Boston wonders if they can re-support nightlife based on the results so far from the World Cup

People waited to be seated outside The Union Bar. Photo: Christian Kantosky, Boston Globe.

The Boston Globe has been writing about the impact of the World Cup on the city's nightlife.

Where the Scots cleaned out alcohol supplies ("‘We’ve never seen anything like it’: Patrons emptied bars and liquor stores in Boston this weekend"), the city extended open hours till 3 am ("Governor Healey signs bill allowing 3 a.m. last call for the World Cup, expanding public drinking through July"), outdoor public drinking zones, like Bourbon Street in New Orleans, etc.  

So the Boston Globe wonders if "Boston nightlife is in the midst of a grand social experiment. Can the good vibes last?."

As someone who worked on commercial district revitalization for 20 years in DC and wrote a lot about this issue, they missed the biggest possible point and difference, the addition of many tens of thousands of people from out of the area who were there for nightlife.

-- "Aging cities | Maintaining economic dynamism in the face of aging populations at the city and metropolitan scale" (2025)

-- "Richard's Rules for Restaurant-Based Revitalization: New business models are needed for 2025" (especially the comments where I quote from relevant articles I come across)

-- "Experience economy/nightlife: Boston, LA, Pittsburgh, London, Santa Monica" (2025)

-- "Planning programming by daypart, month, season: and Boston Winter Garden, DC's Holiday Market, etc." (2016)

Bourbon Street.

Temporarily, World Cup cities are functioning more like 24/7 nightlife districts in Las Vegas, Miami, and not quite NYC, plus Bourbon Street in New Orleans, Beale Street in Memphis?.  People go to those cities to party.  

I follow Reddit Las Vegas and people write about going there and being drunk and/or high for most of their stay.  Maybe the Scots were like that.  Not Bostonians.

Plus the super posh clubs with bottle service and all night dancing, massive pool parties in Vegas, etc.

Beale Street.

A traditional city, at least in the US, just doesn't have that kind of latent populations always going out, and willing to be shitfaced and then go to work.  Concerns like:

• Having to work two jobs
• mobility when drunk
• the impact of smartphones on entertainment choices, less ability to socialize
• the cost of going out
• consumption of experiences
• labor for the establishments and the the rise of the cost of goods sold, 
• rents and changing business models due to work from home reducing office visits
• people drinking less
• People consuming edibles instead of drinking, 
• mocktails (just as expensive to produce, lower margins, 
• etc.

Make it a lot harder to go out.

Experience economy/nightlife: Boston, LA, Pittsburgh, London, Santa Monica

I wrote about this issue recently, in "Ain't got that soul (when younger demographics leave the city): and musings about the nightlife economy" as well as some other pieces.  

This does not look very congenial.  BG photo.

This Boston Globe article,  "Downtown Boston is trying to find its post-pandemic identity. It’s fighting an uphill battle," hits a home run on the topic, that cities need to reshape their downtowns to remain relevant, that mixed use neighborhoods are more popular, that people tend to stay closer to home, especially if they don't work Downtown.  From the article

Measures of foot traffic and office vacancy haven’t fully rebounded. Hybrid work remains pretty common. Car traffic is worse. Empty storefronts persist. But more than anything, we just don’t mix like we did before.

A Northeastern University study of cellphone data found that when COVID hit, inhabitants of Greater Boston became far less likely to interact with people of different socioeconomic backgrounds. Those numbers have been recovering, but for many parts of the region, particularly in the suburbs, levels of what researchers call “social exploration” have fallen sharply.

And that’s bad news for a city whose culture and economy have, for centuries, been built on people mixing, connecting, and sharing ideas, said Northeastern University physicist Esteban Moro, who’s leading the study. Bad enough that it raises questions about what cities like Boston are for, now, and how we make them places that people connect once again.

... It’s an indicator of the diminished role that downtown plays in the daily lives of Bostonians. According to recent figures from the Downtown Boston Alliance, about 20,000 fewer people work downtown than they did five years ago, and they come in, on average, about three fewer days per month. Add it up, and the work trips into the core of the city district have fallen by almost half.

... “The fundamental thing that we’re asking is where are people?” she said. “Where is the center of gravity in the city, whether for shopping or for hanging out or for work? Where do people come together?”

Increasingly, that’s neighborhoods where people do more than work. While foot traffic downtown remains below pre-pandemic levels, according to city data, it’s nearly back citywide, and up in places such as Fenway and Longwood. What’s the difference? These “multipurpose” neighborhoods, as Moro describes them, provide chances to live, work, and play in more equal measure.

... To Crockett, even the word “downtown” feels a bit archaic, as it implies we’re all going to the same place. In this more splintered age, we aren’t. “If people are going to venture out of their home for any reason,” she said, “it’s to have a particular experience.”

And experience is a big part of how developers aim to draw people out now. Food halls, for instance, are springing up across the city, not just catering to office workers seeking lunch but also tourists, families, and after-hours crowds into the night.

... A slew of for-profit “Instagram museums” and immersive art experiences have recently taken up residence in hollowed-out storefronts. A Harry Potter exhibit has lately drawn throngs to an empty old Best Buy at the CambridgeSide mall. “Competitive socializing” is all the rage in the Seaport, where different venues offer mini-golf, ping pong, bowling, pickleball, or darts. And the recent arrival of new spaces where people can both shop and linger — be it at Beacon Hill Books & Cafe, or the batting-cage-boasting Dick’s House of Sport in Back Bay — are models for how businesses can transform an errand into an event.

Complementary articles I've come across and/or written about over the past few months are "Once LA's nightlife epicenter, the storied Sunset Strip has a murky future," from the San Francisco Chronicle, "An interesting public space development project in Downtown Pittsburgh: extends the range of after-work activities to keep office workers engaged," about a forthcoming space in Downtown Pittsburgh that has some of the characteristics of experiential interaction discussed in the BG, and the Los Angeles Times, "‘Experiential’ retail surges as landlords try to lure customers back to the mall," mostly about Santa Monica's Third Street Promenade and its need for change in the face of the decline of traditional retail--it had been anchored by at least two department stores, and about the reproduction of a 1970s study on people's use of public spaces ("People aren't "hanging out" as much outdoors during the workday in the center city").

Plus, this "The suffocation of Soho: how London's creative rogue is being sanitised," on London's SoHo (Evening Standard).  It's more about how permanent residents want to put strictures on businesses. 

 Westminster borough has put together a report, After Dark, about their desires to quiet things a bit.

So I guess I shouldn't have been as derisive of Mayor Bowser's similar effort in DC ("Know your market #2: DC commercial property incentives"), the issue wasn't so much an overfocus on big things and converting office into residential, but that many steps are necessary especially because there is a hard ceiling on how many people want to live Downtown.

====

Also see, "Getting a filling — at the mall. Why dentists and other wellness tenants are in big demand," Los Angeles Times. and "A $100M bet on experiential entertainment by Chicago restaurant vets," Crain's Chicago Business.

Along the lines of the Pittsburgh project, "A historic gas station in Glendale becomes art when an artist fills it with color," Los Angeles Daily News, a streamlined old gas station maintained as a public art space, and "Pacific Science Center and Seattle Center forge new partnership," Seattle Times, on continuing to redefine and improve programs and spaces.

Since their creation for the 1962 Seattle World’s Fair, Pacific Science Center and the adjacent Seattle Center campus have operated independently: Seattle Center as a department of the city of Seattle and PacSci as a science and education nonprofit with its own buildings.

That’s now changing. Pacific Science Center and the city announced Wednesday morning their plans to integrate the two campuses as one public space, open to all, though PacSci will retain ownership of its buildings. The organizations will also explore city funding options for courtyard renovations and expanded public access.

The deal opens the door for more city funding and involvement for PacSci’s iconic but aging buildings. It likely also speeds up funding for the removal of its north gates and kiosks as well as improvements to its southern entrance.

Big changes are coming to Pacific Science Center, which neighbors Seattle Center.

 (Greg Gilbert / The Seattle Times.

This, leaders said, should make its beloved, currently gated courtyard more accessible, ideally by the FIFA World Cup in summer 2026. It will also help with previously announced renovations of PacSci’s aging courtyard and leaking pools.

... More broadly, the partnership charts a more sustainable path forward at a time when the future of both Pacific Science Center and Seattle Center — as well as Seattle’s downtown as a whole — are in flux, and as civic leaders aim to “revitalize” downtown ahead of the World Cup.

“This is our opportunity to help the Science Center ensure the future of its incredible campus,” said Seattle Center Director Marshall Foster, and “to breathe new life into … programming, activation, things that will give people reasons to visit Seattle Center and the Science Center.”

... But, like a cream pie, the building wasn’t really designed to survive forever — it was made to house the largest science exhibit ever assembled by the federal government at the time then move on. While the facilities ended up enduring under the umbrella of a private nonprofit, they’re in dire need of renovations, Daugherty said. Much of the courtyard isn’t ADA-accessible. The terrazzo is deteriorating. The pools are leaking.

Follow up: arenas and stadiums as "performing arts centers" attractions for cities: experience versus retail

A couple weeks ago I wrote "Good quote on arenas and stadiums as "performing arts centers" attractions for cities," quoting Ron Kirk then Dallas mayor, on the decision to go forward in building a basketball arena in the late 1990s for the Dallas Mavericks.  

He was very clear about the point of the arena being developing the area around the arena, which has resulted in over $3 billion in new development over about 25 years.  That's pretty amazing.

This relates to my lesson about such facilities.  That if you want spillover benefits, you have to plan for them, what I call "transformational projects action planning."

-- "Framework of characteristics that support successful community development in association with the development of professional sports facilities, 2021

-- "Updating the best practice elements of revitalization to include elements 7 and 8 | Transformational Projects Action Planning at a large scale," 2024

2.  I also wrote recently in "Suburban stadium/arena interest a function of new, younger generations of ownership or a better real estate play?," about the desire for team owners to control more land around the stadium or arena, which they can develop for greater profit.

My problem with this is that it gives them a monopoly on earnings, rather than opening up the potential for other firms to benefit from the likely investment of public monies in such sites.

Battery District.

3.  There is a great article in the Philadelphia Inquirer, "Stadium entertainment districts — such as the one proposed in South Philly — are changing the game for fans around the country," about this phenomenon and reading it, it's great for teams--for example, the Atlanta Braves make $59 million per year in lease and other income from the Battery development next to their stadium.

It's also another lesson about planning and development.  As commercial districts shift to what I sometimes call "eater-tainment" ("Successful retail today often includes food, experiences, social elements, and isn't rote," 2016), the reality is that when going to a sports event, consumers aren't interested in shopping at retailers--unless they sell team merchandise exclusively--they want experiences.  From the article:

These mixed-use developments help provide a hedge at a moment when the dominance of American sports programming faces new competition, from such entertainment as video games and on-demand TV, and when fan behavior can be unpredictable. Last year’s World Series between the Texas Rangers and Arizona Diamondbacks was the least-watched on record. .

.. Of course, that’s not why most people go to the Battery. They go to ride the mechanical bull at PBR Atlanta, the bar brand of the Professional Bull Riders league, billed as the toughest sport on dirt.  They play in the Sandbox virtual-reality center and browse through the unique designs at Baseballism, a fan shop. 

"PBR Atlanta opens near Suntrust Park: 7 things to know about Battery Atlanta’s “cowboy bar”," Atlanta Journal-Constitution

“It’s more than just a baseball day experience,” said Winston Parrish, a Braves fan who with his father, Dwight, came from Asheville, N.C., to the Phillies’ opening day game. “You’re able to get a hotel right there in the Battery, and walk from your hotel to the game.” 

When Dwight Parrish attended baseball games as a boy in the 1960s and 1970s, the focus was on seeing star players and snacking on Cracker Jack. “Today, it’s a different thing,” he said. “It’s all about the kids. It’s all about the family experience. It’s awesome.”

Note that support of other businesses making money of patrons is a primary justification for public investment.

4. Retail consumerism now is more purposive, special directed trips.  It's not the kind of "mixed primary use" attraction that Jane Jacobs wrote about where people will shop, eat, then go see a movie.  Plus the effect of online commerce, which significantly reduces in person shopping.

In short, if you are a businessperson wanting to open a business by a stadium or arena or a development like the Navy Yard or Wharf districts in DC, focus on eating, drinking (tough because a lot of the time events are scheduled at times that discourage patrons from eating outside of the facility) and experience.

======

P.S.  Looks like the Phoenix Coyotes are coming to Salt Lake ("Did Ryan Smith just confirm the NHL is coming to Utah?," Deseret News).  

I've written about why does the NHL continue to support the Coyotes when they are unsuccessful ("Revisiting "Framework of characteristics that support successful community development in association with the development of professional sports facilities" and the Tampa Bay Rays baseball team + Phoenix Coyotes hockey," 2022).

OTOH, while the "Good quote" article argues that Salt Lake doesn't really have the market size to justify more teams, I guess when a billionaire wants a team and there is a super-weak one out there, it presents opportunity.

Farmers markets and why food costs more at farmers markets in cities

Because they can charge higher income people more money.

The Post food section yesterday has a focus on farms and farmers market, and one of the articles is entitled "Farmers market prices tend to be higher in the city: Why?."  The thrust of the articles is that the prices are higher because expenses are higher.  That's true to some extent, but it isn't the primary reason.

In high income areas, like DC, people are accustomed to paying more money for items, including food.  Market vendors take advantage of this and charge more money, and make more money than they would if they sold the items closer to home.

By contrast, food at farmers markets in Baltimore _City_ tend to be much more competitively priced, especially at the big Baltimore Farmers Market located Downtown and open on Sundays.

A peck of peaches at the Baltimore Farmers Market is sold for $15 in 2014.  According to a USDA conversion chart, a peck of peaches weighs more than 40 pounds.  Photo: Algerina Perna, Baltimore Sun.  $15 will get you 4-5 pounds of peaches at a farmers market in the DC area.

The market in Towson, the main conurbation in Baltimore County, also sells foods at competitive prices.

Note that Baltimore's Waverly/32nd Street Market has been increasing prices over time as the market has become more popular with higher income consumers, especially from Charles Village and other nearby neighborhoods.  It too used to sell goods for much less compared to farmers markets in DC. No more.

When I see farmers, bakeries, etc. coming to DC farmers markets from as far as Pennsylvania and West Virginia, it's pretty clear they are motivated to do so because they can charge a lot more than they could in markets local to them.

Farmer direct marketing sales are on the decline. A front page story, allied to the special section, is also interesting, "For some growers, farmers markets just aren't what they used to be," as it discusses how market vendors are experiencing a significant drop in sales of produce and other products that have to be further prepared by the purchaser in order to eat, with some vendors reporting sales declines of 30% to 50%.

Part of this is because of a switch on the part of high income consumers and younger consumers to greater purchase of prepared foods.

(This paragraph reprinted from a piece from a couple weeks ago.)  More food spending now takes place out of home. While I've mentioned this here I think (definitely at Eastern Market public market board meetings) a different Bloomberg piece ("Blue Apron IPO could be waylaid by buyer like Kroger") includes this graphic:


In response, companies are shifting their strategies, such as focusing on providing experiences and using e-commerce technologies, to improve the retail experience and social media marketing specifically to remain relevant, and stoke awareness and sales.

HOWEVER, I've since learned that part of the problem with this graph is that the data inadequately captures sale of non-cooked food that have switched from being purchased at traditional supermarkets to "non-traditional" locations ranging from warehouse stores like Costco to drug stores (which function more like convenience stores), and discount department stores like Target and Walmart.  Likely this means that noncooked food sales are still greater than food sales "out-of-home."

Still, higher income demographics are more likely to cook less and eat out more.  As the income mix of DC's population changes, this has repercussions on the type of food that is sold.  Similarly, DC has experienced an explosion of new grocery stores, and these stores tend to feature produce and organic items especially.  This likely has an impact on farmers and public markets too.

More competition also means sales declines. But while the article mentions part of this is also likely to an increased proliferation of farmers markets, it doesn't develop the point.  I think, at least with decline in sales at markets in DC, farmers market proliferation is a huge element.

For example, why go to the Dupont Circle Farmers Market on Sunday when you can go to a very good farmers market at 14th and U Streets NW on Saturday.

Why go to the Takoma Park Farmers Market on Sunday when you can go to the Silver Spring Farmers Market on Saturday?

Why go to the Petworth Community Market on Saturday if you live a bit west when you can go to another market held at the same time at 14th Street and Colorado Avenue NW?  (And why go at all to the Takoma market on Sunday if you live in Petworth?)  Etc.

And, since I am on the community advisory committee for Eastern Market, the city's public market building, why go buy food from farmers at Eastern Market on Saturdays and Sundays when you can more conveniently purchase similar goods at a myriad of markets across the city, much more conveniently located?

And why go to Eastern Market or Dupont Circle Farmers Market on the weekend when you can go to a super well marketed and curated Union Market ("Union Market: every DC foodie trend in one building," Washington City Paper), which is often programmed with exciting special events?

Or if you live in the H Street neighborhood, you don't need to go to Eastern Market because of a Saturday farmers market there, as well as the more conveniently located Union Market.  Etc.

Last week, the Post Weekend section picked crabcakes from Dragon Creek Seafood as an item not be missed from at the USDA Farmers Market to be ("10 great things to eat and drink at DC-area farmers markets").  The company is located in Virginia's Northern Neck, about a two-hour drive from DC.

Not to mention that many school PTAs are supporting truck farmer food sales on the grounds of public schools (in many higher income areas, as it happens) to raise money for projects.  That's one more element of competition that isn't likely to be registered when considering this issue.

For many years I've been arguing that DC's population can't support the plethora of farmers markets across the city.  DC has far more farmers markets than makes sense for demand.  The farmer vendors are the ones paying the price.

Markets as activation devices not as places to buy food.  This piece discusses the various reasons to open a farmers market ("The reason(s) why a farmers market is created shapes the type and mix of vendors allowed to sell").

The front page article discusses how for many people, a farmers market has become an event to go to to experience, not a place to buy food.

Many of the reasons have to do with activation, not promoting access to food or income generation for rural areas.  And property owners especially are motivated by bringing in people, not as much about the nature of what they buy.  But for example, with Union Market, most of the vendors sell prepared items, not food that needs to be prepared and cooked by the purchaser.

Experience retail: can support a business but not enough to get rich

Is anyone shocked that Living Social announced they are closing their DC events space ("Why LivingSocial is pulling the plug on its 'Adventures' brand" from the Washington Business Journal)?  I'm not.

I was surprised at all the speculation in the print media previously that experiential events would be a growth area for them ("With Aerosmith, LivingSocial doubles down on events business" from the WBJ).  It's a small market, hard to get repeat business, with high costs.

(Note to people who think Groupon and Living Social are great businesses.  They are direct marketing organizations who happen to sell via the Internet.  Nothing more.  The Internet in itself isn't a business model, it is a channel.)

Similarly, the point in the Post this weekend that Barnes & Noble ("Barnes & Noble can succeed, but not by competing with Amazon") could reshape itself along experience lines, using the example of local hardware stores missed two fundamental points.

First, local hardware stores are not really successful because they are locally owned, but because they sell necessary goods that people need (called convenience goods) so that they can take care of their houses.  The local-ness and short distance for travel is a benefit over going to a big box, but if they weren't selling stuff people needed, they'd be screwed.

People don't need books (at least most people don't).


Left: community information board at a Lululemon store.  Photo by Lululemon Athletica.

The second is that chain stores, except for Lululemon, aren't focused on building deep connections within communities, not unlike the experiential events space for Living Social.

They make their money systematizing operations and merchandising so that they can run the store with limited skill personnel who don't cost that much labor wise. 

For Barnes & Noble, becoming an event space--like Busboys & Poets--is a lot harder, more time consuming, and requires local connections.

Ever notice that chain stores, even "cool" places like athletic shoe stores or bike shops like Specialized don't have information boards for local events?

Lululemon is different.  But the stores are really small and the markups/profit margin on what they sell so high that it's not very expensive for them to put some investment into community building.  It's tougher on a book that sells for $8, with a 40% profit margin before expenses.

The NYT, "Why Barnes & Noble Is Good for Amazon," also argues that there is a place for Barnes & Noble.  But maybe it's not that bookstores are good for Amazon but for publishers.  And publishers might have to step in and help out.

There is still a place for bookstores, but not necessarily Barnes and Noble, and to make it, bookstores might have to move more towards the Busboy and Poets model of (1) restaurant (people eat every day); (2) event space; and (3) hopefully a bigger books department than the itty bitty one at Busboys & Poets. The Kramerbooks and Afterwords bookstore-restaurant combination on Dupont Circle is another example.

For Radio Shack to get their business model together (see "RadioShack in Talks to Bolster Finances" from the Wall Street Journal), they are going to have to figure out how to market themselves like hardware stores, or to join in with hardware stores in order to reposition.  It's about electronics gear as convenience goods, but to sell electronics items (specialty goods have a different sales process than convenience or discount goods), they have the same problem with showrooming as everyone else, and the difficulty of providing a wide range of items in small stores.

Maybe they could make money on service, like the Apple Store genius bar, but at the neighborhood level, there isn't enough business to make it work.