downtown2007 wrote:Never said it was currently interesting. But it would be more interesting if we had more stores that provide goods and services by local owners, instead of a crappy suburban chain store that everybody thinks is the only place to buy household goods.
And by creating a certain amount of stores, it would increase foot traffic also making downtown a lot more interesting.
I have been to the City Target in the South Loop in Chicago which is nothing more than a big box store void of any foot traffic.
I guarantee that "more stores that provide goods and services by local owners" would not be considered more interesting than a City Target opening downtown. A downtown Target would be a huge story and would garner the attention that locally owned stores couldn't.
Hey Alex, can we have a poll to see which would be more interesting?
Bottom line: If a City Target opened in downtown, they will probably sign a 15 year lease (at least). Which will then signal residential developers to build around it. A locally owned store, would probably sign a lease of 5 years or less and would have a less impact on ancillary development.
I don't live downtown to be subjected to big box retail that can be found in any suburb in America. I moved downtown to get away from that. Independent business and local owners are what makes the city interesting.
While we are all pulling for Target lets throw in an Olive Garden, Marshall's, and a Sports Authority.
downtown2007 wrote:I don't live downtown to be subjected to big box retail that can be found in any suburb in America. I moved downtown to get away from that.
Per Wikipedia:
The first CityTarget will open in 2012. CityTarget is the name for a smaller-format, downtown Target store aimed at the urban market. The assortment will be edited towards urban living, but will carry many of the same products. The stores will still look and feel like Target but many will be multilevel stores in existing landmark buildings, not the usual strip mall or stand-alone locations. The first stores are set to open in Seattle, Chicago, Los Angeles, Portland, Oregon, and New York in mid-2012, with San Francisco to follow in October 2012, and Charlotte and Puerto Rico in 2013-2014. Reflecting CityTarget's urban concept, the Seattle store will be incorporated into the three-story base of an existing residential tower as part of a mixed-use development.
This is not "big-box retail that can be found in any suburb in America." It's only available in cities, and a select-few cities presently, at that.
downtown2007 wrote:While we are all pulling for Target lets throw in an Olive Garden, Marshall's, and a Sports Authority.
Your logic is far off-base. As has already been repeated by myself and others in this thread, Target fills a very specific need (perhaps the last major need for downtown residents) and would promote stability and encourage growth in the neighborhood in a way that small independent businesses simply could not.
The same cannot be said for "Olive Garden, Marshall's, and a Sports Authority."
I've always thought that an office supply store is needed. There's the FedEx/Kinko's, but they don't have a great selection.
A store that sells electronics would be nice. Not as big as a Best Buy, maybe something closer to a Radio Shack, and I know one used to be downtown at St. Louis Centre. (Thinking of this because my headphones broke recently, and I realized there was no place to purchase these downtown, that I know of.)
Target (or a City Target, as people are mentioning) might satisfy both of these needs.
And for those who hate going to Brentwood for Target, don't forget there's one in the City at Hampton/Chippewa.
There's not much in the way of mom and pop type of retail space available downtown now that much of those storefronts are gone or sitting in a state of flux. What's a mom and pop going to do with 3K square feet? Do a search, there's almost nothing with less than 1K square feet (which is still kinda too big). It almost seems like anything with small storefronts was looked at as bad and then demolished. That little stretch of Locust near Culinaria has three or four storefronts that could be a great little block of things but what's going on there? There's a continually vacant storefront again near Culinaria across from Mark Twain next to Pita Pit. Prime location but always empty. I imagine the rent just doesn't make sense for anyone to take a chance. I know capitalism is unfashionable but you have to at least make a small profit. A storefront can't exist simply for our entertainment and to make us feel better.
Also, downtown isn't really in the mix when you're talking about the "people who like to operate storefronts" demographic. There's hella entrepenurial spirit out on Olive Blvd. and other strips but downtown just isn't on their radar because nobody they know lives anywhere near it.
Let's not forget the Collective. Look at the list of retailers and I hear it's growing. It appears that many retailers who wanted to be downtown found the Collective concept a lot more desirable than the traditional storefront setup.
downtown2007 wrote:I don't live downtown to be subjected to big box retail that can be found in any suburb in America. I moved downtown to get away from that.
Per Wikipedia:
The first CityTarget will open in 2012. CityTarget is the name for a smaller-format, downtown Target store aimed at the urban market. The assortment will be edited towards urban living, but will carry many of the same products. The stores will still look and feel like Target but many will be multilevel stores in existing landmark buildings, not the usual strip mall or stand-alone locations. The first stores are set to open in Seattle, Chicago, Los Angeles, Portland, Oregon, and New York in mid-2012, with San Francisco to follow in October 2012, and Charlotte and Puerto Rico in 2013-2014. Reflecting CityTarget's urban concept, the Seattle store will be incorporated into the three-story base of an existing residential tower as part of a mixed-use development.
This is not "big-box retail that can be found in any suburb in America." It's only available in cities, and a select-few cities presently, at that.
downtown2007 wrote:While we are all pulling for Target lets throw in an Olive Garden, Marshall's, and a Sports Authority.
Your logic is far off-base. As has already been repeated by myself and others in this thread, Target fills a very specific need (perhaps the last major need for downtown residents) and would promote stability and encourage growth in the neighborhood in a way that small independent businesses simply could not.
The same cannot be said for "Olive Garden, Marshall's, and a Sports Authority."
Target is the answer!
Sounds like a group from Wal Mart trying to sell the community on how great of an economic development tool they are.
I suggest visiting the Target in the South Loop. Quite a miserable experience.
"Not as interesting as Mom and Pop", perhaps but this is supposed to be a CITY where we have lots of options. That means those who like Target can shop there and those that like small mom and pop can shop there.
The problem with most retail shops in DT is that we do not have foot traffic or anchors to draw people. Aside from Culinaria and the MX, which I think will do well. But after looking at many spots DT for my business, I don't see how a retailer would find most of our streets appealing. Not enough people walking around... A Target in BPV or in the base of a new high rise on Tucker (Us bank property) would be great!
I have owned my condo for 6 years downtown... I am tired of waiting for Mom and Pop to come in and fill the storefronts. If we don't fulfill the promise of amenities, then I don't think DT will continue to grow.
If you want a fully functional neighborhood, you need a store like Target to stock all the random household goods that are useful, but too low value for a mom and pop to bother with. Target can sell this cheap stuff people need (cleaning supplies, storage bins, diapers, cheap clothes) and still make a profit. Mom and pop usually have to focus on something a little niche and slightly higher end since they are moving much fewer units of merchandise, thus they can't compete on the cheap stuff. For instance, if you have a high end cooking store like Kitchen Window next door to a Target, both with survive because they each fulfill a different market need. Have you ever seen a mom and pop discount retailer? I haven't.
That said, Target isn't the only answer. Ace and True Value neighborhood stores can often perform a similar function, plus they provide tons of useful hardware and stuff if you're doing reno work or need trash bags or a snow shovel or whatever. The key is you want a retailer that that stocks useful random stuff and whose image says "middle class." There have been a lot of discussions of dollar stores on these retail threads (other discussions, not this one I think), and while a functioning business is a functioning business, a place like The Dollar Store sends a different message about the neighborhood to a prospective resident than a Target. Similarly, a profusion of unique niche retailers sends a message to a broader middle class segment of prospective residents that a neighborhood might be a little too pricey.
downtown2007 wrote:I don't live downtown to be subjected to big box retail that can be found in any suburb in America. I moved downtown to get away from that. Independent business and local owners are what makes the city interesting.
While we are all pulling for Target lets throw in an Olive Garden, Marshall's, and a Sports Authority.
It's easy to agree that if the choice was 4 independent retailers offering what a city Target would offer, and a city Target, well, I'll take the small shops. But that doesn't seem to be the choice. What would you need? An affordable clothing store for the whole family, a hardware store, an appliance store, a toy store...
I still believe a full service pharmacy like Walgreens or CVS is a more likely addition to the downtown retail market. This would fill the biggest need for tourists and would source many of the same items residents can find at Target.
Discount retailer.
Hardware store.
Optometrist.
Breakfast place.
Coffee shop.
New and used books.
Kids bookstore with chickens and cats.
Toy store.
A variety of local dining establishments for families, price points, singles, after hours, etc.
Music and musical instruments.
Brewery.
New furniture store.
Decor/home store.
Fancy gym.
Snap Fitness.
Kitchen store.
Printing/copying/UPS.
Bank.
Tax service.
Gallery/framing/design goods.
Bike shop - new/used/repair/accessories.
Regular Schnucks (e.g. not Culinaria).
NCGA affiliated Co op grocery.
Men's clothier.
Women's clothier.
Fancy shoe store.
Fashion shoe store.
Running store.
Used clothes.
Drug store.
Cell phone store.
Oil change/auto service center.
Liquor store with good micro selection.
Laundromat.
Music venue.
Dry Cleaner/tailor.
Paper/party/stationary, etc store.
Every neighborhood should be within walking distance of 80% of all of the above. Do all of the above, you've got a plan for the whole city.
moorlander wrote:I still believe a full service pharmacy like Walgreens or CVS is a more likely addition to the downtown retail market. This would fill the biggest need for tourists and would source many of the same items residents can find at Target.
Yeah, the lack of a CVS/Walgreens is just completely baffling to me. How can Indy/Columbus/Cleveland/etc. have at least one of these and not STL? I know the history of them closing, but it still doesn't make sense. I mean, Cleveland has TWO CVS stores downtown. There's no way CLE has more downtown workers, visitors or residents.
One or more of the following: Urban Outfitters, Gap, American Apparel (KC has one before us?), Zara, etc.
I would rarely shop at these stores... but as long as we have a younger population living downtown, we might as well cater to popular tastes. Hopefully, downtown can start to steal a little of Frontenac's thunder...
Alex Ihnen wrote:
There's no way CLE has more downtown workers, visitors or residents.
I wouldn't be so sure about that.... downtown Cleveland is pretty robust. You've got a growing downtown population, growing downtown University, city, county and federal offices, and still significant daytime working population.
Alex Ihnen wrote:
There's no way CLE has more downtown workers, visitors or residents.
I wouldn't be so sure about that.... downtown Cleveland is pretty robust. You've got a growing downtown population, growing downtown University, city, county and federal offices, and still significant daytime working population.
I spend a lot of time there, but I guess I would like to see the numbers. Perhaps I'd be surprised. That said, I don't see the same number of large hotels there, nothing at all like Washington Avenue...the stadiums are similar, but the Browns' home is quite removed from downtown. There's a ton of surface parking lots, etc...
^ Downtown Cleveland is still a major legal and banking center and remains an entertainment hotspot with the Flats, Playhouse Square, House of Blues/E 4th strong centers. Seems like things are coming along nicely along the dense Euclid Corridor with BRT. New projects online include The Medical Mart and the Flats East project (with a hotel and 20 story tower that will be home to Ernst & Young, etc.) is further evidence of its resiliance despite population loss for the city and county.
I do agree that the large surface lots across from Public Square scream for development, but as a whole I suspect there is less surface parking than in Saint Louis downtown (may depend upon how you define downtown). I always got the sense when living in Cleveland that downtown was bustling and I've only been getting that same experience here the past few years. (A great urban feel is exiting the rapid stop at Terminal Tower.... now that is class from the past!)
Anyway, I think both Saint Louis and Cleveland -- struggling cities but with downtown growth -- underscore the societal trends that dense urban environments are desirable. I'm quite optimistic about downtown STL's future and am sure we'll see more retail in the coming months and years.
moorlander wrote:I still believe a full service pharmacy like Walgreens or CVS is a more likely addition to the downtown retail market. This would fill the biggest need for tourists and would source many of the same items residents can find at Target.
Yeah, the lack of a CVS/Walgreens is just completely baffling to me. How can Indy/Columbus/Cleveland/etc. have at least one of these and not STL? I know the history of them closing, but it still doesn't make sense. I mean, Cleveland has TWO CVS stores downtown. There's no way CLE has more downtown workers, visitors or residents.
I seem to recall seeing two of each in Cincy.
Then again, we used to have two downtown Walgreens stores up until about ten years ago. While we now have fewer office workers, we have significantly more residents downtown. I'm amazed we haven't been able to lure more than the mini CVS in the AT&T Building.
Downtown2007: I respect your passion, but I think you’re off here going against the Target concept…
Consider the bigger picture: If a major retailer sets up shop in Downtown STL, it will validate the area as worthy of investment. From that, other retailers would be more inclined to consider Downtown STL for their locations, whether that be drug stores or restaurants. Mom & Pop / Immigrant Stores don’t necessarily have the financial backing of a major retailer, i.e. Salt of the Earth, one of my favorite stores, closing their Downtown location a few years ago while the Sprint store nearby stays open.
Assuming the City Target model is more appealing to the dense, urban consumer market than the South Loop Target is, it could work well. I would happily shop there. Also, remember that Walmart is also expanding with urban-designed stores, so if you’re anti-Walmart, then act to get City Target in first. As for my friends in Downtown & Northern Chicago, they drive across the Dan Ryan to Costco, ten minutes max from River North.
Focus: Going by retail, I’d like to see World News; City Target; Walgreens; American Apparel; Chipotle; either Jos. A Bank or Men’s Wearhouse; something comparable for women’s wear; some good shoe stores; and Apple in Downtown. I’d also like some branded clothiers along Locust, say Abercrombie, Express, or Banana Republic in 2-story open layouts, bringing in traffic to a more multifaceted shopping experience than currently available in malls. And, I want all of these to complement the Downtown Macy’s, the true hub for retail in Downtown.
Just south of Downtown, say around Broadway and 4th, I’d love to see a Costco. There are spots for mid-box retailers like Costco along Choteau between the Truman Parkway and 14th, and that area sure could use some life besides King Louis Square. A little drive, or a longer walk, will not just be amenable to Downtown residents, but also to Soulard, Lafayette, Benton Park, and even the CWE.
What does Downtown need more than retail?
It needs major employers in professional services, companies that will have demand in Class A office buildings. I want Downtown to have more accountants, attorneys, architects, marketers, advertisers, consultants, investment professionals, and other professionals that earn six figure salaries and are full of back-office employees. I know that the big goal has been for corporate relocation of major companies, which are very hard to land and are relatively rare. And in this pursuit, these efforts are more often like silver bullet redevelopment projects, which is why groups like the Arch Grants are so important, getting smaller companies that will grow organically and develop long-term roots to the area. While we should still hunt these large “relocations”, nurturing start-ups based in Downtown is invaluable, and their basing in Downtown will provide the market for these retailers we want to see come in.
Fill the office buildings with companies, and retail options will blossom.
Considering how cut-throat the competition between Walgreens and CVS has been recently, I wouldn't be surprised to see one or both downtown in the next few years.
An ideal scenario would be if a pharmacy took up all of the MX retail along Locust:
Or maybe a location in BPV with a gaudy/glitzy design like Walgreens in New Orleans and Times Square.
New Orleans:
Times Square:
The new Municipal Courts development garage could also be a good option.
GC, again it's not that a city Target would be bad - and I understand the dynamics - it's that it would water down downtown to the point it's not a place I would want to be. I also think the need for a Target is overstated.
Still need a Walgreens/CVS and some stores unique to the region. UNIQULO, Mango, C Wonder, etc....
I understand not wanting to live near a prison, or a toxic waste dump, or a refinery, or a mill, or a sports stadium, or a power plant, or a high-traffic shopping center.
Because Target and Macy's are not even close to the same thing.
Target fills a need that no other store downtown currently does.
Not only that, but as I and others have said, it would demonstrate real, major, long-term, stable investment in the neighborhood, providing and example for other businesses.
I might turn your question on its head and ask what's so bad about a Target? So far the only real answer I've seen from you is something along the lines of it being too "mainstream" and not "alternative" and "indie" enough for you.
Strip the development aspect out of the conversation and I can get everything I currently need without leaving downtown. Too many former suburbanites seem to want to move down here and complain they do not have some if the suburban stores like Target, Wal Mart, etc
So strip a huge part of the conversation out, and you can get everything you need which is mysteriously up from 80% of what you need a few hours ago. Got it.
It's like Alex said, if it were a choice between Target, and a few "unique" stores selling everything Target has (at Target prices), then I'd be all for it. OneCity explained pretty well why that won't happen.
