SiteSense Location quickscreen Location QuickScreen · USD 99
Unit 12, Wharf Road: the right footfall, for somebody else
One proposed site, screened against the concept, the customer and the numbers the lease will demand.
Eleven thousand four hundred people walk past this unit on a weekday. That number is real, it is the number the agent led with, and it is the reason this looks like a good site. This screen is about the second number, which is how many of those eleven thousand are people who buy a USD 5.40 filter coffee, and that number does not support the rent.
The footfall is real and it is the wrong footfall. This is a commuter corridor with an 18 percent overlap with your customer, at a rent that needs 34 percent. The unit two streets east that you dismissed has less than half the passers by and roughly twice the relevant ones.
Requirements
What this concept needs from a location
Taken from your first site, which works, rather than from a general model of coffee retail. Your best location in the city has already told you what your concept needs, and it is a specific list.
| Requirement | Why, from site one | Unit 12 |
|---|---|---|
| A dwell reason within 60 seconds walk | Site one sits between a co-working floor and a park bench run | None. Nearest is 4 minutes |
| Morning peak between 07:30 and 09:30 | 62 percent of site one revenue lands in that window | Present and strong |
| Weekend trade above 25 percent of the week | Site one does 31 percent at the weekend, and that is the margin | Estimated 9 percent |
| Space for four seated covers minimum | Seated customers spend 2.4x takeaway | Two, at a stretch |
| Visible from more than one approach | Corner visibility drove the first year at site one | Single approach, set back |
| Rear access for deliveries | Roasted stock arrives twice a week in crates | Through the front only |
One requirement met, two marginal, three failed. The three failures are the three that cannot be fixed by fitting the unit out differently.
Catchment
Who the eleven thousand actually are
Composition estimated from transit boarding data, the employer mix within 400 metres, and two published pedestrian counts for this corridor. Segment shares are approximate and the ranking is more reliable than the exact percentages.
| Line | Modelled | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Weekday transactions | 177 | 2,900 relevant passers by at your observed 6.1 percent |
| Weekend transactions | 31 per day | 600 residents, no commuter or office flow |
| Average transaction | USD 6.80 | Your site one average, same menu |
| Monthly revenue | USD 6,290 | 22 weekdays, 8 weekend days |
| Break-even revenue | USD 7,100 | Rent, service charge, two staff, cost of sales at your current 31 percent |
| Monthly gap | USD 810 short | Before any marketing or fit-out amortisation |
This model is deliberately generous. It assumes you hit site one conversion from day one, which took site one fourteen months.
Competition
What is already on this corridor
Four direct substitutes within 300 metres. The relevant question is not whether you are better than them. It is whether the 2,900 office workers already have a habit, and how expensive it is to break.
| Competitor | Distance | Price point | What they own |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chain coffee, corner of Wharf and 4th | 80 m | USD 4.20 | The commuter. App ordering, 90 second queue |
| Hospital cafeteria | 210 m | USD 2.60 | All 1,600 shift staff, and it is free to walk to indoors |
| Independent, Foley Street | 240 m | USD 5.10 | The office workers. Open four years, seated, known |
| Convenience store, self serve | 60 m | USD 1.90 | Price. Not your customer, but it caps what a corridor pays |
The Foley Street independent is the one that matters. It already holds your exact segment, it is closer to two of the three employers than Unit 12, and it has four years of habit behind it.
Costs
The assumptions the lease will test
| Line | Stated by the agent | What to verify | Risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rent | USD 4,900 per month | Whether the quoted figure is exclusive of the service charge | Confirmed |
| Service charge | USD 1,000 per month | Whether it is capped, and what it was three years ago | Unverified |
| Term | 10 years, break at 5 | Whether the break is mutual or landlord only | Critical |
| Fit-out contribution | Three months rent free | Whether it covers the extraction you will need | Unverified |
| Use class | Assumed suitable | Whether hot food extraction is permitted at this address | Critical |
| Business rates | Not quoted | Current rateable value and any transitional relief | Unverified |
A landlord-only break clause on a ten year term, on a site that is already USD 810 a month short, is the combination that ends businesses rather than just sites.
Action
What to do next
- Before anything
Count it yourself, twice
Stand at the unit on a Wednesday 07:30 to 09:30 and a Saturday 10:00 to 12:00. Count people who stop at any retail unit on the block, not people who pass. Two hours, twice, and the whole question is settled with your own eyes.
- This week
Get the Marchmont numbers
Ask the agent for the rent, service charge and term on the Marchmont Street unit. It is the comparison that makes the decision defensible either way.
- If still interested
Ask the three lease questions
Is the break mutual, is the service charge capped, and is extraction permitted. Any one of the three coming back badly ends it, and all three are free to ask.
- Do not
Sign heads of terms to hold it
Heads of terms on a ten year lease are not a reservation. Once you are in the process the cost of leaving rises every week, and this site does not currently justify entering it.