Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Relocation of Montgomery-Ward Market Analysis (01-01-1964)
MARKET ANALYSIS RELOCATION OF MONTGOMERY -WARD BRYAN - COLLEGE STATION Prepared for CULPEPPER REALTY CO. Bryan - College Station, Texas Branson & Associates, Inc. Professional Market Research P. O, Box 2727 College Station, Texas TABLE OF CONTENTS Page THE MARKET IN PROSPECTIVE o . , , , 1 THE CHANGING BRYAN— COLLEGE STATION RETAIL FACE. . , . , .. 4 THE MARKET ANALYSIS OBJECTIVE , o , , , . , , . o , , , , , .. , ... 10 THE STRATEGIC LOCATION OF MANOR VILLAGE SHOPPING 10 TRADE AREA ANALYSIS . o , , . o , , . , , o , , . . o , , . , . . , . , 15 MARKET POTENTIAL FOR MONTGOMERY —WARD MANOR VILLAGE STORE.,.,,, ,.,,,,.,.,0,...,,.. ....,. 20 4 111 4 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 4, 1. Trade Area Map 2 2. Population of Bryan- College Station 3 3. Shopping Centers Map 5 4. Housing Conditions Map 8 5. New Area Developments Map 11 6. Urban Thorofare Map 14 7. Market Analysis Survey Areas 15a 8. General Merchandise and Apparel Store Sales, Bryan - College Station 18 9. Projected Sales Volume for Montgomery -Ward Store at Manor Village Shopping Center 24 4 iv Market Analysis Relocation of Montgomery -Ward Bryan - College Station, Texas The Market in Perspective Montgomery -Ward has had a successful 35- -year history of operations in Bryan - College Station, Texas. The sales volume of the local store undoubt- edly has grown along with the population of the primary trade area which it serves —the Bryan- College Station twin cities . The secondary trade area com- prises an additional six contiguous counties. These are Burleson, Milam, Robertson, Madison, Grimes and Washington (see map, Figure 1). Within these are the smaller cities of Calvert, Hearne, Caldwell, Sommerville, Brenham, Navasota, Huntsville and Madisonville, together with about 20 other small communities Much of the success of the present Montgomery -Ward store has been a reflection of the strategic market location which Bryan - College Station presents. The twin cities are situated in a middle - market area lying almost equi- distant between Waco, Austin and Houston, Texas (see map, Figure 1). However, driving distance and time discourages shopping in these larger cities, except on an occasional basis. Houston, 9 3 miles away, requires two hours' driving time. Austin and Waco, at 90 and 103 miles distance respectively, are also about two hours driving distance. Thus, whichever of the three cities is chosen, a half day of tiresome driving is required. A modern high-speed highway system presently serves the entire area. Therefore, there is no expectation that travel time will be reduced. The above geographics insure that Bryan- College Station will continue to be the leading shopper's market for at least the seven county areas noted on the map, Figure 1. Further industrial growth, and wholesale trade, plus expansion at Texas A &M University is expected to carry the population of Bryan - College Station to the 100, 000 mark in the not too distant future 1 I (see Figure 2). w • evw• „•. .5 ma .... .,. • ;' Lo u __. an Ia —.... n .n,G`r. - ••r .` Star • IM .,`. fie v eller a14 1 • AROS0 R. •• alley Owala as "oin •7?,v 5 roe � 46 DrinH r- r ® Agnes V14 ,. � ® Gna , �,mmu,D D2 r L " `„, m c q at / f o { If ® ., "e r� BB ® . a CI . it .,d , i ; C d Azle ` i ® `. ' 15 .: , . ,•.'ll s, "` ,,, , ° u n d A ' ® le A ' 04 1 � d _ ® n Wr S a . ,, ,,, ° ® e o I ana a n � _ - 1cp�►��{ o .> >'. Q T P oint 1 0 ° ,co Gilmer e T " ���.da + —ri 5•♦ RRE rmhale ® Rhonet �® Q gI� _ / dew od J Mineola arlelon 's` !S✓ L '. rse r itC• _ � .r"- � A' Lc •" �g�a F K n P. : n A N y e -�. ® ARS ° LE 4 l ri 1 ', �;' •a Ya'I = y rlle ,rings • �. 1l Crow 3;. r Sandy sson:, n Ned?' • .govt e • randall I� f A , i • a rden ;4rir aHrega t�t Nallsvilly K,Y , F � � 1 • w1 r o .; Canto u 4 0 alleu6 r • s, .i� ® Clawl1 nca r � m o • ;" • • ,, ' •/a� ail 6� ur 7U Cedale ® N O .E • 6 • "•�" 'ID��(c c . p Ferris Cresson ®� glo „`� i lot hian . � 0 ak ° 0 ° ' Kem B • �� �yyyy 'a. ® 7 7 ® p Gage ® . . s ahua ,qy� 9 ® Whe ®/ v� A" • odlev�• Venu. • L . � � �� s Palmer m • i �.a . AXA H Edo q ►� 0.7• LER RE Tam 0 ' o ' �• ' grewnaboro � • • 310vert. ® ® rt J 0 o r � ..'� St yp earl 1 wt Garrett 36 .• NNIS,, - u o , . . .e 4 �.~� E • " 36 • a , i em Eustace • 1'1 E a s O ' s L � ® � Orreston E N Alm Y iinbow � • cr• �,•bl�! • Rice " o I thens Moores ® ouso � T� en Rose , ®' _ ® Aval1 . s Stahan Bullard • Pric o net ° Rlo V uta • �11 Kerns Larue ® t 5 IL < r in n• Italy 44,-;use • Powell elekOR tSleman \ \ \ / // W. Mlha • yl • s parry •.o •RSI ANA Cross e .-..... n A ees l alnul H 1 :• L 1/ 4 • 'looming ®/ a B O `' eerie• ran 'sten �• � �• E4 Lamm.. 1 Springs • ® LSSOR • n a A Crove v s: Bradford • J CK = ON ILL I eld ,' orpn • o! 12 �+ S Cayuga Imtown Pen - ` ' 4- .41 1' ® Late W him © co ./.• p • dyer CO • 5 • , Bet • Craft • . RHEA B • Bynum _® ec Ironton � f ® • - Richland• • �r 14 u n , r ",v Wh S ° eetman is E Mend an Mend 'an c •• Abbott , soo E R .k�T Mi Ile ? e , 1 m • •E. ® 2 iP `ae�r�•'�'' e na •, 41011 ( 30 ROS Mehl 51 . • Par'a • wortham p\ 14 m o E e � 10 s O a P 7 O ® o 4 .: 4 ca ne �� airfield • „ t om. K ossut h . H En • . N Ac0G1.' - - N ® • ranfilla C aO 70 SEE © �[ F n E ,�\ - O , 3 4 E • • rickey..., © Ma ®. Douglas ® L ,, ciia Ikhart .. o, P 11ox V$1:.r • i e ' e w Sutler s • s ® .ra; Y•�r D e i i. co Mii '• � � ' ��� • �` � IaHf 62 Prairie • • \ Ig ♦ /� _ J Hill �\. , 34 ec he • �j/ Wode s „ f 0 ® c 0 r , 6 \ kb. i, Ile a rspel , m • • m m ; railAr ". r nY f Gros - a , //aeaa //_ .. L 1 ° 5 \ •LY •:Oaa10 © •�•••, UFW • MI t'ft• . Y � ® hornton latexo �u�, Aik 63 l atesville• ma' 10 , \\\ • gq • ® Kennard • ° �• �o A. Ct'i ® � J . s ir% Nineveh Crockett o O - • ° n eon h a • O L e ncg • ucevale ills K°••• Se • ttTT�t L • N o - O N • ® ' "ei vso� • ® �y Chiltoi 0 O . d . • o emen b0ins d,. - • , . • p sF3 • e E •Rr HOOD 46 0 1 {�s a J , He e a Ap?IB • • ribol Tbe r F ^ L L 7 � • arRUex ® • A ustonia � Pemm�gl BPnngs "woo •, MILITARY N • • H • > 4 5 -ot rwr. $ RE L0 tpperas r ' ' jaiTr Hi hBanks • Li Ridge Leana lo rela� • J � 5 .. > S,N ha OD m tans p Easter • 1 \ 41 ® © a, I. u ruve'un luck • , ILLEE ® ' S3 ` �� esmille • W 3 if �i : elton °L�tl/ M • • O s E A , S O N Q Ir mange • • lenda Cor Little ® ranklin ��a M ::- m , �, alvert ea - o. a rTfD r © - ebast _ 21 ; Bar E ulc •, x d :ucbait I • Cottonwood . + ® Counts r` Leggtt Br i g�� Sala ® 5 �' 'earn Fs I arse• Cra Cam us•.es •0 F Bic oo .. New Willar ' • g� ®" Hollan v�, • • o • r09e r1• rain: F Ind R• Sutton K urten • t° H hers SV L 6 m ® Jr • s • Pe Nihon: © 0 20: anchle o 32 • Iola � • sw: r . 3 - Livingston ° . Davilla A 1 M " v f edias C s• • o Dodge • �i • s 17 " ® to ,g 0 TTT 0;0. s © Sam rio °s p •\` . I urs C ten n g: • � • p Milano . • : RY ' N Keith Singletd A K c PAenID • ®A Goo. i Walburg S chwab CM g • . 5 'Granger .y Tee• ' • • A L rs.J le Cold ° 4 • • Geor n � Jonah Circleville ockdale . C,Ik' � LLE � • i '� � New Elmina II • Dana w '1 �- L ° . 'o r N. Thomdale w rieaman :ka Pom - TA , a r M E s • Waved �. • Leander Nick • C aldwell o a0� r ' r ' ' A • - , Round a lt o ® e u n L E s o ellb ° nderson J A • • oed Wil cox s •' MRS nz s Ikk . . �. �. ele e B • Lyons . Clay �• ava sota Dobb. o eveland Jolly 1 Pllugeralle t� a ;ma • a 1 s L E EDime ome ndile • 1••• . ' ' ® Gonna sic® Fos a •� I J • Washmgl • Plantersvdle ,, �73 wo s ," ® O N r -° OM ors � o , z° " •1 ' mcoln - '" "' ° ender, El m • a S lendora • 1 ® Hill s ``,,�e. z OD 1 ' O C oudn a v e w • o n 13 u u p h ew N ardi.. I M� x — ® , " s • OA 8 d n ol ia .P11141 `.Fancy• 2 .: vitt • .7 m ° idling Burton: y 0 Brenham con • LlbertY o s n IA Hill � k 80 . - . T rop . ° P / , ` � o s filler Tomba +nh,,. • • v paYtoa Rayaor L eo a sr - ® a Cochran • IL .NockleY 52 ,. • ► .. �/ � r E aa' , � `l es ter astry ,Ne ` • C 0 � a 164 m } • O ; 01 L• Creek ® 4 3 7 • W A L L E r• r ,... Mont so •.� S thv „ v� ea �\ o : Ilvl Monaville Satsuma • • NM y . t 7 ' • re : yl; Dale' - Tema® La rang ° ssy � Fa ika ° rills A 1 s P ne ^ y A"sh" mo u lands' ove li ockhar p H NW 1R. • an oo kshir '.Ka Barker dd \ - -a �] n by • ° *` Mul�o c- Ca • SDri ng�° {� /!' Ana Ua Lwkhm ® ■ _ v E ' • ` zn ® scaly • ;11 A • �m r - yw e L t 0. f09 C olumb 1�"" y� ialern • r EI e � Prgvie � rov S ulenber�r - I wei a _ 7 r • l rte TO 1 �/ h "u a 4 ,17 — K �„� Lulin • ' �- • — . 4 . O O _ r ® 1 on * x • 61001( Smith mgsbur � Flatoma ./ ' 1 �� . �` I . Ea le La r ° • lchmon le alt • earlan • e� ema y , • 1 olmer Dalton ® .. • ooth 0 • „pi" , �t C0 ® A E STO N Leon G • aa _ ,y-.• 17 Kinkier se l f -� n D T asting . kin • T rly EG -u.l , IGonza 'ock Island ') East Bemar I r e E ' • 0lc a ,� � � _ Ct � y Nan AIv � \ : • alletisvill o •Sublime • Sheridan Gar . wood j\ mHungerfor ' endletod. ® eedeilie EI ,Sandy Point _ � n 24 1 r w Ll � . Glen FI m ©L se L. rile. A ® ` ®f. „di ` r�; G. 4 Hamon• � w eet harto ,! + ?, DI Wrightsboro32 ' .. xc.i lap r . ` I eY • Danbury / W' ...,." Hoch � j ® oakUlydr- Speaks J ' N . AO Z O NI Pandora Nixon . is' 1 . r pap: • Lan h • • "�� o {� vat �i m w IID EID. ® ° Ang . , • Ltockdale 29 ' e*WheB Terryville * El t e' Colu , r te ,,,1,4, ,` it 3 ` / :, �� ® sa f 90 1 an e � oo 0 .r oza�rl •.. • e I o �," • ,• .Gillett . ' ' ..� * a , tU ERO i le -3- 100- . ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ems 80 Z O W a 6 0 - :... 0 F 40 20 - • f T 1930 r 9 G 1950 196 0 1970 1980 Y E A R Figure 2. Population of Bryan - College Station, Texas . 3• -4- The graph of population for the twin- cities (Figure 2) depicts the rate of growth from 1930 to 1960. Population numbers for 1970 and 1980 are shown under three assumptions as to growth rates. The lowest reflects continued growth by a gradually declining percentage as the city becomes larger. A middle growth rate is projected on a flat 45 percent per decade population gain—the lowest experienced thus far. Highest of the projections is that based upon a flat growth index of 60 percent — about midway between the 1950 rate of 85 percent and the 1960 experience of only 45 percent. It is well to recall that the Bryan Air Force Base was closed over the 1957 -58 period. This tended to offset the twin- cities' normal growth rate, and consequently the 1960 U. S. Census revealed only a 45 percent popula- tion gain over that of 1950. By now the vigor of the business economy has been more than restored and new highs are being established each suc- ceeding year. In view of the continued anticipated growth of the trade area, it • behooves the management of Montgomery -Ward to carefully re- examine its present and future posture as one of the front -line retailers in this trade territory. Montgomery -Ward has achieved its present status as a result of a combination of progressive advertising, salesmanship, and merchandising, plus a policy of good customer service. In spite of these, management must now seriously concern itself with the fact that their present store's competitive stance is reaching an unavoidable point of jeopardy. A very serious challenge arises from a series cf recent. developments which are rather rapidly evolving a changing profile in the Bryan - College Station business community. The Changing Bryan- College Station Retail Face Montgomery -Ward, as have most Bryan retailers until recently, has operated from a location in the old downtown Bryan business district (see map, Figure 3). However, as is the case in most such districts across the nation, this one too has become increasingly congested as well as outmoded. 1 -6- Increased community needs for more and improved retail services it spawned, as is the usual pattern nation -wide, a number of shopping centers . These include Townshire, Ridgecrest, Plantation, and Winn in the city of Bryan, and Southside in College Station. Another, Redmond Center, is pres- ently under construction in College Station. The most outstanding of all the shopping centers is Townshire. Its Texas Avenue location —about midway between the old downtown Bryan business district and College Station (see map, Figure 3) — is outstanding. Little wonder that it has become almost, if not equally, as important a retail center as the old downtown Bryan business district. Dominance of Townshire, aside from location, was assured by its successful tenant mix. Though not a regional center, by true definition of the term because it lacks a department store of sufficient square footage, it nonetheless unquestionably serves as one. The Sears Roebuck store, anchoring the north end of the center, has about 20, 000 square feet of retail sales area . Thus it is basically a junior, not a senior, department store operation. The store, needless to say, has been highly successful. Pre- • viously, only a mail -order sales office had been maintained in the old Bryan business district. Several other leading downtown retailers either moved to, or opened branch stores, in Townshire A Safeway supermarket and a cafeteria anchor the south end of the center. The impact of Townshire is perhaps better com- prehended by a review of the tenant list, shown on the following page. Exclusive of the cafeteria, drug, food and furniture stores, the Town- shire center represents about 43, 000 square feet of retail face. This compares favorably with the approximately 120, 000 square feet of retail face in the old downtown area. The latter figure, by the way, also excludes all drug, furni- ture and food stores. A fringe of non - competitive stores is also left aside in this calculation. • • -7- `` Store Square Feet of Net Retail Area V Sears Roebuck 21, 800 Woolworth 4, 100 Beverley Braley's (ladies'apparel) 3, 100 Varsity Shop (men's wear) 700 Sew (Sc Sew (piece goods) 5, 000 Margolis (shoes) 1, 300 Lester's (ladies apparel) 2, 800 Beauty parlor 500 Barber shop 500 Suzy's (ladies' apparel) 850 Jarrott's Pharmacy 4, 800 Kelly's Toylane 2, 000 Stacy Furniture 9, 000 Self- service laundry 3, 000 Congdon's Bakery 700 Safeway 6, 800 Hotard's Cafeteria 3, 500 TOTAL 70,450 In total, Bryan - College Station contains approximately 225, 000 square feet of retail selling area, apart from food, drug, furniture and auto establish- ments . The significant point, in a city of only 43,000 population, is that almost half this amount is already outside the downtown area. Completion of the presently proposed additional retail facilities along Texas Avenue will bring the outside total substantially above the fifty percent level. Without a doubt, Texas Avenue is thus becoming the new "main street" of the twin - cities business activities . So forceful was the impact of the Townshire shopping center, with its Sears store, that downtown property owners and business houses almost immediately undertook a modernization and rehabilitation program. Three blocks of Main Street were widened to provide center, as well as side, parking. Parking meters were removed. Additional off - street parking was also ex- panded somewhat. However, for the area one block either direction from the a Montgomery -Ward store, the parking ratio to gross leasable area is only -8- about 1 .1, and this in itself is a maximum statement of the ratio. It will be less than 1.0 when one or two burned -out stores are rebuilt. Despite the rehabilitation program, downtown Bryan still sharply lacks the convenience of a modern shopping center. Furthermore, shoppers still feel impelled to dress -up to go to "town," which, in itself, presents a major psychological restriction. Unlike large metropolitan areas, only a limited office force works in the Bryan downtown district, consequently that area has poor internal purchasing power. The industrial district is south of the business area. Texas A &M University, a major employer in the area, lies farther to the south in College Station (see Figure 3). The Montgomery -Ward retail store was a participant in the downtown renewal program. The quarters were air - conditioned, a badly needed change. Redecoration and partial modernization occurred, both interiorwise and for the exterior facade. Nonetheless, the store still is inescapably handicapped by poor parking facilities, and the building's structural interior design. Further remodeling would not only be expensive, in time and money, but also sales would likely suffer in direct proportion to the extent of time involved in the remodeling effort. Special sales would be required to hold business volume at anywhere near reasonable levels . Thus profit levels would be particularly adversely affected. Modernization, though accomplished, would not overcome the basic physical congestion of the old business area . Either a single or a syndicate ownership would be required to revamp the entire business district. Previous attempts to obtain complete blocks of real estate are reported to have met with decisive failure. Unfortunately, too, for the downtown business district, it is largely encompassed by the lower income residential sections of the city. Income levels are indicated in a later section of this report dealing with a just -com- pleted market survey. Reflecting the low income is the generally poor housing in these sections of the city. No clearer could this be indicated than by the • location of dilapidated housing as reported by the 1960 U. S. Census, which is shown in Figure 4. -10- In summary, the presently located Montgomery -Ward store is inexor- ably caught in an unfortunate, albeit inescapable,dilemma . Though further modernization might partially halt the impending loss in its share of the trade area market, it would be at best a short and only temporary respite. The Market Analysis Objective In view of the advisability of considering the relocation of the Mont- gomery-Ward store, this market analysis seeks to analyze its market potential if relocated to a site in Manor Village shopping center. The latter center is presently under lease development, with a number of tenants already prelimi- narily committed. Although other locations might be possible, Manor Village has several key advantages, which will be indicated in the following section of this report. The Strategic Location of Manor Village Shopping Center Because of the distance between Bryan and College Station —four miles — it was inevitable that interior growth would develop between them in a north - south direction (see map, Figure 5). Westward growth is impaired considerably by two trunk line railroads. Both of these also pass into the old business district at street level --a further impairment to that sector of the city (see Figure 3) . Texas A &M University has extensive holdings in the southwestern section which limits expansion there (Figure 5) . With most of the pre - development- land holdings being located on the east side, the future twin - cities growth pattern is predominantly and irrever- sibly set in that direction. At most, only modest northern and southern resi- dential development is anticipated The east side holds the relatively new Briarcrest Country Club and the latest junior high school. Due to continued residential growth in the area, the above junior high school has just been further increased by one -third in floor space. Sul Ross elementary school, only two years in use, is also 1 -12- being increased by a third, with a new section under construction. A new apartment building in the area was completed in 1963 and plans are presently under way to double its size. Construction of the first phase of a medical 0 complex has begun for the $300,000 Sherwood Nursing Home . Two of the recent residential developments by the Culpepper Realty Company are in this eastern direction (see map, Figure 5, and shaded areas 1 and 2). More will unquestion ably come in shaded area 3. A new residential section also is now being developed in the shaded area number 4, in the eastern part of College Station. The aforementioned factors have moved the population center of the twin - cities to the vicinity of Texas Avenue and Villa Maria Road. Located there too is the site of the evolving Manor Village shopping center. It was because of this shift in the population epi- center that Townshire was given its Texas Avenue location (again see map, Figure 5)0 All factors thus point to a new central business district emerging on Texas Avenue, of which Manor Village shopping center will be an integral part. Bryan Building & Loan Association, the oldest and largest ($33 millions) savings and loan firm in the area, has already purchased a site on Texas Avenue at Oak Street, which is very near Manor Village. It has thus already reached a decision as to the necessity of moving its main office from its present, very modern quarters in the old Bryan business district. Parking space is the problem from which it can- not find emergence in the downtown area The A & P supermarket in the old downtown district is losing its share of the total trade area's business. Consequently, it also is moving to the Manor Village shopping center, where it is strongly recommended that the new Mont - gomery -Ward store be located. The shift is further emphasized by the fact that even the First Bank and Trust, the most progressive, and largest, in Bryan- College Station, has begun a move from its present location directly across from the existing Montgomery - Ward store. The bank's new location is on Texas Avenue to the east side of the old downtown retail area . Construction on the new building is already underway (see Figure 5). -13- Because of continued growth of College Station, a new bank has been chartered for that city. Its new, and very modern building will be on Texas Avenue opposite the Ramada Inn noted on the map, Figure 5. It represents the second bank for that city. Also serving the College Station residents is the Community Savings & Loan Association. These attest to the presence of strong incomes and purchasing power in College Station. A new Holiday Inn motel, with convention facilities, is now committed on Texas Avenue between Townshire and Manor Village, but on the west side of the street (see map, Figure 5). It will serve as a convention and civic meeting center for both Bryan and College Station. A new Ramada Inn, with convention facilities, has just opened in College Station. It too is serving to pull the center of activity out of the old business district of Bryan. Reportedly it is already completely booked by civic and social events for the span of the coming year. The Ramada Inn will also largely handle an overflow of events emanating from Texas A &M University. Further underscoring the desirability of the Manor Village site is the plan to develop Villa Maria Road as a major traffic thorofare for east -west vehicular movement. This is partially shown on the city thorofare map, Figure 6. At the same time it will connect College Avenue and Texas Avenue with the Highway 6 by -pass to be built east of the city. With the growth of Bryan - College Station, the heavier traffic on Texas Avenue, which is the main traffic artery between the two cities, has required installation of additional traffic signal lights, thus delaying inter -city vehicles. A traffic count in December 1963, the latest available, recorded 14,410 vehicles per day on Texas Avenue at the Villa Maria intersection. The count on Texas Avenue at the Townshire center was 15,690 on one side and 14,630 on the other. Thus both the new site and Townshire had equal traffic exposure. The estimated count on Villa Maria at Texas Avenue is about 5,000 cars per day. The Highway 6 by -pass will divert from Texas Avenue and its series of signal lights, truck traffic emanating to and from Houston and Waco. More importantly for Manor Village, it will also give an important easy access route to the shopping center for all out -of -town shoppers. • -15- t The above outlined developments underscore the evolving new central • business district along Texas Avenue between Townshire and Ridgecrest { shopping centers . They also insure that the logical direction for the new Montgomery -Ward store to relocate is within that area. Manor Village shopping center offers the most accessible and suitable future site in this part of the city. A market analysis for this location follows . Trade Area Analysis An extensive market analysis for the Bryan- College Station trade area has just been concluded. Its purpose was to ascertain the present and poten- tial needs for additional retail facilities . The research was conducted by Branson & Associates, Inc., Professional Market Research, for the Culpepper Realty Company. Branson & Associates provides market analyses for a number of leading property developers in the Southwest. In order to secure the latest obtainable information regarding Bryan - College Station, the two cities were divided into 11 sections for the purposes of a household income and shopping patterns survey. These 11 sections are • denoted on the map, Figure 6. Probability sampling techniques were applied in each to assure a completely representative group of households. Each household had an equal opportunity to be selected in the research. However, those without telephones were excluded. This was because a system of telephone interviewing was employed especially developed by Branson & Associates and fully tested for reliability. A total of 463 households were interviewed. In the following table, comparisons are made between the distribution of household incomes reported in the Branson & Associates market survey and those published in the 1960 -16- U. S. Census. As should be the case, the two income profiles are almost identical. There has been no major development that would cause an income • profile shift between 1960 and 1964. Percentage of Households with Indicated Incomes, Bryan- College Station, Texas • ▪ B & A Survey U .S . Census Income 1964 1960 percent percent Under 3,000 32 31 3,000 - 4,999 24 29 5,000 - 6,999 19 17 7,000 - 9,999 14 13 10, 000 or more 11 10 TOTAL 100 100 Branson (Sc Associates,Inc. Retail purchases of Bryan - College Station residents were projected from the Branson & Associates survey income data, using separate, and normal, expenditure patterns for each individual income class. Greater accuracy is thus provided than by projecting from the total city averages. On the basis of the above research, department store and apparel purchases by Bryan - College Station residents are very conservatively esti- mated at $8 millions. Only partial allowance is made, in this figure, for expenditures by the 7,200 Texas A &M University students and /or their families . The 1963 Sales Management edition of Consumer Buying Power esti- mated the above category of sales in Bryan - College Station at $8.5 millions in 1962, the latest year for which data are available. That estimate is -17- based upon projections from the 1960U. S. Census of Business. The latter Ji has also been examined as a part of the research program. The important conclusion is that the out -of -town purchases by Bryan- College Station residents is about equal to the amount of money spent in the twin - cities by families of the surrounding counties. Thus, the two cancel each other out. Trends in retail sales in the twin - cities indicate that a volume of $12 millions can be expected by 1970, about $15 millions by 1975 and $17 millions by 1980, Figure 8. These are considered to be conservative estimates, for as the area grows shopping in Houston and Dallas by local residents will diminish. Correspondingly, as retail facilities in the twin - c ities become larger, the draw from the surrounding trade territory will measurably increase. Market research among the trade area's households furthermore determined their present shopping patterns . Two strong indications of out - of -town shopping become evident. The first of these was in reply to a question regarding the two department stores usually shopped. The second • inquired as to how many households shopped in Houston. Results of both questions are summarized on the following page. Of the $8 millions of department stores and wearing apparel purchases by Bryan - College Station residents, it is very conservatively estimated that $2 to $2.5 millions are presently spent outside the city. It is doubted that said spending exceeds $3 to $4 millions. This estimate assumes only 25 to 30 percent of these expenditures are out -of -town, which appears reasonably conservative according to indications shown in the table. Thus local resi- dents now spend between $5 and $6 millions in local stores. In addition to the above, a market of $17 millions exists in the secondary six - county trade zone. The conservativeness of this estimate becomes evi- dent from its assumption of an average of only $4, 000 annual income per household among those families . Only $7 millions, according to the 1960 -18- 18 J 0 16 J w � 14 a 2 1 2 - Q w 10 w< cn 8 • U 6 I W� ca 4_ 2- 1957- 1962 1965 1970 1975 1980 Y E A R Figure 8. General Merchandise and Apparel Retail Sales in Bryan- College Station. f -19- .• Indicators of Out -of -town Shopping by Bryan - College Station Households, January, 1964 Survey Shop Out -of -Town • Shop In Average Area Area Department Store Houston Hshld. Income -- percent of households -- dollars 1 31 67 6,750 2 31 77 8,500 3 19 51 4,750 4 40 53 8,000 5 35 33 5,000 6 37 71 9,900 7 13 40 6,600 8 19 53 9,000 9 26 62 7,600 10 15 38 5,500 11 4 13 3,500 Average 25 55 5,500 r Branson & Associates,Inc . Census of Business, was spent at retail establishments within these counties. Thus a net of $10 millions goes elsewhere. Approximately $2.5 to $3 .0 millions of this total apparently moves into Bryan - College Station. It, in effect, slightly more than replaces out -of -town purchases by the twin -city families. Combined, a total of about $8.5 millions is recorded in sales by Bryan - College Station department store and wearing apparel merchants at the present time. 6 - Market Potential for Montgomery -Ward Manor Village Store The present Sears Roebuck and Montgomery -Ward stores, at average • junior department store sales rates (about $50 per square foot of retail space) would have combined sales of approximately $2 millions. However, evidence clearly suggests that very strong, rather than average, sales rates are probably being experienced. At strong levels of $75 per square foot of retail face, these two stores would have about $3 millions in sales. The reason for concluding that very strong sales rates should be experienced is indicated by the following analysis. Presently there are about 120, 000 square feet of retail face of department and apparel stores in the twin- cities area. At good average sale rates per square foot of retail area, these stores will accommodate about $5 millions in annual sales. With an indicated $8.5 millions sales in Bryan - College Station, as previously noted, obviously strong sales levels must be experienced, at least by the better stores. The retail stores comprising this analysis include the following: 1 Square Feet of Junior Department Stores Location Retail Face Sears Roebuck Townshire 21,800 K . Wolen's Downtown 4,220 Guarantee Store Downtown 4,400 J. C. Penney Downtown 12,600 Montgomery -Ward Downtown 20,800 Fair Department Store Downtown 1,800 Edge's Downtown 4,900 Beall's Department Store Downtown 8,000 Early Bird Shoppe Ridgecrest 3,000 TOTAL 81,520 b -21- Square Feet of Ladies' Wear Location Retail Face Beverley Braley Townshire 3, 100 s Collegiate Shop Downtown 1,400 Franklin's Downtown 2, 200 Joyce's Texas Avenue 1, 3 00 Lester's, Bryan Downtown 7,3 00 Lester's, Townshire Townshire 2, 800 Pruitt's Southside 2, 000 Real Hat Shop Ridgecrest 700 Suzy's Townshire 850 TOTAL 21,650 Children's Wear Youth Center Downtown 1, 200 Men's Wear Varsity Shop Townshire 700 Allen & Stone Downtown 1, 800 Conway's Downtown 1,100 Aiken's Downtown 2, 800 Waldrop, Bryan Downtown 3, 600 Waldrop, College Station North Gate 1, 200 Zubik's Tailor Shops North Gate 600 TOTAL 11,800 Shoe Stores Austin Downtown 1,450 The Bootery Downtown 1, 800 Family Shoe Mart Downtown 3,000 Lewis Downtown 800 Margolis Townshire 1, 3 00 Holick' North Gate 800 TOTAL 9, 150 GRAND TOTAL 125,320 31 Only a small portion is retail. -22- A number of the above stores are not first class retail establishments; therefore, the maximum has been stated for conservativeness. Business volume at this strong level invites competition. Unless a • strategic move is made to absorb the excess, competition unquestionably will. Further strong need thereby indicates that the Montgomery -Ward store should take immediate advantage of this opportunity. Assuming that the present store is, by strong merchandising, achieving a sales volume of $1.5 millions, it is forecast that in a new location at Manor Village sales would reach a level of $3 to $4 millions. Later growth of Bryan - College Station will carry it to $5 millions . The above estimate is postulated on two basic facts. First is the opportunity to capture a part of the present out -of -town shopping by local residents . It will be recalled that an estimated $2 to $3 millions of outside department store and apparel purchases are made. At least $0.5 millions of this amount would be secured. Disregarded in the foregoing estimate is the amount of sales that would be taken from present local competitors. The shopping pattern survey, for example, revealed that Sears Roebuck now has a much more favorable com- petitive position than Montgomery-Ward. These figures pertain to the primary trade area only. Montgomery -Ward may rank better in the six - county secondary trade zone. By retaking the initiative in a new location, such as at Manor Village shopping center, a rebalance of patronage can be achieved. It is further estimated that an additional $1 to $2 millions of the pur- chases by the secondary trade area families can be secured by a new store. Doing so would still bring Bryan - College Station shopping to only $3 to $5 millions out of a total of $17 millions by the six - county area households. • -23- Proportion of Households Shopping Sears Roebuck versus Montgomery -Ward, Bryan - College Station, Texas January, 1964 Survey Average Sears Montgomery - Area Income Roebuck Ward dollars --- percent - -- 1 6,750 45 13 2 8,500 39 26 3 4,750 65 20 4 8, 000 48 8 5 5, 000 65 15 6 9,900 65 19 7 6,600 42 11 8 9, 000 56 11 9 7,600 56 18 10 5, 500 44 16 11 3,500 36 23 Average 51 16 Branson & Associates, Inc. Projections of the estimated sales levels for Montgomery -Ward at the Manor Village site show a steady rise to a maximum of about $8.0 annually, Figure 8. Levels beyond this would depend especially upon the question of what changes in facilities competitors might make in the twin -city area . The above sales potential is related to the population projections for Bryan - College Station and the growing strength of the marketing facilities. Present stores have upgraded their merchandise to match market requirements and the broader base that now needs to be served. The above estimates do not assume growth in the rural population of the seven - county trade territory. Cities within these will expand somewhat and to this extent the sales forecasts are underestimated. The level of the 1 -24- • 8 -J 0 0 7 -J -J 6 - ----- co w 5 a a 4 - 0 3_ 2- 1 ' I 19 6 4 196 6 1970 1975 I9 80 YEAR 1 1 Figure 9. Projected Sales Volume for Montgomery -Ward Store at Manor Village Shopping Center. s -25- rural population has apparently stabilized and, if anything, will advance • somewhat as rural acreages are bought by some who prefer it instead of city living . In summary, $1.5 to $2.5 millions in sales would be added to present volume at the Bryan- College Station Montgomery -Ward store. Annual sales would thus rise to between $3 and $4 millions shortly after opening the new store. Required would be a 50, 000 to 70,000 square foot store, depending upon merchandise lines and departments scheduled for the new unit. The recommended move of the Montgomery -Ward store to the Manor Village shopping center would provide the opportunity for continued store growth. Equally important, Montgomery -Ward would cease to be so directly associated with the low income area now engulfing the present store. Mer- chandise could be adequately upgraded so as to be consonant with the general consumer demand of Bryan - College Siati residents . Thus the store's policies would appeal to a wider group of better income households and thereby a broader sales market. 9 .11 •'•p. .,,... � _. ----. _. et a/ 11� ' an 3 - - ..._. �' J r,,P1 "- ' u n 67 Aan® pnngto `, • t ®• alter *• • Iq 11r• m e, s Guild ; *ma" `d] we I ■\ • p ---.. r ng • • • � e � � 48 1 v roo St t r f " � ` G ro ►1�M •.. �,rra. ' z 1 n © BU: , eCi v, v ® Atle , R® �+ �� ,, „ 1 i tman • ® O R . n R 4111111r ` � f ��r. 411 ' - W v 1S ° %,,, �' ® ..•!u ® o . ®aa 0 ,” --• 4------re ��..t.g�., �� q " '-'7 * : , Point 1 ° ° ° Rho co Siime o ■ rw` ' � /• F • , Ed a waod jruitvale 7•• KM Rhona ' • • oo • p, T arleton i s A L 21 ��'a N A u • A ' ' N 7$ Mineola L[ • L Ti 1 - . � r .. �, L- fiH � �• ydle 'nngs • Iim \•h ow 3 igSandy spnAH R '' • I�ledo • �• o vt e • randall ® .a i �, r. A � T � � 1 - • • � , -utma � arden � •p ara� �` Nallsvdle ?,/ ']. ® a " C wls l5 � • W r ° Cont a 2 0 y a g • (J�'^ / , _ o ,J a�w• 2: RAN 25 onto• • r t 4 F' ` jced alleLindle . l 8 rJ o �r = r C •d� . Cresson ' 'lothian ,o Ben • g — yY 1a i' . , Venus . / • B 7 ® 7 Kemp Wheeler • ' G7aa ® ! � �' � t" ' q r • 14 E, / a •P 5 •• Pal me r • dG ,,� v GS� odle ,0 AXA X - '. .. Edam• ��i� •[ 'o:o LER g� � C a� t � ij �#,ra�a�}}• �•R[ • • o a o J 0 •. g rown • b ore •••• ce say Gees, ® 44* ® ` ,. � YDear p G arren • • Enlace arc , • 3$ s all eb . }•yam [ boom o• ®V �.� • • • • Orre5to � ® E N . E • S o N H La, y�. , �. • Om • Ct• A valon ,,• Rice 1./ u ' fhenS Station • ; l ar d ' !II' ' d aY /1 Rio Vista V® ® • \ ..,....L''''. a vmgtan • y VII Ke - ns • La rne r ..... s Ic Italy - m h.Baf .RSECAN • VII • ®, 3 �.' a iSleman \ \ /// • MI ° ost A Cr Poynor • . k^ I t f. H 1 ° c • 1 ' y looming 1 ° R O ran stun �1' ® �� Lanevllle RINI ;3 11 H 4 G rove v � w�1 Springs o LSROR• © .; ' rns , , 1 cSSa - .. Bradford • �.CK -ON eld l ,.-...1.- Yk ® , organ o. Cayuga Imtawn • Pert Lake Whim • n um p • lifer City • 5 Be thel t��EM e, u E By um • Richland , ® ech� Ironton I4•S- Irmer e eednan ...... - . Merid ° r. AAbbott ° = M447• l 4r#,,., • 2 AM ridi°n • .• 1 S, El R �� • � � 30 • b ar d �p r © • Rus ' © 5 w� ; Wortham \ ° `o I1 s Mahl . Clikon LI Iciiii • �� airfield , Ke33ulh C H E R • N A � ° CIY, "® • anfills Ga0 vt ® ana E R E � \o r'34 . ucker y © ® Douglas N ® 70. I /y - �:. . 0 I . :o ° (' " a g lkhart DOCX[- ° l V `• 'L" ` 29 • w'i . 1 ' — $4 • 4 z , ew tlutler 5 ° • J, !�r �� �^ rd[e 3to Mi lls •• WI A P r a irie " En . - \ /9 mow"" • • • Hill , 3 - I'� .fiioP'�'�• he • � V w°6 a "ro m ® C ra C ford O E < 0 10 \ , m jr Ile \\ s ,c ra peland , 171 r tor u ~~ 2 N Gros :. o ' fl ® ��WWW"'� 0 , a gteoo& 1 esby • 84 Gregor 10 ® • oblO ° ® hornton i ota& • ®Kennard • ' — • ® o ' � UFN • ,Perry \ \\ o n on '^ n Lorena •• Je \ \\ N ineveh I r aket t ° TpeC ® � . • ®' �r d E I L Kosae Se .• E F \: � • N - • • ® MILITARY n ct o • n ucevdle ® • . 0 / cord bbina 0 ° N es �. ' e f un xw •rx • 2 • 7 Chino 0 LIU n eso p� e •Rr T Y 49, ! � ga kJ , v E ga n , eadsn a , © �t ®; • Aualonio� • � '` - Springs g iboll Marn e' T ,r1, RE ar ® k TrM loK Hig anks• g a : r'` d A �® 45 Leona ,�, opperas -- 5 ®� r avis Easterly ` • \ 4I ® -� • v 25 e ,.�,y14LEE r Wesiplia • o rovetun _ X53 rt © e ,W ;pluck/ ' • : elton ®� M • N © rman ea\ 7 O n E R. S O 9 l r 1 001043 lendale Litt ® r anklin ° u cm corngan alve EFL 0�f .�•e U Moscow C am • • Yy`�a A r �LM/ ii �© • 1 • IDf rinH -,44. i 21 ,n � I Bar v • Salad Ittk r a • CC/ iETFI"• Cottonwood ® Country r l Leggett • Oaks a e 7 7��� a, u . k hoNa 1t:J -i A, 41 • earne 1 Due• Cr Cam us Brigg " Holland • • 5 v • ro ve • + P SV �1 Ki• " �Iew Willard• 'Ca�s�,oii. � ��y cA ,, Sutton Kurten • foss MP • No•'• ∎rain }g � i Ian :-i- y a nd R• "� Da villa Per A M El 020. 1z Iola :a dios , se Teachers e• • • 3 X o �:Dedge •••• • • Livingston o """" .enc 32 * n8• • s 17 ® to r 3 0 • - e. O 5 ©S ° Ho°s Por i�C • 1 °r. en f ■ D Milano • •� 10 = RV • N� • 0121do • • Ppet Walburg , *Granger Keith , N ® � s r R . P N Goo Ich Schwab Gin • g C. .o- • Georgeto aCI Jonah Cvclevdle • •ockdale rip " y T. • s • • 1 fi���rr1T,,..� n yl Elmtna • ' Coldspring 0 • WI ° • • 'O - N • Thorndale '� b hrtesmali 'oks Pain L TA , R 1 M E so ichar ® W �� • Leander Xick •, Caldwe1 o • ;eh* 4111116.11 Round • ellborn rOm c I , Roc alto 3 ' n u R r E s o o ndarson ' • ,•� J ,Tan ,wood ,/W11co 45 \ ®Mo 1 • dila Y - ® 'r-� esingto CIaY ,•. a vasota lobo GO Jolt l 1. %Iugervtne r 'm' Old 1 • Box • Birch „Lyons • .40-_, 3 eVElgnd \ ha o . • 1' Di �• dent Was h W s • P Courin villa ® o N O T nr' - ° ',each Fosto a 7 os S • R S � 0 E E . .. omervllle • In 'e ® �. • . J , 9 MCI.. ,..,,, _ •eP © hrn O mo t, 0 M t Y • OS3 Cplendon • ♦:'�.' ( S /� • z ® ID O N Vi a • 13 t s H , 80 ® Hill Hardin • 1 a •.'\\ -. - , a � � Paige � iddIng Burton; N � O Cd6 M o Pin . WI. , • {�• , ® • ° ��. Q o B[pnham, ( - . . mesh . ak H ` a I m - Liberty , ' . EE ill , #(10Di)"."(ga,„,t,„.: TombaIE7 ll T roP o P me ���• • alter � Id � , �. • pa yto 0 Aavwar m \ 1 e°nap • ® g17 Cochran • r A ,Hoc gn „ ■ • a.� ' B Bud• • I . edar er}.yi. Nelsonville 'dy 52G1'Press �' +a � ' - ;� Eli, Creek ® _� 37' w P k E _ • n A Mo ..\ • S thvdF •• es P \ t • � ' o :ellvi yl{Monuille Satsuma • s41 -1 6 • •• Ba le :emu La rang p ° � �f Neville � . A u s�`N - Avmn - uo n L l an � ' � _ � , ve : l i f •. OC o .q p \ IID" New I m - �° Mtc's, _ 0 Mul� ' Cat Spring an ookshir Ka .Bader {fir '' /' ® Mg* .7r '", r i e rm Sealy *AUL lope iT ; ill". ® A � � . son Aria e a L°ckhor iat er n W' Ed � . ©� it s • I,� . we E� Columb • ,� w lC // a � � vie © EI � ® g �� e ® hne � b A,YTO 1 � - tea lob. .:�`` a der Grove S mlenber ��1. e1 �' IID "9 CD ` Fa ° :. p [ !.�• • Sugadand prte \ im Mu ' 4 I ® " • ea6rodk Smith • • 10 _ • I l ' _ _ - % IChm. no • 1 eWa[t e and •.% : Kama Poi ,J ` Flatoma .' r 1 � � k, - �• k la Dolton - 0 . re n a ■© 1 1• • ."� • fIE of - • rc oa� ® + Dick'. es ?o N`" S� nt Leon L9 ® - 17 N nkler', 69 • I �a stn. to EG.W •�, IGonza�' . ack d East Ek m ar 1 • r B 5 O N o ,, f • ° 0 IeD TeXA& ' Manre My ® � CI H a l lettsville ° •Subb ing. Sh °ndan Islan _ mNunge � • ® Ar , -L 24 is ,. • � ,. 3r • • Hula .,z mhos T ,S andy ®m • � t �a'• • ' �. ��. ` L •. � A 4 GIonn I:f3 " D s haron' hk Ell Wnghtshoro32 ... Yoakuln doa mile Speaks : • ; '• w • � • ♦ Z O • aiie Lane Cn • A l ®Iet� Angle n r s.„a • Rockdale ' � rake YJ T qq E C ampo Vi ® � ® g •�� •2 �� 90 •A� A C' 29.E • G t Nett 1 . U[RO, , ® m � tick " 02 •ra2Ki •• I® • • I e 0 • w tae 3. .. w