Summary

By C. J. Otten, agricultural economist,

Saxon D. Clark, agricultural economist,

A.B. Lowstuter, architectural engineer. ^[1]

Charles W. Hauck, marketing specialist. ^[2]

A study of the Central Retail Food Market in Cleveland, Ohio was made in 1947 at the request of Mayor Thomas A. Burke. In the previous year the city had voted favorably on a bond issue of $1,000,000 for the relocation and rebuilding of the market, provided it could be made self-supporting in a reasonable length of time.

The Central Market building, built in 1857 and occupied until December 1949, when it was destroyed by fire, was a barnlike structure that lacked sufficient ventilation, water supply, and trash and garbage disposal facilities for the operation of the market in a sanitary manner. It was located in a congested area, with inadequate parking areas and loading or unloading space, and with streetcar and bus lines running on all sides. There appeared to be general agreement among dealers, buyers, city officials, and many others who were interviewed during the study that the market should be relocated. Approximately 95 percent of the 181 dealers doing business there stated they would move to a relocated market and would be willing to pay higher rentals for better facilities.

Two sites suggested by those doing business on the market are near the old market site. Because of the type of buildings located on one site, the cost of acquiring it would be more than twice the cost of the other site, which would bring the total cost of the market development above the $1,000,000 appropriated for this purpose. Therefore only one of the sites suggested could be considered for the proposed market.

The total cost of building the market on this site would be about $905,000–$225,000 for land and $680,000 for the building. It was estimated that the total annual revenue needed to support the market would be about $100,000. Rentals from 213 stalls and a restaurant in the proposed market would amount to about $70,000 annually, thus leaving a deficit of $30,000. Additional revenue could be obtained from the lease or parking facilities in and around the building, but not in an amount sufficient to meet this deficit. Therefore, to make the market self-supporting, three ways of reducing the revenue needed should be considered: (1) Attention should be given to the composition of the estimated day-to-day operating expenses of $49,000 with a view to determining their accuracy and the ability and willingness of the interested people to reduce them. (2) The $52,000 payments per year for amortization of the investment in a 25-year period at 3 percent interest could be reduced if interest were paid only on the investment in land, if money could be borrowed at a lower interest rate, or if the investment could be amortized over a longer period than that set forth in existing Ohio legislation. (3) Less expensive land could be found outside the downtown area, but the possibility of the loss of customers must be recognized if such a location is considered. If none of the above methods were feasible for reducing the amount of revenue needed, the only other way to make the project self-liquidating would be to charge higher rentals for the stands and the restaurant.

The final determination of whether or not a new public retail market should be built in downtown Cleveland to replace Central Market will have to be made by city officials. In the meantime, many of the retailers who were doing business in the old Central Market have relocated in a nearby private warehouse, and presumably can continue to operate there pending a decision by the city of the desirability of building a new public market.