The “Malling” of Main Street

Abstract

This article looks at King Street, Charleston, South Carolina, the main street of a successful historic tourism city that in recent years has seen a steady transition in tenant mix from one dominated by local merchants, to one today that features such national chain merchants as Victoria’s Secret, Banana Republic, Gucci, and many others. The issue considered herein, based upon survey data collected from both local residents and tourists, is the effect of the city’s changing merchant mix. The findings offer insight that should be helpful to tourism and government officials in any city experiencing, or concerned about, a similar metamorphosis in their community. Helping to explain the community attitude toward change, a new model, the Cycle of Acceptance, is presented.

Keywords

urban development tourism management retail sustainable development destination competitiveness heritage

Introduction

Finding an appropriate mix of local versus national retail merchants in the shopping zone of a heritage tourism destination should be an issue of consideration by both tourism managers and city planners as they strive to provide residents and visitors alike a positive shopping experience and a reason to visit. This paper considers the retail core of the heritage city, Charleston, South Carolina, providing historical perspective and current empirical survey analysis to determine how the city’s main shopping district has been impacted by a downtown shifting from one predominantly populated by local merchants to one that today finds the majority of its frontage occupied by national chain stores. In addition, a look toward the future is provided.

The research extends an earlier Charleston-based qualitative study, discussed below, by Litvin and Jaffe (2010). These authors conducted a series of in-depth interviews with local community leaders and industry stakeholders that focused upon the changing dynamics of their city’s retail core. The current research, predominantly quantitative in nature, employed survey data obtained from sample populations of both Charleston residents and visitors to explore further the issues raised by Litvin and Jaffe’s (2010) foundational study.

The sections that follow introduce the city of Charleston and its tourism industry and discuss the appropriate literature regarding the issues of merchant mix and the evolution of tourist destinations. Following a discussion of the methods employed, findings from the survey exercises are presented, followed by a discussion on the implications of these, some concerns, and a view to the future for the city. Charleston, as a premier heritage destination, provides an excellent setting for such a study. While the findings are of importance to local officials, it is of equal importance that they be shared with stakeholders in other heritage destinations as they too reflect on the issue and the need to provide diligent oversight for their communities.

Charleston, South Carolina, and Historic King Street

As a tourism destination, Charleston provides a wide array of attractions. The city is blessed with Civil War–era plantations and forts, lovely parks and gardens, nearby beaches, a temperate climate, and the largest preserved historic district in the USA. These assets, combined in a setting that offers the charm of the “old south” (Lacher et al. 2013), attract over four million annual visitors and have earned Charleston recent accolades to include a National Geographic Traveler’s “The Top 50 Places of a Lifetime America” listing, recognition by Southern Living as both a “Favorite Historic Destination” and “Favorite Dream Getaway,” and most impressively, designation by Condé Nast Traveler as the number one tourist destination in America each of the past two years, ending San Francisco’s eighteen-year run. Specifically germane to this paper, U.S. News and World Report has included King Street, the city’s downtown main shopping street, as one of “America’s [Ten] Best Shopping Streets” (Fineman 2011).

While today’s King Street is the centerpiece of what has become a city development and tourism success story, the city has not always basked in such glory. Thirty-five years ago, an Atlanta magazine wrote “downtown Charleston, in many ways, epitomizes the decaying American city” (cited in Stock 2006, p. E22). Facing severe suburban flight during the 1970s, King Street business decreased drastically from earlier times, when it was the focal point of city-life (Fossi 2006). Numerous storefronts were empty and foot-traffic was scarce. Property values dropped and downtown Charleston had become somewhat of a “no-man’s land” (Stock 2006, p. E26). On a platform of reviving the city’s downtown, Joseph P. Riley was elected Charleston mayor in 1975. Mayor Riley’s first major postinauguration initiative was facilitating construction of a deluxe hotel in the heart of King Street [originally an Omni; today Orient Express’s 450-room four-star Charleston Place Hotel]. Commenting on the hotel’s catalytic impact, Stock (2006, p. E26) observed that what “started as a trickle of new development was about to flood the length of King.” In 1996, Saks Fifth Avenue, an impressive if then incongruous newcomer, opened across from Charleston Place. With each passing year, new restaurants, local boutiques, and regional and national chain stores added to the traditional mix of local merchants that made King Street their home. Thanks in part to a successful streetscape redevelopment plan (see Litvin 2005), today’s King Street is a vibrant and charming street flanked by blue-slate sidewalks, palmetto trees, and elegant nineteenth-century storefronts. As noted by Ashworth and Turnbridge (1990, p. 216), “the contemporary tourist-historic development of Charleston is probably unsurpassed in the New World,” punctuated by a special downtown that has remained human-scaled and architecturally true to its past, with historic facades that create a romanticized image of small town Americana and simpler times. (A representative King Street photo is shown as Figure 1.) As this article is written, 38 years after Mayor Riley was first elected, he is USA’s longest serving mayor, with the rejuvenation of the city’s retail core generally considered his most significant accomplishment.

Figure 1.

King Street photo.

One of the changes being noted on King Street today, however, is a trend toward national chain stores, at the expense of local merchants. King Street’s national brands include Anthropologie, J. Crew, Pottery Barn, Talbots, The Gap, Victoria’s Secret, and Williams-Sonoma, among many others; each opened in a storefront previously occupied by one or more local merchants. In addition, Urban Outfitters has retrofitted a King Street cinema (no downtown movie theaters remain; the other two have been converted to meeting/conference facilities), and a Starbucks occupies what was a historic bank building (no King Street banks remain either). In total, Litvin and Jaffe’s (2010) earlier study reported that in 2009 national chain stores accounted for 40% of the storefronts and 52% of the frontage along Middle King, the shopping district’s retail core. In the three years since they surveyed the landscape, these numbers have increased. The current breakdown, reflected in Table 1, reveals 43% of Middle King merchants to be national brand outlets, occupying 57% of the area’s retail frontage. (Figure 2 is a map of Charleston, indicating the area of study.)

Table 1.

Survey of Middle King Street Frontage.

			2013 Retail Split		2009 Retail Split ^a
Variable	Number of Stores	Frontage (Meters)	Stores	Frontage	Stores	Frontage
Local retail merchants^b	69	430	57%	43%	60%	48%
National retail brands	53	559	43%	57%	40%	52%
Total retail stores	122	989	100%	100%	100%	100%
Vacant—Previously local retail merchants	3	48
Vacant—Previously national retail brands	3	29
Local food service outlets^b	21	135
National food service outlets	7	45
Other^c	5	35
Total Middle King Street	159	1281

2009 data per Litvin and Jaffe (2010).

Several Southern regional retail brands, e.g. Palm Avenue, a small chain of clothing boutiques based in North Carolina; Mori Classics Gifts from Atlanta; and Oops!, based in Upstate South Carolina and with stores across the state, have been included as “local.” Similarly, Jim N’ Nick’s Barbeque, headquartered in Alabama, and Mellow Mushroom, an Atlanta-based pizza chain, are regional food chains included as “local.”

“Other” encompasses Charleston Place Hotel’s Riviera Conference Center and several business offices not catering to King Street shoppers.

Figure 2.

Map of King Street, Charleston, South Carolina.

This trend toward national chain stores is the key area of study herein, with two specific streams of research explored to provide a theoretical foundation to the work that follows. The first of these relates to retail tenant mix; the second, destination maturation models.

Theoretical Background

Retail Tenant Mix

The topic of retail tenant mix is generally focused upon shopping malls and retail centers where a single developer has the control required to dictate merchant mix through tenant recruitment and selection (Ibrahim and Galven 2007). A good tenant mix incorporates a carefully planned variety of stores that work together to enhance the performance of the entire center and its individual businesses (Greenspan 1987; Ooi and Sim 2007). Ibrahim and Galven (2007, 241) note, “Every shopping centre must have a basic identity, and its identity serves as the basis for setting up a proper mix of tenants. Even though the focus of interest for the developer is on profit maximizing, the management cannot take on tenants simply because they can afford to pay the rentals. The management should strictly evaluate each tenant and determine if the tenant will be suitable to be in the tenant mix. . . . The choice of tenants for the centre is actually one of the most important features that distinguish a prosperous shopping center from one that is failing.” Bruwer (1997) agrees, noting it is those shopping centers with a complementary tenant mix that tend to be successful, with merchants working symbiotically to satisfy customers’ needs and desires. Berman and Evans (2009) refer to this as “balanced tenancy,” through which the stores in a shopping center complement each other in the quality and variety of their product offerings. A good tenant mix becomes a “win–win–win” situation, benefiting the landlord, tenants, and customers (Bruwer 1997). Consistent with this theme, a study by Teller and Elms (2010) found retail tenant mix to be more important than accessibility, parking, and infrastructure facilities when determining the “attractiveness” of shopping areas by consumers.

While shopping center owners must ensure their tenants collectively meet their catchment population demands (Michell 2009), so should a healthy downtown consider the mix of its merchants. Nickerson (1996), made this point in the tourism literature. Arguing for better destination developmental control, Nickerson discussed the distinction between integrated versus coattail tourism developments. The former is characterized by a single developer with the ability to strictly plan and select merchants in order to create an effective and attractive destination (an example provided was Sun Valley, Idaho). Conversely, coattail development, lacking planning and strong control, is characterized by a retail tenant mix awash with duplication and a redundancy of vendors; often tee-shirt shops and trinket sellers (Nickerson pointed to Moab, Utah, as an example of coattail development). Nickerson’s (1996) key lessons: effective planning and control enhances destination attractiveness; and maintaining a healthy mix of merchants is a key determinant of destination success.

Of course, a challenge facing city planners is that while management of commercial developments such as shopping malls, airport concourses, and integrated resorts have full control when selecting tenants, local governments oversee organic developments and have considerably less latitude to do so (Berman and Evans 2009). However, as noted by Padilla and Eastlick (2009), retailers and other downtown businesses can play an important cooperative role—working with government entities, designating development districts, and empowering business associations through strategic partnerships to orchestrate economic development and the management of their downtowns. This is important, for, as warned by McMahon (1997, p. 20), “communities know they are in trouble when new development shapes the character of the community, instead of the character of the community shaping the development.”

For Charleston’s historic King Street and other heritage destinations, the question at hand is whether their tenant mix could be a problem with the potential to negatively affect the character and ultimately the success of the city? For tourism researchers and those involved with development in a tourism-oriented city, the literature seems clear that the issue should be of interest and perhaps concern.

Heritage Cities and Destination Maturation Models

Robertson (1995) presented several strategies for the successful downtown of the 21st century. He suggested cities emphasize historic preservation; keep their city walkable with attractions and amenities easily accessible; and have downtowns that amalgamate housing, work, shopping, entertainment, government, and tourist attractions. Such a mix would seem the ideal foundation for what Bruce, Jackson, and Cantallops (2001) see as key to a city’s success—sustainability. Sustainability, though, is highly contingent upon a city’s forward vision. For an historic city, this vision mandates the identification and preservation of those assets that establish and distinguish the city’s unique identity (Robertson 1995). This does not happen by chance. Finding the balance between being an attractive place to live and being an attractive destination for tourists to visit is difficult. Li (2003) noted that the fundamental issue is the inherent contradiction between the desire to conserve heritage and the inevitable change associated with the developmental process. Too much development, and the city is in danger of losing its cultural foundation. Too little, and business opportunities are forgone. To counter this, Kotler, Haider, and Rein (1993) have suggested that municipalities think like a business and take a proactive role in the stewardship of their city; not turning to planning as a result of downturns, but rather planning so as to avoid downturns. In the case of Charleston, the city can be complimented for exhibiting such forward-vision, as it has proactively taken strides designed to maintain and enhance its unique heritage tourism product.

The literature, however, is laced with warnings in the form of destination maturation models that suggest success, such as has been enjoyed by Charleston, can be ephemeral. Prominent among these models is Butler’s (1980) tourism area life cycle (TALC), itself an offshoot of marketing’s product life cycle. TALC derivatives that have looked at specific destination types have included: Agarwal’s (1997) resort life cycle and Smith’s (1991) model of beach resort development evolution; Doxey’s (1976) “Index for Tourist Irritation” and Mitchell’s (1998) model of development stages, both of which explored heritage villages; and, as discussed below, Snepenger et al’s. (1998) downtown area life cycle model, which looked at a tourist city’s shopping district. Additional examples include Plog’s (2001) model of allocentricity and psychocentricity, which suggests tourism growth is accompanied by a transition, or perhaps the better word to fit the tone of Plog’s writing, a degeneration, toward mass tourism and a less desirable destination; Ap and Crompton’s (1993) continuum of residents’ strategies for dealing with tourism development; and Perdue, Long, and Allen’s (1990) “Resident’s Support for Tourism Development” research. The theme shared by these authors is an innate pessimism, as each predicts that over time a destination will inevitably face a “Devil’s Bargain” (Rothman 1998), with growth and prosperity ultimately leading to stagnation and decline . . . a high price to pay for the economic “golden ring” that tourism promises. (For a critique of the destination model literature, please see Litvin [2010].)

The impact of destination maturation was the primary concern expressed by Litvin and Jaffe (2010) as they viewed the influx of national chains in Charleston, with their qualitative research predominantly based upon the aforementioned TALC offshoot, Snepenger et al.’s (1998) downtown area life cycle model. Warning that a destination must be wary of allowing its retail core to become overly “touristy,” Snepenger et al. (1998) proposed five stages through which a commercial tourist district develops. During the initial stage of Exploration, retail space “emotionally and economically . . . belongs to the locals” (Snepenger et al. 2003, p. 3) and few tourists visit the area. During Involvement, tourists begin arriving and retailers commence attending to their needs, while still catering to local clientele. Goods available for sale remain unique, and both tourists and locals enjoy the shopping space. As tourism continues to increase, the retail zone moves to the stage of Development. Retailers begin to target higher-end clientele and up-scale restaurants and boutiques populate the area, displacing some of the more conventional stores. Eventually, downtown progresses to the stage of Consolidation. The shopping district, Snepenger et al. (1998) note, is now of less worth to local residents, dominated by merchants featuring nonessential and often overpriced gift items and memorabilia. As the trend continues, the primary and often sole downtown focus is the tourist trade, and resident shoppers are no longer to be found. Minus the local flavor that originally attracted tourists, visitors then begin to lose interest as well, leading to the model’s final stage of Stagnation, from which, without reinvention, Snepenger et al. (2003) warn, the area will continue to decline.

Litvin and Jaffe’s (2010) study, based upon a series of semi-structured interviews with a range of stakeholders and local tourism experts, concluded that Charleston’s shopping district was likely in the Development stage of Snepenger et al.’s (1998) model. It would seem such a conclusion would be of concern, as it is at this point in a tourism district’s life cycle that the destination is nearing its peak, to be followed, the model predicts, by Consolidation and Stagnation, periods of decline. However, the common thread that ran though Litvin and Jaffe’s (2010) interviews was that King Street’s then current mix of local versus national merchants was a good balance. The following comments are representative of the consensus view expressed by their interviewees:

Now residents have convenient shopping that they can walk to, tourists have a variety of shops to explore, and business owners have a lot of foot traffic going by their storefront each day. (p. 306)

The fact that these brands [e.g. Urban Outfitter, Pottery Barn, etc.] have chosen to open stores on King Street . . . simply attests to the success of the city’s revitalization efforts. (p. 307)

Although some residents may complain that King Street has “sold its soul” to the chain stores, King Street’s retailers seem to be doing very well financially, selling to residents and tourists alike. (p. 308)

Litvin and Jaffe’s (2010) research pointed to a strong downtown with a healthy merchant mix. Their qualitative work, however, based as it was upon a limited number of interviews, begs for an in-depth quantitative follow-up study to measure the views of both the tourists who visit and the locals who shop downtown Charleston. Such is the scope of the work that follows, with the key question, informed by the literature, considered: Should the historic district’s influx of national brands, coupled with the corresponding loss of local merchants, be a concern? Litvin and Jaffe’s (2010) interview subjects, a well-informed and highly involved panel, expressed comfort with the mix. But do Charleston residents and tourists feel the same? The insights obtained from the following quantitative extension study will add to the literature and help to answer questions of importance as tourism and government officials, in Charleston as well as other historic tourism cities, consider their future downtown developmental plans, issues, and concerns.

Research Methods Employed

The study that follows comprised two complementary data collection exercises. The first surveyed local residents. The second captured Charleston tourists as they visited King Street. A sample size of approximately 400 was the goal, divided evenly between the two subsamples. While only limited statistical analysis was required for this study, such a sample size reflects the required number of responses to provide a 95% confidence level (Sekaran 1992). The final number of responses received, 369, provided an effective data set for the intended research.

The Resident Sample

Data were gathered from residents from across the greater Charleston area. A sixteen-question survey form, encompassing limited demographics and primarily open-ended questions related to King Street was employed. Data were collected electronically. A university addressed website explained the study’s intent, provided standard university-required institutional review board disclaimers, and provided a link to the survey instrument. To solicit responses, presidents of the 96 Charleston area neighborhood associations that were members of the Association of Neighborhood Associations were contacted via email to request their assistance. The email explained the study and requested the presidents to forward the request to their residents, along with their endorsement of the research project. Pretesting of the instrument with undergraduate students indicated the form took approximately 10 minutes to complete. Please see Figure 3 for the key questions asked of residents. These questions, modeled after those asked by Litvin and Jaffe (2010), were intended to determine the resident’s attitude toward King Street and their King Street shopping behaviors. Further, questions addressed both their opinion of the current merchant mix and their vision for the future of King Street; tying together the key foci of the paper as discussed in the proceeding literature review.

Figure 3.

Resident Survey Questions (without demographics).

The initial email and a follow-up request yielded 169 resident responses. As this number was close to the desired 200, it was deemed unnecessary to send a third request to neighborhood presidents or to employ additional data collection procedures. Respondent age ranged from 18 to 84, with an average age of 41. (Only respondents 18 years and older were invited to participate.) The sample skewed female (66%) and most respondents indicated their job status as white-collar professional (75%). Approximately one third (34%) lived downtown, with the balance (66%) residing in other areas of the city. The average respondent had resided in Charleston for 19 years. (Extended classification data are provided in Table 2.)

Table 2.

Highlights of the Resident Sample (n = 169).

Variable	Category	Descriptors
Gender (%)	Female	66
Gender (%)	Male	34
Residence (%)	Downtown Charleston	34
Residence (%)	Other	66
“Class” (%)	Lower to lower middle class	4
	Middle class	59
	Upper middle to upper class	38
Profession (%)	White-collar professional	75
	Student	9
	Unemployed/retired	8
	Homemaker	5
	Other responses	4
Age (years)	Minimum	18
	Maximum	84
	Mean	41 (SD = 14)
Years living in Charleston	Minimum	1
	Maximum	72
	Mean	19 (SD = 16)
Times per month visit King Street	Minimum	0
	Maximum	30 (daily)
	Mean	7.6 (SD = 7.8)

The researchers intended for the resident survey population to be representative of the city’s adult population. After comparing the respondent distribution to the Charleston County population as a whole (Charleston Regional Development Alliance 2012), the sample’s obvious gender discrepancy was confirmed. In addition, the respondents’ average age was approximately five years older than the county average. Neither of these discrepancies, however, was of concern. The lack of respondents under the age of 18 artificially raised the study mean, leaving a sample relatively close in age to the general adult population. Further, as this was not a random sample, the data collection method virtually ensured a respondent pool dominated by those with a personal interest in and shopping experience on King Street. Thus, while the sample was heavily influenced by women and professionals, such respondents were well suited to provide informed views regarding the survey enquiries and, importantly, were reflective of those residents most likely to frequent downtown Charleston.

Once collected, open-ended question responses were coded quantitatively based on themes noted by the researchers. For example, responses to the question “What do you most like about King Street?” that mentioned history and architecture were grouped, as were those with comments that mentioned the variety of stores, restaurants, and bars, etc. Many respondents provided multiple answers to the question, the first three of which were coded. Those mentioned first were weighted as three points. Second responses were weighted as two points, and third mentions were given one point. This allowed a measure of strength of the emerging common themes. The scores for each response category were then summed and converted to a 100-point scale to reflect what respondents most liked about King Street. The process was then repeated to determine what respondents most disliked about King Street. (Coding method as employed by Pritchard and Havitz [2006].)

The Tourist Sample

A modified mall-intercept approach was utilized to collect data for this aspect of the study. Randomly, each fifth adult walking by a research assistant positioned on King Street was asked to participate in a brief data collection exercise. If this person declined to participate, the next fifth person was approached. Persons agreeing to participate were then prequalified as tourists, with those living less than 50 miles from Charleston thanked and excused. The survey questions were administered orally, with the research assistant paraphrasing in writing responses. The exercise continued until 200 surveys had been administered. These comprised 138 (69%) females and 62 males (31%), a skew consistent with the resident sample. Demographics were not asked of respondents. As such, no statistical comparison with the general tourist profile of Charleston visitors was possible. However, the random nature of the exercise provided what appeared to be a solid representative sample. This included visitors from 36 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, plus 5 international visitors. The largest number of respondents (n = 48, 24%) were South Carolinians from outside the Charleston area. This was followed by visitors from the Southern states, North Carolina (n = 30, 15%), Virginia (n = 14, 7%), and Georgia (n = 10, 5%). Respondents were predominantly repeat Charleston visitors (n = 141). At 70%, the percentage of repeat visitors was reflective of, but somewhat higher than, the 57% share reported by the Charleston Area Convention and Visitors Bureau (2012). The set of questions asked visitors was an abbreviated version of those asked residents, as reflected in Figure 4, with responses received coded in the same manner.

Figure 4.

Visitor Interview Questions (without demographics).

Findings

The Resident Sample

The median number of monthly downtown visits was four, and residents were generally pleased with their main street. When asked to evaluate King Street using a “school grading system,” most awarded a grade of A (26%) or B (62%), while only 12% felt King Street deserved a grade of C or worse (10% C, 1% each for D and F). The two variables, visitation and assessment, meshed well, as those respondents who graded King Street A or B visited King Street an average of 7.4 times per month, while the few who graded King Street C or worse visited far less frequently, 3.6 times monthly. (For the sake of calculation, the number of visits was capped at once daily, or 30 visits per month.)

When asked what they “most liked” about King Street, the number-one resident response was the variety of stores and restaurants the area provides, receiving a weighted score of 24 (100-point scale). Following variety, respondents most often pointed to the shopping experience (16), the character of King Street (15), its restaurants and bars (15), and the history and architecture (10). Important to note were the relatively few residents who pointed to King Street’s local, independent stores as a feature they most “liked” (10). (Please see Table 3 for a summary of the coded responses.)

Table 3.

What Residents “Most Liked” about King Street (n = 169).

	First Mention		Second Mention		Third Mention
Variable	n	%	n	%	n	%	Score^a	Weight^a
Variety	34	20	9	5	4	2	124	24
Shopping experience	19	11	12	7	1	1	82	16
Character	21	12	6	4	4	2	79	15
Restaurants and bars	15	9	14	8	3	2	76	15
History and architecture	13	8	7	4	1	1	54	10
Local stores	13	8	7	4	1	1	54	10
Pedestrian friendly	10	6	6	4	4	2	46	9
Other responses	44	26	16	10	11	6	–	–

Responses were scored by multiplying the number of first mentions by a factor of three, second mentions by two, and third mentions by one. The results are listed under the heading “score.” These scores were then weighted based upon a 100-point scale for ease of discussion. The results are listed in rank order, with the category “other” a catch-all for multiple responses that represented less than 5% of the total.

With regard to what residents “most disliked” about King Street, issues that accompany growth, apropos the warnings of the destination maturation models, were prevalent. These included lack of parking and traffic, which combined for a score of 54 on the 100-point scale, and crowds and narrow sidewalks (score of 20). As was the case with the “most liked” items, the number of comments related to merchant mix was relatively low, with a combined score of 15 for the two responses number of chain stores and loss of local stores. (Please see Table 4.)

Table 4.

What Residents “Most Disliked” about King Street (n = 169).

	First Mention		Second Mention		Third Mention
Variable	n	%	n	%	n	%	Score^a	Weight^a
Lack of parking	43	26	13	8	3	2	158	38
Traffic	27	16	7	4	2	1	67	16
“Dirty”	13	8	5	3	0	0	49	12
“Crowded”	14	8	0	0	0	0	42	10
Narrow sidewalks	12	7	3	2	0	0	42	10
Number chain stores	12	7	2	1	0	0	40	10
Loss of local stores	4	2	5	3	0	0	22	5
Other	43	26	9	5	7	4	-	-

Please see Table 3 for explanation of weighting.

The question “Over the past decade, many additional national chain stores have moved onto King Street. There are varied opinions about this trend. In your opinion, has this been good or bad for King Street?” elicited interesting responses. Coded by theme, these are reflected in Table 5. The below quotations, which reflect the themes enumerated in the table, are representative of the responses received:

Although, I do not like to admit it, I think there are some positive aspects to having SOME national chain stores on King Street. I think many people come to King Street to shop at one of the national stores and then stop in to some of the local ones while they are downtown . . . thus, they help bring foot traffic to King Street. I also think the presence of national chains on King Street probably helps make some of the less-than-adventurous tourists more comfortable shopping on King Street, and thus more likely to take a look in one of the local shops that they may not have been comfortable visiting if they did not recognize anything else on the street.

I think we should do more to promote local businesses on King Street, or it will lose all its character.

I would love to see more local stores survive the recession, so that it doesn’t end up feeling like a cheesy mall.

I enjoy the locally owned shops much more [than chains]. This is what makes Charleston different and showcases our regional talent and local flair . . . I hope it stays this way.

Table 5.

Overall View Regarding the Impact of National Merchants on King Street (n = 164).

Rank	Comment Code	Responses	%
1	(−) Loss of local merchants/local charm	48	35
2	(+) Adds good value shopping	28	20
3	(+) General positive comment (e.g., “Love King Street!”)	27	20
4	(+) Good variety of merchants	21	15
5	(−) Needs better merchant balance	7	5
6	(−) General negative comment (e.g., “Headed wrong direction!”)	7	5

Note: Comment categories that captured positive views regarding the impact of national retailers upon King Street are proceeded with (+). Those that were negative are proceeded by (−). Table does not include 26 miscellaneous responses unrelated to merchant mix.

A pair of questions asked residents to name their favorite King Street stores and the last King Street stores visited. The first three responses for each question were captured. These were coded as either local/regional or national chain. The “favorite store” breakdown reflected a slight preference for local/regional merchants (52%) versus national chain stores (48%). This slight preference was not however reflective of the residents’ shopping habits, as only 46% of their most recent visitations were to local/regional merchants, versus 54% to national chain store locations. It is interesting to note that the 54% shopping share significantly exceeds the 43% share of King Street’s national merchants, but is closely in line with the 57% frontage commanded by national retailers.

A final issues-oriented question asked respondents their vision for the future of King Street. Focusing on responses related to the merchant mix, 66% wanted a better mix of locals and chains, 33% indicated that the current mix was healthy, and a single respondent (<1%) indicated a desire for additional chain store presence.

Summarizing the above, local resident respondents tend to like King Street and frequent the shopping area with regularity. A key aspect of downtown Charleston they enjoy is the current merchant mix, with their favorite stores, local merchants, and their vision for the future one with “a better mix” of stores, that is, a desire for fewer chains and more local retailers. Yet, their shopping habits reflect a preference for national chains—a contradiction of attitudes and behaviors interesting and important to note.

The Tourist Sample

When tourists were asked to name the specific stores they most enjoyed, with their first three responses captured and coded, the results reflected a surprisingly strong preference for King Street’s national chains (62%) versus local merchants (38%). The following stores were most often mentioned: Urban Outfitters (31), Williams-Sonoma (23), Saks Fifth Avenue (19) (since departed, replaced by Forever 21), the Apple Store (16), Pottery Barn (15), and Lucky Brand Jeans (15). No local merchant received at least 15 mentions. It was interesting to note that each of the often mentioned national brand retailers, with perhaps the exception of Apple, will probably be found in the traveler’s hometown. Yet tourists seemed to find a special joy shopping these familiar brands within the attractive facades of their King Street stores. Respondents were also asked to estimate the percentage of their time spent shopping in local versus national chain stores. The skew was not quite as large as it was for their most enjoyable stores, with 52% of their shopping time spent in chain stores versus 48% with local merchants. Responses to a question related to the visitor’s attitude toward the city’s future did not, however, mesh well with the above, as 72% commented either on there being too many chain stores (or the need for more local merchants) versus 27% who felt the future would be best served by maintaining the current balance. (A single respondent felt the shopping district would benefit from additional national chain stores.)

When asked to assign a school grade to King Street, the tourists were very pleased, with 39% grading King Street an A, 54% a grade of B, 7% a C, and a single respondent scoring it a D. These grades were in fact slightly higher than the grade assigned by residents (tourist mean “GPA” = 3.3, vs. the locals’ mean grade of 3.1).

Discussion

If one were to turn the clock back several decades (per a long-time local merchant interviewed for background for this research), King Street was divided roughly 80% local versus 20% national chains; at the time principally department stores, to include now defunct F.W. Woolworths and S.H. Kress. Likely, as Saks Fifth Avenue, followed by other national brands, moved in and the percentage of chain stores began to increase, some residents became concerned with the loss of local merchants—but overriding their concern was the satisfaction and pride of watching King Street emerge from the doldrums to become a premier shopping destination. Throughout this period, had a study similar to the current work been conducted, as the national chain store frontage increased from 20% to 30% and again from 30% to 40%, it is likely the general response at each time would have been that while no one likes to see any local merchant displaced, and it was sad for those forced out, that the then current balance was fine; the same attitude reflected in the current study based upon a mix that is either a bit under or over 50%−50%, depending upon whether one is measuring merchant number or frontage.

Today’s Charleston’s residents find downtown the same stores they can shop in the city’s suburban malls without the aggravations and expense of downtown parking, etc. And Charleston visitors find the same stores on King Street as those readily available in their hometowns. Yet, this redundancy appears not to be a concern. The findings of Litvin and Jaffe’s (2010) qualitative study determined that Charleston community and tourism industry leaders were pleased with the merchant balance the city enjoyed and delighted with the success of the city. This research yielded consistent findings. Both sample populations studied herein noted the high ratio of national chain stores, yet expressed a high degree of satisfaction with the city’s retail core. (Given King Street’s high retail occupancy rate [approximately 93% as this paper is written], downtown merchants and landlords are likely pleased as well.) It would seem the city’s current balance, as reflected in Table 1, is healthy—perhaps ideal. The story thus is straightforward and very positive. Locals frequent King Street with regularity and enjoy doing so. Charleston visitors hold the city’s downtown retail core in high regard and are visiting in record numbers. The near-even mix of local and national retailers sharing the shopping district’s historic and attractive setting seems to have found, or perhaps maintained, a “delicate balance.” Locals and visitors both say they would like more local merchants, but seem quite satisfied with the status quo as their behaviors indicate a proclivity to, more often than not, shop the national chains. In fact, the U.S. News and World Report’s (Fineman 2011) aforementioned high ranking of King Street specifically pointed to the allure of a main street where “family-owned boutiques stand right beside brand-name outlets to give the avenue a unique feel.” Thus, this extension of Litvin and Jaffe’s (2010) work serves to validate those authors’ findings. The stakeholders interviewed by Litvin and Jaffe (2010) were very positive regarding the development and current state of the city’s retail core. The current work suggests that locals and tourists to Charleston emphatically share these views. King Street works well and its near-even merchant mix is healthy.

One could conclude the article here. However, the authors have some concerns. These follow.

Concerns

As the city’s mix has progressed through the decades from 20% to today’s approximately 50% share of national chain stores, one wonders if we are observing, to coin a new term and offer as a new model, a Cycle of Acceptance. This suggests that as a community slowly changes, residents progress through stages we have labeled Assess, Adapt, Adopt, and Accept. During the access stage, residents become aware of the changes happening around them. They then adapt to the changing environment, which they may feel powerless to change. Over time, they adopt the requisite changes in their lifestyle, which they ultimately learn to accept, recognizing the current reality as their new and future norm. Based upon the survey responses herein, folks have accepted the current reality of a near-even local versus national mix of stores and have declared it a reasonable balance. Could this, however, be a case analogous with the urban legend of the slow-boiling frog—which states (inaccurately per Snopes.com 2012) that a frog placed in boiling water will jump out, while a frog placed in warm water that is then gradually heated will adapt to the rising temperature until eventually boiling to death? Perhaps, Charleston residents, as well as Charleston tourists, à la the frog, have learned to adapt to and adopt the city’s changing retail mix . . . at any time finding the then current mix acceptable. But is there a threshold beyond which too many national chain stores will be a negative? A tipping point on the horizon beyond which, if unabated, there will be a loss of appeal, precipitating a progression to the later stages of Snepenger et al.’s (1998) model? With deep-pocketed national chain stores willing and able to pay King Street’s escalating rental rates, displacing those local merchants that add charm and uniqueness to the area, what if, a decade or two from now, 60%−70% of King Street frontage is national chain stores? Will local shoppers still find the balance attractive? Will tourists continue to be attracted to the destination despite what may be perceived as a lack of uniqueness, a requisite, per Bridaa, Meleddub, and Pulinac (2012), for urban success? Or will we see the “malling” of King Street, at which time, as warned by Plog (1991), a destination begins to look and feel distressingly similar to all others? Will the further encroachment of national chain stores result in Charleston becoming “Anyplace, U.S.A.” (McMahon 1997, p. 4)?

If such a concern is appropriate, then the maintenance of a well-balanced and healthy downtown, with a focus on retail tenant mix should be a priority for Charleston leadership. This will likely require both creative zoning and enlightened economic development planning focused on incentives and rental contract guarantees for small businesses through the initiatives and cooperation of city government and merchant associations. As noted above, Kotler, Haider, and Rein (1993) urge that municipalities be proactive in their stewardship. The issue of merchant mix as it affects the future of the city commands such a role.

Not all cities have been blessed with what Judd and Fainstein (1999) refer to as “place luck.” But “place luck,” which Charleston has thanks to the good fortune of history and the efforts and foresight of earlier preservationists, is fragile. Lose its competitive advantage by stripping away the city’s unique character, and locals may decide to shop elsewhere, tourists may no longer desire to visit, and the magic that is Charleston may simply disappear.

Conclusion

Mayor Riley and Charleston leadership have done a remarkable job reinventing King Street over the last four decades. There is no doubt that the addition of national retailers to the mix has been a significant catalyst for this rejuvenation. These national merchants have been solicited and welcomed, and their entry to the market applauded. Further, those landlords who have rented to national chains, even when doing so has resulted in the displacement of a local tenant, have not been cast as villains. Most South Carolinians fiercely endorse a capitalistic view and support the property owner’s right to rent to whomever they wish. Isenberg (2004, p. 169), however, forewarns that a healthy downtown depends “upon managed retail, a concept that causes some to bristle. ‘Whatever happened to a natural diversity?’ they ask. Are there any real places left?” To these concerns, Isenberg responds: “The surprising answer . . . is that a lack of management has proven to be the enemy of diversity. It is why Key West has become an emporium of T-shirt shops, and why the only lunch available on Rodeo Drive for under ten dollars consists of potato chips and a soda. When left alone, retailers tend to repeat easy successes and entire sectors become homogenous. Variety is achieved not through natural selection but through careful programming.” The president of the Bozeman MT Downtown Business Association (in Snepenger et al. 1998, p. 6) would agree: “My biggest concern personally is if we start seeing the national franchises, Eddie Bauer, Lord & Taylor and Disney’s of the world start to move in, then we would really lose some of the character that defines downtown.” Charleston has experienced such an influx, and today all is well. But ensuring a healthy path ahead must be the goal. Community leaders and local merchants, including members of the hospitality and tourism industry, need to be observant of the trends in their community and, importantly, should be involved in the process of governance (Beckman, Kumar, and Kim 2013; Assaf and Josiassen 2012), helping to influence those decisions related to zoning and development that may alter their city’s future character. This is a complicated issue, made more complicated when a destination is as successful as Charleston—for suggesting change is most difficult when things are going well. But act too late, once a destination has “sold its soul” for tourism (McMahon 1997), and what makes a city attractive can be lost. Elliott (2011, p. 30) writing about the dangers of development encapsulates these concerns well: “In some ways, capitalism is wrapping its arms around a place’s sense of history and authenticity, viewing them as economic assets, a storehouse of value and profits. And yet popularity threatens those assets. Coming to grips with that contradiction is an important challenge, because once that history and authenticity are eradicated, they’re impossible to get back.” As noted by Duany, Plater-Zyberk, and Speck (2000, p. xi), “The problem is that one cannot easily build a Charleston anymore.”

The findings of this research exercise were very positive. Charleston is attractive, successful, and deeply appreciated by residents and tourists alike. However, urban community leaders must upon occasion pause, gaze into their crystal balls, and think about issues that may challenge their community’s future (Wong and Wan 2013; Andrades-Caldito, Sánchez-Rivero, and Pulido-Fernádez 2013). Merchant mix is and will continue to be an issue worthy of consideration. For while the tourism maturation models point to the inevitability of ultimate decline, such need not be the case. Vision and good management can prevail. We hope this study helps, with the lessons learned applicable not just to Charleston, but to tourist destinations across the spectrum as they plan for the continued vitality of their communities.

Future Research

It is important to note that while the themes discussed above may be generalizable in nature, the specific findings may not be. As such, similar work in other heritage communities is encouraged before policy decisions are made in those locales. Additionally, there are limitations to this research that can be addressed in future work. Perhaps most informative would be a study of merchant attitudes, as these folks should have a good sense of the state of the environment. Further, the tourist interviews were limited to those visiting King Street. If the data collection had been extended to locations beyond downtown, a broader spectrum of tourists would have been captured, including perhaps those who had shopped King Street in the past and were disillusioned. The topic of merchant mix in a tourist destination is an important area of study. We encourage others to continue to investigate the theme

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Stephen W. Litvin, is a professor in the department of hospitality and tourism management in the School of Business of the College of Charleston.

Jenna DiForio is an Honors College graduate of the College of Charleston.

References

Agarwal

(1997). “The Resort Cycle and Seaside Tourism: An Assessment of Its Applicability and Validity.” Tourism Management, 18 (2): 65-73.

Andrades-Caldito

Sánchez-Rivero

Pulido-Fernádez

J. I.

(2013). “Differentiating Competitiveness through Tourism Assessment: An Application to Andalusia (Spain).” Journal of Travel Research, 52 (1): 68-81.

Crompton

J. L.

(1993). “Residents’ Strategies for Responding to Tourism Impacts.” Journal of Travel Research, 32 (1): 47-50.

Ashworth

G. J.

Turnbridge

J. E.

(1990). The Tourist-Historic City. London: Belhaven Press.

Assaf

A. G.

Josiassen

(2012). “Identifying and Ranking the Determinants of Tourism Performance: A Global Investigation.” Journal of Travel Research, 51 (4): 388-99.

Beckman

Kumar

Kim

Y.-K.

(2013). “The Impact of Brand Experience on Downtown Success.” Journal of Travel Research, 52 (5): 646-58.

Berman

Evans

J. R.

(2009). Retail Management, a Strategic Approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Bridaa

J. G.

Meleddub

Pulinac

(2012). “Understanding Urban Tourism Attractiveness: The Case of the Archaeological Ötzi Museum in Bolzano.” Journal of Travel Research, 51 (6): 730-41.

Bruce

D. M.

Jackson

M. J.

Cantallops

A. S.

(2001). “PREPARe: A Model to Aid the Development of Polices for Less Unsustainable Tourism in Historic Towns.” Tourism and Hospitality Research, 3 (1): 21-33.

10.

Bruwer

(1997). “Solving the Ideal Tenant Mix for a Proposed Shopping Centre.” Property Management, 15 (3): 160-72.

11.

Butler

R. W.

(1980). “The Concept of a Tourist Area Cycle of Evolution: Implications for Management of Resources.” Canadian Geographer, 31 (1): 5-12.

12.

Charleston Area Convention and Visitors Bureau. (2012). 2011 Charleston Area Visitor Intercept Survey Report, April 4. Office of Tourism Analysis, College of Charleston, Charleston, SC.

13.

Charleston Regional Development Alliance. (2012). “Charleston S.C. MSA Population and Demographics 2010.” http://www.crda.org/business/market_profile/ (accessed May 10, 2012).

14.

Doxey

G. V.

(1976). “When Enough’s Enough, the Natives Are Restless in Old Niagara.” Heritage Canada, 2 (2): 26-27.

15.

Duany

Plater-Zyberk

Speck

(2000). Suburban Sprawl, the Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream. New York: North Point Press.

16.

Elliott

(2011). “The Case for Skipping Class.” National Geographic Traveler, 28 (4): 28-30.

17.

Fineman

(2011). “America’s [Ten] Best Shopping Streets.” U.S. News and World Report (on-line). http://travel.usnews.com/gallery/Americas_Best_Shopping_Streets (accessed December 26, 2011).

18.

Fossi

(2006). “The Changing Face of King Street.” Post and Courier (Charleston, SC), April 16, A1.

19.

Greenspan

(1987). “Solving the Tenant Mix Puzzle in your Shopping Center.” Journal of Property Management, 52 (July/August): 27-31.

20.

Ibrahim

M. F.

Galven

T. W. R.

(2007). “New Age Retail Tenants: A New Phenomenon.” Journal of Retail and Leisure Property, 6 (3): 239-62.

21.

Isenberg

(2004). Downtown America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

22.

Judd

D. R.

Fainstein

S. S.

(1999). The Tourist City. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

23.

Kotler

Haider

Rein

(1993). “There’s No Place Like Our Place! The Marketing of Cities, Regions, and Nations.” The Futurist, 27 (6): 14-19.

24.

Lacher

R. G.

C.-O.

Jodice

L. W.

Norman

W. C.

(2013). “The Role of Heritage and Cultural Elements in Coastal Tourism Destination Preferences: A Choice Modeling-Based Analysis.” Journal of Travel Research, 52 (4): 534-46.

25.

(2003). “Heritage Tourism: The Contradictions between Conservation and Change.” Tourism and Hospitality Research, 4 (3): 247-61.

26.

Litvin

S. W.

(2005). “Streetscape Improvements in an Historic Tourist City: A Second Visit to King Street, Charleston, South Carolina.” Tourism Management, 26 (3): 1-15.

27.

Litvin

S. W.

(2010). “Apocalypse Not: A Commentary on Destination Maturation Models.” Journal of Vacation Marketing, 16 (2): 157-62.

28.

Litvin

S. W.

Jaffe

C. S.

(2010). “The Threat of Chain Stores to the Character of an Historic City’s Main Street.” International Journal of Business and Globalisation, 4 (3): 299-313.

29.

McMahon

E. T.

(1997). “Tourism and the Environment, What’s the Connection?” Planning Commissioners Journal, 28 (Fall): 20-22.

30.

Michell

(2009). “Eight Pillars of Wisdom for Centre Asset Managers.” Estates Gazette, Issue 944, Special Section, November 7, 42-45.

31.

Mitchell

C. J. A.

(1998). “Entrepreneurialism, Commodification and Creative Destruction: A Model of Post-modern Community Development.” Journal of Rural Studies, 14 (3): 273-86.

32.

Nickerson

(1996). Foundations of Tourism. Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall.

33.

Ooi

T. L.

Sim

L. L.

(2007). “The Magnetism of Suburban Shopping Centers: Do Size and Cineplex Matter?” Journal of Property Investment & Finance, 25 (2): 111-35.

34.

Padilla

Eastlick

M. A.

(2009). “Exploring Urban Retailing and CBD Revitalization Strategies.” International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 37 (1): 7-23.

35.

Perdue

R. R.

Long

P. T.

Allen

(1990). “Resident Support for Tourism Development.” Annals of Tourism Research, 17 (4): 586-99.

36.

Plog

(2001). “Why Destination Areas Rise and Fall in Popularity: An Update of a Cornell Quarterly Classic.” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42 (3): 13-24.

37.

Plog

S. C.

(1991). Leisure Travel: Making It a Growth Market . . . Again. New York: John Wiley.

38.

Pritchard

M. P.

Havitz

M. E.

(2006). “Destination Appraisal: An Analysis of Critical Incidents.” Annals of Tourism Research, 33 (1): 25-46.

39.

Robertson

K. A.

(1995). “Downtown Redevelopment Strategies in the United States: An End-of-the-Century Assessment.” Journal of the American Planning Association, 61 (4): 429-37.

40.

Rothman

H. K.

(1998). Devil’s Bargains, Tourism in the Twentieth-Century American West. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

41.

Sekaran

(1992). Research Methods for Business, a Skill Building Approach, 2nd edition. New York: John Wiley.

42.

Smith

R. A.

(1991). “Beach Resorts: A Model of Development Evolution.” Landscape and Urban Planning, 21 (3): 189-210.

43.

Snepenger

D. J.

Murphy

O’Connell

Gregg

(2003). “Tourists and Residents Use of a Shopping Space.” Annals of Tourism Research, 30 (3): 1-13.

44.

Snepenger

D. J.

Reiman

Johnson

Snepenger

(1998). “Is Downtown Mainly for Tourists?” Journal of Travel Research, 36 (3): 5-12.

45.

Snopes.com (2012). http://snopes.com/ (accessed January 2, 2012).

46.

Stock

(2006). “Twenty Years, Charleston Place.” Post and Courier (Charleston, SC), April 28: E22.

47.

Teller

Elms

(2010). “Managing the Attractiveness of Evolved and Created Retail Agglomeration Formats.” Market Intelligence & Planning, 28 (1): 25-45.

48.

Wong

I. A.

Wan

Y. K. P.

(2013). “A Systematic Approach to Scale Development in Tourist Shopping Satisfaction: Linking Destination Attributes and Shopping Experience.” Journal of Travel Research, 52 (1): 29-41.