Macy's closing 4 Downtown stores across US

[10023]

Originally Posted by SHiRO

Well don't make grand generalizing statements and maybe you'll find that conversation on this forum starts to be more pleasant.

You can call it "more pronounced", I call it "of a total different order" and "not at all similar".

Setting aside "millennials" (another thing that applies mainly to America, not most other places) and taking this back to department stores. The downtown department store in the US, outside of New York, SF and Chicago has been all but annihilated so it seems. This never occured in the UK. So any claims that both are similar seem pretty incorrect to me.

I don't give a damn what you call it, Shiro. Get over yourself.

British cities haven't been hit as hard as American ones (this is a more densely populated, more urbanized country) but you'll still find plenty of articles like this one: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/445...partment-store

As for the generational shift, which is absolutely of essential relevance to any discussion of center city retail, that is actually happening here as well as the US. It used to be expected that you'd move to the suburbs (or maybe some Home Counties village) when you hit about 30 and had kids. All of my aunts and uncles left London around that age in the late 80s or early 90s. Now there are a lot of people my (our?) age who want to stay in the city. And yes, the term "millennials" is used here both by the media and in conversation.

You'd do well to take some of your own advice regarding ill-informed pronouncements of fact.

[Crawford]

I think British cities are kind of "in between" the continent and North America when it comes to concentration of retail downtown. Britain definitely has many North American-style suburban shopping malls.

I don't think such malls are common at all on the continent (does even one such mall exist in Western Europe, where the suburban center is a major retail nexus with multiple department stores and all the high street stores? Haven't seen such a thing, though obviously there are "big box" type suburban centers).

I remember both Newcastle and Manchester had rather weak retail cores. Newcastle had some vacant structures, and some low-end retail atypical for a prime high street. Manchester was stronger, but still a bit of an underperformer for a large city. Most of the downtown retail appeared to be enclosed in a 1970's-era mall.

I know the Newcastle area has Metrocentre and Manchester has Trafford Centre, both huge suburban shopping malls. I would imagine, in both cases, the suburban shopping does take some market share away from the high streets (but not as much as in North America).

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by NorthernDancer

Nope. The downtown Nordstrom was just a rumour from 2 or 3 years ago. It is not "being built". It has not even been announced. It was a rumour that turned out to be untrue.

This is definitely not true, unless you have some secret insider info that contradicts NY Times, NY Post, NY Daily News, Crains NY and the like.

Nordstrom is reported to be coming to 1 Wall Street. I never claimed the store was "being built". Of course the store isn't open yet.

Originally Posted by NorthernDancer

The Barney's on 7th Ave. will be under 90,000 sf. You can include that if you want, but you're really stretching what many people would consider a "dept. store" if you include stores in the 50,000 - 99,999 sf range. If you're going to include such stores you could add more "downtown dept. stores" for many cities.

I'm fine if you don't want to include the downtown Barneys. They are certainly department stores, though, yes, some branches are smaller sized.

Your second point is definitely wrong, though. There is no North American department store, besides Barneys, that often builds stores in that range. Not one. So inclusion of Barneys wouldn't make a difference, except for cities with downtown Barneys (and some of those are rather large- the uptown Barneys has a quarter million square feet). The only stores/locations affected would be Chelsea, SF, Chicago and Boston.

[the urban politician]

^ I'm fine if we want to include Barney's as a Dept store (they call themselves that, after all).

If we're going to do that, we might as well include Chicago's multilevel Burberry Store on the Mag Mile, and the 5 level Sports Authority store in the River North neighborhood.

Point being, at some point we need to determine how we are defining a "department store". Just because an apparel store has 5 or more levels, does that make it a "department store"?

[miketoronto]

Even NYC is showing the problem with American retail stores.

The fact that these major stores are opening up multiple branches in the centre of one city is also overbuilding retail.

Manhattan has functioned well for 100 years or more with only one location of these famous stores. Now all of a sudden another branch is needed in the same city centre? All this does is eat market share away from the existing stores, and it dilutes the brand, because the new stores are tiny and not at all worth the trip.

Except for Galleries Lafayette in Paris. You do not see the big European stores operating multiple branches in the downtowns of major cities. London only has one location in the city centre for all their large high end stores.

America just builds too much. And it is not a good situation to be in right now, considering how bad a lot of these stores are doing, because they already have too many branches.

[10023]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I'm fine if we want to include Barney's as a Dept store (they call themselves that, after all).

If we're going to do that, we might as well include Chicago's multilevel Burberry Store on the Mag Mile, and the 5 level Sports Authority store in the River North neighborhood.

Point being, at some point we need to determine how we are defining a "department store". Just because an apparel store has 5 or more levels, does that make it a "department store"?

There's no question that Barney's is a department store.

Something like Burberry is not, no matter how many square feet the store has. Nor is a Ralph Lauren flagship store. These are retail outlets of fashion labels. Department stores are traditionally engaged in the retail sale of textiles and home furnishings, and predominantly carry other brands rather than their own.

Originally Posted by miketoronto

London only has one location in the city centre for all their large high end stores.

Selfridge's only has one London location... but it has two in Manchester, one in the center and one here (if this isn't an American-style shopping mall, I don't know what is): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafford_Centre

Harrod's is just one store, as is Liberty (the others all closed down in the '90s), but these are more equivalent to Bergdorfs than a Saks (it's owned by Nieman Marcus, but has a distinct brand). Harvey Nichols has just one store in London. Fenwick's has a suburban location in London, but only one that could be considered central London. The less high end department stores have multiple locations though... John Lewis, which I mentioned earlier because it's a bigger chain, has several locations in London and at least 2 would be considered central. House of Fraser and Debenhams have multiple locations.

[Minato Ku]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

Except for Galleries Lafayette in Paris. You do not see the big European stores operating multiple branches in the downtowns of major cities. London only has one location in the city centre for all their large high end stores.

Karstadt and Galeria Kaufhof have multiple branchs in main German cities core.

About Paris

Galerie Lafayette group has three stores in Central Paris
Galerie Lafayette Haussmann, (flagship)
Galerie Lafayette Montparnasse (mall)
BHV Marais (different name but it is owned by Galerie Lafayette)
A fourth stores is underway on the Champs Elysées, replacing the former Virgin Megastore.

Printemps have four stores
Printemps Haussmann (flagship)
Printemps Carrousel du Louvre (mall)
Printemps Italie 2 (mall)
Printemps Nation

Le Bon Marché is owned by LVMH group and this group will reopen La Samaritaine.

Originally Posted by Crawford

I think British cities are kind of "in between" the continent and North America when it comes to concentration of retail downtown. Britain definitely has many North American-style suburban shopping malls.

I don't think such malls are common at all on the continent (does even one such mall exist in Western Europe, where the suburban center is a major retail nexus with multiple department stores and all the high street stores? Haven't seen such a thing, though obviously there are "big box" type suburban centers).

I remember both Newcastle and Manchester had rather weak retail cores. Newcastle had some vacant structures, and some low-end retail atypical for a prime high street. Manchester was stronger, but still a bit of an underperformer for a large city. Most of the downtown retail appeared to be enclosed in a 1970's-era mall.

I know the Newcastle area has Metrocentre and Manchester has Trafford Centre, both huge suburban shopping malls. I would imagine, in both cases, the suburban shopping does take some market share away from the high streets (but not as much as in North America).

Even in suburban retail in UK cities can be quite urban with shopping streets, whereas it isn't in France and the country is at least as much (maybe more) dominated by suburban retail.
France's suburban retail is very suburban designed and based on cars.

The difference is that in France, we don't like to build big, we prefer to build medium sized malls.

[NorthernDancer]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I never claimed the store was "being built". Of course the store isn't open yet.

ROFLOL! You absolutely did. You said:

There are five new department stores being built in Manhattan alone- a Neiman Marcus, a Barneys, a Saks Fifth Avenue and two Nordstroms.

You actually used the words "being built" in reference to both Nordstrom stores. Why would you claim you never said "being built" when it's right there in this thread? It takes all of 10 seconds to fact check what you said.

The Nordstrom rumours were from about 2013/2014. It was rumoured that they were looking for a downtown location. Two plus years later and those never amounted to anything.

Your second point is definitely wrong, though. There is no North American department store, besides Barneys, that often builds stores in that range.

That's not what I said. What I said is that if you include stores in the 50k-100k sf range as "department stores", you could call a lot of stores "department stores" that aren't normally thought of as such. Many Winners stores in Canada are in that range. And they not only carry clothing, but some electronics, etc. Yet I'd never include them in "department store" counts.

Not one. So inclusion of Barneys wouldn't make a difference, except for cities with downtown Barneys (and some of those are rather large- the uptown Barneys has a quarter million square feet). The only stores/locations affected would be Chelsea, SF, Chicago and Boston.

No. The Seattle store is even smaller than the Chelsea store. So those four stores aren't the only stores that would be affected.

[NorthernDancer]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

Even NYC is showing the problem with American retail stores.

The fact that these major stores are opening up multiple branches in the centre of one city is also overbuilding retail.

Manhattan has functioned well for 100 years or more with only one location of these famous stores. Now all of a sudden another branch is needed in the same city centre? All this does is eat market share away from the existing stores, and it dilutes the brand, because the new stores are tiny and not at all worth the trip.

Except for Galleries Lafayette in Paris. You do not see the big European stores operating multiple branches in the downtowns of major cities. London only has one location in the city centre for all their large high end stores.

America just builds too much. And it is not a good situation to be in right now, considering how bad a lot of these stores are doing, because they already have too many branches.

mike, even The Bay has two stores in downtown Toronto as you know. And they're both over 300,000 square feet. And NYC has three times the population of Toronto.

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by NorthernDancer

mike, even The Bay has two stores in downtown Toronto as you know. And they're both over 300,000 square feet. And NYC has three times the population of Toronto.

That has more to do with history of one store taking over another.

I am just saying that a lot of these stores are probably expanding way too much, and whether it is downtown or in the suburbs, it is probably not fully sustainable in the long run. America just over retails, especially with these high end stores.

[dc_denizen]

is century 21 downtown considered a department store for the purpose of these discussions?

[10023]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

is century 21 downtown considered a department store for the purpose of these discussions?

Yes. It's cheaper but it's still a department store.

[nito]

Originally Posted by 10023

^ This is similar to many parts of America.

I'm familiar with Bristol (or at least Temple Meads station) as I've got some family in Somerset, and used to be more familiar when my grandmother lived there, but I have to admit that I don't go there to shop. Is Cabot Circus really bigger though? Doesn't look it from Google maps (but it does look like a collection of all the worst high street chains). It did certainly look there was lots of new construction though, at least along the canal near the station. Bristol city center is still not a terribly attractive place, aside from a few streets.

Bristol is quite nice, and it is certainly experiencing a renaissance and is seen as a good destination for people priced out of London, but it isn’t going to compete with the splendour of Bath which is just 10mins away by train. Cabot Circus is larger by about 10% and has 50% larger footfall.

Originally Posted by Crawford

I think British cities are kind of "in between" the continent and North America when it comes to concentration of retail downtown. Britain definitely has many North American-style suburban shopping malls.

I don't think such malls are common at all on the continent (does even one such mall exist in Western Europe, where the suburban center is a major retail nexus with multiple department stores and all the high street stores? Haven't seen such a thing, though obviously there are "big box" type suburban centers).

I remember both Newcastle and Manchester had rather weak retail cores. Newcastle had some vacant structures, and some low-end retail atypical for a prime high street. Manchester was stronger, but still a bit of an underperformer for a large city. Most of the downtown retail appeared to be enclosed in a 1970's-era mall.

I know the Newcastle area has Metrocentre and Manchester has Trafford Centre, both huge suburban shopping malls. I would imagine, in both cases, the suburban shopping does take some market share away from the high streets (but not as much as in North America).

The UK retail scene is a bit of an anomaly relative to its European and American peers. It certainly has a more pronounced out-of-town shopping centre scene than that found on the continent, but is less inclined towards retail parks, for example those anchored by Carrefour dwarf their British equivalents.

You then also have the odd situation where compared to the US, most major UK shopping centres have good public transport access, with many having their own heavy rail station (of the ten largest centres in the UK, eight have a station). Many British towns and cities across the country also retain their pedestrianised retail cores which is a very alien concept in the US.

Another dynamic in the mix is that the UK has the most advanced e-grocery market in the developed world which is drastically changing the face of the typical person’s interaction with the traditional retail format. But from what I can remember, Manchester and Newcastle still had pretty strong city centre retail scenes.

[mrnyc]

and in eastern europe turkey is just the opposite of western europe. they can't build enough or big enough (buyuk) modern shopping malls. they are forgiven though, being as they invented the mall with the grand bazaar.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by 10023

No, it's a suburban problem. The built environment is not the same, or of as high a quality. Look at the Marshall Fields store on State Street, or even (the whole of) Water Tower Place or 900 North Michigan. The last one is hideous architecture, but all three are built to last. A suburban department store is just a big windowless box made from cinderblocks with a logo on the side.

See the French example above. Same shit. Suburban malls are the paper plates of the built environment... one time use only.

How is that not an example of capitalism? To maximize profit, a company is gonna build something on the cheap if they can get away with it, so that they can make more money. To me those are quintessential examples of capitalism.

[Evergrey]

NYT has an update on the Macy's that closed in Downtown Pittsburgh late last year...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/17/re...iant.html?_r=0

Pittsburgh’s Reviving Center Swaps Macy’s for Mixed-Use Giant

Square Feet
By JOE GOSE FEB. 16, 2016

PITTSBURGH — A plan to convert Pittsburgh’s 12-story landmark Macy’s department store into a one-million-square-foot mixed-used behemoth has become one of the latest votes of confidence in the decade-long resurgence of the city’s downtown.

Core Realty, based in Philadelphia, in July paid $15 million for the property just months before Macy’s closed. The building, on the corner of Fifth Avenue and Smithfield Street, dates to the late 1800s and for years was the flagship of the Kaufmann’s department store chain. It went through several expansions and renovations, including a heralded Art Deco interior makeover of the first floor in 1930.

Randy Mineo, executive vice president of Core Realty and a Pittsburgh native, envisions a mix of retailers, restaurants and entertainment spots to complement a 155-room Even Hotel and 312 luxury apartments. Named the Grand at Fifth Avenue, the estimated $100 million project will feature an open-air atrium beginning on the fifth floor and 600 parking spaces, a sparse commodity downtown.

“I’ve always looked at Pittsburgh as a hidden gem; it’s a city that has been kind of ignored,” said Mr. Mineo, who with the owner of Core Realty, Michael Samschick, began hunting for properties in the city three years ago. “But you could tell that underneath the surface, Pittsburgh was bubbling.”

Developers, corporations, educators and others have pumped about $5 billion into the city’s downtown, also called the Golden Triangle, over the last decade, according to the Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership.

Investors have converted old office buildings into residential units, hotels and classrooms, constructed new office buildings, and built up the district’s restaurant and entertainment base...

...

[10023]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

How is that not an example of capitalism? To maximize profit, a company is gonna build something on the cheap if they can get away with it, so that they can make more money. To me those are quintessential examples of capitalism.

Then why are things in the city not built as cheaply? Are developers in Manhattan or central London socialists? No, they are just targeting a different market.

If potential customers demand higher quality, the capitalist response is to provide it for them (even at a cost). If customers don't demand higher quality, the capital response is to save the money.

It's a suburban problem because suburbanites let them get away with it. There's less of a concern for the quality of the built environment, because a man's home is his castle and he doesn't really care what the shopping center 10 minutes away by car looks like (or if it gets torn down and replaced in 30 years).

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by 10023

Then why are things in the city not built as cheaply? Are developers in Manhattan or central London socialists? No, they are just targeting a different market.

If potential customers demand higher quality, the capitalist response is to provide it for them (even at a cost). If customers don't demand higher quality, the capital response is to save the money.

It's a suburban problem because suburbanites let them get away with it. There's less of a concern for the quality of the built environment, because a man's home is his castle and he doesn't really care what the shopping center 10 minutes away by car looks like (or if it gets torn down and replaced in 30 years).

It's still all very capitalist.

But I see what you're doing; you're equating "suburban" with "lower standards" somehow. But really it's all about marketing to the people who have more money, which isn't necessarily the people in the city center.

I can only speak for Los Angeles because I'm the most familiar with it, but the old upscale department stores that were built in the suburbs were of higher quality than the lower-end stores. When Bullock's decided to build a store on Wilshire Boulevard in the 1920s, the area it was built in was considered out in the sticks, but they invested a lot of money into it, and it actually became their flagship store, not the one downtown; though no longer a department store, it's still an Art Deco masterpiece today with Historic Landmark status (it's now a law library). When Saks Fifth Avenue wanted to open their first west coast store, they chose not San Francisco, not downtown LA, but Beverly Hills, which also was considered "suburban" at the time. The Bullock's stores that opened in Westwood, Pasadena... those were also considered suburban stores, but they were very upscale. The Bullock's store in Pasadena, which is now a Macy's, went through a restoration a few years ago and it looks pretty much now like it used to, an old-school traditional high-end department store (though the merchandise is basically Macy's merchandise).

[NorthernDancer]

This is a little old (2012), but of the top 15 malls in sales per square foot in United States/Canada, 9 were in Canada:

http://www.retail-insider.com/retail...roductive.html

Here is our list of 'top 15' North American malls and their sales per square foot:

1. Pacific Centre, Vancouver BC Canada: $1580/sq ft
2. Caesar's Palace, Las Vegas NV USA: $1470/sq ft
3. Toronto Eaton Centre, Toronto ON Canada: $1320/sq ft
4. Yorkdale Shopping Centre, Toronto ON Canada: $1300/sq ft
5. Ala Moana Shopping Centre, Honolulu HI USA: $1250/sq ft
6. Oakridge Shopping Centre, Vancouver BC Canada: $1200/sq ft
7. Chinook Centre, Calgary AB Canada: $1055/sq ft
8. Mall at Short Hills, Short Hills NJ USA: $1050/sq ft
9. Mall at Millenia, Orlando FL USA: $1040/sq ft
10. Rideau Centre, Ottawa ON Canada: $1020/sq ft
11: Sherway Gardens, Toronto ON Canada: $950
12: Fairview Mall, Toronto ON Canada: $880/sq ft
13: Fashion Valley Shopping Centre, San Diego CA USA: $875/sq ft
14: Peter Pond Mall, Ft. McMurray AB Canada: $850/sq ft (we're not joking about this one)
15: Garden State Plaza, Paramus NJ USA: $750/sq ft

That's 6 American malls and 9 Canadian malls.

[Gordo]

^That's mostly just because 2012 was practically the peak historical value of the CAD against the USD, which is mentioned in the article. All of the Canadian malls would now be 30%+ lower just from currency changes.