The shop with lights on but no customers is not always a mystery—it’s a math problem. In markets thick with empty storefronts, long leases, lender rules, and shifting demand make “quiet” retail viable longer than intuition suggests. Before the pandemic, Manhattan storefronts sat vacant an average of 16 months, a reminder that time—and option value—are often worth more than a quick deal. [3]

Key Takeaways

– Shows Manhattan storefronts averaged 16 months vacant pre-pandemic, underscoring why empty storefronts persist despite visible demand gaps on many blocks. [3] – Reveals 58% of New York City retail leases run ten years, locking in rents and incentivizing landlords to wait for higher-paying “match quality.” [1] – Demonstrates banks’ loan covenants can block rent cuts to protect valuations, effectively prolonging vacancies and discouraging marginal tenants. [3] – Indicates 2025 could see up to 15,000 closures versus 5,800 openings, accelerating a shift toward service tenants that often look empty between appointments. [4] – Suggests San Francisco’s vacancy tax saw retail vacancy tick to 7.7% in Q4 2024 from 8.0%, with enforcement gaps limiting stronger impacts. [5]

Why “empty” shops sometimes survive

A store that looks empty may still be meeting its revenue targets—just not from walk-ins you can see. In a marketplace reshaped by closures and a pivot toward service uses, operators increasingly rely on booked appointments, delivery, or off-peak demand windows that make a shop appear quiet for long stretches. Broker and landlord behavior compounds the effect: owners often hold firm on rent assumptions rather than discount quickly, a stance that can support tenants with niche or intermittent demand profiles. [2][4]

This visual mismatch can be most pronounced as the tenant mix changes. Commercial brokers describe a “historic shift” toward fitness, healthcare, and other service categories, which draw traffic in bursts and by schedule, not steady browsing, making retail streets look underutilized even when leases are current and bills are paid. [4]

The hidden economics behind empty storefronts

In many cities, landlords price retail with an eye to “option value”—the expected gains from waiting for a better tenant at a higher rent rather than filling space immediately. This mindset creates a rational tolerance for empty storefronts when the long-run payoff appears larger, especially on corridors where a future anchor or redevelopment could reset rents. Research emphasizes that long-run option value is the primary driver keeping storefronts vacant longer than residents expect. [1]

The strategy spills over to tenants, too. If a tenant has a long lease at a favorable base rent, the cost of staying open with low visible foot traffic can be lower than surrendering a location that anchors brand presence or logistics. In these cases, empty storefronts are a byproduct of contracts and capital, not necessarily failed business models. [1]

Long leases, long waits: the 58% factor

Lease terms hardwire patience into the market. In New York City, 58% of retail leases run ten years, creating a world where both tenants and landlords operate on decade-long horizons. Long leases reduce churn, but they also amplify the incentive to hold out for “high match quality” tenants who justify asking rents and improve the building’s income profile, even if it means tolerating gaps. [1]

Because a lease is often part of a larger refinancing and valuation story, landlords weigh more than today’s foot traffic. If they believe a premium tenant will materialize in a few quarters, it can be financially rational to pass on a discount deal now, increasing the odds you’ll see empty storefronts along an otherwise healthy corridor. [1]

Bank covenants and the rent-cut dilemma

Even when a landlord wants to cut rent to fill a space, lenders can say no. Many commercial loans tie property valuations to rental income; lowering rents can breach covenants or depress appraisals, risking refinancing options or future borrowing. Analysts report that these financing structures often prevent owners from lowering rents to market in downturns, effectively extending vacancy spells. [3]

The numbers underscore the point. In Manhattan, storefronts averaged 16 months of vacancy before the pandemic—a long re-leasing cycle that aligns with lenders’ preference for stability over rapid, discounted lease-up. Meanwhile, economists have quantified the financial incentive to wait for a “high match quality” tenant, reinforcing why cutting rent is frequently the last resort. [3]

The vacancy timeline: why 16 months isn’t unusual

The 16-month figure is a useful benchmark because it captures the time needed for marketing, negotiation, permitting, and buildout—not just demand. For prospective tenants, fit-out timelines and capital costs mean moving too fast can be riskier than waiting for a better configuration or location. For landlords, the clock is shaped by back-and-forth over tenant improvements, use clauses, and percentage-rent add-ons, all of which can stretch a gap across multiple leasing seasons. [3]

If you’re watching a quiet shop on your block, its lease may be serving a larger strategic goal: holding a position in anticipation of a higher and better use or keeping portfolio income predictable enough to placate lenders. Both patterns map to average vacancy spells measured in quarters, not weeks. [3]

Policy experiments and the 7.7% reality

Cities have tested vacancy taxes to push space back into the market. San Francisco adopted a tax in 2020; by Q4 2024 the city reported a modest decline in retail vacancy to 7.7% from 8.0%. Officials and analysts cite enforcement challenges, compliance gaps, and a thicket of exemptions as key reasons the shift was incremental rather than sweeping, prompting recommendations to strengthen the law. [5]

Economic structure still matters. When safety perceptions, zoning constraints, or big-box pullouts reduce demand, a vacancy tax alone may not reset the balance. Policymakers in San Francisco concluded that tightening enforcement and closing loopholes would be necessary to move the needle further, but acknowledged broader headwinds that taxes cannot fully offset. [5]

Demand is shifting: closures, openings, and service tenants

Retail’s supply-demand picture is lopsided in 2025. Coresight forecasts up to 15,000 U.S. store closures against about 5,800 openings, a net contraction that puts pressure on weaker corridors. Amid the shakeout, big landlords and brokerages describe a “historic shift” toward service tenants—fitness, medical, personal care—that can pay sustainable rents while tolerating smaller footprints and variable street traffic. [4]

That shift helps explain why some shops look empty yet endure. A boutique wellness operator with scheduled appointments may generate healthy revenue per square foot even if the window seems still most of the day. In the short run, that sustains leases; in the long run, it changes what a “busy” street looks like. [4]

Why landlords tolerate empty storefronts

The decision not to cut rent is rarely about stubbornness alone. Brokers describe owners who, especially if unlevered or lightly mortgaged, can wait for their envisioned rent rather than reset property valuations with discounts. Zoning quirks, parking requirements, and redevelopment clauses further nudge owners to hold the line until the right use arrives. Public explanations may sound simple; underneath are spreadsheets testing today’s deal against a higher-rent future. [2]

Evidence from academic and industry analysis reaches the same conclusion. Holding out preserves expected future income and the option to land a stronger tenant cohort—outcomes that, in net present value terms, can outstrip the benefit of quick occupancy. The result, visible on many blocks, is a higher tolerance for empty storefronts than residents expect. [1][2]

What a vacancy tax can and cannot solve

Targeted taxes can change behavior at the margins, but incentives cut both ways. Harvard-linked research suggests vacancy taxes can reduce vacancies, though possibly at the cost of weaker tenant “match quality”—a subtle trade-off where speed rises but the fit declines. San Francisco’s real-world experience—sliding from 8.0% to 7.7%—illustrates both the potential and the limits of a single policy lever when enforcement and market fundamentals clash. [1][5]

For policy makers, the lesson is to pair a vacancy tax with zoning flexibility, streamlined permits, and safety improvements. For neighbors wondering about that quiet shop, it’s a reminder that policy nudges can help, but the dominant forces remain leases, lenders, and the evolving mix of tenants that reshapes what activity looks like at street level. [1][5]

How to read a “quiet” store on your block

If a store seems persistently empty, there are several market-consistent explanations. It may be a service tenant with appointment-based demand riding the broader shift away from legacy retail; it may be mid-lease with favorable terms that make steady-but-slow revenue acceptable; or it may be waiting out a corridor’s reset in the wake of closures. None of these require conspiracy theories—just patience embedded in contracts and capital. [4][3]

You can trace the signals locally. Longer marketing windows, repeated “for lease” signage between pop-ups, or a landlord avoiding steep discounts are each consistent with the 16-month average vacancy timeline and the preference for high match-quality tenants, underwritten by lender expectations. That’s the arithmetic behind so many empty storefronts—and the reason your quiet corner shop might still be penciling out. [3][1]

Sources: [1] Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies – Why Do Urban Storefronts Stay Empty for So Long?: https://jchs.harvard.edu/blog/why-do-urban-storefronts-stay-empty-so-long [2] The Washington Post – I always wonder why retail storefronts sit empty. Why don’t they just cut the rent?: www.washingtonpost.com/local/i-always-wonder-why-retail-storefronts-sit-empty-why-dont-they-just-cut-the-rent/2017/06/06/9c43e074-4ac4-11e7-9669-250d0b15f83b_story.html” target=”_blank” rel=”nofollow noopener noreferrer”>https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/i-always-wonder-why-retail-storefronts-sit-empty-why-dont-they-just-cut-the-rent/2017/06/06/9c43e074-4ac4-11e7-9669-250d0b15f83b_story.html [3] Business Insider – Bank Financing and Bad Urban Planning Make the Retail Apocalypse Worse: www.businessinsider.com/bank-financing-urban-planning-pandemic-retail-apocalypse-vacant-storefront-2023-10″ target=”_blank” rel=”nofollow noopener noreferrer”>https://www.businessinsider.com/bank-financing-urban-planning-pandemic-retail-apocalypse-vacant-storefront-2023-10 [4] Retail Dive – Store closures outpace openings amid ‘historic shift’ to service-based tenants: www.retaildive.com/news/retail-store-closures-openings-shift-service-tenants/740615/” target=”_blank” rel=”nofollow noopener noreferrer”>https://www.retaildive.com/news/retail-store-closures-openings-shift-service-tenants/740615/ [5] San Francisco Chronicle – San Francisco passed a tax to curb vacant storefronts. So why do many still sit empty?: www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/passed-tax-curb-vacant-retail-20036802.php” target=”_blank” rel=”nofollow noopener noreferrer”>https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/passed-tax-curb-vacant-retail-20036802.php TARGET_KEYWORDS: [empty storefronts, 16 months average vacancy, 58% ten-year leases, vacancy tax impact, retail vacancy 7.7%, Coresight 15,000 closures 2025, 5,800 store openings 2025, option value retail, bank loan covenants rent, match quality tenants, Manhattan storefront vacancy, service-based tenants JLL, NYC retail lease terms, San Francisco vacant retail, enforcement gaps vacancy tax, anchor-store departures data, zoning and parking retail, retail re-leasing timeline, appointment-based retail traffic, retail landlord strategy statistics] FOCUS_KEYWORDS: [empty storefronts, retail vacancy 16 months, 58% ten-year leases, vacancy tax 7.7%, Coresight 15,000 closures, loan covenants and rent, service tenant shift] SEMANTIC_KEYWORDS: [net absorption, cap rate, net operating income, loan-to-value, debt service coverage ratio, lease term, base rent, percentage rent, rent concessions, tenant improvement allowances, CAM charges, foot traffic index, tenant mix, anchor tenant, lease-up period] LONG_TAIL_KEYWORDS: [why landlords keep stores empty, average time storefronts stay vacant, how vacancy taxes impact leasing, bank covenants prevent rent cuts, NYC retail lease term statistics, San Francisco vacant storefront tax rate, Coresight 2025 store closures forecast, JLL service tenant shift data, Manhattan average retail vacancy length, option value in retail leasing] FEATURED_SNIPPET: Many empty storefronts persist because waiting pays. Manhattan spaces averaged 16 months vacant pre-pandemic, while 58% of NYC retail leases span ten years—structures that favor “option value” and high match-quality tenants. Loan covenants can block rent cuts, prolonging gaps, and policy fixes like San Francisco’s tax nudged vacancy only to 7.7% in Q4 2024 from 8.0%. [3][1][5]

Image generated by DALL-E 3