r It Tischler & Associates, Inc. 4701 Sangamore Road Suite N210 Bethesda. MD 20816 (301) 320-6900 Fax: (301)320-4860 I i 211 S. Manhattan Pl. Suite 3 Los Angeles, CA 90004 (213) 382-4800 Fax: (213) 382-4858 i 145 Columbia St.. West Suite IB Waterloo. ONT. N2L 3L2 (519) 888-7437 Fax: (519)888-6382 (800) 424-4318 Economic and Market Assessment for the Goals Policy Program for the City of Little Rock February, 1992 Prepared by: Tischler & Associates, Inc. Fiscal Impact Analysis Capital Facility Analysis Impact Fee Systems iwth Policy Planning Economic and Market Analysis MONIES. FISCALS & CRIM Fiscal impact systems tailored (or each community II II Table of Contents n II II n n n Section I Executive Summary.............................. PURPOSE ............................................................................................ ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONTEXT Employment........................................................................ Population ........................................................................... Age and Sex Characteristics.................................... Racial Distribution . . ................................................. Personal Income............................................................ Housing Characteristics ........................................... Retail Trade Profile..................................................... DEVELOPMENT TRENDS............................................... Housing Market Trends........................................... Retail Development Trends ................................. Office Space Development Trends.................... Other Employment and Development............. DEVELOPMENT ISSUES.................................................. Prevailing Development Trends........................... Opportunities and Constraints.............................. I-l I-l I-l 1-2 1-2 1-6 1-6 1-9 1-9 1-9 I-IO I-IO I-ll I-ll 1-12 1-13 1-13 1-14 Section EL Economic and Demographic Context............ ILA.EMPLOYMENT......................................................................................... 1.General MSA Employment Trends........................................ 2.Projected Employment by Sector and County................. n.B.POPULATION PROJECTIONS .................................................. l.MSA Population and Household Projections ................. 2.Population and Household Projections by County . . . 3.Projccted Population Changes for Little Rock Vicinity ILC.RACE, AGE, AND SEX CHARACTERISTICS.............. l.Age and Sex Characteristics........................................................ 2.Racial Distribution ............................................................................ ILDJNCOME, HOUSING, RETAIL TRADE.............................. 1.Household Income ............................................................................ 2.Housing Characteristics.................................................................. 3.Retail Trade Profile............................................................................ 1 n-1 n-i n-2 n-4 n-ii n-ii n-13 n-18 n-26 n-26 n-28 n-34 n-34 n-41 n-44 Tischler & Associates. IncI Table of Contents (Ccntinued) I Section EQ Development Trends.................................... in.A.HOUSING MARKET TRENDS........................................... 1.Residential Sales Activity ..................................................... 2.Residcntial Building Permits .............................................. 3.Projected Households and New Housing.................... in.B.RETAIL DEVELOPMENT TRENDS.............................. l.Retail Sales Trends: 1982-1987 ....................................... 2.Retail Development Trends ................................................. 3.Projected Retail Market Support .................................... 4.Development and Employment Potential................. in.C.OFFICE SPACE DEVELOPMENT TRENDS . . . 1.Market Inventories .................................................................. 2.0ffice Space Market Demand ........................................ in.D.OTHER EMPLOYMENT AND DEVELOPMENT 1.Medical Employment ............................................................ 2.Warehouse Space...................................................................... 3.Transportation, Construction, Utilities....................... I I I I Section IV Development Issues .............................. IV.A PREVAILING DEVELOPMENT TRENDS IV.B OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS Opportunities ...................................................................... Constraints............................................................................ in-1 in-1 m-i in-3 in-8 m-io III-11 ni-14 in-16 in-19 in-20 in-20 in-25 ni-30 in-30 ni-30 in-32 IV-1 IV-1 IV-4 IV-5 IV-6 ! I I 1 I I ii I Tischler & Associates, 1 1II II List of Tables II II Table S-1 Table S-2 Table S-3 Table S-4 Projected Employment Change Pulaski County
1990-2010 .. . . Components of Population Change
1980-1990 ........................................ Population Changes by Analysis Area
1980-2010 ................................. Racial Distribution
1980 and 1990 ..................................................................... 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-7 II II II II II Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 General MSA Employment Trends.............................................. Projected Employment by Sector and County.................... MSA Population And Households Projections.................... Components of Population Change
1980-1990 ................. Projected Population' and Households by County . . . . Population Change By Analysis Area
1990-2010 . . . . Age, Sex and Racial Distribution ................................................. Racial Distribution
1980 and 1990 ............................................. Pulaski County Personal Income by Source
1980-1986 Personal Household Income by Analysis Area
1980 . . Characteristics of Housing Units
1980 ................................... Housing Starts 1960-1985 .................................................................... Retail Sales Distribution....................................................................... n-3 n-6 n-12 11-14 n-16 n-19 n-27 n-29 11-35 n-36 n-42 11-43 n-45 11 II II n B Table 14 Table 15 Table 16 Table 17 Table 18 Table 19 Table 20 Table 21 Table 22 Table 23 Table 24 Table 25 Residential Sales Activity
1990-1991 in-2 Little Rock Area Residential Building Permits
1989-1991 .... I1I-5 Projected Change in Number of Households . .. Retail Sales
1982 & 1987 .................................................. MSA Retail Development Trends................................. Projected Retail Market Support................................ OfTice Market Summary
Fall 1991 .......................... Office Space Inventory........................................................... Office Occupancy and Rent Rates ............................. Distribution of Rentable Office Space Inventory Projected Office Space Market Support............. Pulaski County Warehouse Space............................. in-9 in-12 in-15 in-17 in-21 in-22 in-24 in-26 in-28 in-31 iii Tischler & Associates. IncList of Exhibits Exhibit S-1 Exhibit S-2 Projected Population Change Map
1990-2010 Non-White Numeric Change Map
1980-1990 1-5 1-8 I k Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 Exhibit 8 Exhibit 9 Exhibit 10 Exhibit 11 Exhibit 12 ' Exhibit 13 Exhibit 14 Exhibit 15 Exhibit 16 Exhibit 17 Exhibit 18 Exhibit 19 Exhibit 20 MSA Labor Force and Employment........................................ Projected Employment Growth .................................................. Regional Employment Distribution........................................... Population, Households & Employment
1980-2010 . . Projected Population and Households by County . . . Projected Population Change 1980-2010 ............................. Population Change Map - Pulaski County
1980-1990 n-3 n-8 n-10 n-12 11-17 n-19 n-22 I Population Change Map - Little Rock Vicinity
1980-1990 .... 11-23 Projected Population Map - Little Rock Vicinity
2010 n-24 Population Change Map - Little Rock Vicinity
1990-2010 .... 11-25 Non-White Racial Distribution Map
1980 .......................... Non-White Racial Distribution Map
1990 ........................ Non-White Racial Numeric Change Map
1980-1990 . Non-White Racial Percentage Change Map
1980-1990 Pulaski County 1980 Median Houseliold Income Map n-30 n-31 n-32 n-33 n-37 Little Rock Vicinity 1980 Median Household Income Map . . . 11-38 Central Area 1980 Household Income Below $10,000 Central Area 1980 Household Income Over $35,000 Housing Starts 1960-1985 ............................................................... Retail Sales Capture ......................................................................... n-39 n-40 n-43 n-47 I I I I Exhibit 21 Exhibit 22 Exhibit 23 Exhibit 24 Exhibit 25 Exhibit 26 Residential Sales Activity........................................................ Number of Residential Permits Map
1989-1991 . Average Value per Residential Permit
1989-1991 Retail Sales Trends
1982 - 1987 . . ................................. Retail Development Trends 1987-1990 . ................... Office Space Trends - Available (Vacant) S.F. . . in-4 m-6 in-7 in-13 in-15 in-24 I I I iv Tischler & Associates. Iri II II II B Section I Executive Summary II PURPOSE The City of Little Rock has undertaken preparation of a Growth Policy Plan as part of fl an overall initiative aimed al directing growth and development for the 1990 s and beyond. This effort is being made at an important time in the citys development history. nj A significant amount of new development is occurring on the outer edges of the city, and in the adjoining counties. While a major-pan of this "new development is occurring HI II II II r II f n within city boundaries, older, core-area pans of the city are experiencing population loss and commercial disinvestment. This Markel and Economic Assessment establishes an underlying "fact base" of imponant economic, demographic, and development trend data which can be used in all subsequent analytical effons. Following this Executive Summary. Section II provides a review of basic demographic and economic trends and projections. Section Id comments on the development outlook for each major sector of activity, including housing development, retail market support, office space development, and related trends in employment and complementary development Finally, Section IV addresses the significance of the statistical analyses, and frames issues for discussion in funire tasks. II IB ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONTEXT Section II of this report contains overview assessments of key economic and demographic trends. Significant observations from this assessment are summarized as follows. I-l Tischler & Associates. Inc II Employment During the 1980s, total non-agricultural wage and salary employment in the region increased by 51,500 jobs, an average of 5,150 per year (The region, or MSA, is defined as Pulaski, Saline, Faulkner and Lonoke Counties.) The services sector, which includes medical activities, was responsible for all net growth in the region s employment. TA anticipates a lower increase in employment for about the fust half of this decade and then a recovery so that the total increment of growth through the year 2010 will be consistent with the trends during the 1980s. M Within the region, Pulaski County will continue to be the dominant location of employment for the region. The Countys share will decrease slightly from nearly 83 percent to 79 percent by 2010. While the rest of the region will increase by about 28,000 jobs over the next 20 years (about 1,400 new jobs per. year), Pulaski County employment will increase by about 69,000 jobs over the same time period (about 3,500 per year). While manufacturing jobs in the County will decrease, TA projects several categories will increase in the following manner between 1990 - 2010. H H Table S-1 Projected Employment Change Pulaski County
1990 - 2010 I I Industrial Category Projected Increase Percent Increase I Manufacturing Transp. & Utilities Trade Finance, Insurance & Real Estate Services Government -6,000 6,000 15,000 5,000 42,500 6,000 (26.9%) 43.6% 29.1% 40.0% 78.3% 20.5% Total: 69,000 35.6% I Population Jobs have a strong relationship to population. The jobs per household in the region increased from 1.104 in 1980 to 1.197 in 1990, an 8 percent increase over 10 years. As 1-2 Tischler & Associates. irj
^II II discussed in the text, the ratio is projected to increase to 1.282 jobs per household as of 2,000 and 1.257 by 2010 (an increase of 13 percent from 1990). II indicates the components of metropolitan population change from 1980 - II The table below . 1990 The population increased more in Saline County as in Pulaski County. More teUing is that after accounting Cnnntv actuallv exnerienced a loss of nearly 23,000 in population (6.7 percent of it County actually experienced a loss of nearly 23,000 well as Faulkner County than for natural increase, Pulaski population) in out-migration. Of this loss. Little Rock accounted for 67 percent, with an estimated net out-migration of over 15,400 based on 1980 city boundaries. II Table S-2 Components of Population Change II II 1990 Population | 1980 Populationj MSA Total 513,117 474,468 Pulaski County Little Rock Balance Saline County Faulkner County Lonoke County 156.282* 158.915 193.378* 181.682 64,183 53.161 60,006 46.192 39.268 34.518 II Change 80-90 II II II Percent of Total Births Deaths Natural Increase Net Migration Est Households* Nous: 38.649 100.0% 80.292 39.790 40.502 -1,853 -700 -2.633 -6.8% 11.696 30.3% 11,022 28.5% 13.814 35.7% 4,750 12.3% 24.393 11.598 12.795 -15,428 -7,078 36,590 17,399 19.181 -7,485 -1,588 7.276 3.894 3.382 7,640, 2,888 6.710 3.660 3.050 10,764 4,070 5.323 3.239 2.084 2,666 1,008 1990 Little Rock population adjusted downwards from 1990 Census ntmbCT of 175,795 fw annexations occurring between 1980 and 1990. Areas annexed by Lttde R^ ov account for 19.513 persons. Data above includes these persons m the Balance of County category, permitting a comparison to consistent 19M city boundaries. Source: U.S.Ceiisus MSA and county-total births and deaths as estimated by Arkansas Bureau of Vit^ Stausucs and Division of Demographic Rese^ch. UALR. Alloc^ion -d Lillie Rock and Planning. balance of Pulaski County provided by Department of Neighborhoods and on MSA-wide average household Estimated household net migration calculated by TA, based ____ size, averaged between 1980 and 1990. Group quarters populauon assumed not to contribute significantly to migration. 1-3 Tischler & Associates. ln< n n n 1 3 3 ]From 1990 - 2010, the metropolitan population is expected to increase by about 86,550
Pulaski will increase by about 18,000
Saline will increase by 26,650
and Faulkner s population will rise by 29,650. Lonoke Countys population increase will be about 5,000. The population change within the Little Rock analysis area indicates that the city has experienced losses from 1980 - 1990 in all areas except northwest, west and far west. TA projects this to continue from 1990 - 2010 unless there are intervention strategies. The changes are shown in Table S-3 while the 1990 - 2010 change is shown on the map on the next page. The westward population movement within and outside of the city is likely to negatively affect housing and nonresidential development within the other parts of the city. Il I Table S-3 Population Change By Analysis Area
1980-2010 1980 Actual 1990 2000 Projected 2010 Pulaski County 340,597 349,660 350,497 367,664 Percent Change 80-*90 90-00 OO-IO 2.7% 0.2% 4.9% Little Rock Vicinity 194,421 192,192 184,542 186,042 -1.1% -4.0% 0.8% Downtown Central Blast Northwest Midtown Southwest West Far West 2,439 16,063 18,007 47,830 36,973 39,757 18,478 14,874 1,777 12,892 15,035 49,944 31389 36,414 18,811 25,930 1,277 9,642 12,035 51,444 24,739 32,664 18,811 33,930 1,027 7,892 10,035 53,444 18,739 29,164 19,811 45,930 -27.1% -19.7% -16.5% 4.4% -15.1% -8.4% 1.8% 74.3% -28.1% -253% -20.0% 3.0% -21.2% -10.3% 0.0% 30.9% -19.6% -18.1% -16.6% 3.9% -243% -10.7% 5.3% 35.4% I I Balance Of Pulaski County 146,176 157,468 165,955 181,622 7.7% 5.4% 9.4% I 1-4 Tischler & Associates. In'Projected Population Change 1990 Little Rock Vicinity 2010 Fl 20000 (Z n o > (/I (A 8 0) <0 Midtown iwe-j Soulhwc9 J 5000 0 -6000 -12650 Age and Sex Characteristics The age and sex characteristics of Pulaski County indicate that the population as a whole is aging. This is consistent with national trends as the "baby boom" generation advances into middle age. In 1980, Pulaski County population between the ages of 35-59 years, and 60 years and above comprised 25 percent and 13.7 percent of the population respectively. By 1990, the 35-59 age group had grown to 30 percent, and the 60 and over group had increased to 15.3 percent of total county population. As of 1990, Black children and teenagers comprised a higher-ihan-average percentage of these age groups in Pulaski County compared to the total population. While the county as a whole has approximately 35% Black population. Black female children and teenagers through age 19 comprise 37.4 percent, and Black male children and teenagers comprise 44.1 percent of this age bracket. Of particular note has been the apparent out-migration of younger white children from Pulaski County. As of 1980, Pulaski County had 36,253 white children of 0 to 9 years of age. However, ten years later in 1990, this same population group, now aged 10-19 years, was only 29,359, a decline of 6,894, or about 19 percent of the corresponding 1980 population group. By contrast, Black children have maintained their relative total between 1980 and 1990. As of 1980, Black children aged 0-9 years were 19,237. As of 1990, the corresponding age group, now 10-19 years old, was nearly the same at 19,034. Racial Distribution Racially, Little Rock remained about one-third non-white from 1980 - 1990 (31.4 percent and 34.7 percent respectively). The city showed a decrease of about 8,000 white and an H increase of almost 6,000 non-white during this period. As reflected in the map on the following page, there were decreases in white population in all subareas except the northwest and far west. There were decreases in nonwhite population in the downtown, central, east and midtown areas. The three greatest decreases in white population occuned in the southwest (9,000), midtown (4,100) and west (3,200). The only area of increase exceeding 1,000 was the far west (10,300). The three greatest areas of nonwhite decrease were the cast (2,300), central (2,150), and midtown (1,400). The areas increasing more than 1,000 in nonwhite population were southwest (6,200), west (3,500), and northwest (1,400). The figures indicate a net loss of white and nonwhite in the downtown, central, east and midtown areas. The biggest swing in racial distribution occurred in the southwest between white and nonwhite. The above figures indicate that the eastern part of the city is losing population while only the far west is experiencing significant increases, primarily of whites. It is assumed that the loss in white population in the city is a major factor in the demand for housing outside the city. 1-6 Tischler & Associates. INon-White Racial Change
1980 - 1990 Change I n Isjon-White Numeric Population By Area 6222 ion 2 0 > vi in 8 y s 3 n 'iXo/n. <) 1500 0 -1500 -2298 1980 analysis AREA Downtown Central East Northwest Midtown Southwest West Total Population White 2,439 1,214 16,063 18,007 47,830 36,973 39,757 18,478 3,573 7,301 45,685 14,039 34,481 13,444 V, r> (D Far West 14,874 13,707 Tables-4 Racial Distribution 1980 and 1990 by Study Area Non- White 1^25 12,490 10,706 2,145 22,934 5,277 5,034 1,167 1990 Percent Non- White 50.2% 77.8% 59.5% 43% '62.0% 13.3% 273% 7.8% Total Population White Non- White Percent Non- White Change in Percent 1980-90 1,777 752 1,025 57.7% 7J% 12,892 15,035 49,944 31,389 36,414 18,811 25,930 2,552 6,627 46,388 9,927 24,915 10,259 2A.0Q\ 10,340 80.2% 2.4% 8.408 3,556 21,462 11,499 8,552 1'929 55.9% 7.1% 68.4% 31.6% 45.5% -l.A% -33% 2.6% 63% 183% 183% -0.4% Po > (/> 1/1 8 s f? VI STUDY AREA TOTAL i
U.S, 194,421 133,444 60378 31.4% 192,192 125,421 66,771 34.7% 3.4% nsus
Tischler & Assoc. Inc.II Personal Income II II II II II U.S. Census data as of 1990 for personal income has yet to be released as of this writing. The observations noted below relate to 1980 census dau. As of 1980, personal income distribution indicated a pattern of affluence for particular areas, with much of the rest of the immediate Little Rock vicinity having very low personal incomes. Of note is the relative affluence of the northwest and far west areas compared to the rest of Little Rock. As of 1980, these areas had 23 and 29 percent of their households respectively with incomes of $35,000 or more, compared to no higher than 8.6 percent for any other area. 1980 Median household incomes were $21,059 for the northwest area and $24,817 for the far west area, with no other area higher than $17,290. Concentration of low-income households was, naturally, a reverse pattern of affluence. Between 76 and 80 percent of all households in the downtown and central city areas had incomes less than $10,000 in 1980. II Housing Characteristics II II From 1980 to 1990, vacant housing units in Pulaski County increased from 6.2 percent to 9.5 percent of the total housing stock. This is in contrast to the adjoining three counties for which vacancy rates either remained about the same, or in fact declined over this same period. Rental units in Pulaski County have narrowly increased their share of total occupied units during the 1980s, growing from 37.6 percent in 1980 to 39.7 percent in 1990. A similar, marginal increase in housing units with Black householders was experienced over this same period, increasing from 20.0 percent in 1980 to 22.0 percent in 1990. As of 1990, the median owner-occupied housing value was $61,300 and the median monthly rent for rental units was $303 for all of Pulaski County. Housing starts data has been estimated for both Pulaski and Saline Counties over a period from 1960 to 1985, based in part on secondary dau sources for unincorporated areas where no building permits arc issued. This dau indicates that for the 25 year period from 1960 to 1985, multi-family housing starts comprised over 43 percent of the two countytotal. This proportion is much higher than the proportion of multi-family building permits issued by the City of Little Rock over the most recent three years. Realtors and developers have also indicated that the Little Rock area is very strongly oriented to single-family housing, and that very little in the way of multi-family housing has been initiated within Little Rock in recent years. Retail Trade Profile As of 1989, total sales for Little Rock esublishments were estimated at S1.95 billion, with an additional $1.29 billion estimated for the balance of Pulaski County, combining for total county-wide sales of $3.24 bilbon. Sales in each of the other three MSA counties 1-9 Tischler & Associates. Inc M n n 0 kwere dramatically low'cr at $242 million, $325 million, and $135 million for Saline, Faulkner and Lonoke Counties respectively. These sales estimates indicate that Little Rock establishments accounted for nearly half (49.5 percent) of total regional sales, with the balance of the county (i.c. North Little Rock and adjoining areas) accounting for nearly one third (32.6 percent) of the regional total. While Little Rock is therefore capturing the greatest share, establishments in the northern pan of the county arc capturing a sales share which is much higher than this areas share of regional population. This can be attributed to several of the regions larger retail centers and areas being located in the nonhern pan of the county, and that these locations tend to seiA'e as "intercepts" to some degree for the Faulkner County market funher to the nonh. 1 Comparing the sales from establishments within each jurisdiction to the expenditures from the same jurisdiction indicates whether sales are being "imported" or "exported". Overall, sales for establishments in Little Rock are estimated as being equivalent to about 116 percent of expenditures from city residents, thus indicating that a significant increment of sales is coming from residents living outside of the city. Little Rocks sales are consistently higher than expenditures from the citys residents for each category, with the one very notable exception of general merchandise. For this category, stores within the , city are capturing only 74 percent of the expenditures generated by city residents. These sales arc being captured by stores in the Nonh Little Rock area which is estimated as having a market capture equal to 174 percent of the expenditures generated just from within this area. The overall observation from this data is that retailing in Linle Rock generally enjoys good competitive positioning and is able to command a significant share of the regions sales and expenditures. DEVELOPMENT TRENDS Section HI of this report provides market assessments and projections of demand for major sectors of future development The findings of these analyses are summarized as follows. Housing Market Trends Analyses provided in Section HI in the report results in the projected changes in the number of households shown in Table S-4. This projection indicates that five of the eight analysis areas may experience a net loss of households over the next ten years, if current prevailing trends continue without alteration. The northwest, west and far west areas are shown as experiencing a net gain of 5,099 households, absorbing outmigration from the eastern portions of the city, as well as attracting new-arrivals to the region. While Pulaski County is indicated as increasing by 6,183 households over the next 10 years, most of this will occur outside of the city, such as in Maumelle and other I-IO Tischler & Associales. IniII north-county communities. The city as a whole is shown as experiencing a net loss of 521 households over the next 10 years. II II The predominance of the western areas, and the type of housing being developed in these areas suggests that the growth anticipated in these areas will continue to be strongly oriented to single-family-detached development. Very little multi-family development may occur within the city, although some may be constructed in the north county communities. n II The projections seen in Table S-4 indicate that only three areas, west, northwest and far west, arc anticipated as having any positive net growth in the number of households through the rest of the decade. Based on building permit data over recent years and our own survey of the market areas, TA believes new housing development in these areas will be strongly, if not exclusively, oriented to single-family-detached units. II Retail Development Trends n M The retail sales projections provided in Section III for the year 2000 indicate total sales of just over $2.0 billion for Little Rock retailers. Within this total, the four largest store categories arc projected as automotive ($500 million), general merchandise ($380 million), food stores ($375 million), and eating and drinking establishments ($244 million). II n n These projections of future sales support indicate market support for between 463,0CX) and 514,000 square feet of new retail development within the city of Little Rock through the year 2(X)0. Some portion of this projected growth has probably already been absorbed by retail development which may have already occurred within the city since 1987. Total additional retail employment for Little Rock is estimated at 1,533 new jobs added within the city between 1987 and 1990. II Office Space Development Trends II B Between 1984 and 1987, a tremendous increment of office space was added to the inventory of office space in both outlying and downtown locations. The downtown inventory increased from 2.7 million square feet in 1984 to 4.0 million square feet, a gain of 1.3 million, during this period. No significant expansion has occurred in the downtown area since 1986, however. The suburban area also increased by 1.0 million square feet between 1984 and 1986. For the subsequent four years, expansion continued at a modest pace, gaining an additional 873,000 square feet, or about 218,000 square feet per year. Since 1987, the suburban office markets have begun to recover. Downtown, however, has not yet absorbed this additional inventory, and the amount of vacant space is roughly the same today as it was five-to-six years ago. I-ll Tischler & Associates. ln<The analyses of office space market support indicate that occupied floor area in downtown is expected to increase from 3.36 million square feet as of 1990 to 3.44 million by 1995, and 3.61 million by 2000. This represents total increase over 1990 of nearly 252,000 occupied square feet in the downtown market area. Should this occur in the absence of any new significant development, it would have the effect of increasing occupancy rates to a more desirable level of 84.3 percent (16.7 percent vacancy). The related implication of this projection is that no new additional multi-tenant office development will likely be demanded by the marketplace within downtown in the immediate future. These projections assume no change in status for existing State agency offices. At the same time, occupied space in the suburban market area is shown as increasing from 3.0 million square feet at present to 4.45 million square feet by 2000, a gain of 1.48 million square feet. If a 10 percent vacancy level is deemed acceptable, then total suburban space inventory could expand'to4.94 million square feet by 2000, and increase of 1.2 million square feet over the 1990 inventory. Total city-wide occupied office space is projected as increasing by 1.866 million square feet between 1990 and 2000, attaining 8.63 million square feet of occupied space by the ' end of the decade. The citys share of total office employment growth would be about 5,500 new office jobs city-wide, growing from 29,000 estimated as of 1990 to 34,500 by 2000. Other Employment and Development Medical Employment Discussions with officials of the areas major hospitals has determined that some moderate scale expansions are in the final planning stages. These might bring approximately l,00U - 1,500 new medical facility jobs during the 199Os. Wholesale Trade, Warehousing and Distribution Wholesale trade employment in Pulaski County is estimated at 15,500, and is projected to increase by about 1,800 workers county-wide by the year 2000. If this were to be distributed in proportion to the occupied floor area of the countys warehouse space, then 60 percent of the expected increase, or about 1,080 jobs might be accommodated within Little Rock. While the city may gain roughly 1,000 wholesale trade workers, the current vacancy rate in die citys warehouse space inventory and the inventory tax situation indicates to us that no expansion of warehouse development is imminent. 1-12 Tischler & Associales. III Transportation, Construction, Utilities II II Growth in transportation and utility employment is projected to be approximately 2,000 jobs county-wide between 1990 and 2000. A substantial majority of this job growth may be administratively based within Little Rock, but is likely to be physically allocated more to the developing suburban portions of the county. By the very nature of this employment, few building-type, tax-ratable developments are likely to be associated with this employment growth. II II County-wide construction employment is forecast as declining slightly by 250 jobs between 1990 and 2000. This is deemed likely as more construction activity becomes oriented to the adjoining surrounding counties. No significant direct development impacts (i.e demand for additional offices, warehouses, etc.) arc anticipated from thisrmoderatc-constmetion employment. II n n DEVELOPMENT ISSUES Section IV of this report discusses overall development issues which have emerged from this assessment of economic and market trends. These are summarized as follows
II Prevailing Development Trends n n The regions environment, quality of life, existing base of modem and technologically oriented industries, and relatively lower labor costs will all tend to keep the Little Rock region competitive for future economic growth. n The three counties adjoining Pulaski County are. already assuming a more significant role in the regions economy, and this trend will likely become even more pronounced in some sectors over the next twenty years. II Pulaski County itself appears to be in the midst of a major, continuing, and long term suburbanization trend. A substantial part of this "suburban" development is in fact falling within city limits, and the city is thus still capturing and retaining this tax base. Prevailing suburbanization trends are characterized by a gradual east-to-west movement. Downtown and adjoining residential areas are now on the eastern edge of this gradual retreat, and these areas are exhibiting disinvestment and in some cases, abandonment. As residential builders continue to add inventory in surrounding counties and in outlying parts of Pulaski County, intown housing is likely to decline. Total 1-13 Tischler & Associates, inrexisting inventory and inventory growth has provided a sufficient margin so that alternative choices are available. And, given perceptions as to crime, quality of public education, and the trend of jobs moving towards the outer edge of the city, the alternatives are becoming increasingly popular. Also contributing to the availability of choices is the expressway system and relative case of driving. Between 1984 and 1987, a tremendous increment of office space was added to the inventory of office space in both outlying and downtown locations. Since 1987, the suburban office markets have begun to recover. Downtown, however, has not yet absorbed this additional inventory, and the amount of vacant space is roughly the same today as it was five-to-six years ago. Retailing in Little Rock has generally maintained its relative competitive position, with only a modest erosion of market share. The primary source of competition is from the northern part of Pulaski County which is positioned to intercept the growing middle class residential market emerging in Faulkner County. Downtown has retained its role as a white collar employment center. However, even this role is being diminished as more financial, insurance and real estate operations move to the west. Another potential pressure is the possibility of consolidating state governmental administrative functions to new facilities outside of the downtown coipmercial core. Opportunities and Constraints Some of the more significant opportunities and constraints affecting development and growth for Little Rock identified from this assessment include the following: Opportunities 1. 2. Much of the citys fiinge commercial development is within the city limits, thus capmring this tax-ratable development. The city can continue to reinforce these locations as viable development nodes to capture and/or retain businesses which might otherwise locate outside of the city. An investigation may be desirable to determine if a consolidated administrative complex for State agency facilities could be created and located so as to reinforce the downtown area. Rather than passively waiting for a "negative" event to occur, a pro-active and cooperative approach may be able to address the needs of both downtown and the Sute administration. 1-14 Tischler & Associates. Ini3. Despite the recent defeat of the "Diamond 2000" initiative, the conceptual goal of encouraging downtown vitality is basically correct. An opportunity may exist to fonnulate an improved package of destination /attraction elements with a revised funding approach which might depend less on direct public financial support. 4. I The disinvestment which has occurred in some central city neighborhood areas needs to be firmly addressed. Short-term depressions in market prices may provide an enire for renewal, if such efforts are strategically reinforced with a set of clear, single-purpose policies and action programs. I Constraints 1. Prevailing suburbanization trends will be difficult to alter to any substantial degree by any unilateral actions by the City of Little Rock. The City may be constrained to simply making the best out of a relatively constant economic base. 2. The most significant constraints related to the viability of the core areas of Little Rock may have nothing to do with physical planning initiatives. Our interviews and review of prevailing conditions have identified perceptions of lower quality public education and higher crime rates in the core areas to be important factors contributing to current out-migration trends. Targeting sustained initiatives to significantly improve conditions in these two areas should be seen as a strategic measure to reinforce the fundamental economic viability of the city. 3. The continuing development of outlying planned communities is very much a factor in demand and support for quality housing environments for central city neighborhoods. The citys policies for residential i neighborhood reinforcement needs to recognize the continuing expansion of these communities. 4. Finally, a general constraint, in our opinion, is the lack of an overall strategic vision. Reactive approaches, which try to respond to a wide array of interest and requests are frequently too dispersed and too minimal to have major corrective impacts. If more concentrated, more effective, and better funded initiatives could be implemented on just a few key projects, resources would be concentrated and have greater impact. An organized, goal-setting process has been delineated as a parallel effort to this statistical assessment, and can be a key element in articulating such a strategic vision. The absence of a clear set of priorities is, in our opinion, a significant constraint to efforts for future improvement. 1-15 Tischler & Associates, incSection 11 Economic and Demographic Context This section reviews various economic and demographic statistics to establish a data base for identifying and evaluating long term development trends. This includes a summary of data made available from local governmental agencies, including the Department of Neighborhoods and Planning, Metroplan, and U.S. Census Data, but also includes analyses and projections by TA. These assessments represent our best professional judgement of the probably development future assuming no substantive intervention by governmental agencies, or pronounced changes in market conditions. The analyses which follow focus initially on employment. We have taken this as a -starting point in that the nature and locations of jobs tend to focus overall development patterns. The quality, quantity, and type of jobs affect income and labor force characteristics. At a regional or county level, the location of jobs also tends to act as a significant determinant for residential migration patterns. The assessment of employment is followed by analyses of population and household trends, which are then further described in terms of demographic characteristics. ILA. . EMPLOYMENT Employment is taken as a starting point in assessing long term trends. Employment tends to set the overall volume and pace of development. Should household formation exceed employment by a significant margin over an extended period, persons will tend to move to seek other opportunities. Employment further indicates the level of money being processed by a regional economy, and indirectly sets market size parameters for dependent sectors such as retail and retail-services. The chans on the following pages first examine the total volume of employment for the region as a whole, and then makes allocations to counties, and then to sub-areas in the Il-l Tischler & Associates, Inl I immediate Little Rock vicinity. A similar process is conducted for projecting population and households. 1. General MSA Employment Trends Table 1 and Exhibit 1 show employment trends for the Little Rock - North Little Rock MSA for 1980 through 1990'. This employment is further allocated to non- agricultural wage and salary employment, and within this, "goods producing" and "services producing" allocations are made. These first data indicate a gradual pace of growth during the mid-to-late 198Os, following a period of stagnation in the first years of the decade. Between 1980 and 1983, total non-agricultural wage and salary employment increased by less than 3,000 jobs, and had actually declined marginally until 1982. Since 1983, total non-agricultural wage and salary employment has increased from 204,500 to 253,100 by 1990. This represents an increase of 48,600 jobs over 7 years (averaging 6,942 per year). For the entire decade, total non-agricultural wage and salary employment increased by 51,500 jobs, averaging 5,150 new jobs a year. Goods-related production (primarily manufacturing and other product-oriented sectors) has very slowly, but consistently, declined over this time, which is in keeping with national economic trends. Between 1980 and 1990, goods producing employment declined by 4,500 jobs, from 48,800 to 44,300, a contraction of about nine percent from 1980. Services employment (in this context, comprising the balance of non-goods-related employment) has significantly exceeded the decline in goods related employment, and is responsible for all net growth in the regions employment. This, too, is consistent with national economic trends. Services related employment increased by 56,000 jobs from 152,800 in 1980 to 208,800 in 1990, an average of 5,600 per year. Increases were particularly strong between 1986 and 1989 during which service-related employment was increasing at a rate of nearly 7,000 jobs a year. ' The Lillie Rock - North Lillie Rock Meiropoliian Siaiisiical Area (MSA) is comprised of Pulaski, Saline, Faulkner and Lonoke Counties. 11-2 Tischler & Associates. InTable 1 General MSA Employment Trends Labor Force Non-Ag Wage & Sal Emplmnt Goods Producing Services Producing 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 * 1991 229,450 236,600 237,400 239,225 242,575 246,400 252,800 257,100 262,400 268,975 268,750 267,214 201.600 200,300 198,000 204.500 214.200 221.200 225.200 229.600 237,600 245,200 253,100 256,000 48,800 46.900 43.300 43.300 45,400 45,800 44,300 43,300 43,300 43,400 44,300 44,200 152,800 153,400 154,700 161.200 168.800 175,400 180,900 186,300 194,300 201,800 208,800 211,800 I I MSA Labor Force and Employment 1980- 1990 </3 o (/) 3 O 6 280 r 260' 240' 220' 200' 180' 160' 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 T A T * SGoods Empl. 0Services Empl. Labor Force Note: * 1991 Daia is average thru 6rsl nine months Source
Arkansas Employment Security Dept. Tischler & Associates. li
I I 2. Projected Employment by Sector and County I I Table 2 shows TAs projections of future employment by major industrial sector and by county. The data shown here arc for "covered" employment (included in the States workmens compensation system) which is a slightly different base than seen in the first charts. (For example, total covered employment is estimated at 233,921 in 1990, vs. 253,100 for "all" non-agricultural wage and salary employment seen in the previous tables.) I I The projections seen here arc a result of a "boiiom-up, top-down" process. This procedure first examined growth rates by evaluating mathematical trend lines of employment in each sector and in each county, and extends the rates of growth for future increments of 1990-1995, 1995-2000, and 2000-2010. a a a a I The future rates of employment growth used in this analysis reflect TAs evaluation of general economic conditions for the Little Rock region and the industrial sectors represented here. We believe that, compared to many other metropolitan regions nationwide, Little Rock is very competitive. Chief among its assets is a skilled and relatively moderate cost labor force, a base of communications, transportation, and consumer-oriented industries which are positioned well for new expansion in the 199Os and beyond, and a very attractive natural environment. Even so, the current national economic downturn will undoubtedly affect economic growth in Little Rock over the short term, but these effects should be relatively moderate, and the area should be poised for full recovery thereafter. Based on this overall evaluation, rates of growth were varied slightly to represent overall economic conditions for the respective sectors, and the context of each sector within each county. Generally, growth rates were a a anticipated to be modest over the next five years, but then recovering so that the total increment of growth through the year 2010 would be consistent with the trends experienced over the last ten years. The 198Os decade is therefore taken as a model of the areas growth potential at a very general level, having experienced both modest growth in the first few years, with accelerating growth for the last seven years. a a The next part of the process examined shift-shares by county and by sector, examining the allocation each county might capture of future growth. Total employment was projected forward based on annual growth rates in the manner described above. This total employment was then distributed by industrial sector for each projection year, and then by county for each sector. The percentage distribution factors used were selected so as to be consistent with the ten-year trend experienced from 1980 to 1990, both by industrial sector and by county share. For example, a shift from a 20 percent to a 22 percent share over ten years would mathematically lead to a projected share of 24 percent for ten years in the future. Professional judgement was used to assure that the indicated mathematical II-4 Tischler & Associates. Incprojection was in fact appropriate and logical for each combination of industrial sector and county. This process resulted in two alternative preliminary sets of projecrions for each sector and county: one based on individual growth rates for each sector and county (bottom-up) and another based on allocations from an overall total (top- down). A series of reconciliation adjustments were then applied to the individual sector/county growth rates. These adjustments were made so that both the pace of growth for each sector, and the shift-share of employment by sector and county would be internally consistent, and consistent with both long term trends seen historically, and TAs general assessment of the overall economic outlook for each major sector and county. The reconciliation process thus provides a "check-and- balance" recognizing both future potential and historical patterns of growth. The results of this process are shown in Table 2 which shows projected future employment for each major industrial sector and by county within the MSA region. Selected key trends are funher depicted in a series of graphs in Exhibits 2 and 3. Several significant observations can be drawn from these projections: Services are expected to continue to be the major area of economic expansion, growing at an average rate of 2,042 jobs per year between 1990 and 2000 throughout the MSA. The data indicates that services has just surpassed trade as the largest major sector as of 1990. By 2010, the two largest employment sectors are expected to be services with 112,208 and trade with 84,138 jobs. I I I Pulaski County will continue to be the dominant location of employment for the region, although its share of total employment may decline from nearly 83 percent of the regional total employment at present to just over 79 percent by 2010. Services and Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (F.I.R.E.) are expected to retain a strong presence within Pulaski County. These two sectors, together, are projected to increase by 19,500 jobs between 1990 and 2000, and an additional 28,500 jobs over the following ten years. By 2010, Pulaski County is expected to still provide over 86 percent of a region- wide services employment and close to 88 percent of all F.I.R.E. employment. If current trends continue, Pulaski and Saline Counties may lose 4,5CX) manufacturing jobs over the next ten years, and an additional 1,750 manufacturing jobs over the subsequent ten years. These losses may possibly be partially offset by a net gain of 3,250 manufacturing jobs in Faulkner County. I I I II-5 I Tischler & Associates. ITable 2 PROJECTED EHPLOYMEHI BY SECOR AND COUNIY 1980 20,0 1980 1905 Projected Employment Total Change Share o( HSA Total 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 80-'90 '90-'00 00 10 1980 1990 2000 2010 in O (b PP J> (/> U) O Q O) (b in PULASKI COUNTY Manufacturing Construction Trans, t, Util. Trade F.I.R.E Servicea Coverrment Other SALINE COUNTY Manufacturing Construction Trans. 6 Util. Trade f.I.R.E Services Coverrment Other FAULKNER COUNTY Manufacturing C<xistructl<xi Trans. I Util. Trade F.I.R.E Services Coverrment Other LOKOKE COUNTY Kanufacturlng Conatructlon Trans, t Util. Trade f.I.R.E Services Goverrment Other TOTAL HSA Manufacturing Construction Trans. 6 Ut11. Trade f.I.R.E Servicea Coverrment Other 155,666 26,700 0,766 11,307 60,013 11,166 30,936 26,533 337 170,616 23,337 9,613 11,600 66,659 13,150 39,007 27,061 309 193,666 22,316 8,447 13,751 51,635 13,766 56,267 29,265 281 202,166 19,016 7,967 14,251 54,135 14,246 61,747 29,745 261 218,916 260,791 18,314 8,197 15,751 57,635 15,746 71,767 31,265 281 17,316 0,322 17,751 62,135 17,696 06,267 33,265 281 262,666 16,314 0,447 19,751 66,635 19,246 96,74 7 35,245 201 37,820 (6,396) (319) 2,566 11,622 2,500 25,311 2,712 (56) 25,250 (4,000) (250) 2,000 6,000 2,000 17,500 2,000 0 63.750 (2.000) 250 6.000 9.000 3.500 25.000 6,000 0 83.4X 71.OX 02.7X 96.5X 07.6X 93. OX 89.9X 79.2X 32.7X 82.8X 81.6X 67.5X 78.8X 9A.0X 86.6X 92.6X 88.5X 78.,X 37.3X 61.5X 76.5X 91.7X 82.5X 91.2X 87.BX 76.9X 58.5X 79.6X 56.OX 68.2X 88.SX 79.2X 87.6X 66.2X 75.6X 38.5X 11,104 3,995 732 0 1,810 290 1,076 2,746 447 13,633 6,681 851 60B 2,534 267 1,762 3,076 54 5,915 2,214 250 0 1,294 187 648 1,129 193 186,698 37,598 10,599 11,795 65,659 11,910 36,622 33,686 1,031 10,112 2,399 639 0 2,412 353 ,1,349 2,606 354 12,198 2,662 720 616 3,176 352 1,901 3,061 132 12,660 1,962 770 516 3,551 352 2,151 3,061 107 16^390 1,962 965 816 6,301 652 2,526 3,311 107 16,998 2,067 1,195 1,189 5,301 577 3,026 3,536 107 19,598 2,192 1,645 1,566 6,301 702 3,526 3,761 107 1,096 (1,553) (12) 616 1,358 62 025 315 (315) 2,200 (500) 225 600 1,125 100 625 250 (25) 5,200 250 500 750 2,000 250 1,000 650 , 0 6.OX 10.6X 6.9X O.OX 6.OX 2.6X 3.IX 8.2X 63.6X 5.2X 7.4X 6.7X 2.OX 5.2X 2.4X 3.IX 0.2X 17.5X 5.6X 6.5X 8.6X 6.7X 6.2X 2.6X 3.IX 8.2X 16.7X 5.9X 7.5X 11.7X 7.OX 7.5X 3.2X 3.IX O.OX 16.7X 16,535 5,792 1,140 424 3,122 603 2,294 3,207 73 20,572 6,222 1,208 659 6,363 658 6,059 3,735 88 21,997 6,597 1,308 659 6,593 658 6,559 3,935 68 26,672 7,672 1,558 559 5,593 708 6,059 6,635 08 32,022 8,672 1,758 686 6,663 1,083 8,059 5,035 83 37,572 9.472 1,950 009 0,093 1,650 10,059 5,635 08 6,939 1,561 357 51 1,809 191 2,297 659 36 5,900 1,250 350 100 1,250 250 2,000 700 0 11,100 2,000 600 250 2,500 750 6,000 1,200 0 7.3X 12.5X 6.OX 3.5X 5.5X 2.2X 5.IX 9.2X 5.2X 8.6X 18.BX 11.3X 3.IX 7.IX 3.IX 6.6X 10.OX 11.7X 9.9X 25.IX 14.IX 1.3X 8.OX 4.IX 7.tX 10.9X 12.IX 11.6X 31.3X 15.8X i.bX 9.6X 6.6X 9.OX 12.OX 12.IX 6,523 2,306 250 0 1,562 216 839 1,183 189 7,485 2,200 338 0 1,909 285 1,076 1,424 253 7,460 2,000 208 0 2,009 285 1,176 1,449 253 8,360 2,050 338 50 2,309 360 1,376 1,626 255 9,635 2,150 638 125 2,709 660 1,626 1,876 253 10,910 2,250 538 200 3,109 560 1,876 2,126 253 1,570 (14) B8 0 615 98 428 295 60 075 (150) 0 50 600 75 300 200 0 2,550 200 200 150 800 200 500 500 0 3.2X 5.9X 2.6X O.OX 2.BX 1.6X 1.9X 3.6X 18.7X 3.2X 6.6X 3.2X O.OX 3.IX 1.9X 1.8X 3.OX 33.6X 3.IX 6.9X 3.IX 0.3X 3.3X 2.IX 1.7X 6.OX 34.7X 3.3X 7.4X 4.3X 0.9X 3.7X 2.5X 1.7X 4.5X 34.7X 203,786 233,921 33,034 11,642 11,024 53,735 14,120 43,569 34,137 925 33,178 10,713 16,626 61,063 16,041 61,203 37,465 754 266,071 30,353 10,313 15,226 66,208 15,341 69,633 30,190 729 260,146 299,446 ---- 30,003 29,770 11,030 17,176 69,030 17,266 01,700 60,615 729 11,713 19,769 76,908 19,616 96,958 63,690 729 330,746 30.220 12,380 22,326 04,130 21,966 112,200 46,765 729 47,623 (4,620) 116 2,629 15,604 2,931 26,061 3,901 (277) 34,225 (3.400) 325 2,550 0,775 2.425 20,625 3,150 (25) 62,600 450 1,350 5,150 14,300 4,700 30,500 6,150 0 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox ,00.ox ,00.ox ,00.ox ,00.ox ,00.ox ,00.ox ,00.ox 100.ox ,00.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox ,00.ox ,00.ox ,00.ox ,00.ox ,00.ox ,00.ox ,00.ox Inc.Exhibit 2 Discussion The data from Table 2, as illustrated in Exhibit 2, indicates that employment is expected to continue growing for Pulaski County. The most significant growth is shown as occurring in the trade and services sectors. Trade is expected to increase from 51,635 as of 1990 to 66,635 in 2010. Over this same twenty-year period, services are projected as increasing by 42,400 jobs, from 54,247 to 96,747. Manufacturing is expected to decline within Pulaski County by 6,000 jobs, although about half of these losses may be offset by moderate gains in Faulkner County, and subsequent gains after 2000 in Saline and Lonoke Counties. Trade (including wholesale and retail) and services will continue to comprise the largest employment segments for all counties. Pulaski County is expected to retain most of its present share of services and F.I.R.E. employment. This is seen as continuing the present status of the immediate Little Rock vicinity, including both downtown and the 1-430 corridor, as the dominant financial and services employment center in the region. Employment gains are also expected in the adjoining three counties of the MSA region. F.I.R.E. employment is expected to increase (significantly in percentage terms) in Faulkner County as suburban residential development activity and related financial and real estate services respond to this trend. If prevailing trends continue, Faulkner County is expected to increase employment at a significantly faster pace than Saline County. Manufacturing will tend to stabilize and even modestly increase after 2000 in the surrounding counties. Increases in trade and services, similar to those anticipated for Pulaski County, will also occur in the adjoining counties. Trade is projected as increasing by a total of 8,075 jobs for all three counties between 1990 and 2010, and services may grow by 8,425 jobs over this same period. Total employment outside of Pulaski County in the MSA is shown as increasing by nearly 28,000, from 40,258 in 1990 to 68,080 in 2010, a relative growth of nearly 70 percent over twenty years. In contrast, Pulaski county employment is estimated to increase by 69,000 jobs over this same period. 11-7 Tischler & Associates. II II n II II II n n II II II II II a aExhibit 2 Projected Employment Growth IQ Pulaski County With ihe exception of manufacturing, Pulaski County is expected to continue to experience employment growth for the forseeable future. Approximately 42,500 new jobs are expected in scn'iccs and 15,000 additional jobs arc expected in trade (both wholesale and retail) over the next 20 years through the year 2010, Manufacturing, is statistically projected to decline by an additional 6,000 jobs over this same period. DB IQ nH H fl Balance of MSA Employment growth in the balance of the MSA, however is expected to occur at a higher relative pace. As in Pulaski County, most of the increase is expected in trade and services which is expected to grow by 16,500 jobs between 1990 and 2010 outside of Pulaski County. In terms of total employment, the balance of the region is expected to increase by 27,800 jobs from 1990 to 2010. H H Sounx: AHun&ti Employment Security Dept.*. Tuchler AitooAiei. Inc. Tischler & Associates, Ir Exhibit 3 Discussion At present, the three adjoining counties account for only 17.2 percent of the regions employment, but arc projected as accounting for between 26 and 30 percent of future employment growth between 1990 and 2010. This will result in a relative shift of some proportion of employment from Pulaski County to the adjoining three counties. The relative amount of this shift is foreseen as being very minimal in the financial and services sectors, but may be more pronounced in the manufacturing, construction and trade sectors. Exhibit 3 depicts these trends in three selected key sectors. With manufacturing employment declining in Pulaski County, but stabilizing and even increasing in surrounding counties after 2000, Pulaskis share of manufacturing employment is expected to decrease from 67.3 percent to 54.0 percent of the regional total by 2010. The greatest offsetting increase in manufacturing, assuming a continuation of prevailing trends, will occur in Faulkner County, which should increase its share of regional manufacturing employment from 18.8 percent as of 1990 to 31.3 percent by 2010. Pulaski County should remain competitive with surrounding counties in services, generally maintaining its present share, between 86 and 88 percent of the regional total. Regional increases in this sector should distribute geographically in roughly the same proportion as the existing employment, resulting in a only modest changes in geographic distribution. Pulaski Countys share of trade employment is expected to decline moderately from about 85 percent at present to just over 79 percent by 2010. This can be attributed to retail trade following population growth in the adjoining counties, and wholesale trade preferring outlying locations which may not be subject to an inventory tax. 11-9 Tischler & Associates. li II II n I! II II n II II II aII II Exhibit 3 Regional Employment Distribution Employment is expected to grow by a greater percentage in the surrounding counties of the MSA than in Pulaski County. Faulkner County is expected to experience the greatest increase in relative share of emplojincnt within the region. Trends in three key sectors are shown below. Manufacturing PROJECTED MAXUFACTURJNG EMPLOYMENT Pulaski Countys share of manufacturing emplojinent is expected to decline from 67.3% to 54.0% between 1990 and 2010. Faulkner Countys share is expected to increase from 18.8% to 31.3% over this same period. Services I fl fl fl 100% 90% S0% 70% 60% S0% PROJECTED SERXnCES EMPLOYMENT 1910 1915 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 gPuluU QStUae BLosoke Pulaski County will continue to be the predominent location for services employment, declining only slightly from 88.5% to 86,2% from 1990 to 2010. fl Trade fl 100% 90% to% 70% 60% 50% PROJECTED TRAM EMPLOYMENT Sourec: Ai^x Employmoii Seoirity Dq*-
TucWtf A Aixoeitti. Ine. Piitaelri County is expected to experience a decline in relative share of trade employment from 84.6% to 79.2% between 1990 and 2010. Over this same time, Faulkner County is projected to increase from 7.1% to 9.6%, and Saline County is expected to increase from 5.2% to 7.5% of areas total trade emplojTtienL Tischler & Associates. Inc II II.B. POPULATION PROJECTIONS TA has made a series of population and household projections for the region, Pulaski County, and Little Rock through the year 2010. We have done this so as to show that trends experienced within the immediate Little Rock Vicinity are in fact but a sub-part of broader regional trends towards substantial suburbanization. Our process starts with regional totals, based on ratios to projected employment, and then refines these totals so as to estimate how the immediate Little Rock vicinity will function within these broader trends. II II II II 1, MSA Population and Household Projections II Table 3 and the related chart on the following page presents MS A-wide projections of population and households. II In making these projections, we anticipate that long term trends will continue in terms of the relationship between jobs and households. That is, if jobs were to grow significantly faster than households and population, in-migration would occur as persons from other areas sought employment opportunities in the Little Rock region. Alternatively, if households and population were to increase more than employment over an extended time, out-migration would likely occur. II II The ratio between jobs and households has not been constant in the past, and has not been assumed to be constant in the future. The far right column in Table 4 shows the historical trend in this ratio from 1.104 jobs per household 1980 gradually increasing to 1.197 jobs per household as of 1990. Several factors have contributed to this increase, including an increasing frequency of two-income households, mdividuals working part-time at second jobs, and adult children remaining with their primary household during and after completing education. This ratio has then been projected forward through the year 2010, extending along a consistent rate of change as seen over the last decade. These projections therefore illustrate the likely relationships if currently prevailing trends continue without significant intervention or alteration. As seen in the far right column of Table 3, this ratio is projected as 1.282 jobs per household as of 2000, and 1.357 jobs per household by 2010. II II II n n These ratios arc then applied to the projected total regional employment, as derived from Table 2, to produce projections of households for the years 1995, 2000 and 2010. Households are a focal point in this analysis, in that employment, house purchasing and relocation decisions tend to operate at the household level. As seen in Table 3, this calculation of the jobs/household ratio against projected II-ll Tischler & Associates.Table 3 MSA Population And Households Projections 1980 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1995 2000 2010 MSA Population (1) 474,468 497,409 500,198 502,646 505,228- 507,858 510,528 513,117 522,490 532,408 599,667 MSA Households (2) 168,943 182,913 185,005 186,992 189,053- 191,156 193,300 195,437 199,745 209,177 243,749 Avg, Hshld Size 2.78 2.69 2.67 2.66 2.64 2.63 2.61 2.60 2.55 2.48 2.40 Covered Employment 186.498 197,461 203,786 207,878 211,405 219,207 227,010 233,921 244,071 268,146 330,746 Jobs/Hshld Ratio 1.1039 1.0795 1.1015 1.1117 1.1182 1.1467 1.1744 1.1969 1.2219 1.2819 1.3569 Noles: (1) Adjusted from Metroplan data, based on 1990 Census, expansion of MSA in 1984, and change in Meiroplan csiimating methodology for intermediate years between 1980 and 1990 Census data. (2) Based on U.S. Census for 1980 and 1990. Intermediate years based on MSA population estimates and estimated average household size. Exhibit 4 Population, Households & Employment MSA Totals
1980-2010 650 600 Actual Projected S' 3 O 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 ------- e- 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Population -I- Households O Employment Source
Meiroplan
U.S. Ceniui
Aik. Emp. Sec. Dept
Tiichlci & Attodiut, Inc. Tischler & Associates. In MSA-wide employment indicates 209,177 households as of 2000, and 243,749 households as of 2010. Average household size has been declining nationwide, as well as in the Little Rock area. The historical decline in household size is shown in the center column in Table 3, and has been projected forward through 2010 based generally on this rate of change with some mitigation anticipated. The mitigation represents our judgement that with the "baby-boom" generation now at prime child-bearing ages, and with emerging trends of adult children remaining in households and constraints in housing affordability, household sizes will not be declining as rapidly in the future as they have in the past, and in certain locations and sectors, may even increase. As seen in the center column of Table 3, average household size throughout the MSA has contracted from 2.78 in 1980 to 2.60 in 1990. Based on the factors cited above, household size is projected as declining to 2.48 by 2000, and to 2.40 by 2010. Total population has been projected based on the estimated number of households (based on employment ratios) and projected household size^ The left column in Table 3 indicates region-wide population projected as growing from 513,117 in 1990 to 532.408 by 2000 and 599,667 by 2010. The results of this process may also be seen in the accompanying graph. This shows a slight slowing of household and population growth at present, with an increased pace of growth beyond 1995 and 2000. The total trend from 1980 to 2010 is comparable in pace to the ten-year trend from 1980 to 1990, averaging approximately 4,000 population growth annually throughout the region. As seen at the bottom of Table 3, and at the right side of the graph in Exhibit 4, total regional population is expected to reach about 600,000 persons by 2010, with nearly 244,000 households and over 330,000 jobs in "covered" wage and salary employment. 2. Population and Household Projections by County With the total future growth for the region estimated in the previous table, the next step is to determine how much of this growth will likely occur in Pulaski County, and then to estimate the geographic distribution patterns within the immediate Little Rock study area. l fl fl fl The projected population figures shown in Table 3 further allow for group quarters population. Group quarters population has increased very slightly from 1980 to 1990. 11-13 Tischler & Associates.II II II At the county level, it is useful to first consider the components of population change. These wpre calculated by Metroplan in its May/June 1991 newsletter, and are summarized below. II Table 4 Components of Population Change MSA Total Pulaski County Little Rock' Balance' Saline County Faulkner County Lonoke County II 1990 Population' 513,117 156,282* 193,378* 64,183 60,006 39,268 1980 Population 474,468 158.915
181,682. 53,161 46,192 34,518 Change 80-90 Percent of Total 38,649 100.0% -2,633 -6.8% 11,696 30.3% 11,022 28.5% 13,814 35.7% 4,750 12.3% II II II II Births 80,292 24,393 36,590 7,276 6,710 5,323 Deaths 39,790 11,598 17,399 3,894 3,660 3,239 Natural Increase Net Migration EsL Households* Notes: 40,502 12,795 19,181 3,382 3,050 2,084 1,853 -15,428 7,485 7,640 10,764 2,666 700 7,078 1,588 2,888 4,070 1,008 1990 LitUe Rock population adjusted dowTiwards from 1990 Census number of 175,795 for annexations occurring between 1980 and 1990. Areas annexed by Little Rock over this period account for 19,513 persons. Data above includes these persons in the "Balance of County" category, permitting a comparison to consistent 19^ city boundaries. M d 1 II J Source: U.S.Census 3 d MSA and county-total births and deaths as esimaied by Arkansas Bureau of Vital Statistics and Division of Demographic Research, UALR. Allocation of births and deaths between Little Rock and balance of Pulaski County provided by Department of Neighborhoods and Planning. d Estimated household net migration calculated by TA, based on MSA-wide average household size, averaged between 1980 and 1990. Group quarters population assumed not to contribute significantly to migration. d 11-14 Tischler & Associates, inc feII The data above indicates that all of the regions net growth in population and households is attributed to natural increase from within the region, and that the MSA actually lost 1,853 population, roughly equivalent to 7(X) households, from net migration. By county, however, this trend is even more pronounced. After accounting for natural increase, Pulaski County actually experienced a loss of nearly 23,000 population in out-migration. Most of this, 15,428 persons is estimated to have come from within 1980 Little Rock city boundries. The remainder, 7,485 persons, is estimated to have come from the Balance of Pulaski County. This is roughly equivalent to nearly 8,700 households leaving Pulaski County with about 8,000 households moving into the adjoining counties. Of further note is that net in-migration for Faulkner County (10,764 population) was about 41 percent more than Saline County (7,640), further indicating Faulkner as the fastest growing county in the Little Rock region. II II Projections of future population growth have been estimated by TA for each county through 2010, and these may be seen in Table 5 on the following page. These projections are based on "bottom-up, top-down" process similar to that used for employment projections. That is, each countys growth rate was calculated forward, and then compared to an alternative projection based on a shift-share of regional totals. Adjustments were then made so that both growth rates and percentage allocations were internally consistent, and consistent with the 1980- 1990 overall trends and the MSA-wide projections as estimated in Table 3. Group quarters population was assumed to increase modestly in proportion to 1980-90 changes, and trends in the decline in average household size were assumed to decline, although not as rapidly as has been experienced over the last decade. II II fl n B B Table 5 displays net population and household growth. This reflects the combined effects of natural increase, household formation, and net migration. Table 5 shows that Pulaski County is expected to increase in both population and households over the next twenty years, although at a modest pace. Population is expected to grow from 349,660 in 1990 to 367,664 by 2010, an increase of just over 18,000 over 20 years. This overall pace, averaging 900 population growth annually, is virtually the same rate of growth as experienced from 1980 to 1990. From the pattern seen in components of population change data, all of this growth will likely be the result of natural increase with net out-migration still occurring. The adjoining counties are expected to experience much greater increases in population and households, particularly Faulkner County. Of the total MSA-wide net population growth of 86,550 projected between 1990 and 2010, 79.2 percent, or 68,548 is expected to occur in the adjoining counties, increasing the total population in the adjoining counties to about 232,000 persons. This rate of growth, just over 3,400 persons per year, is about 3.8 times the average rate of increase anticipated for Pulaski County. By the year 2010, Pulaski County is expected to comprise 61.3 percent of the regions population, down from 68.1 percent as of 1990 and 71.8 percent as of 1980. 11-15 Tischler & Associates. III II II Table 5 Projected Population and Households By County 1980 - 2010 1980 1990 2000 2010 Number Prcnt Number Prcnt Number Prcnt Number Prcnt II II If n 0 0 Total MSA Population Households Net Growth Population Households Pulaski Population Households Net Growth Population Households Saline Population Households Net Growth Population Households Faulkner Population Households Net Growth Population Households 474.468 100% 168,943 100% 513,117 100% 195,437 100% 532,408 100% 209,177 100% 599,667' 100% 243,749 100% 340,597 713% 124,516 73.7% 53,161 ' 11.2% 17,572 ' .4%* 46,192 9.1%'- 15.485 r9.2%'. 38,649 , 100%' 26,494 100% 349,660 68.1% 137,209 70,2% 9,063 23.4% 12,693 47.9% 64.183 123%' 23,037 113% 11,022'283%'' 5.465'20.6%' 60.006'..U.7%
21.325
i019%
13.814 35.7%
5.840 225% 19,291 - 100% 13,740 300% 67,260 100% 34,572 , 100% ! 350,497 -65.8%. 143,392 68.6% 367,664 613% 158,085 645% 837 43% 6,183 Js.0% 17,166'253% 14,693 423% 71,390 >13.4%' 25.922 2,885 '2L0%* 68,061 42.8%'
24,622 j 11^%^ 8,055 :413%-^ 3,297 '24^%
' 90,853 153% 33,528,13.8% 19,463 285% 7,606 22.0% 89.658 155% 33,266 116% 21,597 r 32.1% 8.643 25.0% Lonoke Population Households 34,518 7.3% 11,370 6.7% 39,268 7.7% 13,866. 7.1% 42,460 8.0%' 15.240 13^' 51,493 18,870 8.6% 7.7% Net Growth Population Households 4,750 323% 2,496 9.4%' 1,374 ' 7.1%- 1,374 10.0%- 3,630 5.4% 3,630.103% Source: U.S. Census
Tischler & Associaies, Inc. Tischler & Associates Inc hExhibit 5 Projected Population and Households By County 1980 - 2010 I Population Growth By County Net increase in population for Pulaski County is expected to be relatively modcsL Numerical growth projected for both Saline and Faulkner Counties wUl be significantly more than Pulaski. I II I I Percent of MS A Total With net household and populadon growth occuring at a faster relative pace in Faulkner and Saline Counties. Pulaski Countys share of MSA total population will decline. I 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% I I I I Scunx: U3. Cenixu
Tiichief A AiiodMcj, Inc, Tischler & Associates, ir^ These trends in net population growth are further depicted in the graphs in Exhibit 5, which show population growth and population distribution by county through 2010. As seen in this graph and in Table 5, most of the projected net population growth is expected to occur in Faulkner County, increasing from 60,006 in 1990 to 89,658 by 2010, a total net growth of about 29,650 persons. Saline County is anticipated as increasing by a similar amount, 26,670 persons, over this same period, from 64,183 persons as of 1990 to 90,853 by 2010. 3. Projected Population Changes for Little Rock Vicinity With population changes estimated for all of Pulaski County, we have further attempted to determine the likely- geographic.distribution of population within Pulaski County, particularly focussing on the immediate Little Rock vicinity. Changes in population between 1980 and 1990 have been examined by census tract for all of Pulaski County. These data have been further summed for eight analysis areas comprising the Little Rock vicinity. These changes may be seen in the two left columns in Table 6, and in the first two of the following maps. I M I M We have then illustrated the effects of what would likely occur if these statistical trends would continue for the next twenty years without significant intervention. This process has looked at the rates of change for each of the analysis areas, and the trend shift-share allocations over time. The respective growth rates for each area were adjusted to be consistent with the overall county-wide projection established in the previous tables, and with the trend in allocated shares of population by area over time. The result of this process can be seen in the projections of population for the years 2000 and 2010. We emphasize that this is a statistical process which extends historical trends, and docs not necessarily recognize any specific announced development plans or possible future land use policies within any given area. As seen in Table 6, only the far west, west, and northwest areas are anticipated M as having a positive population change between now and 2010, with all other areas of the Little Rock vicinity losing population. The balance of the county, comprising mainly the rural west and the "north-of-river" portions, is expected to increase by 21,154 persons between 1990 and 2010. The eight analysis areas comprising the immediate Little Rock vicinity arc shown actually losing population from 192,192 in 1990 to 184,542 by 2000 but recovering slightly to 186,042 by 2010. n-18 tischler & Associates, inTable 6 Population Change By Analysis Area
1980-2010 1980 Actual 1990 2000 Projected 2010 Pulaski County 340,597 349,660 350,497 367,664 Percent Change *80-90 90-00 OO-IO 2.7% 0.2% 4.9% Little Rock Vicinity 194,421 192,192 184,542 186,042 -1.1% -4.0% 0.8% Do^^ntoM'n Central East Northwest Midtown Southwest West Far West 2,439 16,063' 18,007 47,830 36,973 39,757 18,478 14,874 1,777 12.892- 15,035 49,944 31,389 36,414 18,811 25,930 1,277 9,642 12,035 51.444 24,739 32,664 18,811 33,930 1,027 7,892 10,035 53,444 18,739 29,164 19,811 45,930 -27.1% -19.7% -16.5% 4.4% -15.1% -8.4% 1.8% 74.3% -28.1% -25.2% -20.0% 3.0% -21.2% -10.3% 0.0% 30.9% -19.6% -18.1% -16.6% 3.9% -24.3% -10.7% 5.3% 35.4% Balance Of Pulaski County 146,176 157,468 165,955 181,622 7.7% 5.4% 9.4% Source: U.S. Centur
TudJtr & Anociuej. Inc. Tischler &_Associates. h I a a a The most pronounced growth is foreseen in the far west and northwest analysis areas. Population growth in just these two areas is projected to be 23,500 persons between 1990 and 2010. This further indicates that the remainder of Little Rock may loose 29,650 population over this same twenty-year period. The graph accompanying Table 6 shows population changes for the remaining six analysis areas, the combined total for just the far west and the northwest areas, and the balance of Pulaski County. This chan illustrates the effect of continuation of the pronounced suburban migration which has been occurring in the Little Rock area. These trends are also depicted in the following series of maps
a. b. c. Pulaski County Population Change by Census Tract
1980 - 1990 Numeric changes in population which have occurred between 1980 and 1990 are shown for every census tract county-wide. The two lowest ranked shadings in this map show population loss, while the two higher ranked shadings indicate net population gain. In addition to the far-west Little Rock areas, the Maumelle and the far northeastern portion of the county are shown as experiencing the greatest population growth, between 2,000 and 9,044 persons in any given census tract. Little Rock Vicinity Population Change 1980 - 1990 This map is a sub-set of the prior map, showing actual numeric change in population for each of eight analysis areas comprising the immediate Little Rock vicinity. This map shows a dramatic loss of population between 3,000 and 5,585 persons for the central, midtown, and souwest portions of the city, and population declines of up to 3,000 persons for downtown and the eastern areas. Population growth, between 0 and 2,500 persons occurred in the west and northwest areas, while total population growth of up to 11,056 persons occurred in the far west area- Projected Population for Little Rock Vicinity
2010 This maps shows the projected in-place population which may be anticipated as of 2010, reflecting a continuation of prevailing trends. Downtown and the central city area are shown as having less than 10,000 population, while the cast, midtown and west areas arc shown as having between 10,000 and 25,000 population each. As of 2010, the northwest and far west areas arc indicated as having between 40,000 and 53,444 population. 11-20 Tischler & Associates, tnc kd. Projected Population Change, Little Rock Vicinity
1990 - 2010 The last map of this series indicates the increment of population change projected between 1990 and 2010. As in the second map, significant population losses are expected in the downtown, midtown, central and southwest portions of the city, while gains of 0 to 5,000 population are expected in the west and northwest areas, and up to 20,000 are foreseen for the far west area. I I I 11-21 I Tischler & Associates, In,Popo lotion Change 1980 - 1990 Pulaski County Census Tracts (/) n zr rt) C* > tn UI O O co' a> (/t 9044 2000 0 -500 -1699 Population Change 1980 - Little Rock Vicinity 1990 (/) n 5 Qo > </ <Z) O o O) (D 2500 Fj Mldlown 0 -3000 -5584 1 1056 Southw6sI Projected Population 2010 Little Rock Vicinity twMown jntrol 53444 40000 25000 10000 n * 2 po > (/) 8 OJ (? n 1027 FProjected Population Change Little Rock Vicinity 1990 2010 20000 5000 in o zr 2 c tn 8 Q) V) 3 Midtown 0 -6000 -12650 Fl SoulhweaI I fl fl ILC. RACE, AGE, AND SEX CHARACTERISTICS Beyond ihe quantities of population and households are primary descriptive characteristics, including consideration of age, sex, racial distribution. The following data reviews changes which have occurred in these characteristics over the 1980-1990 decade. 1. Age and Sex Characteristics Table 7 shows race, age and sex distributions for Pulaski County as of 1980, 1990 and the changes which have occurred over this period. These data indicate that the population as a whole is aging. This is consistent with national trends as the "baby boom" generation advances into middle age. In 1980, Pulaski County population between the ages of 35-59 years, and 60 years and above comprised 25 percent and 13.7 percent of the population respectively. By 1990, the 35-59 age group had grown to 30 percent, and the 60 and over group had increased to 15.3 percent of total county population. As of 1990, Black children and teenagers comprised a higher-than-average percentage of these age groups in Pulaski County compared to the total population. While the county as a whole has approximately 35% Black population. Black female children and teenagers through age 19 comprise 37.4 percent, and Black male children and teenagers comprise 44.1 percent of this age bracket. Of particular note has been the apparent out-migration of younger white children (and their families) from Pulaski County. As of 1980, Pulaski County had 36,253 white children of 0 to 9 years of age. However, ten years later in 1990, this same population group, now aged 10-19 years, was only 29,359, a decline of 6,894, or about 19 percent of the corresponding 1980 population group. By contrast, Black children have maintained their relative total between 1980 and 1990. As of 1980, Black children aged 0-9 years were 19,237. As of 1990, the corresponding age group, now 10-19 years old, was nearly the same at 19,034. This may be seen as another indication of the out-migration trends discussed earlier for the population as a whole. It is probably also indicative of the perception of lower quality of schools in Pulaski County and Little Rock, as white families with school age children have moved to other jurisdictions. n-26 Tischler & Associates. IrMale Co o 5 (?n > </> tn 8 Q) S tn Tabic 7 Age by Sex and Race Pulaski County
1980 & 1990 Numeric Distribution 1980 1990 1980 Female Male Female Male Percent Distribution Female Male 1990 Female Total Population Under 5 yn Yean 5-9 Yean 10-19 Yean 20-34 Yean 35-60 Yean 60-74 Yean 75 + White Population Under 5 yn Yean 5-9 Yean 10-19 Yean 20-34 Yean 35-60 Yean 60-74 Yean 75 + Black Population Under 5 yn Yean 5-9 Yean 10-19 Yean 20-34 Yean 35-60 Yean 60-74 Yean 75 -e Other Races Under 5 yn Yean 5-9 Yean 10-19 Yean 20-34 Yean 35-60 Yean 60-74 Yean 75 -e 162,475 14,611 14,158 27,475 46,819 40374 14394 4,454 178,138 13,680 13,959 27,442 50,487 44,730 19,110 8,730 166,462 13,421 13358 25,065. 43,684 49,865 15,685 5,485 183,198 12,965 12,648 24,081 46363 54.466 20,972 11302 100.0% 9.0% 8.7% 16.9% 28.8% 25.0% 8.8% 2.7% 100.0% 7.7% 7.8% 15.4% 28.3% 25.1% 10.7% 4.9% 100.0% 8.1% 8.0% 15.1% 263% 30.0% 9.4% 33% 100,0% 7.1% 6.9% 13.1% 25.4% 29.7% 11.4% 63% 122,628 9,420 9319 19,048 35,834 34,105 11356 3346 132,069 8,483 9,031 18,866 36,988 36368 15384 7,049 121,513 8,758 8337 15,075 32,607 39,417 13,135 4384 131,041 8.406 7,781 14384 32,740 41,402 17,109 9319 100.0% 7.7% 7.6% 15.5% 29.2% 27.8% 9.47. 2.77. 100.0% 6.4% 6.8% 14.3% 28.0% 273% 11.6% 5.3% 100.0% 73% 6.8% 12.4% 26.8% 32.4% 10.8% 33% 100.0% 6.4% 5.9% 10.9% 25.0% 31.6% 13.1% 7.1% 37,804 4,967 4,618 7,968 10309 6,077 2,680 1,085 43,603 4,941 4,711 8338 12,499 7,936 3,638 1,640 42,737 4,475 4,797 9356 10,497 9,781 2,448 1,183 49,463 4344 4,647 9,478 12,966 12,170 3,707 2,151 100.0% 13.1% 12.2% 21.1% 27.3% 16.1% 7.1% 2.9% 100.0% 113% 10.8% 18.9% 28.7% 183% 83% 3.8% 100.0% 103% 113% 234% 24.6% 239% 5.7% 2.8% 100.0% 8.8% 9.4% 193% 263% 24.6% 73% 43% 2,043 224 221 459 676 392 58 23 2,466 256 217 338 1,000 526 88 41 2,212 188 224 434 580 667 102 18 2,694 215 220 319 857 894 156 32 100.0% 11.0% 10.8% 235% 33.1% 19.2% 2.8% 1.1% 100.0% 10.4% 8.8% 13.7% 40.6% 21.3% 3.6% 1.7% 100.0% 83% 10.1% 19.6% 263% 30.1% 4.6% 0.8% 100.0% 8.0% 83% 11.9% 31.8% 333% 5.8% 13% Cenim: MctroptnI 2. Racial Distribution Table 8 examines racial distribution for analysis areas comprising the immediate Little Rock vicinity. As of the 1990 census, just over one-third of the entire Little Rock Area population was non-white. All but two of the analysis areas were at I I I least 31 percent non-white, and four of the eight analysis areas had non-white majority populations. This comparison of 1980 and 1990 census data shows that non-white population has increased significantly in the southwest and western sectors, with the percent of non-white population increasing by over 18 percentage points in both of these areas. As of 1990, the midtown and central areas had 68.4 and 80.2 percent non-white population respectively. The lowest non-white population was just over seven percent in the northwest and far west areas. In both the far west and the eastern areas, the proponion of non-white population actually declined slightly, while increasing in all other areas. Of further note is the dramatic contrast between the areas of lowest concentration (nonhwest and far west) and all other areas which have at least 31 percent non-white population. I Changes in racial distribution are funher depicted in a series of maps. These show, in order: fl fl a. b. c. d. Percent Non-White Population as of 1980 Percent Non-White Populauon as of 1990 Numeric change in Non-White Population, 1980-1990 Change in the Non-White Population Percent, 1980-1990 Example: fl a change of 20 percent to 30 percent white population is shown as a net change of plus-10 percentage points. fl fl fl These maps and dau indicate that non-white population is also following the general east-to-west. movement of general population, although to date it is primarily focussed towards the west and southwest sectors rather than the far west As with total population, non-white population is declining and vacating the eastern portions of the Little Rock vicinity, including the east, central, midtown and downtown sectors, and moving into the west and southwest sectors. The result has been a marked increase in the proportion of non-white population in the west and southwest areas. The northwest and far west areas remain predominantly oriented to white population. fl 11-28 Tischler & Associates, inr1980 ANALYSIS AREA Downtown Central East Northwest Midtown Southwest West Total Population White 2,439 1,214 16,063 18,007 47,830 36,973 39,757 18,478 3,573 7301 45,685 14,039 34.481 13,444 </, o 2 rt> Far West 14,874 13.707 Table 8 Racial Distribution 1980 andl990 by Study Area Non- White 1,225 12,490 10,706 2,145 ' 22,934 . 5377 5,034 1.167 1990 Percent Non- White 50.2% 77.8% 59.5% 4.5% 62.0% 13.3% 27.2% 7.8% Total Popul.Ttion White Non- White Percent Non- Whitc Change in Percent 1980-90 1,777 12.892 15,035 49,944 31.389 36,414 18,811 25,930 752 1,025 57.7% 73% 2,552 6,627 46,388 9,927 24,915 10,259 24.001 10,340 80.2% 2.4% 8,408 3,556 21,462 11,499 8,552 1,929 55.9% 7.1% 68.4% 31.6% 45.5% 7.4% -33% 2.6% 63% 183% 183% -0.4% C > (/) (/> o o S) CD (/) STUDY AREA TOTAL 194,421 133,444 60,978 31.4% 192,192 125,421 66,771 34.7% 3.4% 'qutcc: U.S. Census
Tischler & Assoc. Inc.Non-White Racial Distribution
1980 Percent Non-White Population By Area <Z) O > VI oO oi (T) tn o NorIhweaI Fir West 78 60 30 10 5 J I Non-Wh i t e Roc i a I Distribution
Percent Non-White Population By 1990 Area . 80 NorIhweaI FAr Wes I +own' 60 30 10 n G) > i/i O n Q) (D f/t 7Non-White Racial Change
1980 - 1990 Change in Non-White Numeric Population By Area )n I r o I rz East 6222 1500 -1500 o 2 c c>/) </> Q a 63 o tn a -2298 O ' 5y 0 J Non-White Racial Change
1980 - 1990 Change in Non-White Population Percentage By Area () Fir Wes I wn- I y V Eos t 18 10 5 0 (Z) O > O O 0) W -4I II.D. INCOME, HOUSING, RETAIL TRADE 1. Household Income Table 9 displays data compiled by Metroplan as to the source of personal income for residents of Pulaski County from 1981 through 1986. This data confirms the trend data seen in the earlier discussion of employment, in that under earnings by industry, the services sector is the single largest source of personal income within the region, and is growing faster than any other sector. This is consistent with trends in many other pans of the country. Table 10 displays ihe distribution of personal household income by analysis area within the immediate Little Rock vicinity. Of note is the relative affluence of the northwest and far west areas compared'to the rest of Little Rock. As of 1980, these areas had 23 and 29 percent of their households respectively with incomes of S35,000 or more, compared to no higher than 8.6 percent for any other area. 1980 Median household incomes were $21,059 for the northwest area and $24,817 for the far west area, with no other area higher than $17,290. Concentration of low-income households was, naturally, a reverse pattern of affluence. Between 76 and 80 percent of all households in the downtown and central city areas had incomes less than $10,000 in 1980. fl fl 11-34 Tischler & Associates. InTable 9 Personal Income For Pulaski County By Major Sources
1981-1986 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Personal Income by Place of Residence Total Personal Income Nonfarm Personal Income Farm Income 3,583,443 3,574,112 9,331 3,816229 3,810237 5,992 4,115,434 4,111,466 3,968 4,425,573 4,418,193 7.380 4,785,672 4,776,861 8,811 5,0924 5,0892'C-v 3,345 V Population (Thousands) 2/ Per Capita Personal Income (Dollars) 343.1 510,444 345.3 511,050 347.6 511,839 350.9 512,613 353.7 513,530 356.3 514292 Derivation Of Total Personal Income Total Earnings By Place Of Work Less
Personal Coni. For Social Insur. 3/ Plus: Residence Adjustment 5/ Equals: Net Earnings By Place Of Residence Plus: Dividends, Interest and Rent 5/ 6/ Plus: Transfer Paymenis 3.145.850 184.358 (382,294) 2,579,198 480,920 523,325 3,363,664 205,515 (426,652) 2,731,497 516,951 567,781 3.673.001 226.886 (479.827) 2.966.288 537.938 611208 3,990 241 246,428 (533,969) 3,209,844 591,479 624,250 4,325,898 280,123 (589,304) 3,456,471 648,684 680,517 4,614,072 302,736 (613,707j 3,697,629 683.974 710.970 I I I Earnings by Place of Work Components of Earnings Wages and Salaries Other Labor Income Proprietors Income 7/ Farm 5/ ' Nonfarm 2,676,807 248,556 220,487 7229 213,258 2,868,238 280,774 214,652 3,571 211,081 3,121,890 307,261 243,850 1,633 242,217 3,389,461 319,130 281,650 5,083 276,567 3,670,770 336,913 318215 6,482 311,733 3,912,893 352201 348,978 l,001*' 347,977 I Earnings by Industry Farm Nonfarm Private Ag.Sc' .J^orestiy.2ish..And Other 8/ Mining Construction Manufacturing Non-durable Goods Durable Goods Transportation Wholesale Trad
Retail Trade Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate Services Government and Government Enterprises Federal, Civilian Military State and Local 9,331 3,136,519 2,474264 7,663 14,099 200,574 456,797 197,929 258,868. 349,384 272,152 324,673 239464 609458 662255 177279 108,347 376,629 5,992 3,357,672 2,636,057 8,199 14,470 203,494 446,605 201,765 244,840 371418 285,365 340,442 279,018 686,946 721,615 187,818 123.394 410,403 3,968 3,669,033 2,902,035 9,848 14,652 215,740 473470 211426 262244 399434 305,063 381,902 337,068 764,858 766,998 202,163 129240 434,895 7,380 3,982,861 3,141,939 10444 14,007 246,472 505,764 226,611 279,153 425,527 346,317 405,524 349,726 838,058 840,922 222,729 141,925 476268 8,811 4,317,087 3,404,310 9,341 16,422 266,019 514,777 230,881 283,896 455210 370408 439,861 401465 930,807 912,777 235,703 150,314 526,760 3.345 4,610,7 3,648,1 II 10,951 16,472 521,\9- 241.707 285,48 493,18 381,692 467,43' 457,831 1,019,69"' 962208 23821* 153,9d* 569441 (D) Not tbowu tc avoid diiclosure of ccofidcntiaJ infonnaocn. 1/1981-86 Baaed co 1972 SIC 2/ U.S. Bureau of the Ccoiua Eatimaict 3/ Penonal Cooiribuucnt for Social Ini. are included in eaminti by type and jnduiuy but excluded frem perional income. 5/ 1978-83 Fann Pro. & Rental Income and Rcridenee Adj. reflect reviiico which have not been made for petvioui yeara. 6/ Includca the C,. jilal Coniumptioo Adj. for Rental Incrxnc of Peraoni. 77 Includci the Inventory Valuation and Capital Coniumpdoo Adjuitmenti. 8/ Other - Wagea and Salariei cd U.S. Reaidoju working for International organiiationi in the U3. a a Sounx: Lcxad Area Pereonil Income, Volume A Southeait Retion, 1981-1986
U.S. DeptruneiU of Conunenx. Bureau of Economic Analyiix
July. 1988. Tischler & Associates. IdI Table 10 Personal Household Income by Analysis Area
1980 I Total ANALYSIS - Nilin, of. Under AREA Hshlds- $5,000 $5,000 to $7,499 $7,500 to $9,999 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 to to to to $14,999 $19,999 $24,999 $34,999 DoxsTitown 1,274- 323 245 173 273 145 44 53 Central ^,459 1,914 914 926 1,177 635 399 233 East 5,694 1,259 631 623 1,102 665 584 585 Northwest 21,026, 1,323 1,033 1,444 3,243 2,943 2,486 3,752 Midtown 2,451 1,322 1,375 2,637 1,963 1,251 1,184 Southwest '' (4,660 1,219 1,108 1,498 2,594 2.103 2,237 2,319 West 7.017 777 463 574 1,167 1,151 1,057 \.221 Far West 377 191 293 566 515 525 1,012 S3S,000 $50,000 to $49,999 194 181 2,597 345 788 490 790 and ' Higher 18 64 2,205 Median $8^496 $8,583 $31i514 $21,059 120 ' $12,228 194 111 621 $16,684 $17,290 $24317 n 12,648 7r V , 4,896, 0 Percent Distribution Downtown Central East Northwest Midtown Southwest West Far West 100.0% 25.4% 100.0% 29.6% 100.0% 22.1% 100.0% 6.3% 100.0% 19.4% 100.0% 8.3% 100.0% 11.1% 100.0% 7.7% 19.2% 14.2% 11.1% 4.9% 13.6% 14.3% 10.9% 6.9% 10.5% 10.9% 7.6% 6.6% 3.9% 10.2% 8.2% 6.0% 21.4% 18.2% 19.4% 15.4% 20.8% 17.7% 16.6% 11.6% 11.4% 9.8% 11.7% 14.0% 15.5% 18.4% 16.4% 10.5% 3.5% 6.2% 10.3% 11.8% 9.9% 15.3% 15.1% 10.7% 4.2% 3.6% 10.3% 17.8% 9.4% 15.8% 17.5% 20.7% 0.0% 3.0% 3.2% 12.4% 2.7% 5.4% 7.0% 16.1% 1.4% 1.0% 1.1% 10.5% 0.9% 1.3% 1.6% 12.8% Cumulative Percent fl Downtown Central East Northwest Midtown Southwest West Far West 25.4% 29.6% 22.1% 6.3% 19.4% 8.3% 11.1% 7.7% 44.6% 43.8% 33.2% 11.2% 29.8% 15.9% 17.7% 11.6% 58.2% 58.1% 44.1% 18.1% 40.7% 26.1% 25.9% 17.6% 79.6% 76.3% 63.5% 33.5% 61.6% 43.8% 42.5% 29.1% 91.0% 86.2% 75.2% 47.5% 77.1% 62.2% 58.9% 39.7% 94.4% 92.4% 85.4% 59.3% 87.0% 77.5% 73.9% 50.4% 98.6% 96.0% 95.7% 77.2% 96.3% 93.3% 91.4% 71.1% 98.6% 99.0% 98.9% 89.5% 99.1% 98.7% 98.4% 87.2% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Souree: U.S. Ccnjuj. 1960
TiidJcr & Aiioc., Inc. Tischiet & Associales. in ICentral Area 1980 Median Household Income Ch 24817 (/> o Q C* > i/i Q n Q V Fj dttnlown inlrol 15000 10000 8496 i I 20000 Centro I Percent Areo 1980 Housenuiu Income of Households with $10,000 Household Income or Less 58 Northwest () 45 Fir West 51 (/ o 2 c*> > (/) (n O g 0) Q (Z) 30 20 18 J Central Area 1980 HousehoId Income Percent of Households with $35,000 Income or More Fl ---------- Midtown C I own
jnlrol idy V 28.9 20.0 10.0 5.0 1 (?> n 2 c* > Vi O ow V) Eosl 1 . 4 2. Housing Characteristics A summary of housing tenure and occupancy data is presented in Table 11. This data lists tenure type (seasonal, owner occupancy, rental occupancy) and racial occupancy by tenure for each county of the MSA as of the 1980 and 1990 census. I I f From 1980 to 1990, vacant housing units in Pulaski County increased from 6.2 percent to 9.5 percent of the total housing stock. This is in contrast to the adjoining three counties for which vacancy rates either remained about the same, or in fact declined over this same period. Rental units in Pulaski County have narrowly increased their share of total occupied units during the 1980s, growing from 37.6 percent in 1980 to 39.7 percent in 1990. A similar, marginal increase in the portion of rental units was also experienced in the three adjoining counties, each increasing between one-half to nearly two percentage points. I H In Pulaski County, a small increase the proportion of housing units with Black householders was experienced over this same period, increasing from 20.0 percent in 1980 to 22.0 percent in 1990. This is the highest proponion of any of the MSA counties. Black householders actually declined slightly in Lonoke County, and increased from 1,024 (6.6 percent) to 1,506 (7.1 percent) in Faulkner County. Saline County has remained predominently oriented to white householders at 97.6 percent, with only 364 Black householders county-wide as of 1990. As of 1990, the median owner-occupied housing value was S61,300 and the median monthly rent for rental units was $303 for all of Pulaski County. These values were the highest of the MSA Counties. Median ownership values for Saline County were $59,000, and were $55,400 for Faulkner County as of 1990. Table 12 summarizes a tabulation of housing starts compiled by Metroplan, It should be noted that for H covering both Pulaski and SaEne Counties. unincorporated areas, no building permit data was avaEable, and indirect data sources (such as U.S. Postal data and uEEty company data) have been used to estimate housing starts. These data indicate that for the 25 year period from 1960 H to 1985, multi-family housing starts comprised over 43 percent of the two countytotal. As will be seen later in Section HI, this proportion is much higher than the proportion of multi-family building permits issued by the City of Little Rock over the most recent three years. Realtors and developers have also indicated that the Little Rock areas is very strongly oriented to single-family housing, and that very little in the way of multi family housing has been initiated within Little Rock in recent years. 11-41 Tischler & Associates. IncTOTAL HOUSING UNITS Vacant Housing Units Table 11 Characteristics Of Housing Units
1980 & 1990 Pulaski Saline , 1-aulkncr Lonoke 1980 1990 1980 1990 1980 1990 1980 1990 132,810 151,538 18,854 24,602 16,814 23,397 12,442 15,009 Vacant, Seasonal & Migragory Units 8,294 6.2% 131 14,329 9.5% 275 1,282 6.8% 100 1,56.5 6.4% 171 1,32.5 7.9% '72 2,072 8.9% 424 1,034 8.3% n 1,14,3 7.6% 77 OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS 124,516 100.0% 137,209 100.0% 17,572 100.0% 23,037 100.0% 15,489 100.0% 21,325 100.0% 11,408 100.0% 13,866 100.0% TENURE CHARACTERSITICS While Householder 98,348 79.0% f 105,475 76.9% .
' 17,142 97.6% 22,494 97.6% 14,38.3 92.9% 19,638 92.1% 10,173 89
2%
12,668 91.4% Black Householder 24,871 20.0^ 30,245 22
09^^'. 334 1.9% 364 1.6% 1,024 6.6% 1,506 7.1% 1,17.3 10.3% 1,107 8.0% Other Races 1,297 1.0%,
. 1,489 .1.1%4C" 96 0.5% 179 0.8% 82 0.5% 181 0.8% 62 0J% 91 0.7% Owner Occupied 77,678
62.4% 82,772 .60.3%
' 14,244 81.1% 18,563 80.6% 11,220 72.4% 15,027 70.5% 8,564 75.1% 10,319 : 74.4% Renter Occupied V! o 3" 5 c*> > v> O n 5 (V (/) 46,838 3 j.6% 54,437 39.7%
3,328 18.9% 4,474 19.4% 4,269 27.6% 6,298 29.5% 2,844 24.9% 3,547 25.6% VALUE AND RENT Median Value Median Contract Rent $40,100 $174 $61,300 $30.3 $37,100 $130 $59,000 $241 $37,100 $139 $55,400 $247 $33,200 $106 $52,700 $217 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the CensusTable 12 Housing Starts*, 19601985 Pulaski and Saline Counties Total Starts Single Family Starts Prcnt Multi-Family Starts Prcnt 1960 1961 1962 196.3 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 197.3 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Total
1,011 1,212 2372 2,427 2,653 3,690 1,885 2,020 1,712 1,591 3,144 4,708 4,35.3 4,117 2,258 1,776 2390 2,685 2,645 2,810 1,949 1,341 2337 3,908 3,936 3,091 68,221 928 1,085 1,749 1,858 1,922 1,814 1,141 1,178 1,299 ' 1,122 1,321 1,986 2,067 1,718 1,384 1,587 1,84,3 1,998 1,808 2,0.37 1,27.3 607 488 1,282 1,471 91.8% 893% 73.7% 76.6% 72.4% 49.2% 60.5% 583% 75.9% 70.5% 42.0% 42.2% 473% 41.7% 613% 89.4% 77.1% 74.4% 68.4% 723% 653% 453% 192% 32.8% 37.4% 50.1% 83 127 62.3 569 7.31 1,876 744 842 413 469 1,823 2,722 2,286 2,399 874 189 547 687 8.37 77.3 676 734 2,049 2,626 2,465 1,542 8.2 10.5 263 23.4 27.6 50.8 .39.5 41.7 24.1 293 58.0 57.8 523 583 38.7 10.6 22.9 25.6 31.6 273 .34.7 54.7 80.8 672 62.6 49.9 38,515 56^% 29,706 43^ Metroplan estimates for incorporated and unincorporated areas. Source: Metroplan Tischler & Associates, Ini 3. Retail Trade Profile II I The most recent profile data for retailing may be drawn from Sales and Marketing Magazine. (U.S. Census of Retail Trade data is only available through 1987.) Estimated retail sales as of 1989 arc shown in Table 13 for the MSA region, for each county, and specifically for Little Rock. All dollar figures shown in Table 13 are expressed in thousands of 1989 year values. The top half of Table 13 shows the estimated sales, and the percentage distribution of these sales for establishments by jurisdiction. I I As of 1989, total sales for Little Rock establishments were estimated at SI.95 billion, with an additional $1.29 billion estimated for the balance of Pulaski County, combining for total county-wide sales of $3.24 billion. Sales in each of the other three MSA counties were dramatically lower at $242 million, $325 million, and $135 million for Saline, Faulkner and Lonoke Counties respectively. These sales estimates indicate that Little Rock establishments accounted for nearly half (49.5 percent) of total regional sales, with the balance of the county (i.e. North Little Rock and adjoining areas) accounting for nearly one third (32.6 percent) of the regional total. While Little Rock is therefore capturing the greatest share, establishments in the northern part of the county are capturing a sales share which is much higher than this areas share of regional population. This can be attributed to several of the regions larger retail centers being located in the northern part of the county, and that these locations tend to serve as "intercepts" to some degree for the Faulkner County market further to the nonh. Another factor highlighting this condition is that while Little Rock establishments captured about half of the regions sales overall, general merchandise stores in Little Rock (i.e. depanment stores, mass merchandise stores) in Little Rock accounted for less than one-third of the regional total for this category, with north-county establishments accounting for over half (56.2 percent) of these sales. I The bottom half of this table estimates market capture, or market penetration. Estimated market demand is calculated by pro-rating total sales in proportion to personal income, indicated as "Effective Buying Income". This indicates what the residents of each jurisdiction are likely to spend, regardless of the location of stores. That is, if expenditures are made in proportion to the supply of buying income in each jurisdiction, then residents of Little Rock would be expected to have generated $1.68 billion in market demand. Residents of the rest of Pulaski County are estimated to have generated $1.27 billion in estimated demand as of 1989, with residents of the three adjoining counties generating nearly $1.0 billion together. Comparing the sales from establishments within each jurisdiction to the expenditures from the same jurisdiction indicates whether sales are being "imported" or "exported". Overall, sales for esublishments in Little Rock are estimated as being equivalent to about 116 percent of expenditures from city residents, thus indicating that a significant increment of sales is coining from visitors or residents living outside of the city. IW4 Tischler & Associates. I' a Table 1.3 Retail Sales Distribution (Dollar values in $000s) MSA Effective Buying Income $6,277,292 % Distribution 100.0% Pulaski Total Little Rock $4,708,747 $2,683,822 75.0% 42.8% Balance $2,024,925 32.3% Saline $590,377 9.4% Faulkner $645,074 103% Lonoke $333,094 5.3% I TOTAL SALES Food Stores Eat & Drink Gen Mdse Fumy Api. Automotive Drug AU Other SALES CAPTURE Total Sales Food Stores Eat & Drink Gen Mdse Fumy Api. Automotive Drug All Other $3,944,461 723,295 .345376 610,018 180,043 1,006,480 78,700 1,000,549 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% $3,241,219 $1,954,152 540,208 289,878 5.36,.350 153,180 843300 58,601 819,702 329,73.3 193,440 193,440 107,218 504,447 37,850 588,024 $1,287,067 210,475 96,438 342,910 45,962 338,85.3 20,751 231,678 $242,300 68,001 16,306 25,385 8,880 65,026 7,138 51,564 $325,186 73,540 .31,851 34,65.3 14,515 66,520 7,400 96,707 $135,756 41,546 7341 1.3,6.30 3,468 .31,6.34 5,561 .32,576 82.2% 74.7% 8.3.9% 87.9% 85.1% 83.8% 743% 81.9% 49.5% 45.6% 56.0% 31.7% 59.6% 50.1% 48.1% 58.8% 32.6% 29.1% 27.9% 56.2% 25.5% 33.7% 26.4% 232% 6.1% 9.4% 4.7% 4.2% 4.9% 63% 9.1% 53% 8.2% 10.2% 9.2% 5.7% 8.1% 6.6% 9.4% 9.7% 3.4% 5.7% 2.1% 23% 1.9% 3.1% 7.1% 33% ESTIMATED DEMAND Total Sales Food Stores Eat & Drink Gen Mdse Fumy Api. Automotive Dmg AU Other $3,944,461 723,295 345376 610,018 180,043 1,006,480 78,700 1,000349 $2,958,835 542361 259,075 457389 135,055 754,985 59,035 750336 $1,686,433 309,241 147,664 260,810 76,976 430315 33,648 427,779 $1,272,402 233320 111,411 196,779 58,078 324,670 25387 322,756 $370,975 68,026 32,482 57372 16,933 94,659 7,402 94,101 $405,345 74328 35,492 62,687 18302 103,429 8,087 102,820 $209306 38380 18327 32370 9354 53,407 4,176 53,092 market CAPTURE Total Sales Food Stores Eat & Drink Gen Mdse Fumy Api. Automotive Drug All Other 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1093% 99.6% 111.9% 1173% 113.4% 111.7% 993% 1093% 115.9% 106.6% 131.0% 74.2% 1393% 1173% 1123% 1373% 1013% 903% 86.6% 1743% 79.1% 104.4% 81.7% 71.8% 653% 100.0% 503% 443% 52.4% 68.7% 96.4% 54.8% 803% 98.9% 89.7% 553% 783% 643% 913% 94.1% 64.9% 1083% 40.1% 42.1% 363% 593% 1333% 61.4% Source: 1990 Sales & Marketing Magazine
Tischler & Associates, Inc. Tischler & Associates, inI Saline, Faulkner and Lonoke counties, however, are shown as having sales equal to only 65.3, 80.2, and 64.9 percent of their residents expenditures respectively, thus indicating that a margin of sales are being lost to establishments in other jurisdictions, in this case, Little Rock and norther Pulaski County. Little Rocks sales are consistently higher than expenditures from the citys residents for each category, with the one very notable exception of general merchandise. For this category, stores within the city are capturing only 74 percent of the expenditures generated by city residents. These sales are being captured by stores in the North Little Rock area which is estimated has having a market capture equal to 174 percent of the expenditures generated just from within this area. I I These rates of sales capture and market expenditure capture are further depicted graphically in Exhibit 20. I The overall observation from this data is that retailing in Little Rock generally enjoys good competitive positioning and is able to command a significant share of the regions sales and expenditures. However, a very obvious departure from this overall picture is in regards to department stores and mass merchandise stores, as noted above. I I I 11-46 Tischler & Associaies. Inc IExhibit 20 Retail Sales Capture Sales Capture This chart shows sales for Little Rock esublishments as a percent of toul sales for Pulaski County, and the MSA region. Types of stores capturing the largest share of sales include furniture, furnish-ngs and appliance stores, and eating and drinking esublishments. General merchandise (department) stores have a very low share, capturing only .36 % of county sales and 32 % of MSA sales. Little Rock Sales Cipture City Sales as % of Region. Couoty Sales so% 70% 60% 50% 30% 20% 10%e d 0% % of Region % of County Food & Drug SS Eat & Drink ^3 Gen Mdse Hum. i Applnc Automotive Other Markel Penetration The chart below shows sales for Little Rock establishments as a percent of the estimated total expenditures generated by residents throughout the MSA, and in just the county and city. Figures above 100% indicate sales in excess of local resident demand, attracting expenditures from surrounding areas. Again, general merchandise lags far below other types of establishments. Little Rock Market Penetration City Sales as % of Market Demand I 150% r 140% 130% ' 120% 110% 100% 90% S0% 70% 60% 50% 40% X)% 20% 10% 0% Regional Demand County Demand City Demand XX X [ S Food & Drug S Ell & Drink EOenMdie S Furn. & Apploe 1^ AulODOtive 1^ Other Souree
1990 Sales & Markeiing Magaiinc
Tischler & Associates, Inc. Tischler & Associates. Inc I Section HI Development Trends I The previous section has laid a foundation of general background data depicting economic and demographic conditions and trends. In this section, we will review current trends in development, and will make generalized projections as to development quantities in several major sectors. II I I in.A. HOUSING MARKET TRENDS A general assessment of housing market conditions and trends has been completed and is presented in this section. This begins with a review of recent sales and construction activity, and then projections are made as to likely future demand within the immediate Little Rock area. H H II 1. Residential Sales Activity I Table 14 presents summary indicators of recent activity in home sales for the Little Rock area, and immediately adjoining areas. This data is based on summary statistics for the first nine months in both 1990 and 1991 from the Central Arkansas Multiple Listing Service. The nature of this data is strongly oriented to sales of existing homes, although some new homes, particularly in the areas of new developing communities, may be included. I I The data in Table 14 show about the same level of activity in both 1990 and 1991, with total unit sales in the first nine months of each year at just under 1,500 closed sales. For both years, the areas with the highest activity were the far west and northwest areas, with more than 500 sales each in both years. The next most active area was southwest, with roughly half this level of sales, 282 in 1990 and 217 in 1981. No other area had more than 100 sales. For all of Little Rock, reported closing (sales) prices were about 3.5 percent higher in 1991, at $93,969, than in 1990, averaging then at $90,801. The highest average sales prices were reported in the far west area, indicated at nearly $125,000 in 1991. Only one other area, northwest, had average prices close to $100,000 ($98,848). Much lower average prices were reported in all other areas, with the downtown/central city area, southwest and west all indicating prices close to $50,000 and two areas, cast and midtown indicating very low average reported I III-l Tischler & Associates. ILillie Rock Downtown/Cenlral City East & Airport Midtown Northwest, Hillcrest Southwest West Far West Soulhwesl Corridor Bryanl Benton Otter Creek North Pulaski County Table 14 Residential Sales Activity
1990-1991 Number of Sales 1990 1991 1,472 1,481 Average Selling 1990 $90,801 Price 1991 $93,969 % of Listing Price Received Avg. Days of Listing Time 1990 1991 1990 1991 94.4% 94.2% 131.8 132.6 33 7 56 50,3 282 59 532 41 9 46 531 217 92 545 47,462 23,342 33,346 96,622 50,090 50,072 121,017 53,307 . 26,101 26,460 98,848 49,1.5,5 47,626 124,759 90.4% 91.9% 91.8% 93.9% 95.1% 95.6% 94.9% 93.8% 99.2% 88.8% 92.8% 95.4% 95.1% 95.4% 181.7 129.7 134.9 1203 140.6 150.4 132.7 20L,5 177.1 161.1 138.8 141.9 12.3.2 116.3 379 388 $66,410 $68,457 95.3% 95.7% 119.7 130.1 18,3 167 29 182 161 45 67,081 61,942 87,90.5 67,398 64,87,3 85,562 95.2% 95.5% 94.3% 96.0% 95.5% . 95.6% 112.6 114.9 192.7 128.1 138.9 106.7 1,238 1,261 $70,998 $70,768 95.1% 95.0% 115.6 127.8 wi o 2 ffo > tn (/> O g Q> to North Lillie Rock Maumcllc/Cryslal Hills Jacksonvillc/Cabot Sherwood Source: Central Arkansas MLS 347 267 422 202 379 299 376 207 79,744 73,349 61,36,5 72,993 75,131 74,54.5 60,264 76,401 94,1% 95.8% 95.5% 95.3% 94.0% 95.2% 95.9% 94.8% 128.6 126.7 103.3 104.5 137.5 128.7 116.7 128.7 II prices near $26,000. With the exception of midtown at 88 percent, most areas within the city indicated receiving selling prices in the mid-90 percent range of their listing prices. (This may not necessarily account for seller-authorized reductions in listing prices.) II The far west and west areas had the shortest average listing times in 1991 of 116 and 123 days respectively. At the other end of the scale was downtown/central city with an average 201 day listing period. I I The unit sales volumes and average prices seen in Table 14 are also graphically represented in Exhibit 21. This exhibit clearly shows the margin by which both the number and the value of home sales in the far west and northwest areas surpass all other areas of the city. 2. II H Residential Building Permits Resideniial building permits have been summed for the past three years, 1989 through 1991, and allocated to the eight analysis areas defined for this study. The results of this tabulation are shown in Table 15 on the following page, as well as in the subsequent two map exhibits. n I Over the last three years, a total of 870 single family building permits were issued by the City of Little Rock, an average of 290 per year. This contrasts sharply with the total of 6 duplex (attached unit) permits, and one multi-family permit (not shown on the table) granted over this same period. Over 65 percent of the residential permits were for sites in the far west area. Only the west (at 145) and the northwest (at 90) had any significant level of activity. Average building cost values as reported on the permit applications were generally consistent with the values seen in the realtor sales activities. The far west area had an average building cost of close to $130,000. The northwest area was the next highest, at $155,620. No other area had an average cost higher than $60,000, and two areas, midtowq and central city, had average costs less than $40,000. n n n n The concentration of building activity and the orientation of higher values to the western portion of Little Rock can also be seen in the maps shown in Exhibits 22 and 23. Exhibit 22 shows the number of permits in ranges of 0-10, 10-100, 100- 150, and higher than 150, which in this case, refers only to the 568 units permitted in the far west area. Exhibit 23 funher relates average costs to location within the city. Here, again, the downtown, central, east and midtown areas are shown as having very low unit costs, all averaging less than $51,224, while higher values are found in the western sectors. The west and southwest area are shown with average costs between $51,224 and $59,874, with the nonhwest and far west areas having costs between $59,874 and $155,620. n a a III-3 Tischler & Associales. In* 1Unit Volume Exhibit 21 Residential Sales Activity Number of Home Sales Units Sold TTirough MLS I Average Sales Price Source: Central Arkansas NtLS Tischler & Associales. Inc Table 15 Little Rock Area Residential Building Permits
1989 - 1991 ANALYSIS AREA ClfVViTDE' AvgJPennit > DOTVNTOWN Avg7Permit CENTRAL AvgyPennit EAST Avg7Permit MIDTOWN Avg7Perm!( NORTHWEST AvgJPermit 4VESt< -i -I Avgz'Permit SOUTHWEST AvgJPennit FAR33'EST Xvg7Prmll F Duplex Res. No. Total Vai Single Fam. Res. No. Agg Vai 6 0 2, ' 1 3 0 0
$245300 , $40333 so $0 , ' $80.000 $40,000 $25,000 $25,000 $140,000 $4^,667 870 0 7 7 8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 "w* Ts :5X^ zy'J 90 ji* A $99^jr87 $I14,76fi so SO $230,090 $32370 $384,790 $54,970 $307,190 $38399 $14,005,810 $155,620 45 S'5<58^ % Source: Lisle Rock Dcpu of Keishboihoods St Planning
Tischler & Assoc., Inc. t$8.681^^ > SS9.874 $2300325 $55361 s^s'zM Tischler & Associates, In aLittle Rock Area Building Permits 19891991 Number of Residential Permits 568 Fj /dJo/n. 150 lown jnlrol i lly <5- 100 10 o rr 2 > (Z) V) O a Cast 0 I tn o Q Qo > tn tn O o O) Q tn Little Rock Area Building Permits 1989-1991 Average Value per Res i dent i a I Permit, Fl I own Mill nWAJT ZZ Zv/owm jnlrol ilfe 155620 59874 51224. 54454 03. Projected Households and New Housing Demand Both the data from realtor sales, and the data from new residential building permits quantify several factors, which are widely recognized throughout the community: The far west and nonhwest areas are preferred by far in terms of number of new units
The residential values in the far west and northwest areas are significantly higher than any other ponion of the city, and
The eastern and core areas arc experiencing only very nominal, if any, residential-construction-aetivity,'and have average values which are severely depressed, compared to the rest of the city. In assessing how future housing demand may operate over the next ten years, we have examined both the permit and sale activity, as well as longer term trends in population and household movement, as previously seen in Section H. To assess potential future demand, we have drawn on the population projections by analysis area, as seen previously in Table 6, Section n, and have applied average household sizes to the population data from that data to estimate the implied changes in the number of households. For 1985, the average household sizes varied from 1.6 in the downtown area, to 3.2 in the far west area, and were set so as to be consistent with the household size data adopted earlier for Tables 5 and 6 in Section n. Applying individual household size data to the projected population changes for each area from Section II results in the projected changes in the number of households shown in Table 16. This projection indicates that five of the eight analysis areas may experience a net loss of households over the next ten years, if current prevailing trends continue without alteration. The northwest, west and far west areas are shown as experiencing a net gain of 5,099 households, absorbing outmigration from the eastern portions of the city, as well as attracting new-arrivals to the region. While Pulaski County is indicated as increasing by 6,183 households over the next 10 years, most of this will occur outside of the city, such as in Maumelle and other north-county communities. The city as a whole is shown as experiencing a net loss of 521 households over the next 10 years. in-8 Tischler & Associates. Inc Table 16 Projected Change in Number of Households 1990 2000 Change ^90-00 Average Per Year Pulaski County 137,209 143,392 6,183 618.3 Little Rock Vicinity 78,369 77,849 . . (521) (52.1) Dountown 1,185 982 (202) (20.2) Central 7,162 6,026 (1,136) (113.6) East 9,397 8,023 (1374) (137.4) Northwest 18,498 20,174 1,676 167.6 Midtown 14,268 11,780 (2,487) (248.7) Southwest 13,487 13,066 (421) (42.1) West 6,270 6,487 216 21.6 Far West 8,103 11310 3,207 320.7 Balance Of Pulaski County 58,840 65,543 6,703 6703 Source: Tischler & Associates, Inc. Tischler & Associates. Inf I I a This projection indicates that, should trends continue as they have over the prior decade, the western portion of the city will continue to experience growth and expansion, while eastern portions of the city will likely see even more disinvestment, high rental vacancy rates, and outright abandonment more than has occurred to date. The predominance of the western areas, and the type of housing being developed in these areas, suggests that the growth anticipated in these areas will continue to be strongly oriented to single-family-detached development. Very little multifamily development may occur within the city, although some may be constructed in the north county communities. I I The average sales values from realtor listings shown previously in Table 14 tend to be weighted b.y a .significant.number of older properties. New development values typically are higher than resale values, and can be significantly higher if new "product" is being introduced at a much higher level of amenity than the existing base. This seems to be the case, for example, in the northwest area. By contrast, the building permit data seen in Table 15 focusses on the most recent new construction, but also tends to understate current total values in that these costs include additions and panical improvements, and do not include land costs or indirect ("soft") costs associated with the development process. The projections seen in Table 16 indicate that only three areas, west, northwest and far west, are anticipated as having any postive net growth in the number of households through the rest of the decade. Based on building permit data over recent years and our own survey of the market areas, TA believes new housing development in these areas will be strongly, if not exclusively oriented to singlefamily-detached units. Allowing for land and indirect costs, and based on the average building permit values seen in Table 15, TA anticipates that future new housing unit market values for the three areas projected to have net housing growth will tend to range as follows: Area Average Market Values West Far West Northwest S 60,000 - S 80,000 S150,000 - 5170,000 5185,000 - 5200,000 I m.B. RETAIL DEVELOPMENT TRENDS Retail sales and retail development has enjoyed relatively good occupancies and sales through at least 1990, contrary to many other metropolitan areas. Sales, relative to 111-10 Tischler & Associates. Inc regional total income, is comparatively high, suggesting that some importation of sales from beyond the four-county MSA region is occurring. As reviewed briefly in Section n. Little Rock has maintained a generally competitive position in retailing. The two primary retail areas in the county are west-central Little Rock, and the north county mall locations. With plans now indefinite for proposed mall developments along 1-430, some slight further erosion in market share may continue for the next ten years, although growth in market size should be sufficient to compensate for this. This part of the report looks more closely at retail sales trends, and provides a general projection of the potential for further retail development within the city. 1. H Retail Sales Trends: 1982-1987 Retail sales data for 1982 and 1987 (the latest available data from the Census of Retail Trade) are shown in Table 17 for the MSA region, Pulaski County, and Little Rock. The sales data in Table 17 are expressed in thousands of current dollar values, that is, the amounts reported as collected as of the respective year. On a current dollar basis, total sales for Little Rock establishments increased from $1.13 billion in 1982 to $1.59 billion in 1987. As of 1987, the three highest I sales categories by store type were automotive ($406 million), general merchandise ($406 million), and food stores ($256 million). I To more accurately portray a trend in the 1982 and 1987 sales levels, it is first necessary to convert these current dollar values to constant dollars. This has been done, based on the consumer price index (CPI) for the southern region of the United States. This calculation results in the trends seen in the top graph of Exhib
This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.

<dcterms_creator>Tischler &amp; Associates, Inc.</dcterms_creator>