Retail News

[raisethehammer]

money.

[omro]

Originally Posted by raisethehammer

money.

Ah but there's the money it would cost to make it vibrant and thus attract people to it to spend money there and thus make back the cost.

vs

The money it's not making because it's not attracting people to spend money there.

[SteelTown]

If I owned Yale Properties I would knock down the Bay Street facade and relocate all the food court over their, 2 stories food court, and have patio space from the first and second floor. All the white-collar jobs are closer to Bay St.

The facade for King St would be really tricky because of all the towers lined up on that street (Stelco, Sheraton and Standard Life).

I completely gut the front entrance and put up a glass wall.

If I also owned City Centre I would knock down the castle like facade for James St and either have a glass wall with store front retail or have a replica of old street front retail, to at least match the Lister Block that's across the street.

[raisethehammer]

Originally Posted by omro

Ah but there's the money it would cost to make it vibrant and thus attract people to it to spend money there and thus make back the cost.

vs

The money it's not making because it's not attracting people to spend money there.

you're preaching to the choir. lol.

[highwater]

Originally Posted by omro

Shame

Could they not be convinced that by knocking it down and building one much better complex, that they would be better off, one and all?

Is there a way to knock down and/or remodel the shopping area without knocking the rest down? How about digging down to give it more internal space so it feels less oppressive like a mall inside a cave?

Be careful what you wish for. We'd probably end up with something even worse.

[FairHamilton]

Originally Posted by omro

Couldn't it just all be knocked down?

It's tough to knock down buildings owned by private companies. They really don't like it when you do that to their buildings.

[FairHamilton]

Originally Posted by omro

Ah but there's the money it would cost to make it vibrant and thus attract people to it to spend money there and thus make back the cost.

vs

The money it's not making because it's not attracting people to spend money there.

Who said it's not making money? People have said they don't like it, but not that it is a money loser for Yale Properties. I'm guessing that it makes them money and that's why they have it in their real estate portfolio.

[highwater]

Originally Posted by JT Jacobs

Jake the Squire is outrageously bad simply because the city razed Old City Hall, as I understand it, to clear room for this mall.

No, they razed the old city hall because it was too small, in poor repair, etc. All the same reasons they cited when trying to knock down our current city hall. We never learn.

http://www.myhamilton.ca/myhamilton/...ity+Hall+8.htm

[fastcarsfreedom]

Oppressive?

I grew up going to that mall every Saturday and never felt "oppressed".

It is impossible to know what Downtown would look like without JS having been built. Perhaps it would be the one truly thriving downtown of a city it's size, the retail hub--perhaps Hamilton would be the one city in North America where suburban shopping never took off. Perhaps it would simply be a exactly what it is today with far fewer 9-5 workers downtown to support retail, restaurants and services.

And as a matter of clarification, the old City Hall was demolished to make way for an expansion of the T. Eaton Co. department store, not Jackson Square.

[highwater]

I guess you missed my post above. It was demolished because they decided they needed a new city hall.

[omro]

Originally Posted by FairHamilton

Who said it's not making money? People have said they don't like it, but not that it is a money loser for Yale Properties. I'm guessing that it makes them money and that's why they have it in their real estate portfolio.

Sorry, I didn't state my case very clearly there.

I was trying to say it would make more money than it does now if it was nicer.

And the difference between what it is making and what it could make is the money it's losing.

[omro]

Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom

Oppressive?

I grew up going to that mall every Saturday and never felt "oppressed".

It is impossible to know what Downtown would look like without JS having been built. Perhaps it would be the one truly thriving downtown of a city it's size, the retail hub--perhaps Hamilton would be the one city in North America where suburban shopping never took off. Perhaps it would simply be a exactly what it is today with far fewer 9-5 workers downtown to support retail, restaurants and services.

And as a matter of clarification, the old City Hall was demolished to make way for an expansion of the T. Eaton Co. department store, not Jackson Square.

If you grew up going to that mall and never knew anything different, I doubt you'd feel oppressed by it. Me as a visitor for one week, didn't like walking past it at night. Walking down that part of King Street at night felt very dead and closed in.

Just a personal opinion, however.

I thought the Eaton Centre was part of Jackson Square and whatever that is called now, the name eludes me and isn't on any maps I have, it's that downtown shopping centre thingy that I'm talking about demolishing. Not that the rest of JS isn't bloody ugly too.

[FairHamilton]

Originally Posted by omro

Sorry, I didn't state my case very clearly there.

I was trying to say it would make more money than it does now if it was nicer.

And the difference between what it is making and what it could make is the money it's losing.

I think that because of the amount of capital involved selling opportunity cost would be a tough sell. The owner is happy with the status quo, which is their right as owner of the property.

[raisethehammer]

I grew up here and I'm in JS or walking by it almost everyday/night and I agree...it's a dive. The architecture is oppressive....some glass walls, patios (honest lawyer has done great) etc.... would do a world of good.

I have no clue how much money it makes, but obviously it makes enough to stop them from pounding the pavement for new tenants and revitalizing the place.
Re: private companies - Hamilton owns the land JS sits on. It was built as a 'civic centre' (nice friggin job).
The city does has some say into what happens there.

[FairHamilton]

Originally Posted by omro

I thought the Eaton Centre was part of Jackson Square and whatever that is called now, the name eludes me and isn't on any maps I have, it's that downtown shopping centre thingy that I'm talking about demolishing. Not that the rest of JS isn't bloody ugly too.

City Centre and no worries I made the same mistake. It's very confusing to have two different malls located next to one another and joined as a single mall.

[omro]

Originally Posted by FairHamilton

City Centre and no worries I made the same mistake. It's very confusing to have two different malls located next to one another and joined as a single mall.

There are two?

I remember going into one, past a bank on the left, a tim hortons dead ahead and wandering around this dark twisting set of corridors past shops I'd never heard of until I found the farmers' market.

I wasn't aware there was another.

[adam]

The dark bunker-like Jackson square shelters people from the roaring expressway outside..

James North and King West (further west) are steadily improving streetscapes and businesses... if we can turn King and Main into 2 way streets or fewer lanes then everything else will start falling into place.

[fastcarsfreedom]

The point I'm trying to make is that calling the mall "oppressive" or "a dive" is hyperbole. Without launching into a discussion about the merits and drawbacks of brutalism as an architectural-style, the mall has not suffered from a tenancy persepective based on style--otherwise there would be no patrons/tenants in the so-called underground cities (PATH & RESO) in T.O. and MTL. When the mall was fully leased out and filled with patrons, it was plenty lively (at a time when some of the true brutalist elements like the concrete honeycomb-type precast ceiling, uniform signage and brown carpet were in full effect). The City Centre--built in the de riguer Milanese galleria style of the late 80s/early 90s--is everything JS isn't--bright, airy and sickeningly pastel--yet it was a nearly complete failure from a retail perspective from day one. My point? The market--not design, drives success.

As for the deal with Yale for what was then Civic Square (Civic Centre was used in reference to the City Hall/Hamilton Place/AGH/HCC lands)--as far as I know it's a pretty locked-in deal and the City is bound by the terms. Yale has stepped it up as far as seeking tenants for it's office towers--I'm still waiting to see more action from them on the retail portion--some of their projects (like the Food Court) were a good start--I'm really looking for them to capitalize on the revitalized Market--that Market Court area has huge potential.

[FairHamilton]

Originally Posted by omro

There are two?

I remember going into one, past a bank on the left, a tim hortons dead ahead and wandering around this dark twisting set of corridors past shops I'd never heard of until I found the farmers' market.

I wasn't aware there was another.

You were in the 2 without even knowing it. That was the same as me when I moved here 3 months ago......

[BCTed]

I would like Jackson Square and the City Centre if they actually had more than a couple of decent stores --- I can't believe that Roots is still hanging in there. The malls are just full of too many low-quality no-name stores, much like the rest of downtown.

I like the fact that Hamilton has a large downtown shopping complex --- it sure could be convenient on bad-weather days if it had any stores of interest to me. I like the idea of having shopping, food, the library, a movie theatre, the arena, and a hotel all under more or less one roof.