urbanSTL

arch city wrote:

I think Shapiro has a good point. It helps encourage stores who are scouting locations and brokers marketing locations to have a big national retailer nearby who is going to draw in shoppers of a similar ilk.

Okay. So if that’s the case, what happened?

Generally speaking, why has the area around Macy’s downtown been so moribund and underwhelming for so long? Even when downtown had more workers and a steady increase in residents, the stores kept drying up.

The MX District, as fresh and new as it is, hasn’t been able to land national retail tenants yet. Why? Other than Foot Locker and Macy’s, why are no other national-brand retail stores downtown – not even a dollar or drug store in the heart of downtown? Why?

With a fairly stable downtown workforce and a continuously rising residential population, why? With a robust convention and tourism industry downtown, why? Why is it that a city of 320,000 people - over 15,000 of them downtown and growing - has no mainstream retail in its downtown. It's odd.

In my opinion, there’s been an unspoken practice and accepted culture of steering national retailers away from downtown St. Louis. Could it be……they are trying to keep a particular populace at bay? Scared of too many of “them” being downtown? I don't know.

And no. I don’t have "evidence" or proof, so don't ask, but what other plausible explanations are there because the demographic argument is way past dead to me.

Well it seems to me that retailers aren't comfortable with our "fairly stable downtown workforce" etc. And im sure our crime stats play an issue. It's really not that odd, I just dont think people want to admit it - we're not good enough. We haven't reached that point yet where these retailers want to be downtown. The time will come.

wabash wrote:So downtown's retail woes are caused by a racist redlining conspiracy by real estate brokers? They're keeping national chains from opening up downtown so that black people don't shop there? Seriously? What decade is this?

I thought this was nextSTL and not the stltoday.com comments section? This just got way out of hand. arch city, it looks like you're an administrator. Can you please remove your own post for an overabundance of incendiary BS?

Ummm. No.

Why have you assumed I was referring to black people? Who said that? Why was that such a trigger. Perhaps I was referring to poor people - of all backgrounds. Further if you read back a few pages I said that "Downtown St. Louis isn't too good for dollar and discount stores". And regardless of the decade, human prejudice is alive and well.

RallySTL has an idea for a City Target in Cupples #7. It has a lot of votes. Perhaps Target will take notice and decide to build a City Target downtown. Probably not in Cupples #7 (sad face), but hey, maybe it could go where Macy's was. I don't know, maybe I'm just being too optimistic. But I believe in this city.

Thank You kbshapiro for continuing to bring some reality to these discussions..Please don't get frustrated and give up. I think many of the rest of you shuld pinch yourselves and wake up to the realities of retail. We all want to improve Saint Louis, but constructuve criticism is needed to help us forge an improved future.

arch city wrote:

threeonefour wrote:And it is in one of the most depressing suburban areas I've ever seen outside of Metro Detroit.

Where? Because that is a big stretch. There are pockets of old dead and barely occupied strip malls, but most of the housing stock is good - old - but good. Also, there are areas near Jamestown that are rural and are full of old-time ranches.

I don't think it's a stretch, but then I don't mean to write off all of North County either. I just wouldn't want to live there- despite all of the stable areas and well-kept homes- because it seems like a sinking ship in so many ways. Closed stores, closed parishes, and it seems like so many people and places that are actually still around are now somewhere in or near St. Charles. I don't mean to paint with a broad brushstroke, but the decline there is just so sad to me.

It would be great if a City-Target landed in the soon-to-be ex-Macy's space.

Agreed. It would be the best fit by far, as it would not require subdividing the space. It could occupy the first two- perhaps three- floors quite easily. I have not yet been to the CityTarget that occupies a portion of the former Carson's flagship on State Street in Chicago, but it shows that something similar could work within the Railway Exchange Building. It would also come the closest to filling the void Macy's will leave behind for workers, tourists, and convention goers that need not just clothing but also convenience items. I just think the absence of a comprehensive plan for downtown retail that perhaps doomed Macy's may also make it difficult to attract a true anchor like CityTarget. Does anyone at City Hall or DTSLP have the bollocks to pull something like this off? And can they make it happen without charging customers 12 or 13% sales tax?

If Arch City would just read what I say in my posts, we'd be on the same page.

So, I'll say it again...A SUCCESSFUL Macy's would attract other national retail. Its not just about having a Macy's downtown. It's having one that's making a lot of money. Then competitors swoop in to either play off their traffic generation and/or take away some of their revenue. Simple, logical business common sense.

As for your point about Payless Shoe, Family Dollar, Dollar Tree being able to make money downtown (but don't have stores there even though there's space for them), I guess you're smarter than them and know their business models better than the retailer themselves. They have enormous research/analysis departments and very smart real estate and operations people that make deals across the US. If they feel they'd make the ROI they need in Downtown, they'd open a store regardless of an anchor national retailer or not. I don't know why you can grasp this concept.

Your comments about brokers "steering" is such BS, I'm not going to comment further about it.

kbshapiro wrote:If Arch City would just read what I say in my posts, we'd be on the same page.

So, I'll say it again...A SUCCESSFUL Macy's would attract other national retail. Its not just about having a Macy's downtown. It's having one that's making a lot of money. Then competitors swoop in to either play off their traffic generation and/or take away some of their revenue. Simple, logical business common sense.

As for your point about Payless Shoe, Family Dollar, Dollar Tree being able to make money downtown (but don't have stores there even though there's space for them), I guess you're smarter than them and know their business models better than the retailer themselves. They have enormous research/analysis departments and very smart real estate and operations people that make deals across the US. If they feel they'd make the ROI they need in Downtown, they'd open a store regardless of an anchor national retailer or not. I don't know why you can grasp this concept.

Your comments about brokers "steering" is such BS, I'm not going to comment further about it.

How much does downtown's crappy infrastructure, streetscapes, and lack of vision (sound planning) have to do with it not landing us much investment as similar cities like even Cincinnati and Pittsburgh? You said Denver has a much better downtown than St. Louis, which is hard to argue with, but downtown St. Louis has so much more unrealized potential and character. It just seems that places like Denver, Dallas, Portland even Kansas City take more pride in their downtown presentation than we do. Instead of spending millions of dollars trying to lure a retailer like Macy's or Target, The Partnership for Downtown should be filling out grant applications and holding fundraisers for streetscape improvements and beautification etc. What happened on Washington Ave could be replicated on Locust, Olive, and Pine. Where is the vision? The city and developers could also benefit from renting storefronts for a cheaper price to small businesses/entrepreneurs instead of having a slew of empty storefronts. Some money and activity is better than none. At least until we can build that critical mass, which is obviously another decade or two off.

Offered without comment...although, I did face palm.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/ma ... &cid=print


Lost among the news articles regarding Macy's departure ("Macy’s closing downtown is end of an era," May 21) and the decline of shopping is the major reason for downtown's demise: parking. More specifically, the lack of free parking. Why would people pay to park downtown when they could park for free at a suburban mall?

In addition to three major department stores, downtown St. Louis once boasted five cafeterias and a like number of five-and-dime stores, numerous men's and women's clothing stores and shoe stores, fine-dining establishments as well as fast-food joints.

Katz had two drugstores with lunch counters — one at Eighth and Washington and the other at Seventh and Locust across from Famous-Barr — that drew shoppers and downtown workers.

I'm reminded of a cartoon that appeared in the Post-Dispatch several years ago. A man is telling his wife "there used to be plenty of places to shop downtown, but no place to park. Now there are plenty of places to park, but no place to shop."

I guess those quarters from parking meters were more important than having a thriving downtown shopping district.

Bob Caito • St. Louis

kbshapiro wrote:If Arch City would just read what I say in my posts, we'd be on the same page.

So, I'll say it again...A SUCCESSFUL Macy's would attract other national retail. Its not just about having a Macy's downtown. It's having one that's making a lot of money. Then competitors swoop in to either play off their traffic generation and/or take away some of their revenue. Simple, logical business common sense.

As for your point about Payless Shoe, Family Dollar, Dollar Tree being able to make money downtown (but don't have stores there even though there's space for them), I guess you're smarter than them and know their business models better than the retailer themselves. They have enormous research/analysis departments and very smart real estate and operations people that make deals across the US. If they feel they'd make the ROI they need in Downtown, they'd open a store regardless of an anchor national retailer or not. I don't know why you can grasp this concept.

Your comments about brokers "steering" is such BS, I'm not going to comment further about it.

But kbshapiro, you are leaving out an important point. Do these national retailers have extensive research and development depts when deciding on a location? Yes. However, what is the research and metrics that go into choosing a new location. They use data such as household income in a certain diameter, along with population, workforce, families, etc. But probably the most important piece of data is the performance of existing stores in such area. Since national retailers are public companies, all their data is available to the public. One can look to see how an individual store is performing in a certain area which obviously provides substantial guidance when choosing a location. If Citi trends wants to open a location in Brentwood, they can see how other comparable stores are doing in that area to determine if it is feasible for them. Downtown is at a disadvantage because national retailers do not have that data to use for guidance despite the fact the area may be ride for some national retailers. They had Macys, but it’s gone. And if they were to use the data for the Macy’s store, it wouldn’t have explained the fact that it was disinvested and poorly managed but instead just screamed poor sales. Therefore, it wouldn’t have explained the entire picture. In addition, research depts cannot use sales figures from local boutiques - which downtown has - since it is not available to the public.

That’s why we need an approach like Whole Foods which is more ad hoc. They actually visit the neighborhood they want to open a store in, and speak with local businesses, leaders, and residents to gauge whether opening a store is feasible. It more of an old fashioned approach, but it has obviously been very successful model for them. They have revitalized neighborhoods and created opportunity for other national retails since Whole Foods is a public company and their data is available to be purged.

So my question to you (the real estate professional), is how do we get national retailers to look beyond the stats, metrics, and data they use when determining a location, and take more of an approach that Whole Foods uses? Can the real estate brokers open national retailers eyes to the unrealized potential in the downtown market instead of just doing as the national retailers say? Can the real estate brokers see the potential in downtown and maybe pitch it to the national retailers?

Please believe me the demand exists. There plenty of residents, workers, and tourists that need these stores and would shop at them. Culinaria took a chance and has been successful. How can we make this work?

Alex Ihnen wrote:A city needs to project an image of vibrancy and invest is streetscapes, etc. In short, a city needs to have a plan - everything from returning phone calls to completing paper work in a timely fashion. St. Louis doesn't excel at this. There's no reason there isn't a CVS or Walgreens downtown, for example, and simply dismissing such an idea by saying I must think I'm smarter than their corporate research departments is really missing the point.

If that's the case why then is Washington Avenue lined with mom-and-pop businesses - including retail, a movie theater, restaurants, hotels, a brewery, corporate and IT businesses etc. If the city was all that bad why was there an award-winning Four Seasons developed, Cupples Station restoration, Citygarden, Peabody Opera House, construction of the SLU Law School, new ballpark and BPV, MX District, planned renos of the Arcade-Wright, Roberts Tower, Mayfair, Jefferson Arms etc. etc.

We could even go outside of downtown to CORTEX. Why has one of the world's most successful start-up incubators chosen St. Louis for its first expansion? Look at BJC, Forest Park, Carondelet Coke, North Riverfront projects, the CWE and infrastructure projects too numerous to count. This demonstrates how the city is working to get things done.

And at one time, I think the regional office of Walgreen's vowed to never return to downtown because of the Century flap. It's not the city's fault Walgreen's chose not to see the vision.

Of course we always want more and/or perfection. And although there's likely more work to be tightened up (referencing the FBI investigation in the the Parks Department), the city has done a lot in recent years to build and maintain businesses, improve customer service, response to businesses and other city stakeholders.

More work needs to be done, certainly, but St. Louis is a whole lot more vibrant and accountable than it has been in a long time.

arch city wrote:

Alex Ihnen wrote:A city needs to project an image of vibrancy and invest is streetscapes, etc. In short, a city needs to have a plan - everything from returning phone calls to completing paper work in a timely fashion. St. Louis doesn't excel at this. There's no reason there isn't a CVS or Walgreens downtown, for example, and simply dismissing such an idea by saying I must think I'm smarter than their corporate research departments is really missing the point.

If that's the case why then is Washington Avenue lined with mom-and-pop businesses - including retail, a movie theater, restaurants, hotels, a brewery, corporate and IT businesses etc. If the city was all that bad why was there an award-winning Four Seasons developed, Cupples Station restoration, Citygarden, Peabody Opera House, construction of the SLU Law School, new ballpark and BPV, MX District, planned renos of the Arcade-Wright, Roberts Tower, Mayfair, Jefferson Arms etc. etc.

You're both right. The difference is, the vast majority of the great things that have happened in downtown are the result of infrastructure improvements (the Washington Avenue streetscape, Citygarden) or proximity to complementary developments (Cupples Station to Busch Stadium III, SLU School of Law to the courthouses, and the Four Seasons as part of the larger Lumiere Place development). Unfortunately, the city never made infrastructure improvements to Olive, Sixth, and Seventh streets a priority, and those three streets were home to the majority of retailers in downtown pre-St. Louis Centre. So you had great things that happened over the last decade, nice and independent retailers scattered throughout downtown, and no real plan to connect the dots or to make shopping more attractive in general. That's why so many of these smaller retailers either closed or moved elsewhere in the area, and that's why the downtown Famous-Barr/Macy's store was never able to realize its full potential even with downtown unquestionably on the rebound.

Famous-Barr was already an island unto itself when Dillard's turned the former Stix, Baer & Fuller into a clearance center in 1999, only to leave in 2001, because St. Louis Centre was far gone by then. But May Company remained committed to Famous-Barr downtown, even as it eliminated events, curtailed display window decoration, and shortened hours of business. The store became a loss leader for the division, but it apparently never became enough of a liability for May Company to consider closing it. A Post-Dispatch caption from 2004 highlighted the new escalators on floors 1-4, and referred to the multi-million dollars investment as a sign of Famous-Barr's presence in downtown "for decades to come". But by the time Federated bought May Company in 2005, converted Famous-Barr to Macy's the following year, and eliminated over 2,000 jobs upstairs in 2007 and 2008, Macy's really became even more isolated. The #1 thing it had going for it even in its darkest days- a steady flow of business from May Company employees- was gone.

I think The Count's take of Macy's plans for downtown is spot-on: They did and said all of the right things- from the 2006 grand re-opening and block party to the revival of long-dormant holiday traditions- just long enough to shake down the city for millions of dollars to renovate the store. Obviously Macy's came nowhere close to spending that money on the actual store, either. Downsizing the store made sense from a practical standpoint because it was no longer feasible to keep seven floors open when the merchandise was spread so thinly. But Macy's management couldn't have seriously thought customers would go for closing the two restaurants (which DID draw a steady crowd and customers into the store, especially Papa Fabarre's), the skybridge access, or a refusal to offer validated parking with purchases (well, they did during the holidays as part of their PR shell game, and that was it).

During one of my many shopping trips there, I was told by employees that they were told Papa Fabarre's may re-open if the numbers justified it. But if you looked closely at the separate article about fate of the Railway Exchange Building in Tuesday's P-D, sales decreased 18% just between 2011 and 2012. Customers didn't buy the "less is more" strategy. And the ones that may have done some shopping before or after lunch probably didn't bother to come back either. And the holiday events were scrapped once again. So that was probably a load of bull fed to employee's by Macy's, which was already making plans to cut its losses and then cut and run long before the end of its lease.

Back to the point at hand, though, I believe infrastructure and making the surrounding area attractive matters. And the city never made that a priority, not when it had so many other irons in the fire. As a result, even with a much more active and vibrant downtown than we had 10 or 20 years ago, the true core- the traditional retail core, that is- will be more hollow than ever very soon.

Alex Ihnen wrote:A city does need to market to retail outlets. A city needs to project an image of vibrancy and invest is streetscapes, etc. In short, a city needs to have a plan - everything from returning phone calls to completing paper work in a timely fashion. St. Louis doesn't excel at this.

This is really it. There was a time a major retailer was interested in downtown stl. And all they wanted, was to feel wanted. Sounds ridiculous I know, but thats all the city had to do - reciprocate interest. Since the retailer felt unwanted, they decided against researching further. The city will tell you that this retailer "is no longer interested in the downtown market." Which isn't false, but the reason is because the city fumbled. And I know I keep saying it, but crime is an issue as well. You know how the media is here - "One murdered near downtown Macys". Headlines like that aren't a local issue for the company, they're national. No retailer wants that.

Alex Ihnen wrote:^ Obviously some truth to this (quite a bit), but national retailers have formulas for expansion. It's not an exact science or else Dollar General would never close a store and would be even more successful than they have been. A city does need to market to retail outlets. A city needs to project an image of vibrancy and invest is streetscapes, etc. In short, a city needs to have a plan - everything from returning phone calls to completing paper work in a timely fashion. St. Louis doesn't excel at this. There's no reason there isn't a CVS or Walgreens downtown, for example, and simply dismissing such an idea by saying I must think I'm smarter than their corporate research departments is really missing the point.

This is correct. In comparison to other cities, I think St. Louis could do a much better job promoting itself to retailers. Just came from ICSC RECON (my industry's annual convention) and a bunch of cities from St. Louis MSA were out there pitching their city to the retailers and showing them vacant spaces/ land. Bridgeton, Ellisville, Clayton, St. Ann, OFallon, St Charles, Troy, Ferguson, Wentzville all there that I can remember. No St. Louis City presence.

arch city wrote:Do you know how successful downtown Houston is nowadays. It is booming at this time. New hotels, new towers, new streetscape, new retail, new performing arts centers, a new major league soccer venue, new condo towers under construction and planned, refurbished buildings being restored into apartments, lofts and hotels, and a new convention center hotel that is already about to expand.

Downtown Houston has a Cordish entertainment center, The Shops at Houston Center and new rail lines under construction from downtown. Houston has numerous underground pedestrian tunnels with numerous retail stores in them. These underground tunnels CONNECTED to Macy’s and numerous very large office buildings.

In 2008, a developer built the successful The Houston Pavilions right across from the downtown Macy’s. Right across the street.

None of the new businesses came to downtown Houston because of Macy’s or any other "anchor" store. They came because DEVELOPERS built projects that ultimately brought them in – just like the redone 600 Washington project in the MX District is doing and like what Cordish is planning for the BPV.

[And for the record, downtown St. Louis has more residents, way more hotel rooms and more tourism than downtown Houston.]

Point is, there was money to be spent and new retail all around the downtown Houston store – which was the only major department store downtown. Yet, Macy’s closed the downtown Houston store.

Doesn't Houston have like record job growth? No comparison. Maybe, Macy's just didn't work there. Maybe the rent was set to increase on their next renewal and it wouldn't be economical for them to continue to operate. There's always a lot of factors.

And (most) developers aren't going to build on spec in downtown St. Louis. We just don't have the fundamentals for that.

Downtown2007:

"But kbshapiro, you are leaving out an important point. Do these national retailers have extensive research and development depts when deciding on a location? Yes. However, what is the research and metrics that go into choosing a new location. They use data such as household income in a certain diameter, along with population, workforce, families, etc. But probably the most important piece of data is the performance of existing stores in such area."

KBS - True, all those factors play into their decision. They also compare their successful urban stores in other cities, then compare the data between St. Louis and that City to get a sales projection. Then they run the analysis to see if the ROI is high enough to do the store.


"Since national retailers are public companies, all their data is available to the public. One can look to see how an individual store is performing in a certain area which obviously provides substantial guidance when choosing a location."

KBS - I don't believe this is true. Where can you find retailers data for individual store performance? If you know, please let me know so I can provide that data to our clients as to how their competitors are doing.


"Downtown is at a disadvantage because national retailers do not have that data to use for guidance despite the fact the area may be ride for some national retailers. They had Macys, but it’s gone. And if they were to use the data for the Macy’s store, it wouldn’t have explained the fact that it was disinvested and poorly managed but instead just screamed poor sales. Therefore, it wouldn’t have explained the entire picture. In addition, research depts cannot use sales figures from local boutiques - which downtown has - since it is not available to the public."

KBS - agree, no store performance data to use certainly hurts. Again, if we had a successful anchor type retailer, then the data would be there.


"So my question to you (the real estate professional), is how do we get national retailers to look beyond the stats, metrics, and data they use when determining a location, and take more of an approach that Whole Foods uses? Can the real estate brokers open national retailers eyes to the unrealized potential in the downtown market instead of just doing as the national retailers say? Can the real estate brokers see the potential in downtown and maybe pitch it to the national retailers?"

KBS - yes, we can and will continue trying to get our clients to look at downtown. Lets say (to use a simple number) that the Macy's did $10 million (don't know what they actually did, just a number) in annual sales. With Macy's closing, that creates a sales volume void Downtown where a similar retailer like Ross, TJMaxx, Marshall's, SteinMart, etc could come in and takes those dollars in theory. Plus, it creates a vacancy (just the first floor) that would probably be easy to back fill. There's opportunity there.

kbshapiro wrote:

arch city wrote:

kbshapiro wrote:If Arch City would just read what I say in my posts, we'd be on the same page.

So, I'll say it again...A SUCCESSFUL Macy's would attract other national retail. Its not just about having a Macy's downtown. It's having one that's making a lot of money. Then competitors swoop in to either play off their traffic generation and/or take away some of their revenue. Simple, logical business common sense.

I have accepted and understand what is plausible for you. I've given you credit for being closer to the industry. But here’s what I see.

Do you know how successful downtown Houston is nowadays. It is booming at this time. New hotels, new towers, new streetscape, new retail, new performing arts centers, a new major league soccer venue, new condo towers under construction and planned, refurbished buildings being restored into apartments, lofts and hotels, and a new convention center hotel that is already about to expand.

Downtown Houston has a Cordish entertainment center, The Shops at Houston Center and new rail lines under construction from downtown. Houston has numerous underground pedestrian tunnels with numerous retail stores in them. These underground tunnels CONNECTED to Macy’s and numerous very large office buildings.

In 2008, a developer built the successful The Houston Pavilions right across from the downtown Macy’s. Right across the street.

None of the new businesses came to downtown Houston because of Macy’s or any other "anchor" store. They came because DEVELOPERS built projects that ultimately brought them in – just like the redone 600 Washington project in the MX District is doing and like what Cordish is planning for the BPV.

[And for the record, downtown St. Louis has more residents, way more hotel rooms and more tourism than downtown Houston.]

Point is, there was money to be spent and new retail all around the downtown Houston store – which was the only major department store downtown. Yet, Macy’s closed the downtown Houston store.


Foreground, Houston Pavilions. Right, tan building is Macy's.

kbshapiro wrote:As for your point about Payless Shoe, Family Dollar, Dollar Tree being able to make money downtown (but don't have stores there even though there's space for them), I guess you're smarter than them and know their business models better than the retailer themselves. They have enormous research/analysis departments and very smart real estate and operations people that make deals across the US. If they feel they'd make the ROI they need in Downtown, they'd open a store regardless of an anchor national retailer or not. I don't know why you can grasp this concept.

I disagree.

Seriously. How serious does a dollar store business model have to be? It's a dollar store. There are dollar stores in neighborhoods in parts of the city where only three people live – and two of them are unemployed. Come on.

The harping on a dollar store is simply to demonstrate how serious the retail absence is downtown. Well, at least Schnucks has Culnaria downtown.

kbshapiro wrote:Your comments about brokers "steering" is such BS, I'm not going to comment further about it.

I'm not suggesting YOU are doing it. Don't take it so personal.

I don't know Houston very well, so hard for me to comment. I would just say its the 4th largest city in the US and 2nd most Fortune 500 companies in the US. So there's more money, growth, and demand there for large scale development. For you to say St. Louis has more residents, hotel rooms and tourism than Houston is unbelievable to me. Please provide the proof of this.

I think a Dollar store would do well downtown. Like you. I also think a CVS/ Walgreens would do good as well. For some reason, these types of retailers don't feel the same yet.

Just an FYI... the Macy's store in downtown Houston did not close because it was under performing, it closed because they lost their lease. The owner of the building Macy's was in plans on tearing it down to build a new office tower. Macy's is actually looking at other options to locate a new store in downtown Houston.

http://blog.chron.com/primeproperty/201 ... -to-close/