Specialty Goods," The Journal of Marketing. XXIII (July, 1958), 53-56. Hoover, Edgar M. "The Concept of a System of Cities: A Comment on Rutledge Vining's Paper," Economic Develop ment and Cultural Change. Ill (January, 1955), 196-198. Hoselitz, Bert F. "The City, the Factory, and Economic Growth," The American Economic Review. XLV (May, 1955), 166-196. _______. "Generative and Parasitic Cities," Economic Development and Cultural Change. Ill (April, 1955), 278-294. 504 Hotelling, Harold. "Stability in Competition," The Economic Journal, XXXIX (March, 1929), 41-57. Hoyt, Homer. "Forces of Urban Centralization and Decentralization," American Journal of Sociology. XLVI (May, 1941), 843-852. ______ . "The Function of the Ancient and the Modern City," Land Economics, XXXVIII (August, 1962), 241-247. ______ . "Urban Growth in the Next 15 Years," Business Horizons. Ill (Summer, 1960), 29-36. Huff, David L. "A Probabilistic Analysis of Shopping Center Trade Areas," Land Economics. XXXIX (February, 1963), 81-90. Isard, Walter. "The General Theory of Location and Space Economy," The Quarterly Journal of Economics. LXIII (November, 1949), 476-506. ______ . "Location Theory and Trade Theory," Quarterly Journal of Economics. LXVIII (May, 1954), 305-320. Jones, Clarence F. "Areal Distribution of Manufacturing in the United States," Economic Geography, XIV (July, 1938), 217-222. Jung, Allen F. "Is Reilly's Law of Retail Gravitation Always True?" The Journal of Marketing. XXIV (October, 1959), 62-63. Kelley, Eugene J. "The Importance of Convenience in Consumer Purchasing," The Journal of Marketing. XXIII (July, 1958), 32-38. Kelly, John F. "Anderson Study - Economic Study of Frontage Roads," California Highways and Public Works. XXXII (January-February, 1953), 24-29. ______ . "Camarillo Study," California Highways and Public Works. XXXIV (September-October, 1955), 17-23, 30. 505 Kelly, John F. "Industry and Freeways," California Highways and Public Works. XXXIII (May-June, 1954), 22-29. _______. "Motels and Freeways," California Highways and Public Works. XXXIII (January-February, 1954), 22-30. _______. "Templeton Bypass," California Highways and Public Works. XXXIV (July-August, 1955), 23-27. Kelly, John F. and E. P. Reilly. "Industry and Frontage Roads," California Highways and Public Works. XXXIII (July-August, 1954), 19-22, 52-53. King, Leslie J. "A Multivariate Analysis of the Spacing of Urban Settlements in the United States," Annals of the Association of American Geographers. LI (June, 1961), 222-233. Kolb, William L. "The Social Structure and Function of Cities," Economic Development and Cultural Change. Ill (October, 1954), 30-46. Lampard, Eric E. "The History of Cities in the Economically Advanced Areas," Economic Development and Cultural Change. Ill (January, 1955), 81-136. Lazo, Hector. "What Will 1970 Really Be Like?" Printers1 Ink. CCLXXVI (July 21, 1961), 23-25. Leigh, Arthur H. "Von ThUnen's Theory of Distribution and the Advent of Msrginal Analysis," Journal of Political Economy. LIV (December, 1946), 481-502. McCarthy, L. J. "Development of Trading Areas," The national Marketing Review. I (Sumner, 1935), 80-82. McCrosky, T. T. "The Effects of a Proposed Regional Shopping Center Upon the Town of Mount Pleasant," Urban Land. X (April, 1951), 1, 3-6. McKeever, J.Ross. "What's In Store for '54?" Urban Land. j XIII (January, 1954), 1, 3-4. 506 Madden, Carl H. "On Some Indications of Stability in the Growth of Cities in the United States," Economic Devel oproent and Cultural Change. IV (April, 1956), 236-252. ______ . "Some Temporal Aspects of the Growth of Cities in the United States," Economic Development and Cultural Change. VI (January, 1958), 143-169. Miller, Harold V. "Effects of Reservoir Construction on Local Economic Units," Economic Geography. XV (July, 1939), 243-249. Mirkowich, Nicholas. "Urban Growth in the San Diego Region," Economic Geography. XVIII (July, 1941), 308-310. Murphy, R. and J. Vance. "Delimiting the Central Business District," Economic Geography. XXX (1954), 189-222. Murphy, Raymond E., J. E. Vance, Jr., and Bart J. Epstein. "Internal Structure of the CBD," Economic Geography. XXXI (January, 1955), 21-46. Nelson, Howard J. "A Service Classification of American Cities," Economic Geography. XXXI (July, 1955), 189-210. Northern, Ray M. "Declining Urban Centers in the United States: 1940-1960," Annals of the Association of American Geographers. LIII (March, 1963), 50-58. Park, Robert E. "Urbanization as Measured by Newspaper Circulation," The American Journal of Sociology. XXXV (July, 1929), 60-79. Philbrick, Allen K. "Areal Functional Organization in Regional Geography," Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science Association. Ill (1957), 87-98. Proudfoct, M. "The Analysis of Outlying Business Centers of Chicago," Journal of Land and Public Utility Economics. XIII (February, 1957), 57-70. 507 Proudfoot, Malcolm. "City Retail Structure," Economic Geography. XIII (October, 1937), 425-428. Proudfoot, Malcolm J. "The Selection of a Business Site," Journal of Land and Public Utility Economics. XIV (1938), 370-381. Rapkin, Chester. "Some Effects of Economic Growth on the Character of Cities," The American Economic Review. XLVI (May, 1956), 293-301. Ratcliff, Richard U. "The Problem of Retail Site Selec tion," Michigan Business Studies. IX (March, 1939), 1-93. . "Some Principles of Site Selection in Outlying Retail Sub-Centers," The Rational Marketing Review. I (Fall, 1935), 106-119. Redfield, Robert and Milton B. Singer. "The Cultural Role of Cities," Economic Development and Cultural Change. Ill (October, 1954), 53-73. Reiss, Albert J., Jr. "Economic Growth and the Rate of Urbanization: A Comment on the Paper by Davis and Golden," Economic Development and Cultural Change. Ill (October, 1954), 27-29. "Roadside Retailing Is Rolling Along," Chain Store Age (October, 1960), E25-E27. Robinson, G. W. S. "British Conurbations in 1951," The Sociological Review (December, 1953), 15-26. Rodgers, Allan. "Some Aspects of Industrial Diversifica tion in the United States," Economic Geography. XXXIII (January, 1957), 16-30. ;Rolph, Inez K. "The Population Pattern in Relation to Retail Buying," American Journal of Sociology. XXXVIII (November, 1932), 372. jRoss, Edward A. "The Location of Industries," The Quarterly Journal of Economics. X (April, 1896), 247-268. S c h e c h t e r , H enry B . " C o s t-P u s h o f U rban G r o w th ," Land E c o n o m ic s, XXXVII (F e b r u a r y , 1961), 18-31. Schnore, Leo F. "The Statistical Measurement of Urbaniza tion and Economic Development," Land Economics, XXXVII (August, 1961), 229-245. Seeman, Albert L. "Communities in the Salt Lake Basin," Economic Geography. XIV (July, 1938), 300-308. "The Service Industries - The Unknown Half of the Economy, Business Week (September 21, 1957), 194, 196. Sharp, Harry and Paul Mott. "Consumer Decisions in the Metropolitan Family," The Journal of Marketing. XXI (October, 1956), 149-156. Smith, George C. "Industry and the Community," Urban Land XI (June, 1952), 1, 3-4. Smith, Larry. "Department Store Trends in the Development of Shopping Centers," Urban Land. XI (March, 1952), 1, 3-6. Smithies, A. "Optimum Location in Spatial Competition," Journal of Political Economy. XLIX (1941), 423-439. Spengler, Joseph J. "Monopolistic Competition and the Use and Price of Urban Land Service," The Journal of Political Economy, LIV (October, 1946), 385-412. "Sprawling Strip Cities," U.S. News and World Report. LI (September 18, 1961), 73. Stafford, Howard A., Jr. "The Functional Bases of Small Towns," Economic Geography. XXXIX (April, 1963), 165-175. Steiner, Robert L. "Urban and Inter-Urban Economic Equilibrium," Land Economics. XXXII (May, 1956), 167-174. Stemlieb, George. "Is Business Abandoning the Big City?" Harvard Business Review. XXXIX (January-February, 1961), 6-13. SOT Stewart, C. "The Size and Spacing of Cities," The Geo graphical Review. XLVIII (1958), 222-245. Stolper, Wolfgang. "Spatial Order and the Economic Growth of Cities: A Comment on Eric Lampard's Paper," Economic Development and Cultural Change. Ill (January, 1955), 137-146. | Sweet, Morris L. "Tenant-SelectIon Policies of Regional Shopping Centers," The Journal of Marketing. XXIII (April, 1959), 399-404. Tarver, James D. "Suburbanization of Retail Trade in the Standard Metropolitan Areas of the United States," American Sociological Review. XXII (April, 1957), 427-433. Tiebout, Charles M. "Intra-Urban Location Problems: An Evaluation," American Economic Review. LI (May, 1961), 271-278. _______. "Location Theory, Empirical Evidence, and Economic Evolution," Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science Association. Ill (1957), 74-86. Tough, Rosalind and Gordon D. MacDonald. "The New Tork Metropolitan Region: Social Forces and the Flight to Suburbia," Land Economics. XXXVII (November, 1961), 327-336. Ullman, E. L. "Amenities and Regional Growth," The Geographical Review. XLIV (1954), 119-132. _______. "A Theory of Location for Cities," American Journal of Sociology. XLVI (May, 1941), 853-864. Valavanis, Stefan. "Losch on Location," The American Economic Review. XLV (September, 1955), 637-644. ; Vining, Rutledge. "A Description of Certain Spatial Aspects of an Economic System," Economic Development and Cultural Change. Ill (January, 1955), 147-195. 510 Vredenburg, Harvey L. "Shopping Centers - An Evolution in Retailing," Iowa Business Digest. XXIX (April, 1958), 1-8. Wehrwein, George S. "The Rural-Urban Fringe," Economic Geography, XVIII (July, 1942), 217-228. "Wholesale-Retail Trade Ratios as Indices of Urban Centrality," Economic Geography. XXXVII (April, 1961), 124-132. Willem, John M. "Interurbia Is Here to Stay," Business Horizons. I (Spring, 1958), 25-32. Wilson, Leonard S. "Land Use Patterns in the Inner Bluegrass," Economic Geography. XVII (July, 1941), 287-296. Winsborough, Hal H. "Variations in Industrial Composition with City Size," Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science Association, V (1959), 121-131. Winston, Clement. "Retail Trade and Use of Services: Regional Patterns of Consumer Purchasing," Survey of Current Business. XXXXI (May, 1961), 22-28. Zelinsky, Wilbur. "A Method for Measuring Change in the Distribution of Manufacturing Activity," Economic Geography, XXXIV (April, 1958), 95-126. C. PARTS OF SERIES Alderson, Wroe. "Here's How Stores Will Face It," Managerial Marketing: Perspectives and Viewpoints A Source Book. Edited by Eugene J. Kelley and William Lazer. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1958, pp. 349-358. Alexander, Ralph S. "Changes in the Consumer Market and in the Retail Segments," Explorations in Retailing. Edited by Stanley C. Hollander. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1960, pp. 18-22. ' ~ ' ' ... “. 511 Aspinwall, Leo. "The Functional Organisation of Cities," Explorations in Retailing. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1960, pp. 431*436. Beckman, Theodore N. "The Value-Added Concept as a Measurement of Output," Managerial Marketing: Per spectives and Viewpoints. A Source Book. Edited by Eugene J. Kelley and William Laser. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1958, pp. 451-459. Bello, Francis. "The City and the Car," The Exploding Metropolis. The Editors of Fortune. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1958, pp. 32-61. Bogue, Donald J. "Urbanism and Metropolitanism," The Suburban Community. Edited by William M. Dobriner. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1958, pp. 21-25. _______. "What We Need to Know about Decentralisation and the Growth of Suburbs," Needed Urban and Metro politan Research. Edited by Donald J. Bogue. Scripps Foundation for Research in Population Problems. Oxford, Ohio: Miami University, 1953, pp. 38-40. Burgess, Ernest W. "The Growth of the City: An Introduc tion to a Research Project," The City. Edited by Robert E. Park, Ernest W. Burgess, and Richard D. McKensie. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1925, pp. 47-62. Cox, Reavis. "Changes in the City as an Institution of Marketing," Managerial Marketing: Perspectives and Viewpoints. A Source Book. Edited by William Laser and Eugene J. Kelley. Revised edition. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1962, pp. 63-75. _______. "Impact of Changes in the Sise and Structure of Cities," Explorations in Retailing. Edited by Stanley C. Hollander. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1960, pp. 15-17. ; Cross, J. S. "Motor Products Marketing," Readings in Marketing. Edited by S. George Walters, Max D. Snider, and Morris L. Sweet. Cincinnati, Ohio: South- Western Publishing Co., 1962, pp. 635-647. 512 Cuzzort, Ray P. "The Size and Distribution of Standard Metropolitan Areas in 1975," Applications of Demog raphy: The Population Situation in the U. S. in 1975. Edited by Donald J. Bogue. Scripps Foundation for Research in Population Problems. Oxford, Ohio: Miami University, 1957, pp. 62-67. Dobriner, William M. "Introduction: Theory and Research in the Sociology of the Suburbs," The Suburban Community. Edited by William M. Dobriner. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1958, pp. xiii-xxviii. Douglass, Harlan Paul. "The Suburban Trend," The Suburban Community. Edited by William M. Dobriner. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1958, pp. 89-94. Duncan, Otis Dudley and Albert J. Reiss, Jr. "Social Characteristics of Urban and Rural Communities," The Suburban Community. Edited by William M. Dobriner. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1958, pp. 45-66. Dyckman, John. "The Changing Uses of the City," The Future Metropolis. Edited by Lloyd Rodwin. New York: George Braziller, Inc., 1960, pp. 144-167. Entenberg, Robert D. "The Changing Competitive Position of Department Stores in the U. S.," Explorations in Retailing. Edited by Stanley C. Hollander. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1960, pp. 23-25. Firey, Walter, Charles P. Loomis, and J. Allan Beegle. "The Fusion of Urban and Rural," Cities and Society. Edited by Paul K. Hatt and Albert J. Reiss, Jr. Second edition. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1957, pp. 214-222. Florence, P. Sargant. "Economic Efficiency in the Metropolis," The Metropolis in Modem Life. Edited by Robert Moore Fisher. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1955, pp. 85-124. "From These City Areas Come Tomorrow's Vast Interurbian Markets," Managerial Marketing: Perspectives and Viewpoints. A Source Book. Edited by Eugene J. Kelley and William Lazer. Homewood, Illinois: Richar4 D. Irwin, Inc., 1958, pp. 83-96. Harris, Chauncy D. and Edward L. Ullman. "The Mature of Cities," Cities and Society. Edited by Paul K. Hatt and Albert J. Reiss, Jr. Second edition. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1957, pp. 237-238. Heberle, Rudolf. "The Mainsprings of Southern Urbaniza tion," The Urban South. Edited by Rupert B. Vance and Nicholas J. Demerath. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 1954, pp. 6-23. Hood, Julia and B. S. Yamey. "Imperfect Competition in Retail Trades," Explorations in Retailing. Edited by Stanley C. Hollander. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1960, pp. 164-178. "Interurbia: The Changing Face of America," Managerial Marketing: Perspectives and Viewpoints. A Source Book. j Edited by William Lazer and Eugene J. Kelley. Revised j edition. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1962, pp. 91-102. Jacobs, Jane. "Downtown Is for People," The Exploding Metropolis. The Editors of Fortune. Garden City, New York: Doubleday 6c Company, Inc., 1958, pp. 140- 168. Lebow, Victor. "The Crisis in Retailing," Managerial Marketing: Perspectives and Viewpoints. A Source Book. Edited by Eugene J. Kelley and William Lazer. Home wood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1958, pp. 341-348. Levitt, Theodore. "Blue Skies Approach to Tomorrow's Retailing," Explorations in Retailing. Edited by Stanley C. Hollander. East Lansing, MLchigan: Michigan State University, 1960, pp. 11-14. 514 McKenzie, R. D. "The Ecological Approach to the Study of the Human Community," The City. Edited by Robert E. Park, Ernest W. Burgess, and Roderick D. McKenzie. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1925, pp. 63-79. McNair, Malcolm P. "Improving the Dynamics of Retailing in an Expanding Economy," Explorations in Retailing. Edited by Stanley C. Hollander. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1960, pp. 3-8. Martin, Walter T. "Ecological Change in Satellite Rural Areas," The Suburban Community. Edited by William M. Dobriner. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1958, pp. 67-85. National Resources Committee. "The Process of Urbaniza tion: Underlying Forces and Emerging Trends," Cities and Society. Edited by Paul K. Hatt and Albert J. Reiss, Jr., Second edition. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1957, pp. 64-77. Nelson, Richard L. "Discount Merchandising in the Decade Ahead," The Retail Revolution. A Series of Lectures for the New York Society of Security Analysts. New York: Fairchild Publications, 1962, pp. 71-83. "1954 Census of Business: U.S. Summaries for Retail and Wholesale Trades," Readings in Marketing. Edited by Malcolm P. McNair and Harry L. Hansen. Second edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1956, pp. 193-207. Nystrom, Paul H. "Retailing in Retrospect and Prospect," Changing Perspectives in Marketing. Edited by Hugh G. Wales. Urbana, Illinois: The University of Illinois Press, 1951, pp. 117-138. Rathmell, J. M. "The Profit Potential in Customer Leisure and Mobility," Managerial Marketing: Perspectives and Viewpoints. A Source Book. Edited by William Lazer and Eugene J. Kelley. Revised edition. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1962, pp. 170-179. 1 Report of the Definitions Committee of the American Marketing Association. "Definitions of Marketing Terms," Readings in Marketing. ' Edited by Malcolm P. McNair and Harry L. Hansen. Second edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1956, pp. 55-78.1 : i Schnore, Leo F. "The Growth of Metropolitan Suburbs," The Suburban Comnunitv. Edited by William M. Dobriner. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1958, pp. 26-44. _______. "Metropolitan Growth and Decentralization," The Suburban Comnunitv. Edited by William M. Dobriner.j New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1958, pp. 3-20. "Sixty-Six Million More Americans," Readings in Economics. Edited by Richard E. Mulcahy. Revised edition. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1956, pp. 16-21. Smith, T. Lynn. "The Emergence of Cities," The Urban South. Edited by Rupert B. Vance,* and Nicholas J. Demerath. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 1954, pp. 24-37. Stedman, Gordon H. "The Rise of Shopping Centers," Changing Patterns in Retailing. Edited by John W. Wingate and Arnold Corbin. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1956, pp. 167-182. Tallman, Gerald B. and Bruce Blomstrom. "Soft Goods Join the Retail Revolution," Readings in Marketing. Edited j by Parker M. Holmes, Ralph E. Brownlee, and Robert Bartels. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1963, pp. 470-487. Thompson, Lorin A. "Urbanization, Occupational Shift and Economic Progress," The Urban South. Edited by Rupert B. Vance and Nicholas J. Demerath. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 1954, pp. 38-53. Vance, Rupert B. and Sara Smith. "Metropolitan Dominance | and Integration," The Urban South. Edited by Rupert B. Vance and Nicholas J. Demerath. Chapel Hill, North j Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 1954, pp. 114-134. I 516 Vernon, Raymond. "The Economics and Finances of the Large Metropolis," The Future Metropolis. Edited by Lloyd Rodwin. New York: George Braziller, Inc., 1960, pp. 42-63. Von Thu'nen, Johann Heinrich. "The Isolated State," Source Readings in Economic Thought. Edited by Philip C. Newman, Arthur D. Gayer, and Milton H. Spencer. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1954, pp. 320-330. Weiss, E. B. "The Coming Era of In-Home Retailing," Readings in Marketing. Edited by S. George Walters, Max D. Snider, and Morris L. Sweet. Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western Publishing Co., 1962, pp. 613-615. _______ . "Highway Retailing - The Next Great Retail Revolution," Readings in Marketing. Edited by S. George Walters, Max D. Snider, and Morris L. Sweet. Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western Publishing Co., 1962, pp. 624-626. Whyte, William H., Jr. "Introduction," The Exploding Metropolis. The Editors of Fortune. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1958, pp. vii-xx. _______ . "Urban Sprawl," The Exploding Metropolis. The Editors of Fortune. Garden City, New York: Double day & Company, Inc., 1958, pp. 115-139. Wirth, Louis. "Urbanism as a Way of Life," Cities and Society. Edited by Paul K. Hatt and Albert J. Reiss, Jr. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1957, pp. 46-63. Xenophon. "On the Means of Improving the Revenues of the State of Athens," Early Economic Thought. Edited by Arthur Eli Monroe. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1945, pp. 30-49. D. GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS Bureau of the Budget. Standard Industrial Classification Manual. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1957. Thompson, Warren S. "The Growth of Metropolitan Districts in the United States: 1900-1940. United States Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1947. United States Department of Commerce. United States Bureau of the Census. Census of American Business: 1933. Retail Distribution - United States Summary: 1933. Vol. I. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1935. _______. Census of Business: 1935. Retail Trade Survey. Vol. II. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, April, 1937. _______. United States Census of Business 1948. Retail Trade - General Statistics. Vol. I. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1951. _______. United States Census of Business 1954. Retail Trade - Summary Statistics. Vol. I. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1956. _______. United States Census of Business 1954. Retail Trade - Area Statistics. Vol. II. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1956. _______; United States Census of Business 1954. Central Business District Reports. Vol. VII. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1956. _______. United States Census of Business: 1958. Central Business District Statistics. Summary Report. Wash ington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1961. 518 United States Department of Commerce. United States Census of Business: 1958. Retail Trade - Summary Statistics. Vol. I. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1961. _______ . United States Census of Business: 1958. Retail Trade - Area Statistics. Vol. II. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1961. _______ . United States Census of Business: 1958. Central Business District Reports. Vol. VII. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1961. _______ . U. S. Census of Population: I960. United States Summary. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1961. E. PUBLICATIONS OF LEARNED SOCITIES AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS Applebaum, William and others. Store Location and Develop ment Studies. Worcester, Massachusetts: Clark University, January, 1961. Bogue, Donald J. Metropolitan Decentralization: A Study of Differential Growth. Scripps Foundation Studies in Population Distribution. Oxford, Ohio: Miami University, August, 1950. _______ . Metropolitan Growth and the Conversion of Land to Nonagricultural Uses. Scripps Foundation for Research in Population Problems. Oxford, Ohio: Miami University, 1956. _______ . The Structure of the Metropolitan Community. A Study of Dominance and Subdominance. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan, 1949. Committee on Definitions of the American Marketing Association. Marketing Definitions. A Glossary of Marketing Terms. Chicago, Illinois: American Marketing Association, 1960. Committee for Economic Development. Guiding Metropolitan | Growth. New York: Committee for Economic Develop* vinent, August, 1960. i _______. Distressed Areas. New York: Committee for j Economic Development, 1961. i Community Builders' Council. The Community Builders Handbook. Executive edition. Washington, D. C.: Urban Land Institute, 1960. Converse, P. D. Retail Trade Areas in Illinois. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois, 1946. _______. A Study of Retail Trade Areas in East Central Illinois. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois, 1943. De Boer, S. R. Shopping Districts. Washington, D. C.: American Planning and Civic Association, 1937. Foster, Gerald J. and Howard J. Nelson. Ventura Boulevard: ! A String-Type Shopping Street. Los Angeles, Cali fornia: University of California, 1958. Kelley, Eugene J. Shopping Centers. Locating Regional Centers. Saugatuck, Connecticut: The Eno Foundation for Highway Traffic Control, 1956. McNair, Malcolm P. Dynamic Retailing in the Modern Economy. New York: National Retail Dry Goods Association, 1954. Pickard, Jerome P. Metropolitanization of the United States. Washington, D. C.: Urban Land Institute, 1959. Pratt, Samuel and Lois Pratt. Suburban Downtown in Transition. Institute of Research. Rutherford, j New Jersey: __Fairleigh Dickinson University, 1958. 520 Sisco, Paul Hardeman. The Retail Function of Memphis. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago, August, 1954. Thompson, Richard Grant. A Study of Shopping Centers. Institute of Business and Economic Research. Berkeley, California: The University of California,1961. Urban Land Institute. The Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers. Washington, D. C.: Urban Land Institute, 1961. Vernon, Ray. The Changing Economic Function of the Central City. New York: Committee for Economic Development (n.d.). F. ENCYCLOPEDIA ARTICLES "City," Collier’s Encyclopedia. XII (1959), 457, 458D. "City," Encyclopaedia Britannica. V (1961), 728B-728C. Reed, Thomas Harrison. "City," The Encyclopedia Americana. VI (1958), 710-713. Thompson, Warren S. "Urbanization," Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences. XV. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1935, pp. 189-192. "Urban Sociology," Encyclopaedia Britannica. XXII (1961), 893-894B. G. NEWSPAPERS Blundell, William E. "Bypassed Business, New Interstate Roads Slash Tourist, Farm Trade in Some Towns," The Wall Street Journal. Pacific Coast edition, Septen&er 19, 1962, pp. 1, 18. Gordon, Mitchell. "Metropolitan Muddle, Urban Areas Hunt Cure for Ills Arising from Tangle of JursIdletions," The Wall Street Journal. Pacific Coast edition, July 23, 1962, pp. 1, 8. Malabre, Alfred L., Jr. "Factories in Flight, More Companies Build Plants in Rural Areas as Cost-Cutting Moves," The Wall Street Journal. Pacific Coast edition, September 7, 1962, pp. 1, 10. H. PERSONAL INTERVIEW Isley, Leonard, United States Department of Commerce, 4661 West Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, January 17, 1962. A PPE N D I C E S APPENDIX A CLASSIFICATION OF RETAIL TRADE MAJOR GROUP 52 RETAIL TRADE: BUILDING MATERIALS, HARDWARE, AND FARM EQUIPMENT The Major Group as a Whole This major group includes retail establishments primarily engaged in selling lumber, building materials, and basic lines of hardware, such as tools, builders' hardware, paint and glass, electrical supplies, roofing materials, and other equipment and supplies for all types of construction. This major group also includes farm equipment dealers. Establishments included in this major group sell to contractors as well as to the general public. Stores primarily engaged in selling electric or gas appli ances , such as refrigerators, stoves, ranges, and radios are classified in Major Group 57. Group Indus try No. No. 521 LUMBER AND OTHER BUILDING MATERIALS DEALERS 5211 Lumber yards Establishments known as lumber yards and primarily engaged in selling rough or dressed lumber, wood shingles, interior woodwork, molding, doors , sash, frames, and other millwork to contractors, or for household or farm consumption. Lumber dealers, with or without yards , primarily engaged in selling to other dealers, or to industrial or government users are classified in Industry 5098. 5212 Building materials dealers Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of building materials 525 Group No. 522 523 524 525 Industry No. 5212 Building materials dealers (continued) such as brick and tile, cement, sand and gravel. HEATING AND PLUMBING EQUIPMENT DEALERS 5221 Heating and plumbing equipment dealers Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of plumbing supplies and heating and air conditioning equipment. Establishments primarily engaged In plumb ing installations, which may sell inciden tal amounts of supplies and equipment, are not considered a part of Retail Trade, and are classified in Industry 1711. PAINT, GLASS, AND WALLPAPER STORES 5231 Paint. glass. and wallpaper stores Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of paint, glass, and wall paper, or any combination of these lines. Establishments primarily engaged in installing glass are not considered a part of Retail Trade and are classified in Industry 1793. ELECTRICAL SUPPLY STORES 5241 Electrical supply stores Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of electrical supplies for construction purposes. Stores selling electrical appliances such as refrigera tors , stoves, ranges, and radios are classified in Major Group 57. HARDWARE AND FARM EQUIPMENT 5251 Hardware stores Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of a number of basic 526 Group Industry No. No. 5251 Hardware stores (continued) hardware lines, such as tools , builders1 hardware, paint and glass, housewares and household appliances, cutlery, and roof ing materials. Farm hardware and farm production supplies are handled particu larly in agricultural communities. 5252 Farm equipment dealers Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of farm machinery and equipment and farm production supplies. These establishments also usually carry lines of farm hardware and miscellaneous farm supplies. MAJOR GROUP 53 RETAIL TRADE: GENERAL MERCHANDISE The Major Group as a Whole This major group includes retail stores which sell a number of lines of merchandise, such as dry goods, apparel and accessories, furniture and home furnishings, small wares, hardware, and food. The stores included in this group are known as department stores, variety stores, dry goods stores, general merchandise stores, general stores, etc. Mail order houses are included as a kind of business. Group Industry No. No. 531 DEPARTMENT STORES 5311 Department stores Retail stores carrying a general line of apparel, such as suits, coats, dresses, furnishings; home furnishings, such as furniture, floor coverings, curtains, draperies, linens, major household appli ances , and housewares such as table and kitchen appliances, dishes, and utensils. These and other merchandise lines are normally arranged in separate sections or departments with the accounting on a departmentalized basis. The departments and functions are integrated under a single management. Establishments in cluded in this industry normally employ 25 or more persons. 528 Group No. 532 533 Industry No. HAIL ORDER HOUSES 5322 Mail order houses . general merchandise Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale, by catalog and mail order, of dry goods in combination with apparel and accessories, with furniture and home furnishings, with small hardware, with farmers1 supplies, or with automotive equipment. Departmentalized retail stores with normally 25 or more employees , oper ated by mail order houses and selling a general line of merchandise are included in Industry 5311. Retail stores selling a general line of merchandise, with nor mally less than 25 employees and operated by mail order houses are classified in Industry 5392. 5323 Mail order houses , except general merchandise Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale, by catalog and mail order, of specialty lines of merchandise, such as books, coins, jewelry, novelty merchandise, and stamps. LIMITED PRICE VARIETY STORES 5331 Limited price variety stores Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of a variety of merchan dise in the low and popular price ranges. These stores frequently are known as M5 and 10 cent" stores and "5 cents to a dollar" stores, although merchandise is usually sold outside these price ranges. Sales usually are made on a cash-and- carry basis, with the open selling method of display and customer selection of merchandise. 529 Group No. 534 535 539 Industry No. MERCHANDISE VENDING MACHINE OPERATORS 5341 Automatic merchandising Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of products or services (excluding music, amusements, or games) by means of automatic merchandising units, also referred to as vending machines. DIRECT SELLING ORGANIZATIONS 5351 Direct selling organizations Establishments which are the retail sales offices or headquarters from which crews of canvassers operate to sell mer chandise from door to door. MISCELLANEOUS GENERAL MERCHANDISE STORES 5392 Dry goods and general merchandise stores Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of piece goods and/or a combination of men's and women's apparel, dry goods, hardware, homewares or home furnishings and other lines in limited amounts. Stores selling commodities covered in the definition for Department Stores, but normally having less than 25 employees, are included in this industry. 5393 General stores Establishments usually located in rural communities and primarily engaged in the retail sale of a general line of merchandise of which the most important line is food, and the more important sub sidiary lines are notions, apparel, farm supplies, and gasoline. These stores are usually known as country general stores. 530 MAJOR GROUP 54 RETAIL TRADE: FOOD The Major Group as a Whole This major group includes retail stores primarily engaged in selling food for home preparation and consump tion. Establishments primarily engaged in selling prepared foods and drinks for consumption on the premises are clas sified in Major Group 58, and stores primarily engaged in selling packaged beers and liquors in Industry 5921. GROCERY STORES Grocery stores , with or without fresh meat Stores , commonly known as supermark ets , food stores, grocery stores and delicatessen stores , primarily engaged in the retail sale of all sorts of canned foods and dry goods , either packaged or in bulk, such as tea, coffee, spices, sugar, and flour; fresh fruits and vege tables; and frequently fresh, smoked and prepared meats, fish, and poultry. MEAT AND FISH (SEA FOOD) MARKETS Meat markets Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of fresh meats. They also may sell cured meats, poultry, fish, dairy products, eggs, and other commodi ties. These stores may butcher animals on their own account, or they may buy from others. Group Industry No. No. 541 5411 542 5422 531 Group Industry No. No. 542 5423 543 5431 V 544 5441 MEAT AND FISH (SEA FOOD) MARKETS (continued) Fish (sea food) markets Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of fresh or cured fish, oysters, shellfish, and other sea foods. FRUIT STORES AND VEGETABLE MARKETS Fruit stores and vegetable markets Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of fresh fruits and fresh vegetables. They are frequently found In public or municipal markets. CANDY, NUT, AND CONFECTIONERY STORES Candy., nut, and confectionery stores Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of candy, nuts, sweet meats , and other confections. Operation of a soda fountain or lunch counter is common. 545 DAIRY PRODUCTS STORES 5451 Dairy products stores Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of dairy products such as milk, cream, butter, cheese, and related products to over-the-counter customers. Ice cream and frozen custard stands and establishments buying ice cream and simi lar products and selling them from trucks or wagons for immediate consumption are classified in Industry 5812. Establish ments primarily engaged in processing and j distributing milk and cream are classified! in manufacturing. 532 Group Indus try No. No. 546 RETAIL BAKERIES 5462 Retail bakeries— manufacturing Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of bakery products, such as bread, cakes, and pies , and which produce some or all of the products sold on the premises. Establishments manufac turing bakery products and selling them chiefly through house-to-house routes are classified in manufacturing (Industry 2051). 5463 Retail bakeries--nonmanufacturing Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of bakery products, such as bread, cakes, and pies, none of which are produced on the premises. 549 MISCELLANEOUS FOOD STORES 5491 Egg and poultry dealers Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of eggs and poultry. These stores may sell live poultry, slaughter and clean poultry for their own account and sell dressed fowl, or sell fowl dressed and cleaned by others. 5499 Food stores, not elsewhere classified Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of specialized foods, not elsewhere classified, such as coffee, health foods, spices, herbs, and tea. This industry also includes house-to-house coffee and tea distributors. 533 MAJOR GROUP 55 AUTOMOTIVE DEALERS AND GASOLINE SERVICE STATIONS The Major Group as a Whole This major group includes retail dealers selling new and used automobiles and trucks, and new parts and accessories; aircraft and marine dealers; and gasoline service stations. This group includes establishments deal- ing in used automobiles exclusively, but not establishments dealing exclusively in used parts (Group 593). Automobile repair shops maintained by establishments engaged in the sale of new automobiles are also included. Automotive distributors, the greater part of whose sales are to deal ers , are classified in Wholesale Trade. Group Indus try No. No. 551 MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS (NEW AND USED CARS) 5511 Motor vehicle dealers (new and used cars) Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of new automobiles and trucks, or new and used automobiles and trucks. These establishments frequently maintain repair departments and carry stocks of replacement parts, tires, bat teries, and automotive accessories. 552 MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS (USED CARS ONLY) 5521 Motor vehicle dealers (used cars only) Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of used cars or trucks, but making no sales of new automobiles. 534 Group No. 553 554 559 Indus try No. TIRE, BATTERY, AND ACCESSORY DEALERS 5531 Tire, battery, and accessory dealers Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of automobile tires, batteries , and other automobile parts and accessories. Such establishments fre quently have facilities for tire recapping and vulcanizing. Establishments dealing primarily in used parts are classified in Industry 5936. GASOLINE SERVICE STATIONS 5541 Gasoline service stations Gasoline service stations primarily engaged in selling gasoline and lubricat ing oils , and which may sell other mer chandise or perform minor repair work. MISCELLANEOUS AIRCRAFT, MARINE, AND AUTOMOTIVE DEALERS 5599 Miscellaneous aircraft, marine, and automotive dealers Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of automotive products , not elsewhere classified, such as new and used passenger automobile trailers, air craft , boats, marine supplies , motorboats, and motorcycles. MAJOR GROUP 56 RETAIL TRADE: APPAREL AMD ACCESSORIES The Ma.jor Group as a Whole This major group includes retail stores primarily engaged in selling clothing, shoes , hats, underwear, and related articles for personal wear and adornment. Custom tailors carrying stocks of materials and furriers are included in this group. Group Industry Mo. Mb. 561 MEN'S AMD BOYS' CLOTHING AMD FURNISHINGS STORES 5612 Men's and boys' clothing stores Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of men's and boys' over coats , topcoats, suits, and work clothing. Hats, shoes, accessories, and furnishings such as shirts, gloves, hosiery, and underwear are frequently but not always carried. 5613 Men's and boys' furnishings stores Establishments specializing in the retail sale of men's and boys' shirts, hats, underwear, hosiery, gloves, and other furnishings. 562 WOMEN'S READY-TO-WEAR STORES 5621 Women's ready-to-wear stores Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of women's coats, suits, and dresses. 536 Group Industry No. No. 563 WOMEN'S ACCESSORY AND SPECIALTY STORES 5631 Millinery stores Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of ready-to-wear and custom made millinery, including women's hat frames and trimmings. 5632 Corset and lingerie stores Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of women's corsets, girdles, brassieres, negligees, underwear, or related garments. 5633 Hosiery stores Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of women's hosiery. 5634 Apparel accessory and other specialty s tores Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of women's miscellaneous apparel and accessories, such as blouses, costume jewelry, gloves, handbags and knitwear. 564 CHILDREN'S AND INFANTS' WEAR STORES 5641 Children's and infants' wear stores Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of children's and infants' clothing, furnishings, and accessories. Such establishments may specialize in either children's or infants' wear or they may sell a combination of children's and infants' wear. 565 FAMILY CLOTHING STORES 5651 Family clothing stores Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of clothing, furnishings, 537 Group Mo. 566 567 Industry No. 5651 Family clothing stores (continued) and accessories for men, women, and children, without specializing in any one line. SHOE STORES 5662 Men's shoe stores Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of men's and boys1 foot wear. Such establishments also may carry hosiery and accessories. 5663 Women's shoe stores Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of women's and misses' footwear. These establishments frequently carry accessory lines such as hosiery, gloves, and handbags. 5664 Children's and juveniles1 shoe stores Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of children's and juve niles' footwear and related accessories. 5665 Family shoe stores Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of footwear for men, women, children, and infants, without specializing in any one line. These establishments frequently carry hosiery, gloves, handbags, and other accessories. CUSTOM TAILORS 5671 Custom tailors Retail establishments primarily engaged in making and selling men's and women's clothing (except fur apparel, Industry 5681), to individual order. Tailor shops primarily engaged in clothing repair and alterations are classified in Industry 7271. 538 Group No. 568 569 Indus try No. FURRIERS AND FUR SHOPS 5681 Furriers and fur shops Retail establishments primarily engaged in making fur coats and other fur apparel to custom order and selling ready made fur coats and other fur apparel. Establishments primarily engaged in fur repair and storage and which also may sell a minor amount of fur apparel are classi fied in Industry 7272. MISCELLANEOUS APPAREL AND ACCESSORY STORES 5699 Miscellaneous apparel and accessory stores Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of specialized lines of apparel and accessories, not elsewhere classified, such as bathing suits, rain coats , riding apparel, sports apparel, and umbrellas. 53* MAJOR GROUP 57 RETAIL TRADE: FURNITURE, HOME FURNISHINGS, AND EQUIPMENT The Major Group as a Whole This major group includes retail stores selling goods used for furnishing the home, such as furniture, floor coverings, draperies, glass and chinaware, domestic stoves, refrigerators, and other household electrical and gas appliances. Establishments selling electrical and gas appliances are included in this group only if the major part of their sales consist of articles for home use. iDealers primarily engaged in selling secondhand furniture are classified in Group 593. Stores furnishing interior decorator service are classified according to the merchan dise handled. Group Industry FURNITURE, HOME FURNISHINGS, AND EQUIPMENT STORES Furniture stores Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of household furniture. These stores also may sell home furnish ings , major appliances, and floor coverings. Floor covering stores Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of floor coverings and related products. Establishments included! in this industry, which may incidentally perform installation, are to be distin guished from contractorsprimarily_______ No. No. 571 5712 5713 540 Group No. 572 Indus try No. 5713 5714 5715 5719 Floor covering stores (continued) engaged in installing floor coverings which are classified in Industry 1752. Drapery, curtain, and upholstery stores Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of draperies, curtains, and upholstery. Establishments primarily engaged in reupholstering or repairing furniture are classified in Industry 7641. China, glassware, and metalware stores Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of china, glassware, and metalware for kitchen and table use. Establishments primarily engaged in sell ing table silverware are classified in Industry 5971. Miscellaneous home furnishing stores Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of miscellaneous home furnishings, such as brooms , brushes, lamps and shades, mirrors and pictures , Venetian blinds, and window shades. HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCE STORES 5 722 Household appliance stores Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of electric and gas refrigerators, stoves, and other household appliances, such as electric irons, perco lators , hot plates, and vacuum cleaners. Many such stores also sell radio and television sets. Retail stores operated by public utility companies and primarily engaged in the sale of electric and gas appliances for household use are classi fied in this industry. 541 Group No. 573 Industry No. RADIO, TELEVISION, AND MUSIC STORES 5732 Radio and television stores Establishments primarily engaged In the retail sale of radios, television sets, record players, high fidelity (hi- fi) , and record reproducing equipment. Such establishments also may sell addi tional lines, such as household appliances, musical instruments, or records. Radio repair shops are classified in Industry 7621. 5733 Music stores Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of musical instruments, phonograph records, sheet music, and similar musical supplies. 542 MAJOR GROUP 58 RETAIL TRADE: EATING AND DRINKING PLACES The Major Group as a Whole This major group includes retail establishments selling prepared foods and drinks for consumption on the premises, and also lunch counters and refreshment stands selling prepared foods and drinks for immediate consump tion. Restaurants and lunch counters operated as a subordinate service facility by other business establish ments are not included in this industry, unless they are operated as leased departments by outside operators. Thus, restaurants and lunch counters operated by hotels are classified in Major Group 70; those operated by department stores in Major Group 53; etc. Group Industry No. No. 581 5812 5813 EATING AND DRINKING PLACES Eating places Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of prepared food and drinks for consumption on the premises. Caterers and establishments primarily engaged in selling box lunches are included in this industry. Drinking places (alcoholic beverages) Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of drinks, such as beer, ale, wine, liquor, and other alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises. The sale of food frequently accounts for a substantial portion of the receipts of these establishments. MAJOR GROUP 59 RETAIL TRADE: MISCELLANEOUS RETAIL STORES The Major Group as a Whole This major group includes retail stores, not else where classified. These stores fall into the following subgroups: (1) drug stores, (2) liquor stores, (3) second hand stores, (4) book and stationery stores, (5) sporting goods stores and bicycle shops, (6) farm and garden supply stores, (7) jewelry stores, (8) fuel and ice dealers, and (9) miscellaneous retail stores not elsewhere classified. Group Industry No. No. 591 DRUG STORES AND PROPRIETARY STORES (The stores classified in this group are included on the basis of their usual trade designation rather than on the more strict interpretation of commodities handled.) 5912 Drug stores and proprietary stores Establishments engaged in the retail sale of prescription drugs and patent medicines, and which may carry a number of related lines such as cosmetics, toiletries, tobacco, and novelty merchan dise. This industry includes drug stores which also operate a soda fountain or lunch counter. 592 LIQUOR STORES 5921 Liquor stores Liquor stores primarily engaged in the retail sale of packaged alcoholic 544 Group No. 593 Industry No. 5921 5932 5933 5934 Liquor stores (continued) beverages , such as ale, beer, wine, and whisky, for consumption off the premises. Stores selling prepared drinks for con sumption on the premises are classified in Industry 5813. ANTIQUE STORES AND SECONDHAND STORES This group includes stores primarily engaged in selling antiques and used merchandise, such as clothing, furniture, books, and automobile parts. Many dealers classified in this group do repair work both in preparing their own merchandise for resale and upon customers' goods. Establishments deriving the major portion of their gross income from service and repair work are classified in Division H, Services. Used car dealers are classified in Major Group 55. Antique stores Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of antique furniture, home furnishings, and objects of art. Stores selling reproductions of period furniture are classified in Industry 5712, and those primarily engaged in furniture restoration and repair in Industry 7641. Secondhand clothing and shoe stores Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of secondhand clothing and shoes. Secondhand furniture stores Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of secondhand household furniture. Dealers in used office furni ture are classified in Industry 5939. 545 Group No. 593 594 Industry No. ANTIQUE STORES AND SECONDHAND STORES (continued) 5935 Secondhand book stores Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of secondhand books and rare manuscripts. 5936 Secondhand automotive tire, battery, and accessory dealers Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of used automobile parts, accessories, tires, batteries, and motor cycles. Used car dealers are classified in Major Group 55. Stores primarily engaged in automobile repair work are not considered a part of Retail Trade, and are classified in Group 753. 5939 Secondhand stores. not elsewhere classified Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of secondhand merchandise, not elsewhere classified, such as musical instruments, office furniture, phonographs and phonograph records, and store fixtures and equipment. This industry also in cludes pawnshops. Scrap, waste, and junk dealers are classified in Wholesale Trade. BOOK AND STATIONERY STORES 5942 Book stores Book stores primarily engaged in the retail sale of new books and magazines. Book clubs primarily engaged in selling books also are included in this classifi cation. 5943 Stationery stores Stationery stores primarily engaged in the retail sale of stationery, such as 546 Group Industry No. No. 5943 Stationery stores (continued) paper and paper products (including print ing and engraving), post cards , and novelties. Stores specializing in the sale of artists' supplies are classified in Industry 5999. 595 SPORTING GOODS STORES AND BICYCLE SHOPS 5952 Sporting goods stores Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of sporting goods and equipment. 5953 Bicycle shops Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of bicycles and bicycle parts and accessories. Stores primarily engaged in repairing bicycles are classi fied in Industry 7692, and those engaged in renting bicycles in Industry 7949. 596 FARM AND GARDEN SUPPLY STORES 5962 Hay, grain, and feed stores Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of hay, grain, and feed. These stores may sell fertilizer also. Stores primarily engaged in selling farm implements are classified in Industry 5252. 5969 Farm and garden supply stores, not elsewhere classified Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of seeds, bulbs , and nursery stock, and other farm, lawn, and garden supplies and tools, not elsewhere classified. Stores primarily engaged in selling farm implements are classified in 547 Group No. 597 598 Industry No. 5969 Farm and garden supply stores. not elsewhere classified (continued) Industry 5252, and nurseries In Industry 0192. JEWELRY STORES 5971 Jewelry stores Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of any combination of the lines of jewelry, such as diamonds and other precious stones mounted in precious metals as rings, bracelets, and brooches; sterling and plated silverware; and watches and clocks. Stores primarily engaged in watch and jewelry repair are classified in Industry 7631. FUEL AND ICE DEALERS 5982 Fuel dealers. except fuel oil dealers Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of coal and wood, or a combination of the lines of coal, wood, fuel oil, and ice. 5983 Fuel oil and bottled gas dealers Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of fuel oil and bottled gas. Stores primarily engaged in selling fuel oil burners are classified In Indus try 5221, and dealers primarily engaged in installing and servicing fuel oil burners in Industry 1711. 5984 Ice dealers Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of ice. 548 Group No. 599 Industry No. RETAIL STORES, NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED 5992 Florists Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of cut flowers and growing plants. Stores primarily engaged in sell ing seeds , bulbs , and nursery stock are classified in Industry 5969, and green houses and nurseries in Industry 0192. 5993 Cigar stores and stands Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of cigars, cigarettes, tobacco, and smokers' supplies. These stores may or may not operate a soda fountain. 5994 News dealers and newsstands Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of newspapers, magazines , and other periodicals. 5996 Camera and photographic supply stores Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of cameras, films, and other photographic supplies and equipment. Establishments primarily engaged in fin ishing films are classified in Industry 7399. 5997 Gift, novelty, and souvenir shops Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of combined lines of gifts and novelty merchandise souvenirs, and miscellaneous small art goods such as greeting cards and holiday decorations. 5998 Optical goods stores Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of eyeglasses whether or not prescribed on the premises of the 549 Group Industry No. No. 5998 Optical goods stores (continued) establishment. Such stores may sell related optical and ophthalmic goods such as binoculars and reading glasses. j 5999 Miscellaneous retail stores, not elsewhere classified Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of specialized lines of merchandise, not elsewhere classified, such as office machines and equipment; luggage and leather goods; artists' sup plies; orthopedic and artificial limbs; rubber stamps; pets; hobby equipment; toys; religious goods; and monuments and tombstones. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in sell ing their own or consigned merchandise at j retail on an auction basis. Establish ments primarily engaged in auctioning tangible personal property of others on a fee basis are classified in Industry 7399. APPENDIX B RANKING OF CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS BY SELECTED RETAIL CLASSIFICATIONS AS TO INCREASES AND DECREASES IN UNITS AND RETAIL DOLLAR SALES: 1954 THROUGH 1958 551 TABLE EX BANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS AS TO INCREASE IN NUMBER OF LUMBER, BUILDING MATERIALS, HARDWARE, AND FARM EQUIPMENT RETAIL DEALERS (SIC MAJOR GROUP 52) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City Increase Youngstown, (Hilo 8 Flint, Michigan 7 Indianapolis, Indiana 7 New Haven, Connecticut 6 Waterbury, Connecticut 6 Minneapolis, Minnesota 6 St. Paul, Minnesota 6 San Francisco, California 6 Houston, Texas 4 St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois 4 Evansville, Indiana-Kentucky 3 Paterson-Clifton-Passaic, New Jersey 3 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, New York 3 Akron, Ohio 3 Brooklyn, New York Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Pennsylvania- 3 New Jersey Area 2 Erie, Pennsylvania 2 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 2 Syracuse, New York 2 Berkeley, California 2 Austin, Texas Baltimore, Maryland Canton, Ohio Columbus, Ohio Little Rock, Arkansas Miami, Florida Newark, New Jersey 1 Peoria, Illinois Tacoma, Washington Utica-Rome, New York Gary-East Chicago, Indiana 1 1 Total 96 552 TABLE XXI RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS AS TO DECREASE IN NUMBER OF LUMBER, BUILDING MATERIALS, HARDWARE, AND FARM EQUIPMENT RETAIL DEALERS (SIC MAJOR GROUP 52) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City Decrease Detroit, Michigan 196 Des Moines, Iowa 97 Springfield-Holyoke, Massachusetts 10 Sacramento, California 9 Boston, Massachusetts 8 C inc innati, Ohio-Kentucky 8 Portland, Oregon-Washington 8 Scranton, Pennsylvania 8 Salt Lake City, Utah 7 Wichita, Kansas 7 Long Beach, California 7 Buffalo, New York 6 Oakland, California 6 Pasadena, California 6 Atlanta, Georgia 5 Jacksonville, Florida 5 New Orleans, Louisiana 5 Norfolk-Portsmouth, Virginia 5 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 5 Spokane, Washington 5 Washington, D.C., Maryland-Virginia 5 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 5 Los Angeles, California 5 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 4 Charlotte, North Carolina 4 Chicago, Illinois 4 Dallas, Texas 4 Phoenix, Arizona 4 Richmond, Virginia 4 Worcester, Massachusetts 4 Birmingham, Alabama 3 Bridgeport, Connecticut 3 553 TABLE XXI (continued) Name of Central City Decrease Dayton, Ohio 3 Honolulu, Hawaii 3 Knoxville, Tennessee 3 Louisville, Kentucky-Indiana 3 New Bedford, Massachusetts 3 Wilmington, Delaware 3 Cleveland, Ohio 2 El Paso, Texas 2 Fall River, Massachusetts-Rhode Island 2 Fort Wayne, Indiana 2 Fort Worth, Texas 2 San Antonio, Texas 2 Tampa-St. Petersburg, Florida 2 Trenton, New Jersey 2 Manhattan, New York 2 Glendale, California 2 Corpus Christ!, Texas Fresno, California Grand Rapids, Michigan Hartford, Connecticut Memphis, Tennessee Milwaukee, Wisconsin Mobile, Alabama Nashville, Tennessee Omaha, Nebraska-Iowa Providence, Rhode Island Rockford, Illinois Seattle, Washington Shreveport, Louisiana Toledo, Ohio Niagara Falls, New York Hammond, Indiana Camden, Pennsylvania Yonkers, New York Total 518 554 TABLE XXII RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS AS TO INCREASE IN NUMBER OF GENERAL MERCHANDISE GROUP RETAIL STORES (SIC MAJOR GROUP 53) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City Increase San Francisco, California 9 Los Angeles , California 8 Charlotte, North Carolina 7 Newark, New Jersey 7 Long Beach, California 7 Providence, Rhode Island 5 Sacramento, California 4 Tulsa, Oklahoma 4 Manhattan, New York 4 Brooklyn, New York 4 Erie, Pennsylvania 3 Fresno, California 3 Louisville, Kentucky-Indiana 3 New Haven, Connecticut 3 Tacoma, Washington 3 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, New York 3 Niagara Falls, New York 3 Kansas City, Missouri 3 Des Moines, Iowa 2 El Paso, Texas 2 Evansville, Indiana-Kentucky 2 Mobile, Alabama 2 New Bedford, Massachusetts 2 Paterson-Clifton-Passaic, New Jersey 2 Rochester, New York 2 Spokane, Washington 2 Waterbury, Connecticut 2 Yonkers, New York 2 Birmingham, Alabama 1 Boston Massachusetts 1 Canton, Ohio 1 Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky 1 555 TABLE XXII (continued) Name of Central City Increase Dayton, Ohio Hartford, Connecticut Memphis, Tennessee New Orleans, Louisiana Phoenix, Arizona Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania San Antonio, Texas Youngstown, Ohio Gary'East Chicago, Indiana Berkeley, California Glendale, California Total 118 556 TABLE XXIII RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS AS TO DECREASE IN NUMBER OF GENERAL MERCHANDISE GROUP RETAIL STORES (SIC MAJOR GROUP 53) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City Decrease Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 22 Indianapolis, Indiana 9 Washington, D.C., Maryland-Virginia 9 Worcester, Massachusetts 9 Austin, Texas 8 Bridgeport, Connecticut 8 Chicago, Illinois 8 Columbus, Ohio 8 Detroit, Michigan 8 Scranton, Pennsylvania 8 Minneapolis, Minnesota 8 Denver, Colorado 6 Fall River, Massachusetts-Rhode Island 6 Flint, Michigan 6 Omaha, Nebraska-Iowa 6 San Jose, California 6 Trenton, New Jersey 6 Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Pennsylvania- New Jersey Area 5 Chattanooga, Tennessee 5 Honolulu, Hawaii 5 Jacksonville, Florida 5 Little Rock, Arkansas 5 Richmond, Virginia 5 Seattle, Washington 5 Fort Wayne, Indiana 4 Houston, Texas 4 Montgomery, Alabama 4 San Diego, California 4 Syracuse, New York 4 Wilmington, Delaware 4 Fort Worth, Texas 3 TABLE XXIII (continued) Name of Central City Decrease NbrfoIk-Port8mouth, Virginia 3 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 3 Savannah, Georgia 3 Tampa-St. Petersburg, Florida 3 Toledo, Ohio 3 Buffalo, New York 3 Oakland, California 3 Dallas, Texas 2 Nashville, Tennessee 2 Peoria, Illinois 2 Portland, Oregon-Washington 2 Rockford, Illinois 2 South Bend, Indiana 2 Wichita, Kansas 2 Akron, Ohio 2 Camden, Pennsylvania 2 Baltimore, Maryland 1 Miami, Florida 1 Salt Lake City, Utah 1 St. Paul, Minnesota 1 Total 246 558 TABLE XXIV RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS AS TO INCREASE IN NUMBER OF RETAIL DEPARTMENT STORES (SIC GROUP 531) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City Increase Birmingham, Alabama Chattanooga, Tennessee Hartford, Connecticut Knoxville, Tennessee New Haven, Connecticut New Orleans, Louisiana Newark, New Jersey Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Savannah, Georgia Trenton, New Jersey Utica-Rome, New York Wichita, Kansas Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Camden, Pennsylvania Glendale, California Total 15 TABLE XXV RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS AS TO IN NUMBER OF RETAIL DEPARTMENT STORES (SIC GROUP 531) 1954 THROUGH 1958 559 DECREASE i Name of Central City Decrease Providence, Rhode Island 3 Kansas City, Missouri 3 Manhattan, New York 3 Boston, Massachusetts 2 Flint, Michigan 2 Indianapolis, Indiana 2 Sacramento, California 2 San Diego, California Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Pennsylvania- 2 New Jersey Area Atlanta, Georgia 1 Corpus Christ!, Texas Dallas, Texas 1 Denver, Colorado Detroit, Michigan Evansville, Indiana-Kentucky Fall River, Massachusetts-Rhode Island 1 Fort Wayne, Indiana Fort Worth, Texas Fresno, California 1 Houston, Texas Miami, Florida Milwaukee, Wisconsin Paterson-Clifton-Passaic, New Jersey Portland, Oregon-Washington Reading, Pennsylvania Rockford, Illinois San Jose, California Scranton, Pennsylvania Tampa-St. Petersburg, Florida 1 Wilmington, Delaware 1 Worcester, Massachusetts i ! 560 TABLE XXV (continued) Name of Central City Decrease Buffalo, New York 1 Brooklyn, New York 1 Los Angeles, California 1 Long Beach, California 1 Total 46 561 TABLE XXVI RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS AS TO INCREASE IN NUMBER OF RETAIL LIMITED PRICE VARIETY STORES (SIC GROUP 533) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Des Moines, Iowa Louisville, Kentucky-Indiana Shreveport, Louisiana Waterbury, Connecticut Albany-Schenectady-Troy, New York Niagara Falls, New York Gary-East Chicago, Indiana Kansas City, Missouri Kansas City, Kansas Name of Central City Increase Manhattan, New York New Haven, Connecticut Houston, Texas Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Detroit, Michigan Knoxville, Tennessee 11 4 3 3 2 2 Total 34 562 TABLE XXVII RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS AS TO DECREASE IN NUMBER OF RETAIL LIMITED PRICE VARIETY STORES (SIC GROUP 533) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City Decrease San Jose, California 6 Washington, D.C., Maryland-Virginia 6 Bridgeport, Connecticut 4 Columbus , Ohio 4 Minneapolis, Minnesota 4 Oakland, California 4 Flint, Michigan 3 Fort Wayne, Indiana 3 Honolulu, Hawaii 3 Omaha, Nebraska-Iowa 3 Tacoma, Washington 3 Toledo, Ohio 3 Utica-Rome, New York 3 Worcester, Massachusetts 3 San Francisco, California 3 Baltimore, Maryland 2 Corpus Christi, Texas 2 Dallas, Texas 2 Dayton, Ohio 2 Hartford, Connecticut 2 Montgomery, Alabama 2 New Orleans, Louisiana 2 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 2 Portland, Oregon-Washington 2 San Antonio, Texas 2 San Diego, California 2 Scranton, Pennsylvania 2 Syracuse, New York 2 Tampa-St. Petersburg, Florida 2 Camden, Pennsylvania 2 Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Pennsylvania- New Jersey Area 1 563 TABLE XXVII (continued) Name of Central City Decrease Birmingham, Alabama Canton, Ohio Chicago, Illinois Denver, Colorado El Paso, Texas Grand Rapids, Michigan Jacksonville, Florida Milwaukee, Wisconsin Nashville, Tennessee Norfolk-Portsmouth, Virginia Peoria, Illinois Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Providence, Rhode Island Reading, Pennsylvania Richmond, Virginia Sacramento, California St. Louis, Missouri Savannah, Georgia South Bend, Indiana Springfield-Holyoke, Massachusetts Tulsa, Oklahoma Youngs town, Ohio Akron, Ohio Hammond, Indiana St. Paul, Minnesota Berkeley, California Yonkers, New York Pasadena, California Total 114 564 TABLE XXVIII RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS AS TO INCREASE IN N U M B ER OF RETAIL FOOD STORES (SIC M AJOR G ROUP 54) 1954 TH RO U G H 1958 Name o f C e n tra l C ity In c re a s e W ashington, D .C ., M ary la n d -V irg in ia 30 M anhattan, New York 29 C in c in n a ti, O hio-K entucky 28 Newark, New J e rs e y 16 B u ffa lo , New York 16 Colum bus, Ohio 6 S t. L o u is , M is s o u r i- I llin o is 6 San A n to n io , Texas 5 B e rk e le y , C a lif o r n ia 4 Corpus C h r i s t i , Texas 2 New Haven, C o n n e ctic u t 2 A lb an y -S ch en ectad y -T ro y , New York 2 C h attan o o g a, T ennessee 1 J a c k s o n v ille , F lo rid a 1 New B ed fo rd , M assach u setts 1 Tam pa-St. P e te rs b u rg , F lo rid a 1 Kansas C ity , M isso u ri 1 Total 151 565 TABLE XXIX RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS AS TO DECREASE IN NUMBER OF RETAIL FOOD STORES (SIC MAJOR GROUP 54) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City Decrease j Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 48 Boston, Massachusetts 42 Houa ton, Texas 42 Hartford, Connecticut 35 Detroit, Michigan 34 Portland, Oregon-Washington 31 Richmond, Virginia 29 Camden, New Jersey (Philadelphia) 28 Des Moines, Iowa 27 Wilmington, Delaware 26 Glendale, California 25 Louisville, Kentucky-Indiana 23 Chicago, Illinois 22 Seattle, Washington 22 New Orleans, Louisiana 22 Worcester, Massachusetts 21 Brooklyn, New York 21 Cleveland, Ohio 20 San Jose, California 20 Waterbury, Connecticut 19 Long Beach, California 19 Indianapolis, Indiana 17 Sacramento, California 17 Trenton, New Jersey 17 Tacoma, Washington 16 Austin, Texas 15 Rochester, New York 15 Akron, Ohio 14 Reading, Virginia 14 Scranton, Pennsylvania 13 Spokane, Washington 13 Utica-Rome, New York 13 566 TABLE XXIX (continued) Name o f C e n t r a l C i t y D e c r e a s e D ay to n , Ohio 12 N a s h v ille , T ennessee 12 O akland, C a lif o r n ia 12 Los A n g e le s, C a lif o r n ia 12 B r id g e p o rt, C o n n e c ticu t 11 F o rt Wayne, In d ia n a 11 L i t t l e Rock, A rkansas 11 P h o en ix , A rizona 11 E r i e , P en n sy lv a n ia 10 P itts b u r g h , P en n sy lv a n ia 10 San F ra n c is c o , C a lif o r n ia 10 D enver, C olorado 9 F l i n t , M ichigan 9 H o n o lu lu , H aw aii 9 M ilw aukee, W isconsin 9 P asad en a, C a lif o r n ia . 9 C an to n , Ohio 8 E l P a so , Texas 8 K n o x v ille , T ennessee 8 R o ck fo rd , I l l i n o i s 8 T o le d o , Ohio 8 W ic h ita , Kansas 8 Hammond, In d ia n a 8 S t . P a u l, M innesota 8 B a l t i m o r e , M a ry la n d B a to n R o u g e , L o u is ia n a S a l t L ak e C i t y , U ta h S a v a n n a h , G e o r g ia S o u th B e n d , I n d ia n a A t l a n t a , G e o r g ia 6 M o n tg o m ery , A lab am a 6 O m aha, N e b r a sk a -Io w a 6 S an D i e g o , C a l i f o r n i a 6 T u l s a , O klahom a 6 M ia m i, F l o r i d a 5 N o r f o lk - P o r t s m o u t h , V i r g i n i a 5 P a t e r s o n - C l i f t o n - P a s s a i c , New J e r s e y 5 567 TABLE XXIX (continued) Name of Central City Decrease ; Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Pennsylvania- 5 New Jersey Area 4 Fall River, Massachusetts-Rhode Island 4 Fort Worth, Texas 4 Peoria, Illinois 4 Springfield-Holyoke, Massachusetts 4 Niagara Falls, New York 4 Birmingham, Alabama 3 Charlotte, North Carolina 3 Shreveport, Louisiana 3 Dallas, Texas 2 Fresno, California 2 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 2 Grand Rapids, Michigan 1 Mobile, Alabama 1 Youngstown, Ohio 1 Total 1,109 568 TABLE XXX RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS AS TO INCREASE IN N U M BER OF AUTOM OTIVE DEALERS (SIC M AJOR G ROUP 5 5 , EXCEPT 554) 1954 TH RO U G H 1958 Name o f C e n tra l C ity In c re a s e M anhattan, New York 15 F re sn o , C a lif o r n ia 11 F l i n t , M ichigan 9 L i t t l e Rock, A rkansas 8 E v a n s v ille , Indian a-K en tu ck y 7 B e rk e le y , C a lif o r n ia 7 I n d ia n a p o lis , In d ia n a 6 M in n e a p o lis-S t. P a u l, M innesota 5 Tacoma, W ashington 4 W ashington, D .C ., M a ry la n d -V irg in ia 4 O akland, C a lif o r n ia 4 G le n d a le , C a lif o r n ia 4 C h a r lo tte , N orth C a ro lin a 3 D enver, C olorado 3 New H aven, C o n n e c tic u t 3 Newark, New J e rs e y 3 P a te r s o n - C lif to n - P a s s a ic , New J e rs e y 3 B u ffalo , New York 3 Camden, New J e rs e y 3 B a ltim o re , M aryland 2 L o u is v il le , K en tu ck y -In d ian a 2 N a s h v ille , T ennessee 2 San J o s e , C a lif o r n ia 2 Savannah, G eorgia 2 South Bend, In d ia n a 2 U tica-R om e, New York 2 A kron, Ohio 2 N iag ara F a l l s , New York 2 Kansas C ity , M isso u ri 2 Y o n k ers, New York 2 Baton Rouge, L o u isia n a 1 TABLE XXX (continued) Name of Central City Increase Chattanooga, Tennessee Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky Dallas, Texas Norfolk-Portsmouth, Virginia Portland, Oregon-Washington St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois Shreveport, Louisiana Syracuse, New York Waterbury, Connecticut Gary'-Hammond-East Chicago, Indiana Kansas City, Kansas Total 570 TABLE XXXI RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS AS TO DECREASE IN N U M B ER OF AUTOMOTIVE DEALERS (SIC M AJOR GROUP 5 5 , EXCEPT 554) 1954 THRO U G H 1958 Name o f C e n tra l C ity D ecrease A u s tin , Texas 14 M ilw aukee, W isconsin 12 Des M oines, Iowa 11 E l P aso , Texas 11 F o rt W orth, Texas 9 San D ieg o , C a lif o r n ia A llen to w n -B eth leh em -E asto n , P e n n sy lv a n ia - 7 New J e rs e y Area 6 B o sto n , M assach u setts 6 S acram ento, C a lif o r n ia 6 C le v e la n d , Ohio 5 H ouston, Texas 5 Spokane, W ashington 5 S t. P a u l, M innesota 5 C anton, Ohio 4 C h icag o , I l l i n o i s 4 F o rt Wayne, In d ia n a 4 H a r tf o r d , C o n n e cticu t 4 M o b ile, Alabama 4 Richmond, V irg in ia 4 S a lt Lake C ity , Utah 4 Tam pa-St. P e te rs b u rg , F lo rid a 4 T u ls a , Oklahoma 4 B ro o k ly n , New York 4 Birm ingham , Alabama 3 Colum bus, Ohio 3 Corpus C h r i s t i , Texas 3 D ayton, Ohio 3 F a ll R iv e r, M assachusetts-R hode Is la n d 3 F l i n t , M ichigan 3 Memphis, T ennessee 3 TABLE XXXI (continued) Name of Central City Decrease New Bedford, Massachusetts Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Omaha, Nebraska-Iowa San Antonio, Texas Springfield-Holyoke, Massachusetts Toledo, Ohio Worcester, Massachusetts Detroit, Michigan Phoenix, Arizona Reading, Pennsylvania Rockford, Illinois Wichita, Kansas Youngstown, Ohio Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Los Angeles, California Atlanta, Georgia Bridgeport, Connecticut Erie, Pennsylvania Grand Rapids, Michigan Honolulu, Hawaii Jacksonville, Florida Montgomery, Alabama New Orleans, Louisiana Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Rochester, New York Scranton, Pennsylvania Seattle, Washington Wilmington, Delaware Hammond, Indiana San Francisco, California Pasadena, California Total 226 N>hOfON>N}NJtOtOGJCjOLJWU>UJU> 572 TABLE XXXII RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS AS TO INCREASE IN NUMBER OF RETAIL GASOLINE SERVICE STATIONS (SIC GROUP 554) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City Increase Manhattan, New York 15 Glendale, California 14 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 13 New Haven, Connecticut 11 San Antonio, Texas 9 Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Pennsylvania- New Jersey Area 8 Fresno, California 8 Chattanooga, Tennessee Cleveland, Ohio Newark, New Jersey Paterson-Clifton-Passaic, New Jersey Spokane, Washington Norfolk-Portsmouth, Virginia 6 Rochester, New York 6 Akron, Ohio 6 Utica-Rome, New York 5 Wilmington, Delaware 5 Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky 4 Evansville, Indiana-Kentucky 4 Montgomery, Alabama 4 San Jose, California 4 Tacoma, Washington 4 Toledo, Ohio 4 Denver, Colorado 3 New Bedford, Massachusetts 3 Rockford, Illinois 3 St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois 3 Scranton, Pennsylvania 3 Minneapolis, Minnesota 3 Yonkers, New York 3 TABLE XXXII (continued) Name of Central City Increase Corpus Christi, Texas 2 Dayton, Ohio 2 Des Koines, Iowa 2 Honolulu, Hawaii 2 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 2 Sacramento, California 2 Kansas City, Missouri 2 Chicago, Illinois 1 Flint, Michigan 1 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 1 Springfield~Holyoke, Massachusetts Waterbury, Connecticut Albany-Schenectady-Troy, New York Niagara Falls, New York Gary-East Chicago, Indiana Kansas City, Kansas Pasadena, California Total 210 574 TABLE XXXIII RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS AS TO DECREASE IN NUMBER OF RETAIL GASOLINE SERVICE STATIONS (SIC GROUP 554) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City Decrease Milwaukee, Wisconsin 14 Phoenix, Arizona 12 Bridgeport, Connecticut 11 Indianapolis, Indiana 10 Louisville, Kentucky-Indiana 10 Austin, Texas 9 San Francisco, California 9 Worcester Massachusetts 7 Atlanta, Georgia 6 Birmingham, Alabama 6 Shreveport, Louisiana 6 Syracuse, New York 6 Buffalo, New York 6 Mobile, Alabama 5 Tulsa, Oklahoma 5 St. Paul, Minnesota 5 Los Angeles , California 5 Columbus , Ohio 4 Erie, Pennsylvania 4 Nashville, Tennessee 4 Omaha, Nebraska-Iowa 4 Providence, Rhode Island 4 South Bend, Indiana 4 Tampa-St. Petersburg, Florida 4 Oakland, California 4 Berkeley, California 4 Canton, Ohio 3 El Paso, Texas 3 Fort Wayne, Indiana 3 Knoxville, Tennessee 3 Little Rock, Arkansas 3 Richmond, Virginia 3 575 TABLE XXXIII (continued) Name of Central City Decrease Salt Lake City, Utah 3 San Diego, California 3 Wichita, Kansas 3 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 2 Hartford, Connecticut 2 Houston, Texas 2 New Orleans, Louisiana 2 Peoria, Illinois 2 Portland, Oregon-Washington 2 Washington, D.C., Maryland-Virginia 2 Baltimore, Maryland Charlotte, North Carolina Dallas, Texas Detroit, Michigan Fort Worth, Texas Grand Rapids, Michigan Jacksonville, Florida Savannah, Georgia Seattle, Washington Trenton, New Jersey Youngstown, Ohio Hammond, Indiana Camden, Pennsylvania Long Beach, California Total 223 576 TABLE XXXIV RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS AS TO INCREASE IN NUMBER OF APPAREL AND ACCESSORIES STORES (SIC MAJOR GROUP 56) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City Increase Miami, Florida Total 2 577 TABLE XXXV BANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS AS TO DECREASE IN NUMBER OF APPAREL AND ACCESSORIES STORES (SIC MAJOR GROUP 56) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City Decrease Manhattan, New York 181 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 115 Chicago, Illinois 97 San Francisco, California 84 Houston, Texas 65 Boston, Massachusetts 61 Baltimore, Maryland 56 Detroit, Michigan 54 Providence, Rhode Island 51 Portland, Oregon-Washington 49 Columbus, Ohio 48 Kansas City, Missouri 46 Birmingham, Alabama 44 Los Angeles, California 43 Memphis, Tennessee 42 Newark, New Jersey 41 Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky 39 Dallas, Texas 39 San Antonio, Texas 38 Syracuse, New York 37 Dayton, Ohio 36 San Diego, California 36 Seattle, Washington 36 Trenton, New Jersey 35 Cleveland, Ohio 34 Norfolk-Portsmouth, Virginia 33 Oakland, California 33 Brooklyn, New York 33 Jacksonville, Florida 30 Wichita, Kansas 30 St. Paul, Minnesota 30 578 TABLE XXXV (continued) Name of Central City Decrease St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois 29 Waterbury, Connecticut 29 Worcester, Massachusetts 29 Louisville, Kentucky-Indiana 28 Buffalo, New York 28 Berkeley, California 28 Yonkers, New York 28 Denver, Colorado 27 Fresno, California 27 Fort Wayne, Indiana 26 Salt Lake City, Utah 26 South Bend, Indiana 26 Toledo, Ohio 26 Washington, D.C., Maryland-Virginia 26 Hartford, Connecticut 25 Montgomery, Alabama 25 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 25 Grand Rapids, Michigan 24 Utica-Rome, New York 24 Austin, Texas 23 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, New York 22 Akron, Ohio 22 Fort Worth, Texas 22 New Haven, Connecticut 22 Reading, Pennsylvania 22 Spokane, Washington 22 Springfield-Holyoke, Massachusetts 22 Camden, Pennsylvania 22 Chattanooga, Tennessee 20 Little Rock, Arkansas 20 Rockford, Illinois 20 Flint, Michigan 19 Phoenix, Arizona 18 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 17 Pasadena, California 17 Tulsa, Oklahoma 16 579 TABLE XXXV (continued) Name of Central City Decrease Bridgeport, Connecticut 15 Peoria, Illinois 15 Kansas City, Kansas 15 Glendale, California 15 Des Moines, Iowa 14 Nashville, Tennessee 14 Hammond, Indiana 14 Minneapolis, Minnesota 14 Erie, Pennsylvania 13 Knoxville, Tennessee 13 Mobile, Alabama 13 Scranton, Pennsylvania 13 Indianapolis, Indiana 12 San Jose, California 12 Omaha, Nebraska-Iowa 11 Paterson-Clifton-Passaic, New Jersey 11 New Bedford, Massachusetts 10 Sacramento, California 10 Gary-East Chicago, Indiana 10 Corpus Christ!, Texas 9 Honolulu, Hawaii 9 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 8 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 8 Shreveport, Louisiana 8 Tampa-St. Petersburg, Florida 8 Wilmington, Delaware Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Pennsylvania- 8 New Jersey Area 7 Richmond, Virginia 7 Savannah, Georgia 6 Charlotte, North Carolina 5 Niagara Falls, New York 5 Knoxville, Tennessee 4 Youngstown, Ohio 4 Canton, Ohio 1 El Paso, Texas 1 Total 2,859 580 TABLE XXXVI RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS AS TO INCREASE IN NUMBER OF FURNITURE, HOME FURNISHINGS, AND EQUIPMENT RETAIL STORES (SIC MAJOR GROUP 57) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City Increase New Haven, Connecticut 18 Richmond, Virginia 14 Birmingham, Alabama 13 Shreveport, Louisiana * 13 Camden, Pennsylvania 12 Dayton, Ohio 9 Yonkers, New York 9 Utica-Rome, New York 7 Providence, Rhode Island 6 SpringfieId-Holyoke, Massachusetts 6 St. Paul, Minnesota 6 Salt Lake City, Utah 5 Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Pennsylvania- New Jersey Area 4 Canton, Ohio 4 Washington, D.C., Maryland-Virginia 4 Wilmington, Delaware 4 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, New York 4 Buffalo, New York 4 Indianapolis, Indiana 3 Scranton, Pennsylvania 3 Grand Rapids, Michigan 2 Mobile, Alabama 2 Montgomery, Alabama 2 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 2 Syracuse, New York 2 Waterbury, Connecticut 2 Dallas, Texas 1 Fall River, Massachusetts-Rhode Island 1 Jacksonville, Florida 1 Savannah, Georgia 1 South Bend, Indiana 1 Trenton, New Jersey 1 Total 166 581 TABLE XXXVII RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS AS TO DECREASE IN NUMBER OF FURNITURE, HOME FURNISHINGS, AND EQUIPMENT RETAIL STORES (SIC MAJOR GROUP 57) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City Decrease Manhattan, New York 100 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 60 Chicago, Illinois 41 Houston, Texas 28 Boston, Massachusetts 25 Worcester, Massachusetts 25 Brooklyn, New York 25 New Orleans, Louisiana 23 Oakland, California 21 Rochester, New York 19 Baltimore, Maryland 18 Cleveland, Ohio 17 Detroit, Michigan 17 Atlanta, Georgia 16 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 16 Corpus Christi, Texas 15 Evansville, Indiana-Kentucky 15 Denver, Colorado 13 Hartford, Connecticut 12 El Paso, Texas 11 Louisville, Kentucky-Indiana 11 Sacramento, California 11 Seattle, Washington 11 Kansas City, Missouri 11 Knoxville, Tennessee 10 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 10 Long Beach, California 10 Bridgeport, Connecticut 9 Portland, Oregon-Washington 9 San Diego, California 9 Glendale, California 9 Fresno, California 8 Memphis, Tennessee 7 582 TABLE XXXVII (continued) Name o f C e n tra l C ity D ecrease Niagara Falls , New York 7 Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky 6 Fort Wayne , Indiana 6 Little Rock, Arkansas 6 Paterson-Clifton-Passaic, New Jersey 6 St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois 6 Spokane, Washington 6 Tacoma, Washington 6 Tampa-St. Petersburg, Florida 6 Toledo, Ohio 6 Wichita, Kansas 6 San Francisco, California 6 Los Angeles, California 6 Honolulu, Hawaii 5 Norfolk-Portsmouth, Virginia 5 Reading, Pennsylvania 5 Rockford, Illinois 5 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 4 Newark, New Jersey 4 Gary-East Chicago, Indiana 4 Chattanooga, Tennessee 3 Corpus Christi, Texas 3 El Paso , Texas 3 Phoenix, Arizona 3 San Antonio, Texas 3 Hammond, Indiana 3 Kansas City, Kansas 3 Minneapolis, Minnesota 3 Des Moines , Iowa 2 Fort Worth, Texas 2 Miami, Florida 2 New Bedford, Massachusetts 2 Youngstown, Ohio 2 Austin, Texas 1 Flint, Michigan 1 TABLE XXXVII (continued) Name of Central City Decrease Omaha, Nebraska-Iowa 1 San Jose, California 1 Tulsa, Oklahoma 1 Pasadena, California 1 Total 793 584 TABLE XXXVIII RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS AS TO INCREASE IN NUMBER OF EATING AND DRINKING PLACES (SIC MAJOR GROUP 58) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City Increase Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 53 Akron, Ohio 26 Buffalo, New York 25 Washington, D.C., Maryland, Virginia 24 New Haven, Connecticut 23 Flint, Michigan 22 Rochester, New York 22 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, New York 22 Reading, Pennsylvania 17 Gary-Hammond-East Chicago, Indiana 16 Manhattan, New York 16 Richmond, Virginia 15 San Antonio, Texas 14 Paterson-Clifton-Passaic, New Jersey 13 St. Paul, Minnesota 13 Tacoma, Washington 12 San Jose, California 11 Pasadena, California 11 Newark, New Jersey 10 Fresno, California 9 Louisville, Kentucky-Indiana 9 Brooklyn, New York 9 Wilmington, Delaware Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Pennsylvania- 8 New Jersey Area 7 Montgomery, Alabama 7 Scranton, Pennsylvania 7 Birmingham, Alabama 6 Grand Rapids , Michigan 6 Salt Lake City, Utah 6 Shreveport, Louisiana 6 585 TABLE XXXVIII (continued) Name of Central City Increase Springfield-Holyoke, Massachusetts 6 Kansas City, Missouri 5 Chattanooga, Tennessee 4 Rockford, Illinois 4 Trenton, New Jersey 4 Boston, Massachusetts 3 Mobile, Alabama 3 Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota 3 Yonkers , New York 3 Glendale, California 2 Columbus, Ohio 1 Dallas, Texas 1 El Paso, Texas 1 Total 485 586 TABLE XXXIX RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS AS TO DECREASE IN NUMBER OF EATING AND DRINKING PLACES (SIC MAJOR GROUP 58) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City Decrease Los Angeles , California 53 Sacramento, California 45 Chicago, Illinois 41 Kansas City, Missouri 41 Detroit, Michigan 39 New Orleans, Louisiana 39 Fort Worth, Texas 38 Houston, Texas 36 Portland, Oregon-Washington 36 Indianapolis, Indiana 33 Atlanta, Georgia 28 San Francisco, California 28 Bridgeport, Connecticut 27 St. Louis, Missouri-IIlinois 24 Knoxville, Tennessee 22 Spokane, Washington 22 Wichita, Kansas 21 Des Moines, Iowa 20 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 19 Charlotte, North Carolina 18 Miami, Florida 18 Cleveland, Ohio 17 Honolulu, Hawaii 17 Worcester, Massachusetts 16 Youngstown, Ohio 16 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 15 Peoria, Illinois 15 Nashville, Tennessee 13 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 13 Omaha, Nebraska-Iowa 13 Little Rock, Arkansas 12 TABLE XXXIX (continued) Name of Central City Decrease ; Oakland, California 12 Austin, Texas 11 Erie, Pennsylvania 11 San Diego, California 11 Seattle, Washington 11 Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky 10 Jacksonville, Florida 10 Memphis, Tennessee 10 Long Beach, California 10 Baltimore, Maryland 9 Phoenix, Arizona 9 Denver, Colorado 8 Providence, Rhode Island 8 Tampa-St. Petersburg, Florida 8 Camden, New Jersey 8 Norfolk-Portsmouth, Virginia 7 Corpus Christi, Texas 6 Evansville, Indiana-Kentucky 6 Fort Wayne, Indiana 6 New Bedford, Massachusetts 6 Hartford, Connecticut 5 Tulsa, Oklahoma 5 Gary-Hammond-East Chicago, Indiana 5 Savannah, Georgia 4 Niagara Falls, New York 4 Berkeley, California 4 South Bend, Indiana 3 Syracuse, New York 3 Fall River , Massachusetts-Rhode Island 2 Dayton, Ohio 1 Toledo, Ohio 1 Total 1,009 588 TABLE XXXX RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS AS TO INCREASE IN NUMBER OF DRUG AND PROPRIETARY STORES (SIC GROUP 591) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City Increase Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 5 Miami, Florida 4 Louisville, Kentucky-Indiana 3 Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota 3 Detroit, Michigan 2 El Paso, Texas 2 New Haven, Connecticut 2 Tampa-St. Petersburg, Florida 2 Wilmington, Delaware 2 Glendale, California 2 Baton Rouge, Louisiana Chattanooga, Tennessee Memphis, Tennessee Reading, Pennsylvania Rochester, New York St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois Youngstown, Ohio Buffalo, New York Camden, New Jersey Total 36 589 TABLE XXXXI RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS AS TO DECREASE IN NUMBER OF DRUG AND PROPRIETARY STORES (SIC GROUP 591) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City Decrease Manhattan, New York 17 Chicago, Illinois 12 New Orleans, Louisiana 10 Honolulu, Hawaii 9 Norfolk-Portsmouth, Virginia 9 Los Angeles, California 9 Austin, Texas 8 Indianapolis, Indiana 8 Oakland, California 8 Bridgeport, Connecticut 7 Cleveland, Ohio 7 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 7 Newark, New Jersey 7 Sacramento, California Tulsa, Oklahoma 7 Washington, D*C., Maryland-Virginia 7 Boston, Massachusetts 6 Dallas, Texas 6 Little Rock, Arkansas 6 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 6 Phoenix, Arizona 6 Long Beach, California 6 Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky 5 Des Moines, Iowa 5 Montgomery, Alabama 5 San Francisco, California 5 Knoxville, Tennessee 4 Seattle, Washington 4 Syracuse, New York 4 Toledo, Ohio 4 Worcester, Massachusetts 4 Kansas City, Missouri 4 590 TABLE XXXXI (continued) Name of Central City Decrease Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Brooklyn, New York Atlanta, Georgia Charlotte, North Carolina Columbus , Ohio Corpus Christi, Texas Grand Rapids, Michigan Peoria, Illinois Trenton, New Jersey St. Paul, Minnesota Canton, Ohio Fort Worth, Texas Hartford, Connecticut Houston, Texas Nashville, Tennessee Omaha, Nebraska-Iowa Providence, Rhode Island San Antonio, Texas San Diego, California San Jose, California Scranton, Pennsylvania Shreveport, Louisiana Spokane, Washington Tacoma, Washington Waterbury, Connecticut Gary-Hammond-East Chicago, Indiana Kansas City, Kansas Albany-Schenectady-Troy, New York Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Pennsylvania- New Jersey Area Baltimore, Maryland Birmingham, Alabama Denver, Colorado Erie, Pennsylvania Flint, Michigan Jacksonville, Florida TABLE XXXXI (continued) Name of Central City Decrease New Bedford, Massachusetts Paterson-Clifton-Pa8saic, New Jersey Portland, Oregon-Washington Richmond, Virginia South Bend, Indiana Yonkers, New York Total 299 592 TABLE XXXXII RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS AS TO INCREASE IN NUMBER OF OTHER RETAIL STORES (SIC MAJOR GROUP 59, EXCEPT 591) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City Increase Manhattan, New York 170 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 46 St. Louis, Missouri-11linois 23 Waterbury, Connecticut 22 San Antonio, Texas 18 St. Paul, Minnesota 18 Scranton, Pennsylvania 17 South Bend, Indiana 16 Louisville, Kentucky-Indiana 13 Sacramento, California 13 Paterson-Clifton-Passaic, New Jersey 12 Long Beach, California 12 Baltimore, Maryland 11 Grand Rapids, Michigan 11 Pasadena, California 11 Erie, Pennsylvania 10 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 9 Reading, Pennsylvania 9 Niagara Falls, New York 8 Honolulu, Hawaii 7 Trenton, New Jersey 7 Youngstown, Ohio 7 Cleveland, Ohio 6 Phoenix, Arizona 6 Kansas City, Kansas 6 Montgomery, Alabama 5 Charlotte, North Carolina 4 Jacksonville, Florida 4 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 4 Tampa-St. Petersburg, Florida 4 Kansas City, Missouri 4 593 TABLE XXXXII (continued) Name of Central City Increase Canton, Ohio 3 Evansville, Indiana-Kentucky 3 San Jose, California 3 Columbus, Ohio 2 New Haven, Connecticut 2 Peoria, Illinois 2 Syracuse, New York 2 Hammond, Indiana 2 Berkeley, California 2 Glendale, California 2 Bridgeport, Connecticut 1 Fort Worth, Texas 1 Total 538 i 594 TABLE XXXXIII RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS AS TO DECREASE IN NUMBER OF OTHER RETAIL STORES (SIC MAJOR GROUP 59, EXCEPT 591) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City Decrease Milwaukee, Wisconsin 51 Boston, Massachusetts 48 Portland, Oregon-Washington 48 Detroit, Michigan 44 Denver, Colorado 42 Chicago, Illinois 39 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 39 Providence, Rhode Island 30 El Paso, Texas 24 Fresno, California 23 Nashville, Tennessee 23 Tulsa, Oklahoma 23 Seattle, Washington 22 San Francisco, California 22 Little Rock, Arkansas 20 Shreveport, Louisiana 20 Memphis, Tennessee 19 Des Moines , Iowa 16 Corpus Christi, Texas 15 Washington, D.C. , Maryland-Virginia 15 Akron, Ohio 14 Fall River, Massachusetts-Rhode Island 14 Hartford, Connecticut 13 Spokane, Washington 13 SpringfieId-Holyoke, Massachusetts 13 Worcester, Massachusetts 13 Atlanta, Georgia 12 Newark, New Jersey 11 Tacoma, Washington 11 Toledo, Ohio 11 Dallas, Texas 10 595 TABLE XXXXIII (continued) ■ ■ . , -i,-g— ; . .......... ■ ----- ----- ■ m ........ — .j Name of Central City Decrease ; Miami, Florida 10 Brooklyn, New York 10 Austin, Texas 9 Omaha, Nebraska-Iowa 9 Utica-Rome, New York 9 Savannah, Georgia 8 Buffalo, New York 8 Oakland, California 8 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, New York 7 Knoxville, Tennessee 7 New Bedford, Massachusetts 6 San Diego, California 6 Gary-Hammond-East Chicago, Indiana Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Pennsylvania- 6 New Jersey Area 5 Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky 5 Fort Wayne, Indiana 5 Houston, Texas 5 Mobile, Alabama 5 Richmond, Virginia 5 Wilmington, Delaware 5 Birmingham, Alabama 4 Rochester, New York 4 Rockford, Illinois 4 Salt Lake City, Utah 4 Yonkers, New York 4 Dayton, Ohio 3 Flint, Michigan 3 Camden, New Jersey 3 Indianapolis, Indiana 2 Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota 2 Chattanooga, Tennessee 1 New Orleans, Louisiana 1 Los Angeles, California 1 Total 882 596 TABLE XXXXIV RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS BY ABSOLUTE INCREASE IN TOTAL DOLLAR RETAIL SALES OF LUMBER, BUILDING MATERIALS, HARDWARE, AND FARM EQUIPMENT DEALERS (SIC MAJOR GROUP 52) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City Increase (000) Oakland, California $ 3,349 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 2,503 Newark, New Jersey 1,980 Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Pennsylvania- New Jersey Area 1,726 Dayton, Ohio 1,541 Columbus , Ohio 1,229 San Jose, California 1,150 San Francisco, California 1,014 Nashville, Tennessee 797 San Antonio, Texas 790 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 702 Fort Worth, Texas 695 Spokane, Washington 605 Buffalo, New York 582 Manhattan, New York 503 New Haven, Connecticut 489 Rochester, New York 441 Gary-East Chicago, Indiana 430 Minneapolis, Minnesota 421 Bridgeport, Connecticut 347 Wilmington, Delaware 332 Fort Wayne, Indiana 307 Savannah, Georgia 307 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, New York 203 Indianapolis, Indiana 152 Paterson-Clifton-Passaic, New Jersey 133 597 TABLE XXXXIV (continued) Name of Central City Increase (000) Montgomery, Alabama $ 119 Fresno, California 103 St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois 98 Los Angeles, California 86 Hartford, Connecticut 47 Shreveport, Louisiana 20 Canton, Ohio 5 Total $ 23,206 i i i 598 TABLE XXXXV RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS BY ABSOLUTE DECREASE IN TOTAL DOLLAR RETAIL SALES OF LUMBER, BUILDING MATERIALS, HARDWARE, AND FARM EQUIPMENT DEALERS (SIC MAJOR GROUP 52) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City (000) Wichita, Kansas $ 4,102 Austin, Texas 1,978 Houston, Texas 1,937 Waterbury, Connecticut 1,775 Sacramento, California 1,651 Hammond, Indiana 1,642 Kansas City, Kansas 1,587 New Orleans, Louisiana 1,568 Louisville, Kentucky-Indiana 1,567 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1,374 Erie, Pennsylvania 1,362 Des Moines , Iowa 1,355 Camden, Pennsylvania 1,307 Utica-Rome, New York 1,273 Rockford, Illinois 1,106 Pasadena, California 1,068 Toledo, Ohio 987 Yonkers, New York 892 Cleveland, Ohio 889 Worcester, Massachusetts 886 Kansas City, Missouri 879 Detroit, Michigan 870 Boston, Massachusetts 811 El Paso, Texas 776 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 752 Brooklyn, New York 721 Richmond, Virginia 666 Chattanooga, Tennessee 657 599 TABLE XXXXV (continued) Decrease Name of Central City (000) Flint, Michigan $ 605 Salt Lake City, Utah 594 Tacoma, Washington 590 Glendale, California 584 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, New York 457 Peoria, Illinois 440 Baltimore, Maryland 439 San Diego, California 439 Reading, Pennsylvania 420 Birmingham, Alabama 411 Knoxville, Tennessee 390 Grand Rapids, Michigan 387 Syracuse, New York 366 Charlotte, North Carolina 350 Fall River, Massachusetts-Rhode Island 347 Tulsa, Oklahoma 316 New Bedford, Massachusetts 296 Trenton, New Jersey 290 Jacksonville, Florida 288 Berkeley, California 268 Little Rock, Arkansas 253 Mobile, Alabama 253 Atlanta, Georgia 251 Youngstown, Ohio 231 Washington, D.C., Maryland-Virginia 192 South Bend, Indiana 188 Denver, Colorado 173 Portland, Oregon-Washington 162 Seattle, Washington 82 Scranton, Pennsylvania 79 Omaha, Nebraska-Iowa 18 Chicago, Illinois 17 Evansville, Indiana-Kentucky 17 Norfolk-Portsmouth, Virginia 9 Total $ 46,640 600 TABLE XXXXVI RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS BY ABSOLUTE INCREASE IN TOTAL DOLLAR RETAIL SALES OF GENERAL MERCHANDISE (SIC MAJOR GROUP 53) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Increase Name of Central City (000) ' i Manhattan, New York $ 73 308 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 45 964 Newark, New Jersey 26 663 Atlanta, Georgia 19 277 Nashville, Tennessee 17 137 San Francisco, California 15 447 Birmingham, Alabama 12 428 Seattle, Washington 11 735 Dayton, Ohio 11 160 Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Pennsylvania- New Jersey Area 10 317 Columbus, Ohio 10 265 Hartford, Connecticut 9 555 Denver, Colorado 8 098 Salt Lake City, Utah 7 238 Camden, Pennsylvania 7 183 Fort Worth, Texas 6 630 San Antonio, Texas 6 602 Knoxville, Tennessee 6 513 St. Paul, Minnesota 6 053 Charlotte, North Carolina 5 942 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 5 595 Spokane, Washington 5 538 Pasadena, California 5 436 Mobile, Alabama 5 423 El Paso, Texas 5 311 Akron, Ohio 4 903 Trenton, New Jersey 4 676 Scranton, Pennsylvania 4 112 Utica-Rome, New York 3 916 # TABLE XXXXVI (continued) Name of Central City Little Rock, Arkansas $ 3,819 Glendale, California 3,593 Jacksonville, Florida 3,494 Minneapolis, Minnesota 3,244 Tacoma, Washington 3,223 Omaha, Nebraska-Iowa 3,126 Oakland, California 3,116 New Haven, Connecticut 3,083 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 3,057 Hammond, Indiana 2,961 Bridgeport, Connecticut 2,853 Syracuse, New York 2,722 Yonkers, New York 2,701 San Diego, California 2,662 Rockford, Illinois 2,529 Kansas City, Kansas 2,317 Peoria, Illinois 2,198 Phoenix, Arizona 2,174 Des Moines, Iowa 2,169 South Bend, Indiana 2,067 Shreveport, Louisiana 1,834 Youngstown, Ohio 1,820 Fresno, California 1,762 Houston, Texas 1,731 Austin, Texas 1,647 Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky 1,616 Richmond, Virginia 1,609 Indianapolis, Indiana 1,606 Canton, Ohio 1,604 Springfield-Holyoke, Massachusetts 1,575 Worcester, Massachusetts 1,441 Montgomery, Alabama 1,269 Chattanooga, Tennessee 1,257 Memphis, Tennessee 986 Wichita, Kansas 917 602 TABLE XXXXVI (continued) Name of Central City Long Beach, California 805 Niagara Falls, New York 711 Sacramento, California 472 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, New York 346 Corpus Christi, Texas 331 Wilmington, Delaware 268 Waterbury, Connecticut 255 Berkeley, California 241 New Orleans, Louisiana 192 New Bedford, Massachusetts 181 Norfolk-Portsmouth, Virginia 124 Fall River, Massachusetts-Rhode Island 77 Evansville, Indiana-Kentucky 48 Total $ 446,258 603 TABLE XXXXVII RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS BY ABSOLUTE DECREASE IN TOTAL DOLLAR RETAIL SALES OF GENERAL MERCHANDISE (SIC MAJOR GROUP 53) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City Detroit, Michigan $ 36,671 Los Angeles, California 18,244 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 13,715 St. Louis, MLssouri-Illinois 12,699 Baltimore, Maryland 12,526 Cleveland, Ohio 12,118 Tulsa, Oklahoma 11,453 Boston, Massachusetts 10 ,246 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 9,576 Chicago, Illinois 9,517 Kansas City, Missouri 7,825 San Jose, California 7,306 Buffalo, New York 7,152 Providence, Rhode Island 6,409 Tampa-St. Petersburg, Florida 5,993 Flint, Michigan 4,958 Toledo, Ohio 4,419 Grand Rapids, Michigan 3,129 Portland, Oregon-Washington 2,883 Washington, D.C., Maryland-Virginia 2,393 Honolulu, Hawaii 1,931 Savannah, Georgia 1,779 Miami, Florida 1,759 Fort Wayne, Indiana 1,497 Dallas, Texas 977 Gary-East Chicago, Indiana 877 Erie, Pennsylvania 609 Louisville, Kentucky-Indiana 426 Rochester, New York 122 Paterson-Clifton-Passaic, New Jersey 41 Total $ 209,250 604 TABLE XXXXVIII RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS BY ABSOLUTE INCREASE IN TOTAL DOLLAR RETAIL SALES OF DEPARTMENT STORES (SIC GROUP 531) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Increase Name of Central City (000) Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania $ 44,732 Seattle, Washington 12,785 San Francisco, California 11,427 Denver, Colorado 8,509 Fort Worth, Texas 6,990 Mobile, Alabama 5,904 Scranton, Pennsylvania 5,711 Jacksonville, Florida 5,685 Spokane, Washington 5,034 Norfolk-Portsmouth, Virginia 4,304 Utica-Rome, New York 3,968 Omaha, Nebraska-Iowa 3,772 Indianapolis, Indiana 3,657 South Bend, Indiana 2,860 Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky 2,466 Des Moines, Iowa 1,967 Memphis, Tennessee 1,947 New Orleans, Louisiana 1,639 Shreveport, Louisiana 965 Portland, Oregon-Washington 699 Waterbury, Connecticut 561 Canton, Ohio 351 Total $ 135,933 605 TABLE XXXXIX RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS BY ABSOLUTE DECREASE IN TOTAL DOLLAR RETAIL SALES OF DEPARTMENT STORES (SIC GROUP 531) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City Decrease (000) Los Angeles, California $ 18,381 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 16,230 Baltimore, Maryland 12,405 Cleveland, Ohio 11,621 St. Louis, Mlssourl-Illlnols 10,992 Kansas City, Missouri 10,681 Boston, Massachusetts 9,625 Chicago, Illinois 8,382 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 8,373 Buffalo, New York 6,591 Flint, Michigan 4,491 Toledo, Ohio 2,655 Washington, D.C., Maryland-Virginia 498 Dallas, Texas 248 Total $ 121,173 606 TABLE L RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS BY ABSOLUTE INCREASE IN TOTAL DOLLAR RETAIL SALES OF LIMITED PRICE VARIETY STORES (SIC GROUP 533) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Increase Name of Central City fnofi'l Manhattan, New York $ 5,485 San Francisco, California 1,814 El Paso, Texas 1,544 St. Paul, Minnesota 1,542 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1,541 Atlanta, Georgia 1,485 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1,334 Yonkers, New York 1,061 Sacramento, California 603 Shreveport, Louisiana 547 Birmingham, Alabama 475 Kansas City, Kansas 433 Portland, Oregon-Washington 361 Rochester, New York 357 Des Moines, Iowa 312 Spokane, Washington 298 Buffalo, New York 203 Peoria, Illinois 181 Savannah, Georgia 156 Nashville, Tennessee 48 Total $ 19,780 TABLE LI RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS BY ABSOLUTE DECREASE IN TOTAL DOLLAR RETAIL SALES OF LIMITED PRICE VARIETY STORES (SIC GROUP 533) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City Decrease (000) Houston, Texas $ 1,884 Jacksonville, Florida 1,731 Indianapolis, Indiana 1,502 Youngstown, Ohio 1,283 Memphis, Tennessee 1,249 Columbus, Ohio 1,243 Wichita, Kansas 1,216 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 1,212 San Antonio, Texas 1,179 St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois 1,147 Miami, Florida 1,050 Norfolk-Portsmouth, Virginia 1,013 Providence, Rhode Island 998 Dayton, Ohio 977 Fresno, California 851 Syracuse, New York 836 Dallas, Texas 798 Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky 780 Salt Lake City, Utah 740 Evansville, Indlana-Kentucky 715 Richmond, Virginia 705 Tampa-St. Petersburg, Florida 689 Baltimore, Maryland 683 Charlotte, North Carolina 573 Springfield-Holyoke, Massachusetts 550 Akron, Ohio 517 Denver, Colorado 512 Mobile, Alabama 511 Bridgeport, Connecticut 489 New Haven, Connecticut 489 608 TABLE LI (continued) Decrease Name of Central City (000) Pasadena, California $ 469 Cleveland, Ohio 454 Long Beach, California 389 Corpus Christi, Texas 354 Erie, Pennsylvania 333 Reading, Pennsylvania 264 Camden, Pennsylvania 263 Boston, Massachusetts 240 Phoenix, Arizona 231 Los Angeles, California 209 Washington, D.C. , Maryland-Virginia 190 Paterson-Clifton-Passaic, New Jersey 182 New Bedford, Massachusetts 160 Gary-East Chicago, Indiana 15 7 Austin, Texas 156 Utica-Rome, New York 150 Louisville, Kentucky-Indiana 134 Wilmington, Delaware 119 Allentown-Bethlehem-Eas ton, Pennsylvania- New Jersey Area 106 New Orleans, Louisiana 59 South Bend, Indiana 57 Glendale, California 55 Knoxville, Tennessee 35 Seattle, Washington 34 Scranton, Pennsylvania 17 Total $ 32,939 609 TABLE LIT RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS BY ABSOLUTE INCREASE IN TOTAL DOLLAR RETAIL SALES OF FOOD STORES (SIC MAJOR GROUP 54) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City Increase (000) Manhattan, New York $ 17,859 Yonkers, New York 2,986 Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky 2,741 Rockford, Illinois 2,620 San Francisco, California 2,415 Hammond, Indiana 2,256 Reading, Pennsylvania 1,650 Birmingham, Alabama 1,635 Washington, D.C., Maryland-Virginia 1,502 Pasadena, California 1,487 Paterson-Clifton-Passaic, New Jersey 1,486 Buffalo, New York 1,443 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1,301 Canton, Ohio 1,162 Fall River, Massachusetts-Rhode Island 1,128 Toledo, Ohio 1,100 New Orleans, Louisiana 1,082 New Haven, Connecticut 1,021 Chicago, Illinois 1,003 Tulsa, Oklahoma 885 Youngstown, Ohio 846 Berkeley, California 833 Sacramento, California 810 Minneapolis, Minnesota 698 Newark, New Jersey 666 Fort Worth, Texas 587 St. Paul, Minnesota 551 Los Angeles, California 543 New Bedford, Massachusetts 537 Corpus Christi, Texas 528 610 TABLE LII (continued) Name of Central City (000) Kansas City, Kansas $ 523 Savannah, Georgia 398 San Diego, California 289 El Paso, Texas 149 Dallas, Texas 117 Austin, Texas 92 San Antonio, Texas 87 Salt Lake City, Utah 67 Mobile, Alabama 40 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 28 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, New York 3 Total $ 57,154 611 TABLE LII1 RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS BY ABSOLUTE DECREASE IN TOTAL DOLLAR RETAIL SALES OF FOOD STORES (SIC MAJOR GROUP 54) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City Detroit, Michigan $ 6,116 Oakland, California 4,148 Houston, Texas 2,629 Portland, Oregon-Washington 2,498 Flint, Michigan 2,392 Wichita, Kansas 2,381 Baltimore, Maryland 2,183 Worcester, Massachusetts 2,158 Dayton, Ohio 2,029 Evansville, Indiana-Kentucky 1,807 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1,802 Seattle, Washington 1,758 Rochester, New York 1,753 Hartford, Connecticut 1,709 Indianapolis, Indiana 1,691 Long Beach, California 1,637 South Bend, Indiana 1,599 Brooklyn, New York 1,592 Waterbury, Connecticut 1,383 Miami, Florida 1,285 Montgomery, Alabama 1,278 Camden, New Jersey 1,269 Tacoma, Washington 1,265 Syracuse, New York 1,243 San Jose, California 1,213 Omaha, Nebraska-Iowa 1,187 Knoxville, Tennessee 1,099 Des Moines, Iowa 1,083 Cleveland, Ohio 1,081 Louisville, Kentucky-Indiana 1,076 612 TABLE LIII (continued) Name of Central City Decrease (000) Phoenix, Arizona $ 1,000 Columbus, Ohio 981 Wilmington, Delaware 912 Trenton, New Jersey 910 Erie, Pennsylvania 887 Memphis, Tennessee 848 Charlotte, North Carolina 779 Niagara Falls, New York 748 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 724 Utica-Rome, New York 682 Little Rock, Arkansas 672 Tampa-St. Petersburg, Florida 629 Denver, Colorado 614 Spokane, Washington 601 Glendale, California 595 Nashville, Tennessee 559 St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois 555 Bridgeport, Connecticut 551 Springfield-Holyoke, Massachusetts 479 Boston, Massachusetts 474 Shreveport, Louisiana 450 Kansas City, Missouri 403 Chattanooga, Tennessee 395 Grand Rapids, Michigan 379 Fresno, California 369 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 350 Honolulu, Hawaii 343 Richmond, Virginia 323 Fort Wayne, Indiana 318 Akron, Ohio 298 Gary-Hammond-East Chicago, Indiana Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Pennsylvania- 228 New Jersey Area 211 Peoria, Illinois 174 Atlanta, Georgia 155 TABLE LIII (continued) 613 Name of Central City Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 95 Jacksonville, Florida 56 Norfolk-Portsmouth, Virginia 9 Scranton, Pennsylvania 4 Total $ 75,104 614 TABLE LIV RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS BY ABSOLUTE INCREASE IN TOTAL DOLLAR RETAIL SALES OF AUTOMOTIVE DEALERS (SIC MAJOR GROUP 55) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City Increase (000) Fresno, California $ 14,364 Columbus, Ohio 13,621 Phoenix, Arizona 13,188 Charlotte, North Carolina 8,023 New Orleans, Louisiana 5,607 Sacramento, California 4,814 Nashville, Tennessee 4,097 Glendale, California 3,543 Syracuse, New York 3,485 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 3,345 Long Beach, California 3,053 Manhattan, New York 2,882 Evansville, Indiana-Kentucky 2,573 Utica-Rome, New York 2,286 Oakland, California 2,082 Grand Rapids, Michigan 1,792 Wilmington, Delaware 1,778 Paterson-Clifton-Passaic, New Jersey 1,643 Peoria, Illinois 1,501 Little Rock, Arkansas 1,300 Atlanta, Georgia 1,258 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 965 Berkeley, California 827 Knoxville, Tennessee 776 Corpus Christi, Texas 755 New Haven, Connecticut 719 Scranton, Pennsylvania 684 Portland, Oregon-Washington 680 Seattle, Washington 497 Salt Lake City, Utah 406 TABLE LIV (continued) Name of Central City Trenton, New Jersey $ 399 El Paso, Texas 298 Providence, Rhode Island 244 Jacksonville, Florida 220 Akron, Ohio 211 Spokane, Washington 161 Louisville, Kentucky-Indiana 133 Baltimore, Maryland 126 Total $ 104,336 616 TABLE LV RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS BY ABSOLUTE DECREASE IN TOTAL DOLLAR RETAIL SALES OF AUTOMOTIVE DEALERS (SIC MAJOR GROUP 55) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City Decrease (000) Flint, Michigan $ 13,567 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 11,985 Los Angeles, California 11,681 Newark, New Jersey 11,255 Fort Worth, Texas 8,605 Cleveland, Ohio 7,192 Omaha, Nebraska-Iowa 6,704 Brooklyn, New York 6,556 South Bend, Indiana 6,408 Minneapolis, Minnesota 6,268 Washington, D.C. , Maryland-Virginia 5 ,847 Des Moines, Iowa 5,568 San Diego, California 5 ,015 Mobile, Alabama 4,532 Canton, Ohio 4,403 Fort Wayne, Indiana 4,364 Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky 4,189 Toledo, Ohio 4,139 Pasadena, California 4,002 Erie, Pennsylvania 3,382 Houston, Texas 3,251 Indianapolis, Indiana 2,972 Birmingham, Alabama 2,882 San Antonio, Texas 2,808 Youngstown, Ohio 2,652 St. Paul, Minnesota 2,593 Wichita, Kansas 2,482 Reading, Pennsylvania 2,435 Austin, Texas 2,291 Gary-East Chicago, Indiana 2,127 617 1 t TABLE LV (continued) Name of Central City Decrease (000) San Jose, California $ 1,740 Kansas City, Kansas 1,495 San Francisco, California 1,485 Tulsa, Oklahoma 1,247 Kansas City, Missouri 1,118 Montgomery, Alabama 1,088 Dayton, Ohio 964 Tampa-St. Petersburg, Florida 930 Bridgeport, Connecticut 880 Camden, Pennsylvania 602 Norfolk-Portsmouth, Virginia 571 Rockford, Illinois 546 Waterbury, Connecticut 498 Shreveport, Louisiana 451 Rochester, New York 347 Tacoma, Washington 266 Savannah, Georgia 241 Hammond, Indiana 230 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 226 Boston, Massachusetts 206 Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Pennsylvania- New Jersey Area 183 Worcester, Massachusetts 173 Fall River, Massachusetts-Rhode Island 141 Buffalo, New York 87 Springfield-Holyoke, Massachusetts 62 Total $ 177,932 618 TABLE LVI RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS BY ABSOLUTE INCREASE IN TOTAL DOLLAR RETAIL SALES OF GASOLINE SERVICE STATIONS (SIC GROUP 554) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City Increase (000) Manhattan, New York $ 3,504 Montgomery, Alabama 1,962 New Haven, Connecticut 1,784 Los Angeles, California 1,413 Glendale, California 1,289 Cleveland, Ohio 1,180 Pasadena, California 1,145 Honolulu, Hawaii 1,138 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1,011 Trenton, New Jersey 972 Salt Lake City, Utah 929 Sacramento, California 909 Des Moines, Iowa 828 Toledo, Ohio 750 Houston, Texas 731 San Francisco, California 719 Buffalo, New York 715 Fresno, California 673 Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota 655 Evansville, Indiana-Kentucky 492 Yonkers, New York 464 San Jose, California 458 Scranton, Pennsylvania 451 Newark, New Jersey 448 San Antonio, Texas 432 Little Rock, Arkansas 428 Camden, New Jerwey 400 St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois 365 Paterson-Clifton-Passaic, New Jersey 358 Wilmington, Delaware 348 i TABLE LVI (continued) Name of Central City (000) Worcester, Massachusetts $ 335 Fort Worth, Texas 315 Norfolk-Portsmouth, Virginia 311 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 306 Rochester, New York 304 Spokane, Washington 299 Dayton, Ohio 274 Peoria, Illinois 259 Erie, Pennsylvania 254 Akron, Ohio 237 Boston, Massachusetts 237 Denver, Colorado 224 Savannah, Georgia 221 Canton, Ohio 209 Tacoma, Washington 200 Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky 198 San Diego, California 198 Grand Rapids , Michigan 186 Corpus Christ!, Texas 176 Utica-Rome, New York 166 Waterbury, Connecticut 166 Rockford, Illinois 161 Wichita, Kansas 153 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 108 Youngstown, Ohio 104 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 98 Hammond, Indiana 81 Oakland, California 56 Detroit, Michigan 48 Kansas City, Kansas 46 Tulsa, Oklahoma 43 Berkeley, California 42 620 TABLE LVI (continued) Name of Central City Increase (000) Chicago, Illinois $ 23 Hartford, Connecticut 8 Fall River, Massachusetts-Rhode Island 7 Total $ 33,004 621 TABLE LVII RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS BY ABSOLUTE DECREASE IN TOTAL DOLLAR RETAIL SALES OF GASOLINE SERVICE STATIONS (SIC GROUP 554) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City (000) Miami, Florida $ 791 Phoenix, Arizona 742 Birmingham, Alabama 629 Tampa-St. Petersburg, Florida 591 South Bend, Indiana 560 Omaha, Nebraska-Iowa 535 Indianapolis, Indiana 519 New Orleans, Louisiana 492 Long Beach, California 460 Atlanta, Georgia 438 Louisville, Kentucky-Indiana 430 Columbus, Ohio 371 El Paso, Texas 369 Austin, Texas 313 St. Paul, Minnesota 306 Charlotte, North Carolina 277 Richmond, Virginia 276 Mobile, Alabama 260 Knoxville, Tennessee 246 Shreveport, Louisiana 240 Portland, Oregon-Washington 219 Memphis, Tennessee 196 Brooklyn, New York 180 Bridgeport, Connecticut 168 Providence, Rhode Island 152 Fort Wayne, Indiana 143 Gary-Hammond-East Chicago, Indiana 119 Baltimore, Maryland 114 Nashville, Tennessee 98 622 TABLE LVII (continued) M x : n * . i n-*. Decrease Name of Central City (000) Springfield-Holyoke, Massachusetts $ 74 Washington, D.C., Maryland-Virginia 58 Reading, Pennsylvania 56 Seattle, Washington 53 Syracuse, New York 46 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, New York 42 Dallas, Texas 19 Kansas City, Missouri 6 Niagara Falls, New York 4 Flint, Michigan 3 Total $ 10,595 623 TABLE LVIII BANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS BY ABSOLUTE INCREASE IN TOTAL DOLLAR RETAIL SALES OF APPAREL AND ACCESSORIES STORES (SIC MAJOR GROUP 56) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City Increase (000) Atlanta, Georgia $ 8,907 San Francisco, California 5,533 El Paso, Texas 5,082 Brooklyn, New York 4,815 Los Angeles, California 4,480 Shreveport, Louisiana 4,407 Providence, Rhode Island 2,858 Savannah, Georgia 2,569 Washington, D,C., Maryland-Virginia 2,257 Gary-East Chicago, Indiana 1,925 Worcester, Massachusetts 1,879 Austin, Texas 1,694 Honolulu, Hawaii 1,623 Fresno, California 1,526 Des Moines, Iowa 1,506 San Diego, California 1,500 New Orleans, Louisiana 1,408 Portland, Oregon-Washington 1,281 Sacramento, California 936 Corpus Christ!, Texas 878 Berkeley, California 774 Birmingham, Alabama 652 Little Rock, Arkansas 592 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 459 Charlotte, North Carolina 397 Pasadena, California 349 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 262 Hammond, Indiana 161 Kansas City, Kansas 118 Mobile, Alabama 58 Total $ 60,886 624 TABLE LIX RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS BY ABSOLUTE DECREASE IN TOTAL DOLLAR RETAIL SALES OF APPAREL AND ACCESSORIES STORES (SIC MAJOR GROUP 56) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City Decrease (000) Manhattan, New York $ 24 665 Newark, New Jersey 22 892 Detroit, Michigan 14 614 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 9 Oil Houston, Texas 7 431 Boston, Massachusetts 6 322 Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky 6 240 St. Paul, Minnesota 6 168 Dallas, Texas 5 596 Dayton, Ohio 5 518 Flint, Michigan 5 451 Chicago, Illinois 5 446 Columbus, Ohio 5 386 Louisville, Kentucky-Indiana 5 328 San Antonio, Texas 5 160 Cleveland, Ohio 5 134 Wichita, Kansas 4 918 Kansas City, Missouri 4 708 St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois 4 628 Nashville, Tennessee 4 482 Miami, Florida 4 139 Toledo, Ohio 4 104 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 4 009 Hartford, Connecticut 3 909 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, New York 3 721 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 3 267 Denver, Colorado 3 205 Long Beach, California 3 193 New Haven, Connecticut 3 092 Minneapolis, Minnesota 3 059 625 TABLE LIX (continued) Name of Central City Decrease (000) Indianapolis, Indiana $ 2,653 Memphis, Tennessee 6,642 Akron, Ohio 2,641 Seattle, Washington 2,629 Tulsa, Oklahoma 2,607 Salt Lake City, Utah 2,582 Rochester, New York 2,558 Grand Rapids, Michigan 2,525 Phoenix, Arizona 2,445 Waterbury, Connecticut 2,351 NOrfolk-Portsmouth, Virginia 2,183 Fort Worth, Texas 2,165 Chattanooga, Tennessee 2,131 Bridgeport, Connecticut 2,098 South Bend, Indiana 2,018 Buffalo, New York 2,003 Camden, Pennsylvania 1,999 Oakland, California 1,796 Erie, Pennsylvania 1,774 Syracuse, New York 1,724 San Jose, California 1,722 Yonkers, New York 1,714 Fort Wayne, Indiana 1,705 Richmond, Virginia 1,664 Jacksonville, Florida 1,524 Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Pennsylvania- New Jersey Area 1,508 Springfield-Holyoke, Massachusetts 1,458 Spokane, Washington 1,434 Youngstown, Ohio 1,255 Baltimore, Maryland 1,206 Knoxville, Tennessee 1,172 Montgomery, Alabama 1,119 Scranton, Pennsylvania 1,080 1 626 TABLE LIX (continued) Decrease Name of Central City (000) Wilmington, Delaware $ 1,072 Reading, Pennsylvania 750 Utica-Rome, New York 726 New Bedford, Massachusetts 660 Canton, Ohio 605 Paterson-Clifton-Passaic, New Jersey 602 Tampa-St. Petersburg, Florida 577 Trenton, New Jersey 560 Rockford, Illinois 498 Evansville, Indiana-Kentucky 458 Tacoma, Washington 454 Peoria, Illinois 353 Niagara Falls, New York 350 Fall River, Massachusetts-Rhode Island 156 Omaha, Nebraska-Iowa 119 Total $ 266,821 TABLE LX RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS BY ABSOLUTE INCREASE IN TOTAL DOLLAR RETAIL SALES OF FURNITURE, HOME FURNISHINGS, AND EQUIPMENT STORES (SIC MAJOR GROUP 57) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City Increase (000) St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois $ 5,376 Sacramento, California 3,428 South Bend, Indiana 2,309 Mobile, Alabama 2,195 New Haven, Connecticut 2,109 Richmond, Virginia 2,100 San Antonio, Texas 2,064 Grand Rapids, Michigan 1,997 Phoenix, Arizona 1,942 Seattle, Washington 1,939 Birmingham, Alabama 1,873 Pasadena, California 1,797 Peoria, Illinois 1,709 Salt Lake City, Utah 1,677 San Diego, California 1,544 Atlanta, Georgia 1,487 Yonkers, New York 1,352 Shreveport, Louisiana 1,271 Hammond, Indiana 1,207 Baltimore, Maryland 1,170 Louisville, Kentucky-Indiana 1,138 Indianapolis, Indiana 1,105 Newark, New Jersey 949 Canton, Ohio 921 Dayton, Ohio 890 Charlotte, North Carolina 883 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, New York 799 Nashville, Tennessee 798 Austin, Texas 791 Montgomery, Alabama 726 Chattanooga, Tennessee 620 El Paso, Texas 579 TABLE LX (continued) 628 Name o f C e n tra l C ity Fort Worth, Texas $ 579 Fall River, Massachusetts-Rhode Island 570 Gary-East Chicago, Indiana 557 Springfield-Holyoke, Massachusetts 546 Spokane, Washington 535 Wilmington, Delaware 531 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 522 Detroit, Michigan 506 Savannah, Georgia 482 Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Pennsylvania- New Jersey Area 468 Berkeley, California 464 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 460 Columbus , Ohio 450 Scranton, Pennsylvania 425 San Jose, California 310 Little Rock, Arkansas 305 Des Moines, Iowa 294 Denver, Colorado 291 Hartford, Connecticut 234 Cleveland, Ohio 229 Washington, D.C., Maryland-Virginia 209 Reading, Pennsylvania 148 Syracuse, New York 110 Omaha, Nebraska-Iowa 78 Minneapolis, Minnesota 30 Erie, Pennsylvania 10 Total $ 60,088 629 TABLE LXI BANKING OF THE CENTBAL BUSINESS DISTBICTS BY ABSOLUTE DECREASE IN TOTAL DOLLAR RETAIL SALES OF FURNITURE HOME FURNISHINGS, AND EQUIPMENT STORES (SIC MAJOR GROUP 57) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City Decrease (000) Manhattan, New York $ 13,105 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 9,145 Boston, Massachusetts 6,499 Providence, Rhode Island 5,221 Fresno, California 4,489 Brooklyn, New York 4,362 Akron, Ohio 4,328 Oakland, California 4,252 Bridgeport, Connecticut 4,119 Wichita, Kansas 3,974 Norfolk-Portsmouth, Virginia 3,702 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 2,765 Youngstown, Ohio 2,756 Evansville, Indlana-Kentucky 2,654 Kansas City, Missouri 2,591 Houston, Texas 2,435 Chicago, Illinois 2,394 Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky 2,391 Worcester, Massachusetts 2,264 Portland, Oregon-Washington 2,103 Toledo, Ohio 1,917 Flint, Michigan 1,775 Honolulu, Hawaii 1,673 Waterbury, Connecticut 1,618 Rochester, New York 1,489 New Orleans, Louisiana 1,455 Fort Wayne, Indiana 1,285 San Francisco, California 1,256 Los Angeles, California 1,133 Dallas, Texas 1,125 630 TABLE LXI (continued) Decrease Name of Central City (000) Knoxville, Tennessee $ 1,124 Rockford, Illinois 1,090 Buffalo, New York 1,077 Tampa-St. Petersburg, Florida 1,019 Trenton, New Jersey 1,015 Kansas City, Kansas 1,002 Tulsa, Oklahoma 1,001 Paterson-Clifton-Passaic, New Jersey 913 Memphis, Tennessee 812 Long Beach, California 782 St. Paul, Minnesota 661 Camden, Pennsylvania 621 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 582 Miami, Florida 451 Utica-Rome, New York 437 Jacksonville, Florida 426 New Bedford, Massachusetts 223 Tacoma, Washington 193 Glendale, California 188 Niagara Falls, New York 164 Corpus Christi, Texas 7 Total $ 114,063 631 TABLE LXII RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS BY ABSOLUTE INCREASE IN TOTAL DOLLAR RETAIL SALES OF EATING AND DRINKING PLACES (SIC MAJOR GROUP 58) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City Increase (000) Manhattan, New York $ 40,861 Chicago, Illinois 11,909 San Francisco, California 10,115 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 7,830 Cleveland, Ohio 5,369 Washington, D.C., Maryland-Virginia 3,910 Boston, Massachusetts 3,065 San Diego, California 2,639 St. Paul, Minnesota 2,600 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, New York 2,271 Brooklyn, New York 2,150 Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky 1,852 Long Beach, California 1,599 San Jose, California 1,549 Minneapolis, Minnesota 1,445 Sacramento, California 1,347 Rochester, New York 1,344 San Antonio, Texas 1,202 Hammond, Indiana 1,134 Honolulu, Hawaii 1,124 New Orleans, Louisiana 1,083 Los Angeles, California 1,045 Phoenix, Arizona 959 Pasadena, California 911 Glendale, California 795 Dallas, Texas 702 Reading, Pennsylvania 629 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 592 Oakland, California 553 Yonkers, New York 552 632 TABLE LXII (continued) Name of Central City Increasi (000) Atlanta, Georgia $ 490 Nashville, Tennessee 485 New Haven, Connecticut 471 Salt Lake City, Utah 454 El Paso, Texas 453 Evansville, Indiana-Kentucky 443 Chattanooga, Tennessee 400 Tulsa, Oklahoma 390 Knoxville, Tennessee 380 Springfield-Holyoke, Massachusetts 350 Shreveport, Louisiana 316 Utica-Rome, New York 315 Savannah, Georgia 285 Akron, Ohio 276 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 263 Columbus, Ohio 254 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 226 Berkeley, California 217 Paterson-Clifton-Passaic, New Jersey 195 Des Moines, Iowa 132 Wilmington, Delaware 127 Niagara Falls, New York 121 Little Rock, Arkansas 109 Canton, Ohio 57 St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois 34 Total $ 120,379 633 TABLE LXIII RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS BY ABSOLUTE DECREASE IN TOTAL DOLLAR RETAIL SALES OF EATING AND DRINKING PLACES (SIC MAJOR GROUP 58) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Decrease Name of Central City (000) Detroit, Michigan $ 6,679 Baltimore, Maryland 2,544 Miami, Florida 2,277 Buffalo, New York 2,250 Spokane, Washington 2,113 Kansas City, Missouri 2,023 Dayton, Ohio 1,869 Providence, Rhode Island 1,842 Omaha, Nebraska - Iowa 1,734 Denver, Colorado 1,384 Wichita, Kansas 1,352 Syracuse, New York 1,291 Trenton, New Jersey 1,290 Portland, Oregon-Washington 1,136 Corpus Christ!, Texas 1,132 Worcester, Massachusetts 1,125 Newark, New Jersey 1,030 Charlotte, North Carolina 980 South Bend, Indiana 893 Indianapolis, Indiana 877 Jacksonville, Florida 836 Houston, Texas 799 Youngstown, Ohio 795 Toledo, Ohio 738 Bridgeport, Connecticut 699 Fort Wayne, Indiana 629 Louisville, Kentucky-Indiana 578 Montgomery, Alabama 569 Waterbury, Connecticut 476 Peoria, Illinois 472 634 TABLE LXIII (continued) Name of Central City Flint, Michigan $ 462 Tampa-St. Petersburg, Florida 440 Birmingham, Alabama 418 Tacoma, Washington 383 Grand Rapids, Michigan 352 Rockford, Illinois 341 Norfolk-Portsmouth, Virginia 333 New Bedford, Massachusetts 317 Camden, Pennsylvania 316 Hartford, Connecticut 186 Memphis, Tennessee 168 Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Pennsylvania- New Jersey Area 164 Scranton, Pennsylvania 137 Mobile, Alabama 113 Fort Worth, Texas 109 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 100 Erie, Pennsylvania 86 Reading, Pennsylvania 85 Fresno, California 82 Austin, Texas 67 Fall River, Massachusetts-Rhode Island 57 Kansas City, Kansas 30 Gary-East Chicago, Indiana 23 Seattle, Washington 5 Total $ 47,186 635 TABLE LXIV RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS BY ABSOLUTE INCREASE IN TOTAL DOLLAR RETAIL SALES OF DRUG AND PROPRIETARY STORES (SIC GROUP 591) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City Increase ( 000) Manhattan, New York $ 5,922 Oakland, California 3,889 Chicago, Illinois 2,130 Kansas City, Kansas 2,012 Washington, D.C., Maryland-Virginia 1,881 Buffalo, New York 1,856 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1,661 South Bend, Indiana 1,321 Rockford, Illinois 1,193 Phoenix, Arizona 1,130 Long Beach, California 984 Wichita, Kansas 958 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, New York 941 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 936 Baltimore, Maryland 731 Tulsa, Oklahoma 662 Spokane, Washington 626 San Jose, California 610 Atlanta, Georgia 606 Omaha, Nebraska 586 Fresno, California 581 Miami, Florida 571 Tacoma, Washington 559 Newark, New Jersey 554 Seattle, Washington 553 St. Paul, Minnesota 534 Boston, Massachusetts 521 Akron, Ohio 513 Peoria, Illinois 504 636 TABLE LXIV (continued) Name of Central City Increase (000) Springfield-Holyoke, Massachusetts $ 480 Youngstown, Ohio 473 Brooklyn, New York 456 Chattanooga, Tennessee 448 Fort Worth, Texas 445 Glendale, California 430 Birmingham, Alabama 404 San Diego, California 367 Charlotte, North Carolina 365 Allentown-Bethleliem-Easton, Pennsylvania- New Jersey Area 340 Honolulu, Hawaii 336 Providence, Rhode, Island 336 Mobile, Alabama 302 Waterbury, Connecticut 289 Sacramento, California 287 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 285 Berkeley, California 282 Dallas, Texas 267 Pasadena, California 266 Shreveport, Louis iana 253 Salt Lake City, Utah 249 Camden, New Jersey 245 Austin, Texas 212 Paterson-Clifton-Passaic, New Jersey 203 St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois 200 Nashville, Tennessee 188 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 168 El Paso, Texas 154 New Haven, Connecticut 152 Gary-Hammond-East Chicago, Indiana 142 Houston, Texas 140 San Francisco, California 140 San Antonio, Texas 124 Rochester, New York 99 637 TABLE LXIV (continued) Name of Central City (000) Richmond, Virginia $ 92 Savannah, Georgia 46 Toledo, Ohio 21 New Bedford, Massachusetts 12 Denver, Colorado 11 Reading, Pennsylvania 9 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, New York 1 Total $ 45,244 638 TABLE LXV RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS BY ABSOLUTE DECREASE IN TOTAL DOLLAR RETAIL SALES OF DRUG AND PROPRIETARY STORES (SIC GROUP 591) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City Decrease (000) Detroit, Michigan $ 1,827 Kansas City, Missouri 1,717 Providence, Rhode Island 1,186 Flint, Michigan 1,173 Norfolk-Fortsmouth, Virginia 1,004 Indianapolis, Indiana 902 Memphis, Tennessee 886 Cleveland, Ohio 722 Montgomery, Alabama 686 New Orleans, Louisiana 609 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 572 Louisville, Kentucky-Indiana 565 Los Angeles, California 518 Dayton, Ohio 502 Erie, Pennsylvania 450 Des Moines, Iowa 446 Minneapolis, Minnesota 435 Syracuse, New York 423 Grand Rapids, Michigan 330 Utica-Rpme, New York 328 Knoxville, Tennessee 321 Tampa-St. Petersburg, Florida 289 Columbus , Ohio 249 Little Rock, Arkansas 246 Yonkers, New York 235 Gary, Indiana 229 Evansville, Indiana-Kentucky 206 Trenton, New Jersey 169 639 TABLE LXV (continued) Decrease Name of Central City (000) Niagara Falls, New York $ 167 Bridgeport, Connecticut 159 Jacksonville, Florida 116 Wilmington, Delaware 111 Worcester * Massachusetts 110 Fall River, Massachusetts-Rhode Island 104 Fort Wayne, Indiana 65 Canton, Ohio 48 Scranton, Pennsylvania 24 Hartford, Connecticut 2 Total $ 18,131 640 TABLE LXVI RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS BY ABSOLUTE INCREASE IN TOTAL DOLLAR RETAIL SALES OF OTHER RETAIL STORES (SIC MAJOR GROUP 59, EXCEPT 591) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City Increase (000) Manhattan, New York $ 72 401 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 18 928 San Francisco, California 12 072 Cleveland, Ohio 7 939 Boston, Massachusetts 4 488 Atlanta, Georgia 3 630 Los Angeles, California 3 459 San Jose, California 2 994 Reading, Pennsylvania 2 727 Sacramento, California 2 662 New Haven, Connecticut 2 401 Syracuse, New York 2 389 Kansas City, Missouri 2 352 Sait Lake City, Utah 2 224 El Paso, Texas 2 152 Seattle, Washington 1 995 Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky 1 990 Miami, Florida 1 741 Utica-Rome, New York 1 700 Wilmington, Delaware 1 539 Minneapolis, Minnesota 1 498 Waterbury, Connecticut 1 447 Omaha, Nebraska-Iowa 1 255 Pasadena, California 1 248 Peoria, Illinois 1 244 Bridgeport, Connecticut 1 241 Grand Rapids, Michigan 1 238 Erie, Pennsylvania 1 232 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 1 211 South Bend, Indiana 1 211 TABLE LXVI (continued) Name of Central City (000) Oklahoma City, Oklahoma $ 1,210 Fort Wayne, Indiana 1,179 Paterson-Clifton-Passaic, New Jersey 1,064 Trenton, New Jersey 1,054 Mobile, Alabama 903 Fort Worth, Texas 884 Indianapolis, Indiana 788 Chattanooga, Tennessee 747 New Bedford, Massachusetts 694 Scranton, Pennsylvania 687 Berkeley, California 545 Des Moines, Iowa 460 Kansas City, Kansas 423 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, New York 419 Houston, Texas 360 Newark, New Jersey 331 San Diego, California 315 Canton, Ohio 167 Glendale, California 165 Corpus Christ!, Texas 136 Akron, Ohio 81 Fall River, Massachusetts-Rhode Island 78 Niagara Falls, New York 69 Nashville, Tennessee 43 Total $ 177,410 642 TABLE LXVII RANKING OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS BY ABSOLUTE DECREASE IN TOTAL DOLLAR RETAIL SALES OF OTHER RETAIL STORES (SIC MAJOR GROUP 59, EXCEPT 591) 1954 THROUGH 1958 Name of Central City Decrease (000) Rochester, New York $ 4,439 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 4,033 Charlotte, North Carolina 3,664 Dayton, Ohio 3,148 Washington, D.C., Maryland-Virginia 3,003 Worcester, Massachusetts 2,994 Richmond, Virginia 2,220 Fresno, California 2,012 Evansville, Indiana-Kentucky 1,945 Knoxville, Tennessee 1,812 Austin, Texas 1,702 Oakland, California 1,686 Gary, Indiana 1,623 Baltimore, Maryland 1,546 Portland, Oregon-Washington 1,423 New Orleans, Louisiana 1,289 Tacoma, Washington 1,279 Buffalo, New York 1,241 Tulsa, Oklahoma 1,210 Hammond, Indiana 1,108 Wichita, Kansas 1,102 Toledo, Ohio 1,008 Phoenix, Arizona 960 San Antonio, Texas 864 Norfolk-Portsmouth, Virginia 821 Flint, Michigan 774 Louisville, Kentucky-Indiana 758 Birmingham, Alabama 614 Youngstown, Ohio 521 TABLE XLVII (continued) 643 Name of Central City Little Rock, Arkansas $ 486 Spokane, Washington 480 Montgomery, Alabama 431 Savannah, Georgia 318 Rockford, Illinois 311 Camden, Pennsylvania 304 Honolulu, Hawaii 189 Columbus, Ohio 178 Shreveport, Louisiana 105 Total $ 53,934

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Models And Determinants For The Economic Allocation Of Retail Space In Urban Planning

PDF

New Port Cities In Western America And Their Effect On Economic Development

PDF

An Economic Analysis Of Nurse Mobility Patterns

PDF

Employment Distribution, Income, And City Size: A Statistical Analysis

PDF

The Optimization Of Economic Resources For Economic Growth In Iran

PDF

The Inflation Process: An Economic Analysis

PDF

Effects Of Swedish Fiscal Policy And Planning On Economic Growth And Stability, 1930-1964

PDF

An Analysis Of Competition In The Title Insurance Industry

PDF

An Economic Analysis Of The Factor Market For Pharmacists

PDF

An Economic Analysis Of The Problems Of Federal Debt Management

PDF

The United States Unemployment Problem--Structural Or Lack Of Demand?

PDF

An International Comparison Of The Role Of Government In The Economic Development Of Developed And Emerging Economies, With Particular Reference To Government Corporations

PDF

Consumer Instalment Credit As A Variable In The Quantity And Velocity Of Money In California, 1950-1960

PDF

An Analysis Of The Feasibility Of The Use Of Fiscal Policy To Stimulate Economic Growth In Iran

PDF

A Solution To The Problem Of Food Shortages In Korea

PDF

Arbitration Of Technological Change

PDF

Institutional Mortgage Lending In The Los Angeles Metropolitan Area, 1953-1954 And 1957-1958

PDF

The Theory Of Investment Programming: A Suggested Econometric Model

PDF

A Case Study Of The Adaptation Of A Small National Economy'S Industry To International Competition: Austria

PDF

An Analysis Of Fiscal Policy During The Truman Administration (1945-1953)

Asset Metadata

Creator Barker, Edward Hill (author)

Core Title An Economic Analysis Of The Changes In Retail Store Sales And Location Inthe Central Business Districts Of One Hundred And Nine Central Cities In The United States, 1948-1958

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Economics

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Economics, General,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Grey, Arthur Leslie, Jr (committee chair), Anderson, William H. (committee member), Meloan, Taylor W. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-897689

Unique identifier UC11358784

Identifier usctheses-c18-897689 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6406236.pdf

Dmrecord 897689

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Barker, Edward Hill

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA