Post Number: 119
|Posted on Sunday, May 18, 2008 - 12:14 am: || |
Thank you for this thread, as I am a commercial real estate agent and my company currently represents one of the main strips on lower Woodward. As we speak, there is a convention going on in Las Vegas called the Int'l Council of Shopping Centers Convention and reps from most of the retailers listed will be attending. My firm, as well as other commercial real estate companies, and even the City of Detroit and DEGC will be there trying to sell these retailers on the potential that exists in Detroit.
I am a firm supporter of any business, national or local that is willing to take a chance on Detroit. Many national companies look at their bottom line, and in the past they have had better investment options than Detroit and have chosen to expand their businesses elsewhere.
This is the first time in recent history that Detroit has been in a position to be a major competitor against other markets as we have seen many new developments and at least the density is increasing in Downtown/Midtown. I firmly believe that we will start to see more "chain" stores moving in Downtown over the next few years as Detroit is more attractive than ever, and is prime real estate!!
Post Number: 2627
|Posted on Sunday, May 18, 2008 - 6:03 am: || |
I agree with Waymooreland that the CBD would be wise to go after stores that aren't in the Metro Detroit area. A downtown Dillard's or Bloomingdale's would be unique to Detroit because the store would have the only store for miles. A person who lives in the suburbs and likes shopping at one of these stores would have to come into Downtown Detroit because that's where the nearest one would be. Having the only Hardrock Cafe in Metro Detroit in Downtown Detroit makes it unique. If they expanded to the suburbs, then that would be the end of the downtown location.
Having one of a kind stores or restaurants in Detroit works best for Downtown Detroit. They become destinations spots for locals and frequent tourists. Vicentes, Sweet Georgia Brown's, Seldom Blues, and the Detroit Brewery Company appear to all do well because they are the only restaurants of their kind in the Detroit area. A tourist or suburbanite might be more comfortable seeing an "Applebee's" downtown, but their experience at one of these one of a kind places like Vicente's is what they'll be talking about to their family and friends, not about the Applebees's they went to in Troy down the street from their hotel.
Post Number: 1360
|Posted on Sunday, May 18, 2008 - 10:17 am: || |
I also agree with Royce and others. Having a place like Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Applebees, etc in Downtown would not be effective because they exist in almost every surrounding suburb. Restaurant wise it would be great to see places that didn't exist everywhere, places that would become destinations for suburbanites. Chipotle, Cheesecake Factory (this would really attract suburbanites), PF Changs, etc.
Retail wise, we also need a strong anchor that doesn't exist in many other places so that they would be the start of a shopping destination. Places like the mentioned Dillards, heck some outlet stores would be welcome as people would rather drive to Downtown instead of Howell, Ikea should move into the OLD MGM (however that would not spur surrounding retail). After a big anchor store takes over a prime spot on Washington BLVD then small chain stores like Express, BR, GAP, H & M, etc could move in. Which I think would be great for places like Studio Couture, Rags, etc because it would highlight their stuff even more because by comparison they carry more unique items.
Post Number: 858
|Posted on Sunday, May 18, 2008 - 10:34 am: || |
Wazoot, don't forget 3rd avenue hardware in midtown! (an independent!)
Post Number: 2146
|Posted on Sunday, May 18, 2008 - 11:11 am: || |
ok, so we figured out teh issue about teh lack of retail in downtown Detroit.
In my opinion, even places like Applebees or Targets will work if there's something unique about the location.
Look at Chicago for example. their suburbanites come downtown simply for the urban shopping experience. if we provided that here, then our suburbanites would do the same.
Hudson's or Crowley's were good, but they were poorly marketing their stores.
For example, if someone were to go to Hudson in the 1970s (Detroit was still a regional shopping destination), they would tell you the item was only available at their Eastland or Northland stores.
Instead of having their more popular or limited items at their flagship store, they put them in their suburban stores. So the suburbanites had no reason to travel downtown.
I also agree an Anchor would really spur off downtown retail. No one goes to a shopping mall for the small boutiques, but rather the giant *one-stop shop* department stores. Then as they are walking to and from their cars or transit shops, they would see the smaller boutiques and probably stop and look around (window shop).
The problem now is having downtown seem attractive to the anchor stores. How can we make it seem as if downtown Detroit is a profitable environment for their store?
Post Number: 4366
|Posted on Sunday, May 18, 2008 - 11:15 am: || |
Look at Chicago for example. their suburbanites come downtown simply for the urban shopping experience. if we provided that here, then our suburbanites would do the same.
I think this is a bit oversimplified. The problem in Detroit is people. The stores in Chicago survives because there are hundreds of thousands of workers and hundreds of thousands of residents within a short radius. You can't expect to have a plethora of retail options predicated solely on the hope that suburbanites drive downtown to shop there because of a "unique" location.
Post Number: 1361
|Posted on Sunday, May 18, 2008 - 11:18 am: || |
" their suburbanites come downtown simply for the urban shopping experience. if we provided that here, then our suburbanites would do the same. "
I dont think I agree with that. Detroit Suburbanites are cut from a completely different cloth. Remember, many Metro-Detroiters Hate detroit. They hate it, hate everything about it, and dislike any urban environment. Were Chicagoland folk take pride that they are from the greater chi-town area, thus they participate in its urban environment.
For Detroit to attract regional shoppers it would take a big idea, not only a target. Although, I do agree that suburbanites also like to see the familiar, they need something to attract them their first. The urban environment wont do it alone when they hate the city that it belongs to.
Post Number: 1389
|Posted on Sunday, May 18, 2008 - 12:12 pm: || |
That's right, Mike. Detroitrise, what you said about the limited availability of items at downtown Hudson's was correct. But more importantly, too many suburbanites were SCARED to come downtown, and the parking issue sealed their reluctance.
Post Number: 239
|Posted on Sunday, May 18, 2008 - 2:16 pm: || |
In chicago, I took the Metro train and noticed that all meet at one end point in the heart of downtown so your in walking distance to all retail, bars, shops, and work. At all hours there were crowds. I think it works because you have to go through, or pass downtown.
Post Number: 368
|Posted on Sunday, May 18, 2008 - 4:59 pm: || |
Ravine, I get what your saying about chains, I do. I'm all for the little guy first and such. The good thing about 7 Eleven is how many little family owned stores are able to increase there sales with them. It was a concept that worked. Some people just aren't big risk takers. Owning a franchise is a way for the little non-entrepreneur to open his own place, without risking house and home. They also offer help with financing and tons of other help. Also, they are one of the few franchises willing to help newbies get started. Several of their franchisers are first time business owners. They also work with current owners to increase sales. Many owners who convert end up making a lot more money, and both sides really benefit from each others help.
Now, I'm not a 7 Eleven cheerleader here. I've just gotten a really good impression after talking to them a few times, as well as hearing nothing but good from franchisees.
There is a long list of why there are no 7 Elevens in Detroit. And, unless I'm mistaken (you may know something that I do not?), none of those reasons are because they think they are to good for Detroit. It really seems like it has a lot to do with who chooses to franchise their stores. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they are still scouting for franchisers willing to open within city proper? Maybe I'm wrong about this company. I thought they were one of the semi decent ones. It's hard for franchisers to enter the Detroit market. They have to find someone with the desire, the means, the experience, and the time to spend at multiple stores. Not only that, but they also have to find someone who would be willing to open one despite the fact they could open a few miles away in the suburbs for about half the cost. To top it all of, that person must also be willing to spend all there time managing a convenience store chain in a City that provides some pretty high risks and not enough payouts.
Even if all the chains in Michigan alone were willing to lease out to Detroiters, there wouldn't be enough Detroiters to take advantage of them all. Sad, but true? A big reason there are none of some of your favorite chains in the CBD is not because they don't want to open here. It's more so because they can't find anyone willing to open them here. Detroit just isn't on par with other near by areas. That is a huge part of the real reason you see franchises opening in highly competitive pools in the suburbs, and not in the under served urban areas. Not enough of our own residents are taking advantage of these situations. And when they do, it makes more sense to open without a big and well known name on their sign, because there is no competition. Chains will come when business owners have some competition to fight against. All a franchise is is a tool/weapon in the game. It's a way to get experience and a well known name without putting in the work and failures of building your own brand.
As many have already stated in this thread, why would anyone buy a chain name and system if they are fine without one? It's the reason I'm not, and probably the same for others on here.
Chains and corporate owned places are more for the suburbanites and tourists. The boutiques and mom and pop shops are for the locals. Not that they can't cross over, or anything. I'm just saying they all have a place. That's not a new concept. Go to Europe and check out the differences between a local and a tourist pub. Both have a place.
Now if you asked why Detroit's suburbanites tend to choose chains over equal locally owned places, I couldn't come up with an answer.
Post Number: 2628
|Posted on Sunday, May 18, 2008 - 10:53 pm: || |
Sean_of_detroit, I hate to rain on your analysis on why there aren't 7-Elevens in Detroit, but it really comes down to crime. The last 7-eleven I can recall in Detroit was on East Warren, east of Cadieux. When I would go in there they had a center island for the cashier and there was no bullet-proof glass surrounding this island. Even the ones in the suburbs have no bullet-proof glass, but at least they have been situated in safer neighborhoods than the ones in Detroit.
I can't recall if any specific event happened at the 7-Eleven that I mentioned, but I know I would really have to be desperate for a job and couldn't find anything else before I would ever take a job as a cashier in a 7-Eleven, especially one in Detroit that has no bullet-proof windows.
Maybe the 7-Elevens in Detroit couldn't find enough workers willing to work under those working conditions described above, so they had no choice but to close their remaining stores in Detroit.
Again, Sean_of_Detroit, the fact that there are no 7-Elevens in Detroit may simply be because of crime in Detroit. Crime, a store with a lot of cash on hand, and no bullet-proof windows around the cashier, makes for a very unenticing business for any would-be investor or worker.
(Message edited by royce on May 18, 2008)
(Message edited by royce on May 18, 2008)
Post Number: 2629
|Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 6:35 am: || |
Target is the store that has the best chance of doing well downtown. With the garage below, the Hudson's site makes sense regarding adequate parking for shoppers. However, architectural purists here would argue that the Hudson's site needs something larger and taller in scale. Maybe so, but nothing has come up yet for anyone to want to build anything there. Can a Target exist on the first floor and a Rock Financial type business exist above the Target?
Post Number: 49
|Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 1:26 pm: || |
Royce, there's some irony in your post in the sense that Target IS Hudson's. Everything new is old again.
They didn't change the name of the company from Dayton-Hudson Corp to Target Corp until a few years ago---shortly before divesture of the department store division. To this day a few of the old JLH management are still in Minneapolis.
Target (& recently even Wal-Mart) have been much more cooperative and flexible with redevelopment agencies & community groups in adaptive design and architecture for specific markets.
IMO, this helped contribute to K-Mart becoming an also-ran.
KM created a specific cookie-cutter design, and ignored the requests of developers & city councils to modify it. For example, they had a hard line policy that a KM was never to have an entrance that would connect it to other stores in a shopping center (i.e. "mall entrance").
Wal-Mart did the same thing until recently. At first they both sat by and watched Target successfully move into formerly vacant mall/shopping center space (esp old Montgomery Wards) and often-overlooked urban locations.
Now all three are looking at more functional, adaptive designs. I believe Wal-Mart has a Manhattan location in the works. K-Mart tried & failed. Of course, this is more of an indication of how far NYC has fallen in terms of ugly homogenization, rather than how Wal-Mart has ascended in creativity.
Ultimately this is both the simultaneous beauty & disgust in the evolution of capitalism.
Post Number: 477
|Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 2:06 pm: || |
If developers would stop sucking up green space for 5 minutes maybe the Targets of the world would look closer at Cities. But where are they pitching the Vegas Retail show to locate? M-5 and Pontiac Trail in Commerce Township.
Post Number: 845
|Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 2:51 pm: || |
I am not against chains, at all, as long as they keep the urban-style of development. That's what I care about - frankly, chain stores moving in will help everyone's property values, and add more life to the streets; not to mention provide more shoppers and foot traffic for the niche owners who NEED that foot traffic.
Professorcott - about Starbucks - would you call three downtown locations not building there?
GM Rencen, Millender, and Buhl. Last place left that they could logically put something is Greektown. I think, right now, the places to invest would be Greektown if you could some damn land, financial district or anywhere around C-Mart.
Unfortunately (or fortunately), we're if you look around closely enough, starting to run out of storefronts to fill that are in the high-traffic area save for Woodward north of Gratiot, and that's starting to come along. Some of those places should be open later or whatever, but they're filling up.
As for my want - Yo Quiero Taco Bell! We need one downtown.
Post Number: 4383
|Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 2:58 pm: || |
If developers would stop sucking up green space for 5 minutes maybe the Targets of the world would look closer at Cities.
Developers build where they make money, and they build in the form dictated by zoning regulations. Want a Target (or anything else)? Develop a customer base. This isn't rocket science.
Case in point: Target opened a store in the Columbia Heights neighborhood of DC about 2 months ago. Ten years ago, not even McDonald's would go into that neighborhood.
Post Number: 122
|Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 3:34 pm: || |
If we are all so concerned about the need or lack thereof for more retail downtown or Detroit proper for that matter...how about call these companies and speak with someone in their real estate department and find out why they are not investing in the City, or inquire about their expansion plans. Most have info on their website or u can visit plainvanillashell.com for a full list of most nat'l retailers and their corporate office ph numbers. Let's be more proactive...I get so tired of people making blind, uninformed opinions about things that it would take 10 mins to research!!
I firmly believe that many retailers are not aware of the opportunities that now exist in Detroit, as much of the major developments and progress has just taken place over the past few years. The City has just recently taken on more retail initiatives, and obviously had not previously been very effective in their attempts. I firmly believe that grassroots attempts are just as effective as any, and we can all work together to get their attention!!
Post Number: 2172
|Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 3:50 pm: || |
Detriotmaybe, if it were that easy, we wouldn't be here discussing the lack of retail in Detroit.
Post Number: 1277
|Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 3:54 pm: || |
want to know why there aren't more stores downtown?
check this out
compare it to the foot traffic in 1954
no people = no stores
Post Number: 124
|Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 4:27 pm: || |
I never said that it was easy..anything worth having ever is!! But, being proactive is something that everyone on this board can do to find out whats going on and why more companies have not invested in Detroit. I am a commercial real estate agent and I speak with people all the time that have never really considered expanding in Detroit as they are not familiar with the market potential that exists. They have to be educated, and if they don't know...it is our job to tell them!!
I know that it will take time...but, we have to put the bug in their ear now so that when they start researching new markets Detroit is a consideration! When you consider the fact that most National retailers that are based out of state have literally thousands of other markets to choose from, it is incredibly naive to think that Detroit is at the top of their list!!
Oftentimes, they watch the news reports, and already have a pre-conceived notion about the perceived negative image that Detroit has, and many don't take the time to do any market research to really find out what market potential exists because in the past Detroit has always had this stigma.
We are starting to shed that image, and more and more retailers are starting to view Detroit as a viable option. It will take time...we have come along way in just 5 years, and realistically it will take a few more years for us to get where we wanna be.
It will take a lot of work...and no it's not that easy but, we can all play our part!!
Post Number: 480
|Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 4:39 pm: || |
I'm always amazed how totally dead CMart is, even for vehicles at "rush" hour. How do they get their cars in all those garages anyhow? Maybe CMart should be one big smoking area to attract some activity (kidding).
Post Number: 1709
|Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 4:39 pm: || |
"For better or for worse, the risk-averse chains aren't going to make a go of things until they see locally-owned businesses can succeed."
^^ Do you really think that? If I were a chain I would not be looking to mom and pop shops as an indicator. No offense to any of the good ones.. but many small operations aren't run properly, don't promote, advertise etc.. so they set them self up for failure.
Many chains already have advertising in place and market research to support why they are there and who they should cater to. Many small ops don't have either and won't last, so I disagree with your statement. Beyond all that, they don't have the deep pockets to really last during the slow periods and pay benefits etc as well as the chains.
Post Number: 4388
|Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 5:19 pm: || |
Have you ever a chain anything open in a neighborhood that completely lacked successful locally-owned businesses?
Post Number: 6849
|Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 5:21 pm: || |
^ Sure. Haven't you ever visited the outer sprawl of Metro Detroit? One day there's a wetlands, the next day there's a McMansion subdivision with lots of chains in the strip mall at the corner! No locally owned businesses to be found.
Post Number: 848
|Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 5:29 pm: || |
Actually, mom and pop stores I believe are commonly used as indicators.. if there are ones springing up, there may be a market but it's an execution fail (which is a big reason why mom and pops fail - that and being under-financed).
The independent shop that makes it is actually the rarity - it takes tenacity, planning, and money to make that happen (you make luck happen by making the right choices, so I don't believe in saying it).
Usually, independents do better with a chain around - it drives traffic that they siphon off and/or share if the businesses are complementary. For instance, I would say Ephs and Starbucks are complementary. Go to lunch/dinner, get coffee afterward. Or, get coffee with a friend late in the afternoon, go over to Bangkok Thai for dinner to keep the conversation going.
It's not adversarial if played correctly. There is a reason why so often you see Taco Bell next to Mr. Pita next to Burger King next to Arbys...etc in bunches - because people want to go to a single place and have all of their choices.
Post Number: 32
|Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 6:45 pm: || |
The coldstone in greektown is busy like whoaaaa. I'm sure other chain stores would do fine, but I'd love to see more local joints like Slows.
Post Number: 532
|Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 10:53 pm: || |
The only chains I like are the ones on my bicycle. Oh, okay, I like REI.
Post Number: 1634
|Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2008 - 5:35 am: || |
This thread reminds me of these whackos:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/05/ MN7J10H3VB.DTL&tsp=1
An independent merchant who happend to sell Glidden Paint is being hassled about opening a store where a chain USED to be. Why hamper economic development? Look, like it or not chains will bring shoppers who will tend to buy at nearby stores. Have any of you noticed that Downtown and many of the neighborhood shopping areas are devoid of any stores or services? Do you like having to drive or bus several miles to get your groceries?
Most of the things folks hate about chains can be mitigated with a strong sign ordinance and enforcement of current laws.
Post Number: 444
|Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2008 - 9:39 am: || |
This might seem ridiculous, but if Taco Bell opened a storefront downtown I would jump for joy.
Post Number: 64
|Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2008 - 2:54 pm: || |
Good call on the Taco Bell! It seems so petty, but especially with the Gateway Project construction, that drive from downtown to the Kentucky Fried Taco Bell on Fort & Livernois just isn't cutting it anymore.
Post Number: 2631
|Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2008 - 4:50 pm: || |
There was a Taco Bell in Downtown Detroit years ago. It used to be on Michigan and Griswold where the Griswold garage is going up.
I think a small McDonald's or Burger King would have also done well where Au Bon Pain is located. That location or any location near Campus Martius Park would be ideal for one of these fast food giants. It would clearly get the lunch crowd and the ice skating crowd. Maybe one will go in the future development on Monroe. I definitely wouldn't mind having one of these chains downtown near C-Mart.
(Message edited by royce on May 22, 2008)
Post Number: 484
|Posted on Monday, May 26, 2008 - 3:48 am: || |
There is a Taco Bell in the food court at WSU. I know it's not the same, but if you really want Taco Bell, it's there. There is also a Arby's in the Ren Cen food court.
I just figured something obvious out that many of us haven't realized.
Franchise chains divide markets into zones. A group is chosen to buy these zones. This group is required to open so many restaurants in these zones. Sense they are so expensive to buy, most franchise zones are purchased by big companies. One example is how Schostak owns all the Burger Kings in Michigan. Others that do this are Subway and Tim Hortons. Taco Bell, KFC, A&W, and Pizza Hut hire a third party to find franchisees (often big companies).
Now here's the kicker.
Most of these companies are located in the suburbs, and their zones include Detroit. They seemed to have bought them for the suburban spots. They have no desire to open in Detroit proper. Oddly, they are choosing to over-saturate the suburban areas (opening twice as many locations there, and opening none in Detroit). The franchisers probably assume these companies know the local markets. They probably simply trust their judgment.
Many are located in Livonia. Even the offices for Kroger are located in the suburbs. They hate the city, or no nothing about it. They probably don't even know we're under served.
This is all guess work, but it makes so much sense (I think).
Hmmmm.... Looks like we might be on our own for a LONG time.
Seriously! If this is true, I wouldn't expect to many chains around here any time soon. Even those who did open locations in the city are only trying to serve the office workers from the Suburbs, or stereo type Detroit as only having a desire for chicken.
Post Number: 191
|Posted on Monday, May 26, 2008 - 11:53 am: || |
"This is all guesswork"
That part is correct.
Post Number: 304
|Posted on Monday, May 26, 2008 - 12:15 pm: || |
"Most of the things folks hate about chains can be mitigated with a strong sign ordinance and enforcement of current laws."
I think that statement is fairly naive. People are turning against chains because they want to see there local economies prosper. Yes, there is an aesthetic deterrent to the cookie cutter strip mall development, but their are bigger issues afoot. Anyone that would 'jump for joy' at a Taco Bell opening in their vicinity, isn't paying attention to what's going on in this ever shrinking planet. Chains are being vilified because consumers are becoming more intelligent and want responsible products manufactured at responsible factories paying responsible living wages transported within 100 miles and free of toxic chemicals.
Having said that, i think it funny that the planning board would shoot down a lease situation in an existing building just because the tenant is a chain. I smell a lawsuit brewing for discrimination. It shouldn't be up to the planning dept. to decide, let the consumers make the intelligent choice. Of course, that's making the assumption that people can actually make intelligent choices...
Post Number: 1640
|Posted on Monday, May 26, 2008 - 9:35 pm: || |
Like it or not chains are a draw. People identify with chain stores and these can be used to draw cultivate small locally owned businesses. Not many folks will drive to a certain district or downtown to shop at a locally owned place. However, if they are in the area, they will. Chains help support the local stores.
Chains do not have to be national in scope. For instance, Sander's is slowly re-appearing. At one point there were dozens of these stores. This is one of the main reasons why Rio Boutique and Hot Sams moved to Compuware from their previous locations. It makes good business sense to be identified as next to the Hard Rock or Borders.
Post Number: 309
|Posted on Monday, May 26, 2008 - 10:00 pm: || |
I wasn't trying to disclaim that. I just took offense to the simplification of a complicated argument that is founded on moral and intellectual principles and not simply based on how something looks. It is a phenomena that needs to be studied further and not just written off as being accredited to 'whackos'. Believe it or not, there is method to there madness.
And while i can understand that places like San Fran or even Birmingham locally, have the luxury to pick and choose what goes into their City due to the high demand and commanding price of real estate, it does not give Detroit an excuse to take whatever leftovers come our way or to bend over backwards in order to get them here.
i.e., A new CVS just opened up in Berkley on 11 mile and coolidge, and i'm actually very impressed with it's presence on the corner. It got that way because of a strong City Planning team that knew what they wanted to see, while still appreciating the economic stimulation that chains bring to the table. The CVS planners wanted a large setback with a huge parking lot in front. What they ended up with is very Urban and adds value to the corner and surrounding real estate.
So if it's chains you want, then concentrate on strengthening the neighborhoods so we don't have to rely on this city being a destination place. Let's make it a place that is supported by and grows upon the backs of its own citizens.
Post Number: 133
|Posted on Monday, May 26, 2008 - 10:40 pm: || |
I was thinking, as far as an anchor store would go, is attract Canadian department stores such as Holt Refnew, which could attract Windsorites who know what the store is and city dwellers/suburbanites who want to know about the store. Holt Refnew is comparable to Saks. Either that or a Sears Roebuck would be nice. I've said this before, but I hope one day to see Washington Blvd. become a Rodeo Drive type of avenue.
Post Number: 2222
|Posted on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 - 6:22 am: || |
In the 50s, Washington Blvd. was Detroit's own State street or 5th Avenue.
Unforuntely, it fell right along with the rest of downtown.
Post Number: 4393
|Posted on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 - 11:46 am: || |
I'd like to ask a dumb question. Reading this thread, it becomes clear that the intent of chain stores would be to attract people who live in the suburbs (or Canada) to shop in Detroit. What the hell happened to the customer base that already lives in the City of Detroit? How does one expect retail to be sustainable if it relies on people driving 10 miles one way to visit the store?
This is one of the main reasons why Rio Boutique and Hot Sams moved to Compuware from their previous locations. It makes good business sense to be identified as next to the Hard Rock or Borders.
Never mind the entire office building filled with well-paid employees. They don't count, right? It's only about "image".
Post Number: 3150
|Posted on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 - 12:05 pm: || |
What the hell happened to the customer base that already lives in the City of Detroit? How does one expect retail to be sustainable if it relies on people driving 10 miles one way to visit the store?
Clearly you've recognized by now, after years of reading this forum, that the residents of Detroit don't count; except when the blame starts flying for how and why the city (and region) has ended up as it did.
Post Number: 4394
|Posted on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 - 12:06 pm: || |
Post Number: 1642
|Posted on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 - 12:11 pm: || |
Dan these store's original locations were well within walking distance of CPWR HQ. CPWR employees alone won't keep Borders and Hard Rock in business.
If Borders has a bigger computer book department, and Hard Rock had locks of Steve Jobs or an original 8088 microprocessor on display......