Institutional forces and retail change: a case study of Metropolitan Toronto

Institutional Forces and Retail Change: a Case Study of Metropolitan Toronto

GARETH

SHAW,*

Exeter,

U.K.

Abstract: There is a growing interest in the development of purpose-built shopping centres, which now dominate the retail environments of many cities. Much of the past research has been directed at the impact of shopping centres on more traditional retail structures. More recently, however, there has been a recognition of the importance of those institutional forces that shape the internal character of shopping centres and ultimately determine their economic impact. This paper draws attention to these factors and discusses the control that leasing agreements and corporate policy have on shopping centre development. The whole discussion is set within the framework of metropolitan Toronto, which has for some time experienced the full impact of these institutional forces.

During the last 30 years the development of purposebuilt shopping centres has formed one of the major components of retail change in Canadian cities. In 1956 for example, these planned centres accounted for less than 2% of the country’s total retail trade, compared with over 23% by the mid-1970s (SNYDER, 1976). The significance of these schemes is far-reaching, influencing not only retail trade but also the economic and physical structure of most cities. Furthermore, a range of institutional factors combine together to manage and control these shopping centres. The organisation and operation of the centres are managed by the developer, who exerts a strong influence over both their internal and external characteristics, that has implications on the entry of businesses into retailing. Many of these problems emanate from the corporate policies of the shopping centre developer or owner, and operate directly through leasing discrimination and restrictive practices. The difficulties are such that Snyder has argued that in Canada the rapid growth of purposebuilt centres threatens the existence of many small, independent retailers (SNYDER, 1976).

Introduction Research related to shopping centres has been rather mixed in its approach and until very recently geographers had only given such developments limited consideration. Indeed, much of the initial work was simply aimed at extending central place theory concepts to an analysis of shopping centre locations (KIVELL and SHAW, 1980). More recent publications and interest have focussed on a wider set of factors including shopping centre design, the development processes and their impact on existing retail networks (BENNISON and DAVIES, 1980; DAWSON, 1983). Considerable scope still exists, however, for specific research on the role of institutional forces and corporate policy on shopping centre development; particularly how such processes condition the entry of firms into retailing, and how in turn this shapes the pattern of urban retailing.

“Geography Department, University of Exeter, Amory Building, Rennes Drive, Exeter, Devon EX4 4RJ, U.K. 361

.3h2

This paper sets out to explore two interrelated themes concerning the role of purpose-built shopping ccntres. The first of these is associated with the control by ma,jor developers and retailers of Canadian shopping centrcs. This focusses on the nature of the shopping centre development process and the potential which exists for restrictive practices. Such work has already been examined in a general context within the literature on marketing. but little has hcen written on the impact of such processes on urban retail patterns. This links with a second m;ljot theme, which is to consider the role shopping centres have played in shaping the processes and patterns of retailing in Canadian cities. In relation to this it is also necessary to examine the way in which public policy has rcactud to such shopping centrea. Shopping

Centre Development

in Toronto

The development of shopping centres in Canadian cities has been stimulated by a variety of factors. including increases in disposasable income, rapid rates of urhanisation. high levels of car ownership and suhurbanisation processes (SNYDER. 1976: MOYER, I973). all of which arc well exemplified in the Toronto metropolitan area from 1W)onwards. In addition to these changes in consumer demand, sh~~pp~i~~ ccntre developments were also stilnul~it~~l by the activities of land investors and developers. Both recognised the ability of such centres to gain higher rates of return on property investments. suburban was on the emphasis Initially. which were fostcrcd both by developments,

Figure 1. The distribution

consumer demand and the fact that better rates of return accrued from more intensive use of city centre land for office floorspace. More recently. the solution to ~~~iIlin& such high irlvestment returns has heen to develop mixed office and retail complexes. In Toronto, shopping ccntre dcvclopers lost little time in following consumers into suburban and urban fringe locations. For example. in 1953. the ctutcr three boroughs of the In~tr~~polit~~n area had almost 1I ‘% of their retail floorspace in purpose-built shopping centrex. In contrast. the innet metropolitan boroughs of Toronto, York illId East York had only 0.3% of their retail floor space given to shopping centres at this time. As Figure I illustrates. these early shopping contres arc to found in two main types of suburban environments. The tirst ~>t’thexc XC locations close by freeways or suhurhan route ways. In contrast to these arc those centrrs located to catcl for purely local needs in suburbs devoid of any other form of retail facilities. For example. in the Bort,ugh of Scarborough hardly any retail strips had rlcvclopeci md puposc-built shopping centres formed the nt:iin type of retail provision. By the mid-1960s shopping centres had come’ to dominate the retail trade in suburban Toronto, ~l~~(~untin~ for 75% of floorspace in North York and 72% in Scarborough. At this time. ;I further development became noticeable which was the growth of regional, suburban shopping ct‘ntres with over .SOO.OOO ft’ of ttoorspace. Dcvelopnients such its Yorkdalc typify the larger types of centres. which. for

and age of shopping centres in metropolitan

Toronto.

Geoforum/Volume

363

18 Number 411987

obvious reasons of accessibility, major intersections of Toronto’s

were located close to freeways (Figure 1).

The growth of suburban shopping centres continued at a rapid rate throughout the 1960s and into the early 1970s. Consequently, by 1976 part of the Scarborough had 88% of its retail floorspace within pupose-built centres, compared with only 5.9% in the City of Toronto. As Figure 1 shows, there were far fewer shopping centres opened after 1973, and many of these were linked with either office or residential developments, or a combination of the two. For such reasons these newer centres have been identified for planning purposes as a mixed or ancillary shopping complexes (METROPOLITAN TORONTO PLANNING DEPARTMENT, 1977). Most of the new retail complexes developed since 1973 have been within central Toronto and the inner suburbs. Such locations have become more attractive for many property companies for a number of reasons, but particularly because of increased community concern over speculative urban fringe developments, which in turn has led to lengthier planning procedures. Furthermore, the 1970s witnessed a rapid rise in real estate taxes in Ontario, which now account for over one-third of basic shop rents. Increases in costs have also been brought about by higher land prices and inflation in the construction industry. Consequently, between 1972 and 1975 shop rents rose by an average of 25% (WITHEN, 1975). associated with increasing Other circumstances, traffic congestion and the problems of commuting, also account for some of the more recent changes in shopping centre sites. Indeed, due to rising travel costs, real-estate agencies have in the last 5 years or so promoted new apartment complexes within the inner city, with some of the largest being linked to office and retail centres, forming integrated units.

Corporate Policy and Barriers to Entry The development and charecter of Toronto’s shopping centres have to a considerable extent been dictated by the influence of a strong corporate policy. This operates in a number of ways, but especially through leasing discrimination and restrictive practices, both of which combine together to constrain the entry of retailers. For example, the dominant position that chain store organisations hold in most community and regional level shopping centres (Table 1) is not entirely a function of economic forces, since many independent retailers are severely restricted in their entry into these environments. In a national survey of Canadian retailing MALLEN and SAVITT (1978) have shown that the discrimination and restrictions against small, independent stores can take a number of forms, namely: (1) refusal to rent any space, (2) refusal to rent a sufficient amount of space, (3) refusal to rent the more desirable locations within the centres, (4) the charging of relatively higher rents to independents, (5) as a condition of rental restriction on the opening of outlets of the same firm within a specified area around the centre, (6) restriction on the type of product that can be handled. All of these options are used within Toronto’s shopping centre due to the attempts both by developers and national chain store organisations to maximise their profits. Developers exercise control in a direct way and have many early opportunities to condition the character of the centre. In Canada there

Table 1. Store ownership and sales patterns in Canadian shopping centres, 1973*

Neighbourhood Ownership

Independents Chain stores Department stores

*Source:

Statistics

Canada,

Community

Regional

% stores

% sales

% stores

% sales

% stores

68.5 29.7 1.8

22.5 61.0 16.5

60.1 37.2 2.7

16.5 54.4 29.1

47.4

12.7

49.9 2.7

41.9 45.4

1976.

% sales

~eoforum/Volulne

361

are only about 10 firms involved in the development of regional centres, with Cadillac Fairview having an 11% ownership. These organisations interact with four major department store groups, SimpsonPSears. The Bay, Eatons and Woodwards, tog&her with a further five smaller discount department stores, who in the main form the tenants of most regional shopping centres (MALLEN and SAVITT, 1978). This structure of the development market is a form of bilateral oligopoly with buyers and sellers being in theory roughly equal in the decision-making process. In practice, however, the large department stores have considerable power over the developers. as their presence in a particular shopping ccntre can be the difference between success or failure. As a consequence of their strong position department store organisations can extract certain gains from developers. For example. these tenants may be offered relatively lower rents, which may force developers to push up average rent levels for other thereby adversely affecting local. indetenants. pendent retailers. In addition. department storea can also force the developer directly to restrict the entry of specific shop types into the centre. The perceived need to restrict competition varies between different retail types. For cxamplc. supermarkets may see it as vital that specialist food stores, such as greengrocers or fishmongers, arc excluded from the to protect their in order shopping centre. monopolistic control over food shopping. Such policies are highlighted by the fact that regional shopping centrcs have not usually developed with more than one supermarket. In practice it is difficult to fully account for this type of tenant control by supermarkets, since limited evidence suggests that many of these shops locate close to purpose-built shopping centres. Unfortunately, the operation of such restrictive practices is difficult to measure directly since information is rather scant. However, as Table 2 shows there are plenty of opportunities for such leasing decisions to be carried out within the development process of a shopping centre. Indeed, such leasing policies are of equal importance in all of the four major stages, starting with the initial market research when the trade area may depend on the attractiveness of the major magnet store. Later on in the process the pressures may come from the banks and insurance companies that are financing the project, and who may insist on leases going to national chain organisations as good credit risks (NELSON, 1958). These processes bring into play

IX Nurnbcr 419x7

the role of the large, national retail organisations in determining the rent structure of a centre. In the case of department stores and regional shopping ccntrea compatability may be an important consideration in conditioning the selection of tenants. A good example is the selection procedure and image of the Eaton Ccntre by Cadillac Fairview. which has a 60% share of the development. and the Eaton Co. with a sh,u-e. -‘?)‘%, I‘ The broader consequences of such corporate policies are difficult to measure directly due to a lack of accurate data. Indirectly. howcvcr, there ia considerable information that points towards three potential effects of such restrictions. First. according to earlier research by DAVIDSON and DOODY restrictive barriers in shopping centres (IOM), hamper the evolutionary process of merchandising methods. Second. they constrain the development of low-margin organisations in major shopping centres and thereby adversely affect low-income consumers. Finally, the starch for particular types of tenants which products a strong similarity between shopping ccntres. reduces consumer choice still further. In ;I general study undertaken by MALLEN and SAVITT ( 1976) the consistent finding with regard to the activities of large supermarket chains and shopping centre restrictions was that barriers to entering such sites was one of the major causes of increasing concentration in Canadian food retailing.

The

Locational

Impact

of

Shopping

Centre

Developments

The development of purpose-built shopping ccntres. along with their inherent problems, have been especially widespread in the larger cities. In Toronto. for example. the impact has been greatest in the older parts of the city, as represented by the City of Toronto Borough. In these areas existing shops, in the form of traditional retail strips, have borne the full brunt of shopping centre impacts. Furthermore. as part of the developer’s strategy most new shopping centres have been located just outside the existing retail areas. For example. of 39 new shopping projects constructed between 1965 and 1977 95% replaced non-retail land uses. Furthermore within the City of Toronto only three of the IX new supermarkets opened over the same period were located in retail strips. These new locations often only serve to intensify the impact of such developments on the trade of retail strips by drawing customers away from traditional shopping areas.

Geoforum/Volume

18 Number

365

411987

from these major locational differences, the physical form of most shopping centres and ancillary malls also discourages integration with existing retail strips. Most of the new centres are designed to internalise shopping behaviour by organising the stores around a system of enclosed malls, often with only limited access to outside stores. Indeed, many are physically cut off from neighbouring streets and retailing strips by large car parks that surround the retail complex. Apart

A significant result of these locational factors is that the trade in many of the traditional retail strips outside the central business district has declined rapidly, as reflected in increased vacancy rates. Within Toronto a 5% vacancy rate is usually considered to signify a normal balance between retail consumer demand (CITY OF and supply TORONTO PLANNING DEPARTMENT, 1980a). Table 2. An outline of shopping

Market analysis Site evaluation Zoning Leasing Financing Purchase

Construction

stage

(1) Finalize all leases Complete tenant fixtures Obtain necessary local-authority clearance with respect to servicing agreements

modified

Knowledge of tenant important in submitting plans to local authority

stage

(1) Formalizing leasing commitments (2) Formalizing interim construction and long-term financing based on commitments of major stores (3) Commencement of project to fit in with major tenants requirements for opening (4) Completion of building

*Source:

in Toronto*

stage

(1) Initial meetings with ratepayers, retailers, Planning Board and council (2) Public meetings with Planning Board (3) Site plan or servicing agreements

Completion

centre development

In this stage emphasis is give to ‘pulling power’ of major stores, via leasing policy

Planning stage

Rezoning

As Figure 2 shows, the problems of increased store vacancy rates have been most severe in those retail strips situated to the east of the central business district, where far more major new shopping schemes of over 20,000 ft2 have been constructed. By comparison the northern part of the borough has a far greater proportion of stable retail strips because of two major reasons. First, as Figure 1 demonstrates, there are fewer new shopping centres in the area due north of the city core. Second, part of this area, around the Yonge Street-St. Clair Street and Yonge Street-Eglinton Street intersections, are also major sources of office employment. Unlike the eastern part

Importance of leasing decisions

Stage of development

(1) 2 I13 (4) (5) (6)

However, in a survey of the borough’s retail strips, the vacancy rate had increased in 13 of the areas between 1965 and 1975; of which 11 had rates greater than 5% in 1975, compared with only six in the mid1960s.

from MALLEN

and SAVI’IT

(1978).

Financial commitments are based on tenant mix

Geof’orutniVolumc

IX Numhcr

411987

Figure 2. The impact of shopping ccntres on retail strips

of the city, the consumer market in these areas has been increasing fairly rapidly in the last 10 years not only through the growth of office employment but also due to developments in tourist-oriented retailing. Indeed, much of the new shopping tloorspace forms part of large high-density office and apartment complexes.

The

Emergence

of Retail

Planning

Policies

in

Toronto

A good example of this type of development is the Yonge-Eglinton Centre located at the major intersection of Yongc Street and Eglinton Street (Figure 1). This is a retail, office and residential complex which serves as a comunity centre, with the major magnets within the centre being a supermarket operated by Dominion, and an Eaton department store. In addition, the lower levels of the shopping mall lead to a metro link which offers rapid transit to both the suburbs and the city centre.

The recognition of these problems by the city planning authorities dates to around the mid-1Y7Os with the publication of a discussion paper on the city’s retail strips (CITY OF TORONTO PLANNING DEPARTMENT, lY76). This expressed concern about the implications that a decline in traditional retail strips would have for retailers, consumers and the borough’s physical appearance. In particular increased competition from shopping ccntres was tending to produce disjointed retail strips as shops closed and were replaced by non-retail activities. Such processes also became cumulative. since the fragmented retail strips attract fewer shoppers, thereby reducing the potential for retail space even further.

As was previously discussed, the impact of shopping centres goes far deeper than diverting customers away from existing retail strips, since leasing policies hit the small, independent retailers. Very often these shopkeepers are caught between a competitive vice, as on the one hand their traditional sites in retail strips are made non-viable, whilst at the same time corporate policy severely restricts their ability to enter into new shopping centres. These problems are greatest within the inner suburbs due to past developments and the relative importance of retail strips.

The findings of this report also led to demands for further action from the local authority and resulted in the publication of a number of studies stressing the importance of traditional retail strips compared with the new shopping centres (CITY OF TORONTO PLANNING DEPARTMENT, lY8Ob; LEMAN GROUP, 1975). These projects. as Table 3 shows. identified a number of central reasons why retail strips were important to the city, and resulted in the formulation of a set of supportive policies. relating to three broad areas; economic revitalisation, physical change and housing development.

GeoforumlVolume

18 Number

367

411987 Table 3. The importance

of retail strips in Toronto

They are integrally related to residential neighbourhoods. They act as centres for Toronto’s different ethnic communities. Highly visible to passers-by and help to establish the ‘vista’ of Toronto. Less dependent on car-based shopping trips. They create diverse streetscapes that encourage pedestrian activity. They provide viable locations for small retail businesses:

Of these three

the most

significant

are those

to

factors

although

these

economic

relating

essentially

with the other two. The policy aims at consolidating the cohesion of retail strips by encouraging retailers to locate within them and nonretail uses to locate in adjoining areas. In addition, large new retail developments (shopping centres) are to be encouraged to locate in proximity to retail strips and to be complementary rather than competitive. To achieve this it is essential that a check is maintained on the relationship between shops and consumers to ensure that too many stores are not built. overlap

In terms of the physical appearance the council’s policy is to improve the environment of retail strips by providing more parking facilities, street furniture and landscaping. This follows the recognition, by local surveys, of the importance such features have for some consumers. Thus, 30% of local residents made negative comments about Queen Street’s (Figure 1) physical attributes in a recent study (CITY OF TORONTO PLANNING DEPARTMENT, 1977). However, it should be stressed that the initial attempts to introduce pedestrianisation schemes have not been particularly successful. This forms part of a larger plan to produce 40,000 new dwellings between 1975 and 1985. These policy aims are to be implemented by a combination of: (1) land use planning, (2) business and development assistance, (3) development of a parking and loading strategy for strips, and (4) the provision of municipal services. However, due to the scale of the problem (retail strips and commercial ribbons extend along 95 miles of the borough’s streets) such measures are to be applied only to selected areas. These strips are termed ‘traditional shopping streets’ in the City of Toronto’s official plan, and are to be identified by three broad criteria. First, they should be strips with continuous retail and service orientated land use, which “supports and encourages pedestrian activity” (CITY OF TORONTO PLANNING DEPARTMENT, 1982a. Second, they must have a realistic chance of achieving

‘economic health’, and serving the local community. This aspect is to be determined by a consumer survey to a sample of households within 1 mile of every strip in the city. Third, areas in which the public sector has already committed funds will also be given preference in the identification process. These policy statements were adopted as amendments to the Official Plan in September 1980 and marked a significant change in attitude towards the growth of shopping centres. Up to 1980, therefore, the shift in public policy was from a concerned but laissez-faire attitude in the mid-1970s, to one of positive planning for those retail areas suffering due to the impact of shopping centres. However, since 1980 there has been a further change in public policy towards shopping centres and this concerns two strategies aimed at encouraging centres to support retail strips. The first proposes to discourage shopping centres in selected areas to help ‘traditional shopping streets’ to survive. In contrast, the second is designed to encourage shopping centres to locate in such a way as to complement existing retail strips. It is perhaps the former that promises to have the greatest impact on the growth of shopping centres, as it brings into play negative policies for the first time in Toronto. The proposed policies are for a change in the City’s zoning by-laws to limit the development of retail floorspace in non-retail areas outside ‘traditional shopping streets’, either through rezoning areas for purely residential use or by adjusting building density regulations. In addition, it is proposed that the local authority gain the right to review major retail projects prior to their development, to ensure new centres support existing shopping streets. The proposed review limit is of 1800 m* ( 19,375ft2) retail floorspace. This limit is to reflect the fact that even most neighbourhood shopping centres would exceed this and thus be reviewed. For example, projects with more than 1800 m2 of retail space accounted for about 80% of all those built between 1965 and 1977. However, the central core

365

would be exempt from the 1800 mr limit (Figure would any specially designated arcas where centres would not compctc with real strips.

2) as new

It is also recognised by the City of Toronto planning authorities that the need for additional measures may arise to encourage specific retail strips to maint~~in their identities. These would be covered under Part Two of the Official Plan, which deals with particular areas within the city. Such measures have already been experimented with in the Church Street Wellesley Street area, which was designated an ‘Area of Special Identity’ because of the character of the shops, and the built form. The special measures centred around amending the zoning laws to reduce the permitted non-residential land use density from 2 to I .7 times the area of building lots.

Conclusions It is highly likely that these restrictive policies will be adopted by the City of Toronto Borough, and thereby limit the future growth of shopping centres within one part of the metropolitan area. If such strategies prove successful then the other inner-city authorities will probably foilow suit, forcing the developers into less competitive locations. For example, proposed shopping centres will no longer be able to set themselves in direct competition to existing retail strips and count on diverting trade from these areas for their growth and survival. Under such conditions it would seem that the suburban areas offer the best possible environments for future development, since their authorities have few retail strips to protect (Figure 1). However, other economic factors will probably limit growth in the suburbs, especially the fact that there is strong competition, with too many centres competing for the same consumers. Furthermore, there has been a rapid slowing down in per capita income since 1971, which only increased by around 19% up to 1980. In the face of these different constraints two distinct types of strategy seem to be emerging for future shopping centre developments. The first is both cautionary and of a short-term nature, merely involving the renovation or expansion of existing shopping centres. For example, many of the earlier open-air centres are being enclosed, prompted by the favourable responses of consumer; to such schemes, together with the relatively small

costs involved in such conversions. An important variant on this strategy is that of renovating and expanding existing ccntrcs in the inner suburbs. Such a policy will avoid the proposed size limitations. which would not apply to the redevelopment of existing centrcs. The second main approach by corporate policy to the changed conditions is likely to be the development of c~~nirnunity neighb~~urho~~d shopping ccntres. This represents a shift in emphasis by those developers who were previously constructing large regional ccntres. In Toronto the major exception to this trend is the ‘building’ of ancillary shopping centres within the central business district. However, even here there are likely to be potential problems due to the ln~)untillg pressure from cons~rvatjon groups against large-scale clearance schemes. Such concerns were revised in connection with the building of the Eaton Ccntre and it may well be that Toronto will follow the lcad given by Montreal and its utilisation of the Cultural Property Act of 1972 (SHAW, 1981). In the main, however. most new ccrttrcsarc tikcly to be small in suburban areas and to focus around a mediumsized supermarket. Indeed, the supermarket chain of Loblaws have already moved ahead with such developments in Toronto. Given the intense nature of competition and the trends in planning policy much more emphasis will also need to be given to the locations of new centres. As part of this process the planners in City of Toronto Borough are proposing to arrange a series of discussions with shopping centre developers and supermarket chains. The main purpose of these discussions will be to assess how the locational and site requirements of large stores or shopping centres can be met in the environment of a traditional shopping street. However. the developer would need to demonstrate that his project would not harm the viability of any adjoining traditional shopping streets, before planning pcrn~issj~~r~ is granted. In terms of the design and layout of new shopping centres the local authority will be demanding greater integration with surrounding retail strips. Thus, the centre should have a ground floor area given over to shops that face onto the street and not cut off from other stores by large car parks or loading bays. These and other design features are to be enforced by ‘Development Review By-laws’ in Part Two of the official City Plan. These planning policies would seem to tackle many of the problems associated with new shopping centres,

Geoforum/Volume

18 Number

4/1987

although they neglect the impact of tenant policy on small, independent retailers. In an indirect attempt to overcome some of the disadvantages faced by smallauthority, in the scale retailers the local administrative area of the City of Toronto, proposes a service for small businesses (CITY OF TORONTO PLANNING DEPARTMENT, 1982b). The general strategy will be to encourage independent retailers to organise into informal associations, which will then work with planning department staff. In addition, demographic and consumer statistics will be provided by the planning department for the neighbourhoods surrounding retail strips, to help retailers plan their sale strategies. This will eventually form part of a citywide commercial services programme offered by the local authority. Finally, at a broader level this case study of Toronto reveals the increasing importance played by institutional factors in the development of retail systems. It also stresses the way in which local authorities can possibly respond to such difficulties especially to encouraging a wider range of planning policies to support independent retailers. In this respect British planners can certainly learn some lessons from their counterparts in Canada, where the growth of purpose-built shopping centres has been that much more intense. References BENNISON. D. J. and DAVIES, R. L. (1980) The Impact of Town Centre Shopping Schemes in Britain. London. CITY OF TORONTO PLANNING DEPARTMENT (1976) Toronto’s Retail Strips. CITY OF TORONTO PLANNING DEPARTMENT (1977) Parkdale Commercial Study.

369 CITY OF TORONTO PLANNING DEPARTMENT (1980a) Support for Retail Strips: General Policy Proposals. CITY OF TORONTO PLANNING DEPARTMENT (1980b) Toronto in Transition. CITY OF TORONTO PLANNING DEPARTMENT (1982a) Economic Policies for Retail Strips. CITY OF TORONTO PLANNING DEPARTMENT (1982b) Services for Small Businesses on Retail Strips. DAVIDSON, W. R. and DOODY, A. F. (1966) Retail Management. Ronald Press, New York. DAWSON. J. A. (1983) Shopping Centre Development. London. KIVELL, P. T. and SHAW, G. (1980) The study of retail location, In: Retail Geogrcrphy. J. A. Dawson (Ed.). LEMAN GROUP (1975) Metroplan: Civic Design Study. MALLEN, B. and SAVI’IT. R. (1976) Market concentration and economies of scale: the Canadian food industry, In: Analysis for Marketing Strategies: A Canadian Perspective, S. Brown, J. M. Dunn and R. Savitt (Eds.). University of Alberta. MALLEN, B. and SAVI’IT, R. (1978) A study of leasing practices and retail tenant selection and restrictions in shopping centres in Canada, unpublished paper presented to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Government of Canada. METROPOLITAN TORONTO PLANNING DEPARTMENT (1977) Strip Retail Areas and Shopping Centres lY76. MOYER, M. S. (1973) Shopping centres in Canada: their impact, anatomy and evolution, Business Q. NELSON, R. L. (1958) The Selection of Retail Locutions. Dodge Corporation, New York. SHAW, G. (1981) Canadian shopping centre developments: conflict and compromise in the inner city, In: Retail Planning and Development PTRC Education and Research. London. SNYDER, G. S. (1976) Shopping centres in Canada. lY511973, Research Paper No. 1. WITHEN, S. (1975) Shopping centre development, Cadillac Fairview Corporation, The Financial Post (Toronto).