A case study of Hillcrest’s Uptown Shopping Center
Jenny Ngo jlngo@ucsd.edu
January 12, 2009
Senior Research Project
Submitted in partial satisfaction of a BA in
Urban Studies and Planning,
University of California, San Diego
ABSTRACT
As new undeveloped land becomes scarce in San Diego and the economic downturn has put pressure on existing developments, particularly retail and commercial spaces, vacancy rates have increased and the trend has shifted towards infill redevelopment. Hillcrest’s Uptown Shopping Center, developed two-and-a-half decades ago, has been heralded as the type of infill major cities should now strive for. This research examines the unique redevelopment process of the site, this research looks how successful the site is at addressing the neighborhood’s needs, and its impact on the surrounding community. As a result, this research aims to create an understanding of the challenges and rewards of infill development, and to engage members of the development process, such as developers and city governments, into the discussion of reviving abandoned developments.
Key terms: redevelopment, mall, infill development, Hillcrest, retail
Ngo 1

Ngo 2
Abandoned Spaces Make for Good Infill
When the Sears building opened in Hillcrest in the 1950s, it stood out from the community for a number of reasons. While storefronts lined University Avenue as an extension of Downtown’s urban core, the Sears building followed the new suburban model. The building stood at the far end of the 14-acre development, with parking separating the street from the store, and arguably creating a gap in the street’s development fronts. Purchased by the city in 1986, and subsequently redeveloped into the Uptown Shopping District in 1990 with the help of the city planning department, community groups and willing developers, the site addressed a number of community and physical concerns the Sears site had neglected.
The resulting product was a dense mixed-use development. 140,000 square feet of retail and office spaces lined the western portion of the site, while 313 residential units were placed on the eastern side. A community center, an urban park and small plazas are integrated into the site.
The site no longer followed the suburban format and instead integrated seamlessly into the urban fabric. This research project is an examination of the site’s two-and-a-half decade transformation from an empty department store to its current stage. Viewed in the context of the Uptown neighborhood, this research evaluates the relationship the Uptown District Shopping Center has

Ngo 3 had with the community throughout this period. The impact the development has had economically and socially in the community will be considered alongside the community’s involvement within the development. By framing the study around urban design principles, this research weighs the redevelopment process of the site with the current status of the site.
A beneficial relationship developed between the Uptown District and the surrounding community has been essential to the success of the site and the success of the community. The site’s success came from a number of design considerations took account of the needs of stakeholders. A public-private partnership established between the city, the community and the developers during the development process was significant in creating an understanding with these three entities and in facilitating the process. In essence, a relationship started in the planning phase is critical to the outcome of the development. This has translated in a site that has been well-received by the planning community and has been a model for redevelopment.
The Uptown District is indicative of a growing trend towards compact, self-sustaining development. Cities, including San Diego, that have encouraged mixed-use development can fare through economic fluctuations and create infill development that repairs community continuity.
This type of development becomes increasingly important as San Diego is strained for new greenfields to develop and as a faltering recessionary economy has put a number of retail developments on the chopping block. With estimates of a 20% closure rate of all retail malls within the next five years, new ways of reusing and readapting these spaces become increasingly significant (PricewaterhouseCoopers 2001).

Ngo 4
Redevelopment Considered
Communities Built by Development
Redevelopment has taken a new turn in the planning field. From a past of self-serving private developments and the inadequacy of sprawl, movements such as New Urbanism and
Smart Growth have encouraged a return to development that help to bring back a “main street” that establishes social centers as well as economic centers. Where these redevelopments occur is quite specific: neighborhoods with increasing density, located along transit corridors, and in older suburbs ripe for redevelopment are likely to see this retrofitting of space (Dunham-Jones and Williamson 10). These communities often need spaces like these, yet a suburban format does not serve the community well. These developments ideally take the form of town centers: sites that include a mix of housing and commercial, are pedestrian-oriented, and are easily accessible
(10).
The difficulty of this, however, is development still remains largely in control by private interests who may or may not have an interest in providing these spaces (Knox and Ozolins
2007, Loukaitou-Sideris and Banerjee 2007, 156). As land becomes increasingly owned by the private sector, what used to be public space, such as plazas, courtyards and sidewalks, now likely belong to private developers (Goss 1993, 19; Trancik 2007, 67). Created to encourage consumption, private “public” space is no longer truly public and is subject to the whims of the owner. While privatization in itself is the nature of the current real estate market, fears of privatization of public space looms large in the minds of city governments and communities.
While such controversies are significant in the literature of public space, they remain brief in this discussion. Instead, a bigger question of how any semblance of public space can be preserved, in spite of current development trends, must be asked. Many would argue that the time for truly

Ngo 5 public plazas remains in an idyllic past, however, there is an opportunity to cultivate private space to serve as gathering spaces (Banerjee 157, Oldenburg 1999, Dunham-Jones and
Williamson 2009, 10).
Despite the complex situation of private and public development, viable town centers are still possible. Developments that are able to fill community needs by taking the role of a central gathering space will be rewarded with increased usage and a longer lifespan. Arguably, sites that do cater to these needs will see an increase in traffic and usage. How developments fit into a larger neighborhood framework is essential to how community members will use and interact with this space. Developments that are able to address a neighborhood’s needs as well as adapt to these needs as they change over time will thrive. These needs vary based on location and time, and may be as concrete as introducing a supermarket or as abstract as streetscaping.
Developments Built By Community
This leads into the discussion of how private developments can be encouraged to serve the greater good and how this can benefit the development. Whether voluntary or by coercive action, it is essential that communities take part in the development process within their own neighborhoods (Brown, Dixon and Gillham 2009, 98). Stricter design standards put forth by the general plan, community plans and other documents restricting design guidelines can regulate development to fit a neighborhood form. However, these documents may not be truly effective when implemented alone and lack the strength to ensure a community’s wellbeing (Loukaitou-
Sideris and Banerjee 2007, 50).
Instead, an active community that has the resources to police private development and bargain for certain benefits, in conjunction with these planning documents, has more power in

Ngo 6 influencing development within their neighborhood. These resources are available to any community with little cost: volunteerism, citizen participation and common community goals require only manpower and are extremely effective at producing political action. This type of empowerment relies on social capital: the notion that social connections combined with civic engagement are powerful resources (Hyman 2008, 224). Without existing social networks, a strong sense of community or open lines of communication, community building and subsequently civic empowerment remains limited (Hyman 2008, 233).
With strong community bonds, neighborhoods are more effective at negotiating in the best interest of residents. Communities active in the planning process have typically seen better results. Well-established communities often have a more intuitive understanding of what the neighborhood needs, possible hindrances and other potential problems unseen by outsiders
(Moughtin 22). “Broad-based community consensus can give a plan significant momentum and help it weather unpredictable politics, funding and economic cycles” (Brown, Dixon and Gillham
2009, 98). As well, involving community groups in the planning process may expedite development.
Designing Developments
A significant amount of attention is being paid to defining public space and tallying what attributes make up “good” places. In older urban neighborhoods, attention must primarily be paid to context and demand. Although similarly related, the former focuses on the physical neighborhood while the latter focuses on socioeconomic traits. Context specifically examines existing conditions, relationships of neighboring buildings, neighborhood patterns and density.
Understanding context informs the physical traits of the building and how will fit into the existing neighborhood without overwhelming development. Alternatively, demand focuses on

Ngo 7 local economic and social needs. This is an assessment of commercial square footage, vacancy rates, housing demands, and renter/buyer market to inform the composition of the new development.
Social needs a community may have could include open spaces, recreation centers, certain facilities, supermarkets or other amenities.
In these neighborhoods, infill development shifts to filling needs related to context and demand.
Guided by Smart Growth principles, infill projects have taken the form of self-sustaining, compact developments (Dunham-Jones and Williamson 2008,
122). These new town centers, with higher densities,
Images of the site from various websites. Research images will be added later mixed housing stocks, office and retail space, are able to support themselves while creating tangible “community” and increasing a neighborhood’s economic viability (Dunham-Jones and Williamson XII, PricewaterhouseCooper
6). In this process, developments become more than products of the economy, and instead are imbued with social meaning, place-attachment and connection. In the City of San Diego, this concept of town centers is embodied as the City of Villages plan, which calls for polycentric regions rather than ancillary suburbs remotely connected to distant downtowns (Calthorpe
Associates 7).
Neighborhoods benefit from the addition of town centers in a number of ways. Increasing residential density and providing nearby commercial space acts doubly to add housing stock while creating employment opportunities within a walking distance. This also ensures that

Ngo 8 businesses on-site are already given a pool of potential customers (Steiner and Butler 254). In regards to transportation, town centers reduce vehicle miles travelled (VMT) by placing where residents live nearby where they work, improve walkability making bicycling and walking more likely, are often located nearby mass transit to increase usage and reduce the necessary parking spaces needed with increased proximity (Steiner and Butler 2007, 254-5; Dunham-Jones and
Williamson 2009, 3-4).
Uptown District Shopping Center as a Case Study: Research Design and Methods
The Uptown Shopping Center relative newness, the neighborhood’s well-documented history and the community’s richness make it an ideal site to study. The aim of this research is primarily to assess the impact the redevelopment of an abandoned space has on the surrounding community. More specifically, this study looks at the role of the site and the process of redevelopment through a two-and-a-half decade span. The process of redevelopment is juxtaposed with the impact the site may have had on economic or community growth and subsequent redevelopment in Hillcrest. To assess the impact of the site, interviews, census data, field notes, and documents were essential to the research project.
To understand the site’s redevelopment process, informal interviews were conducted with a number of individuals involved with the site. Interviews were conducted with individuals that worked to redevelop the site as well as current individuals associated with the site. These individuals come from varying perspectives, where the views of community groups, the planning department, site users and the site’s management were considered. These interviews were used to create a clear image of the site and the players involved in the process. The first interview was conducted with Michael Stepner, a planner with the City of San Diego at the time of development. The interview led to a greater understanding of the redevelopment process, as well

Ngo 9 as the goals of the City of San Diego in promoting Smart Growth principles. Interviews with members associated with the Uptown planning groups were also conducted. Their judgment as community leaders and planning advocates was significant in addressing the relative success of the site and the role it plays in the community.
Official documents as well as mapping data were two forms of archival data used in the research. Census and mapping data was utilized primarily to evaluate the physical and socioeconomic impact of the site pre- and post-construction. An analysis of trends of traffic patterns, gentrification, and redevelopment were used to infer changes in the neighborhood.
Census data of the area obtained from the US Census Bureau in conjunction with historic GIS maps available were used to infer trends in the surrounding blocks near the site and normalized with the overall trends in Hillcrest and North Park. Vacancy rates within the site in comparison to other sites were analyzed from commercial real estate databases. Official documents in the form of design guidelines, the Uptown District community plan, the City of Village plans and other plans were used to evaluate the development’s ability to meet community needs. As well, newspaper articles and meeting minutes were significant in raising possible issues arising from the development.
Field notes and direct observation served as the last form of data used. After preliminary observations of the site, interviews conducted and archival data analysis completed, the site was experienced through participant observation. This was to ensure that a more thorough, less biased observation of the site would take place. Direct observation served to reinforce many ideas of the interviewees, as well as question others. This form of research evaluated the quality of space created and the overall execution of the development, otherwise not fully perceivable through the words of others. In these observations, counts of automobile and pedestrian traffic to

Ngo 10 and within the site were noted, local business ownership rates, overall walkability as well as the site’s integration into the community.
A New Urban Prototype: The Story of the Uptown District Shopping Center
The Development Process
The development of the Uptown District Shopping Center, located east of I-163, has helped to strengthen the community (Dunham-Jones and Williamson 73). A successful example of a public-private partnership, the site was developed with the Hillcrest community in mind.
Purchased by the City of San Diego with the intention of building the future Central Library, disagreements on the library’s final location and fear of financial losses meant the city had to sell the land quickly. The two primary objectives, quoted from then-Mayor O’Connor from The
Tribune , were to “try to satisfy the community and … to try to get our money back” (Ristine
11/17/1987). Rather than resell the land without restrictions, the city and community took the opportunity to influence the use, aesthetic and function of the site. Set with a mixed-use program for the site, the city opened the bidding process up to potential developers.
Of three competing developers, Oliver McMillan Inc. was chosen for their vision of the site as an urban village, “compact, walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods”, with housing that supports commercial space (Lawrence 5/13/1988; Brown, Dixon and Gillham 2009, 99). Closely aligned with the Smart Growth movement, urban villages can be seen as a benefit to the area as a whole and the citizens that live and work within the site area (Dunham-Jones and Williamson).
The Uptown District Shopping Center, zoned at 45 dwelling units per acre, “takes[s] advantage of transit proximity…and create[s] pedestrian-friendly connections to the surrounding community” (Steiner and Butler 254). These villages are often located a short walk from a rail or

Ngo 11 bus station. The Uptown District Shopping Center lives up to this definition, with 3 bus lines serving the stop outside the center and is located along a heavily used artery.
The community was given a significant role in development process. Although a number of developers find community activism a hindrance to development and tedious to negotiate with, there are clear advantages to opening dialogue with the community. Developments built for and planned by the community will be supported socially and financially supported by that community. Their support is “essential for the plan to move forward” (Brown, Dixon Gillham
2009, 24). With a strong business association and planning group, the neighborhood had leverage in representing business and residential interests.
However, this political power became secondary to larger economic forces. This is most apparent in the case of retail space during negotiations. Recommendations by the Sears Site
Review Committee and an outside consultant suggested that retail space be limited at 80,000 square feet on the site (Ristine 11/17/1987). The community agreed, in fear that the center would rival existing businesses along 5 th
and University Avenue. Development of the Uptown District
Shopping Center was meant to be a secondary economic hub to the community. The community’s uneasiness to nearby competing commercial spaces is not unfounded. The APA recommends that within a neighborhood only one center be the focus and multiple centers be spaced one mile apart to “isolate market demand for each center’s retail and service uses”
(Steiner and Butler 231). The planning commission initially agreed to this number, however, estimates from the city manager showed that more retail space must be allowed on the site in order to find a buyer for the $9.5 million the city had asked for. The results were clear: 144,000 square feet of retail space was built on the site, 180% more than the community had wanted.

Ngo 12
Although the community rallied to strongly limited retail and office, they were essentially defeated on the matter when finances had to be considered. Today, the two centers have fared quite well despite unfavorable predictions. Although the centers are within blocks of one another, an invisible boundary created by the I-163 segments the neighborhood to patronize these developments. Although there is some overlap of uses between the two developments, they are varied enough to not be competitive. 5 th
Avenue serves as more of a downtown experience with retail shopping, local restaurants and lively nightlife. The Uptown District Shopping Center serves local needs by providing supermarkets, local services and medical offices (field notes).
This raises an interesting question of the balance between good design and profit. While a community may rally for certain conditions, which often are costly to the developer, to what extent will a developer entertain these ideas and how would stakeholders know they are getting a bad deal? Development plans may seem fruitful on paper, but their design could be “engineered to optimize sales and parking rather than to facilitate synergistic interactions between uses and respond to…the complexities of mixed use space” (Dunham-Jones and Williamson 2009, 6). In truth, stakeholders may never know the ulterior motives of design. Instead they must rely on open lines of communication with the developer. Stakeholders must be willing to trust the developer, remain optimistic, be willing to negotiate and settle, and be actively involved in the process to ensure that their needs are met.
Community amenities provided on the site is a clear example of this negotiation process.
These amenities are often a cost incurred by the developer stipulated in the agreements. Potential improvements were the addition of traffic signals, a community center and a Vermont Street pedestrian bridge (constructed later in 1995). For ten years prior, the City had attempted to construct the bridge, but had difficulty allocating funds. When planning had begun for the

Uptown District, the footbridge was included in the plans. University Heights Community
Association (UHCA) lobbied for the bridge to be included, however the estimated $650,000 bridge did not have enough leverage to be constructed
(Ristine 2/24/1988, Hillquest.com). The traffic signals and the Joyce Beers Community Center, located on Vermont Street, was a result of the transaction (Ristine 2/24/1988). The community center has been a considerable asset to the community. The community center is frequently used to host meetings, with 58 groups listed on the center’s website as of 2009
(www.joycebeers.com).
Ngo 13
Community By Design
By transforming the Sears site into the Uptown District Shopping Center, one can begin to see “the contribution that well-conceived spatial changes might make to the urban fabric of the entire city,” and the socioeconomic implications it might offer (Trancik 2007, 67). The development was and still continues to be an innovative design because it looked to the surrounding neighborhood for cues. While no singular feature makes the site “work”, the goals of being a village center that fits into the community combined were translated into design principles that led the site’s final design.

Ngo 14
With retail anchors nestled on the northern perimeter, the site was mostly surrounded by retail development and surface parking in the center. The site could still feel like a standard suburban shopping center in the middle, but appear as part of the urban streetscape outside. This consideration benefits the site doubly. Automobile drivers accustomed to parking by their destination would not be put off by unfamiliar or strenuous conditions that could potentially drive them off to another comparable site. By creating retail space along the University Avenue perimeter, rather than isolation with parking, the development relates to street, which creates an opportunity for pedestrian activity and increased visibility. For the public realm, this translates into a cohesive street fabric and improved walkability (field notes).
A simple addition, such as the introduction of a much-needed supermarket, has been essential in securing the viability of the site. Adding the supermarket was a big step for the community, where few other options existed for grocery shopping (Stepner). Even after construction, residents from surrounding neighborhoods, particularly Downtown San Diego, relied on the supermarket, as no other ones existed in the area. When few details of the development were stamped out in the negotiation process, developers were already talking with a major chain, Ralph’s, to bring a grocery store to the site (Ristine 2/24/1988). The retailer had taken an unprecedented risk by entering an urban market, where underground parking and minimal signage ran the risk of losing the company money. However, the gamble was incredibly profitable. That location is reported to be one of the higher earning stores in the company’s inventory and after 20 years, the supermarket is still bustling (Stepner).
By reinserting the site into the existing city grid, the development was broken into smaller blocks. Vermont Street was extended through the middle of the site, essentially separating commercial and residential from one another. The street ends at the end of the center,

Ngo 15 where a large canyon separates the northern section of the street from the southern. This has arguably been advantageous for the development. By adding a small segment of Vermont Street into the development, an entrance to the inner parking lot and underground parking structures could be created without disrupting the University Avenue sidewalk and automobile traffic is regulated by traffic signals rather than relying on stop signs and yields to control vehicular movement (field notes).
The smaller-scale of Vermont Street helps to create a quieter atmosphere to contrast
University Avenue. Vermont Street acts as a walkable “main street” for on-site residents and pedestrians entering the site. Lined with first-story restaurants and retail and residential units above, the street acts as a soft transition from a lively commercial sector to quiet residences. In addition, the construction of the
Vermont Street footbridge, which enters directly into the development, increases foot traffic near and to the site. Although the pedestrian bridge was not required of the developer during negotiations, nor was funding readily available for construction until 1995, its integration into both sides of Vermont Street have made it a major pedestrian route to the site (Ristine,
2/24/1988). “In many cases, extending local streets to form a new gridded connection breaks down barriers (Brown, Dixon and Gillham 2009, 105).

Ngo 16
The residential section of the development has arguably had mixed results. Financially, the housing units have been a success with prices above the market median and residents were generally satisfied with the development. The housing does have the tendency to feel isolated from the rest of the center. A number of indicators near each entrance of the residential section signals a shift towards private property even though the space itself is quite public (Stepner).
Elevation changes, signage, landscaping and narrower passageways close off the residences from nearby developments. Seen as a benefit to the residents who want privacy and security outside their homes, these measures tend to alienate users of the Urban Park located inside the section and decrease foot traffic. As well, the main pedestrian corridor through the housing is closed off to automobile traffic. This small road acts as an emergency fire lane while providing access to both ends of the development. This corridor, meant to be conducive to pedestrians, still has the feel of a car-dominated road. The asphalt walkway is stepped down from the curbs, making the path feel like a road. Sparse landscaping, lack of residential customization (balconies are present but few have chairs or tables) and large metal fences create a site that feels vacant and cold.
Two underground parking structures make this development possible. By creating a dense mixed-use facility, the developers were able to cut down on parking spaces necessary. The community averages 2.25 parking spaces per household, while the development built 1.7 to 2 spaces saving 90 spaces for residents. For commercial space, the spaces average 1 spot per 250 sq. feet in the community and 1 spot per 270 sq. feet on site, saving 50 spaces (EPA). As well, the community center shares parking with the development. However, 1057 spaces were still required on the site. Placing these spots underneath development conserved space.
New construction can often spur development around the area (Steiner and Butler 2007).
As construction began on the Uptown District, 15 other sites nearby had begun the

Ngo 17 redevelopment process (EPA Smart Growth Illustrated). When asked if the development had any effect on redevelopment in the area, Mr. Stepner agreed. [I am still waiting on GIS data to analyze redevelopment in the area. The section isn’t complete yet.]
Conclusion
The site has not been without problems. In 1990 when construction was complete, financial problems were apparent with the site. Troubles repaying the loan, unleased retail space and empty housing units could have proved to be the failure of the site. Today the site has fared quite well despite some empty storefronts. Housing prices are above the area market and the
Ralph’s supermarket is reported to be one of the most profitable of the chain. Despite the development’s “suburban” shopping center format, the site has been a compromise of the suburban/urban divide. The site ability to integrate into an urban setting has made it a part of the community.
The Uptown District Shopping Center presents a unique case in community redevelopment. The site, although privately owned, has managed to aim towards larger social and environmental goals. The development was made possible by a unique partnership between the community entities, the city government and developers. This public-private partnership established paths of communication, eased the planning process and has made the site an asset to the community. Stakeholders were given an opportunity to air their concerns while creating a site they could support.
The design considerations when the site was created have also ensured the success of the development. By connecting the site to surrounding developments and addressing the University
Avenue and Cleveland Avenue, the developers created an open atmosphere fitting to the

Ngo 18 walkability of the surrounding neighborhood. As well, reinserting the city grid has been beneficial in easing traffic and breaking down the site’s size. By extending Vermont Street through the development, the developer has created a soft transition between commercial and residential uses that helps to bring traffic into the development. The Uptown District Shopping
Center has been a success because it considered location, context and demand in the neighborhood.

Ngo 19
Bibliography
Brown, Lance Jay, David Dixon and Oliver Gillham. 2009. Urban Design for an Urban Century .
Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Calthorpe and Associates, prepared for the City of San Diego. 1992. Transit-Oriented
Development Design Guidelines.
Dunham-Jones, Ellen and June Williamson. 2009. Retrofitting Suburbia: Urban Design
Solutions for Redesigning Suburbs.
Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Herb Lawrence. 1988. "Project set for former Sears site: Mixed-use center key to Hillcrest renewal." The Tribune, May 13. http://www.proquest.com/ (accessed January 4, 2010).
Hyman, James B. 2008. Exploring social capital and civic engagement to create a framework for community building. In The Community Development Reader, ed. James DeFilippis and
Susan Saegert, 225-233. New York: Routledge.
Loukaitou-Sideris, Anastasia, and Tridib Banerjee. 2007. Postmodern urban form. In Urban
Design Reader , ed. Matthew Carmona and Steve Tiesdell, 43-51. New York: Architectural Press.
Michael Stepner, interview, January 27, 2010.
Knox, Paul, and Peter Ozolins. 2007. The built environment. In Urban Design Reader, ed.
Matthew Carmona and Steve Tiesdell, 313-318. New York: Architectural Press.
Smart Growth Illustrated. Uptown District, San Diego, California. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
http://www.epa.gov/dced/case/updis.htm.

Ngo 20
Steiner, Fredrick, and Kent Butler. 2007. Planning and Urban Design Standards . American
Planning Association. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Trancik, Roger 2007. What is lost space?. In Urban Design Reader, ed. Matthew Carmona and
Steve Tiesdell, 63-69. New York: Architectural Press.