Hall Capital Advisory research

The District Index

District-level underwriting for capital allocators, owners and developers, and cities and district organizations.

Hall Capital Advisory reads each downtown inside the boundary its city adopted: how long its businesses have traded, how fast they turn over, and how much of the street the largest private owner holds. The evidence is published here. An engagement applies it to one decision on one street.

Start from the decision in front of you.

Capital allocators

Is the district premium embedded in this price supported by the district around it?

Business tenure and four-year turnover say whether the roster behind the rent has lasted.

Engagement: Acquisition District Screen

Find a district

Owners and developers

What is retained, what is recruited, and in what order?

Four-year turnover and the largest private holder say how fast the frontage turns over and whether one owner can steer it.

Engagement: Ground-Floor Strategy

Find a district

Cities and district organizations

Where does public capital address a structural constraint rather than subsidize a symptom?

The largest private holder says whether any private party holds enough of the street to act.

Engagement: District Capital Plan

Find a district

Find a district or bring an address

83 downtowns, each read on the boundary its city adopted. 78 carry a mapped boundary and 5 are carried on their record alone. The record opens below.

Bring an address. The Index is read by district, not by street address. Send the address and the decision it serves, and Hall Capital Advisory will identify the district reading or the engagement that fits.

Send an address

District Index results

No district chosen yet. Choose one above, or search the map below.

Every reading here is a planning input: what the public record supports, not an appraisal, not investment advice, and not a substitute for diligence on a specific asset.

Compare every district on one scale

FILLED OUTLINEDprovisional A band is filled when every gate governing that reading has passed in the ledger, and outlined when one has not. The value does not change; what is provisional is the comparison across districts. 112 of the 153 bands published here are filled.

Each downtown is one dot, and the selected district is marked. A district appears on a scale when its boundary carries enough records to support that reading. Tenure is drawn for 41 of the 83, turnover for 34 and ownership for 78.

Each dot is one downtown, read inside the boundary that city adopted for its own downtown. The colored bar under each of the first three scales is the band the reading falls in. The red line is the level at which the reading changes what a principal should assume. The fourth scale carries no bands, because no cut on district population has been earned yet. Nothing is hidden behind a hover.

BUSINESS TENURE, OFFICIAL DISTRICT BOUNDARY, MEDIAN YEARS TRADING AT ONE ADDRESS
THINSETTLINGDEEP0481216202428ONE LEASE CYCLEAlbuquerque 9.13 yearsAustin 5.79 yearsBaltimore 7.51 yearsBoston 10.85 yearsBrownsville 4.05 yearsCarrollton 5.99 yearsCharlotte 7.96 yearsChicago 7.12 yearsCorpus Christi 5.6 yearsDallas 4.93371 yearsDenton 4.16 yearsDenver 12.26 yearsEdinburg 8.378 yearsEl Paso 7.1 yearsFort Worth 4.65 yearsGeorgetown 5.6 yearsGrand Prairie 5.02 yearsHartford 6.78 yearsHouston 6.24 yearsJacksonville 5.72 yearsLas Vegas 5.6 yearsLos Angeles 12.68 yearsMcAllen 2.36 yearsMcKinney 5.29 yearsMiami 7.56 yearsMidland 5.65 yearsNew York City 6.54 yearsOrlando 7.39 yearsPearland 4.8502 yearsPhiladelphia 13.83 yearsRaleigh 3.59 yearsSacramento 7.32 yearsSan Antonio 6.93512 yearsSan Diego 9.26 yearsSan Francisco 8.96 yearsSeattle 9.45 yearsTampa 5.65 yearsTucson 5.52 yearsTyler 6.10006 yearsWaco 5.47581 yearsWashington DC 4.55 years

Drawn for 41 of the 83 districts. A district is drawn here when at least twenty-five dated businesses sit inside its boundary. The rest are carried in the index with this reading withheld rather than banded on a handful of records. At six years the roster has survived one commercial lease cycle. Below it, every business on the street is inside its first lease.

FOUR-YEAR TURNOVER, OFFICIAL DISTRICT BOUNDARY, OPENINGS PLUS CLOSURES PER HUNDRED BUSINESSES
HELDCYCLINGREPLACINGCHURNING020406080100120140FASTER THAN A LEASE CYCLEAustin 103.7 per 100Baltimore 72.5 per 100Boston 46.2 per 100Brownsville 83.6 per 100Chicago 102.5 per 100Corpus Christi 58.5 per 100Dallas 125.25 per 100Denton 78.3 per 100Denver 37.2 per 100Edinburg 108.219 per 100El Paso 104.54 per 100Fort Worth 69.6 per 100Georgetown 56.6 per 100Grand Prairie 62.7 per 100Hartford 107.4 per 100Houston 56 per 100Laredo 87.5 per 100Las Vegas 135.3 per 100Los Angeles 27.2 per 100McAllen 93.6 per 100McKinney 61.3 per 100Miami 50.6 per 100Midland 73.5 per 100New York City 66.8 per 100Orlando 113.3 per 100Pearland 100 per 100Philadelphia 36.4 per 100Sacramento 79 per 100San Antonio 92.2888 per 100San Diego 110.9 per 100San Francisco 66.1 per 100Tyler 113.675 per 100Waco 110.884 per 100Washington DC 67.4 per 100

Drawn for 34 of the 83 districts, the ones carrying at least forty ground-floor businesses at the start of the four-year window. At seventy per hundred the street is remaking itself faster than a lease cycle replaces it, and that cost sits in nobody's rent roll. Turnover is a rate, not a driver, and it contributes no points to the District Premium Score.

LARGEST PRIVATE HOLDER, OFFICIAL DISTRICT BOUNDARY, SHARE OF COMMERCIAL ACCOUNTS
NO STANDINGA POSITIONAPPROACHINGTHE THRESHOLD0510152025THE EIGHT PERCENT FLOORAbilene 4.2%Albuquerque 6.55%Allen 18.47%Amarillo 3.86%Arlington 9.4%Austin 4.54545%Baltimore 6.55%Baytown 6.49%Beaumont 20.41%Boston 11.91%Brownsville 4.68%Bryan 5.59%Carrollton 4.08%Charlotte 3.94%Chicago 6.48%College Station 10.14%Columbus 4.28%Conroe 2.91%Corpus Christi 4.11%Dallas 3.79%Denton 5.08%Denver 1.36%Detroit 4.57%Edinburg 2.43902%El Paso 5.01%Fort Worth 7.13%Frisco 2.78%Garland 5.36%Georgetown 5.17%Grand Prairie 1.89%Hartford 10.53%Houston 3.46%Indianapolis 7.8%Irving 6.54%Jacksonville 9.38%Kansas City 34.2%Killeen 5.81%Laredo 5.08%Las Vegas 4.54%League City 5.66%Lewisville 2.08%Longview 11.28%Lubbock 7.72%McAllen 2.37%McKinney 3.62%Memphis 2.18%Mesa 2.46%Mesquite 4.4%Miami 4.86%Midland 7.09%Milwaukee 2.78%Minneapolis 7.21%Nashville 2.64%New Braunfels 3.65%New York City 0.88%Odessa 9.7%Oklahoma City 8.36%Orlando 8.11%Pearland 5.13393%Pharr 5.04%Philadelphia 2.07%Plano 3.76%Portland OR 1.37%Raleigh 4.56%Richardson 8.8%Round Rock 3.23%Salt Lake City 15.78%San Antonio 2.73349%San Diego 2.94%San Jose 9.42%Seattle 2.06%Tampa 10.15%Temple 5.37%Tucson 4.86%Tyler 3.64238%Waco 5.41667%Washington DC 5.86%Wichita Falls 3.5%

Drawn for 78 of the 83 districts, the ones carrying at least forty commercial accounts after entity resolution. Eight percent is the floor. Below it no owner holds enough neighboring property to price a traffic-making tenant below market and recover the cost from the neighbors who benefit.

BASELINE PRESENCE DENSITY, OFFICIAL DISTRICT BOUNDARY, RESIDENTS PLUS WORKERS PER ACRE
5102550100250500THE MEDIAN DISTRICTAbilene 15.91 per acreAlbuquerque 65.91 per acreAllen 8.36 per acreAmarillo 12.55 per acreArlington 25.6 per acreAustin 134.12 per acreBaltimore 112.05 per acreBaytown 7.31 per acreBeaumont 23.91 per acreBoston 627.83 per acreBrownsville 22.53 per acreBryan 26.08 per acreCarrollton 21 per acreCharlotte 432.89 per acreChicago 298.83 per acreCollege Station 47.39 per acreColumbus 65.88 per acreConroe 9.8 per acreCorpus Christi 13.61 per acreDallas 124.13 per acreDenton 22.12 per acreDenver 155.53 per acreDetroit 81.68 per acreEdinburg 37.97 per acreEl Paso 42.46 per acreFort Worth 72.59 per acreFresno 42.04 per acreFrisco 14.76 per acreGarland 9.52 per acreGeorgetown 43.62 per acreGrand Prairie 4.69 per acreHartford 128.47 per acreHouston 146.77 per acreIndianapolis 42.13 per acreIrving 11.76 per acreJacksonville 29.27 per acreKansas City 87.17 per acreKilleen 22.42 per acreLaredo 28.43 per acreLas Vegas 29.43 per acreLeague City 12.2 per acreLewisville 13.18 per acreLongview 16.73 per acreLos Angeles 134.8 per acreLouisville 89.64 per acreLubbock 19.62 per acreMcAllen 29.43 per acreMcKinney 18.62 per acreMemphis 23.41 per acreMesa 28.33 per acreMesquite 5.54 per acreMiami 182.62 per acreMidland 55.27 per acreMilwaukee 91.47 per acreMinneapolis 126.39 per acreNashville 58.52 per acreNew Braunfels 14.75 per acreNew York City 634.21 per acreOdessa 24.25 per acreOklahoma City 30.55 per acreOrlando 91.97 per acrePearland 8.41 per acrePharr 18.86 per acrePhiladelphia 413.31 per acrePlano 30.2 per acrePortland OR 58.47 per acreRaleigh 81.13 per acreRichardson 19.21 per acreRound Rock 12.62 per acreSacramento 124.31 per acreSalt Lake City 108.38 per acreSan Antonio 42.84 per acreSan Diego 98.36 per acreSan Francisco 609.21 per acreSan Jose 65.42 per acreSeattle 261.99 per acreTampa 146.55 per acreTemple 12.59 per acreTucson 59.31 per acreTyler 25.15 per acreWaco 40.12 per acreWashington DC 292.69 per acreWichita Falls 16.99 per acre

Drawn for all 83 districts, because this reading comes from two national files rather than from eighty local ones and every boundary can be read on it. The axis is logarithmic: the densest district in the index carries more than a hundred times the people per acre the thinnest does. On an even axis two thirds of the field would sit in the first inch. The dashed line is the median district, which describes the field. It is not a cut, and no band is drawn, because a larger population is not by itself a better district.

Research views

Presence density against each reading.

Observations, not findings. Nothing here is banded or scored and no line is fitted.

BUSINESS TENURE, YEARS AGAINST BASELINE PRESENCE DENSITY, PER ACRE51025501002505000471115ONE LEASE CYCLEAlbuquerque. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 66. Business Tenure, years 9.13Austin. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 134. Business Tenure, years 5.79Baltimore. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 112. Business Tenure, years 7.51Boston. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 628. Business Tenure, years 10.85Brownsville. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 23. Business Tenure, years 4.05Carrollton. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 21. Business Tenure, years 5.99Charlotte. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 433. Business Tenure, years 7.96Chicago. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 299. Business Tenure, years 7.12Corpus Christi. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 14. Business Tenure, years 5.60Dallas. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 124. Business Tenure, years 4.93Denton. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 22. Business Tenure, years 4.16Denver. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 156. Business Tenure, years 12.26Edinburg. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 38. Business Tenure, years 8.38El Paso. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 42. Business Tenure, years 7.10Fort Worth. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 73. Business Tenure, years 4.65Georgetown. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 44. Business Tenure, years 5.60Grand Prairie. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 5. Business Tenure, years 5.02Hartford. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 128. Business Tenure, years 6.78Houston. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 147. Business Tenure, years 6.24Jacksonville. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 29. Business Tenure, years 5.72Las Vegas. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 29. Business Tenure, years 5.60Los Angeles. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 135. Business Tenure, years 12.68McAllen. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 29. Business Tenure, years 2.36McKinney. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 19. Business Tenure, years 5.29Miami. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 183. Business Tenure, years 7.56Midland. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 55. Business Tenure, years 5.65New York City. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 634. Business Tenure, years 6.54Orlando. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 92. Business Tenure, years 7.39Pearland. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 8. Business Tenure, years 4.85Philadelphia. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 413. Business Tenure, years 13.83Raleigh. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 81. Business Tenure, years 3.59Sacramento. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 124. Business Tenure, years 7.32San Antonio. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 43. Business Tenure, years 6.94San Diego. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 98. Business Tenure, years 9.26San Francisco. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 609. Business Tenure, years 8.96Seattle. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 262. Business Tenure, years 9.45Tampa. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 147. Business Tenure, years 5.65Tucson. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 59. Business Tenure, years 5.52Tyler. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 25. Business Tenure, years 6.10Waco. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 40. Business Tenure, years 5.48Washington DC. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 293. Business Tenure, years 4.5541 districts. Horizontal axis logarithmic.
FOUR-YEAR TURNOVER, PER 100 AGAINST BASELINE PRESENCE DENSITY, PER ACRE510255010025050003773110146FASTER THAN A LEASE CYCLEAustin. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 134. Four-Year Turnover, per 100 103.70Baltimore. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 112. Four-Year Turnover, per 100 72.50Boston. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 628. Four-Year Turnover, per 100 46.20Brownsville. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 23. Four-Year Turnover, per 100 83.60Chicago. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 299. Four-Year Turnover, per 100 102.50Corpus Christi. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 14. Four-Year Turnover, per 100 58.50Dallas. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 124. Four-Year Turnover, per 100 125.25Denton. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 22. Four-Year Turnover, per 100 78.30Denver. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 156. Four-Year Turnover, per 100 37.20Edinburg. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 38. Four-Year Turnover, per 100 108.22El Paso. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 42. Four-Year Turnover, per 100 104.54Fort Worth. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 73. Four-Year Turnover, per 100 69.60Georgetown. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 44. Four-Year Turnover, per 100 56.60Grand Prairie. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 5. Four-Year Turnover, per 100 62.70Hartford. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 128. Four-Year Turnover, per 100 107.40Houston. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 147. Four-Year Turnover, per 100 56.00Laredo. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 28. Four-Year Turnover, per 100 87.50Las Vegas. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 29. Four-Year Turnover, per 100 135.30Los Angeles. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 135. Four-Year Turnover, per 100 27.20McAllen. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 29. Four-Year Turnover, per 100 93.60McKinney. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 19. Four-Year Turnover, per 100 61.30Miami. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 183. Four-Year Turnover, per 100 50.60Midland. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 55. Four-Year Turnover, per 100 73.50New York City. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 634. Four-Year Turnover, per 100 66.80Orlando. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 92. Four-Year Turnover, per 100 113.30Pearland. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 8. Four-Year Turnover, per 100 100.00Philadelphia. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 413. Four-Year Turnover, per 100 36.40Sacramento. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 124. Four-Year Turnover, per 100 79.00San Antonio. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 43. Four-Year Turnover, per 100 92.29San Diego. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 98. Four-Year Turnover, per 100 110.90San Francisco. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 609. Four-Year Turnover, per 100 66.10Tyler. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 25. Four-Year Turnover, per 100 113.68Waco. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 40. Four-Year Turnover, per 100 110.88Washington DC. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 293. Four-Year Turnover, per 100 67.4034 districts. Horizontal axis logarithmic.
LARGEST PRIVATE HOLDER, PERCENT AGAINST BASELINE PRESENCE DENSITY, PER ACRE510255010025050009182837THE EIGHT PERCENT THRESHOLDAbilene. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 16. Largest Private Holder, percent 4.20Albuquerque. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 66. Largest Private Holder, percent 6.55Allen. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 8. Largest Private Holder, percent 18.47Amarillo. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 13. Largest Private Holder, percent 3.86Arlington. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 26. Largest Private Holder, percent 9.40Austin. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 134. Largest Private Holder, percent 4.55Baltimore. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 112. Largest Private Holder, percent 6.55Baytown. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 7. Largest Private Holder, percent 6.49Beaumont. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 24. Largest Private Holder, percent 20.41Boston. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 628. Largest Private Holder, percent 11.91Brownsville. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 23. Largest Private Holder, percent 4.68Bryan. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 26. Largest Private Holder, percent 5.59Carrollton. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 21. Largest Private Holder, percent 4.08Charlotte. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 433. Largest Private Holder, percent 3.94Chicago. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 299. Largest Private Holder, percent 6.48College Station. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 47. Largest Private Holder, percent 10.14Columbus. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 66. Largest Private Holder, percent 4.28Conroe. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 10. Largest Private Holder, percent 2.91Corpus Christi. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 14. Largest Private Holder, percent 4.11Dallas. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 124. Largest Private Holder, percent 3.79Denton. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 22. Largest Private Holder, percent 5.08Denver. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 156. Largest Private Holder, percent 1.36Detroit. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 82. Largest Private Holder, percent 4.57Edinburg. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 38. Largest Private Holder, percent 2.44El Paso. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 42. Largest Private Holder, percent 5.01Fort Worth. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 73. Largest Private Holder, percent 7.13Frisco. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 15. Largest Private Holder, percent 2.78Garland. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 10. Largest Private Holder, percent 5.36Georgetown. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 44. Largest Private Holder, percent 5.17Grand Prairie. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 5. Largest Private Holder, percent 1.89Hartford. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 128. Largest Private Holder, percent 10.53Houston. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 147. Largest Private Holder, percent 3.46Indianapolis. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 42. Largest Private Holder, percent 7.80Irving. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 12. Largest Private Holder, percent 6.54Jacksonville. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 29. Largest Private Holder, percent 9.38Kansas City. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 87. Largest Private Holder, percent 34.20Killeen. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 22. Largest Private Holder, percent 5.81Laredo. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 28. Largest Private Holder, percent 5.08Las Vegas. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 29. Largest Private Holder, percent 4.54League City. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 12. Largest Private Holder, percent 5.66Lewisville. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 13. Largest Private Holder, percent 2.08Longview. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 17. Largest Private Holder, percent 11.28Lubbock. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 20. Largest Private Holder, percent 7.72McAllen. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 29. Largest Private Holder, percent 2.37McKinney. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 19. Largest Private Holder, percent 3.62Memphis. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 23. Largest Private Holder, percent 2.18Mesa. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 28. Largest Private Holder, percent 2.46Mesquite. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 6. Largest Private Holder, percent 4.40Miami. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 183. Largest Private Holder, percent 4.86Midland. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 55. Largest Private Holder, percent 7.09Milwaukee. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 91. Largest Private Holder, percent 2.78Minneapolis. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 126. Largest Private Holder, percent 7.21Nashville. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 59. Largest Private Holder, percent 2.64New Braunfels. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 15. Largest Private Holder, percent 3.65New York City. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 634. Largest Private Holder, percent 0.88Odessa. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 24. Largest Private Holder, percent 9.70Oklahoma City. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 31. Largest Private Holder, percent 8.36Orlando. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 92. Largest Private Holder, percent 8.11Pearland. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 8. Largest Private Holder, percent 5.13Pharr. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 19. Largest Private Holder, percent 5.04Philadelphia. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 413. Largest Private Holder, percent 2.07Plano. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 30. Largest Private Holder, percent 3.76Portland OR. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 58. Largest Private Holder, percent 1.37Raleigh. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 81. Largest Private Holder, percent 4.56Richardson. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 19. Largest Private Holder, percent 8.80Round Rock. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 13. Largest Private Holder, percent 3.23Salt Lake City. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 108. Largest Private Holder, percent 15.78San Antonio. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 43. Largest Private Holder, percent 2.73San Diego. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 98. Largest Private Holder, percent 2.94San Jose. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 65. Largest Private Holder, percent 9.42Seattle. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 262. Largest Private Holder, percent 2.06Tampa. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 147. Largest Private Holder, percent 10.15Temple. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 13. Largest Private Holder, percent 5.37Tucson. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 59. Largest Private Holder, percent 4.86Tyler. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 25. Largest Private Holder, percent 3.64Waco. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 40. Largest Private Holder, percent 5.42Washington DC. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 293. Largest Private Holder, percent 5.86Wichita Falls. Baseline Presence Density, per acre 17. Largest Private Holder, percent 3.5078 districts. Horizontal axis logarithmic.

PUBLIC DATAHALL CAPITAL ADVISORY DERIVEDDrawn only for districts clearing the record floor on the reading in question. The dashed line on each panel is a Hall Capital Advisory threshold.

All 83 in one table

The three readings and the population base for every district, sortable on any column.

District Tenure, years Turnover, per 100 Largest holder Presence per acre Presence mix
AbileneCB Central Business zoning districtwithheld, too few recordswithheld, too few records4.20%NO STANDING16Residents 12%
AlbuquerqueMX-FB-UD form based urban development district9.1SETTLINGwithheld, too few records6.55%NO STANDING66Residents 6%
AllenDowntown Districtwithheld, too few recordswithheld, too few records18.47%APPROACHING8Residents 14%
AmarilloTIRZ Center City Zone 1withheld, too few recordswithheld, too few records3.86%NO STANDING13Residents 16%
ArlingtonDB Downtown Business zoningwithheld, too few recordswithheld, too few records9.40%A POSITION26Residents 16%
AustinDowntown Austin Plan Districts5.8THIN103.7CHURNING4.55%NO STANDING134Residents 9%
BaltimoreC-5 Downtown District7.5SETTLING72.5REPLACING6.55%NO STANDING112Residents 13%
BaytownDowntown Arts, Main Street and Flex zoningwithheld, too few recordswithheld, too few records6.49%NO STANDING7Residents 50%
BeaumontCBD Central Business District zoningwithheld, too few recordswithheld, too few records20.41%THE THRESHOLD24Residents 8%
BostonPLAN: Downtown10.8SETTLING46.2HELD11.91%NO STANDING628Residents 11%
BrownsvilleDowntown Core, Edge and General zoning4.0THIN83.6CHURNING4.68%NO STANDING23Residents 44%
BryanDT-C, DT-N and DT-S downtown zoningwithheld, too few recordswithheld, too few records5.59%NO STANDING26Residents 9%
CarrolltonDTC Downtown Transit Center zoning6.0THINwithheld, too few records4.08%NO STANDING21Residents 41%
CharlotteCenter City Municipal Service District, MSD 38.0SETTLINGwithheld, too few records3.94%A POSITION433Residents 4%
ChicagoDowntown districts DC, DX, DR, DS7.1SETTLING102.5CHURNING6.48%NO STANDING299Residents 15%
College StationNG-1, NG-2 and NG-3 Northgate zoningwithheld, too few recordswithheld, too few records10.14%A POSITION47Residents 86%
ColumbusDowntown Districtwithheld, too few recordswithheld, too few records4.28%NO STANDING66Residents 10%
ConroeDowntown, Code section 14-601withheld, too few recordswithheld, too few records2.91%NO STANDING10Residents 37%
Corpus ChristiReinvestment Zone Number 3, Downtown5.6THIN58.5CYCLING4.11%NO STANDING14Residents 14%
DallasDowntown Improvement District4.9THIN125.2CHURNING3.79%NO STANDING124Residents 8%
DentonDowntown Implementation Plan boundary4.2THIN78.3REPLACING5.08%NO STANDING22Residents 18%
DenverDowntown neighborhood context zone districts12.3SETTLING37.2HELD1.36%NO STANDING156Residents 11%
DetroitCentral Business District per the zoning ordinancewithheld, too few recordswithheld, too few records4.57%NO STANDING82Residents 8%
EdinburgDT Downtown zoning district8.4SETTLING108.2CHURNING2.44%NO STANDING38Residents 5%
El PasoEl Paso Downtown Management District7.1SETTLING104.5CHURNING5.01%NO STANDING42Residents 12%
Fort WorthH Central Business zoning district4.7THIN69.6CYCLING7.13%NO STANDING73Residents 16%
FresnoDowntown Core, General and Neighborhood districtswithheld, too few recordswithheld, too few recordswithheld, too few records42Residents 15%
FriscoThe Rail Districtwithheld, too few recordswithheld, too few records2.78%NO STANDING15Residents 24%
GarlandDT downtown zoningwithheld, too few recordswithheld, too few records5.36%NO STANDING10Residents 32%
GeorgetownDowntown Overlay District5.6THIN56.6CYCLING5.17%NO STANDING44Residents 10%
Grand PrairieCentral Business District, four sub-districts5.0THIN62.7CYCLING1.89%NO STANDING5Residents 51%
HartfordDT-1, DT-2 and DT-3 Downtown districts6.8SETTLING107.4CHURNING10.53%A POSITION128Residents 9%
HoustonHouston Downtown Management District6.2SETTLING56.0CYCLING3.46%NO STANDING147Residents 10%
IndianapolisRegional Centerwithheld, too few recordswithheld, too few records7.80%NO STANDING42Residents 15%
IrvingDowntown Development District overlaywithheld, too few recordswithheld, too few records6.54%NO STANDING12Residents 47%
JacksonvilleDowntown Overlay Zone5.7THINwithheld, too few records9.38%A POSITION29Residents 12%
Kansas CityDowntown KC Community Improvement Districtwithheld, too few recordswithheld, too few records34.20%NO STANDING87Residents 22%
KilleenHistorical Downtown overlaywithheld, too few recordswithheld, too few records5.81%NO STANDING22Residents 6%
LaredoCBD zoning districtwithheld, too few records87.5CHURNING5.08%NO STANDING28Residents 20%
Las VegasDowntown Las Vegas Overlay District5.6THIN135.3CHURNING4.54%NO STANDING29Residents 23%
League CityOlde Towne and Olde Towne Transition zoningwithheld, too few recordswithheld, too few records5.66%NO STANDING12Residents 25%
LewisvilleOld Town Design Districtwithheld, too few recordswithheld, too few records2.08%NO STANDING13Residents 40%
LongviewCentral Business zoning districtwithheld, too few recordswithheld, too few records11.28%A POSITION17Residents 19%
Los AngelesDowntown Community Plan Implementation Overlay12.7SETTLING27.2HELDwithheld, too few records135Residents 21%
LouisvilleDowntown Development Review Overlaywithheld, too few recordswithheld, too few recordswithheld, too few records90Residents 8%
LubbockCentral Business District TIFwithheld, too few recordswithheld, too few records7.72%NO STANDING20Residents 13%
McAllenCC-DT City Core Downtown zoning2.4THIN93.6CHURNING2.37%NO STANDING29Residents 12%
McKinneyMTC McKinney Town Center zoning5.3THIN61.3CYCLING3.62%NO STANDING19Residents 22%
MemphisCentral Business Improvement Districtwithheld, too few recordswithheld, too few records2.18%NO STANDING23Residents 25%
MesaDowntown Mesa zoning districtswithheld, too few recordswithheld, too few records2.46%NO STANDING28Residents 21%
MesquiteDowntown Main Street Program Areawithheld, too few recordswithheld, too few records4.40%NO STANDING6Residents 4%
MiamiMiami Downtown Development Authority7.6SETTLING50.6CYCLING4.86%NO STANDING183Residents 25%
MidlandDowntown Midland Management District5.7THIN73.5REPLACING7.09%NO STANDING55Residents 1%
MilwaukeeDowntown districts C9A to C9Hwithheld, too few recordswithheld, too few records2.78%NO STANDING91Residents 18%
MinneapolisDowntown Center and Downtown Destination districtswithheld, too few recordswithheld, too few records7.21%NO STANDING126Residents 16%
NashvilleDowntown Code districtwithheld, too few recordswithheld, too few records2.64%NO STANDING59Residents 13%
New BraunfelsMain Street Districtwithheld, too few recordswithheld, too few records3.65%NO STANDING15Residents 12%
New York CitySpecial Lower Manhattan District6.5SETTLING66.8CYCLING0.88%NO STANDING634Residents 15%
OdessaDowntown Overlay Zonewithheld, too few recordswithheld, too few records9.70%A POSITION24Residents 8%
Oklahoma CityDowntown Design Districtswithheld, too few recordswithheld, too few records8.36%A POSITION31Residents 15%
OrlandoDowntown Development Board area7.4SETTLING113.3CHURNING8.11%A POSITION92Residents 14%
PearlandOld Townsite zoning districts4.9THIN100.0CHURNING5.13%NO STANDING8Residents 66%
PharrMain Street district parcelswithheld, too few recordswithheld, too few records5.04%NO STANDING19Residents 13%
PhiladelphiaCenter City District13.8SETTLING36.4HELD2.07%NO STANDING413Residents 12%
PlanoBG Downtown Business/Government zoningwithheld, too few recordswithheld, too few records3.76%NO STANDING30Residents 32%
Portland ORCentral City Plan Districtwithheld, too few recordswithheld, too few records1.37%NO STANDING58Residents 25%
RaleighDowntown Mixed Use districts3.6THINwithheld, too few records4.56%NO STANDING81Residents 10%
RichardsonCORE District, Downtown sub-districtwithheld, too few recordswithheld, too few records8.80%A POSITION19Residents 12%
Round RockDowntown Mixed Use Amendment Areawithheld, too few recordswithheld, too few records3.23%NO STANDING13Residents 29%
SacramentoC-3 Central Business District zone7.3SETTLING79.0REPLACINGwithheld, too few records124Residents 8%
Salt Lake CityD-1 Central Business Districtwithheld, too few recordswithheld, too few records15.78%APPROACHING108Residents 7%
San AntonioCentral Business District6.9SETTLING92.3CHURNING2.73%NO STANDING43Residents 10%
San DiegoCentre City Planned District9.3SETTLING110.9CHURNING2.94%NO STANDING98Residents 40%
San FranciscoC-3 Downtown Commercial Districts9.0SETTLING66.1CYCLINGwithheld, too few records609Residents 7%
San JoseDowntown Primary Commercial districtswithheld, too few recordswithheld, too few records9.42%A POSITION65Residents 23%
SeattleDowntown zoning designations9.4SETTLINGwithheld, too few records2.06%NO STANDING262Residents 16%
TampaCentral Business District5.7THINwithheld, too few records10.15%A POSITION147Residents 6%
TempleCA Central Area zoning districtwithheld, too few recordswithheld, too few records5.37%NO STANDING13Residents 22%
TucsonDowntown Core Sub-District, Downtown Area Infill Incentive District5.5THINwithheld, too few records4.86%NO STANDING59Residents 6%
TylerDBAC Downtown Business, Arts and Culture zoning6.1SETTLING113.7CHURNING3.64%NO STANDING25Residents 28%
WacoDowntown Overlay District5.5THIN110.9CHURNING5.42%NO STANDING40Residents 6%
Washington DCDowntown DC BID4.5THIN67.4CYCLING5.86%NO STANDING293Residents 5%
Wichita FallsCBD, the core of the Greater Downtown Zoning Districtwithheld, too few recordswithheld, too few records3.50%NO STANDING17Residents 17%

Click any column to sort the 83 by that reading. Every column is read inside the boundary the city adopted. A cell saying the reading is withheld means the boundary carries too few records to support it, not that the district was left out.

Rendered from District Index commit f4cef3c of 2026-09-12, payload build website-f4cef3c, methodology 2.0. Every figure here changes when that commit changes.

District map

Explore an adopted downtown, or sketch a client scenario.

The map draws the 161 boundary polygons of the 78 districts whose boundary passes G1 in District Index commit f4cef3c. The key beside the map says what each color means. Choose a district to see its boundary, certification and gate count.

Basemap

Loading the map.

Sketch a client scenario

A scenario is yours, not Hall Capital Advisory's. Anything you draw or compare here is a working draft: it stays in this browser tab, it is not uploaded, saved, scored or certified, it changes nothing in the District Index, and it is gone when the page reloads. The adopted boundaries on the map are unchanged by it.

Working draft
Compare a boundary file in this browser

Choose a GeoJSON polygon and it is measured in this browser on the WGS84 authalic sphere, then compared by acreage with the 83 published districts that declare an acreage. Nothing is uploaded to a service, nothing is saved, and the file is not drawn on the map. Against the equal-area projection the Index measures on, the browser measurement agrees to within about three tenths of a percent at district scale.

Third-party map tiles. Street tiles come from the OpenStreetMap Foundation's tile servers and satellite imagery from Esri. Your browser requests those tiles directly, so those services receive your IP address and the area you are viewing. Hall Capital Advisory sends them nothing else, and this map sets no cookies and stores nothing.

Street map © OpenStreetMap contributors. Satellite imagery: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community.

Renderer and licenses

Rendered with MapLibre GL JS 6.9.0 (BSD-3-Clause), Terra Draw 1.33.0 (MIT), Terra Draw MapLibre GL adapter 1.4.1 (MIT).

Method, release status and sources

Everything behind the records above, for readers who want to check it.

Background: the mapped adopted downtown boundary of Downtown San Francisco, drawn from the District Index map. It is not a reading or a result.

How the readings workFloors, band cuts, filled and outlined bands, and how an implication is drawn

Three readings are taken inside the boundary each city adopted. A reading below its record floor is withheld rather than banded, and the district stays in the Index with the reading marked.

Business tenure
The median years the businesses inside the line have traded. Floor: at least 25 dated businesses inside the boundary. Bands: THIN under 6 years; SETTLING 6 to 15 years; DEEP 15 to 30 years; GENERATIONAL 30 years or more.
Four-year turnover
Openings plus closures per 100 ground-floor businesses over four years. Floor: at least 40 storefronts inside the boundary at the start of the four-year window. Bands: HELD under 50 per 100; CYCLING 50 to 70 per 100; REPLACING 70 to 80 per 100; CHURNING 80 per 100 or more.
Largest private holder
The share of commercial accounts held by the largest private owner group. Floor: at least 40 commercial accounts inside the boundary after entity resolution. Bands: NO STANDING under 8 percent; A POSITION 8 to 15 percent; APPROACHING 15 to 20 percent; THE THRESHOLD 20 to 25 percent; AUTHORITY 25 percent or more.
Filled and outlined bands
A band is filled when every gate governing its reading has passed in the ledger: tenure on G1, G2, G3, turnover on G1, G2, G3, G4, ownership on G1, G5. Otherwise it is outlined and marked provisional.
How an implication is drawn
Durability reads tenure against a 6-year lease cycle and turnover against 70 per 100, the pace faster than a lease cycle. Who can act reads the largest private holder against the 8 percent coordination threshold. Test first names a withheld reading, then the first unpassed gate behind a provisional one. Each implication is an interpretation, not a score or a rank.
An absence
A reading the boundary cannot support prints WITHHELD with the count that fell short. A reading no source publishes prints NOT AVAILABLE. Neither prints as a zero, because a zero is a measurement and an absence is not.

HALL CAPITAL ADVISORY DERIVEDHALL CAPITAL ADVISORY THRESHOLDEvery cut, floor and gate is Hall Capital Advisory's and every one is published.

Release status83 districts, 498 gate cells all terminal, 7 Class A certified, controlled composite withheld

83 districts. 498 gate cells, all terminal.

7Class A certifiedAustin, Dallas, Orlando, Philadelphia, San Antonio, Tyler, Waco. Each holds the governed Class A certification and passes all six gates.
28Six gates passedPassing all six gates is not by itself Class A certification. 21 of these districts pass all six and are not certified.
10Strict peer membersThe set the controlled composite is normalized within. Membership is unchanged by a suspension.
3Suspended peersChicago, Edinburg, Pearland. Certification suspended; each keeps its strict peer membership.

The controlled composite is withheld. 3 of the 10 strict peers, Chicago, Edinburg, Pearland, have their certification suspended, and the composite is normalized across the whole strict peer set, so no composite score, rank or component is shown for any district while the suspension stands.

What would restore it. Publication resumes when controls/peer-certification-suspensions.json carries no entry: each suspended peer either recovers its sixth pass on evidence, or Hall Capital Advisory rules it out of the strict peer set. The second of those changes the peer universe, and the composite is then recomputed rather than restored.

The ledger, 498 cells

  • 312 passed
  • 110 refused on measurement
  • 70 source unavailable
  • 6 failed a threshold

Structural Footfall Potential is Hall Capital Advisory's proprietary model framework, in development. It is not a calibrated metric, it is not a client output, and no reading from it is published. Status: MODEL IN DEVELOPMENT. Calibration directive: DO NOT CALIBRATE.

78 boundaries pass G1 and are drawn on the map.

Rendered from District Index commit f4cef3c of 2026-09-12, payload build website-f4cef3c, methodology 2.0. Every figure here changes when that commit changes.

HALL CAPITAL ADVISORY DERIVEDHALL CAPITAL ADVISORY THRESHOLDRelease state is read from the District Index release contract and gate ledger. The six gates, the certification rule and the composite method are Hall Capital Advisory's.

The six gates and certification28 districts pass all six gates; 7 are Class A certified

Six gates. 28 districts pass all six; 7 are Class A certified.

Every district is read inside its adopted boundary. Whether a reading is standardized across districts is a separate question, answered gate by gate in the ledger. Each cell carries one permanent disposition: passed, failed its threshold, source unavailable, or refused on measurement with its reason. Passing all six gates does not by itself make a district Class A certified, and a certification badge on this page requires both.

G1
Official district geometry

The exact adopted or administratively defined polygon, its authority and its effective date.

78 passed of 83. 3 refused on measurement, 2 source unavailable, 0 failed a threshold.
G2
Broad establishment universe

A physical business-location population broad enough to represent the district, rather than a licensed or regulated subset.

43 passed of 83. 22 refused on measurement, 18 source unavailable, 0 failed a threshold.
G3
Valid start history

Actual establishment persistence evidence rather than database ingestion age.

39 passed of 83. 23 refused on measurement, 19 source unavailable, 2 failed a threshold.
G4
Valid trailing 48-month exit history

Dated closures, with moves distinguishable from true exits.

34 passed of 83. 26 refused on measurement, 19 source unavailable, 4 failed a threshold.
G5
Standardized ownership

One qualifying commercial parcel universe and one owner-normalization method across every district.

64 passed of 83. 9 refused on measurement, 10 source unavailable, 0 failed a threshold.
G6
Harmonized context

Census and one common LODES vintage clipped to the same district polygon.

54 passed of 83. 27 refused on measurement, 2 source unavailable, 0 failed a threshold.

HALL CAPITAL ADVISORY THRESHOLDThe six gates, their requirements and the certification rule are Hall Capital Advisory's standard. Dispositions are read from the gate ledger.

ProvenanceDistrict Index commit f4cef3c, payload build website-f4cef3c, and what each label means

Where every figure on this tab comes from.

This tab is generated from one District Index payload and holds no district fact of its own. The payload is checked byte for byte against its manifest before a page is written, and the build refuses if any file differs.

Governing commit
f4cef3c1bb665880afff5f2474c3fddb59fab490, 2026-09-12
Payload build
website-f4cef3c
Payload manifest SHA-256
16f49b85c3ba79dde9a8d5d78f49a1e9a216930c087051403ed57c97117ad66e
Boundaries awaiting provenance migration
Austin, Baytown, Edinburg, San Antonio, Tyler, Waco. Each is labeled BOUNDARY DISPLAYED — PROVENANCE MIGRATION PENDING on its record.

A boundary drawn, uploaded or modified on this tab is a client scenario. It is never Hall Capital Advisory evidence, never enters the gate ledger, and never changes a certification on this page.

Provenance

How to read a label

Every figure on this site carries the class of evidence behind it. The labels sit beside the number rather than under the page, because a reader deciding whether to trust a figure should not have to hunt for what kind of figure it is.

PUBLIC DATA

A figure taken directly from a government or public administrative record. Census, LODES, a county roll, a state or municipal register. Free to anyone, and checkable against the same file.

LICENSED EXTERNAL DATA

A commercial or licensed source used in an analysis. Named, with its vintage, so a reader knows which part of a reading they cannot reproduce without the same license.

EXTERNAL BENCHMARK

Published academic, industry or agency evidence the firm is citing rather than producing. The source and the table are named.

HALL CAPITAL ADVISORY DERIVED

A calculation the firm produces from source observations. A rate, a share, a median, a concentration. The inputs are public; the arithmetic is the firm's.

HALL CAPITAL ADVISORY FINDING

An interpretation produced by the firm's research: what the numbers mean for a decision, stated plainly enough that a reader can dispute it.

HALL CAPITAL ADVISORY THRESHOLD

A proprietary cut, weight, gate or scoring rule. This is where the firm made a choice. Move the cut and the band changes, which is why every cut on this site is printed.

MODEL IN DEVELOPMENT

A Hall Capital Advisory model whose purpose, variables and validation sequence are published and whose coefficients are not yet estimated against observed activity. It marks a method, never a number. No reading is published under it.

MODELLED

An estimate produced by a calibrated model rather than a directly observed count. A model earns this label after calibration, holdout testing and a published error. Nothing on this site carries it yet, and the Index says what would have to happen first.

The last two labels are the ones to watch. A finding is an interpretation the firm will defend. A threshold is a cut the firm chose, and every cut on this site is printed so a reader can move it and see what happens.

Structural Footfall PotentialHall Capital Advisory's proprietary model framework, in development. No reading is published.

MODEL IN DEVELOPMENT · DO NOT CALIBRATE

MODEL IN DEVELOPMENTEXTERNAL BENCHMARKThe model framework is Hall Capital Advisory's and its methodology is published. No reading is.

Structural Footfall Potential, and why no number for it appears here.

Structural Footfall Potential is Hall Capital Advisory's proprietary model framework, in development. It is not a calibrated metric, it is not a client output, and no reading from it is published.

The obvious next step from a population base is a projected footfall. The conversion from residents and workers to pedestrian volume depends on land-use mix, street connectivity, transit, trip purpose and time of day, and published tests of transferring a fitted pedestrian model to a new place find errors of the same order as the counts themselves. The model has to be calibrated against observed counts, held out on districts it was not fitted on, and reported with its error before any number from it is published.

Until then this tab publishes no Structural Footfall Potential score, no projected visitation, no pedestrian footfall estimate and no Attraction Lift, and nothing drawn or uploaded here is scored by it. Residents and workers are shown as district context, never as observed footfall.

The metric stack

Five measures. Two are published.

Population says who is structurally present. Structural Footfall Potential would estimate how much pedestrian activity that population should support. Observed footfall would measure what actually happens. Attraction Lift would say whether the district performs above or below that expectation. Baseline Presence and its density are published. Structural Footfall Potential has a published methodology and no reading. Attraction Lift waits on both. Each says what it would require.

THE ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY, AND WHAT IS PUBLISHED TODAYDISTRICT CONDITIONBusiness Tenure | Four-Year Turnover | Ownership ConcentrationWhat condition is the commercial ecosystem in?PUBLISHEDSTRUCTURAL DEMANDResidents | Workers | Resident and Worker Balance | Baseline Presence | Presence DensityWho is structurally attached to the district?PUBLISHEDMODELLED DEMANDStructural Footfall PotentialHow much pedestrian activity should that structure support?MODEL INDEVELOPMENTReadings withheld until calibratedOBSERVED DEMANDObserved Footfall | Observed VisitationHow much activity actually occurs?NOT PUBLISHEDRequires observed dataPERFORMANCE AGAINST STRUCTUREPresence Conversion | Attraction LiftDoes the district convert or outperform its structural base?NOT PUBLISHEDRequires observed dataCAPITAL INTERPRETATIONReturn Ladder | Baseline Coverage | District Premium | MandateWhat does the condition mean for a capital decision?PUBLISHEDCLIENT DECISIONAcquire | Reprice | Develop | Lease | Preserve | Intervene | Allocate public capitalWhat does the principal do?PUBLISHEDEach layer answers a different question and none substitutes for the one below it. A structural count is not a modelled estimate, and a modelled estimate is not an observed one.
Seven layers, and none substitutes for the one below it. The District Index describes the condition of the commercial ecosystem. Population describes the people structurally attached to it. A modelled expectation is neither.
Baseline PresencePUBLISHED

The resident and worker population structurally associated with the official district geography.

Residents plus workers, with resident-worker overlap removed where the origin and destination file supports it.

Not observed footfall, and not a fourth District Index reading.

PUBLIC DATAHALL CAPITAL ADVISORY DERIVED

Baseline Presence DensityPUBLISHED

Baseline Presence divided by district acres.

The measure that makes a 60 acre district and a 1,600 acre district comparable.

Contextual. It carries no band and no score, and it is outside the Index composite.

PUBLIC DATAHALL CAPITAL ADVISORY DERIVED

Structural Footfall PotentialMODEL IN DEVELOPMENT

Estimates the pedestrian activity a district's structural population should support after accounting for density, resident and worker composition, land-use mix, connectivity, transit access and destination intensity.

Resident circulation, plus worker circulation, plus a structural attraction adjustment. Candidate inputs include the resident and worker balance, presence density, land-use diversity, ground-floor destination density, pedestrian connectivity, transit accessibility, internal trip capture, visitor anchors, district type and daypart.

The methodology is Hall Capital Advisory's and it is published. The coefficients are not estimated yet. The firm is calibrating the model against observed district activity, and no reading is published until validation is complete. Choosing weights by judgment and printing the result would be a score, not a measure.

MODEL IN DEVELOPMENTHALL CAPITAL ADVISORY THRESHOLD

Presence ConversionNOT PUBLISHED

Observed street activity relative to the structural population base.

Observed footfall divided by Baseline Presence.

Requires an observed count. The provenance of that count travels with the measure.

HALL CAPITAL ADVISORY DERIVED

Attraction LiftNOT PUBLISHED

Whether actual district activity exceeds or falls short of the modelled expectation.

Observed footfall divided by Structural Footfall Potential. Above 1.00 is more activity than the structure predicts; below 1.00 is less.

Its denominator is Structural Footfall Potential, so it cannot become operational before that model is calibrated. A ratio over an uncalibrated denominator reports a precision neither side of it has. Never displayed without naming both the modelled denominator and the observed numerator, and never characterized as good or bad without the district type, the time period and the three Index readings beside it.

HALL CAPITAL ADVISORY DERIVEDMODEL IN DEVELOPMENT

What Structural Footfall Potential would have to clear

A designed formula is not a published measure. Seven steps sit between the two, and they are written down here so that publishing later has a standard to clear.

  1. Define the outcome. Pedestrian passages, visit events and unique visitors are three different things and are not interchangeable.
  2. Obtain observed ground truth. Pedestrian counters or cameras where they exist, supplemented by a licensed mobility source, understanding that a mobile-device visit is not a sidewalk passage.
  3. Calibrate on a multi-district panel spanning district types, sizes and regions, rather than fitting one region's coefficients.
  4. Hold out districts the model was not fitted on, and test against them.
  5. Report prediction error. Mean absolute error or the equivalent, published with the model.
  6. Test stability by daypart and by season, and check that the coefficients stay directionally stable.
  7. Freeze a version. Publish inputs, coefficients and the validation universe under a dated methodology version that later versions supersede rather than silently edit.

The Index and the four instruments are different objects

The District Index measures observed and derived district condition: what the tenure, the turnover and the ownership actually are. The four instruments interpret that condition for a capital decision. The Return Ladder reads traffic value, the Baseline Coverage Score reads durability without programming, the District Premium Score reads whether conditions support a premium, and the Mandate Scale reads whether anybody can act. The District Premium Score is not the District Index. The two are never used as synonyms. One is a measurement of the street. The other is a scored judgment about what that measurement supports.

Hall Capital Advisory does not claim to have invented population-based trip generation, pedestrian-demand forecasting or gravity modeling. Those methods have long precedents, and the Environmental Protection Agency's mixed-use trip generation work and Smart Location Database are the nearest standardized national precedent for the explanatory variables above. The proprietary contribution is narrower. It is the firm's district-level method for converting a standardized resident and worker structure into an auditable pedestrian-demand expectation. Then comparing that expectation with observed activity, and reading the result through the District Index and the four instruments.

EXTERNAL BENCHMARKHALL CAPITAL ADVISORY THRESHOLDEXTERNAL BENCHMARK covers the published trip-generation and pedestrian-demand literature. The district-scale conversion, its variables and its coefficients are Hall Capital Advisory's.

Archived editionThe District Index as published on 6 September 2026, kept unedited

The District Index as published on 6 September 2026.

The earlier edition of this tab carried an ownership standing chart, an ownership finding, per-district records and a certified composite, all computed from the 5 September panel. It is superseded by the current release and is kept, unedited, so that its figures stay checkable against the methodology and data that produced them.

Open the superseded 6 September 2026 edition

SHA-256 of the archived page as published: 281123b8c6d84858f730f09309c00f280e66eb04ed5bb55a853d139df8bbe5c7

Every reading on this page is a planning input. It states what the public record supports. It is not an appraisal, not investment advice, and not a substitute for diligence on a specific asset. Every band cut is Hall Capital Advisory's and every cut is published.

Rendered from District Index commit f4cef3c of 2026-09-12, payload build website-f4cef3c, methodology 2.0. Every figure here changes when that commit changes.

Every reading Hall Capital Advisory publishes is a planning input. It states what the public record supports. It is not an appraisal, not investment advice, and not a substitute for diligence on a specific asset. Hall Capital Advisory LLC is a licensed real estate brokerage. Thomas J. Hall, Founder & Managing Partner. Texas Real Estate License #0615164 | Florida Real Estate Broker License #BK3403424 | Florida Real Estate Brokerage License #CQ1068865. Hall Capital Advisory operates in compliance with the Texas Real Estate Commission (TREC) and the Florida Real Estate Commission (FREC). In accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-10.025, the licensed name of the brokerage firm Hall Capital Advisory appears adjacent to all contact information on this site. Hall Capital Advisory is an Equal Opportunity Employer and practices Equal Housing Opportunity. All information on this website is deemed reliable but not guaranteed. Offerings are subject to change, withdrawal, or prior placement without notice.
Texas Real Estate Commission Consumer Protection Notice TREC Information About Brokerage Services