Alarm has been raised recently, that many structures put up in several urban areas to serve as modern markets are not attracting business. Those who were allocated stalls in these markets are abandoning them. As a result, many of these markets are remaining empty or are highly under-utilised.
The traders’ main complaint is lack
of customers. People, circulating to these markets and who form potential
customers, are few. Thus, traders are selling little or nothing, suffering
losses.
In urban economics, there is a
famous dictum saying: location is location is location. Business is maximized
when located at sites with maximum accessibility. The authorities who invest in
these markets may be constrained by land availability in areas that are already
heavily populated. Thus the choice, sometimes, of sub-prime sites, in the hope
that the modernity of markets will attract business. This is not happening, or
is not happening fast enough. Clearly, a building is not all there is to making
a market thrive.
A market like the Mahakama ya Ndizi,
in Mabibo, Dar es Salaam, is thriving in compromising circumstances, because of
location and the brand it has created for itself, as your one-stop centre, if
you want to buy raw bananas from upcountry.
Public authorities envisage a
situation where traders will abandon doing business in open air on streets and
other open spaces, and operate from these modern buildings. Yet there is
contradiction in this idea. Modern markets can only accommodate a few traders
compared to those who are targeted. Thus business on the street and other
unauthorised areas will continue, even if some traders moved to these modern
markets.
What can we learn from experience?
In the late 1990s, as part of the UNDP-supported National Income Generation
Programme (NIGP), two modern markets, one at Temeke Stereo and the other at
Makumbusho, in Dar es Salaam, were constructed to accommodate street traders.
They started off badly, with traders complaining of lack of customers, much as
the number of stalls provided were few. There were also many complaints related
to the management of these markets, including the rent charged, and
responsibility for cleanliness.
In 2010, a Pension Fund’s money was
sunk into constructing the Machinga Complex. It targeted to accommodate 4,500
traders, taken off the streets.
Today, more than a decade later, it
remains underutilised with traders claiming, among other things, lack of
customers; yet business is going on briskly a short distance away, at Karume,
largely in the open air or in makeshift stalls.
Karume has also established itself
as the ultimate centre for mitumba, secondhand clothes, shoes, bags and what
have you.
When you observe how street traders
operate, you realise that they follow potential customers. They know where
there is business potential and locate themselves there. Their philosophy seems
to be: “You follow them, they do not follow you”. Yet, in constructing modern
markets, there seems to be a belief that customers will follow traders.
This may not happen until the market
has established itself over a long period and has gained some reputation,
perhaps in terms of market segmentation; meaning, getting itself a niche, in
the wide spectrum of the market potential.
Besides, there is the habit of the
traders and customers themselves. Having got used to displaying their wares on
the ground free of charge, they may be reluctant to move indoors, where,
moreover, there are regulations to observe, and rent and other charges to pay.
It is not uncommon to find traders displaying their wares on the ground
surrounding a market, to the chagrin of those who chose to trade from inside.
Habits die hard, unless there is ardent public education and serious regulation
enforcement, this habit is likely to continue.
Aspects of design need to look into
as well. Traders in some new markets have complained of having one electricity
meter of the whole building. Sharing the cost of electricity among many users
of different needs can be challenging. Rent too seems to be determined on the basis
of returns on the capital invested and not on the turn over realized by the
tenants.
Clearly in-depth studies need to be
made before investing huge sums into these markets since, once constructed,
they cannot be moved. When the buildings remain vacant or underutilised, they
become a liability costing much to look after, without generating adequate
revenue. This is necessary to stem obsolescence.
Predictive models depicting the
usability of the market, given existing and near future conditions; as well as
revenue streams, need to be made. The focus should not just be on the building,
but also on its potential use, to avoid sinking money into what becomes white
elephants.
No comments :
Post a Comment