Macy's closing 4 Downtown stores across US

[dc_denizen]

Does anyone have info on the total retail sq footage in american downtowns? might be interesting to compare trends.

[Tuckerman]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I really wouldn't mind Macy's on State St in Chicago closing. As long as the building remains and some key elements of it (Walnut Room, etc). The space can be redeveloped into a hotel, or a combination hotel/tech office space with commercial space at the base.

When Marshall Fields was removed, I think most people stopped caring.

I agree with this sentiment. I am definitely a senior citizen and remember well when downtowns were defined by the big local stores regardless of city size: Younker's in Des Moines, Hutzler's in Baltimore, Marshall-Field's in Chicago, Rich's in Atlanta, Filene's in Boston, etc. etc. etc. Each was a little different, each was a little special and locals were often proud of their showcase. Corporate America is not interested in such social nostalgia and we simply have to live with the fact that every city is defined by being retail identical.For me, the defining store now is the closest Costco.

[spyguy]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I really wouldn't mind Macy's on State St in Chicago closing. As long as the building remains and some key elements of it (Walnut Room, etc). The space can be redeveloped into a hotel, or a combination hotel/tech office space with commercial space at the base.

When Marshall Fields was removed, I think most people stopped caring.

That may already be happening:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2...ial-buyers-for-stakes-in-flagship-stores

[pdxstreetcar]

Originally Posted by spyguy

That may already be happening:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2...ial-buyers-for-stakes-in-flagship-stores

They just did this in Seattle and I think this is the arrangement in Portland when The Nines hotel went in above. I think this, in Chicago, is the same.

Sounds almost like Vulture Capitalism where they are more interested in the real estate holdings of the company and where the "parts" or pieces are seen as of greater value than the "whole". Greyhound is going through a similar thing, selling off their big stations for redevelopment and building new cheap stations under overpasses. No interest in improving the core business, just selling off assets and stripping things out until there is nothing left.

It would be nice if the US could have real department stores again like in Europe and Asia, and also like what we used to have... 500,000-1,000,000 sq ft of everything, stacked vertically and downtown.

[mhays]

The Seattle building is something like 800,000 sf. The store will be I think 400,000 sf (maybe less) on five levels. The top floors were only partially used for retail, and didn't get a lot of sales volume. Adding potentially 2,000 office workers upstairs will make the area busier. Great location for offices, right above Westlake Station. No added parking.

Originally Posted by wanderer34

So it's a symbol of American arrogance and American glutton of wanting American cities to be "like NYC" when cities like Pittsburgh (Kaufmann's) and St Louis (Famous-Barr) should strive to be themselves and not carbon copies of NYC!!!

It has nothing to do with any city "wanting to be like NYC". It's business, for better or worse.

[mhays]

One problem is the American idea of needing cheap n easy parking, and no traffic congestion on the way there. Most downtowns, mine included, have less local drive-to money coming in than a major suburban mall.

We rely on a combination of sources. One is people living inside the first ring of malls, including some that drive and some that don't. The quality of transit is huge for this. The amount of spending power held by close-in residents is also a huge factor. Another is the captive downtown population. Another is office workers and event-goers.

But the really good downtown retail tends to have a heavy tourist element. If you have 10,000 hotel rooms and 200 guests per room per year, that's 2,000,000 people. Many of those people spend hundreds or even thousands on clothes, jewelry, whatever. Some come specifically to go on shopping sprees.

In fact, the good retail downtowns tend to have all of the above.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by shadowbat2

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll...108&Kategori=BIZ&Lopenr=301080119&Ref=AR





Here's where the Macy's + Bloomingdale's in Miami are going:

source

Maybe not. MWC was redesigned and now Macy's and Bloomingdales may drop out:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=7295141#post7295141

[Minato Ku]

Originally Posted by mhays

The Seattle building is something like 800,000 sf. The store will be I think 400,000 sf (maybe less) on five levels. The top floors were only partially used for retail, and didn't get a lot of sales volume. Adding potentially 2,000 office workers upstairs will make the area busier. Great location for offices, right above Westlake Station. No added parking.

I think that 400,000 sq ft is still too much for a department store in the downtown of a medium large city in USA.

USA is not Japan where department stores are still the heart of retail business.

Looking on internet, I see that the selling space will be 283,000 sq ft.
It is already a lot

The Macy’s store will remain open and operating in the lower level plus levels one through four of the landmark building, shrinking its current selling space from 363,000 square feet to 283,000 square feet. All 265 current employees will remain at the store, the company said.

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/retail/macys-sells-top-4-floors-of-downtown-seattle-store/

[C.]

I'm surprised the rise of online shopping hasn't hastened the decline of department stores like Macy's.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Minato Ku

I think that 400,000 sq ft is still too much for a department store in the downtown of a medium large city in USA.

USA is not Japan where department stores are still the heart of retail business.

Looking on internet, I see that the selling space will be 283,000 sq ft.
It is already a lot

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/retail/macys-sells-top-4-floors-of-downtown-seattle-store/

Thanks for the numbers.

Reported sizes are for stores are all over the map. If they want to sound big they use the more inclusive figures. My guess was more about inclusive floor area.

[scalziand]

Originally Posted by CIA

I'm surprised the rise of online shopping hasn't hastened the decline of department stores like Macy's.

Clothing is something that's it's still nice to try on before you buy it.

[C.]

Originally Posted by scalziand

Clothing is something that's it's still nice to try on before you buy it.

Even then, there are more online retailers popping up like Indochino. It's an interesting concept in that they have physical locations where you get measured, but all shopping is done online. Clothing and accessories, along with custom-made suits are made to the exact measurements and shipped to your door. It will be interesting to see if this concept gains traction. Prices are cheaper because they don't have to pay the same overhead associated with a gigantic retail store.

[wanderer34]

Originally Posted by IWant2BeInSTL

It has nothing to do with any city "wanting to be like NYC". It's business, for better or worse.

I know it's business!!! I just don't think that using the Macy's name was a viable long-term solution for cities like Chicago, Boston, and Philadelphia!!! It was basically using a name associated with NYC and white-washing other cities culture and making them conform their local cultures to that of a NYC shopper, which was wrong, IMHO!!! If I had a time machine, I would do everything to stop a landmark like Marshall Field's and Filenes from going the way of the dinosaur like Wanamakers and Strawbridges have gone!!!

[jpdivola]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Does anyone have info on the total retail sq footage in american downtowns? might be interesting to compare trends.

Yeah, it would be interesting to see what is happening to retail trends. DT housing and bars/restaurants are nice. But, I think you need a true walkable, urban retail civic district to truly be a true "city."

I guess my perception of the cities that have downtown shipping districts are basically: NYC, CHI, SF, BOS, PHILLY, SEATTLE, probably DC (100% if you count Georgetown) and then maybe Portland.

Then you have a mid tier with some retail and maybe a 70s era pedestrian mall or an 80s era downtown mall. Then you have some that have almost nothing, save maybe some legacy stores that serve office workers.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by wanderer34

I know it's business!!! I just don't think that using the Macy's name was a viable long-term solution for cities like Chicago, Boston, and Philadelphia!!! It was basically using a name associated with NYC and white-washing other cities culture and making them conform their local cultures to that of a NYC shopper, which was wrong, IMHO!!! If I had a time machine, I would do everything to stop a landmark like Marshall Field's and Filenes from going the way of the dinosaur like Wanamakers and Strawbridges have gone!!!

Seconded.

Not that I think Macy's is a bad store, I do go there from time to time. But why would you buy a brand like Marshall Field's and just wipe it out? Dumb asses...

[bobdreamz]

Originally Posted by scalziand

Clothing is something that's it's still nice to try on before you buy it.

I think a lot of people don't actually realize that clothes shopping is a experience. It's a whole different vibe and yes I do spend more in a brick & mortar store.

[McBane]

Originally Posted by mhays

One problem is the American idea of needing cheap n easy parking, and no traffic congestion on the way there. Most downtowns, mine included, have less local drive-to money coming in than a major suburban mall.

We rely on a combination of sources. One is people living inside the first ring of malls, including some that drive and some that don't. The quality of transit is huge for this. The amount of spending power held by close-in residents is also a huge factor. Another is the captive downtown population. Another is office workers and event-goers.

But the really good downtown retail tends to have a heavy tourist element. If you have 10,000 hotel rooms and 200 guests per room per year, that's 2,000,000 people. Many of those people spend hundreds or even thousands on clothes, jewelry, whatever. Some come specifically to go on shopping sprees.

In fact, the good retail downtowns tend to have all of the above.

I agree with this for the majority of US cities. But for the small handful of US cities with a large downtown population, dense/walkable streets, and above average transit - strong and diverse retail is a necessity, not a nice-to-have for the tourists and office workers. I'm thinking Chicago, NY, Philly, DC, Boston, SF, maybe a few others but not many downtowns in the US have those characteristics needed to support retail.

[Tuckerman]

The "downtown" department store is alive and well in Europe. Recent visits to Paris and Berlin make this very clear. They still have that "vibe" that characterized our downtown stores across the USA in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. I grew up with Marshall-Fields in Chicago and it was to the city what the NFL teams are today. It was a "thing" to go there, not just to shop, but to participate in the experience that was the store itself. Similar experiences were felt in cities across the country, even in those cities that are now seen as lacking downtown shopping such as Houston or Atlanta.

Now even the suburban Dept. stores are closing. E.g. in Atlanta the downtown Macy's has long been closed; in addition the Flagship Dept. store for Atlanta, Rich's, long ago left Downtown for the so-called suburb of Buckhead (now a major secondary downtown), only to become a Macy's. This week the Dekalb Mall anchor Macy's in the close-in suburbs is closing.

I believe that we have come to the end of the significant department store in American downtowns and we should just regard them as an interesting piece of our history. A few will remain for a while in a few cities and they should be supported by shopping in them; however, economic forces will continue to erode these few remaining institutions.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Tuckerman

I believe that we have come to the end of the significant department store in American downtowns and we should just regard them as an interesting piece of our history.

There are five new department stores being built in Manhattan alone- a Neiman Marcus, a Barneys, a Saks Fifth Avenue and two Nordstroms. The existing dozen or so department stores are doing very well and many are expanding. Macys is doing a half-billion renovation of its flagship, and Bloomingdales, Saks, and Bergdorf Goodman are also doing huge renovations.

My sense is that the other U.S. cities with healthy retail environments are also doing quite well. The problem is less department stores and moreso the massively over-retailed environment in the U.S. We have far more retail per person than Western Europe, so the weaker stores are getting killed.

In most cities (the Cincys and St. Louis type cities) the downtown department store was the weak link in the regional retail environment, so those stores are getting hurt. Those cities don't really have retail cores anymore. But I bet you the top malls in those respective metros are doing very well, with little vacancy, and thriving department stores.

Compare a typical U.S. city to an equivalent European city, and you will see we have far too much retail. Case in point- I was recently in Lansing, MI, a small city of around 100k with maybe 300k in the region. There are three or four main retail clusters in the metro, all with malls, department stores, etc. That's unsustainable in the long-term. An equivalent European city will have one major retail cluster, in the city center. Combined with greater internet shopping penetration in the U.S. and you will see the weaker malls, downtowns, and department store locations close, while the healthier ones thrive.