HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum

Since 1999, the SkyscraperPage Forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web. The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics. Welcome!

You are currently browsing as a guest. Register with the SkyscraperPage Forum and join this growing community of skyscraper enthusiasts. Registering has benefits such as fewer ads, the ability to post messages, private messaging and more.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Sacramento Area

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2007, 6:43 PM
Fusey's Avatar
Fusey Fusey is offline
Repeat!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Honolulu
Posts: 5,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by TowerDistrict View Post
I was thinking of something like this:

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2007, 8:10 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Top Retributor
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Golden Capitol
Posts: 1,724
I like all the ideas. It's basically the same. The public needs to get involved. It's personal now-he's mess'n with our future. I think I'm going to plaster downtown with this:
__________________
Progressivism asserts that advances in science, technology, economic development, and social organization can improve the human condition. Progressivism has been the traditional American viewpoint. Anti-progress is a foreign disease, perpetuated by both conservative religions and the radical left.

Last edited by ozone; Jun 1, 2007 at 8:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2007, 8:51 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Top Retributor
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Golden Capitol
Posts: 1,724
Hey I have a question guys. There's been some talk about needing a 'second anchor' at the Downtown Plaza and I don't know why the don't have one or how they'd do it -but I was wondering why one of those ugly mirror glass office buildings on J Street adjoining the mall couldn't be converted into a department store? ER... I guess Target is a second anchor huh?
__________________
Progressivism asserts that advances in science, technology, economic development, and social organization can improve the human condition. Progressivism has been the traditional American viewpoint. Anti-progress is a foreign disease, perpetuated by both conservative religions and the radical left.

Last edited by ozone; Jun 1, 2007 at 9:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2007, 10:25 PM
Trojan's Avatar
Trojan Trojan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 204
Great..... Sacramento has officially lost the ball with getting high level stores in the downtown area. Say goodbye to getting any stores in DTP or K Street beacuse all of them will now be going to Roseville if they can hold Burberry, Lacoste, Juicy, and Kate Spade in the Galleria.... K Street even lost Urban Outfitters to Arden Fair.

I can see a Neiman Marcus or Saks opening in Roseville soon if the Galleria can support those kind of stores.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2007, 3:00 AM
ericm2031 ericm2031 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trojan View Post
Great..... Sacramento has officially lost the ball with getting high level stores in the downtown area. Say goodbye to getting any stores in DTP or K Street beacuse all of them will now be going to Roseville if they can hold Burberry, Lacoste, Juicy, and Kate Spade in the Galleria.... K Street even lost Urban Outfitters to Arden Fair.

I can see a Neiman Marcus or Saks opening in Roseville soon if the Galleria can support those kind of stores.
Actually, Westfield can even be quoted saying that Neiman Marcus could be in the future. I have full merchandising plans for the Galleria expansion and expect more stores like Burberry and more expensive stores to be moving in, so yes a Neiman Marcus would probably fit in well in the future. The article fails to mention Cheesecake Factory which might open this year. The Galleria will officially pass Arden Fair and everyone else in size and will also have the best collection of stores.

And for numbers:

Downtown Plaza
  • Book Value: $206.3 mil
  • Annual Sales (not dept stores): $79.5 mil
  • Sales PSF: $373

Galleria (not including expansion)
  • Book Value: $335.9 mil
  • Annual Sales (not dept stores): $181.7 mil
  • Sales PSF: $553
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2007, 7:03 AM
arod74's Avatar
arod74 arod74 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: east Sac
Posts: 358
Yeah with the Towers dead on the table and Aura on life support, it looks like any large scale push of highend retail in DTP is a pipedream. Let's all jump into our Hummers and head to Roseville...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2007, 8:38 AM
Phillip Phillip is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 562
One anchor malls like Downtown Plaza are obsolete. A Target at Downtown Plaza will be convenient for those who live Downtown but it doesn't enhance DTP's shopping magnetism to residents from other parts of town. Everyone's got a neghborhood Target already. Soon even Davis!

I'd guess DTP's heyday, to the degree it had one, was 15-20 years ago. A lot of Downtown state workers had already moved to the burbs but the retailers hadn't followed yet and Galleria wasn't built. Downtown workers went to DTP on their lunch hour or after work to shop for things they couldn't get near home. Now most of the DTP stores are in Folsom and Elk Grove and Natomas too. Why walk up K and deal with the panhandlers and bad behavior?

Macy's alone can't draw tourists and suburban residents back. I doubt Target will do that either. Westfield hasn't been an enthusiastic advocate for Downtown, but if Crate and Barrel and Neiman don't want to build Downtown I don't think that's Westfield's fault. The stores basically make their decisions by the numbers.

If Downtown Plaza has a longterm future (and I'm not optimistic that it does) it will probably be as the place where Downtown and Midtown shop, not as a regional destination. Downtown Plaza needs a lot more people living Downtown. That's not happening so quickly. Even if Towers and Aura were built as planned that's just 2,000 people or so----not enough to save a mall. And still a one anchor mall after that, or one anchor plus Target.

To my mind the interesting question is how long will DTP hang on? Five years? Ten years? Fifteen? (With Towers & Aura almost in the cooler I need to find something else to be negative about now, lol.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2007, 10:06 PM
BrianSac's Avatar
BrianSac BrianSac is offline
CHACUN SON GOÛT
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,642
Hey, Phillip

I agree with what you said above,

I work downtown within walking distance of DTP, and I am not thrilled about going to DTP. There was a time when it was sort cool to go there, but alot of the stores did not appeal to me, except for the mens macy*s (sometimes) or Z Galleria, and the movie theaters.

When the rehab was done years ago, I thought then what a mistake not to enclose it with glass ; it is too damn cold in the winter and too hot in the summer. The materials where cheap and you could see that the materials would start looking bad in a short time (2yrs).

Can't Sacramento do anything right? Our ballpark, Ikea, state-of-the art Nugget (gourmet grocery store), Mondovi Center (world class music hall/theatre), the latest museum(Indian heritage center), our best university are all in YOLO COUNTY..... In mostly suburban or very small town settings.

I feel the only "world class venue" this town has to offer is Captiol Park and the Capitol Building. The plan of the grid (small blocks) and our trees. But, honestly, I've seen many cities with just as many trees....Atlanta, Berlin, Paris, New Oreleans, Portland to name a few.

Think about it - our best architecture was created in the first 50-60 years.
Everything we hold near and dear was created in those first 50yrs....when the whole friggin region had less than 200,000 people.

Sorry for the rant..just so pissed about the latest turn of events....Saca's failure, Aura, Arena, High-Speed rail.

Alsoeverything takes so damn long in this town, everything...its sort of anti-climatic when a sturcture finally actually gets built.

The other day after work some co-workers and I knock back a few dark beers at Old Ironsides...there was a slightly intoxicated man who said he was on the board of the Mandela Community Gardens. He went on and on about how their group screwed the developer of the Fremont Mews and delayed their project 10 odd years. It was all about screwing the developer; he didnt give a damn about having a garden in midtown. Sacramento has way too people like him holding up development.

ok, end of rant, sorry. this is not directed at you, phillip, by any means...just could'nt stop typing.....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2007, 12:36 AM
NewToCA NewToCA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 90
So, you fund DTP improvements as proposed by Westfields and spruce up K St as planned, and the demand for living downtown will substantially increase. You also get momentum on Railyards.

This makes places like Aura, Towers and Epic more likely to happen. Just not today.

And Roseville Galleria does not have to have such a major impact on downtown, you have a lousy transportation system (highways) working in your favor to allow dual locations in a few years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2007, 5:00 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is online now
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,086
The idea of a downtown mall is still based on the essentially flawed idea that people who live in the suburbs have an inherent need to come downtown to shop or watch movies. This has been the standard line of thinking since the 1930s and it still doesn't make much sense. If people in the suburbs have the same options that are more convenient (like suburban malls and suburban movie theaters) they will always go there instead. That isn't good or bad, it's just a reality of the market.

This "live in the suburbs, work and play downtown" idea is pretty old--it actually goes back about a century and a half. Before autos and freeways, streetcars and interurbans provided a way for middle-class folks to live remotely from work, and before that steam railroads and steamboats provided commuter service. A lot of folks assumed it was a natural progression, and that at some future point, nobody would live downtown, but everyone would work and shop there.

This line of thought was why a lot of central city housing was destroyed, all around the country, to make way for expanded office and shopping amenities. As shopping and employment options started to appear in the suburbs, however, many people stopped coming downtown altogether. Stripped of their own populations, and less often a destination for the suburban dweller, downtowns began to wane.

In my mind, Philip is correct: shopping amenities downtown are primarily a way to serve the people who live in the central city, and an increase in downtown housing will mean an increased market that prefers to shop at things close by.

As far as attracting people from the suburbs goes, that requires some different approaches. In my opinion, people come to cities to see and do things they can't see and do in the suburbs. Culturally, this means things like live music, dancing, dining, plays, and art--definitely places where we need some boosting, although we have no lack of talent. Sacramento has a serious, serious need for more all-ages live music venues, as well as mid-sized venues (which is why a lot of touring acts play at the Boardwalk in Orangevale, not in downtown Sacramento.) Architecturally, this means two things: OLD BUILDINGS and TALL BUILDINGS. K Street (bringing it back to the thread's topic) has room for all of the above.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2007, 9:32 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Top Retributor
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Golden Capitol
Posts: 1,724
Couldn't have said it better. 100% spot on.
__________________
Progressivism asserts that advances in science, technology, economic development, and social organization can improve the human condition. Progressivism has been the traditional American viewpoint. Anti-progress is a foreign disease, perpetuated by both conservative religions and the radical left.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2007, 10:40 PM
travis bickle travis bickle is offline
silly slackergeek
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 452
Well, lousy news on all fronts for our beloved downtown. As I may have mentioned in the past, the problem here is Westfield's vision of and for the two areas. Roseville is the beautiful, rich young maiden and downtown is the decaying old dowager. The problem is that Westfield is determined to keep them that way.

Make no mistake, every new destination store that moves to the Galleria is one that will not move downtown. There will never be two Neiman-Marcus' or two Bloomingdales or two Tiffany & Co. in the Sacramento region.

Although there is no overriding need for suburbanites to come downtown for almost any reason - that's why they call it destination retail. You must build it before they can come. But residential usually precedes successful retail and if you can get help from tourists - so much the better. There is absolutely no reason for tourists to see Roseville, but obviously, tourism alone can't sustain the kind of retail we're talking about - but it undoubtedly helps.

That's what makes high-end residential downtown so essential - and what makes any failure so crushing. Downtown Sacramento is the only real tourist anchor in the region and if we can combine that with high-end housing we can expect success for concomitant retail.

But Westfield doesn't see it that way. The city needs to force Westfield's hand and soon. Westfield needs to be replaced with a firm with the right vision for downtown as the regional hub for culture and commerce. Until Westfield's out, we'll see no real improvement to DTP and continued destination retail to Roseville alone.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2007, 11:12 PM
ericm2031 ericm2031 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 31
I think you should just let Westfield do what they want to do. The mall needs renovation first before it can bring in destination retail that you want. You can't just sit here and criticise everything that Westfield wants to do. They aren't just sitting there wanting a bad mall. They can only invest the amount of money into it that they think can be balanced by sales. They can't just pour a ton of money into it and not get anything out of it. It will take multiple renovations of the mall and then a bigger expansion and destination stores will come later. Also, there needs to be more residential downtown, especially upscale residential, before the destination stores will come as well. They will not come to downtown without them. Believe me, Westfield has investors and they will not hold onto properties if they didn't see a future with it. If they don't want it anymore, they will sell it just like they just sold them last year. The latest is that they have hired an outside firm to help them out with the project, so you might see something newer coming from them soon.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2007, 11:23 PM
travis bickle travis bickle is offline
silly slackergeek
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericm2031 View Post
I think you should just let Westfield do what they want to do. The mall needs renovation first before it can bring in destination retail that you want. You can't just sit here and criticise everything that Westfield wants to do. They aren't just sitting there wanting a bad mall. They can only invest the amount of money into it that they think can be balanced by sales. They can't just pour a ton of money into it and not get anything out of it. It will take multiple renovations of the mall and then a bigger expansion and destination stores will come later. Also, there needs to be more residential downtown, especially upscale residential, before the destination stores will come as well. They will not come to downtown without them. Believe me, Westfield has investors and they will not hold onto properties if they didn't see a future with it. If they don't want it anymore, they will sell it just like they just sold them last year. The latest is that they have hired an outside firm to help them out with the project, so you might see something newer coming from them soon.
while that is a lovely defense of Westfield and some of the points are valid. DTP has spiraled into the abyss with a miserable mix of shops only since Westfield took over. There is no way to spin that. Westfield demands subsidies for Targets while it pours millions into Roseville. While Targets provide needed neighborhood services - they are hardly unique, there is nothing "destination" about them.

Until Sacramento attracts a developer with the right vision, DTP will continue its downward slide - make that plummet - into a mall for punks and thugs. Any developer needs the city's help and I'll agree that Sacramento needs to make a real commitment to making people feel safe there. But until Westfield is gone, we will see no effort to make downtown Sacramento anything more than just another neighborhood.

That may be perfectly acceptable to some, but others have higher aspirations for downtown. Too bad Westfield doesn't.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2007, 2:48 AM
sugit sugit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: DT Sacramento
Posts: 3,076
I hate what has happen to DTP, but I agree with ericm2031. My whole take is WF is a corporation; they are going to invest their money where they see the greatest return for the least risk. Being a public company though, they need to continue to grow revenues to meet market expectations, so when DTP becomes an attractive investment, they will want and need to invest in DTP, but DT is still a risky bet for retail. I've said this before, but I couldn't imagine WF having to market DTP over the last 5-year or so. The demographics and sheer appearance of many parts of downtown can’t be an easy sell.

There has been some blight removal and some new housing with higher incomes moving in, but not enough, esp directly in the CBD other than 800J. As much as some of you don’t like that project for the lack of height (one that despite being 7 stories packs 180 DUA though), we need more projects like that, along with one ones like Cathedral Square (which gets entitlements from the planning commission next week), all the way up to projects like Aura and The Towers, and everything in between. The 700 block is darn important too..Hell it’s all important. Everything contributes. That is going to take time though.

I do go back and forth on the chicken and egg scenario. We need a higher population downtown to make retail successful, but at the same time I still think we need some better retail (national and local), more cultural and entertainment options and still blight removal (e.g. J Street between 10th and 11th) to draw a critical mass of people that want to live directly in downtown. Midtown is fine, lots of people want to live there and will continue to, but I think DT is a different environment. Like ericm2031 said, it's going take a few passes at DTP.

Like travis said, I don’t think we see two NM, Bloomingdales or Tiffany’s in Sac, but some of those other places like Lacoste, Burberry, Juicy, Kate Spade opening multiple places in Sac, esp as the need to expand (same corporate reasons as above). There was a good article in the Biz Journal about this a while ago.

I don't know anything about the mall business and what kind of internal numbers they look at, but I have to think at least 2 or 3 years of sales growth along with getting rev per square foot up to the $450 range is needed before they look at a MAJOR addition / renovation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2007, 11:01 PM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 4,865
Crest renovation in the works
By Mark Anderson of the Sacramento Business Journal
http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sa...l?surround=lfn

Tuesday, June 5, 2007

An investment group is in escrow to buy the Crest Theatre on K Street with plans to add more performing arts acts.

The Crest, last renovated a dozen years ago, is one of the businesses that has remained vibrant on the largely moribund K Street Mall.

Jim Brennan, president of Trancas Ventures of St. Helena, said he sees the Crest being a small version of New York City's Lincoln Center.

Brennan would not comment nor return calls. He has had discussions with Crest management, who say they have had only initial meetings.

"He (Brennan) is pretty excited about the things that we do here and with the direction downtown is taking," said Sid Garcia-Heberger, general manager of the Crest.

Across the street from the Crest, local developer David S. Taylor Interests Inc. is developing a cabaret-style performing arts venue on the ground floor of a building that would have other retail, some office space and residential units.

That space has been shuttered since the Woolworth's store there closed 12 years ago.

The Crest runs art house and foreign movies, as well as hosting about 10 film festivals a year. It's main stage has been used as a concert venue for years, with bands such as Taj Mahal to Nirvana gracing the floorboards.

In its current configuration, the Crest has a proscenium stage which can accommodate a fairly large band, but it has no wings, back-stage or fly loft rafters for live performances.

The theater is owned by a group of trusts from a longtime Sacramento family, and operated by separate company.

The Crest got a remodel in 1995, which added two smaller theaters downstairs to the single 975-seat auditorium on the ground floor. There has been a theater in that location since 1912. The original structure, called the Empress, was set up for live Vaudeville entertainment. It was gutted and completely remodeled into a large ornate movie palace starting in 1946. Opening night of the Crest was October 1949.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2007, 12:36 AM
ericm2031 ericm2031 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 31
Okay...first of all, Roseville does give Westfield a yearly subsidy of about $5 million per year (dependent on sales) and Westfield is investing $240 million total.

Although Target may not seem like a destination retailer, malls across the country are luring in Target because all of the smaller shops are requesting them specifically. Look at Westfield Topanga in LA. It has a Target, Nordstrom, Sears, Macy's, and is getting a Neiman Marcus. It also has stores such as Burberry. So Target seems to fit in well with luxury retail. Target is good because it brings in more traffic to the mall, which will then turn into sales in the existing stores and for new ones that will come with the addition. Like mentioned above, they need better sales from the mall in order to market it to potential tenants. So, it needs a renovation and a Target and the other improvements proposed, which will help give it a MINOR lift to a more acceptable level to pave the way for future changes.

And, just in case you were wondering why they do seem to do more with Roseville, besides the subsidy situation, is because the city doesn't seem to reject and criticise everything they do like what is being done on this thread and others. They never get any public support and city support. The city never works with them except tells them that they need to fix it. Roseville works with them along the way and helps Westfield improve their plan and it works out great and gives them a very close relationship.

Lastly, being in an urban setting, the cost of development is so much higher that they need something big that will offset the costs of the development. They need something big like a Target that will help pay for the renovation. They can't just pour money into it without a guaranteed return on investment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2007, 1:24 AM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Top Retributor
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Golden Capitol
Posts: 1,724
"The city never works with them except tells them that they need to fix it." I'm sorry but you don't know what the hell you are talking about. And, just in case you were wondering I think your arguments as to why Westfield in Roseville is thriving and the one Downtown is'nt are completely invalid. But what do I know? I am -somewhat- in the retail biz and I do read up on trends and industry reports now and then. There's lots of reasons for Westfield's poor numbers at the DTP -some of them they could control, some not.

I don't think the city rejects and criticises everything they do. Westfield has not been a good team player with the city for years -many many years. If anything Westfield has tried to put the kibosh on anything they see as competition. They are very shortsighted.
__________________
Progressivism asserts that advances in science, technology, economic development, and social organization can improve the human condition. Progressivism has been the traditional American viewpoint. Anti-progress is a foreign disease, perpetuated by both conservative religions and the radical left.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2007, 1:28 AM
travis bickle travis bickle is offline
silly slackergeek
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericm2031 View Post
Okay...first of all, Roseville does give Westfield a yearly subsidy of about $5 million per year (dependent on sales) and Westfield is investing $240 million total.

Although Target may not seem like a destination retailer, malls across the country are luring in Target because all of the smaller shops are requesting them specifically. Look at Westfield Topanga in LA. It has a Target, Nordstrom, Sears, Macy's, and is getting a Neiman Marcus. It also has stores such as Burberry. So Target seems to fit in well with luxury retail. Target is good because it brings in more traffic to the mall, which will then turn into sales in the existing stores and for new ones that will come with the addition. Like mentioned above, they need better sales from the mall in order to market it to potential tenants. So, it needs a renovation and a Target and the other improvements proposed, which will help give it a MINOR lift to a more acceptable level to pave the way for future changes.

And, just in case you were wondering why they do seem to do more with Roseville, besides the subsidy situation, is because the city doesn't seem to reject and criticise everything they do like what is being done on this thread and others. They never get any public support and city support. The city never works with them except tells them that they need to fix it. Roseville works with them along the way and helps Westfield improve their plan and it works out great and gives them a very close relationship.

Lastly, being in an urban setting, the cost of development is so much higher that they need something big that will offset the costs of the development. They need something big like a Target that will help pay for the renovation. They can't just pour money into it without a guaranteed return on investment.
Do you work for Westfield? Your brother?

You make valid points. Targets are great traffic generators that then can be built upon and perhaps this is westfied's plan.

However, your summary of westfield’s relations with the city is just as subjective as some of my loudest rants on this.

But, when westfield took over DTP in the early 90s (I believe) after a huge expenditure to renovate by the previous owners, it was a thriving mall with a decent shop mix. Since they've taken over - they have convinced city leaders to stop any real competing retail proposal (as inappropriate as some (Mills) may have been) all the while DTP has turned into an embarrassing dump.

Plenty of blame to go around, but they are the owners and the ultimate responsibility is theirs. They now have no reason to do make DTP anything other than an afterthought to Roseville. Until that dynamic changes, we will not see downtown as the regional commercial center many of us would prefer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2007, 1:56 AM
ericm2031 ericm2031 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 31
okay, now for this...

I am not saying that the relationship between Westfield and city is the sole problem, but it does play a big factor. If Westfield and the city disagree on everything, they aren't getting anywhere. Westfield is known nationwide to block competing projects. It is especially important here because since there is no residential downtown they have to try to pull from outside downtown and with projects going everywhere outside of downtown, it will be impossible to try to lure anyone to DP unless there is more retail downtown. I think at this point it is a waiting game because there really needs to be more people living in Downtown. Just like in Suburbia, the rooftops come first, followed by the retail. They never build retail before there is demand, no matter how much they "think" it might grow. They just can't risk that kind of money. And even though you say DTP had good shops before, they didn't drive them out on purpose. Obviously, the sales suffered and Westfield didn't even do anything to harm them, so you can't blame Westfield that they left.

So, if you are saying Westfield isn't a team player, now you are touching on the fact of the relationship betweem them and the city. I think they need to work out their relationship, before trying to tackle this project together.

Believe me, Westfield isn't trying to do anything to harm the mall. They keep on coming up with new plans and those are extremely expensive. They wouldn't go wasting it just to be mean. Their reputation is being hurt by this, but they are trying to come up with a solution. They are publicly traded company and have shareholders to convince that they are making the right decisions.

OH, and by the way, Westfield took over in '98 not early 90's.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
   
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Sacramento Area
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:19 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.