Watch business video or reading answer the question in one paragraph, 7questions

Landover Regional Shopping Center: The Perceptions and Realities that Caused a Mall to Fall

A Senior Thesis Submitted to the Growth and Structure of Cities Department

of Bryn Mawr College December, 2006

Alexis Leventhal Class of 2007 Haverford College

Abstract

Built in 1972, the Landover Regional Shopping Center, located Southeast of Washington, D.C. in Prince George’s County, Maryland, was once the archetypal suburban shopping mall for the Washington, D.C. area. With four anchor stores, 1.3 million square feet, and a convenient location directly off the newly completed Capital Beltway, Landover mall was a retail force to be reckoned with. Filled with modern day amenities and high-end retailers, Landover mall was venerated by shoppers and envied by neighboring malls. By the mid-1980s, however, this image of Landover was replaced by a much darker one. Landover had lost much of its appeal as the structure was neglected and its high-end retailers moved out. By 2002, the mall had closed and was demolished a few years later. The transformation of Landover from a boom to a bust seemed to take place almost over night. But how was this possible? And why did it happen?

The answer lies in another transformation that was taking place in the mall’s surrounding area: the composition of the county’s population from majority white to majority black. The coinciding of the changing population and the deterioration of Landover mall is no coincidence. This was due to strong, negative perceptions of African Americans and, in turn, the areas in which they live. This perception is one of crime and poverty and is a perception that can affect the economic viability of the area such as the stability of Landover mall. Landover mall fell victim to the unfair and unwarranted perception projected onto it by the surrounding population, despite the reality that the area was otherwise viable and desirable for retailers. Although other factors are at work in generating the mall’s premature decline, namely benefits from tax laws, perception was the major contributor and, more importantly, a factor that should not have contributed to Landover’s failure.

Table of Contents

Dedication………………………………………………………………………………i Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………….ii Introduction Landover Mall in the Context of the American Suburban Shopping Mall…………..1 Chapter I History and Benefits: Developing Landover Regional Shopping Center in Prince George’s County………8 Chapter II The History of Landover Mall…………………………………………………………17 Chapter III The Black Middle-Class: Perceptions and Realities……………………………….…22 Chapter IV The Role of Perception in Landover’s Decline……………………………..…………26 Chapter V The Intensification of Failure and Closing of Landover Mall……………….………32 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………37 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………40

Dedication

For my parents and sister.

Acknowledgements

My deepest thanks and appreciation to the professors of the Department of the Growth and Structure of Cities at Bryn Mawr College for their support, guidance, and insight throughout the thesis process as they have never failed to be anything but. Thanks and congratulations are also due to my fellow majors at Bryn Mawr College and Haverford College.

1

Introduction

Landover in the Context of the American Suburban Shopping Mall

Landover Regional Shopping Center, more commonly known as Landover Mall

or simply Landover, is located southeast of Washington, D.C. in Prince George’s County,

Maryland. Originally a bustling shopping destination for residents all over the greater

Washington, D.C. area, the mall is now a pile of rubble with nothing marking the

existence of this once-great shopping center. Landover Mall was unable to adapt, reinvent

itself and stay competitive, in turn, causing the mall’s failure. In addition, other forces

were working against the success of the mall that motivated those charged with the mall’s

success to prohibit the mall from making the crucial changes needed for it to succeed.

These forces were the powers of negative perception and prejudice in response to the

area’s growing African American population. Landover mall, therefore, is not so much

an example of a mall that failed because it could not adapt, but one that failed because of

a conscious decision by the developer, owner, and manager, Lerner Enterprises, not to

allow change at the mall because it was already perceived as unable to succeed. To

understand the difference between the voluntary and involuntary failure of this mall, the

importance of the ability to adjust in the success of a shopping mall must first be

understood in the larger context of the history of shopping malls.

Most industries to stay competitive must adapt, reinvent themselves, and innovate

as the environment around them changes. The result of this in the retailing industry is the

movement away from the downtown Main Street and towards suburban shopping centers.

This transformation of where and how people shop is a response by retailers to the

changing American lifestyle. Urbanization, suburbanization, and technological

2

advancements are factors that the developers of twentieth century shopping malls had to

recognize and adapt to in order to capitalize on the markets within this constantly

changing environment. With American shopping malls accounting for 29% of the

world’s total retail space, competitive with entire continents such as Asia which houses

37% of the world’s total retail area and Europe which holds 10%,1 the ability of

developers to capitalize on changing markets has turned into the dominance over them.

However, as the American landscape continues to change, as it has before and will

continue to, American shopping malls must react and project accordingly to remain

viable industries.

The change in how people shop from the downtown department store to the

shopping mall has a direct correlation to the urbanization before World War I and

subsequent suburbanization occurring after World War II. Between the Napoleonic Wars

and World War I, 35 million immigrants entered the United States from Europe alone.2

In addition to the millions of American citizens who immigrated from rural areas and

immigrants from other non-European nations, cities were booming and retail was

changing to take advantage of it all. The classic two-part commercial block, with retail

on the ground floor and clearly separated residences above, was making way for the two

and three-part vertical block.3 These buildings also have retail on the ground floor, but

only business spaces above. They are taller to accommodate increased density and the

rising cost of downtown land values.

1 Chung, Chuihua Judy and Sce Tsung Leong. Harvard Design School Guide to Shopping. Köln: Tashcen GmbH, 2001. Pg. 52, 53. 2 Nelli, Humbert S. “European Immigrants and Urban America” in The Urban Experience, Eds. Raymond A. Mohl and James F. Richardson. Pg. 61. 3 Longstreth, Richard. The Buildings of Main Street: A Guide to American Commercial Architecture. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publisher, Inc. 1987. Pg. 93.

3

These buildings began to change as America experienced economic prosperity in

the 1920’s to both attract and accommodate more customers. The downtown streets of

cities were busy with pedestrians, and big windows with flashy displays were the way to

grab their attention. Carrara glass used together with Vitrolite, pigment structural glass,

to cover both exterior and interior wall surfaces was incorporated into retail structures to

open up the storefront in an attempt to grab the eye of a passerby.4

New materials and building designs were the methods retailers used to maintain

competition with each other. This competition turned the commercial center into “a

collage, a panoply of competing images embodying the rivalry of the marketplace”

thanks to “facades serving as advertisements for the businesses within” and “buildings

conceived as monuments to the industriousness of the people who commissioned them.”5

This style of department store continued to thrive without major changes up until the

1930s and 1940s. These buildings, along with those before them made huge adjustments,

adaptations, and complete transformations to keep up with an increasingly bustling and

modernizing public. They also attempted to attract and keep people downtown in a

tireless battle of staying ahead of the competition.

The world of retail began its more drastic transformation after World War II,

when “America’s birth rate rose, and millions of young families with children abandoned

the crowded central cities and invested in suburban homes with yards large enough to

accommodate a sandbox and a swing set.”6 Until this point, suburbs had been mostly

4 Longstreth, Richard. Pg. 132. 5Longstreth, Richard. Pg. 13. 6 Teaford, Jon C., “Trumpeted Failures and Unheralded Triumphs” in the The Unheralded Triumphs. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983. Pg. 98.

4

communities available to only those who could afford to move and travel in and out of

the city, but this also was changing. Before World War II,

Only 43 percent of travel in Baltimore was by car, and in Philadelphia private motor vehicles accounted for only 31 percent of all trips. But in every city reliance on the automobile was increasing, and public transit patronage was declining. Freed from the slow-moving, centripetal transit lines and devoted to the greater flexibility of the automobile, Americans now migrated farther from the urban core and often chose their residence without regard to bus routes or streetcar lines.7

This growing dependence on the private automobile and the ensuing pattern of

moving away from urban areas was eased and encouraged with the passage of the

Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, which authorized the construction of 41,000 miles of

interstate highways and subsidized 90 percent by the Federal government.8 This

government supported pattern of outward growth, for retail, translated into the

simultaneous slowing of one market in cities and the flourishing of another in the

suburbs. Because “the ideal shopping center location optimizes access to maximum

market potential for the tenant merchants, or, conversely, access to merchandise for the

shopping public,”9 the face of retail would change again.

“As more and more Americans responded to the advantages of suburban life,

retailers joined the outward migration in hot pursuit of the suburban dollar. But retailing

had to adapt to the suburbanite’s devotion to the automobile, and the shopping center was

born.”10 There had been shopping centers dedicated to the motorist before the 1950s,

such as the Kansas City’s Country Club Plaza built in the 1920s, but, as the name

7 Teaford, Jon C., Pg. 99. 8 Teaford, Jon C., Pg. 99. 9 Tucker, Grady. “The New Economics of Shopping Center Location and Scale” in Shopping Centers: U.S.A. Eds. George Sternlieb and James W. Hughes. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research. 1981. Pg. 41. 10 Teaford, Jon C,. Pg. 105.

5

suggests, they were not targeting middle-class families in America’s new suburbs. The

year 1956 marks the birth of the first modern shopping center: Victor Gruen’s Southdale

Shopping Center located in Minneapolis, Minnesota.11 Southdale was one of 1,600

shopping centers built in 1956 in addition to the 2,500 more being planned or in

construction phases.12 With each new road, new suburbanite, and new shopping mall,

more of each would follow.

The shopping mall phenomena first hit the Washington, D.C. area in the late

1960s and early 1970s. In 1968, Washington, D.C. suburbs opened their first suburban

mall, Montgomery Mall, in Montgomery County, Maryland. Montgomery Mall was

soon followed in 1969 with the construction of Tyson’s Corner in Fairfax County,

Virginia, then Landover Mall in 1972 located in Prince George’s County, Maryland.

Mall construction boomed throughout the 1970’s with Springfield Mall, Lake Forest

Mall, Fair Oaks Mall, and White Flint Mall all opening by 1977in metropolitan

Washington, D.C.13 These malls arose out of the same population growth patterns and

economic forces seen throughout the country created by mass suburbanization and

technological advancements in shopping mall design.

Suburban shopping centers have been the product of as well as the catalyst for

America’s suburbs. However, there is a recent and growing trend in which a younger

generation is looking to return to the urban core. Predictably, the world of retail will

respond and influence accordingly, as it has done for over one hundred years and will

continue to do. Retail and economic specialists have been aware of this trend for over a

11 Chung, Chuihua Judy and Sce Tsung Leong, Pg. 116. 12Teaford, Jon C., Pg. 105. 13Schoenherr, Steven E. Evolution of the Shopping Center. http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/soc/shoppingcenter.html, accessed Feb. 17, 2006.

6

decade now, as a 1990 article revealed that the average time shoppers spent in malls

dropped by half from 1980 to 1990.14 Old retail pro, Stanley Marcus, Chief Executive

Officer of big-box retailer Wal-Mart, David Glass, along with old retail, along with other

retail experts are predict that 50 to 75 percent of present retail will be extinct within a

decade.15 “Regional malls clearly have a life cycle, and a lot of them are in their last

throes. By 2010, 55% of the nation’s shopping [is predicted to] be conducted in nonstore

venues—online services, direct mail, catalogues, 800 numbers, and the like.”16 It appears

as though the mall may be disappearing as American’s preferences towards shopping

styles change, unless mall can appeal to those changing preferences and keep customers

coming to them, like many suburban Washington, D.C. shopping malls have been able to

do.

Shopping centers in the greater Washington, D.C. metropolitan area have not

followed the perceived national trend of mall decline and eventual disappearance. In

fact, more malls have been built in Washington, D.C. as well as in its surrounding

suburbs during the 1980s when mall fervor was diminishing in other areas of the country.

Additionally, current malls are, for the most part, thriving in the region. Lakeforest Mall,

Forest Village Park Mall, Laurel Center Mall, White Flint Mall, Ballston Common,

Potomac Mills, and Tyson’s II are all examples of malls built during the 1980’s

throughout the greater Washington, D.C. area; all are, to varying degrees, continuing

successful retail ventures despite projections that suburban shopping malls would have a

14 Hassell, Greg. “Malls Slipping as Shopping Meccas,” Houston Chronicle. October 9, 1996. Pg. 1. 15Lewison, David M. Retailing. New York: Macmillan, 1994. Pg. 3. 16 Labich, Kenneth. “What will it take to Keep People Hanging Out at the Mall?” Fortune, May 29, 1995. Page 103.

7

severely less prominent place in retail. 17 In addition to these newer malls being built,

older malls continue to thrive such as Tyson’s Corner and Montgomery Mall. However,

the success of both these older malls and the newer malls is likely due, in part, to their

ability to adapt to “meet the competitive challenges they face and evolve into more

sustainable community assets.”18

The ability to adapt as seen throughout the development of the suburban shopping

mall is the ability to survive. As noted, the conditions that led to the creation of shopping

malls and have continued to sustain them are beginning to or have changed. Markets,

demographics, competition, traffic patterns, and crime are all factors that malls respond

to in order to keep and attract more customers; the failure to adapt is the failure of the

mall.

For Landover Mall, the changing racial composition of its customer base from

white to black posed its greatest obstacle in maintaining a successful mall. Although

there is also a strong tax benefit factor adding to Landover’s ability to succeed, which

will be thoroughly discussed later, Landover Mall’s failure can be mostly attributed to

two, inter-related reasons: First is the perception of this changed population enhancing

the already growing negative image of Landover Mall, discouraging both local and

regional consumers from shopping there. Second is Landover Mall’s inability and

unwillingness to confront and actively transform its negative image, only further

exacerbating the negative perception and causing further decline.

17 Zibert, Eve, “The Malls, the Merrier a Shopping List in Time for the Season,” The Washington Post, November 20, 1987. 18 Beyard, Michael D., et al., “Ten Principles for Rethinking the Mall,” Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute, 2006. Pg. viii.

8

Chapter I

History and Benefits: Developing Landover Regional Shopping Center in Prince George’s County

The 1960s marked the beginning of a transformation in Prince George’s

County, Maryland. This transformation included dramatic changes in population size,

ethnic makeup, and household income. Between 1960 and 1970, Prince George’s County

underwent several major changes in its population. The first was a nearly doubling of the

population from 355,000 in 1960 to 600,000 in 1970.19 Due to an out-migration of over

6,000 whites, the proportion of black residents located in the greater Landover area

increased from approximately 30 percent of the population in 1960 to nearly 70 percent

by 1970.20 In addition to the increased black population, black median family income

was on the rise, becoming slightly higher compared to their white counterparts at $12,450

(about $37,200 in today’s dollar value) in 1970.21 Prince George’s County was growing

more populated, was more minority dominated, and was wealthier every year.

The increases in population and purchasing power created both the residents’

need for more commercial space and the developers’ desire for new and broader markets

to invest in. The Landover Mall Regional Shopping Center (Landover Mall) was the

resulting product of these new needs and desires. The mall was not devised as solely a

place for local residents to spend their growing incomes, but as a contributing factor in

attracting other high intensity commercial uses, such as a “regionally serving office

19 M-NCPPC, “Prince George’s County Trendlines,” April 1995. Pg. 17. 20 Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC), “Development Potential Model Neighborhood Area Prince George’s County Planning Area 72,” Gladstone Associates Economic Consultants, Nov. 1971. Pgs. 14-15. 21 M-NCPPC, “Development Potential Model Neighborhood Area Prince George’s County Planning Area 72.” Pg. 17.

9

complex and successful high-rise apartment development.”22 The developer of Landover

Mall itself, Lerner Enterprises, brought this speculated development to life as the

company later built a Marriott Hotel as well as 3,000 apartments units in the county.23

The county had a new composition of residents that held a new and untapped potential

for economic prosperity.

The development of Landover Mall hinged on its viability in the Landover area as

a destination for residents from all over the greater Washington, D.C. area to shop. This

is because developers must illustrate that the area for proposed project has sufficient

numbers of tenants and customers to support it in order to receive credit to finance its

creation.24 To discern the sustainability of their project, developers rely on demographic

information and examine the accessibility of the area in selecting project sites. Thus,

confidence in the area of an economic venture is key in investing in that venture,

particularly malls where physical location and the location’s qualities usually determine

their success. Therefore, the selection of Landover, Maryland as the site for a regional

mall speaks directly to the quality and viability of the area.

The developer of Landover mall, Lerner Enterprises along with the presidents of

the four would-be anchor stores of the mall (Hecht’s, Sears, Garfinckel’s and Woodward

& Lothrop,) expressed their confidence in the viability of the Landover area by initiating

negotiations with the Prince George’s County Council about developing Landover Mall,

22M-NCPPC, “Prince George’s County Trendlines,” Pg. 17. 23 Nakamura, David, “Mall’s Comedown Taints Lerner Image: Resentment of Nats’ New Owner Lingers in Pr. George’s,” The Washington Post, May 16, 2006, Metro B01. 24 Blackmar, Elizabeth, “Of REITS and Rights: Absentee Ownership in Periphery,” Diefendord, Jeffry and Kurk Dorsey Ed., City, Country, and Empire: Landscapes in Environmental History. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2005. Pg. 83.

10

estimated to cost in excess of $60,000,000.25 This confidence is further supported by the

businesses practices of Lerner’s President, Theodore N. Lerner, who stressed the

dependence of his own instinct in determining what projects to pursue.26

Both Lerner Enterprises and Prince George’s County had persuasive reasons for

building in the town of Landover as both parties stood to benefit from development of a

regional shopping center. The County Council projected that Lerner’s proposed mall

would result in:

Approximately 100 local merchants to open private business, result in the creation of approximately 3,000 jobs, will provide an additional $500,000 per anum in property taxes, will yield approximately $3,250,000 per anum in sales taxes, will create a new source of State and County income tax and revenues and will help to create substantial work and employment for County-based contractors and their employees.27 Lerner’s development of the Washington, D.C. area’s largest mall, Tyson’s

Corner, four years earlier established him as a successful mall developer. Lerner’s past

mall success, in addition to the benefits the county stood to receive with the building of a

regional mall, made the Landover Mall project appear to be a sound business venture.

On Lerner’s side of the business deal, the past decade of population and economic growth

in Prince George’s County and its projected future growth in addition to the area’s

accessibility, served as adequate evidence for the developer to pursue Landover as the

project site. Other benefits to Lerner provided by the county such as tax credits or the

providing of land for the project were not mentioned in the County Council’s approval

process of the project. In addition, the county was promised that the proposed mall

25 Resolution No. 1-1971. Prince George’s County Council Hearing. Feb. 9 1971, accessed at the Prince George’s County Public Documents Reference Library, Oct. 16, 2006. 26 “Developer’s Empire Based on Instinct,” The Washington Post, Aug. 21, 1981. 27 Resolution No. 1-1971. Prince George’s County Council Hearing. Feb. 9 1971.

11

would “remain open for business for a period of not less than thirty years.”28 Ultimately,

Landover Mall began as the product of different interests finding a common project to

fulfill their separate symbiotic goals. All parties involved with the building of Landover

Mall stood to benefit from its construction, but did some parties stand to benefit more

than others? And would those benefits come at a cost to others?

Mall Financing, Accelerated Depreciation Values, and Landover’s Decline

The change in depreciation values changed the motivation driving the

construction of shopping malls and raised the above questions as well as the question of

whether the benefits of Landover Mall were the reason it was allowed to decline? Since

the first appearance of the generic shopping mall in the 1920s, developers have searched

for ways to make these ventures increasingly profitable. Methods initially included

creating shopping centers that attracted the most customers, increasing sales and, in turn,

increasing the rents of shops within the centers. However, due to a 1954 change in the tax

laws the strategies to make malls cost-effective shifted from the profitability of sales and

rents to the profitability of the depreciation of the structure itself.

Depreciation enables property and building owners to deduct a fraction of the

profits from that property to be used to replace or repair structures and machines

inherently necessary to the success of the business. This deduction is not taxable because

it is expected to be reinvested back into the property. Federal officials acknowledged the

need for business owners to account for depreciation and the original income tax

legislation of 1913 permitted businesses to deduct from their taxable profits a “reasonable

allowance for the exhaustion, wear and tear of property arising out of its use or

28 Resolution No. 1-1971. Prince George’s County Council Hearing.

12

employment in the business.”29 “Reasonable allowance” refers to a fair and rational time

period for which a building or machine integral to the practices and success of the

business is considered useful. The change in the definition of “reasonable allowance” is,

specifically, what has created the shift in the reasons that determine which shopping

malls are lucrative investments.

From 1934 until 1954 the estimated useful life of a building was forty years as

defined by the Treasury Department. Owners could deduct from profits 1/40 of the

original cost of the building. Therefore, a new forty-million-dollar mall, had an annual

depreciation deduction of a million dollars30 that went back into the pockets of the

developer to be held for building replacement. But there was no requirement in the tax

law to force investors to use the deducted money for that purpose. In essence, investors

could use the money for anything they wished including investing in other similar

building ventures.31 The passage of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 made the benefits

of this tax law greater and increased the attractiveness of investing in shopping malls.

With the country experiencing a minor recession in 1953, the 1954 tax law

included several tax breaks designed to stimulate economic development and investment,

namely the acceleration of the depreciation deduction.32 Accelerated depreciation

replaced the straight-line approach created in the 1930s to a 200% declining balance and

a “sum-of-the-years’-digits” depreciation. These two new formulas used to calculate

29 Wehrly, Max S., “Trends for Modern Communities,” Urban Land, 12 (September 1953): 1, 3-5; Hoyt, “Impact of Suburban Shopping Centers,” 4, in Hanchett, Thomas W., “U.S. Tax Policy and the Shopping- Center Boom of the 1950s and 1960s,” The American Historical Review, Vol. 101, No. 4, Oct. 1996, Pg. 1092. 30 Gladwell, Malcolm, “The Terrazzo Jungle: Fifty years ago, the mall was born. American would never be the same,” The New Yorker, May 3, 2004. 31 Hanchett, Thomas W., “U.S. Tax Policy and the Shopping-Center Boom of the 1950s and 1960s,” The American Historical Review, Vol. 101, No. 4, Oct. 1996, Pg. 1093. 32 Hanchett, Thomas W. Pg. 1094.

13

depreciation shifted tax deductions toward the first years of a project’s life, enabling

investors to reap the benefits early on. Investors began building structures for which

profits were greater from accelerated depreciation than they were for the use of the

building; thus developers found it more profitable to take advantage of the tax-free

income while it was the highest in its first few years of operation, then selling the

building at a higher price than the initial investment.33 This pattern of investment became

quickly and exceedingly popular among large-scale retail real estate development. In

addition, with the accelerated depreciation value only applicable to new, not renovated

buildings, the emphasis on new construction was concentrated in the suburbs. Building

on untouched and unpopulated land instead of in dense urban areas was cheaper for the

developer and resulted in a change from “consequent” to “catalytic” development.34

Ultimately, the 1954 tax laws changed the types of incentives considered in developing

buildings and made constructing large, suburban shopping malls easy, quick, and

profitable business investments.

This type of investment, done for the purpose of benefiting from tax laws, created

distinct new business practices. In addition to the general construction of suburban

shopping malls, “quick turnover was the hallmark of the new depreciation game”35 as

investors found such ventures most profitable when sold in five to seven years. The

money made from those transactions would often fund the construction of a bigger

building.36 New projects became larger because such structures were more expensive to

build, requiring more materials, laborers, and time. The motivation in building malls

33 Hanchett, Thomas W. Pg. 1095. 34 Hanchett, Thomas W. Pg. 1098. 35 Hanchett, Thomas W. Pg. 1098. 36 Hanchett, Thomas W. Pg. 1100.

14

bigger than ever before arose from the fact that the more costly the structure, the higher

the depreciation allowance.37 This general pattern of suburban mall development for the

primary purpose of untaxed income is important in considering the intentions of Lerner

Enterprises’ construction of Landover Mall and the mall’s subsequent deterioration. Was

Landover Mall’s decline solely based upon Lerner’s ability to profit from the mall

regardless of its success? If so, was this the reason for Landover’s long history of neglect

and deterioration?

The intentions of Lerner Enterprises in building Landover Mall, if done primarily

for the tax benefits, would not be disclosed by the company because of its ownership of

many other malls in the greater Washington, D.C. area. For Lerner to admit that its

purpose in building shopping malls was to take advantage of a large tax loophole would

create a negative image of the company and, in turn, could cause general backlash on

current malls and future investment plans. However, by comparing the business practices

of Lerner with the practices of developers who build malls for the sake of accelerated

depreciation the above question may be answered.

Lerner Enterprises agreed before the mall’s construction to keep Landover open

for a period of thirty years. Lerner not only fulfilled that promise, but also maintained

ownership of the property throughout that entire time, which was uncharacteristic of the

quickly-build, quickly-sell practices of developers looking to maximize profits through

accelerated depreciation. In addition, Landover was built in response to the area’s

growing populations and buying power within a defined suburban and increasingly

urbanizing area, not in the outer-most cheapest rural areas characteristic of catalytic

development. These two aspects of the pre-construction decisions of Landover Mall 37 Gladwell, Malcolm.

15

suggest that accelerated depreciation was not the sole incentive behind its being built.

However, this does not mean that accelerated depreciation or even depreciation in general

was not a factor in Lerner’s decision to allow Landover to decline.

There are aspects of Landover’s development that both physically and fiscally

support the premise that the mall was created out of self-interested, depreciation-driven

practices. One of these factors includes the mall’s sheer size. Landover mall was a 1.3

million square foot structure, costing about 600 million dollars to build and offering a

significant depreciation value. Even with straight-line depreciating, Landover may have

been profitable by its sheer existence. In addition to the impressive square footage,

Landover’s decline was timed with a tax cut, further encouraging investment in new

structures and neglect of existent past projects.

Included in President Ronald Reagan’s 1981 tax cut was a significant change in

depreciation values. Replaced by the Accelerated Cost Recovery System (ACRS),

depreciation values of standard reasonable allowance decreased to fifteen years.38 Under

this new tax system, developers could collect up to 31% of the buildings cost within the

first three years of a project’s completion. Although ACRS was replaced in 1986 with

the Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS) that returned the years of

useful building life to 40 years, from 1980 through 1985 there was a strong renewed

interest in developing new malls that coincided with the beginning of Landover’s

decline.39 Not all of Lerner’s malls suffered decline as a result of this tax policy. In fact,

Lerner reinvested in many of its other malls in the late 1980s to ensure their future

success as profitable retail and entertainment centers, not just profitable structures to

38 Hanchett, Thomas W. Pg. 1106. 39 Riley, Malcolm R., “The Reality Behind Retail Overbuilding,” Shopping Center World 20, May 1991, in Hanchett, Thomas W. Pg. 1106.

16

own. Because of this, it is possible that Landover suffered at the success of Lerner’s

other investments, using its depreciation value to cover or subsidize the cost of

revamping their other malls.

Lerner Enterprises benefited from its relationship with and management of

Landover mall in terms of profit-producing tax benefits. However, there is evidence not

only that other factors besides benefits created by tax laws could have contributed to

Landover’s untimely deterioration and but also that both tax law and these other factors

are not completely independent of each other. Although not as clear cut and tangible as

the direct correlation of tax-free deduction to increased profit, these factors are equally

important in both the decision not to reinvest in Landover and the rate of its decline. A

study by Hunter Interests Inc. found that Landover’s image was an equal contributor to

the mall’s failure and is surrounded by a community that could support the shopping

center and some.40 This does not dispel the affects of fiscal policies on real estate

development, but accounts for the reasons behind why Landover suffered its fate as

opposed to other malls owned by Lerner Enterprises. It is possible that Lerner needed to

sacrifice one of its malls to help the others succeed and selected Landover because of the

image of the area. Whatever the intentions and reasoning of Lerner, Landover Mall was

ultimately a victim to two, likely interrelated factors: economic factors and an image

distorted by prejudice. These forces worked both independently and reinforced each

other to bring down Landover Mall.

40 Curry, Wayne K. Donald E. Hunter, Marvin F. Wilson, and M.H. Jim Estepp, “”Proposals for Stadium Area Include Entertainment Center; Prince George’s Officials Seek Development,” The Washington Post, June 11, 1997, B03.

17

Chapter II

Up and then Down, Down, Down: The History of Landover Mall

In its earlier years, Landover Mall was a living monument to modernized and

high-end shopping. Although outdated and unwelcoming today, its design was state of

the art from top to bottom, inside and out when first constructed. In addition to the mall’s

initial physical appeal, it also adhered to several principles that contributed to the success

of shopping malls. These principles, as devised by the Urban Land Institute, address the

causes of failure and success amongst retail spaces and include a mixture of stores and

uses based upon type, quality, and locality in order to attract both local and regional

markets.41

Although the exterior was generally bland, as U.S. malls of the 1970s usually

were, but its sheer size, 1.3 million square feet of general merchandise and specialty

shops all housed on an 88-acre site put customers in awe. 42 The interior was equally

impressive with the integration of fountains, trees and other greenery, and a strong

emphasis on glass usage on the second level. The effects of these interior design

techniques created an interesting yet soothing and clean environment conducive to

shopping.43 In addition, the inside connoted a feeling of refinement and stylishness,

created in part by the high-end stores luring shoppers within. The mall was built to

accommodate the growing population and incomes of residents in the Landover vicinity.

The area’s population transformation of the 1960s continued through the 1970s

and intensified in many respects. Although the total population experienced minimal

41 Beyard, Michael D., et al., “Ten Principles for Rethinking the Mall,” Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute, 2006. Pgs. 42 Urban Land Institute, “Landover Mall and Vicinity: A Technical Assistance Panel Report,” Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute, 2006, Pg. 8. 43“Architects Concept of Landover Mall,” The Washington Post, May 7, 1972, Pg. AS8.

18

growth over the 1970s from 660,567 in 1970 to 665,071 in 1980, the racial composition

continued to change drastically. By 1980, Prince George’s County’s white population

had been almost halved from 561,476 in 1970 to 391,427 in 1980; whereas the black

population had more than doubled from 91,808 in 1970 to 247,860 in 1980.44 Median

family income also experienced dramatic change throughout the 1970’s, increasing from

$12,450 in 1970 to $25,450 in 1980.45

Between 1972-1982, Landover Mall was consistently the second or top source of

retail sales in the county with a 188.6% increase in sales during this time period. 46 These

profits are due to Landover’s many stores and many functions. Landover was the only

mall in the entire Washington, D.C. area with four high-end, local and national anchor

department stores: Hecht’s, Sears, Woodward and Lothrop (Woodie’s), and Garfinckel’s;

and it also housed the NTI Landover 6 Theatres, an MVA Express Office, and at least

two sit-down restaurants. Landover Mall was not just full with a constant high

occupancy rate into the early 1980s, it was full of a variety of products to consume and

entertain. However, as the mall entered the mid-to-late 1980s, it entered into the

beginning stages of its long decline.

The economic and racial makeup of the county continued its pattern of increased

African Americans and wealth throughout the 1980s to 1990. The pattern, however, was

less intense then the drastic overhaul of the county’s demographics of the 1960s and

1970s. Between 1980 and 1990 the total population grew from 665,071 to 729,268, a far

44 M-NCPPC, “Prince George’s County Trendlines,” April 1995. Pg. 3. 45 M-NCPPC, “Prince George’s County Trendlines,” April 1995. Pg. 17. 46 The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, “Retail Trade in Prince George’s Count: Sales Trends, Current, Directions, Supportable Space,” June 1985, Pg. 25.

19

less drastic increase compared to the near doubling of the population during the 1960s. 47

During the 1980s, the white population continued to decline, but only by a few tens of

thousands from 391,427 to 314, 616 in 1990.48 The black population, on the other hand,

continued its rapid growth, although less intensely than that of the 1970s, increasing by

over 100,000 people over the 1980s to 369,791 by 1990.49 For the first time in Prince

George’s County history, African Americans comprised the majority of people residing

within the county.

Per capita and median family income continued to increase throughout the 1980s

as well. Per capita income increased by $10,006 to $20,326 between 1980 and 1990 (an

increase of over $4,000 in 1992 dollars, an increase of almost 25%).50 Per capita income

in Prince George’s County was comparable to the greater Washington, D.C. area,

although it was slightly less and the discrepancy did grow slightly during the late 1980s.51

Median family income jumped from $25,525 in 1980 to $48,471 in 1990.52 In addition,

retail sales steadily increased countywide throughout the 1980s from $2.666 billion in

1983 to $4.287 billion in 1990.53 Paradoxically, Landover began its slow, intensifying

decline during these years of economic prosperity and high retail sales.

The decline of Landover Mall begins with the increase of crime in Prince

George’s County beginning in 1985 and peaking during the early 1990s.54 Crime is a

very important aspect for area retailers as “nearly 70% of shoppers are affected by

47 M-NCPPC, “Prince George’s County Trendlines,” April 1995. Pg. 2. 48 M-NCPPC, “Prince George’s County Trendlines,” April 1995. Pg. 3. 49 M-NCPPC, “Prince George’s County Trendlines,” April 1995. Pg. 3. 50 M-NCPPC, “Prince George’s County Trendlines,” April 1995. Pg. 8. 51 M-NCPPC, “Prince George’s County Trendlines,” April 1995. Pg. 9. 52 M-NCPPC, “Prince George’s County Trendlines,” April 1995. Pg. 9. 53 M-NCPPC, “Prince George’s County Trendlines,” April 1995. Pg. 35. 54 Washington Post.com: Crime Reports, Prince George’s Violent and Property Crimes, The Washington Post, 1998, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv-local/longterm/library/crime/cpg.htm

20

security concerns and choose their destinations accordingly.”55 Security concerns do not

just refer to problems within the mall, but extend to the area’s larger crime problems as

part of the mall’s image. Although crime in Prince George’s County generally followed

the same pattern of ups and downs experienced by the greater Washington, D.C.

metropolitan area, the increases in crime particularly tarnished the image of Landover

Mall. The reputation of the mall’s surrounding area, described by police as one of the

county’s “worst areas for open drug trafficking and related shootings,”56 had become the

reputation of the mall itself as crimes reported by The Washington Post in the Landover

area often referenced Landover mall as a familiar landmark and point of reference. This

is illustrated by one incident of a “drug-related shooting Friday of five persons occurred

in an apartment complex across the street from the shopping center.”57

Crime was also spilling over into the mall itself which, combined with the area’s

crime, enhanced the negative image of the mall. The reputation of the mall itself as a

crime-ridden space most likely began with a well-publicized incident in 1984 where three

youths allegedly were beaten by mall security. Other Landover Mall related crimes

further promoting the mall’s crime-infested image, include the beating and robbing of a

woman leaving the mall from a day of shopping.58 These stories, read by thousands

throughout Washington D.C. and its suburbs, helped to create and proliferate an image of

the mall that, deserved or not, would pose serious obstacles for the mall’s ability to stay

in business.

55 Anonymous, “Retailers Shop for Winning Formulas,” Building Design & Construction, Chicago: Jan 1998, Vol. 39, Issue 1, Pg. 11. 56 Pressley, Sue Anne, “Area Violence Doesn’t Help Mall’s Image,” The Washington Post, January 26, 1988. 57 Pressley, Sue Anne, “Area Violence Doesn’t Help Mall’s Image.” 58 Milloy, Courtland, “Crime and Punishment and Race,” The Washington Post, Sep 23, 1990, Pg. D3.

21

The crime and resulting deteriorating image of the mall would prove detrimental

as it scared off shoppers and retailers alike. In 1989 Landover Mall had only one vacant

shop space; but by 1994 that number increased to 28.59 Not only had more stores left the

mall, typically higher-end stores that draw wealthier and higher numbers of customers,

were leaving and being replaced by less prestigious stores or nothing at all. Garfinckel’s,

occupying 89,000 square feet of the mall and a major draw for customers seeking fine

men and women’s clothing, closed in 1989 and was left unoccupied after.60 Woodward

& Lothrop left Landover mall in 1993 to be replaced by the more generic J.C. Penney,

which in turn vacated a few years later in 2000.61

Overall, crime played a large role in the decline of Landover Mall in creating the

mall’s poor image that, ultimately, caused and reinforced very real and very negative

effects. The 1990s left Landover mall a shadow of the great retail triumph it had been in

its early years: the movie theatre was closed, the MVA Express was gone, the high-end

clothiers had left and either been replaced by discount stores or remained empty, the

fountains had been turned off, and the greenery allowed to die. By the close of the 1990s,

the image of Landover Mall as a low-quality, high-crime shopping space was its reality.

In 2002, the doors of Landover Mall closed forever, against pleas to keep the mall open

made by local residents and politicians,62 and demolition began two years later. By

summer’s end in 2006, Landover mall was nothing more than a pile of rubble slowly

being cleaned up, so that not one physical remnant of the mall would remain. 59 The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, “Shopping Center Directory,” 1994, Pg. 119-122. 60 Nakamura, David, “Mall’s Comedown Taints Lerner Image; Resentment of Nats’ New Owner Lingers in Pr. George’s,” The Washington Post, May 16, 2006, Metro, B01. 61 DeMarco, Donna, “JC Penney Closing Outlet Store at Landover Mall,” The Washington Times, Dec 4, 2000. 62 Schwartzman, Paul, “Dream Gone Bad: At Landover Mall, It’s Nearly All Over; As Stores Close, Neighbors Mourn,” The Washington Post, Mar 2, 3003, Pg. C05.

22

Chapter III

The Black Middle-Class: Perceptions and Realities

There is a strong correlation between the rising African American population of

Prince George’s County and the decline of Landover Mall. This coincidence,

substantiated by the state of the mall during the 1980s compared to the demographic

changes in the county of that time, seems illogical as increased income levels were also

characteristic of this time period. In addition to the disconnect between increased county

prosperity and Landover’s decreased success, the rising black middleclass of the 1970s

had proven itself a valuable market to retailers. In the 1970s, middle-class blacks spent

larger percentages on the types of retail goods and at the types of stores found at

Landover Mall.

Compared to their white counterparts, middle-class blacks, characteristic of the

growing African American population in Prince George’s County during the 1970s, spent

larger percentages of their household income on most of the same categories of goods.

These categories include household items, school supplies, personal care products, and

clothing.63 The middle-class is identified by, among other things, the quantity and

quality of goods it consumes. Prestige and image are intertwined with consumption and

were particularly important to middle-class African Americans so as to identify

themselves as such. This emphasis on image explains the percent of income spending

differences between whites and black on items that illustrate their social standing such as

clothes,64 and these were the items most likely to be purchased at expensive stores.

63 Landry, Bart, The New Black Middle Class, Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1987, Pg. 162. 64 Landry, Bart, The New Black Middle Class, Pgs. 158, 163.

23

The black middle-class concern with prestige in its purchases strongly influenced

preference for location of shopping. Larger percentages of middle-class blacks compared

to their white counterparts, shopped more frequently at expensive clothing stores65 such

as Landover’s Woodward & Lothrop, Raleigh’s, Woolworth, or Garfinckel’s. Slightly

more than 25% of both blacks and whites of the middle-class shopped at either expensive

or good clothing stores prevalent at Landover mall, and more whites than blacks from

this income bracket shopped more often at discount stores such as Kmart,66 stores not

typically found at Landover Mall until much later.

Consumption is a large part of the black middle-class culture. The consuming of

specific goods from specific places helps this population to create prestige and define

status. It also makes them a great potential source of spent retail money and, in turn, an

attractive market for retailers to target. This characteristic of the 1970s black middle-

class further emphasizes the incongruence between the rise of the black middle-class in

Prince George’s County coinciding with the deterioration of Landover Mall. In theory,

the mall should have thrived as more and more middle-class blacks entered the county

during the 1980s, but this was not the case.

Money cannot buy everything. Image and status, although the goal of middle-

class African Americans, could not be purchased to the extent that perception would

change. Unfortunately, America’s lengthy history of racism, classicism, and inaccurate

stereotypes has long been a severe obstacle for the social mobility of African Americans

and has reinforced an unjustified negative perception of them. This perception not only

holds consequences for African Americans pursuing the American Dream, it extends to

65 Landry, Bart, The New Black Middle Class, Pg. 163. 66 Landry, Bart, The New Black Middle Class, Pgs. 162, 163.

24

the image of the larger area where these populations reside and the general emotions

evoked by that image. For the Landover Mall area and the mall specifically, this image

became one of ridden with crime and of low levels of affluence and buying power.

Together, these perceptions of the mall and its surrounding neighborhood account for the

disconnect between the steadily increasing incomes and population within the mall’s

surrounding area and the steadily declining quality and viability of Landover Mall.

Neighborhood racial composition directly influences fear of crime.67 This fear is

heightened by rapid changes in racial makeup of an area, such as Prince George’s

County. Fear of crime, however, is not coupled with nor caused by increased

deterioration of the physical neighborhood or increased numbers of unsupervised

teenaged groups.68 It is caused simply by the movement of African Americans, of no

specified class, into an area at rates faster than considered historically normal. The roots

of this fear are not fully known, but are assumed to have originated from historically

racist practices that did promote high levels of crime in largely black neighborhoods.

This unsubstantiated fear may also be rooted in the stereotype of blacks as aggressive or

violent by nature.69 Whatever the origins of the fear of crime as associated with African

Americans may be, the fear itself is largely unfounded, yet prevalent amongst both white

and black populations. In addition, this unjustly perceived fear poses real threats to the

viability of African American communities and their immediate surrounding area as seen

in the detrimental affects on Landover Mall.

67 Covington, Jeanette and Ralph B. Taylor, “Community Structural Change and Fear of Crime,” Social Problem, Vol. 40, Number 3, August 1993, Pg. 389. 68 Covington, Jeanette and Ralph B. Taylor, “Community Structural Change and Fear of Crime,” Pg. 391. 69 Peffley, Mark and Jon Hurwizt, “Whites’ Stereotypes of Blacks: Sources and Political Consequences,” Perception and Prejudice: Race and Politics in the United States, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Yale University, 1998, Pg. 62.

25

In addition to the undeserved perception of fear of crime, African Americans are

also perceived as impoverished. The association with blacks and poverty is rooted in the

link between growing urban problems caused by insufficient funds to correct these

problems and the overwhelmingly black populations that occupy these urban spaces.70

Although it is true that on average African Americans have lower incomes than whites, it

is far from a universally proven principle that all whites are wealthier than all blacks or

that all blacks are poor. The high-income levels of Prince George’s County’s black

residents prove that. Perception can be stronger than reality, however, and can hold

strong consequences for black communities and the businesses within them such as the

success of Landover Mall in Prince George’s County.

70 Peffley, Mark and Jon Hurwizt, Pg. 59.

26

Chapter IV

The Role of Perception in Landover’s Decline

Beginning in the mid 1980s, Landover Mall began to suffer from two, reinforcing

factors: crime was growing increasingly pervasive and the mall’s physical appearance

was becoming dated. This cycle prescribes to the Broken Windows theory in which

disorder and crime are inextricably linked.71 In the case of Landover, if the mall

continues to appear to be uncared for, crime will follow. In turn, increased crime will

result in poorer upkeep and fewer improvements. Also acting upon this cycle, and

exaggerating the crime factor, was the negative perception of African Americans that

reside in the Landover area and increasingly make up the majority of its residents.

As mentioned before, a safe shopping space is crucial to customers in deciding

where to shop. Between 1984 and 1989 Prince George’s County experienced an increase

in both property and violent crime.72 This trend was representative, however, of the

increasing property and violent crime occurring throughout Maryland and affected malls

statewide. No mall paid so dearly for these increases as Landover. Other factors could

be contributing to the hard hit Landover took during the mid-and late 1980s such as the

building of other malls in the neighboring counties, but a more likely cause, accounting

for the inflated effect of crime on Landover, is the negative perception of African

Americans.

Bill Connnell, a jewelry store employee transferred to Landover Mall from

Annapolis in 1984, recalls, “I was nervous about it. My first couple of days here I was

waiting for someone to break in with a gun or shoot me or something.” The reality was

71 Wilson, James Q and George L. Kelling, “Broken Windows,” Atlantic Monthly, March 1982, Pg. 2. 72 “Uniform Crime Report for the State of Maryland and Prince George’s County,” Central Records Division, Maryland State Police, 1975-1999.

27

that Connell had only experienced one nonviolent shoplifting incident.73 Connell’s

account of his expected experience and actual experience captures the larger sentiment

that “the county’s quality of life is going down as the black population is going up.”74

People perceive Prince George’s County and, subsequently Landover Mall, as a

dangerous place to be, a place no one wants to shop. Yet the reality, also captured by

Connell, is that the mall is not crime-ridden and the fear of the mall is unwarranted.

In contrast, when the area around mall was mostly white, incidents of crime were

also reported regularly in The Washington Post, but the impact of those reports did not

hold such negative effects on the mall. In 1977, when white accounted for about 80% of

Prince George’s County’s population, The Washington Post reported, “although it isn’t

obvious; a cops and robbers games is played out daily between security guards and those

shoppers who choose to steal rather than buy” and that “the bustling crowds of shoppers

at Landover Mall Shopping Center in Prince George’s County probably never hear the

excited voices of the private security guards speaking into their walkie-talkies.” 75 Crime

is taking place and regularly inside the mall, yet shoppers did not seem to mind in the

1970s. At that moment, Landover was not suffering from crime, at least not in terms of

negative perception and lost costumers. As the county’s demographics shifted, however,

so did the emphasis on crime and the perception of the Landover area and the mall.

If the perception of crime did not stop customers from coming to Landover, the

physical state of the mall would, eventually stop them from coming back. Throughout

Landover’s thirty-year lifespan, its physical elements never experienced any remodeling

73 Marcus, Ruth, “Landover Mall Seeks New Image,” The Washington Post, Dec. 2, 1984. 74 Wynter, Leon, “Tales of Two Suburbs: Celebrating Our Realities Vs. Keeping Them at Bay,” The Washington Post, Aug. 28, 1983. 75 M-NCPPC, “Development Potential Model Neighborhood Area Prince George’s County Planning Area 72,” Pg. 15.

28

or revamping, only operational and non-operational periods. Landover failed to

modernize as styles changed and its upkeep was allowed to wane, counterproductive to

staying competitive and quashing the perception of ramped increased crime. The mall’s

physical environment is the responsibility of owner and manager, Lerner Enterprises,

which had heavily invested in its malls located in other jurisdictions, but had failed to

reinvest in Landover Mall after it opened.76 This implies that Lerner was not unable to

improve Landover, but unwilling to. Lerner, like the general public, bought into its own

mall’s negative image and false perception, prematurely determining the mall would fail

and, in turn, ensuring that it would.

Landover Mall was state of the art when first opened. It was the epitome of

modern-day shopping in the goods and services it provided as well as in the luxurious

and modern environment in which they were offered. Landover was the first mall in the

Washington, D.C. area with four major department stores, each with distinctive

merchandise and shopping styles, in addition to over 140 specialty shops. 77 Although a

standard big-box design, the mall housed many impressive architectural elements

including three-foot geysers located in the central court that could shoot water to heights

of twenty-feet, cubist sculptures framed by water and other landscaping, skylights to

provide natural light, a coffered ceiling, and a glass balustrade on the second floor. The

collective effect of these elements was an environment that attempted to make shoppers

comfortable and stimulate their enthusiasm towards merchandising.78

76 Nakamura, David, “Mall’s Comedown Taints Lerner Image; Resentment of Nats’ New Owner Lingers in Pr. George’s,” The Washington Post, May 16, 2006, Metro B01. 77 “Landover First Mall With 4 Major Stores,” The Washington Post, Sep. 6, 1972. 78 “Architect’s Concept of Landover Mall,” The Washing Post, May 7, 1972, AS8.

29

By the mid 1980s, Landover was not the sleek, ultra-modern mall it had been a

decade before. The mall suffered from simple maintenance problems ranging from litter

outside of the mall, to larger aesthetic problems such as leaving inoperable the prominent

fountain décor and leaving up signs of businesses that had vacated the mall. In addition

to the substandard upkeep of Landover that was common during the 1980s, Landover’s

standardized design with predictable architectural elements, layout, and stores was

increasingly unattractive to customers. In general, customers were seeking “authenticity

and a deeper sense of connection to their community, culture, climate and daily lives,”79

all of which Landover was offering less and less of.

Landover was not just dilapidated compared to its former self of the 1970s, but it

was becoming increasingly less competitive compared to other shopping malls. During

the 1980s the retail industry had been shaken by a “wave of takeovers, buyouts and

mergers” creating “more pressure for profits, less room for error and a greater risk of

failure.”80 This heightened sense of competition made it more important than ever for

Landover Mall to reinvent itself to attract and regain its customer base as older malls are

particularly vulnerable to large shifts in retailing.81 Owners of many of the Washington,

D.C. area’s shopping centers went on a remodeling binge focusing on adding new

services, facilities, and stores.82 The race to remodel spanned across the entire

Washington, D.C. as Tyson’s Corner in Fairfax, Virginia, underwent $150 million in

79 Beyard, Michael D., et al., “Ten Principles for Rethinking the Mall,” Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute, 2006. Pg. v. 80Sun, Lena H, “Competition Gives Retail Landscape a New Look,” The Washington Post, Dec. 4, 1988, H1. 81 Sun, Lena H. 82 Potts, Mark, “Mall Makeovers: D.C. Area Shopping Centers Go Upscale in a Big Way as They Vie for Customers,” The Washington Post, Nov. 13, 1989, E1.

30

renovations over two years;83 Prince George’s Plaza, near Landover Mall, was in the

middle of a complete facelift in 1989; and Montgomery Mall, owned by Lerner

Enterprises, constructed a Nordstrom and 40 smaller stores.84 In contrast to the

rejuvenation efforts to other malls, Landover’s physical appearance was “dark and

severe, with a polluted pond as a centerpiece, its picturesque wishing-well pennies lying

among cigarette butts, plastic forks, and foam under an oily slick.”85 Landover’s old

image could not compete with those of surrounding malls.

Theodore Lerner, President and CEO of Lerner Enterprises, claimed to have a

personal interest in and personal responsibility for the state of his malls. He boasted his

personal commitment in ensuring the aesthetic quality of his malls by anonymously

inspecting his malls once a month with a tape recorder in-hand looking for “tenants

whose walls are smeared with fingerprints or whose tile floors are improperly laid.”86

Lerner would send curt letters of admonition to tenants whose storefronts or general

maintenance was not to Lerner’s standards. Lerner’s dedication to the state of his malls

does not seem to match up with the obvious decline Landover began to suffer in the

1980s. Lerner’s commitment to high standards of his malls’ physical environment, then,

must not apply to Landover. Is it possible that perception had tainted even the owner’s

view of his mall?

Criticisms of Lerner include that he is “an almost ruthless type of guy who walks

over dead bodies to get what he wants,” that “he tends to treat people like, ‘I come first,’”

83 Snoddy, William, “Remodeled Tyson’s Corner Reopening,” Daily News Record, Oct. 25, 1988. 84 Potts, Mark. 85 Kowinksi, William S., The Malling of America: An inside look at the great consumer paradise, New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc. 1985, Pg. 159. 86 Boodman, Sandra G. and Thomas Gruibisich, “Developer’s Empire Based on Instinct,” The Washington Post, Aug 2, 1981, A1.

31

he’s “unsympathetic to the retailer,” and “money comes before everything.”87 In

addition, Lerner himself has claimed that he bases business decisions on instinct, a

methodology open to personal bias and prejudice. In light of these criticisms and

Lerner’s subjective business practices, it is reasonable that Lerner would have been

affected by the negative image of Landover Mall as created by the larger perception of

the area and, in turn, he may have deemed the mall a bad investment. This would explain

Lerner’s actions in allowing the mall to stagnate until the contract with the county

expired and the property could be redeveloped. Although Lerner is not responsible for

pervasive crime in the area or the negative perception of African Americans, the

company is responsible for allowing an undeserved negative image to destroy the mall by

not taking any action to make basic improvements to keep shoppers, community

residents, and mall tenants happy. Because the relationship between crime and disorder

is cyclical and requires active resistance and change to interrupt its detrimental effects,

Lerner’s mismanagement of Landover laid the groundwork for the mall’s continuing

failings into the 1990s.

87 Boodman, Sandra G. and Thomas Gruibisich.

32

Chapter V

The Intensification of Failure and Closing of Landover Mall

The 1980s solidified Landover Mall as a blighted area overrun by violent

criminals. Opportunities arose again and again for Lerner Enterprises to rejuvenate

Landover Mall and capitalize on new, complimentary development and plummeting

crime rates. Lerner continued to neglect the mall, however, reinforcing its 1980s image

and the cycle of perception transforming reality. These opportunities, including

drastically improved crime rates, the development of nearby Fed-Ex Field, and the

continued growth in local family incomes, signaled the Landover area was a viable

market. Regardless of the area’s continued and heightened viability, Landover Mall was

continually overlooked for improvements and raised concerns and eyebrows throughout

the Landover community as to why Lerner would pass up on a sound business

investment. Towards the end of the 1990s, Prince George’s County officials and citizens

increasingly believed that Landover’s decline was not only premature, but also

preventable and that the mall’s failure was a direct result of the image of the county.

Despite an improving environment for retail, the perception of Landover had been

solidified and was in an irreversible cycle of decline. Lerner had sealed Landover’s fate.

In the mid-1990s, Prince George’s County experienced a sharp decrease in crime.

The violent crime rate declined 19% and homicides decreased 42%, the lowest it had

been in ten years.88 Yet, this decline meant little for Landover Mall whose name had

already become synonymous with danger and crime. In addition to the mall’s informal

name of “Landover,” automatically associating it with the area of Landover and its

88 Masters, Brooke A and Michael D. Shear, “Frightened Communities Search for Reasons, Relief,” The Washington Post, April 5, 1998, AI.

33

separate problems, the mall was too often an unfair target of reports on crime as it was

used as a point of reference regularly in The Washington Post. Such references are

exemplified here: “…Glenarden Apartments, a complex near Landover Mall that police

describe as an open-air drug market”89 and, “a suburban Maryland banker was kidnapped

at knifepoint on his way to work…Events began about 10 a.m. near the Landover

Mall…”90 Crime is not happening at the mall, but is being associated with the mall and

projected to thousands of shoppers across the greater Washington, D.C. area who, in turn,

perceive the mall as a dangerous place where crimes are committed. This perception is

something that even drastically falling crime rates could not change, as business was

continuously bad for merchants and the mall’s physical state continued to decline.

The continued perception of crime goes hand-in-hand with Landover’s ever-

growing perception of lacking good retail, a perception that became the mall’s reality,

reinforcing the mall’s image as poor in addition to dangerous. By the 1990s, both

Woodie’s and Garfinckel’s had gone out of business, leaving Landover without two of its

anchor stores and finer men’s and women’s clothing stores. Although J.C. Penney

replaced Woodie’s in the late 1990s, the national retailer left only a few years later due to

dwindling sales. By 1998, the mall had over a 30% vacancy rate, the highest of any mall

in the Washington, D.C. region.91 In addition to the high vacancy rate, remaining stores

targeted low-income shoppers such as Payless Shoe Source, a dollar store, and numerous

fast food chains.92 These stores did not appeal to the residents of Prince George’s county

89 Yorke, Jeffry, “Glendening Tours ‘Crack Alley,’ Vows to Combat Drub Problem in Glenarden Complex Called ‘Unacceptable,’ The Washington Post, Nov. 24, 1987. 90 Stevens, Joann and Martin Weil, “Banker Escapes 2 Kidnappers After 2 Ransom Deliveries Fail,” The Washington Post, Feb. 9, 1980. 91 Stoughton, Stephanie, “The Decline and Fall of a Mall; Landover is Seen as a Drag on Retail Efforts,” The Washington Post, Aug. 4, 1999. M14. 92 M-NCPPC, “Prince George’s County Planning Department Shopping Cneter Directory,” 1994.

34

whose median family income averaged $61,900 by 1998 and preferred high-end

retailers.93

This disconnect between wealthy residents and a poor mall did not go unnoticed,

particularly with the building of Fed-Ex Field in 1997. The football stadium, located

across the beltway from Landover Mall, is home to the area’s pro-football team, the

Washington Redskins. During the construction of the stadium, studies were conducted

by consulting firm Hunter Interests, Inc. to investigate the viability of the county

investing money in the Landover area to spur economic development. The study revealed

that the building of the Fed-ex Field would not guarantee a new customer base for

Landover Mall, but rather solidified the viability of the current customer base and

highlighted Landover mall’s inability and unwillingness to serve it. A Washington Post

article captures the relationship of the 1980s reputation of the mall and its affects a

decade later:

Even as the neighborhoods have improved and the county’s wealth has risen, the mall can’t seem to shake its old image. The vacant stores, dressed up with artwork and advertisements, are a reminder that perceptions continue to haunt the mall.94

By the end of the 1990s, Landover Mall was more neglected, blighted, and

vacant than at any other time in its history.

Landover Mall’s neon blue and white sign, squatting on a grassy hill off Interstate 95, looks like a remnant from the ‘70’s…The shopping center is clean, but the dark tiles inside are scuffed, the lighting is dim and the number of shoppers is small even on the weekends.95

93 Stoughton, Stephanie. 94 Stoughton, Stephanie. 95 Stoughton, Stephanie.

35

The mall was outdated, uninviting, and unsuccessful. The exterior echoed the

interior, projecting an image of the area. The image, of rundown and unsafe, did not

project the true characteristics of the area, but rather provided a negative perception

caused by the area’s population. Lerner supported this perception by allowing low-end

retailers to replace high-end retailers and refusing to renovate or remodel the mall. These

two choices reinforced each other and proved, again and again, to work against the mall’s

success. The story of J.C. Penney at Landover Mall illustrates this cycle.

Before leaving the mall all together, the J.C. Penney department store became an

outlet because storeowners believed sales would rise by carrying discounted items, but

the shift to an outlet did not produce an increase in sales. 96 Nearby residents could afford

higher-quality, higher-priced items and were willing to shop elsewhere to get them. In a

few years, the outlet failed and the national retailer vacated the mall. J.C. Penney along

with Lerner allowed perception, not fact, to educate them on their customer base and as a

result J.C. Penney failed, left, and was never replaced. Lerner had denied the mall’s

success by tolerating and enabling its decline. Landover had become a shadow of itself

compared to its heyday of the early 1980s. The perceptions of the mall had become its

reality as a dangerous, run-down shopping mall with no desirable retailers. Landover had

become a dead mall.

In 2002, with Lerner’s 30-year contract with the county fulfilled, Landover Mall

closed its doors. Likely influenced by the fact that Landover’s depreciation value had

reached its full potential, the mall was no longer profitable by remaining open. After the

malls closing, the mall was used for spill over parking from footballs games at Fed-Ex

96 Stoughton, Stephanie.

36

Field.97 Eventually the mall was only a liability and loss of money to Lerner as well as

an eyesore to the residents of Landover, and the decision to tear down the mall was

made.98

Demolition began in the summer of 2006 and was completed in late fall of the

same year. Although no formal plans for redevelopment of the site have been made, the

Urban Land Institute conducted a survey and panel report of the site and the surrounding

area to investigate the possibility of redeveloping the vacant property where Landover

Mall once stood. The panel found the site to be viable for many redevelopment purposes,

namely residential building, noting its proximity to the District of Columbia, the large

amount of existing infrastructure, and the growing population and household incomes.99

The panel acknowledged, however, a strong constraint to redeveloping the site. The site,

although highly desirable in some respects, is located in an area in which “the

marketplace perceives as having fewer services, fewer jobs, and less discretionary

income.”100 This perception, whether deserved or not, is an obstacle that investments in

the area must overcome in order to succeed. Unfortunately, the area’s reality and positive

economic attributes are not enough to guarantee sustainability. The case of Landover

Mall illustrates that perception is capable of destroying otherwise sound economic

ventures.

97 Kahn, Michael W., “Free parking for Redskins fans vanishes at mall,” The Associated Press, Nov. 11, 2004. 98 Fult, Tony, Lerner Management Manager of Landover Mall in its last years before closing, Personal Interview, Oct. 16, 2006. 99 Urban Land Institute, “Redevelopment of Landover Mall and Vicinity: A Technical Assistance Panel Report,” Pg. 19. 100 Urban Land Institute, Pg. 19.

37

Conclusion

Prince George’s County was increasingly wealthy, its residents consumed goods,

its population was growing; and much of it was easily accessible to residents all over the

greater Washington, D.C. area—all signs of an area capable of supporting a regional

shopping mall. However, this was exactly what the county and more specifically the area

of Landover, Maryland, could not do. There are some implications that Landover’s

snowballed decline was the result of tax laws that made malls profitable solely by being

in operation, regardless of their present state. These laws did contribute to Landover’s

decline in that economics dictated business decisions, but other factors reinforced these

business decisions and assisted in the mall’s premature deterioration and closing.

Other contributing factors included increased competition and crime. During the

1980s several malls were built attempting to capture the same greater Washington, D.C.

shopping population as Landover Mall. This correlated with increases in crime

throughout Prince George’s County and deterred shoppers from coming to Landover

Mall. The overall effects of these factors on the mall, although independently not

responsible for its decline, were exaggerated by the perception of the area and, in turn,

brought about Landover’s end.

The decline of Landover Mall coinciding with the growing African American

population within the county is more than a simple coincidence. Negative images and

assumptions associated with African Americans were the main force behind Landover’s

decline. Too often African Americans are perceived, although unfairly and undeservedly,

as poorer than their white counterparts, and their communities are perceived as more

prone to crime and disorder. This perception of the area was, in turn, projected onto

38

Landover Mall the result of which deterred owner and manager, Lerner Enterprises, from

investing more consideration for and money in Landover. Lerner’s actions, or more

appropriately inaction, crippled the mall’s ability to remain competitive. Landover

received no renovations and did not actively retain or seek high-end retailers, causing

only more decline and reinforcing the projected image of the area. Landover entered

into a cycle of this perception, inaction, and decline until its closing and eventual

demolition. Although it is not certain that had Lerner continued to invest in Landover

and treat the mall as a viable shopping mall the mall would be a booming retail center

today. However, what is clear is that by not investing in Landover at all, Lerner ensured

the mall’s failure. Overall, Lerner cannot be blamed for crime rates or the perception of

African Americans, but the company is responsible for the management of its retail

properties and for making business decisions based upon factual information such as

family incomes and consumer preferences, not unfounded prejudicial perceptions.

Perhaps the most detrimental result of Landover Mall’s fate was not its actual closing, but

that its closing continues to reinforce the idea that investing in African American

communities is fruitless and, in turn, further perpetuates the perception of these types of

communities because the mall did fail in such a community although not because of it.

The failure of Landover Mall holds other implications for African American

communities.

If perception can have such detrimental effects on a shopping mall, what other

effects might perception produce? Could it threaten the entire economic viability of

Prince George’s County? Could it threaten the viability of other services, such as the

providing of public facilities and services or even quality education? The implications of

39

the power of perception are widespread and frightening to consider, but they are crucial

to investigate and understand if African American communities are to succeed, especially

with black suburbs emerging and expanding rapidly throughout America’s metropolitan

regions.101

In addition to understanding the breadth of influence perception can have,

understanding how to change this perception is equally valuable in finding solutions for

the problems that perception can cause. But how can the perception of a population be

changed? Projects like Landover Mall or other equally significant economic ventures

may begin changing these perceptions by proving that African American communities

are viable places for such investments. However, such projects must first question the

truth of the perception itself and take risks and invest regardless of the image they would

otherwise avoid. In addition, the project must actively fight the negative image in order

to disassociate it from not only the project to ensure its success in order to eventually

separate it from the population from which the perception originates. Unfortunately, the

decision makers behind these economic opportunities are the most unwilling to risk

investment in black communities. With black-owned businesses more than double

between 1977 and 1987 and business ownership stabilized communities,102 perhaps the

change in perception will have to come from within these communities themselves.

Whatever the fate of Prince George’s County and future projects similar to Landover,

they will continue to be strongly dictated by their image, an image that is in need of

repair.

101 Cashin, Sheryll, D., “Middle-Class Black Suburbs and the State of Integration: A Post-Integrationist Vision for Metropolitan America,” Cornell Law Review, Vol. 86, Issue 729, May 2001, Pg. 7. 102 Pressley, Sue Anne, “Black Firms Prosper in Prince George’s,” The Washington Post, May 11, 1987.

40

Bibliography

Anonymous, “Retailers Shop for Winning Formulas,” Building Design & Construction,

Chicago: Jan 1998, Vol. 39, Issue 1. Beyard, Michael D., et al., “Ten Principles for Rethinking the Mall,” Washington, D.C.:

Urban Land Institute, 2006. Blackmar, Elizabeth, “Of REITS and Rights: Absentee Ownership in Periphery,”

Diefendord, Jeffry and Kurk Dorsey Ed., City, Country, and Empire: Landscapes in Environmental History. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2005.

Boodman, Sandra G. and Thomas Gruibisich, “Developer’s Empire Based on Instinct,”

The Washington Post, Aug 2, 1981, A1. Cashin, Sheryll, D., “Middle-Class Black Suburbs and the State of Integration: A Post-

Integrationist Vision for Metropolitan America,” Cornell Law Review, Vol. 86, Issue 729, May 2001

Chung, Chuihua Judy and Sce Tsung Leong, Harvard Design School Guide to Shopping. Köln: Tashcen GmbH, 2001. Pg. 52, 53.

Covington, Jeanette and Ralph B. Taylor, “Community Structural Change and Fear of

Crime,” Social Problem, Vol. 40, Number 3, August 1993 DeMarco, Donna, “JC Penney Closing Outlet Store at Landover Mall,” The Washington Times, Dec 4, 2000.

Curry, Wayne K. Donald E. Hunter, Marvin F. Wilson, and M.H. Jim Estepp,

”Proposals for Stadium Area Include Entertainment Center; Prince George’s Officials Seek Development,” The Washington Post, June 11, 1997, B03.

Fult, Tony, Lerner Management Manager of Landover Mall in its last years before

closing, Personal Interview, Oct. 16, 2006. Kowinksi, William S., The Malling of America: An inside look at the great consumer paradise, New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc. 1985. Gladwell, Malcolm, “The Terrazzo Jungle: Fifty years ago, the mall was born. American

would never be the same,” The New Yorker, May 3, 2004. Hanchett, Thomas W., “U.S. Tax Policy and the Shopping-Center Boom of the 1950s and

1960s,” The American Historical Review, Vol. 101, No. 4, Oct. 1996. Hassell, Greg. “Malls Slipping as Shopping Meccas,” Houston Chronicle. October 9, 1996.

41

Masters, Brooke A and Michael D. Shear, “Frightened Communities Search for Reasons, Relief,” The Washington Post, April 5, 1998, AI.

Kahn, Michael W., “Free parking for Redskins fans vanishes at mall,” The Associated Press, Nov. 11, 2004. Labich, Kenneth. “What will it take to Keep People Hanging Out at the Mall?” Fortune,

May 29, 1995. Landry, Bart, The New Black Middle Class, Los Angeles: University of California Press,

1987. Lewison, David M. Retailing. New York: Macmillan, 1994. Longstreth, Richard. The Buildings of Main Street: A Guide to American Commercial

Architecture. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publisher, Inc. 1987. Marcus, Ruth, “Landover Mall Seeks New Image,” The Washington Post, Dec. 2, 1984. The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, “Shopping Center

Directory,” 1994. Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, “Development Potential

Model Neighborhood Area Prince George’s County Planning Area 72,” Gladstone Associates Economic Consultants, Nov. 1971.

The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, “Retail Trade in Prince

George’s Count: Sales Trends, Current, Directions, Supportable Space,” June 1985.

Milloy, Courtland, “Crime and Punishment and Race,” The Washington Post, Sep 23,

1990, Pg. D3. Nakamura, David, “Mall’s Comedown Taints Lerner Image; Resentment of Nats’ New

Owner Lingers in Pr. George’s,” The Washington Post, May 16, 2006, Metro, B01.

Nelli, Humbert S. “European Immigrants and Urban America” in The Urban Experience,

Eds. Raymond A. Mohl and James F. Richardson. Peffley, Mark and Jon Hurwizt, “Whites’ Stereotypes of Blacks: Sources and Political

Consequences,” Perception and Prejudice: Race and Politics in the United States, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Yale University, 1998.

Potts, Mark, “Mall Makeovers: D.C. Area Shopping Centers Go Upscale in a Big Way as

They Vie for Customers,” The Washington Post, Nov. 13, 1989, E1.

42

Pressley, Sue Anne, “Area Violence Doesn’t Help Mall’s Image,” The Washington Post,

January 26, 1988.

Pressley, Sue Anne, “Black Firms Prosper in Prince George’s,” The Washington Post, May 11, 1987.

Resolution No. 1-1971. Prince George’s County Council Hearing. Feb. 9 1971. Schoenherr, Steven E. Evolution of the Shopping Center.

http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/soc/shoppingcenter.html, Feb. 17, 2006. Schwartzman, Paul, “Dream Gone Bad: At Landover Mall, It’s Nearly All Over; As

Stores Close, Neighbors Mourn,” The Washington Post, Mar 2, 3003, Pg. C05. Snoddy, William, “Remodeled Tyson’s Corner Reopening,” Daily News Record, Oct. 25,

1988. Stevens, Joann and Martin Weil, “Banker Escapes 2 Kidnappers After 2 Ransom

Deliveries Fail,” The Washington Post, Feb. 9, 1980. Stoughton, Stephanie, “The Decline and Fall of a Mall; Landover is Seen as a Drag on

Retail Efforts,” The Washington Post, Aug. 4, 1999. M14. Sun, Lena H, “Competition Gives Retail Landscape a New Look,” The Washington Post,

Dec. 4, 1988, H1. Teaford, Jon C., “Trumpeted Failures and Unheralded Triumphs” in the The Unheralded

Triumphs, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983. Tucker, Grady. “The New Economics of Shopping Center Location and Scale” in

Shopping Centers: U.S.A. Eds. George Sternlieb and James W. Hughes. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research. 1981

“Uniform Crime Report for the State of Maryland and Prince George’s County,” Central

Records Division, Maryland State Police, 1975-1999. Unknown, “Architects Concept of Landover Mall,” The Washington Post, May 7, 1972,

Pg. AS8. Unknown, “Landover First Mall With 4 Major Stores,” The Washington Post, Sep. 6,

1972. Unknown, “Developer’s Empire Based on Instinct,” The Washington Post, Aug. 21,

1981.

43

Unknown, “Architect’s Concept of Landover Mall,” The Washing Post, May 7, 1972, AS8.

Urban Land Institute, “Landover Mall and Vicinity: A Technical Assistance Panel Report,” Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute, 2006. The Washington Post.com: Crime Reports, Prince George’s Violent and Property Crimes,

The Washington Post, 1998, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv-local/longterm/library/crime/cpg.htm.

Wilson, James Q and George L. Kelling, “Broken Windows,” Atlantic Monthly, March

1982. Wynter, Leon, “Tales of Two Suburbs: Celebrating Our Realities Vs. Keeping Them at

Bay,” The Washington Post, Aug. 28, 1983. Yorke, Jeffry, “Glendening Tours ‘Crack Alley,’ Vows to Combat Drub Problem in

Glenarden Complex Called ‘Unacceptable,’ The Washington Post, Nov. 24, 1987. Zibert, Eve, “The Malls, the Merrier a Shopping List in Time for the Season,” The

Washington Post, November 20, 1987.