The decline of New York's retail diversity? [Archive]

Punzie

December 28th, 2006, 06:46 AM

Competition is killing independent U.S. bookstores

By Mark Porter
12/27/06

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Empty shelves line a back wall of Coliseum Books in midtown Manhattan and a few customers flip through the remaining stock for bargains.

Since the early 1990s the number of independent bookstores in the United States has halved to about 2,500, according to a report in The New York Times.

Coliseum owner George Leibson said that while a lot of people were coming into the store to browse, they were not buying. Coliseum has spent the past four years on 42nd Street after moving from its home on 57th Street.
"We searched high and low for a high-traffic area, but it hasn't worked out," he said. "Chain-store sales and the Internet are far more practical. People will go to places closer to them. Places like Barnes & Noble."

Leibson also said that -- like the toy industry -- discounters such as Wal-Mart and Target have taken a big bite out of the bottom line of independent booksellers.

Maryann Wlock, a business manager, was a loyal customer of Coliseum when the store was located at 57th Street.

"I did all my shopping at Coliseum. But I never went to the new one on 42nd Street," she said. "I am loyal to Borders in the Time Life Building -- I get some great coupons and also get a credit based upon the money I spend with them each month."

Kate Bearce is closing her bookstore, Main Street Books, in Pella, Iowa, after 12 years of business.

"We have a Wal-Mart supercenter opening nearby soon. ... The Internet certainly takes a lot of sales" also, she said.

According to the most recent figures from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, retail sales at bookstores -- independent and chain stores -- were below 2005 levels in October for the fourth month in a row. At the end of October retail sales were down 1.8 percent for the year.

Bearce said the U.S. consumer needed to be educated about the importance of small businesses in the local economy. She said the customer will ultimately lose.

"Customer service is not the same. When somebody walks in this store I know them, their kids, their parents, their grandparents. I put books in their hands. That's what my customers really like," she said.

"I have many customers that tell me, 'If I send my kids to you, I know you will provide them with appropriate titles,"' said Bearce, adding that that kind of service cannot be duplicated at the bigger bookstores and discount outlets.

Deb Andolino, who is shutting Aliens & Alibis in Columbia, South Carolina, said lesser-known authors would suffer from the closures.

"If there's no one to recommend them to customers, they may not get their next book. And there's some really, really good mid-list authors out there," he said.

In New York, the closure of Coliseum has upset loyal customers.

"It's sad to see these little bookstores disappearing. I'm sorry to see it go. I used to go when it was on the West Side. ... I'm not happy," said a woman, who declined to give her name, as she searched for a bargain.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061227/us_nm/usa_bookstores_dc_2

This bookstore had a definite character, and I gathered a few online pics to pay tribute:

http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/images/general/nyc/coliseum.jpg

http://whatisee.org/mt/archives/images/coliseum-1.jpg

http://images.yelp.com/bphoto/RMKGNmlfmIl4iSXgbc26cQ/l

http://www.secretsofmarriedmen.com/images/ColBooks2_450w.jpg
Lecture/Book Signing on January 25, 2006

ZippyTheChimp

December 28th, 2006, 08:35 AM

http://img288.imageshack.us/img288/1267/cookbooks018np.th.jpg (http://img288.imageshack.us/my.php?image=cookbooks018np.jpg)

Greenwich St, north of Canal. Same block as 497, 505 Greenwich; around the corner from the Glass House, Zinc.

Hope they own the building.

pianoman11686

January 2nd, 2007, 12:41 PM

National chains transform Manhattan's most trafficked corridors

By Vanessa Weiman

Jason Pennington of Butler Kane sees national retailers changing the makeup of Manhattan thoroughfares like 34th Street. Even entire crowds can go upscale. While Manhattan's most popular shopping streets, like 34th Street and 14th Street, continue to attract throngs, they are also gradually expanding or transforming themselves, while other areas are now beginning to come into their own as shopping districts.

On an informal list of the top 10 most-trafficked retail intersections put together by brokerage Newmark Knight Frank, 34th Street and Seventh Avenue came in first. The Business Improvement District for the area recorded upwards of 9,000 people per hour coming and going at peak times. (By contrast, 42nd and Fifth Avenue, which is ranked eighth on the list, has 6,600 pedestrians per hour at peak hours.)

The criteria used for the Newmark list include Business Improvement District pedestrian counts as well as some counts done by the brokerage firm, the MTA's periodic counts of subway stop usage, and Newmark's tracking of sales per square foot of retailers throughout the city.

"When I think of the most trafficked retail areas of the city, I think of most of the two-way streets. Going downtown to uptown: 14th Street, some of 23rd Street, 34th Street, 86th Street and 125th Street," says Jason Pennington, director of Butler Kane Inc. All of these streets are still major contenders in the retail arena, Pennington says, but the makeup of the streets is changing.

"Eighty-sixth, 34th and 14th streets used to be very similar in a lot of ways, but now with national retailers coming in, things are a little different," he said.

The opening of Trader Joe's on 14th Street near Third Avenue this past year, for example, has changed where people shop in that area. "It brings people farther east than before," Pennington says. Other national chains that have appeared on 14th Street, such as Whole Foods and DSW, have also made 14th Street more of a draw for shoppers. As the street evolves, many of the smaller retailers that have long been part of the street's discount stores -- selling luggage, batteries and sneakers, often all in one space -- may have to leave as their leases come up in the next year or so, leaving landlords to entice higher-paying tenants into the spaces, Pennington says.

Large national chains that have opened on 34th Street, such as H & M and American Eagle Outfitters, have also forced some smaller stores to parts of the block that are less costly. "Some local stores, like T-shirt shops, are slowly being pushed to lower-rent parts of those streets, farther west or farther east," Pennington says.

However, larger stores on main streets also attract the presence of smaller stores that want to pick up their traffic.

"Accessories and clothing stores want to be on 34th, 86th, or 57th if they can afford it," says Pennington. "Both handbag boutiques and costume jewelry people want to be close to big stores; they can't be too far off by themselves."

86-ing weekends

One street that seems to be expanding its retail reach is 86th Street, ranked ninth on Newmark Knight Frank's list.

"We were always aware that 86th between Lexington and Third was a true nucleus of traffic, but at one point it was a five-day-a-week location. Then, about five or six years ago, retailers really started to understand the importance of the corridor and thought, 'We're sitting in the midst of lots of residential property,' so it evolved to a seven-day-a-week location," says Fred Posniak, senior vice president of W & M Properties.

Extell Development Corporation recently cleared a site for an apartment complex with stores on the ground floor on the southeast corner of 86th and Lexington, and the retail space is already spoken for.

"Barnes & Noble and H & M pre-leased space there before they put a shovel to the ground," according to Posniak.

In a transaction reported in last month's issue of The Real Deal, one of W & M's own 86th Street properties has a tenant who is so pleased with the location that they opened a second store across the street from their first.

"We reached out to one of our retailers -- Sprint -- a year in advance of their lease expiration," says Posniak, "and now they have a second location across the street at $400 a square foot," a record rent for East 86th Street, according to brokers.

Breaking down the Wall

One area of the city that is not on Newmark Knight Frank's top 10 list but which is garnering a lot of attention from retail brokerages as the next big shopping area is the Financial District.

"Wall Street gets 16,000 people an hour," says Darrell Rubens, managing director at Winick Realty.

While that kind of traffic would zoom it onto the top 10 list, numbers vary on pedestrian counts for Downtown. The Downtown Alliance offered the count of 120,000 people for the day at the corner of Broad and Wall, with 4,400 people at the peak lunch hour.

While the Financial District is typically perceived as dead on weekends, that is changing.

"I don't think people understand that Wall Street is that busy and it's getting busier every day, and every subway line converges down there," says Rubens.

Until fairly recently, Wall Street was not considered a place to look for a residence, much less to shop, but now luxury retailers such as Tiffany & Co. and Hermès are moving Downtown.

"Retailers who were neighbors on 57th and Fifth are running Downtown. Lots of retailers want to get a good deal and be next to Tiffany's and Hermès," Rubens says.

Retail rents Downtown are also appealing compared to other areas of the city, though prices are starting to go up.

"As a place to do retail, it's even a little late now because the prices are going up, but the prices are still so much more reasonable than other places in the city," says Cheryl Cohen, vice president of Mogull Realty. "I'm currently negotiating a deal there for under $80 a square foot."

Cohen adds that while prices are comparatively low, retail space can be very hard to find in the Wall Street area. "You have to dig for it," she says.

The great retail way

There is one street that brokers agree is always reliable for retailers: Broadway.

It is also the street that lands most often on Newmark's top 10 list: 34th and Broadway finished in second place, 42nd and Broadway in third, Broadway and Canal in fourth, and 14th and Broadway in seventh.

"The best street in my estimation is Broadway, from Washington Heights all the way down to the Battery," says Cohen. "Broadway has everybody."

Manhattan's busiest retail intersections

1. 34th Street at Seventh Avenue

2. 34th Street at Broadway

3. Broadway at 42nd Street

4. Broadway at Canal Street

5. Lexington at 59th Street

6. 57th Street at Fifth Avenue

7. 14th Street at Broadway (Union Square)

8. 42nd Street at Fifth Avenue

9. 86th Street at Lexington Avenue

10. Columbus Circle at 59th Street

Source: Newmark Knight Frank

Copyright © 2003-2005 The Real Deal.

MikeW

January 2nd, 2007, 01:51 PM

I think this is pretty much inevitable. For a long time, national retailers were scared of NYC (the high rents, the crime, the logistical difficulties, the high taxes, the regulation, the unions, etc). But a few tried, and made money. Now their all coming.

They have big advantages of scale over the locals. Add to this the fact that landlords love national credit tenants (they make the property more saleable). The final factor is probably the internet. If the nationals moving in didn't ding the locals enough, the internet is just piling on. The woman who sits next to me at work did all her xmas shopping on line, and she's far from unique.

Get used to dealing with the chains. There not only here to stay, but will likely keep squeezing out the locals.

gradvmedusa

January 8th, 2007, 04:47 PM

P&G Bar on the UWS is being replaced by a bank.

Fahzee

January 8th, 2007, 05:15 PM

wait - has that been confirmed?

ryan

January 8th, 2007, 05:55 PM

how many bank branches can one city need?

macreator

January 8th, 2007, 08:42 PM

how many bank branches can one city need?

It's cyclical. During the boom of the late 90's I remember banks rushing to shutter their bank branches in order to focus on their lucrative commercial banking customers.

Also, inevitably a lot of the recent banks that have been popping up (Valley Savings, etc.) and some older banks (North Fork) will be bought out or merge and the redundant bank branches will be shuttered. An example will be when most of the Bank of New York branches close by the end of the year now that BONY's retail divison has been bought out by Chase.

MrSpice

January 9th, 2007, 11:20 AM

how many bank branches can one city need?

As many as banks feel it needs. After all, they paying for it in full. We should not forget that those bank branches high-paying jobs as well.

MidtownGuy

January 9th, 2007, 11:41 AM

Bullocks! they SUCK! We don't need anymore!!

lofter1

January 9th, 2007, 12:28 PM

We should not forget that those bank branches high-paying jobs as well.

What's the pay scale for a teller? At my branch they seem to turn over by the quarter.

ryan

January 9th, 2007, 02:05 PM

gradvmedusa

January 9th, 2007, 03:07 PM

wait - has that been confirmed?

They are currently trying to hold on to their lease...but it's not likely to happen. At least that's what the bar-tenders were saying when I was there. They have Save the P&G Flyers inside. So while not OFFICIAL official...it's pretty much grapevine confirmed.

Eugenious

January 9th, 2007, 03:37 PM

From Salary.com (http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layoutscripts/swzl_localrangebell.asp?jobtitle=Teller+I&metrocode=119&geo=New+York%2C+NY+10022&narrowcode=FA02&zipcode=10022&r=salswz_swzmatbll_psr&yearsofexp=&jobcode=FA06000465&narrowdesc=Banking&wsrcode=SW1&isswzupdateoptin=&isjswupdateoptin=&isnewsoptin=&choosesignup=0)

woo hoo!

To beat a dead horse, publicly-held corporations extract profits from a community and send them to shareholders. Locally-owned businesses spend their profits locally.

that's such crap it's not even funny,

most small business extract the same profits which goes straight into the owners pockets without any benefit.

I worked for a small paper distributor a few years ago and the guy basically milked the business for all it's worth. He didn't hire illegals but he paid bare minimum salaries, paid in cash of course which is why he could find workers. He offered no health insurance or any kinds of benefits, the business was worth many millions of dollars a year in profits but it all went into his pocket and his workers got nothing while he built houses in other states. He gave money to charities but only to claim the deductions on his tax returns. The working conditions were horrendous but he got away with it because he was a "small guy" trying to make a living.

My ass. There are more businesses in New York than ever, even though many may be chains or franchises etc. They are better run and more efficient .

I have a friend who works for one of the top restaurants in the city, he works insane hours usually 10-11 hrs a day, he is called when needed has NO benefits, has NO bonus or any other security. He works in a cramp kitchen with illegal mexicans and makes barely enough to survive. And this is a very popular restaurant that makes tons of money for the owner who has a few other restaurants in manhattan. the owner drives a Porsche and lives in a million $ condo while his workers are worked to exhaustion. yes I know Manhattan restaurant market is not easy but this is ridiculous when there's so much money thats just going straight into the owners pocket.

Ninjahedge

January 9th, 2007, 04:12 PM

The very thing that makes a neighborhood attractive eventually brings in what made people run from similar areas.

Some places, like the village, will not suffer as much as midtown, but you still see instances where places (like the Blind Tiger) have problems being moved out by boutiques and then have further problems re-opening because of, in utmost irony, local resident resistance.

Everyone wants a bar on the corner and a retail boutique downstairs, noone wants the bar to be downstairs.

But, people do not want the bars and restaurants to dissapear, and that is what is happening.

Hoboken would be a good example in miniature of what is going to happen to the smaller areas in Manhattan. We have more real estate offices, cell phone stores, and banks than any other store in the town. Hell, I think they even outnumber the bars and restaurants!!! (Or pretty close).

Example:

BoA
Chase
Citibank
North Fork
Commerce Bank
Wachovia
Washington Mutual
PNC Bank
Havens Savings
HSBC
Hudson City Savings
Sovereign Bank
TD Banknorth
The Provident
Valley National

And some have multiple locations!!!

All in a town that measures less than a mile square!

The independent record stores are moving out, we have few places to find bands that play something besides cover music, and the town is trying to find that niche that brings the people out that are willing to spend boku bucks without scaring them into Manhattan proper.

Although much of the taste of Hoboken was sour to begin with, it is turning vanilla in the process.

I see the same for Manhattan, but on a much larger scale. No more rotting food at the bottom, but no more "genuine" italian Pizza either...

ryan

January 9th, 2007, 06:11 PM

lofter1

January 9th, 2007, 09:41 PM

And I propose a dip in the dunking chair for the design-idiot who came up with the new CHASE signs that are popping up all over the place (I saw one branch on Park Avenue South near 28th that had about 4 spread across the facade :mad: ) ...

The logo is now a three dimensional plastic blob in a Miami-blue tone -- all soft and oogy looking instead of strong and basic as it was before :confused:

antinimby

January 10th, 2007, 12:46 AM

From curbed.com today:

63rd and Broadway
http://www.curbed.com/2007_01_bucksuws.jpg

Anyone willing to bet the boarded-up space next door won't be a either chain or a bank?

MidtownGuy

January 10th, 2007, 11:48 AM

^^ Of course it will be. Makes me furious and full of despair for the future

Ninjahedge

January 10th, 2007, 12:15 PM

Sure it's distasteful to see capitalism on an individual level, but corporations are hardly charitable. All that efficiency just creates liquid profits that go elsewhere. I doubt that more corporations would help improve worker conditions on a city-wide scale.

Oh, add to it the commercials about Wal-Maaart somehow "saving" the average consumer $2600 a year and STRONGLY implying that thi sis saving the community money.

As well as "providing" jobs for areas w/o jobs and insurance for as little as $1 a day.

I hat those commercials. They do not tell of the low wages, profiteering, and eligability for things like insurance, but they are VERY quick to point out these "good" things with a friendly homey sounding annoucer talking while pictures of smiling kids and happy families play in the background.

Feh.

lofter1

January 10th, 2007, 05:40 PM

Another bank branch takes a prime spot ...

2nd Avenue Deli Update #2:
Hello, Chase Bank

curbed.com (http://www.curbed.com/archives/2007/01/10/2nd_avenue_deli_update_2_hello_chase_bank.php)
January 10, 2007
by Scott

http://www.curbed.com/2007_01_2ndavedeli-thumb.JPG

The 2nd Avenue Deli saga has entered its final stages. After the recent plywooding (http://www.curbed.com/archives/2006/12/26/2nd_avenue_deli_update_plywood_confirmed.php), we knew the new tenant would soon reveal itself. And lo, a tipster emails:
Walked by the 2nd Avenue Deli Space this am and it is official: Chase bank is on its way! There are big posters announcing their imminent appearance. Obviously, this branch is for the people too lazy to walk to the Chase at the Gwathmey building on Astor Place or the branch on Broadway and 9th Street. I'm sure the North Fork branch right across the street will be happy to have some competition!

MrSpice

January 10th, 2007, 09:32 PM

I noticed that Chase has been very aggressive in the city lately. I see Chase branches opening everywhere.

MidtownGuy

January 10th, 2007, 11:26 PM

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

antinimby

January 11th, 2007, 04:28 AM

Coffee battle brews in city
Dunkin' Donuts aims to tap Starbucks' upscale customers by opening shops near offices

By: Elisabeth Butler
Published: December 31, 2006 (http://www.newyorkbusiness.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061231/SUB/61230011/1009) - 6:59 am

Dunkin' Donuts, a fast-food chain that has long appealed to construction workers and taxi drivers, is trying to put more of its signature pink and white coffee cups into the manicured hands of office workers.

As part of the expansion plan it launched last year, Dunkin' Donuts aims to challenge Starbucks' white-collar popularity by opening more stores in Manhattan's office buildings and near tourist attractions such as Rockefeller Center and Times Square. To help secure some of those coveted sites, Dunkin' Donuts has introduced a more upscale store model, complete with granite countertops and wallpaper sporting its new logo. Starbucks, the city's biggest coffee chain, is brewing its own expansion plan to fight back.

"Our thing is getting into more high-end buildings," says Steve Menexas, one of the city's dozen Dunkin' Donuts franchisees. "We want people to see that we're not just about cheap coffee," he says.

Though Dunkin' Donuts' corporate officers did not return calls for comment, an insider familiar with the company's managerial decisions says that executives don't want to turn the doughnut emporium into Starbucks. Rather, they are trying to freshen up the stores to attract a wider variety of customers without irking their working-class devotees.

However, the company did start offering holiday drinks just like Starbucks'.

Dunkin' Donuts shops began multiplying in New York a couple of years ago, as the company made the city a priority in its growth strategy. Today, Manhattan has 90 stores, up from about 30 four years ago. The company aims to open at least 100 more stores within the next few years.

Franchisees drive growth

Individual franchisees are driving the growth. As one of the largest franchisees, Mr. Menexas and his three partners plan to open six or seven stores annually for the next 10 years. They currently operate 11 stores in their territory on the East Side of Manhattan, between Houston and 57th streets. Their 12th store, slated to open at 243 Third Ave. early this month, will feature the new look.

Mr. Menexas says all of his shops are profitable, but his top performer by far is in the Citigroup Center at 153 E. 53rd St. Despite having three Starbucks stores close by, it gets tons of traffic from office workers and the nearby subway entrance. Franchisees like Mr. Menexas are seeking other promising locations.

But most midtown landlords, like many of the workers in their office towers, prefer Starbuck's tall soy lattes to Dunkin' Donuts' box of joe. The Seattle-based company provides much stronger credit than the individuals who operate Dunkin' Donuts.

"A landlord would choose a Starbucks over a Dunkin' Donuts anytime," says Ariel Schuster, a broker at Robert K. Futterman & Associates, which has made deals for both Dunkin' Donuts and Starbucks. "The landlord can sleep for the next 10 years, knowing that the lease is guaranteed." Banks are another worthy rival in the real estate wars.

Starbucks representatives did not return calls for comment, but industry sources say the company is planning to roll out more Manhattan stores in response to Dunkin' Donuts' barrage. It also started offering breakfast sandwiches to compete with Dunkin' Donuts' morning meals. Starbucks opened its first New York City store in 1994 and today operates nearly 200 locations in Manhattan.

True blue to Starbucks

Now that Starbucks is firmly entrenched in New York's daily life, some blue-collar workers have become loyal to the brand. "It's clean, and the service is excellent," says Lou Kaziu, a construction worker who visits Starbucks at least three times a day to get his quadruple-shot espresso fix.

Others are die-hard Dunkin' fans. "If there's a Starbucks and a Dunkin' Donuts right next to each other, I'll go to Dunkin'," says Joe Pollini, who bought coffee for himself and a buddy while working in Brooklyn Heights last week. "It's not quite as expensive, and the coffee is comparable."

As Dunkin' Donuts continues filling the holes between Starbucks locations in Manhattan, the Canton, Mass.-based company is trying to spiff up its image across the country. A new advertising campaign, "America Runs on Dunkin'," and a recent partnership with the cheap and trendy JetBlue have helped raise the company's profile. "They are going for convenience and accessibility," says Clark Wolf, a restaurant industry consultant based in Manhattan.

© 2007 Crain Communications, Inc.

antinimby

January 11th, 2007, 04:34 AM

Commerce vs. Chase vs. Citibank vs. HSBC vs. Bank of America vs. Wachovia vs ...

Starbucks vs. Dunkin Donuts

Duane Reade vs. CVS vs. RiteAid

While the big corporate chains fight it out, we lose our identity and uniqueness. :(

macreator

January 11th, 2007, 08:20 AM

We're caught in the middle of all of these retail wars.

Ninjahedge

January 11th, 2007, 10:20 AM

There are already enough SB's in the city. I do not know how they can get more w/o displacing a lot more. And they risk oversaturation at this point.

As for DD... They stopped beaing "cheap" years ago. Also, over franchising has made it so that you can never tell what you are going to get there anymore. USed to be a 15 minute coffee rule, but now a pot ould be sitting there for an hour...

Also, they are trying to over-expand their offerings. DD should not be serving egg sandwiches and smoothies! Just like ShopRite should not be selling TV's and Videos...

Unfortunately, they will all expand, displace the local buisness, one will win, consolidate their resources and leave a lot of empty shop space.

Not that we need another all-in-one "discount" electronics store, but seeing some of these smaller places go is a shame.

If I wanted a bank, a starbucks, a Gap and a TGI Fridays I would just move to the suburbs.

lofter1

January 11th, 2007, 10:44 AM

Or you could just move to the new stretch of 6th Avenue in Chelsea :p

MidtownGuy

January 11th, 2007, 12:22 PM

Eugenious

January 11th, 2007, 12:53 PM

I miss the flower shops and flea markets on Sixth. I miss so many things that used to make this city great. I'm contemplating a move, perhaps to Europe. For artists this city is becoming a dead zone. Do I really want to stick around for 100 more Dunkin Donuts and 100 more Starbucks? And the bank branches, well that's just becoming infuriating.
A walk down any street is now a cause for depression, I'm prematurely sounding like a grandfather, always turning to a friend, pointing and saying, "gee, I remember when that was a..."
You know change can be a great thing, but this is the rapid death of a culture, summarily obliterated by the surrounding barbarians. The natives take their last gasp and kiss their world goodbye.

This is such utter bull@#$. First of all go to Brooklyn for all the flower shops and flea markets you can handle. Brooklyn is a boom town right now, you walk through any neighborhood south of Prospect Park or Williamsburg or even Bay Ridge and you will see tons of non-chain shops and stores.

Brooklyn is the new cultural center of NYC that is going to be more diverse and more exciting than Manhattan ever was.

Brooklyn is small business heaven.

lofter1

January 11th, 2007, 12:59 PM

A walk down any street is now a cause for depression, I'm prematurely sounding like a grandfather, always turning to a friend, pointing and saying, "gee, I remember when that was a..."

You and me both (although methinks you're a tad too young to be feeling this way ;) ).

Paul Theroux terms it "fogeydom" ...

America the overfull

New York Times
Paul Theroux
December 31, 2006

OPINION

HALEIWA, Hawaii -- American crowing is harmless enough, but the announcement this year that the U.S. population had reached 300 million, had (to my ear) the unmistakable growl of a boast. It was as though the colossal agglomeration of people amounted to another great score in our love affair with bigness.

The news gave me no pleasure. I just felt sad, while at the same time hating my wistful mood. Fogeydom is the last bastion of the bore and reminiscence is its anthem. As William Burroughs noted, in the 1950s, "What I want for dinner is a bass fished in Lake Huron in 1920."

It is futile to want the old days back, but that doesn't mean one should ignore the lessons of the visitable past -- say, when there were half that number of people in the country. In some important ways life really was better then because of it. The overcrowded, much noisier, more hectic, intensely urbanized and vertical world of the present can seem hostile and hallucinatory to anyone who knew America in a simpler form.

In my lifetime the population has doubled. I'm glad I grew up when the number of Americans was so much smaller. How does one explain to anyone under 50, or to the grateful unfazed immigrant from an overpopulated nation, that this was once a country of enormous silence and ordinariness -- empty spaces not just in the Midwest and the rural South but in the outer suburbs of New England, like the one I grew up in, citified on one margin and thinning to woods on the other. That roomier and simpler America shaped me by giving me and others of my generation a love for space and a taste for solitude.

Talking fondly, and sadly, of the past, it is impossible to avoid the elegiac tone of Edmund Gosse in "Father and Son." In this, one of my favorite books, Gosse recalls the richness and beauty of the English shores of his youth, and the rock pools he had delved into with his father, who was a naturalist (and a crank). Gosse writes of "the soft and radiant forms, sea anemones, seaweeds, shells, fishes, which had inhabited them, undisturbed since the creation of the world," and then speaks of their violation by collectors: "There is nothing, now, where in our days there was so much." Fifty years before, "on the coast of Devonshire and Cornwall, where the limestone at the water's edge is wrought into crevices and hollows, the tide line was, like Keats' Grecian vase, 'a still unravished bride of quietness.'"

Even in its heyday, Medford, Mass., was never compared to a Grecian urn. But it is impossible for me not to feel a sense of grief when I reflect on how my part of Webster Street -- the house footprint, indeed the whole block where I was born -- is now buried under Interstate 93. Before that road was put through and Medford Square was still important, the Mystic River linked us to the world, and High Street rejoiced in the same sinuous contours it had in April 1775, when Paul Revere rode down it at midnight, warning of the British attack.

I grew up in a country of sudden and consoling lulls, which gave life a kind of pattern and punctuation, unknown now. It was typified by the somnolence of Sundays, when no stores were open.

There were empty parts of the day, of the week, of the year; times when there were no people on the sidewalks, no traffic in the streets, no audible human voices, now and then no sound at all. In this hushed world, a bumblebee was a physical presence, the sound of a cicada could dominate an August afternoon.

Nowhere was solitude more available than on a long drive, especially at night; and it seems to me that my generation was defined by the open road, and the accompanying hope that a promise lay at the end of it. The almost trance-like experience of driving down the soft tunnel of a dark highway at night was something I relished. At most, there would be the distant red lights of a car far ahead, and always the murmur of the glowing radio, the hiss of the tires and, at a certain speed on narrower roads, the fizzing past of telephone poles with their rhythmic whiplash.

Late at night, in most places I knew, there was almost no traffic and driving, a meditative activity, could cast a spell.

Behind the wheel, gliding along, I was keenly aware of being an American in America, on a road that was also metaphorical, making my way through life, unhindered, developing ideas, making decisions, liberated by the flight through this darkness and silence. With less light pollution, the night sky was different, too -- starrier, more daunting, more beautiful.

I have not seen roads or night skies like that for many years.

As Gosse said about the ring of living beauty of the English shore, "All this is long over and done with."

A longing for a simpler world, for a glimpse of the past, is one of the motives in travel. But the rest of the world has fared no better in terms of population pressure, and in many places it is much worse, even catastrophic. The population of Malawi 40 years ago was small and sustainable. None of us Peace Corps volunteers there at that time thought in terms of rescuing the country but only of helping to improve it. Now Malawi can't feed itself; it's one of the many countries that people wish to flee, renowned for being hopeless, unjustly publicized as an enormous orphanage of desperate tots, needing to be saved, devoid of pride, lost without us. The notion that a pop singer (back then it would have been Elvis) would breeze through and scoop up a child in a condescending gesture of rescue was unthinkable then.

In India a few months ago, as I was leaving my hotel in Chennai, I noticed a hotel employee shadowing me. He warned me that the sidewalks were so packed with people I would be swallowed up and stifled. He was right. And I was unable to cross the main street in Bangalore, a leafy city of under a million people in 1973 and now a hectically improvised sprawl of seven million. Mumbai's population of nearly 20 million rivals that of Sao Paulo, Brazil, and Lagos, Nigeria -- nightmare cities.

Travel, except in almost inaccessible places, is no longer the answer to finding solitude. And this contraction of space on a shrinking planet suggests a time, not far off, when there will be no remoteness: nowhere to become lost, nothing to be discovered, no escape, no palpable concept of distance, no peculiarity of dress -- frightening thoughts for a traveler.

Yet some of the most populous countries manage to be habitable because they are societies with strict, and civilized, codes of conduct. India, China and Japan are convenient examples, but I would include many African and Middle Eastern countries, too. The vindictive stereotype of the Muslim as a xenophobe does not tally with my experience of wandering in the Muslim world, where I have been treated hospitably, welcomed by strangers as "dayf al Rahman," a guest of the Merciful One.

We are passing through a confused period of aggression and fear, characterized by our confrontational government, the decline of diplomacy, a pugnacious foreign policy and a settled belief that the surest way to get people to tell the truth is to torture them.

(And by the way, "water boarding" was a torture technique at the worst of the Khmer Rouge prisons.) It is no wonder we have begun to squint at strangers. This is a corrosive situation in a country where more and more people, most of them strangers, are a feature of daily life. Americans as a people I believe to be easygoing, compassionate, not looking for a fight. But surely I am not the only one who has noticed that we are ruder, more offhand, readier to take offense, a nation of shouters and blamers.

Yes, it is just silly and fogeyish to yearn for that simpler and smaller world of the past. But one could ask for the past's better manners, the instinctive decorum that has served to mitigate conflict. One of the lessons of travel is that, though half the world is wearing T-shirts and sneakers, they manage to live in overpopulated cities because they have not abandoned their traditional modes of politeness. These grace notes, which make traveling in crowded countries bearable, are a lesson to us in a mobbed and jostling world.

(C) 2006 New York Times

MidtownGuy

January 11th, 2007, 01:00 PM

Don't tell me what is utter bullshi# Eugenious. What you said was plain stupid. Piss off if that's how you want to carry on a discussion. See what language like that, even when absurdly cloaked in keyboard symbols, gets you. I expressed my genuine feelings, HOW DARE YOU. And we could argue all day, but I WON'T.
Why should I have to go to Queens for flowers? Do you know what the flower district was? It was a unique stretch. Whatever, if you don't understand that you are a pissy waste of carbon and water.

Kris

January 11th, 2007, 01:38 PM

Please calm down and no personal attacks.

ryan

January 11th, 2007, 02:04 PM

For artists this city is becoming a dead zone.

NYC art scene is still expanding as far as I know. Do you have any empirical facts to the contrary? (and yes, you do need to leave manhattan to see the culturally vital parts of the city)

MikeW

January 11th, 2007, 02:15 PM

Want some cheese with that whine?

The reason most of what you long for came to exist, was that NYC collapsed into what it was in the '70's (a postindustrial wasteland), from what is was before (a bustling, overcrowded, vibrant, dirty, dangerous, exploding boomtown). That collapse left fertile ground for some interesting things to develop.

But everthing runs in cycles. We're pretty much back in boomtown mode, and it's a much nicer boomtown now that it was before the collapse. But it also means that some of the things that grew up in the cracks are going to be pave over. You give a great example, the 6th Ave fleamarkets. Why did they happen? Because there were alot of vacant lots left in that neighborhood, and someone came in an used them for something quick, easy and temporary. Now, they've became large apt buildings, with ground floor commercial, providing housing and jobs for thousends of people. That's the way it should be.

If you want to go to Europe, don't let the door hit you in the a$$ on they way out. But it probably suits you better. They like stagnation over there.

I miss the flower shops and flea markets on Sixth. I miss so many things that used to make this city great. I'm contemplating a move, perhaps to Europe. For artists this city is becoming a dead zone. Do I really want to stick around for 100 more Dunkin Donuts and 100 more Starbucks? And the bank branches, well that's just becoming infuriating.
A walk down any street is now a cause for depression, I'm prematurely sounding like a grandfather, always turning to a friend, pointing and saying, "gee, I remember when that was a..."
You know change can be a great thing, but this is the rapid death of a culture, summarily obliterated by the surrounding barbarians. The natives take their last gasp and kiss their world goodbye.

MidtownGuy

January 11th, 2007, 02:40 PM

...They like stagnation over there.

What's happening here is a form of stagnation. Of the soul.
Does boomtown necessarily HAVE to mean chain-store-town?

Now, they've became large apt buildings, with ground floor commercial

Ugly piles of crap, some of the ugliest in town. With repetitious chainstores and banks in the base. Woopee-do, MikeW. Woopee-f%%cking-do. Pardon me if I don't become ecstatic.

Ninjahedge

January 11th, 2007, 03:02 PM

Great way to phrase things Mike.

Try growing up a bit man!

Teh thing that most people object to here is not the cleaning up of NY, but its absolute sterilization.

It is one thnig to reminisce about this shop or that, but I am getting sick of seeing 5 $tarPh*ck$ in my crosstown walk to work. How much overpriced coffee do you need?

Granted, I do not like those cheap flea-market stands, but that does not mean we shoud abandon DIVERSE street level commerce.

Things I liked when I was around were the diversity of shops, bars and restaurants. Want Thai? Got it. Italian? You kidding me? Greek, yep. Delis, grocerys, everything all better than what I had in the Burbs.

But I am seeing more and more chains from Taco Bell to Applebees pop up in the city. These things survive on the people who are not NYers, ones visiting who are afraid to go into O'Connors for a burger. Not that I am saying that tourism is bad, but when the town starts to over-accomodate the visitor, it loses itself. The entire block between 7th and 8th on 42nd (Cold Stone, DB's and Chevys?) is a classic example of this shhhhhtuf.

Artistry leaving? Yes. In the sense that it is too expensive for many to live of market their wares. They have jumped out of a lot of the sub-city areas as well (Hoboken, JC, Brooklyn, Queens) as prices rise in some of them. They are not gone entirely, but still...

The expression of dissapointment is never over improvement of thnigs. I am sure people would love to see more theaters (not musical theaters mind you), galleries, restaurants, foreign shops and the liek come into town to replace the flea-market converted storehouse type affairs, but when you get places like 2nd ave deli and Colluseum bookstoe go to be replaced by XXX bank or YYY Coffee, it gets depressing.

So enough with the "door hitting you" and "utter bull@#$" comments and get back to the meat of the matter.

Please?

Ninjahedge

January 11th, 2007, 03:03 PM

PS, that means you too Midtown... ;)

ryan

January 11th, 2007, 03:19 PM

Artistry leaving? Yes. In the sense that it is too expensive for many to live of market their wares. They have jumped out of a lot of the sub-city areas as well (Hoboken, JC, Brooklyn, Queens) as prices rise in some of them. They are not gone entirely, but still...

Everyone keeps repeating this, but I don't see any support. Aside from the times overhype of a couple artists moving to Beacon (coinciding with the hype over the opening of DIA: Beacon) where are you guys pulling this out of? From the accounts of actual artists I know the art scene in NYC is in the middle of a multiple-decade boom.

Ninjahedge

January 11th, 2007, 03:51 PM

Example would be the warehouses in JC where there was an artists loft setup.

They are being evicted in order to convert the building into "luxury condos".

Sounds a lot like the Lower East side.

You can't say ALL of those buildings were unoccupied ryan, can you?

Asking us to site specific individuals that we did not know in the first place is rather tough, and proving that they were here and now are not is even tougher. We are not cataloging buisnesses here.

But the question can be turned back to you. Why, even if they are still here, are they having less of an impact on the area they are in and why is so much of it becoming vanilla to the people who do not know where they are all hiding now?

MidtownGuy

January 11th, 2007, 04:13 PM

There should be new ordinances considered. They have 'em limiting the number of porn shops within a certain number of square feet. Why not an ordinance that says , for example, only one outlet of any given chainstore per 5 block radius within Manhattan. That's plenty of leeway to allow them to fluorish, just not to establish monopolies. It would allow start-ups a chance to offer their product to a competitive marketplace. A Clash of the Titans style battle between Godzilla and Rodan, with everything underneath trampled, is not my idea of healthy capitalism.

from ryan
Aside from the times overhype of a couple artists moving to Beacon
This statement betrays a limited view of what the word "artist" means.

gradvmedusa

January 11th, 2007, 04:55 PM

Starbucks is just crazy.... They have one on 66th and B'way and 60th and B'way now they are opening one on 63 and B'Way WHY?! Not to mention one on 58th and 57th and 68th and amsterdamn

MidtownGuy

January 11th, 2007, 05:11 PM

healthy cell growth----good

cancer------------------bad

ryan

January 11th, 2007, 06:09 PM

This statement betrays a limited view of what the word "artist" means.

Do educate me about what the word means. Here I was thinking my friends with MFAs who show with Mary Boone, Deitch, Bellwether were artists.

MikeW

January 11th, 2007, 06:13 PM

MrSpice

January 11th, 2007, 07:05 PM

What you're seeing is economic darwinism. Why is there a Starbux every three blocks? Because they're all making money. Given the rents they're paying, they have to be. The chain stores are more effective and efficient, and in lots of quanifiable ways, serve their customers better. So the customers vote with their feet and shop there.

And, why are they every three blocks? How far are you willing to walk for a cup of coffee (or to fill a prescription, or to deposit a check, etc.). NYC in general, and Manhattan in particular is a pedestrian town. every 3-6 blocks is a separate market. So the stores figure out what interval they need to be at, and the locate at that interval.

Excellent analysis - totally agree. At the end, companies give people what they want to have. People lament about disappearing coffee houses that are often being displaced by chains like Starbucks. But the right question should be: why is it that people prefer Starbucks to that mom-and-pop coffee shop? After all, Starbcuks is not cheap - they have significant profit margins. Those mom-and-pop shops that are creative and good (like "Lalo" on Upper West Side or Veniero's in East Village) succeed and prosper.

ablarc

January 11th, 2007, 07:09 PM

I hate that Starbucks are everywhere, and I patronize them in spite of myself. What makes them irresistible is what makes them repulsive: they're predictable and uniform. You always know what you'll get. And what you get is good enough so you don't have to take chances.

MidtownGuy

January 11th, 2007, 07:51 PM

Do educate me about what the word means. Here I was thinking my friends with MFAs who show with Mary Boone, Deitch, Bellwether were artists.

See, that's just it. Not all artists work in those mediums, or show at the typical, sanctified galleries. You seem to have a very elitist idea of art, and that confirms it.

MidtownGuy

January 11th, 2007, 07:53 PM

Excellent analysis

Excellent analysis, or over simplistic rubbish? There's more to it.

lofter1

January 11th, 2007, 08:52 PM

... why is it that people prefer Starbucks to that mom-and-pop coffee shop?

Marketing ... + sugar.

And convenience -- people in NYC have convinced themselves that avoiding an extra 5 minute walk makes spending more money in a nearby shop worthwhile.

Why do some people spend $50 on a face cream that has been shown to be no better than what you can buy for $8?

I recently enjoyed a fantastic $9 bottle of Prosecco (won't tell you where I got it because I plan to go back for more ;) ) that all my Italian friends agreed was far smoother and tastier than a better known $19 bottle.

ryan

January 12th, 2007, 12:07 AM

See, that's just it. Not all artists work in those mediums, or show at the typical, sanctified galleries. You seem to have a very elitist idea of art, and that confirms it.

You were the one telling me I didn't know what an artist was. You're not making any sense.

ablarc

January 12th, 2007, 12:17 AM

^ It's someone with an MFA ... right? :p

pianoman11686

January 12th, 2007, 12:41 AM

I find myself agreeing with Mr Spice and MikeW.

MidtownGuy, I think you're being overly dramatic on this.

ablarc

January 12th, 2007, 12:44 AM

^ Actually, they're ALL right.

antinimby

January 12th, 2007, 12:45 AM

If you want to go to Europe, don't let the door hit you in the a$$ on they way out. But it probably suits you better. They like stagnation over there.No, no, no.

MidtownGuy is the creative type we need more of.

Don't listen to him and don't leave MTG.

Just ride it out and do your part to ameliorate the situation.

pianoman11686

January 12th, 2007, 12:51 AM

^ Actually, they're ALL right.

Can you elaborate?

antinimby

January 12th, 2007, 12:54 AM

First of all go to Brooklyn for all the flower shops and flea markets you can handle. Brooklyn is a boom town right now, you walk through any neighborhood south of Prospect Park or Williamsburg or even Bay Ridge and you will see tons of non-chain shops and stores.
Brooklyn is the new cultural center of NYC that is going to be more diverse and more exciting than Manhattan ever was.
Brooklyn is small business heaven.Just give it some time.

I have a sneaky suspicion what's happening in Manhattan won't be too far behind in the outer boroughs.

The saving grace is that the outer boroughs are still primarily middle-class as opposed to the more yuppified Manhattan, so it'll take some time but it's still inevitable, I'm afraid.

ablarc

January 12th, 2007, 12:54 AM

^ It's economic Darwinism, and it's a crying shame.

pianoman11686

January 12th, 2007, 01:00 AM

But what's the justification for punishing success, and rewarding failure? Surely it can't just be a "cultural" thing. If you're willing to accept it or not, big business is, and has been for a long time, a BIG part of our identity as a society and as a nation.

lofter1

January 12th, 2007, 01:20 AM

Who said anything about "rewarding failure"?

And judging the success of an artistic work solely by whether or not the creator of that work has a college degree of some sort or the fact that a big name gallery chose to present that work is very limiting -- and really speaks more to the market rather than the art itself, or the artist.

No doubt my argument will appear to some as simplistic -- but the American penchant for judging our selves and our countrymen by monetary success is not that honorable.

ablarc

January 12th, 2007, 01:26 AM

And judging the success of an artistic work solely by whether or not the creator of that work has a college degree of some sort or the fact that a big name gallery chose to present that work is very limiting --
You said it.

Scraps of paper on a wall. Talismans of prestige.

"Limiting"? No, ridiculous.

Where was Picasso's MFA? Or Van Gogh's? And how many paintings did Van Gogh sell?

.

pianoman11686

January 12th, 2007, 02:15 AM

I won't pretend to be an expert in (the merits of) art. I was mainly responding to the topic of the thread, namely, the replacement of individual retailers by nationally-branded chains.

Ninjahedge

January 12th, 2007, 10:09 AM

It is bad when you have 3 coffee shops on one block, but the thing is, if they are all owned by different people (and are their own buisnesses) they will each have some featur or another that makes them desirable over the others.

Want the bast latte? Go here. Best pastry to go with your regular coffee? Go here, etc etc.

When all 3 shops are owned by the same company, they offer the very same thing.

There is little to NO difference between the Starbucks in New Brunswick, NJ as the one(s) on Broadway. And while this is good for some people who do not want to be surprised by anything they were not expecting, it drains the city of one of the things that made it special.

Also, this is not a case of success or failure, but dominance and conquest. Example? Home Depot. On opening, each of their stores has a bunch of great staff, clean aisles, great prices. After they have been there 6 months, or, god forbid, they open up another 2 miles away, the store goes to hell in a hand-basket. Examples? Try Forest Hills in Queens or Secaucus, NJ. Try finding someone in an apron to help you find a particular pipe fitting.

Now did they succeed? Yes, but not because they were necessarily better. They were just better long enough to drive away competition, dominate, then slack off after. What do you think will happen when Nort Fork or Dunkin DOnuts scales back its presence in NY because of the low margin? What will ahppen to the stores? You think that "Joes Deli" will come running back? I don't think so.

It takes a long time do develop character, and a very short time to exploit it or drive it out.

ryan

January 12th, 2007, 12:09 PM

I'm not going to pretend I'm following this thread at all, but to clarify myself, I've only implied that I know what an artist is - not that I know what is not an artist. All the banks and dunkin donuts in the city suck, but they're not driving away any artists I know (though I don't know any who can afford to live in Manhattan, so maybe it feels that way for you all).

To answer Ablarc's question about MFAs and Van Gogh/Picasso (and, I'm guessing, great artists in general)... They didn't have them, but they weren't uneducated. Both had extensive art training. Today that training would have earned them BFAs or MFAs. Good artists need more than talent. (not that this is at all the point of this thread)

pianoman11686

January 12th, 2007, 02:34 PM

MrSpice

January 12th, 2007, 02:50 PM

There is little to NO difference between the Starbucks in New Brunswick, NJ as the one(s) on Broadway. And while this is good for some people who do not want to be surprised by anything they were not expecting, it drains the city of one of the things that made it special.

Also, this is not a case of success or failure, but dominance and conquest. Example? Home Depot. On opening, each of their stores has a bunch of great staff, clean aisles, great prices. After they have been there 6 months, or, god forbid, they open up another 2 miles away, the store goes to hell in a hand-basket. Examples? Try Forest Hills in Queens or Secaucus, NJ. Try finding someone in an apron to help you find a particular pipe fitting.

It takes a long time do develop character, and a very short time to exploit it or drive it out.

Fair enough. But what can we do to change it? Should we have laws against Starbucks, or dictate to companies like Home Depot and Starbucks how many stores they can open?

The same kind of competition is happening in other industries. You can say that 20 years ago there were many brokerage firms and many small independent banks. In our era of super-mergers, that's changing and some of the large financial firms dominate the market. Maybe it's just one of the negative consequences of free market and capitalist. But I don't think the comparison between Home Depot and Starbucks is a very good one because they succeed for slightly different reasons (although that success has some things in common). Home Depot succeeds to a large degree because they provide huge selection (unlike smaller stores) and low prices that can only be achived with this kind of scale.

Starbucks on the other hand, delivers the number of selections/choices comparable to many independent cafes and their prices are not that low (they are rather high - $4 for latte, 2-5 dollars for any desert/pastry). So they don't drive out other business because of their low prices. It's the brand recognition, service, quality and the fact that you can come in, order $2 cup of coffee, plug in your laptop and work there all day.

Ninjahedge

January 12th, 2007, 02:58 PM

Ninja, I think you're trying to step around the issue. It most certainly is a case of success vs. failure. I just don't know how else to explain it: there are winners, and there are losers. And many people, at least on this forum, seem to have a disdain for the winners, precisely because of the fact that they're so successful.

I know what you are getting at, but when you start going global, you have to see what that companies methods do on a local scale.

You get a chain like Wal Mart coming in. Their practices lead to an aggresive marketing campaign that actually makes them lose money in the first few years. They force their way in, underbid everyone, get solo contracts that eventually turn around and force supply line renegotiation (squeezing) of their now exclusive suppliers, and raising of profit margins at the expense of the community.

This helps in the short run as NYC would see cheaper prices on milk and OJ, but once they dry out the korean convenience stores and Key-Foods chains (not saying Key is great), what then? They become the sole source for these things. Their prices go up and we pay.

Were they successful? Yes. Were we? No. Do we have a choice? Now, yes, later, no.

So, in order to insure that we do not have this kind of thing, we need to distribute our own costs and efforts, as well as to avoid dumping the equivalent of economic crack on the general populace, and keep a balance in the city.

Too much of a good thing ruins balance and makes ity flop over on itself. How can we make it so the "success" of a company does not rob a city of its own character, or end up stripping and burning it in order to drive out any others?

Here's why we shouldn't worry so much about it: tastes change. It's as plain and simple as that. And what's even more encouraging, for people who hate the Starbucks on every corner, is the fact that more and more people are almost violent in their distate for the purveyor of java. There will always be small entrepreneurs waiting in the wings to open up their one-of-a-kind establishment, be it a store or a place to eat. As soon as tastes change, that will take place.

Um, no.

It kind of works like that. But the mere fact that there ARE Dominoes and Pizza Huts in teh city is a clear fact that things like that are never driven out. It also makes it extremely difficult to start your own mom-and-pop shop when all your competition is Mega-Corporation.

Example? MS. Any company that seemed a threat to their development was either sued, underbid, or bought out. Once you reach a certain level of fiscal leverage, the same rules do not apply, and it taks a bajor, universal change to make a difference.

Finally, if what you say is generally applicable to the "winners" - the fact that they "slack off" after "victory" - then they too will meet their end eventually. It just takes time. Who would have thought, 30 years ago, that almost half the cars on the road in the US would be foreign-made?

That is not a fair comparison as it was a government supported development of industry that promoted the development and reverse-engineering of the Japanese auto market.

We are also talking about scale issues here and other external influebces such as gas prices and availability. If we did not have the gas shortage in the 70s, it is unlikely that Japanese automakers would have suceeded so readily.

Also, I really do not want to have to wait 30-50 years to get back the Washington Square/Villages and Tribecca I like. By that time I will be retired or dead.

So how else would a minority of people who genuinely appreciate what is happening and can see it, how else can they prevent the losing of a character which is the primary reason for so much interest in coming to the city in the first place?

pianoman11686

January 12th, 2007, 03:20 PM

Ninjahedge

January 12th, 2007, 03:49 PM

Interesting that you brought up Microsoft. I was thinking to mention it in my previous post as well. It's almost the perfect corollary to Starbucks, except in the software industry. There are so many people out there that just hate Windows, the entire company, and for years were stuck with it. Now, people are buying Macs left and right, and Apple has never been doing better. Just goes to prove my point.

Interesting then that M$ would purchase shares in Apple, eh?

And they are not buying Macs as much as you would think. Corporate interest is still 90% PC, and so is industrial software development, so...

And about Wal-Mart: don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of theirs. I know there are a lot of things that they do, as a company, that are seriously wrong and that should be looked after. But what you're saying is that the government should preemptively step in and prevent a company like Wal-Mart from gaining dominance in the first place, whether their business practices are fair or not. That's not fair, no matter how you slice it.

Not 100% like that. I hav enot been shouting for governmantal restrictions of free enterprise. But unlike things like Black-Lung, mega-corporatization does pose some risk and should be buffered so that radical steps taken by any one powerhouse does not upset a smaller regional economy.

NYC is lucky that it can stand so much competition and the like, but it is not invincible. There is a limit. I would rather not see it reached and confirmed.

So what is teh buffer that government can instill that would not fully restrict this expansion, but would also serve to protect the smaller companies from being squished before they even have a chance to prove themselves?

There are many other factors that influence how good of an environment a city is for the small guys to start up a business. And so what if there are a few Domino's or Pizza Huts out there? If they're doing well, it's obviously because there's a demand for them, and they're filling that niche.

No, you have that one a little wrong.

they are a name that people recognise and also hav ethe added benefit of a national advertising campaign. Most people who order from them are not looking for a niche, but just something that they recognise.

So in a SMALL sense, it IS a niche, but not for them or their services. It is a niche that is there only to serve a lack of information and an unwillingness of peopel, in general, to change.

(To say it quickly, people are not demanding that there be a Dominoes, but when one is opened, people go there. SO it is not a need that has been fulfilled, but more like a leech that lives off of an already fully supplied line of providence.

So, just because those of us who like the "traditional NYC slice", other people should be denied the right to order from a chain pizzeria?

No, read above. The thing is that:

1. Dominoes is not being demanded. It is not filling a need. It is more of a feeder than a provider.
2. You are not forced. This is not a question of freedom of choice here, but more like the stripping down of NYC's character because people will order from something they are familiar with over something unfamiliar.

How do you stop people from outside, who came here because NY was different, from making it just like what they are used to?

An example? Arizona and Colorado. Many MANY people moved ther to escape things like allergies that were bothering them on the coasts. Thing is, they brought with them the plants that they had on those coasts that did not bother them. After a while, there were enough people that were not allergic to grass that the people who were were now suffering again.

So the areas uniqueness that drew them there in the first place was compromised by what the "people" wanted. It lost its original reason for coming.

I do not want to see that happen with NYC.

The Japanese analogy stands, I think, not because of what happened in the 70s, but because of what's going on right now. All of a sudden, Americans are buying SUVs and pickup trucks, long the mainstay of Ford & GM, from Honda, Toyota, and Nissan. And I'd say it has very little to do with the oil crisis thirty years ago.

They recently stopped. I believe that Ford and GM sited a drastic reduction in SUV sales almost in direct conjubction with this summers high gas prices. It is also not fair to do the american/japanese comparison with the SUV line now as both markets have significant crossover.

If you look at the models available in SUV's from the early 90's (Jeep Cheorkee) and follow the progression, the US models (Lincoln, Ford and GM) had more of a Manly "big" feeling to them than the Japanese and European imports.

It is only recently with things like the Nissan Armada and others that you get the huge ones that the US was known for. The market has merged and the true sales numbers are starting to permeate through the availability limitations that constrained sales years ago.

It has to do with what people prefer today, and that seems to be increasingly, foreign-made automobiles. And even if you don't like the auto example because of the government-subsidy thing, you can say the same thing about the electronics industry starting in the late 60s and early 70s. Who would've thought, back then, that RCA would be a defunct company before the end of the century, and we'd be getting all our TVs and stereos from the Japanese and South Koreans?

You are making comparisons that are too broad to be able to associate directly to one cause or another. RCA, electronics industry, slave labor (china), government subsidy, innovation, trade agreements and so many otehr things go into the RCA/Electronics switcheroo that you cannot make a strait line analogy to mega-corp takeover of a pre-existing urbanized area....

I am not 100% disagreeing with what you are saying, but just that there are too many variables to narrow the argument down to something that can be contextually applied and debated...

And I like using big words.. ;)

pianoman11686

January 12th, 2007, 04:24 PM

I don't want this to get too off topic, so I'll keep some of these responses short...

Interesting then that M$ would purchase shares in Apple, eh?

And they are not buying Macs as much as you would think. Corporate interest is still 90% PC, and so is industrial software development, so...

Which of those two facts matter? The answer is neither. We're talking about individual consumer preferences after all, aren't we? That has nothing to do with companies buying stock in each other, or continuing a long-standing arrangement with a particular PC manufacturer. The bottom line is: more and more consumers are flocking to Apple because they now offer a great product that competes with the standard Windows PC.

Not 100% like that. I hav enot been shouting for governmantal restrictions of free enterprise. But unlike things like Black-Lung, mega-corporatization does pose some risk and should be buffered so that radical steps taken by any one powerhouse does not upset a smaller regional economy.

NYC is lucky that it can stand so much competition and the like, but it is not invincible. There is a limit. I would rather not see it reached and confirmed.

So what is teh buffer that government can instill that would not fully restrict this expansion, but would also serve to protect the smaller companies from being squished before they even have a chance to prove themselves?

You keep saying you're not "for this" or "for that," but why then do you leave the question unanswered? Give me some specifics. Surely you must have some kind of tools in mind, if you're arguing for their use.

No, you have that one a little wrong.

they are a name that people recognise and also hav ethe added benefit of a national advertising campaign. Most people who order from them are not looking for a niche, but just something that they recognise.

So in a SMALL sense, it IS a niche, but not for them or their services. It is a niche that is there only to serve a lack of information and an unwillingness of peopel, in general, to change.

(To say it quickly, people are not demanding that there be a Dominoes, but when one is opened, people go there. SO it is not a need that has been fulfilled, but more like a leech that lives off of an already fully supplied line of providence.

You're reading too literally into this. Demand simply means that there are people out there that are willing to patronize the company. You say they have the benefit of national advertising, but local pizzerias have the benefit of being a neighborhood staple for years or decades. Which one would you prefer, as a company?

Here's why I think Domino's and Pizza Hut have customers in the city: they're cheaper, for one, and they deliver longer hours. It's been more than a few times that I've been out late in the city, and have had to order from Domino's because the local pizzeria was already closed. That's what I call filling a niche. (Well, that, and cheesy bread.)

No, read above. The thing is that:

1. Dominoes is not being demanded. It is not filling a need. It is more of a feeder than a provider.
2. You are not forced. This is not a question of freedom of choice here, but more like the stripping down of NYC's character because people will order from something they are familiar with over something unfamiliar.

It's usually not a question of forced, unless you're talking about something like my late-night dilemma (Which I'm sure many other people face).

How do you stop people from outside, who came here because NY was different, from making it just like what they are used to?

A totally unfair question, if you ask me. How else was NY "made", if not by "people from outside"? All the immigrant neighborhoods, hello? This is just another strain. (Oh, and I can GUARANTEE you, that back when all the Italians, Jews, and Eastern Europeans were arriving, the people who were already here were not one bit as excited as you are about what's happening today.)

An example? Arizona and Colorado. Many MANY people moved ther to escape things like allergies that were bothering them on the coasts. Thing is, they brought with them the plants that they had on those coasts that did not bother them. After a while, there were enough people that were not allergic to grass that the people who were were now suffering again.

So the areas uniqueness that drew them there in the first place was compromised by what the "people" wanted. It lost its original reason for coming.

I do not want to see that happen with NYC.

I don't see how that is applicable, at all.

They recently stopped. I believe that Ford and GM sited a drastic reduction in SUV sales almost in direct conjubction with this summers high gas prices. It is also not fair to do the american/japanese comparison with the SUV line now as both markets have significant crossover.

If you look at the models available in SUV's from the early 90's (Jeep Cheorkee) and follow the progression, the US models (Lincoln, Ford and GM) had more of a Manly "big" feeling to them than the Japanese and European imports.

It is only recently with things like the Nissan Armada and others that you get the huge ones that the US was known for. The market has merged and the true sales numbers are starting to permeate through the availability limitations that constrained sales years ago.

And yet you're still proving my point. The "manly big feeling" that you're talking about is exactly what happens to consumer tastes. People started wanting something different. Foreign companies were offering it, and Ford & GM's sales went down the tubes.

You are making comparisons that are too broad to be able to associate directly to one cause or another. RCA, electronics industry, slave labor (china), government subsidy, innovation, trade agreements and so many otehr things go into the RCA/Electronics switcheroo that you cannot make a strait line analogy to mega-corp takeover of a pre-existing urbanized area....

I am not 100% disagreeing with what you are saying, but just that there are too many variables to narrow the argument down to something that can be contextually applied and debated...

And I like using big words.. ;)

If you like, I'll come up with some other comparisons.

Ninjahedge

January 12th, 2007, 04:50 PM

Fine.

Good by NY and hello Greater Manhattan Mall.

3 cheers for success(tm)!

/me leaves.

pianoman11686

January 13th, 2007, 12:19 AM

So much for being a moderate...

ramvid01

January 14th, 2007, 10:33 PM

And apparently it's spreading (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/nyregion/14chains.html?_r=1&ex=157680000&en=e5a18c4b20117831&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&oref=slogin) to the other boroughs. :eek:

MidtownGuy

January 14th, 2007, 10:59 PM

thanks for the ink.

antinimby

January 15th, 2007, 05:39 AM

Better to paste the entire article here because the links to them eventually expire. ;)

Now, Big-Name Retail Chains Will Take the Other Boroughs, Too

http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/2007/01/14/nyregion/600_chains.jpg
The Victoria’s Secret store on Steinway Street is one of many name-brand stores on a strip in Astoria, and
one of the lingerie chain’s five stores in Brooklyn and Queens.

By PATRICK McGEEHAN
Published: January 14, 2007 (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/nyregion/14chains.html)

They have saturated much of Manhattan so completely that their ubiquity has become fodder for jokes on television. Now chain stores are rapidly spreading into parts of New York City that had long been left to local merchants.

The stretch of Broadway in Astoria, Queens, where Mike Belvedere opened his second Cold Stone Creamery ice cream franchise is a prime example. Amid a jumble of Greek bakeries, halal butcher shops and Indian doctors’ offices, national retailers and big banks are moving in and remaking the streetscape in Manhattan’s image.

At a glance, the junction of Broadway and Steinway Street could be mistaken for any intersection in Midtown. There are bank branches — Commerce, Chase and Bank of America — on three of the corners, and the fourth is home to a Rite Aid drugstore. Nearby are stores usually found in suburban shopping malls. A few blocks from where Mr. Belvedere is selling waffle cones for as much as $5 each are a Children’s Place clothing store, a Bath & Body Works and a Victoria’s Secret lingerie shop.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/01/14/nyregion/0114-met-CHAINS.gif
A 'Mall' on Steinway.

“The area’s flourishing, and it’s continuing to change,” said Mr. Belvedere, who added that friends had said that not being of Greek descent would be a handicap in a section of the city that historically has been a Greek enclave.

But Mr. Belvedere said that he had encountered no resistance since he leased the space for his shop about 18 months ago. Rather, he said, he detected among the young professionals who have flocked to the area a hunger for more brand-name merchants.

The rapid gentrification of certain neighborhoods outside Manhattan has accelerated the spread of the chain stores and renewed fears that the pockets of flavor that define the city will dry up, said Jeanne Giordano, an urban planner who oversaw redevelopment of the commercial space in Grand Central Terminal. “The tipping point is that it’s happening beyond the obvious places,” Ms. Giordano said. “The boroughs are all going down like bowling pins.”

Some New Yorkers are worried, she said, that “it’s getting boring around here.”

There are now 220 Duane Reade stores in the city, and 205 Starbucks cafes, and there will soon be 217 Rite Aid stores if a proposed merger with Eckerd Pharmacy goes through.

In San Francisco, such trends drove the passage in November of a proposition to require review by a planning commission of any proposal to open a new chain store outlet or restaurant within city limits. But in New York neighborhoods like Astoria and the area around the Metrotech center in Brooklyn, sentiments among shoppers and business leaders are different.

Those areas are on the opposite end of the commercial growth curve from Manhattan, said Robin Abrams, chairwoman of the retail committee of the Real Estate Board of New York.

They are being discovered by national retailers that previously had balked at paying urban rents that are generally higher than in suburban shopping malls, she said.

“As most of the nationals have saturated Manhattan or been priced out of Manhattan, they fully understand that they can do business in the boroughs,” said Ms. Abrams, who is an executive vice president of the Lansco Corporation. “You see more and more tenants looking at these areas.”

Chains that sell clothing at relatively low prices, like Children’s Place and Payless Shoe Source, led an invasion that others are now following, Ms. Abrams said. Children’s Place, which has 31 stores in New York City, plans to add six this year, all of them outside of Manhattan, according to a spokeswoman. Payless has more than 60 stores in Brooklyn and Queens; Limited Brands has five Victoria’s Secrets, six Bath & Body Works and four Express clothing stores in Brooklyn and Queens.

The chain proliferation and the sameness they have brought to so many blocks has become a pet peeve for many New Yorkers, and the butt of jokes for others. On a recent episode of the NBC comedy “30 Rock,” a character sent to pick up a prescription was stymied by the presence of “Rite Drugs” outlets on all four corners of an intersection.

To some members of the Municipal Art Society of New York, the advance of the chain stores is no laughing matter. The society, whose stated mission is to make the city more livable, said that it was monitoring what Vanessa Gruen, its director of special projects, calls “chain store creep” and looking for ways to protect local merchants.

http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/2007/01/14/nyregion/650_chains_2.jpg
Luis C. Bolivar, the owner of Dali Shoes. Across from his shop on Steinway Street in Astoria are a Chase bank and
a new Commerce Bank branch.

Ms. Gruen said the effort was spurred by fears that the proposed Atlantic Yards project would bring more “huge chain stores” to Brooklyn and that independent merchants would not be able to afford to stay in the area. Their potential disappearance is a threat to the unique character of the city’s neighborhoods, Ms. Gruen said.

Ms. Giordano, who moderated a panel discussion on the topic for the art society last fall, said there was “a lot of buzz about this, and it’s not just sort of idle chatter.” Even so, there’s no push yet for the sort of broad policy change that was contemplated in the mid-1980s.

Back then, Mayor Edward I. Koch appointed a commission to study the pros and cons of commercial rent control as a response to fears that chain stores and the high rents they were willing to pay would drive laundries and shoe-repair shops out of business.

The commission surveyed residents of several neighborhoods and found that consumer satisfaction was highest where rents were rising the fastest and lowest where commercial rents were most stable, said Alan A. Altshuler, dean of the Graduate School of Design at Harvard University, who led the commission.

“One of the reasons that people were happier where rents were rising most rapidly was that these shops were not going out of business; they were moving,” he recalled. “Shops that didn’t have high revenues were finding ways to survive.”

Mr. Altshuler said he had heard little talk lately of restricting the proliferation of chain outlets, except against very large stores like Wal-Mart. Those companies have met resistance in many communities that feared one giant big-box store might wipe out several specialty stores. Other than those battles, he said, “Clearly the passion to restrict these things is much less intense.”

San Francisco may be the only big city in the United States where an antichain sentiment burns strong, urban planners said. Last fall, the ballot proposition to require planning review of proposed chain stores or restaurant outlets received about 60 percent of the votes, said Gerardo Sandoval, the city supervisor who sponsored the proposition.

“Our position is: ‘We’re San Francisco; you can do what you want in other cities, but here we are going to protect local neighborhood character,’ ” Mr. Sandoval said.

The restrictions on chains, known as “formula retail” in San Francisco, apply to everything from Starbucks to individual outlets of Hawaiian barbecue restaurants, said Lawrence B. Badiner, assistant director of that city’s planning commission.

Mr. Badiner said that a few proposed Starbucks cafes had been rejected by the commission. “The predominant view in most parts of the city is, ‘We’ve got enough; if we want to go to Starbucks we know where to find one,’ ” he said.

That sentiment may exist in some affluent areas of New York, but many other areas are still eagerly awaiting the arrival of their first chain stores, said Ms. Giordano, who has advised some of the city’s business improvement districts on development plans. These community planners “would consider it a success if some of these stores would come there,” she said.

In part, that is because landlords see established retailers as less risky than independent merchants and start-ups, and in part because successful chain stores usually attract shoppers and more chain stores. Local officials in other parts of Queens see “that stretch of Steinway Street in Astoria” as a model of what they would like, Ms. Giordano said.

“I would say a good healthy street is a combination of both,” she said. “If it’s just the chains, then it’s boring. But certain chains have good basics. And it’s always nice to have the small, unique shops. The question is how long that mix holds until it goes and trips over to the other side.”

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

antinimby

January 15th, 2007, 05:43 AM

That sentiment may exist in some affluent areas of New York, but many other areas are still eagerly awaiting the arrival of their first chain stores, said Ms. Giordano, who has advised some of the city’s business improvement districts on development plans. These community planners “would consider it a success if some of these stores would come there,” she said.Fools.

The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.

antinimby

January 15th, 2007, 06:25 AM

Rather, he said, he detected among the young professionals who have flocked to the area a hunger for more brand-name merchants.

Was I right or was I right? ;)

The saving grace is that the outer boroughs are still primarily middle-class as opposed to the more yuppified Manhattan, so it'll take some time but it's still inevitable, I'm afraid.

Ninjahedge

January 15th, 2007, 10:17 AM

/me comes in and looks around...

Yep.

/me runs away.

Eugenious

January 15th, 2007, 12:08 PM

Fools.

The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.

It's easy to say when you don't live in the ghetto.

Ninjahedge

January 15th, 2007, 12:23 PM

/me runs in...

[Cartman voice] In the ghetto... In the ghettoooooo[/Cartman voice]

/me runs away.

antinimby

January 15th, 2007, 09:57 PM

Stop running Ninja and stay here. :D

Eugenious, this has nothing to do with living in a ghetto or not.

Even in a poor area, businesses run by private owners can provide the goods and services just as well as that of the chains.

I'm not saying to not allow one single chain store.

I'm saying that one extreme (no chains allowed) or the other (nothing but chains) is not healthy.

What is healthy is somewhere in the middle.

Of course that is easier said than done because how does one go about making sure that right balance doesn't get tip over one way or the other?

Legislation? Or let the free market decide? And if legislation, what sort of legislation and how far must it go?

That's the problem we must deal with.

lofter1

January 15th, 2007, 11:36 PM

But once one chain sees the viability of a location then the others jump in -- and it mushrooms from there.

antinimby

January 15th, 2007, 11:40 PM

That's exactly what I was talking about with the greener grass comment.

The people that's welcoming chains into their neighborhoods don't know what they're in for until they experience for themselves and find out the chains are not all roses.

They're like vermin and will multiply rapidly.

MikeW

January 16th, 2007, 05:17 PM

MidtownGuy

January 16th, 2007, 06:05 PM

I think what this is about is the shoppers in the boroughs not wanting to be held hostage by the local businesses.

Well I think that's just rubbish. Nobody is saying ban the chains completely, just regulate their cancerous tendencies.
I think it's more useful here to speak specifically than in generalities. Then perhaps you can conceive that the veracity of this statement:

"A lot of the time the chains provide better prices, better service, and better facilities than the locals. Sometimes they don't, but it's been my experience that on a nuts and bolts level, the chains do a better job."

is questionable and overly confident in it's assertion. For example, I prefer to have my hair cut in an independent barber shop. I prefer the service there. I also usually prefer to take my meals in independent eateries where the menu is both affordable and personal. I think they cook a better meal than the typical chain. I also prefer buying my bread at a neighborhood bakery where I know it is fresh and delicious each day. Another case where
for me there is no comparison. For hardware items, I have the option of Home Depot now in Manhattan, and that's not a bad thing, but for some items I still prefer the hardware store I've frequented for years. Instead of buying lighting at Home Depot, over the years I've mostly gone to the lighting district downtown where the small independent stores have selections the chains couldn't dream of stocking. The other day, for a design project, I needed 100 peacock feathers in prime condition, and fast. i found them that same afternoon at a small store that sells feathers from around the world. I could go on and on and on. I like the choices, see. They re choices my mother, living in the suburbs, is envious of when she visits. There are so many instances where the chains certainly do NOT come out ahead in my view, so I just couldn't disagree more with your statements. To me your "little secret" is an oft-repeated canard.

Ninjahedge

January 16th, 2007, 06:14 PM

I'll let you in on a little secret. A lot of the time the chains provide better prices, better service, and better facilities than the locals. Sometimes they don't, but it's been my experience that on a nuts and bolts level, the chains do a better job.

I think what this is about is the shoppers in the boroughs not wanting to be held hostage by the local businesses.

Absolute refutals:

Home Depot
ANY restaurant (TGIF, Applebees, Chilis, Chevys, Tuesdays, Uno, etc etc etc).
Wal-Mart (I have found better AND cheaper consistantly at Shop Rite, but they do not compete in te same markets. Go fig.)

Chains do do better so long as they watch themselves, but they also rob every area of its individuality. I am sure that Long John Silvers is probably the best place to get seafood in Iowa, but I would not go to it in coastal Maine. The example holds true for many chain food stores and also for things such as furnature or anything that could have its own special "flavor".

Not saying that Ethan Allen does not have its advantages, but still.....

I would rather have a specialty shop than a Pier 1. I don't think I ever found what I was looking for in a Pier 1 Crate and Barrel or other mass produced accessory store......

Punzie

January 16th, 2007, 07:50 PM

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.bloggingstocks.com/media/2007/01/bbby.gif

"Where you can get any color towel,
as long as it's pink."

Punzie

January 16th, 2007, 08:38 PM

... and is at my expense!

A large Bed, Bath & Beyond (BBBY) opened very near me a few years ago. Not to be outdone, a Linens'n Things opened nearby, too. Together they put the independently owned bed/bath/household stores out of business, except for one, which is I suspect is about to go under.

The independent places offered extensive custom/er service, and each place's buyers had a distinct style. They were the kind of stores that everyone, including interior decorators for Great Neck estates, could depend on to get unique looks. And the prices were about the same as those at the two chain stores!

What did my neighborhood get? Piles and piles of the same products, the same brands, the same few colors. Expensive stuff that does not hold up particularly well.

It's no wonder that BBBY has had lackluster stock performance lately:
http://bbby.bloggingstocks.com/

Then I got to thinking that this could be a blessing in disguise. If pink bedware and bathware are "in" again, I could finally take out and use everything my grandma left me.

antinimby

January 17th, 2007, 01:09 AM

For the most part, I don't see the large chains as so much as pushing out the small private businesses based on them being somehow better but more because they have deep pockets and their goals wherever they set up is to stifle the competition and with the devious intention of driving them (and each other) out of business.

For example, after getting rid of the small coffee shops, Starbucks will now turn on Dunkin Donuts and vice versa.

Meanwhile small private mom and pops don't have that kind of evil intention, they just want to make a living.

lofter1

January 17th, 2007, 01:24 AM

You can't get a Turkey BLT Club Deluxe Platter at either Starbucks or DuDos like you can at a good old NYC Coffee Shop (if you can find one).

Ninjahedge

January 17th, 2007, 09:47 AM

DD's used to be different. It was the "everyman's" shop. A chain coffeehouse in the tradition of the roadside perk-palace.

All they had was baked goods and coffee. No smoothies, no bagels, no omlette sandwiches. But that does not expand on a market, so now they have stretched out and, unfortunately, diluted themselves.

As for BB+B and L+T, I have gone to those stores so many times it is sickening. It is the same stuff, ALWAYS overpriced, and it never stocks the things that you might really need. How do you think they are able to send everone on their mailing list those 20% off coupons EVERY MONTH?

I am not saying that small shops are necessarily the best in all situations, but there has to be some tweaking of the balance mechanism or we will lose all of out small guys to the bigguns.

Will they come back? Maybe. Sometimes the big guys try to do too much and a specialty store will open up covering one particular product line and outsell them.

But with this national market, it is getting harder and harder to survive long enough to do that, and it is not as if these stores will just LET someone take their buisness, you know?

So enough of all this complaining. Does anyone know what would work to encourage a true balance in a place like NYC?

bigkdc

January 17th, 2007, 10:31 AM

Not sure if it has been mentioned here but one thing that is driving the desire for neighborhoods to want a target or home depot in their neighborhood is that they produce jobs. I know in East Harlem they are really excited about what that new retail development will do in terms of local job creation.

In addition, they will produce more retail traffic which will help other businesses in the area.

Obviously if you run the local hardware store and a home depot opens down the block, its not a good thing but I think the positives of having the home depot in the neighborhood outweigh the negatives.

The only kind of legislation you can do is some sort of small business subsidy so they can compete but are you willing to pay the extra tax to support that?

MidtownGuy

January 17th, 2007, 10:43 AM

Wait a minute, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we have policies to help out the big guys all the time? Tax subsidies, special breaks, etc? But to help little guys is difficult, expensive, and wrong somehow? Amazing how we always have money to help out the big guys, to woo them to a place, or to keep them there, but the same thing for small businesses is immediately questioned by references to our tax dollars.

bigkdc

January 17th, 2007, 11:58 AM

^^^^

that is because helping out big guys provides jobs...the city will give tax breaks to a home depot (although not so much recently...it happens more with companies looking to keep their corporate HQ in NYC) because their presence creates lots of jobs and can revitalize a neighborhood.

lofter1

January 17th, 2007, 12:17 PM

Howard Schultz (http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/profile/howard_schultz.shtml), Chairman of Starbucks, was on Charlie Rose (http://www.charlierose.com/) last night.

He's one smart guy ...

MidtownGuy

January 17th, 2007, 12:18 PM

^^^^The cumulative sum of all the jobs created by small businesses is nothing to sneeze at, and the contributions to the local economy by small businesses is also no trifle.

MidtownGuy

January 17th, 2007, 12:22 PM

In fact, bigdck, SMALL businesses are creating the majority of new jobs in New York and nationwide.

Ninjahedge

January 17th, 2007, 01:27 PM

And they are less likely to use foreign sources, or resource refuges.

Some of these large companies are not "USA". I am not saying that that is a bad thing in and of itself, but calling out that they somehow help the community, especially one that is not really suffering, you also have to acknowledge their foreign investment.

MikeW

January 17th, 2007, 03:22 PM

Haven't checked this in a little while, but to your points.

You're absolutely wrong about Home Depot. My father had a store that sold hardware (among other things). After he sold that I worked at a home center on LI for several years. I can definitively say that in pretty much every category, except possibly location convenience for non-drivers, HD destroyes any local hardware store in selection and, usually, price. HD made available stuff that DIYers never saw before. This is how they put out of business all the other home center chains that were around when they first opened (remember Rickles, Pergament?). And their help usually has a pretty good idea what they're talking about (they try to hire ex-builder types who decided they wanted steady work and benefits).

The restaurants I tend to agree with you on. There's enough creativity in food prep that it doesnt' can so well, except maybe at a very low level.

I don't like Wal-Mart either. But they operate in the bottom feeder market that I don't feel the need to shop in. I do like Target and Kohls, so this isn't an anti-chain thing, I just don't play in Wal-Mart's sandbox. But if you want to compare Wal-Mart to the local competition IN THE SAME MARKET SEGMENT (let's call it bottom of tbe barrel grocery-general merchandise), they'll blow away anything you'll find in the lower income areas of NYC.

Oh, and let me mention one category you didn't, and it's one that is a big source of irritation to the local uber alles crowd - drug stores. I've lived in the same neighborhood since 1989. I moved in before the rise of chain drug stores in Manhattan. It was bad. If I wanted to get a prescription filled, I had to be home by 6PM. That's when all the pharmacies closed. And I had problems finding someplace that took my insurance. Then the chains moved in, and I could get prescriptions filled up till 9:00, and the insurance was no problem. For a while I had a 24 pharmacy two blocks away (unfortunately their building came down). So sorry, but no one is selling me on the superiority of local drug stores. This is a clear case of the chains offering superior convenience and service.

Absolute refutals:

Home Depot
ANY restaurant (TGIF, Applebees, Chilis, Chevys, Tuesdays, Uno, etc etc etc).
Wal-Mart (I have found better AND cheaper consistantly at Shop Rite, but they do not compete in te same markets. Go fig.)

Chains do do better so long as they watch themselves, but they also rob every area of its individuality. I am sure that Long John Silvers is probably the best place to get seafood in Iowa, but I would not go to it in coastal Maine. The example holds true for many chain food stores and also for things such as furnature or anything that could have its own special "flavor".

Not saying that Ethan Allen does not have its advantages, but still.....

I would rather have a specialty shop than a Pier 1. I don't think I ever found what I was looking for in a Pier 1 Crate and Barrel or other mass produced accessory store......

MikeW

January 17th, 2007, 03:23 PM

Yeah, but they tend to be pretty crappy jobs. Low wages, no benefits, and no security. Would you rather work at Bob's Hardware or Home Depot?

In fact, bigdck, SMALL businesses are creating the majority of new jobs in New York and nationwide.

MidtownGuy

January 17th, 2007, 03:59 PM

After he sold that I worked at a home center on LI for several years.......

That goes straight to the point. We're talkiing about New York City, not Long Island. Here in the CITY, I can find the types of things they sell at Home Depot in other specialized places that simply do not exist in Long Island or any other suburb for that matter. That is why this discussion must be limited to New York City, which is the title of this thread. I have no doubt there is a dearth of variety in the hinterlands. Let them have all the chains they need, I couldn't possibly care less. The structure of suburbs and the shopping possibilities to be found there are fundamentally different from New York City.
On pharmacies I see your point. 24 hour pharmacies are clearly desireable. But for the product categories other than prescriptions, I still find better deals and broader variety on goods such as personal care products and various dry goods in other non-chain stores. In New York City we have awesome little discount stores such as Ray's Beauty supply on Eighth Avenue (among countless others all over the place) which are clearly better.
The big chain stores offer to suburbanites the orgasmic one-stop-shopping they crave. Hop out of the car, hop in, pull out. It's different here. We have always had specialty stores and restaurants that outperform any chain on variety and price, all lined up along that incredible urban feature called the streetscape.

antinimby

January 17th, 2007, 04:24 PM

Interesting some of you have brought up the subject of jobs and that the national chains provide better jobs with health insurance and so forth.

That may or may not necessarily be true, but you guys forget one important thing.

All those small businesses are run and owned by regular New Yorkers that often times, live in the very neighborhood their store is in.

They belong to the very important middle class in this city.

Are you going to ask all these people to trade in their businesses that support their families for a $7.50 job as a check out clerk at Target or Home Depot?

Yeah, that's a real smart trade-off. :rolleyes:

MikeW

January 17th, 2007, 04:24 PM

On the hardware side, the same holds for the city. I've lived in the city since '89, and bought and renovated and apt, so i know the city market also. HD has a much greater selection (caveat: Unless you're talking REALLY high end stuff - but I doubt that's what you're talking about), and better prices than the local general HW stores. There are some specialty stores that have stuff you won't find in HD (someone mentioned lighting, and I agree with that), but that tends not to be neighborhood either (unless you live on the Bowery).

That goes straight to the point. We're talkiing about New York City, not Long Island. Here in the CITY, I can find the types of things they sell at Home Depot in other specialized places that simply do not exist in Long Island or any other suburb for that matter. That is why this discussion must be limited to New York City, which is the title of this thread. I have no doubt there is a dearth of variety in the hinterlands. Let them have all the chains they need, I couldn't possibly care less. The structure of suburbs and the shopping possibilities to be found there are fundamentally different from New York City.

It's more than just 24 hours. The chain pharmacies have become more local than the locals. Their closer, more convenient, have better hours, and tend to have better selection than your average local. I'm not comparing you're basic CVS to something like Zitomer, but then again, they probably don't compete much anyway (Zitomer is really in a luxury market). But compared to your basic health and beauty aid place, I don't see any advantage to the local.

On pharmacies I see your point. 24 hour pharmacies are clearly desireable. But for the product categories other than prescriptions, I still find better deals and broader variety on goods such as personal care products and various dry goods in other non-chain stores. In New York City we have awesome little discount stores such as Ray's Beauty supply on Eighth Avenue (among countless others all over the place) which are clearly better.

Once good size Target can have a better selection and prices that two or three lineal blocks of locals. I just don't see the locals competing on price, they think they can keep you hostage if you don't have a car. I don't see locals store outperforming anyone (as I said before I don't apply this to restaurants).

The big chain stores offer to suburbanites the orgasmic one-stop-shopping they crave. Hop out of the car, hop in, pull out. It's different here. We have always had specialty stores and restaurants that outperform any chain on variety and price, all lined up along that incredible urban feature called the streetscape.

bigkdc

January 17th, 2007, 07:45 PM

I have grown up in NYC my entire life and there are things like the local pizza parlor that can't be replaced by big chains. However, there are categories where it makes sense and there are neighborhoods (like east harlem) that will really be helped by the inflow of big retailers.

Now, on the lack of diversity point pertaining to the # of ATMs and duane reades, it is bothersome but not sure what can really be done about it if they are willing to pay the highest rent.

bigkdc

January 24th, 2007, 01:52 PM

Bank Branches Disappearing?
What Corner Do You Live On?
By: Chris Shott
Date: 1/29/2007
Page: 10</SPAN>
And the last empty Lexington Avenue storefront in the Bloomberg Tower goes to—wait for it—Citibank.

The company’s forthcoming 56th Manhattan branch, located between 58th and 59th streets, will fill a 5,000-square-foot void along this Upper East Side commercial block, which is so desperately underserved by the cavernous Wachovia branch next-door. And the Bank of America two doors north.

If not for the Home Depot sandwiched in between, it seems, the entire block might soon consist of banks.

Clearly, the looming North Fork branch now under construction across the street from the future Citibank branch (and the Wachovia and the Bank of America) wasn’t coming online fast enough to satiate consumer money lust.

Or something like that.

“It is what it is. Some retailers won’t pay. Banks will,” said an executive from Vornado Realty Trust, who noted that the block’s newest bank branch will be paying around $220 per square foot in annual rent—about the median street-level retail rent in Manhattan right now, according to the Real Estate Board of New York.

Her enthusiasm in confirming the deal was clearly lacking. “Who’s excited about having three banks on one side of the street?”

Not long ago, some retail brokers were predicting a sort of cataclysmic bubble burst for the city’s seemingly never-ending bank-branch boom. For the better part of the current decade, the boom had reverberated throughout Manhattan and parts of the outer boroughs.

“Where can they go? Because you get the feeling they are everywhere at this point,” said purported bank-leasing specialist Cory Zelnik, then president of Winick Realty, in a December 2005 interview with property-minded trade pub The Real Deal. (Mr. Zelnik, it should be noted, no longer works for Winick; he formed his own firm.)

Similarly, last April, Commerce Bank chairman Vernon Hill told The New York Times: “The building frenzy in branch banking is probably nearing its peak.”

At least at street level, these forecasts of a recession in the recent retail-leasing dominance of banks appear quite premature.

What’s replacing the East Village’s historic Second Avenue Deli? A Chase branch, according to a sign posted earlier this month on the boarded-up storefront.

Proprietors of the hallowed P&G Cafe Bar on the Upper West Side continue to hear rumors of their replacement at the corner of Amsterdam Avenue and 73rd Street by an as-yet-unknown bank branch once their lease runs out in 2008. By bar manager Steve Hale’s count, there are already at least 10 banks within three blocks of the 60-year-old neighborhood institution.

Similar rumors surround the corner of Bleecker and Thompson streets in Greenwich Village, where several retailers, including Ben & Jerry’s, recently lost leases.

Yet it would definitely be an understatement to suggest that bank branches are becoming the new Starbucks as they continue to pop up on every corner like beacons of corporate homogeny and hegemony. One HSBC branch literally replaced a Starbucks at the corner of Broadway and 102nd Street this past October.

“Every day, I get an offer from a bank,” said retail broker Faith Hope Consolo of Prudential Douglas Elliman, who’s admittedly struggling to land some sort of high-end fashion tenant at the northeast corner of Broadway and 58th Street, near Columbus Circle.

Instead, she’s been fielding calls solely from financial institutions.

Ms. Consolo, at least, seems resigned to a future strewn with storefront A.T.M.’s.

“Service tenants, like banks, have become ‘safe’ and desirable tenants because of their longevity in neighborhoods,” she said. “I certainly do not foresee an end to this influx of banks; they are here to stay.”

copyright © 2006 the new york observer, llc | all rights reserved

ZippyTheChimp

January 24th, 2007, 02:50 PM

Banks are the worst, worse than Duane Reade or Starbucks. You may not like that there are so many of them, but you may drop in once a week. How often to you go past the ATMs? The last time I did was early last year when my ATM card wouldn't work. They were so helpful, I was mailed three invalid cards in succession.

And why so many? Do they do that much business? There were so fewer before online banking, or ATMs, or direct deposit - when you had to go into the bank.

I sometimes think it's all just street advertising to attract new business, but that seems like such a waste of money.

MikeW

January 24th, 2007, 03:30 PM

I think the bank thing goes in cycles. A number of things caused the current upswing. Banking deregulation allowed a large number out of state banks to move in. Also consolidation caused a bit of a vacuum (remember when Chase, Manny Hanny, and Chemical were all seperate banks?). Both the out of staters and some out of city or smaller local banks expanded into this Vacuum.

Not all these banks are going to make it. I see another big consolidation wave coming down the 'pike. I just can't call the timing. I've already heard that WaMu is going to be a tasty tidbit for either Citi or Chase. And I don't doubt that at some point the bigger player are going to swallow up the smaller players.

At that point, youi'll see the bank branch glut start to deflate.

bigkdc

January 24th, 2007, 04:01 PM

I sometimes think it's all just street advertising to attract new business, but that seems like such a waste of money.

that is exactly what it is...so long as they can break even on the operation, the return is positive because of the marketing...

MikeW

January 24th, 2007, 06:42 PM

No, I think it's more than that. I think the bank philosophy is that if they can hook you in, they can milk you for a long time. The question is, how do they set that initial hook. And I tend to think that the biggest factor for most bank customers is convenience. Even if once you open the account, you rarely set foot in the bank when it's open, since alot of the product is essentially the same, it's the closer bank that gets the account.

that is exactly what it is...so long as they can break even on the operation, the return is positive because of the marketing...

bigkdc

January 24th, 2007, 06:56 PM

think we are saying the same thing but you are being more precise...when i say its marketing i mean they are marketing to folks in the neighborhood trying to get them to become customers

antinimby

January 25th, 2007, 02:51 AM

Breakfast at Tiffany’s. At Least for Now.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/01/20/nyregion/thecity/dine600.jpg

By JAKE MOONEY
Published: January 21, 2007 (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/nyregion/thecity/21dine.html)

JUST after sunset on a cold, clear afternoon, a young couple sat in a corner booth at the Tiffany Diner on the corner of Fourth Avenue and 99th Street in Bay Ridge, talking awkwardly around the state of their relationship. Looming behind the diner, and looking close enough to touch, stood the blue eastern tower of the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.

In the next booth over, a man in a dark suit shuffled papers and a calculator back and forth to his companion over a pair of chicken Caesar salads.
Someone at a table nearby was sketching his landscaping plans on the back of a paper placemat, and at the counter, a white-haired regular greeted the waitress familiarly and ordered Chicken à la Tiffany, a special of the day featuring pasta and cream sauce.

It was, in short, part of a normal day at the diner, which has played host to the everyday business of Bay Ridge — the first-date milkshakes, late-night omelets and quick lunchtime burgers — since 1968. Its days, though, may be numbered. Commerce Bank, a chain that has opened 57 branches in the city since September 2001, has plans to tear down the diner and open a new branch in its place.

Tom Dilos, the diner’s owner, said this month that nothing was official yet. But the bank, which reported in an April filing with the Department of City Planning that it holds a long-term lease on the property, is seeking a zoning change that would allow it to build the branch.

In the first step in the city’s review process, the members of Community Board 10 are to discuss the matter, perhaps next month. Howard Hornstein, a lawyer for the bank, said that he expected that the rezoning would be approved and the diner would close.

As word has spread around the neighborhood, residents have been thinking about the diner’s years as a hub of neighborhood activity.

“If me and my husband were out on a Saturday night with a whole group, we always went to Tiffany’s,” recalled Frances Loftus, 74. “Back in the ’70s and the ’80s, if you were out late, at 1 or 2 in the morning, you had to wait in line.”

Diner food being diner food, Ms. Loftus said that the Tiffany has never exactly been a culinary destination; a meal there was less a big event than something you did immediately before or after a big event. The whole family went after her nieces’ first communions, her sons went after their basketball games, and her daughters would stop in on dates for a slice of the thick, creamy cheesecake.

Josephine Beckman, 38, the district manager of the local community board, who went to high school in Bay Ridge, recalled going to Tiff’s — as it was known in her circle — after her prom and seeing the parking lot filled with limos at 3 a.m.

“Kind of like on that show ‘Happy Days,’ ” she said. “You couldn’t drink, so you’d go for coffee or soda, French fries with cheese on them.”

And Fran Vella-Marrone, president of the Dyker Heights Civic Association, said many patrons had stayed loyal into adulthood. Local civic groups have been known to gather around a table and hold a board meeting over dollar cups of coffee (with free refills), and when families from the neighborhood need a place to gather and reminisce after a funeral, the diner is often the choice.

One day this month, the dinner crowd trickled in past wood-and-brass doors adorned with a stained-glass “T” and settled into booths with tabletop jukeboxes. Chris Weber, a Bay Ridge sixth grader who was sliding back and forth on wheels in the soles of his sneakers, said he and his mother were frequent visitors. “Basically every time we do laundry, which is twice a week,” he said, before recommending the cheesecake.

His mother, Nancy Sprague-Weber, said losing the diner would be sad. “It’s a warm and fuzzy place,” she said.

If the bank’s proposed zoning change goes through and the diner does go, Ms. Vella-Marrone said in a separate interview, there are plenty of people who will feel the same way. “No offense to Commerce Bank,” she said, “but I think people will think, ‘Well — another bank.’ ”

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Punzie

January 25th, 2007, 06:13 AM

. . . We're talkiing about New York City, not Long Island. Here in the CITY, I can find the types of things they sell at Home Depot in other specialized places that simply do not exist in Long Island or any other suburb for that matter. That is why this discussion must be limited to New York City, which is the title of this thread. I have no doubt there is a dearth of variety in the hinterlands. Let them have all the chains they need, I couldn't possibly care less. The structure of suburbs and the shopping possibilities to be found there are fundamentally different from New York City.

I would agree with you if there were a Great Wall between New York City and Long Island.

Chain stores on Long Island often start in malls, with just a few settling in Queens and Brooklyn. They proliferate westward, infesting Long Island, then Queens and Brooklyn -- with just a few stores moving to Manhattan. Finally, Manhattan becomes infested.

I'm oversimplifying a little, but the point I'm making is worth boldface:

It is unwise to ignore the chain stores that are proliferating in NYC's suburbs, because the revenue the stores are reaping there will enable them to invade your NYC backyard.

antinimby

January 31st, 2007, 12:18 AM

Megastores on March, Paris Takes to Barricades

By ELAINE SCIOLINO
Published: January 31, 2007 (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/31/world/europe/31paris.html)

PARIS, Jan. 30 — There was a time when the Champs-Élysées stood for grand living, high style and serendipity. With the Arc de Triomphe on one end and the Tuileries Gardens on the other, you could discover an underground jazz band at midnight and down oysters and Champagne at dawn.

But the road where de Gaulle celebrated France’s liberation from the Nazis, the one known as “the most beautiful avenue on earth,” has, like Times Square and Oxford Street in London, turned into a commercialized money trap.

Most of the music clubs are gone. Movie theaters are closing. Sometimes, all that seems to be left on the 1.2-mile stretch are the global chain stores that can afford the rent.

And so, in a truly French moment, the Paris city government has begun to push back, proclaiming a crisis of confidence and promising a plan aimed at stopping the “banalization” of the Champs-Élysées. The question is whether it is too late.

The first step was a decision last month to ban the Swedish clothing giant H&M from opening a megastore on the avenue.

The decision is intended to slow the invasion of retail clothing stores and to preserve what is left of the diverse character of the most visited site in France, after the Eiffel Tower.

“We were losing our sense of balance,” said François Lebel, a deputy mayor who administers the part of the city that includes the Champs-Élysées.

“Drastic action was needed. We don’t have anything against H&M. It just happens to be the first victim.”

In a sense, the avenue is a victim of its own success. With rents as high as $1.2 million a year for 1,000 square feet of space, the Champs-Élysées is the most expensive strip of real estate in Europe and the third most expensive in the world, after Fifth Avenue in New York and Causeway Bay in Hong Kong, making it impossible for most small businesses to even consider setting up shop there.

Multinationals have no such problem. Adidas opened its largest store in the world on the Champs-Élysées last fall. Gap, Benetton, Naf Naf, the Disney Store, Nike, Zara, a Virgin Megastore and Sephora occupy major spaces. Car manufacturers including Toyota, Renault and Peugeot have huge showrooms that display flashy prototypes and serve largely as walk-in advertisements.

Low-end fast-food chain restaurants like McDonald’s and Quick do high-volume business.

And things seem only to be getting more expensive. The opening of luxury showpieces like Cartier in 2003, Louis Vuitton’s five-story flagship store in 2005 and the Fouquet’s Barrière hotel last year (the least expensive room is nearly $900 a night) have given the avenue new glitter.

Round-the-clock saturation of the street by teams of uniformed and plainclothes police officers — in buses and cars, on in-line skates and foot — has made it safer for its up to 500,000 visitors a day. Armies of street cleaners compensate for the scarcity of garbage bins, a grim reminder of the terrorist bombings on the avenue two decades ago.

Only seven movie theaters are left, however, half the number of a dozen years ago. The UGC Triomphe has announced that it will close in the next few months unless its landlord backs down from the rent increase it has demanded.

Jean-Jacques Schpoliansky, the owner of the independent Le Balzac movie theater just off the Champs-Élysées, greets customers seven days a week to give his business a personal touch.

His rent is 15 times what it was in 1973. But the three-screen theater shows “artistic” movies, so the city gives it an annual subsidy of almost $39,000 to help it stay in business. He says he still doesn’t break even.

“My grandfather founded the Balzac in 1935,” Mr. Schpoliansky said. “This place, the human contact with my customers — this is my life.”

Many other merchants lament that the move to save the avenue has come too late. “High-class Parisians don’t want to come to the Champs-Élysées,” said Serge Ghnassia, owner of the fur shop Milady, which opened on the Champs-Élysées in 1933. “It’s not prestigious; it’s not pleasant. The people who come are very common, very ordinary, very cheap. They come for a kebab sandwich and a five-euro T-shirt.”

He said he kept the store largely for sentimental reasons, as a sort of shop window to advertise his more upscale stores on the Rue du Faubourg St.-Honoré and in the ski resort of Courchevel.

Many other merchants lament that the move to save the avenue has come too late. “High-class Parisians don’t want to come to the Champs-Élysées,” said Serge Ghnassia, owner of the fur shop Milady, which opened on the Champs-Élysées in 1933. “It’s not prestigious; it’s not pleasant. The people who come are very common, very ordinary, very cheap. They come for a kebab sandwich and a five-euro T-shirt.”

He said he kept the store largely for sentimental reasons, as a sort of shop window to advertise his more upscale stores on the Rue du Faubourg St.-Honoré and in the ski resort of Courchevel.

Underlying some of that resentment is that groups of young people descend on the Champs-Élysées from the working-class immigrant suburbs on weekend nights. The police keep a close watch on them, monitoring their moves.

But some old-timers praise the avenue as a sort of democratic — and free — tourist destination for the underprivileged. “The kids coming from the suburbs are coming from the suburbs to look, to see, to escape the places where they live,” Mr. Schpoliansky said. “We are a multiethnic country, and that reality is reflected on our street.”

The Champs-Élysées was conceived in 1667 as a grand approach to the royal palace at the Tuileries in what were then fields and swampland on the outskirts of Paris. In the 19th century, it was planted with elms, renamed after the Elysian Fields of Greek mythology and lined with hotels, cafes and luxurious private residences.

But the divide between the landmark avenue’s mythic image and its gritty commercialism has troubled Parisians for much of the last century.

The prosperity of the 1960s in France attracted airline companies, car dealerships, fast-food restaurants, panhandlers, streetwalkers and badly parked cars. Rents plummeted and many commercial spaces stayed empty.

In 1990, Jacques Chirac (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/jacques_chirac/index.html?inline=nyt-per), who was then the mayor of Paris, began a $45 million renovation project that broadened sidewalks, planted more trees, eliminated parking lanes and added elegant streetlamps and bus stops.

Some of the older enterprises use creative ways to stay in business. The 24-hour restaurant L’Alsace is on the ground floor of the Maison de l’Alsace, a tourism and promotion bureau financed by the Alsace regional government.

Fouquet’s, one of the avenue’s few remaining belle époque restaurants, resisted a nasty takeover bid years ago and has been officially designated by the city of Paris as a “place of memory” to preserve its position on the avenue. Its new hotel, Fouquet’s Barrière, has a state-of-the-art spa as well as some of the most expensive rooms in Paris.

Louis Vuitton is so popular that its customers (most of them tourists) often have to line up outside for entry.

All that activity has made the unanimous decision by the city’s commerce committee to block admission to H&M particularly stunning.

H&M, which already has nine stores in Paris, had hired Jean Nouvel, a leading French architect, to design the 37,000-square-foot space in what once housed offices of Club Med.

The company has suggested that it will appeal.

But the ruling followed a study for the city of Paris last November that found that 39 percent of the avenue’s street-front retail space was filled with clothing stores.

“The avenue progressively is losing its exceptional and symbolic character, thus its attractiveness,” the study warned, predicting that if the trend continued, the Champs-Élysées would become as tacky as Oxford Street.

That gloomy assessment is not shared by Christophe Pinguet, the director of the Shortcut public relations agency and one of the two dozen remaining residents of the Champs-Élysées. From the terrace of his top-floor apartment, Mr. Pinguet looks out on the Eiffel Tower, the Place de la Concorde and the Arc de Triomphe.

“I know shops nobody knows,” he said. “I know the butcher who delivers meat to Jacques Chirac. I know the police who dress like spies. Sure, the Champs-Élysées can be cheap. But it’s not a museum. The battle shouldn’t be to keep H&M out. It should be to make sure it’s fabulous.”

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

MikeW

January 31st, 2007, 11:44 AM

More than that. The presence of the big chains in the 'burbs creates demand for them in the city. A large % of the shoppers in the near suburban chain stores are from the city.

I grew up out in Hicksville (no snide comments please), and I still have family out there. Many of you may know, Hicksville home to one of the Ikeas in the metro area. Every weekend there is a legion of NYers getting off the train at Hicksville station, and taking the bus to the mall where Ikea is located. You think those shoppers weren't a big factor behind the push to build the Ikea in Brooklyn? Want to bet one will make it into Manhattan soon enough.

The same thing with Wal-mart. They've been popping up on the Island also. For people with limited amounts of money, WM offers good value, and the city shopper aren't willing to be held hostage by the city stores.

Do you think that city hall doesn't notice the sales tax income and the jobs that the city losing to the suburban counties because of these stores?

It is unwise to ignore the chain stores that are proliferating in NYC's suburbs, because the revenue the stores are reaping there will enable them to invade your NYC backyard.

MikeW

January 31st, 2007, 11:47 AM

The Paris article is interesting. What I think they could do is zone an arts district along parts of the boulevard. This would keep the movie theaters and music clubs.

Zoning upscale retail vs cheap mass market is more difficult though.

ManhattanKnight

February 4th, 2007, 10:32 AM

Synergy

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/4774/cyn0741ayf2.jpg

The New York Times Feb. 4, 2007

lofter1

February 4th, 2007, 10:58 PM

Citibank is moving a new branch in to a great old SoHo building at 476 Broadway (between Grand / Broome -- just up the block and across the street from the Wachovia branch that is about to open (the ATMs there were feeding cash today) in the retail space at 40 Mercer (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=141093&postcount=124) ...

This retail space at 476 was until recently one of those downtown jeans / t-shirts / sneakers stores ...

Citibank must be putting in a full branch as this space is large -- the lot is double-width on Broadway. Or maybe this will be one of their "Financial Centers" that offer 1 ATM :confused: .

The 476 building runs through the block to Crosby. The rear of the building (38 Crosby) is a single lot wide and has only a smallish lobby for the cond-op residents on the upper floors. Leaving the rest of the ground floor space to Citibank.

On Crosby 476 sits just to the north of 30 Crosby (http://www.curbed.com/archives/2006/03/09/curbed_threepack_30_crosby_special_edition.php), home of some famous (http://www.luxist.com/2005/06/12/lenny-kravitzs-rolls-royce-phantom/) characters -- and at least one former resident who you could call infamous (http://therealestate.observer.com/2006/05/30-crosby-courtney-love-era-ends.html).

***

Punzie

February 5th, 2007, 08:40 AM

The Queens bank where I have my ATM card just turned into a "Financial Center," and here is what happened:

- They bought the store adjacent to it, and the building size increased by at least 50%.

- The number of tellers decreased by @50%.

- The area to stand and wait for the tellers decreased by @75%.

- The number of service desks decreased by about one-third.

- The number of chairs to wait for the service desks decreased from @10 to... I don't know, I'm still trying to figure out where they put them.

- The area to stand and wait for the service desks decreased by @50%.

- The number of in-bank ATMs decreased from 4 to 2; outside ATMs decreased from 2 to 1.

- Bank hours used to be until 7pm weedays and 3pm Saturdays. Nobody knows how much shorter they are now, we're still looking into that one.

- On the phone, no service rep seems to be able to tell me about a banking service they offer to "Jane Citizen" that they didn't offer before.

Can somebody (Lofter?) tell me what a "Financial Center" does with all its extra space?

lofter1

February 5th, 2007, 10:34 AM

There is a Citibank Financial Center on Broadway near 39th or 40th Street that has a bunch of cubicles in the main space and ONE ATM in an outer area (accessible after hours).

I have no idea what business takes place in these Centers.

Perhaps someone in real estate / banking can shed some light on FCs v. run-of-the-mill bank branches.

MikeW

February 5th, 2007, 05:32 PM

The banks have been trying to move to get a larger % of their revenue from fee based services like asset management and financial planning, than the older fashioned interest rate spread sources, like taking deposits and making loans. The financial centers are the B&M locations where this takes place. They need more desk space and less teller window space.

antinimby

February 6th, 2007, 01:46 AM

Second-Story Story

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/02/04/nyregion/thecity/seco450.jpg
LOOKING UP Business on a higher plane.

By MARK CALDWELL
Published: February 4, 2007 (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/04/nyregion/thecity/04seco.html)

MOST Manhattan dwellers carry a torch for at least one departed neighborhood merchant: the shoe repairer, the locksmith, the surly hardware man who piled what looked like rusting scrap metal behind his smudged plate-glass window but who could, on demand, unearth items Home Depot never dreamed of.

For many urbanites, this loss ranks high among the not-so-hidden costs of gentrification and a residential boom. As suburban refugees flood in, commercial rents rise, threatening the small, eccentric enterprises that make for the quirks and serendipities of city life that drew everybody in the first place.

“Twenty or 30 years ago, it was all about mom and pop,” said Robert K. Futterman, president of Robert K. Futterman & Associates, which specializes in retail real estate. But annual rents are nearing $1,000 a square foot in prime locations, and the increases are spilling over into once quiet or even quasi-abandoned corners of the city.

Certain types of shopkeepers, especially shoe repairers and dry cleaners, are imperiled. “They’re being driven out of the city,” said Aaron Gavios, executive vice president and managing partner of Square Foot Realty, a Manhattan firm that specializes in small clients. “They can’t spend more than $4,000 or $5,000 a month, and rents like that are quickly evaporating.”

Still, that doesn’t necessarily portend a streetscape walled in by chain stores or big boxes. Enterprising small storeowners have increasingly headed upstairs, colonizing once empty second- and third-story spaces.

These new or at least newly rediscovered locations lack visibility and ease of access. But they rent for half the cost of a ground floor, and that can make a decisive difference. You can still encounter the improbable shop and the ardent storekeeper. To do it, however, you have to look upward.

That’s where you’ll find — if you’re walking along West 23rd Street — the Murphy Bed Center, which declares its presence with a neon sign in the window. To reach the showroom, with its intriguing display of beds that disappear behind sliding bookcases and offices that fold up behind wood panels, you must pass through a nondescript aluminum street door that begs not to be noticed, and up a narrow stairway that darkens as it mounts.

Bob and Susanne Stahl, the owners, originally opened the Murphy Bed Center in a ground floor and second story on West 17th Street. “But in 1989 the building went co-op, and they wanted $1 million a floor,” Ms. Stahl said. They abandoned the street floor and moved upstairs.

In 1999 they moved again, to 20 West 23rd Street, and while the building offered a vacant storefront at street level, it was double the rent of the second-story space they chose instead.

This might not have made sense for a store that depended on spur-of-the-moment purchases. But the Murphy bed is not an impulse buy. “Our customers find us and come in for a purpose,” said Michel Scalamandre, one of the two saleswomen. “On the ground floor, you get so much foot traffic, you end up neglecting the real customers.”

The sentiment is echoed by other second-floor merchants, many of whom can make their out-of-the-way spaces work precisely because they cater to niche markets and motivated, even obsessed customers. One such merchant is Toy Tokyo, which occupies the second floor of 121 Second Avenue, near Seventh Street. To find it, you push past a six-foot plywood Godzilla on the sidewalk, clutching a Statue of Liberty in its claws, walk through a graffiti-splotched door and proceed up a stairway redolent of smells from the Japanese restaurant downstairs.

TO the left of the landing, Toy Tokyo bursts upon you. Two cramped showrooms are packed with floor-to-ceiling glass cases crammed not with Barbie or Hello Kitty but with unheard-of specialties: a Gay Empire Homotrooper action figure, a full line of Living Dead Dolls, and vinyl figurines of Japanese comic art characters, like Medama Oyaji, a naked eyeball equipped with legs and sold with the rice bowl in which he takes frequent baths. (If you have to ask, you’re no enthusiast of Japanese comic book art.)

As the merchandise suggests, and as Toy Tokyo’s owner, Israel Levarek, confirmed, most customers are adults. “Kids want the stuff, but it’s too expensive for them,” Mr. Levarek said. Many of his toys are limited editions; he pointed to a foot-high figurine named Dissected Kaws Companion, its left side an Elephant Man look-alike wearing Mickey Mouse shorts, the right side cut away to reveal a lurid, parti-colored anatomy of lung, intestines, brain and eyeball. Only a thousand were produced, and they sell for $299, if you can find one.

Affordable children’s toys can be had at Toy Tokyo, but the buyers who form the backbone of Mr. Levarek’s business, in their 20s and 30s, are typically avid collectors of their childhood toys: Robbie the Robots for the baby boomers, or (for Generation X) Gremlins, in commemoration of the 1984 movie of the same name.

Apart from the sidewalk Godzilla, Mr. Levarek does try to announce Toy Tokyo to the street — after dark a searchlight sign spins across the sidewalk, beamed down from a projector on the third floor. But for a store whose customers seek it out, near invisibility is an asset. “It’s a real effort to get up here, but we don’t want the wrong people coming in,” Mr. Levarek said. Who, after all, wants a toddler’s grubby fingerprints on a $299 work of art?

Uniqueness is a recurrent theme in the landscape of second-story retail.
Successful stores specialize in either offbeat or esoteric merchandise. Or they deal in luxury and exclusivity, a phenomenon visible in what may be Manhattan’s densest clusters of upper-level stores, on 57th Street, and on Madison Avenue between 57th and 72nd Streets.

Typical of the second breed is Worth & Worth, the hatter, which closed its store at Madison and 43rd Street in 1999. Orlando Palacios, a hatter from Los Angeles, acquired the business and moved what was left of it into a third-floor apartment on West 55th Street, in a building heavily populated by specialty retailers, all well hidden by the building’s residential street appearance.

Last fall, riding a nascent fashion revival in men’s hats, Mr. Palacios moved Worth & Worth again, this time to a sixth-floor showroom with a vast plate glass window at 45 West 57th Street, and a sign visible from the sidewalk.
He sells hats of his own making as well as imports, the most expensive of which come from Ecuador, are woven from an extraordinarily refined straw, take six months to make and fetch $10,000 apiece.

The building doesn’t present an imposing appearance to the street — its ground and second floors are a McDonald’s. But its upper reaches are pure carriage trade. Some tenants, like William Fioravanti, the bespoke tailor who has occupied the fourth floor for nearly 40 years and whose offerings include $6,000 suits, handmade on the premises, prize their invisibility. “If they gave me a ground floor for nothing, I wouldn’t take it,” Mr. Fioravanti said. “If we were selling a suit for $2,000, we’d want walk-in business. But someone paying what we charge for a suit wants exclusivity.”

While no one cited statistics, retailers and real estate brokers see the upward movement as an accelerating trend. “It’s absolutely an increasing phenomenon,” said Ms. Stahl, of the Murphy Bed Center. “There’s a lot of surprises on the second floor.”

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Punzie

February 7th, 2007, 07:07 AM

Old-timer Tone99loc just put up a sort of "game" related to this topic over here:

http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12514

ablarc

February 7th, 2007, 07:52 AM

Just a matter of time before the rent escalates in these multi-story retail buildings. They'll be configured and marketed as exclusive, multi-story mini-malls at astronomical rents --like miniature Time-Warners.

czsz

February 7th, 2007, 07:23 PM

Already happened- see the Whole Foods / DSW / Filene's stack on Union Square.

MikeW

February 8th, 2007, 06:16 PM

Rents will keep going up as long as people keep pouring more and more money into the city. Of course if that stops, we'll all be bitching about that (more than we bitch about things getting expensive).

ZippyTheChimp

February 18th, 2007, 12:03 AM

On the first block we have all the available stores occupied by banks.

Washington Mutual
HSBC
Emigrant
BOA
http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/1711/retail01mp3.th.jpg (http://img185.imageshack.us/my.php?image=retail01mp3.jpg)

What's a bank to do? Why, lease the corner store across the street.
http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/9126/retail02au6.th.jpg (http://img185.imageshack.us/my.php?image=retail02au6.jpg)

Not to be left out, with the nearest branch in the A.T. Stewart Building north of Chambers, Chase is leasing the next corner.
http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/3020/retail03iq9.th.jpg (http://img185.imageshack.us/my.php?image=retail03iq9.jpg)

Its main rival, Citibank, is across the street.
http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/3381/retail04ul4.th.jpg (http://img185.imageshack.us/my.php?image=retail04ul4.jpg)

Thankfully, there's no bank branch on Park Pl. But...
http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/8673/retail05lu1.th.jpg (http://img294.imageshack.us/my.php?image=retail05lu1.jpg)

MidtownGuy

February 18th, 2007, 04:08 AM

Thanks. This needs to be regulated. Ooh, the dirty R word.

ZippyTheChimp

February 18th, 2007, 08:49 AM

Bloomberg should just look out the window.

lofter1

February 18th, 2007, 01:50 PM

I doubt Mike gives two shoots about 58 banks opening on every block ...

To him it's probably a good sign that his pro-business policy is a huge success.

MidtownGuy

February 18th, 2007, 02:18 PM

You're probably right, and it shows the kind of tunnel vision for which I despise him so much.

bigkdc

February 18th, 2007, 03:51 PM

You're probably right, and it shows the kind of tunnel vision for which I despise him so much.

I completely agree that the bank branch situation is out of control but I also like to think that Bloomberg has more important things to think about like school systems, budget, etc..

MidtownGuy

February 18th, 2007, 04:44 PM

Or like regulating sex shops, nightclubs, and a million other things no more or less deserving of his energy.:rolleyes:

pianoman11686

February 19th, 2007, 12:30 AM

Thanks. This needs to be regulated. Ooh, the dirty R word.

Why's it "dirty"? It's pretty much ubiquitous and firmly entrenched in the status quo.

Although I don't agree with regulating something as trivial as bank branch proliferation, I don't think the idea to do it is that far-fetched at all. I'd venture it'll take a year before someone brings it up in the City Council, and a few more months before it passes.

MidtownGuy

February 19th, 2007, 11:07 AM

I was being sarcastic. I don't think it's dirty at all. It's funny that you replied
about that, pianoman, because when I posted it, I was thinking of forum members who
have, in the past, expressed a disdain for regulation when this issue was discussed.

ZippyTheChimp

February 19th, 2007, 11:24 AM

There's no way the City Council could enact a broad-based regulation on bank branches, and not have it constitutionally challenged. Maybe it could be done within historic districts or to specific projects.

What annoys me is the fanfare accompanying these branch openings - like they're God's gift to the neighborhood. The two Chase branches are five minutes apart.

Although regulation is unrealistic, it would be nice to hear the mayor comment on it in one of his radio adresses, like he does about other quality of life issues.

MidtownGuy

February 19th, 2007, 11:43 AM

I'm curious, have other regulations that limit the concentration of businesses of a certain type on one block(or whatever), such as clubs,
ever been challenged constitutionally? Wouldn't this just fall in with the other limits we impose in neighborhoods?

ZippyTheChimp

February 19th, 2007, 12:05 PM

^
I haven't looked into it, but I think Giuliani's 500 ft rule for adult bookstores was challenged.

But the reason I think, in the case of banks, it would be struck down is that, in the case of a club or adult establishment, there is something that differentiates it from standard retail.

There is nothing that sets apart a bank branch from say, a dry cleaners.

MidtownGuy

February 19th, 2007, 12:31 PM

I think one important thing that sets bank branches apart is that they seem to have less imperative for each individual branch to show a profit, making them somewhat impervious to the live-or-die checks/balances an independent retailer of another sort might face, including adult bookstores. For this reason, perhaps the "natural" tendencies that might limit them aren't really working, and something else needs to be considered.
In the case of a club or adult establishment, I think that what you might be referring to when you cite their differences from other retail, is the nature of what they are selling? And in that case, the reason that this is a significant difference is because they effect the quality of life. But if quality of life is the thing the city tries to preserve with such regulation, could the case not be made that an unreasonable excess of bank branches (like every corner of an intersection) is also a negative factor on quality of life? And also on the possibility for other types of businesses to exist and compete with an entity that has the financial strength of banks to pay any rent at all? In this way, they certainly are different from other businesses like dry cleaners.
Another factor is business hours. 4 banks on one intersection, and after 5pm or so everything's dead. They're killers of night time and weekend
street life when they dominate an area too completely. Certainly the argument can be made that they squeeze out other services that people in neighborhoods need in addition to banking. For me, this is quality of life.

lofter1

February 19th, 2007, 01:26 PM

Are there any bank industry folk on this forum who can fill us in regarding the business plan that makes the proliferation of bank branches on every corner workable / profitable?

For example, the new BofA branch-ette that just opened on the north side of Houston at Lafayette has nothing in it but TWO ATM machines. Even if BofA gets $2 from each transaction then they must expect a LOT of folk looking for cash to make the rent on that site.

Or is it the presence of the BofA sign on the much-trafficked thoroughfare that makes the new branch-ette viable.

Or a combination of the two???

MidtownGuy

February 19th, 2007, 02:42 PM

I think that must be part of it. And the simple benefit of boasting about how many branches they have.

Since you mentioned the ATM transactions, having a law that limits ATM fees to 1.00 or less would be great, IMO. No need to charge all that money for an electronic transaction, especially local. And then you have the Korean owned deli/stores that charge 2.75 or 3.00 on their little stand-alone ATMs. It's outrageous.

I'm not against banks. I use them too, and I like convenience as much as the next guy. I am against undue redundancy of the streetscape, retail rents rising and pushing others out as a result of the fact that banks can pay whatever. Quality of life deteriotates in a way that isn't as immediately obvious as dog crap or drunken loiterers, but is cumulative and disagreeable nonetheless.

MikeW

February 19th, 2007, 03:01 PM

I bet they make a hell of a lot of money off those ATM fees. I bet they're making a profit on that location.

And the advertising angle doesn't hurt either.

Are there any bank industry folk on this forum who can fill us in regarding the business plan that makes the proliferation of bank branches on every corner workable / profitable?

For example, the new BofA branch-ette that just opened on the north side of Houston at Lafayette has nothing in it but TWO ATM machines. Even if BofA gets $2 from each transaction then they must expect a LOT of folk looking for cash to make the rent on that site.

Or is it the presence of the BofA sign on the much-trafficked thoroughfare that makes the new branch-ette viable.

Or a combination of the two???

pianoman11686

February 19th, 2007, 06:44 PM

Since you mentioned the ATM transactions, having a law that limits ATM fees to 1.00 or less would be great, IMO. No need to charge all that money for an electronic transaction, especially local. And then you have the Korean owned deli/stores that charge 2.75 or 3.00 on their little stand-alone ATMs. It's outrageous.

This is just another aspect of banking that will undoubtedly disappear soon. The trend has already been started by WaMu, and a couple of others I believe.

I'm not against banks. I use them too, and I like convenience as much as the next guy. I am against undue redundancy of the streetscape, retail rents rising and pushing others out as a result of the fact that banks can pay whatever. Quality of life deteriotates in a way that isn't as immediately obvious as dog crap or drunken loiterers, but is cumulative and disagreeable nonetheless.

The problem with using that argument is the fact that these quality of life issues can be attributed to any number of factors. Retail, in general, is becoming much more redundant in the city; rents are rising, and the ordinary, non-chain small business is getting pushed out. To argue that banking should be targeted specifically because of either its business hours or the fact that profitability per branch is not a huge concern is somewhat hypocritical, IMO. I can think of many other ground-floor businesses that would have to be regulated as well, because of similar complaints: restaurants and bars come to mind most easily.

But let's think more broadly about the prospect of regulating bank branch proliferation. Firstly, what do you define as the boundaries/rules? How far should branches of the same type be separated? Or is there a city-wide limit on the total number of branches that any one institution can operate? Secondly, how do you justify this regulation by using anything other than a "quality of life" argument (which itself is hardly convincing, IMO)? Past examples that I can think to relate to are any number of antitrust suits brought about because monopolizing companies strategically "dumped" their products at below-market prices. They did this to force out competition in the long-term, and because of their size, could afford to absorb the losses in the short-term. But take a look at the banking industry. It's one of, if not the most, fragmented industries out there, and clearly no one company has significant market share. Thus, any regulation would have to justify cross-industry antitrust principles, which doesn't seem likely.

If it does occur, I think it'll lead to more regulation in retailing. I'm talking Starbucks, Duane Reade, maybe even Whole Foods. Some might welcome this; I certainly don't. The way I see it, there's already too much regulation that is anti-business, and deeply rooted in conservative ideas. This will only weaken New York's position as a center for global finance, and wealth in general.

Finally, there's an interesting article I came across that talks about a New York state law that actually set out to encourage more bank branches in certain special districts. I wonder if any of these were in Manhattan. Here's the link: http://www.banking.state.ny.us/bddprt8.htm

MidtownGuy

February 19th, 2007, 08:36 PM

The problem with using that argument is the fact that these quality of life issues can be attributed to any number of factors. Retail, in general, is becoming much more redundant in the city; rents are rising, and the ordinary, non-chain small business is getting pushed out.

It isn't clear to which specific part of my statement you are saying is the problem. We'e exchanged ideas about this before, and I invite you to remember that my sentiments are indeed not reserved for banks. So, we're actually in agreement here. Momentarily.

To argue that banking should be targeted specifically because of either its business hours or the fact that profitability per branch is not a huge concern is somewhat hypocritical, IMO.

That isn't hypocrisy, that's intelligent, customized decision making about what is good for a community and what isn't, based on specific considerations. Hypocrisy implies that other businesses, under scrutiny for exactly similar characteristics or practices, would be treated or considered differently. The implication is that one should have either no regulation of any business types at all,(you're saying that's hypocritical), regardless of their specific effect on a neighborhood; or that each regulation must fit every case and must be applied everywhere without considering the qualities of what's being regulated... I strongly disagree.
You call it "targeting", ( here you choose to use a loaded, emotionally charged word popular with opponents of regulation but very misleading); it's simply looking at different specific types of retail and deciding on what is appropriate.

I can think of many other ground-floor businesses that would have to be regulated as well, because of similar complaints: restaurants and bars come to mind most easily.

Again, your presumption that one size must fit everything, that it's somehow wrong to look at different qualifications, is a reluctance or unwillingness to register shades of grey. Bars are regulated. That was plainly a lousy example.

But let's think more broadly about the prospect of regulating bank branch proliferation. Firstly, what do you define as the boundaries/rules? How far should branches of the same type be separated?

This is what a study, often a precursor to regulation, would presumably determine. I'll assume your question was rhetorical and you're not actually expecting me to provide my own numbers in order to defend my position.

Or is there a city-wide limit on the total number of branches that any one institution can operate?

Straw man. My issue here is more about saturation.

Secondly, how do you justify this regulation by using anything other than a "quality of life" argument (which itself is hardly convincing, IMO)?

Quality of life is a pretty powerful "umbrella" term. Lots of regulation is based on it, of all kinds. I'm not sure other arguments are necessary, other than in this specific case to convince you personally.

Past examples that I can think to relate to are any number of antitrust suits brought about because monopolizing companies strategically "dumped" their products at below-market prices. They did this to force out competition in the long-term, and because of their size, could afford to absorb the losses in the short-term. But take a look at the banking industry. It's one of, if not the most, fragmented industries out there, and clearly no one company has significant market share. Thus, any regulation would have to justify cross-industry antitrust principles, which doesn't seem likely.

Huh?? You present examples irrelevant to my position and then end up making a conclusion that isn't necessarily so. I'm not even going there.

If it does occur, I think it'll lead to more regulation in retailing. I'm talking Starbucks, Duane Reade, maybe even Whole Foods. Some might welcome this; I certainly don't.

You're darn right I would welcome that, at least in the first two cases right now. Whole Foods has not reached that point yet,
as I'm sure you know, the numbers are not even in the same ballpark. If, one day, there were a Whole Foods every third block, then I'd gladly include it in my hypothetical regulation. But then again, as evidenced by many of your above assertions, you're not interested in numbers or different cases, you just want a life of absolute ideals. In other words, if it doesn't fit every single example and situation that you can think of, then it must not fit ANY example or situation. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Not even logical.

pianoman11686

February 20th, 2007, 01:25 AM

It isn't clear to which specific part of my statement you are saying is the problem. We'e exchanged ideas about this before, and I invite you to remember that my sentiments are indeed not reserved for banks. So, we're actually in agreement here. Momentarily.

You're right - I do remember that. I was only responding to the fact that this thread has come to narrowly focus on banks during the past several posts.

That isn't hypocrisy, that's intelligent, customized decision making about what is good for a community and what isn't, based on specific considerations. Hypocrisy implies that other businesses, under scrutiny for exactly similar characteristics or practices, would be treated or considered differently. The implication is that one should have either no regulation of any business types at all,(you're saying that's hypocritical), regardless of their specific effect on a neighborhood; or that each regulation must fit every case and must be applied everywhere without considering the qualities of what's being regulated... I strongly disagree.
You call it "targeting", ( here you choose to use a loaded, emotionally charged word popular with opponents of regulation but very misleading); it's simply looking at different specific types of retail and deciding on what is appropriate.

I'll refer you to Post 129 (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=149026&postcount=129), where you specifically called for the regulation of bank branches. If that's not "targeting," as I understand it, I don't know what is.

The implications of my statements were that it's unfair to just be focusing on bank regulation, as there are clearly other offenders in the retail industry out there. Since I now know you'd like to see those regulated as well, I assume we can move past this point.

Again, your presumption that one size must fit everything, that it's somehow wrong to look at different qualifications, is a reluctance or unwillingness to register shades of grey. Bars are regulated. That was plainly a lousy example.

Depends what you mean when you talk about bars. There's one kind of regulation - the one dealing with liquor licenses. This is plainly understood, as alcohol is an illegal substance for certain people out there. The other possible regulation - the one I was referring to in conjunction with restaurants - is the aspect of noise and/or unsanitary conditions leading to things like rats, infestations, etc. It is often for these reasons that people oppose dining/drinking establishments from opening up on their block or in their building, and may seek the help of politicians in voicing this concern.

This is what a study, often a precursor to regulation, would presumably determine. I'll assume your question was rhetorical and you're not actually expecting me to provide my own numbers in order to defend my position.

Straw man. My issue here is more about saturation.

I didn't want specific numbers, but I did want to know which option you'd prefer/expect.

Quality of life is a pretty powerful "umbrella" term. Lots of regulation is based on it, of all kinds. I'm not sure other arguments are necessary, other than in this specific case to convince you personally.

And I think many times, the arguments are unconvincing. Quality of life is a term that's, in my view, thrown around too often, too generally, and too haphazardly, to suit the specific situation. Other examples are "serving the public good" and "improving societal welfare." Just letting you know that when you claim "quality of life" as a justification for regulating banks or Starbucks or Duane Reade, it's unsubstantiated, and therefore unconvincing.

Huh?? You present examples irrelevant to my position and then end up making a conclusion that isn't necessarily so. I'm not even going there.

If I had given a specific example, (such as the case of Standard Oil) and not explained myself, then it would have been irrelevant.

To clarify: I was responding to your complaint about the fact that banks apparently are willing to lose money from opening new branches, solely to expand their saturation of a particular market. This, in my view, is analogous to a practice known as dumping, in which a company (usually a monopoly) will force competitors out of the industry by artificially deflating prices for a while, which leads to short-term losses. This practice became heavily scrutinized during the rise of antitrust regulation.

Since no single bank can claim a significant market share in a highly fragmented industry, I can see no justification for regulation because of that practice. That, combined with the fact that you're not solely focusing on banks but all retailers in general, pretty much makes the point moot - which means we're back to square one (quality of life).

You're darn right I would welcome that, at least in the first two cases right now. Whole Foods has not reached that point yet,
as I'm sure you know, the numbers are not even in the same ballpark. If, one day, there were a Whole Foods every third block, then I'd gladly include it in my hypothetical regulation. But then again, as evidenced by many of your above assertions, you're not interested in numbers or different cases, you just want a life of absolute ideals. In other words, if it doesn't fit every single example and situation that you can think of, then it must not fit ANY example or situation. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Not even logical.

Yes, not now, but possibly not too many years down the line, I can see people having the type of disdain for Whole Foods that they now have for Duane Reade and Starbucks.

The thing I don't understand, and which I find illogical in your arguments, is that you can defend regulation as an unquestionable panacea for solving this bank/retail problem. You judge the situation solely on your own opinion of what contributes to and detracts from quality of life. You further assume that this "problem" can be easily remedied by imposing bans and limits, without considering the consequences. You then easily shake off any notion of unfairness when I ask you why banks, in particular, are so in need of regulation. (Let me guess: it's because they're the most profitable.)

That first picture that Zippy posted: is it so much different than any other street or neighborhood that happens to have a high concentration of a certain retailer? How about Little Korea and all its knock-off outlets. How about the Diamond District, or the lighting outlets on the Bowery. How about Radio Row, before it was wiped clean. Or outlying areas of Times Square, with all the cheap electronics outlets.

The only difference I can detect between these cases (which I doubt you'd object to) and the one in question is the presence of corporations. That's essentially your one condition for regulation: if it smells of big business, regulate it. I've got a good sense of why you feel this way, but let me say this: I think it's just as illogical as how you think of my arguments.

ZippyTheChimp

February 20th, 2007, 09:29 AM

That first picture that Zippy posted: is it so much different than any other street or neighborhood that happens to have a high concentration of a certain retailer? How about Little Korea and all its knock-off outlets.Little Korea is not city-wide.

If those photos were an illustration of Bankville, I would have no trouble with it. But it's everywhere. Look what happened at Astor Pl.

ZippyTheChimp

February 20th, 2007, 09:31 AM

One thing the city can do is to enter into agreements with developers to limit the size of individual retail bays.

This was done in North Tribeca.

MikeW

February 20th, 2007, 11:57 AM

There's no reason for them to enter into any such agreements. AFAIK, there is currently no zoning or other regulations on the size of individual retail bays. The City would have to impose this. Any move like this would be fought tooth, nail, and campaign contribution by the entire real estate community, and would likely have fairly little popular support (being a little to esoteric). I would say it would be DOA, but I don't think it would ever arrive in the first place.

ZippyTheChimp

February 20th, 2007, 03:49 PM

As I illustrated, it could be done selectively in new projects by offering incentives.

MidtownGuy

February 20th, 2007, 06:40 PM

Alright Pianoman, this is the last time I'll oblige you on this. After that I have work to get done.

Since I now know you'd like to see those regulated as well, I assume we can move past this point.

If you would have considered my previous posts before firing off, then we wouldn't have had to belabor the point.

And I think many times, the arguments are unconvincing. Quality of life is a term that's, in my view, thrown around too often, too generally, and too haphazardly, to suit the specific situation. Other examples are "serving the public good" and "improving societal welfare." Just letting you know that when you claim "quality of life" as a justification for regulating banks or Starbucks or Duane Reade, it's unsubstantiated, and therefore unconvincing.

The fact that a term may be misused sometimes doesn't mean that ALL of its applications are false. There ARE quality of life issues. You weaken your argument when you attempt to throw all such issues into one pot. Also, are you a libertarian, or Amish maybe? Because if you aren't, then I suggest your positions may reek of the same hypocrisy that you accused me of displaying.
I'm also noticing your tendency to overgeneralize and mire the debate in non-analagous comparisons. Comparing the situation to Little Korea and the Diamond District just really shows that you don't grasp the nuance of what we're talking about.

The only difference I can detect between these cases (which I doubt you'd object to) and the one in question is the presence of corporations. That's essentially your one condition for regulation: if it smells of big business, regulate it. I've got a good sense of why you feel this way, but let me say this: I think it's just as illogical as how you think of my arguments.

If that's the only difference you can think of, then think a little bit harder. I know you can do it. Zippy just helped you out.
Presence of corporations is not the distinguishing feature that irks me. So, thanks for putting those words in my mouth. When you debate, try listening to what the other person is actually saying, instead of playing it like an ad lib, filling in the blanks with whatever amuses your own sense of omniscience.

What about Zippy's intriguing suggestion? Pianoman, are you as opposed to incentives that benefit society as you are to regulations?

krulltime

February 20th, 2007, 06:46 PM

Duane Reade targets Gristedes for new stores

By: Elisabeth Butler
Published: February 20, 2007

Drugstore operator Duane Reade Holdings Inc. is planning to take over the leases of eight Gristedes grocery stores in Manhattan. The deals are expected to close by the end of June.

Oak Hill Capital Partners, which owns a majority stake in Duane Reade, is footing the bill to acquire the leases and convert each Gristedes location into a Duane Reade store. There are 135 Duane Reade locations in Manhattan and a total of about 250 in the city.

"We are pleased to have this unique opportunity to expand our store base and to have the continued support and partnership of Oak Hill Capital," said Richard Dreiling, president and chief executive of Duane Reade.

Duane Reade executives did not announce exact locations of the Gristedes stores they are targeting.

Gristedes operates 38 grocery stores in Manhattan, including seven locations with full pharmacy service. The New York grocer has been hurt in recent years by an influx of upscale competitors such as Whole Foods and Trader Joe's.

Entire contents © 2007 Crain Communications

krulltime

February 20th, 2007, 06:46 PM

As much as I think Gristedes is a boring supermarket, the idea of loosing 38 of them in the city and gaining more Duane Reades in the city totally sucks.

MikeW

February 20th, 2007, 06:56 PM

Fair enough, but with everyone screaming about how the new buildings are out of scale, I think a lot of people who might care about this issue wouldn't be too happy with the city bumping up the size of the buildings to bump down the size of the stores in them.

As I illustrated, it could be done selectively in new projects by offering incentives.

Punzie

February 20th, 2007, 07:13 PM

But the reason I think, in the case of banks, it would be struck down is that, in the case of a club or adult establishment, there is something that differentiates it from standard retail.

There is nothing that sets apart a bank branch from say, a dry cleaners.

I agree with the gist of what you're saying, but you should use an example other than dry cleaning stores. Recall that they have to comply with stringent toxicity laws/regulations:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/dryclean.pdf

ZippyTheChimp

February 20th, 2007, 09:00 PM

^
http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/images/icons/icon5.gif

Does this have something to do with money laundering?

MikeW

February 20th, 2007, 11:16 PM

The banks have to comply with pretty stringing cash transaction reporting law, to prevent just that.

pianoman11686

February 21st, 2007, 12:20 AM

Alright Pianoman, this is the last time I'll oblige you on this. After that I have work to get done.

Thanks, I'm pretty busy myself. ;)

The fact that a term may be misused sometimes doesn't mean that ALL of its applications are false. There ARE quality of life issues. You weaken your argument when you attempt to throw all such issues into one pot. Also, are you a libertarian, or Amish maybe? Because if you aren't, then I suggest your positions may reek of the same hypocrisy that you accused me of displaying.

I'm having trouble understanding what you're getting at here.

First off, I'll go ahead and agree with you that "quality of life" issues do exist, and that they're not cut-and-dry. By accusing me of trying to "throw all such issues into one pot," you're missing my point entirely, which is: Why is this a quality of life issue? You may not like it, but that doesn't mean it brings down your quality of life, and more importantly, those of countless others around you. As an anecdotal example, I find that on almost every occasion that I go out with friends in the city, I end up running low on cash. I have a Wachovia account, and I actually appreciate the convenience of knowing where several locations exist around the city. Yes, in a certain area of Midtown, there's one every three or four blocks, but consider how many people work and pass through that area, and how they may share my sense of convenience.

Secondly, I'll go ahead and ask right off the bat that you refrain from making personal insults in an otherwise educated discussion. I'm not Amish; if I were, I'd probably not be using the internet right now. As far as my political views are concerned, I'll say that they have been in flux recently. While certain Libertarian ideologies appeal to me, there are others I'm not ready to accept (yet). I still think that regulation has an important and necessary place in society.

I'm also noticing your tendency to overgeneralize and mire the debate in non-analagous comparisons. Comparing the situation to Little Korea and the Diamond District just really shows that you don't grasp the nuance of what we're talking about.

Zippy showed a series of photos of one particular stretch of street in Lower Manhattan, a financial district. Certainly, you'll agree that Downtown - and Midtown - have the highest concentration of bank branches, for good reason. I suspect this owes to a variety of factors, one of which is undoubtedly a pattern in a lot of retailing: businesses of an industry type like to congregate with each other. It's why you can usually count on finding a Burger King near a McDonald's, a Lowe's opening up near a Home Depot, an Exxon across the street from a BP. It has to do with customer density, visibility, and the like.

Now I won't deny that there aren't banks in other parts of the city, but I am pretty confident in saying that such high concentration is rare outside of the main commercial and retail districts. I can't recall seeing more than a few banks on long stretches of Madison Avenue on the Upper East Side, on 8th Avenue west of Times Square, on the shopping-heavy stretch of Broadway in SoHo, or on the Bowery. I don't know the city like the back of my hand, but I think Zippy's case is an anomaly, not the rule.

If that's the only difference you can think of, then think a little bit harder. I know you can do it. Zippy just helped you out.
Presence of corporations is not the distinguishing feature that irks me. So, thanks for putting those words in my mouth. When you debate, try listening to what the other person is actually saying, instead of playing it like an ad lib, filling in the blanks with whatever amuses your own sense of omniscience.

I have tried listening, and I'm not hearing much in response except constant questioning of my personal/political views, my writing style, and perhaps, even my sense of humility and humanity. I deliberately called you out, curious to see how you'd respond. At this point, I can't help but believe that you'd favor an independently/locally-owned retailer over a corporate/foreign one in every case, no matter what. It's a result of your beliefs about what is better for society. Am I wrong?

What about Zippy's intriguing suggestion? Pianoman, are you as opposed to incentives that benefit society as you are to regulations?

Who's overgeneralizing now? We're talking about a specific case, not regulation in general. Do I think it has an important role in society? (I think I already answered that.) Yes. If I didn't, I'd be an Amish-Libertarian fool now, wouldn't I?

Ninjahedge

February 21st, 2007, 05:03 PM

Bank solution:

Forbid the charging of a fee for utilizing another banks machine for your account.

Limit the transaction to only withdrawl (by law) that needs to be provided sans-charge anywhere and you might see banks less willing to buy out land just to put in ATM's.

Case in point, the drive through ATM's, yes ATMs right at the Lincoln tunnel entrance across the street from Exxon.

Any company that could afford to lease/buy that land just to put a few ATM's on it... :rolleyes:

pianoman11686

March 28th, 2007, 01:08 AM

March 2007

What comes after the bank boom?

Branches open in developing areas, some lesser-known names enter city

By Catherine Wigginton

http://www.therealdeal.net//issues/MARCH_2007/images/1172652071.jpg
In mid-February, Citibank joined
Wachovia and Bank of America at
the corner of 59th Street and
Third Avenue. But commercial
brokers are pointing to a slowdown
in bank branch openings. Better-
known chains aren't opening as
many locations in developed
areas as they did in the past.

"You can never have too many banks."

That more or less sums up commercial real estate's motto over the past few years. A case in point is the corner of 59th Street and Third Avenue, where in mid-February a Citibank branch joined Wachovia and Bank of America branches. However, commercial brokers are now pointing to a slowdown in the trend that some have called "banksteria."

They say there's still healthy expansion activity, but its ferocity is waning. "It's not over," says Cushman & Wakefield's senior director Joanne Podell. "But in the last year, it's been ebbing."

"Banks can only do so much before they start cannibalizing themselves," says Fred Posniak, a senior vice president with W & M Properties. According to Andrew Mandell, who has handled many bank deals for Ripco Retail Real Estate, the bank expansion trend appeared most competitive about 12 to 18 months ago.

During the height of branch openings, some banks -- which almost always want to occupy a corner location -- were setting up shop in the middle of a block. "They just wanted to be near their competitors," says Posniak.

Now the wave has crested, though it may not look that way at street level. Mandell points out that when mergers or acquisitions take place, like with Bank of America and Fleet, banks have to change signage, which gives a false impression of increased expansion.

Brokers note two signs that the trend is maturing: One is that the better-known chains aren't opening as many branches in developed areas, and the other is that banks have turned their attention to pioneering in developing neighborhoods.

As far as expansion, there have been periods when Commerce Bank, Bank of America, Wachovia, Citibank and Washington Mutual have each been the most competitive in their own right. Currently, brokers agree that Chase has been on an expansion binge, but Posniak now sees the market opening up to the lesser-known banks. W & M Properties recently leased a space to Metropolitan Bank at 1359 Broadway, and others, like Amalgamated Bank, are also establishing a Manhattan presence. "Those aren't household names," he says.

Certainly, there's only so much vacant space in Manhattan's densest areas, which means banks have to consider the saturation factor. "If you take a map of Manhattan and draw circles wherever there are banks, you would be shocked at how many there are in even a three-mile radius," says David Green, an executive director at Cushman & Wakefield.

Mandell notes that the concentration has been part of a customer-service push. "In New York City in particular, people are accustomed to having their services convenient," says Mandell. "Starbucks is the perfect example. One can open 200 feet from another and people won't care. They'll go to the very closest."

New Yorkers who want their banks close by have been good news for landlords, who love banks as tenants because they have the best credit, says Podell.

Green notes that banks look at the number of deposits and mortgages they expect to come in to determine what kind of rent they're willing to offer, which makes them different from most other tenants. "Other retailers say, 'We have to sell this much to make renting this space worthwhile,'" he says.

In the city's most expensive areas, like on Fifth or Madison avenues, there aren't many banks because they are either not allowed or they don't want to pay the kinds of rents those avenues command. But in other sections of Midtown, rents range from $200 to $1,000 per square foot.

Also, with banks running out of potential locations in Manhattan's business districts, the most recent openings have been in neighborhoods getting multiple new development projects. "More residential expansion means an increased need for banks to open up in newly developed neighborhoods," says Mandell.

A good example is Harlem: three years ago, there were seven major bank branches along 125th Street, the neighborhood's main drag. Now there are 18.

Eugene Giscombe, president of Giscombe Henderson in Harlem, says the average retail rents in the 125th Street shopping corridor are around $125 per square foot, but banks are renting space for $150. Banks like Wachovia, Commerce Bank, Washington Mutual and North Fork are opening up directly across from one another.

Giscombe attributes the influx of banks to the influx of new residents into Harlem as developers continue to build new apartment and condominium projects. Giscombe himself just leased the ground-floor retail space of his office building at 125th Street and Park Avenue to Washington Mutual.

Podell says that despite the increased number of branches in Harlem, the neighborhood is actually an example of major bank expansion slowing in New York. "As banks expand, they'll go to areas like Harlem that had been underserved and under-retailed. The first targeted zones were the business districts and the banks are now fanning out in all directions," she explains. "Harlem is the end of the trend."

Copyright 2003-2007 The Real Deal.

MikeW

April 23rd, 2007, 11:44 AM

Another bank branch story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/realestate/commercial/22sqft.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

MidtownGuy

April 23rd, 2007, 12:25 PM

I loved the opening line

IF you’ve ever seen a new storefront rising in your neighborhood and secretly hoped for, say, a new cafe or boutique, you might know the sinking feeling when — almost invariably, it seems — the business turns out to be a bank.

My sentiments precisely. In my neighborhood, when the Foster tower replaces the YWCA on Lex and 53rd, I pray there will be an eating establishment or some useful retail. Just one block south, the Broadway Diner closed many months ago and the space has been sitting vacant. Last month I saw the silhouettes of workers inside but no activity since then. I'm waiting to see if it too will be a bank branch.

The "Broadway Diner" sign is still up, and yesterday a group of tourists pushed on the door in famished desperation, then stood confounded on the corner of Lexington and 52nd as they tried to scope out something, anything, that provided sit-down nourishment. The main reason why Broadway Diner was packed every morning for breakfast was because all the tourists would pour out of the many hotels down Lexington looking for some simple comfort food and land there. There's nothing on Park Avenue,
and very little on Third. Even with a brisk business, this long-time neighborhood diner could not compete with the rents that banks will pay.

With rents having soared to $200 to $450 a square foot in prime neighborhoods, banks may be among the few possible tenants who can afford the space.

While the different banks fight in a "Clash of the Titans" or "Godzilla vs. Mothra" style branch war, the retail and eating places get stomped on. Like Broadway Diner in my neighborhood.
Especially if they're not connected to a deep-pocketed chain. Even then, they sometimes can't stay. The Au Bon Pain on 53rd and Third Ave closed down about 2 months ago. That sits empty, though I'm sure a bank will be moving in soon.

Fabrizio

April 23rd, 2007, 12:32 PM

A commercial block or street's prestige is determined by the retail, by shops, restaurants and so foth.... not by bank branches.

By the late 1960's and early 70's 5th Avenue was lined with airline ticket offices replacing retail...they had the same chilling effect as these bank branches...And what happened? 5th went into a long decline.

The "market" should not always decide.

Ninjahedge

April 23rd, 2007, 12:42 PM

They overdevelop (or acquire) it and face the backlash when less people walk along that street to do anything.

I like the convenience of having a bank branch nearby, but I do not need one every 2 blocks, and I also do not mind walking up to the second floor for one.

But can you blame the landlords? You can stay with the traditional for a while. Support the local businesses, but when the rent difference is 50%, 100%, 150%, where do you draw the line between "neighborhood" and just plain cash (and lots of it)?

Oh, I also assume that banks require MUCH less maintenance than restaurants and possibly even shops. I have never really heard of a Wachovia having a rat problem..... (another $$ factor).

It is a shame.

Same thing in Hoboken. 1 mile square and we have about 20 different banks, 2 CVS's, 2 starbucks, 2 Dunkin's, dozens of cell phone stores and over 40 real estate offices.

Good bye to some of the locals, hello to chains.

MikeW

April 23rd, 2007, 02:38 PM

I can't see all those bank branches being profitable. Plus, I figure we're do for another round of bank consolidation one of these years. Either or both of those eventualities will thin the herd of bank branches (eventually).

MidtownGuy

April 23rd, 2007, 02:47 PM

Life is too short to depend on eventualities.

MikeW

April 23rd, 2007, 03:08 PM

If you don't like all the bank branches, I'm pretty sure eventualities are all you've got to look forward to.

MidtownGuy

April 23rd, 2007, 03:21 PM

Ninjahedge

April 23rd, 2007, 03:26 PM

"Eventually" is too volitile.

They are trying to obtain a dominance that will allow them to Duane-Reed the city. If they see the returns flatlining or receding, they will pull back.

Getting other buisnesses in in the meantime will be difficult. It took a year to get a 99¢ pizza in after TAOS left, and the Hallmark store on 44th has been gone for 6 months, in a VERY highly trafficed area, and noone has made a move yet.

I am worried that when the fortunes change, and they "consolidate" that the year or two lag between them moving out and new tenants coming in will deaden some zones. Depending on what other influences are present at the time, that might not be a good thing.

MikeW

April 23rd, 2007, 03:53 PM

AFAIK, the only form of retail business that has ever been zoning controlled has be sex related business. Other than that, anything retail can go anywhere retail is zoned. Give the size and political power of the banking industry in NY, not to mention the real estate industry, the chances of this changing in such a way as to limit bank branches is exactly zero.

Either the market is going to come around and some of the branchs (or entire banks) will go away 'naturally', or they'll stay. Those are the only two practical choices.

They're more detrimental to healthy streetlife than porn shops.
There is such a concept as urban planning... There should be either an ordinance to curtail their concentrations or some kind of incentive for landlords to rent to businesses that fulfill other public needs.
Waiting around for the market to miraculously make our cities most liveable
is insane and ineffective. Eventuality my ass.

pianoman11686

April 23rd, 2007, 08:03 PM

The Harlem Revival Brings in the Shops

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/04/18/business/18harlem.600.jpg
A three-story retail complex next to the Apollo Theater is planned.

By CLAIRE WILSON
Published: April 18, 2007

An increasingly vigorous retail scene on Harlem’s main commercial street is likely to gain further headway in the next five years as four parcels are set for development into offices and shops geared to a residential population that is becoming more prosperous.

Scattered along the bustling 125th Street corridor from Second Avenue to Amsterdam Avenue in northern Manhattan, each of the projects includes two or more floors of retailing aimed to attract high-profile and high-fashion national chains that historically have been absent from the mix in Harlem. Real estate professionals say they understand that a prominent department store is also looking at the street.

“Retailers are getting the message,” said Eric S. Yarbro, senior vice president of CB Richard Ellis, a commercial brokerage firm. “They are looking at the market and wondering how they can tap into the existing density and those higher-income families that now have to go south of 96th Street to get the basic services they need.”

The projects that are on the books include a 30,000-square-foot three-story retail complex at 261 West 125th Street next to the Apollo Theater. It is being developed by Grid Properties in partnership with the Gotham Organization, according to Drew Greenwald, the president of Grid Properties. The site had been a vacant lot since the mid-1980s, when fire destroyed a small office building.

On the corner of West 125th Street and Lenox Avenue, Wharton Realty is developing a 33,000-square-foot parcel into 230,000 square feet of space that includes three stories of retailing and either a community facility or residential units on upper floors. The shops could open as early as next spring. A five-story building with about a dozen stores at ground level formerly occupied the site.

Vornado Realty Trust will be developing the southwest corner of Park Avenue and East 125th Street. According to a spokeswoman, the project is expected to be in excess of 600,000 square feet with several levels of retailing capped by numerous floors of office space. Formerly a parking lot owned by the New York College of Podiatric Medicine, it is adjacent to the Metro-North train station.

On East 125th Street between Second and Third Avenues, a proposed development involves three contiguous parcels owned by New York City. From October to January, the city’s Economic Development Corporation solicited bids for the six-acre site, where the plans include 300,000 square feet of retail space. A portion of that is expected to be taken by national chains while other space is earmarked for local retailers, restaurants, a movie theater, nonprofit cultural groups and 1,000 units of affordable housing. According to the development corporation, a hotel is also a possibility. In the late 1990s, there were plans to develop the site into an outlet mall, but community opposition quashed that idea.

The final size and scope of the new projects will not be determined until a river-to-river rezoning plan currently in the works is passed by the City Planning Department; no date has been set for approval.

Business is brisk, meanwhile, along the corridor. FedEx Kinkos signed its first lease in the area last month, joining a roster that includes Staples, Starbucks, Marshall’s, Pathmark, Children’s Place, Old Navy and H&M.

A Chase bank branch is moving to a larger 6,000-square-foot location adjacent to its original in Harlem USA, a multilevel urban retail complex, where other tenants are also expanding. Open only since December, Chuck E. Cheese, the Texas-based family entertainment and restaurant chain, is adding 5,000 square feet to its original 15,000 square feet of space. The New York Sports Clubs, one of the charter tenants in the complex when it opened in 2003, is expanding for the second time.

According to Mr. Greenwald, the developer with the Gotham Organization of Harlem USA, his lessees on this swath of 125th Street report that average sales in January were 30 percent ahead of sales one year earlier.

Among locally owned businesses that are specifically aimed at more sophisticated customers are Citarella, the specialized grocery chain; the high-end MAC makeup line; and Carol’s Daughter, a bath-and-skin-care products company. Others include the restaurant Mo-Bay, which serves Southern and Jamaican specialties; the Harlem Lanes bowling alley and restaurant; the Triple Candie gallery exhibition space; and farther afield, a brunch spot called the Settepani Bakery.

According to Barbara Askins, president and chief executive of the 125th Street Business Improvement District, the vacancy rate has hovered between 2 and 3 percent for some time.

Despite that, and the street’s status as a transportation hub with subways, buses and a Metro-North station, rents have remained much lower than in comparable shopping corridors around the city.

Rates are now $150 to $200 on prime blocks between Lenox Avenue and St. Nicholas Avenue, according to figures provided by RKF & Associates. This compares with $400 a square foot for comparable property on East 86th Street and Lexington Avenue or $275 a square foot on Broadway in the West 80s and West 90s. Both of those areas are relatively near to Harlem and are already frequented by residents of the neighborhood.

Prices on 125th Street have increased by only 50 percent over the last five years, said Barry Fishbach, executive vice president for RKF. Prices in the two neighborhoods farther south have doubled in that time.

Prices on 125th Street vary greatly according to location and age of the buildings, which range from 100-year-old low-rise structures to gleaming complexes like the Harlem Center.

Eugene Fata, principal in the Fata Organization, who owns a number of buildings on West 125th Street, as well as a vacant parcel at 350 West 125th Street, says the spread among his leases is from $30 a square foot to “$200 in select corner locations.”

Scott Auster, a broker with the Ripco Real Estate Corporation, said rents on East 125th Street are much lower than those on the busier West 125th Street. “Rents range from about $100 per square foot to $125 per square foot on East 125th Street,” he said. “It’s less developed. There’s less retail over all and less traffic.”

But, over all, the continued vigor of the housing market from 96th Street to 145th Street and the planned expansion of Columbia University are giving the area the critical mass of consumers that attract retailers.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

pianoman11686

April 23rd, 2007, 10:55 PM

They're more detrimental to healthy streetlife than porn shops.
There is such a concept as urban planning... There should be either an ordinance to curtail their concentrations or some kind of incentive for landlords to rent to businesses that fulfill other public needs.
Waiting around for the market to miraculously make our cities most liveable
is insane and ineffective. Eventuality my ass.

I always enjoy when a thread like this gets bumped, as I get to read the latest "takes" on what we should do to limit this, limit that. We both know where each of us stands on this issue, but I'd like to point something out.

Urban planning: you make it sound like it's a given - a static, traditional notion of what makes a city liveable and what makes for good "streetlife." The fact is, the concept itself is continuously evolving.

When city planning was born, it (generally) relegated uses according to existing densities and transportation infrastructure. That resulted in waterfronts that were entirely industrialized, dense downtowns that emptied after 5pm and on the weekends, and residential districts that - as they extended out further and further from the urban boundaries - became less and less dense. It's now evident that a lot of errors were made.

These days, the new rage seems to be mixed-use, New Urbanism among city planners: cram everyone together and encourage pedestrian use to ensure vibrant streetlife, low crime, etc. But it seems to me that - especially in a place like Midtown, that has the most banks per block of any area in the city - that streetlife is vibrant. Ditto for most heavy retail areas. Is it really plausible that bank branches are sucking the life out of these areas, and contributing to the types of problems that urban planning seeks to eliminate? Or, more importantly, should this "problem" be reserved at all for urban planners?

MidtownGuy

April 24th, 2007, 12:06 AM

Oh for crying out loud, pianoman, I'm not going there with you again.
Just shove off, I'm not interested in playing.
I stopped reading after
"We both know where each of us stands on this issue, but I'd like to point something out."
It isn't worth my time, got it??
That's it. No quote-for-quote dick-shaking this time, little buddy. Find someone else.
I let it go with MikeW's last post. Once in a while you should learn to do the same.

Schadenfrau

April 24th, 2007, 12:19 AM

But it seems to me that - especially in a place like Midtown, that has the most banks per block of any area in the city - that streetlife is vibrant.

Wait, street life is vibrant in midtown? That's certainly news to me.

macreator

April 24th, 2007, 12:20 AM

I'm sad to report that a massive Walgreens is going in to the entirety of 310 53rd Street's retail space.

pianoman11686

April 24th, 2007, 01:22 PM

Wait, street life is vibrant in midtown? That's certainly news to me.

If you had taken the time to put my comments into the context of what MG wrote, then it wouldn't seem like such an obvious statement, sarcasm notwithstanding.

MidtownGuy

April 24th, 2007, 02:16 PM

It would seem like an incorrect statement.

Ninjahedge

April 24th, 2007, 02:45 PM

Schadenfrau

April 24th, 2007, 02:55 PM

If you had taken the time to put my comments into the context of what MG wrote, then it wouldn't seem like such an obvious statement, sarcasm notwithstanding.

I'm not being sarcastic- Midtown Manhattan has probably the least "vibrant" local culture of any neighborhood in New York City.

MidtownGuy

April 24th, 2007, 03:05 PM

Comments like the one about midtown make me realize he must not be that familiar with New York. Does he even live here, and if so for how long, a semester or two?
He must never have been to midtown at night, after all the banks close.

MikeW

April 24th, 2007, 03:10 PM

I think most of that is driven by how you define 'vibrant'. It certainly is busy enough to be considered vibrant. And, for a central business district, it goes pretty good at off hours also.

Funny thing, I just got off grand jury duty. I would be down a Foley Square, and after they turned us loose, I walk up to Soho and maybe into GV for lunch. At 1-2PM, you could roll a bowling ball down the street, and not hit any one. And I'm sure those are neighborhoods you would describe a vibrant.

Methinks you're confusing vibrant with quaint.

I'm not being sarcastic- Midtown Manhattan has probably the least "vibrant" local culture of any neighborhood in New York City.

Schadenfrau

April 24th, 2007, 03:15 PM

Midtown was the first NYC neighborhood I visited when I moved here at 18. I seriously cried, thinking that WAS New York City, and what the hell had I done?

Schadenfrau

April 24th, 2007, 03:19 PM

Methinks you're confusing vibrant with quaint.

Well, MEthinks you're confusing "vibrant" with teeming with tourists too lazy to walk great distances, but too afraid to take the subway.

MidtownGuy

April 24th, 2007, 03:19 PM

MikeW, that's SO not true, I have lunch downtown all the time and it is always lively. If you're trying to say it's as dead in the daytime as Midtown is at night, you're way, way off base. I just can't even believe it. I live in Midtown and have for almost 10 years. I walk around midtown every single night, I think I know the area.

MidtownGuy

April 24th, 2007, 03:22 PM

In fact, even the tourists thin out at night except in Rock Center and Times Square, heading for more vibrant neighborhoods.

Ninjahedge

April 24th, 2007, 03:53 PM

Busy does not equal Vibrant.

they are similar, but one does not always accompany the other.

pianoman11686

April 24th, 2007, 05:20 PM

Siting midtown being "vibrant" is a misnomer.

Areas that are being taken over by bank branches are becoming less vibrant, some only being means of getting from one place to another because they themselves do not house aything worth going to.

You have to start walking out to 2nd avenue and 8th/9th before you start seeing any vibrancy past hustle and bustle of people getting to and from work.

As for zoning, siting other instances such as freightyards out of context is not right. During the period, those freightyards and piers were NYC's lifeblood and reason for being. Without them we would never have grown so large!

As for the financial district, funny how you mention it as if it were a bad thing. How was that area unsuccessful in its goal of bringing big name finance in to HQ in NYC? Agreed that they need more balance, but some zoning worked for the best.

Now putting in buffers like a limited number of branches per, I don't know, city block may help steimy the "Starbux, Nextel, Duane Reed and Citibank on every corner". Capitalism, left unchecked and unbuffered, swings wildly. Having is stabalized a bit works out better for everyone in the long run.

I made the reference to urban planning history to make a fairly simple point, which is: it's a constantly evolving discipline. Hardly condemning it, I explained why certain decisions were made back then, and how differently contemporary urban planners would approach the same problems. All the things you say about the waterfront and the business district are true, but that doesn't change the fact that the planning that governed those areas eventually created a host of its own problems, which we are trying to solve diferently today.

pianoman11686

April 24th, 2007, 05:26 PM

I'm not being sarcastic- Midtown Manhattan has probably the least "vibrant" local culture of any neighborhood in New York City.

Local culture, at least as I think you're defining it, is not the same as streetlife, which is what we were talking about before you stepped in. The example of porn shops was thrown in as more destructive to streetlife than banks - hardly a sensible statement. Years ago, people stayed away from seedy Times Square and the sex shops. Today, there's lots of banks, but it's busier than ever. I don't see how banks are making Midtown any less "vibrant."

You may have different conceptions of what makes streetlife "good," as far as who it is that's walking on the actual street. For me, I don't make distinctions between people that go to Starbucks vs. the independent coffeeshop, or suits going to the bank vs. hipsters getting tattoos. Streetlife is streetlife: if you have enough people walking on a block per day, it's either vibrant or it's not.

Comments like the one about midtown make me realize he must not be that familiar with New York. Does he even live here, and if so for how long, a semester or two?
He must never have been to midtown at night, after all the banks close.

I grew up in Queens, went to high school in Manhattan, and live in a Jersey suburb. I've spent the majority of my past few summers working in Midtown, and a good number of nights hanging out with friends around the city when I'm home from school. You can take from that what you like. I have a feeling, though, that it won't be enough.

In case you haven't already done so, check your PMs.

MidtownGuy

April 24th, 2007, 05:45 PM

You know, you really could have fooled me about living in NYC. It's just that some things you say
made me think you don't know the city so well. I now think in reality it's just that you have a strange way of seeing things.
Even now, with the statements you made about Times Square in the last post...the logic is just so flawed. Ignoring all variables except the one you're focused on. And yet you seem to really believe that you're making sense.
And all that bit just now about hipsters and so on... that wasn't even the point! That's why I have given up on discussing things with you. I don't even know why I'm responding now, except to let you know that your problem in general is: you get hung up on very narrow ideas and miss the big picture. Over and over again.
You say my statement about porn shops is "hardly a sensible statement". If you could just once think outside the box, you might figure out why someone would say that.
Please, oh please, do not become an urban planner. And if you do, please do not try to get work in New York City.

Ninjahedge

April 24th, 2007, 06:22 PM

pianoman11686

April 24th, 2007, 07:59 PM

Please, oh please, do not become an urban planner. And if you do, please do not try to get work in New York City.

Don't lose any sleep, I wasn't planning on it.

pianoman11686

April 24th, 2007, 08:10 PM

Piano, the sex shops vs. the banks make no logical sense.

Times square still had a LOT opf people there when it was seedy, it was just a different type of people. Now it has been Disney-fyed and cleaned up (mostly for the better, but it has lost all true character good or bad). The banks had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CLEANUP, but yet you use them as if they were a foil or litmus of the current atmosphere.

And as usual Ninja, you come in from left field and twist my statements around. Show me where I said that banks helped clean up Times Square, or that they (gasp!) stimulated more streetlife. I said that nowhere.

What I was trying to communicate was that the one has no appreciable effect on the other, especially in a place like Midtown which has few residents to begin with.

If you were to look more carefully at the situation you would realize it is the banks that are moving in on the vitality that was fostered by a different change in time square and that if they continue to drive out the buisnesses even tourists will hav enothing to do when they come to TS.

I think you need to go back again and retrace the thread. This whole thing started when MG suggested we approach this problem from an urban planning standpoint. The argument is that banks drain streetlife, even moreso than porn shops. And the evidence was given in the case of Midtown itself.

Now let's stop wading through all the crap. There's two opposing viewpoints: one considers streetlife an undefinable, cultural sort of thing. It can be a good thing or a bad thing. Times Square and Midtown are bad examples, because people like Schadenfrau look down on tourists and commuters. Places like the Lower East Side are probably better examples. The other side (me) thinks streetlife is either there, or not there. If a block is busy for a solid portion of the day, it's got streetlife.

So here's where it all culminates: if you want to change the (cultural) streetlife of an area by limiting banks, it's not gonna work. Why? Because Midtown will still be commercial and touristy, and for every bank that closes down, another CVS or other chain store will take its place. The DEMOGRAPHICS of the area won't change. Now, if you're someone who doesn't like the demographics of a particular area, then find another place to hang out, or move. Don't try to force change upon an untold number of people just because you don't like the makeup of the "streetlife."

MidtownGuy

April 24th, 2007, 09:41 PM

hey...wait a minute...don't get it twisted completely around! (the nerve!)

You reversed it. The streetlife was what it was. The argument is that it's now being changed by banks replacing other establishments. Don't paint me as some crusader against what the masses want. "Force change upon an untold number of people":confused: What on bloody Earth are you talking about:confused:
When the New York Times opens an article with:
"If you’ve ever seen a new storefront and secretly hoped for, say, a new cafe, you might know the sinking feeling when the business turns out to be a bank."
I don't think my opinion is as radical or isolated as you suggest when you advise me not to try to "force change on an untold number of people." Who are all these people ? Sandy Weill and friends? I would contend that most people prefer a block with variety beyond a choice between 3 banks.
Again, this is going nowhere. Why am I not surprised, and why did I let you suck me into your morass of illogic again:confused:

By the way, Ninjahedge is totally right about what you were trying to shovel regarding Times Square. And you know that he and I don't often agree, so maybe, just maybe, you're a bit off-base here. Difficult to accept sometimes, I know.;)

MidtownGuy

April 24th, 2007, 09:44 PM

By the way, you'd be surprised at how many people live in Midtown if you think it's so paltry a number. We're stacked up on top of each other, ya know.

antinimby

April 24th, 2007, 09:45 PM

I'm sad to report that a massive Walgreens is going in to the entirety of 310 53rd Street's retail space.Walgreen's - the mid-western equivalent of a Duane Reade.

If I had to choose, I'd rather patronize Duane Reade because at least it's a New York company as opposed to Walgreens, who I think is based out of Illinois.

The other ones are CVS and Rite-Aid both are also headquartered out of state (one is based in Florida and the other in Pennsylvannia, I believe) and are more common in the outerboroughs.

Ninjahedge

April 25th, 2007, 10:08 AM

And as usual Ninja, you come in from left field and twist my statements around. Show me where I said that banks helped clean up Times Square, or that they (gasp!) stimulated more streetlife. I said that nowhere.

I did not twist your statements around.

You compared times square in the 70's to today and said that banks had a lot to do with the turnaround.

Don't get all defensive when all the fluff is removed from your argument and you are left with nothing.

And quit it with the condescending "as usual" opening to every reply to me. It diminishes any content you may present by lumping it into yet another "here we go again" tirade.

What I was trying to communicate was that the one has no appreciable effect on the other, especially in a place like Midtown which has few residents to begin with.

It does, slowly. Comparing it to time square is not exactly a fair thing. Come on out to areas outside tourist central and see how some strets are getting less and less "vibrant" because 1/2 of them are all banks.

I think you need to go back again and retrace the thread. This whole thing started when MG suggested we approach this problem from an urban planning standpoint. The argument is that banks drain streetlife, even moreso than porn shops. And the evidence was given in the case of Midtown itself.

Um, I don't think so. Porn shops never really drained street life, they just changed the "flavor". It was rather unsavory, but there was still activity.

Banks don't. They have no life, no personality. Even with commercials and smiling logos they are still an institution that has one purpose. Holding your money. Noone hangs out at a bank, noone recommends visiting a bank when you come to NYC and noone buys a place in NYC because it is close to "a lot of good bank branches".

They are a life stealing leech.

Now let's stop wading through all the crap. There's two opposing viewpoints: one considers streetlife an undefinable, cultural sort of thing. It can be a good thing or a bad thing. Times Square and Midtown are bad examples, because people like Schadenfrau look down on tourists and commuters. Places like the Lower East Side are probably better examples. The other side (me) thinks streetlife is either there, or not there. If a block is busy for a solid portion of the day, it's got streetlife.

It doesn't. I worked in the village area for years. It was quaint. Had some life and character to it. It had personality. Now, working in Midtown, amidst the filth, crowds, and lack of face, it is easy to say that it has no street"life".

No doubt, it is busy, but it lacks that pulse that defines it as its own. 90% of the people in midtown do not do anything more than try to get from point A to point B. You can call that life, but most of us don't.

So here's where it all culminates: if you want to change the (cultural) streetlife of an area by limiting banks, it's not gonna work. Why? Because Midtown will still be commercial and touristy, and for every bank that closes down, another CVS or other chain store will take its place. The DEMOGRAPHICS of the area won't change. Now, if you're someone who doesn't like the demographics of a particular area, then find another place to hang out, or move. Don't try to force change upon an untold number of people just because you don't like the makeup of the "streetlife."

Um, you are taking it as if limiting bank development will somehow hurt the people. You have a rather slanted view on that.

Demographics show where these things want to be, but they do not show what their over-placement will do in the long run. You get too many branches rushingto areas where they see all these people, and you incur a loss of character that brought them in in the first place. You think Chase will say "Well, that corner is doing really well, but if we open a place there it might not do well. I think we will just let HSBC have that corner all to themselves!"

Nope.

It always strikes me as odd that of all the buisness out there, banks are the only ones that not only dont worry about proximity to others, but actually build right no top of each other.

The only other buisness I have seen do that is fast food. Another great cultural stimulus.

Keep this in mind. Free capitalism does not harvest, it pillages. If ther eare no checks and balances in todays global economy, they will get what they can over all others, and worry about the aftermath later.

I would rather have a buffer in there now than wait until entire blocks are converted to bank-rows and we have to deal with the result when half of them "consolidate" and move out later.

Ninjahedge

April 25th, 2007, 10:12 AM

Walgreen's - the mid-western equivalent of a Duane Reade.

If I had to choose, I'd rather patronize Duane Reade because at least it's a New York company as opposed to Walgreens, who I think is based out of Illinois.

The other ones are CVS and Rite-Aid both are also headquartered out of state (one is based in Florida and the other in Pennsylvannia, I believe) and are more common in the outerboroughs.

CVS #2 opening in Hoboken.

What a thrill, now I can get my Doritoes, Valentines Day Cards, Mouthwash and Ms. Smiths Frozen Entrees in a place that is only blocks from home!!!

Oh, and I hear they also have a pharmacy.

MikeW

April 25th, 2007, 11:10 AM

You're being sarcastic about this, but I remember when, in Manhattan, finding a drug store was a problem.

When I first moved to my neighborhood ('91-ish), if I wanted to get a prescription filled, I had to be there by 6PM. Forget about Sunday. Now it's seven days usually till 9PM (we used to have 24 hour, but the building got torn down). And I have a choice of who I want to deal with.

There is something to be said for this.

CVS #2 opening in Hoboken.

What a thrill, now I can get my Doritoes, Valentines Day Cards, Mouthwash and Ms. Smiths Frozen Entrees in a place that is only blocks from home!!!

Oh, and I hear they also have a pharmacy.

Ninjahedge

April 25th, 2007, 11:48 AM

There were several pharmacies Mike, and some smaller ones too.

What I am saying is that CVS is not a pharmacy, it is a convenience store WITH a pharmacy. They seem to cater more toward the general population/uses than what they were started on.

Like a WaWa with a pill counter... ;)

I would not mind it so much if Hoboken wasn't so small with such a large concentration of the same buisnesses over and over again. Instead of filling the gaps, they seem to just be going for teh safeties. But, then again, most companies could not afford to be here.

It is a shame, really. Hoboken could have used a good small furnature store (we only have "sleep Cheap" and Batiglias, a rather eccentric furnatur shop. Gothic Cabinets is neat, but not too diverse....)

Anywho, it was sarcastic seeing that RiteAid is only 2-3 blocks away from the new CVS..... And I think there is another one only 2 blocks in the other direction....

MikeW

April 25th, 2007, 12:01 PM

Yeah, your right, but the general merchandise supports the pharmacy (suprisingly, there isn't too much margin on prescriptions at the retail level). Then again, with the death of Lamstons and Woolworth's in the city, there is need for general merchandise stores.

As far as furniture, you could always drive out to the IKEA in Elizabeth...
<ducking behind flameproof barrier :D >

There were several pharmacies Mike, and some smaller ones too.

What I am saying is that CVS is not a pharmacy, it is a convenience store WITH a pharmacy. They seem to cater more toward the general population/uses than what they were started on.

Like a WaWa with a pill counter... ;)

I would not mind it so much if Hoboken wasn't so small with such a large concentration of the same buisnesses over and over again. Instead of filling the gaps, they seem to just be going for teh safeties. But, then again, most companies could not afford to be here.

It is a shame, really. Hoboken could have used a good small furnature store (we only have "sleep Cheap" and Batiglias, a rather eccentric furnatur shop. Gothic Cabinets is neat, but not too diverse....)

Anywho, it was sarcastic seeing that RiteAid is only 2-3 blocks away from the new CVS..... And I think there is another one only 2 blocks in the other direction....

Ninjahedge

April 25th, 2007, 12:03 PM

I DELIBERATELY AVOIDED EXIT 13A IN MY POST!!!!

:D

lowercase... ;)

pianoman11686

April 26th, 2007, 10:23 PM

I did not twist your statements around.

You compared times square in the 70's to today and said that banks had a lot to do with the turnaround.

Don't get all defensive when all the fluff is removed from your argument and you are left with nothing.

I'm still awaiting any proof that validates your claim. The only time I mentioned banks and Times Square in the same sentence was here:

Years ago, people stayed away from seedy Times Square and the sex shops. Today, there's lots of banks, but it's busier than ever. I don't see how banks are making Midtown any less "vibrant."

I see nothing here that can be construed as causation. Notice how I used the word "but": as if to say, "Despite there being a lot of banks, Times Square is still busy, and in fact busier than it's ever been."

And quit it with the condescending "as usual" opening to every reply to me. It diminishes any content you may present by lumping it into yet another "here we go again" tirade.

Hard to do when you're twisting around my statements like you just did above.

It does, slowly. Comparing it to time square is not exactly a fair thing. Come on out to areas outside tourist central and see how some strets are getting less and less "vibrant" because 1/2 of them are all banks.

I made that comparison (and it wasn't only to Times Square, but Midtown in general. The original claim made by MG, and backed up by you and others, is that banks drain streetlife. My logical response to this was to point out that Midtown, the area with the highest concentration of banks, has as busy a streetlife as any other part of the city.

Um, I don't think so. Porn shops never really drained street life, they just changed the "flavor". It was rather unsavory, but there was still activity.

Banks don't. They have no life, no personality. Even with commercials and smiling logos they are still an institution that has one purpose. Holding your money. Noone hangs out at a bank, noone recommends visiting a bank when you come to NYC and noone buys a place in NYC because it is close to "a lot of good bank branches".

They are a life stealing leech.

Porn shops and sex districts in general have a way of scaring away a majority of people. Only a certain clientele frequents them. On the other hand, everyone uses banks.

It doesn't. I worked in the village area for years. It was quaint. Had some life and character to it. It had personality. Now, working in Midtown, amidst the filth, crowds, and lack of face, it is easy to say that it has no street"life".

No doubt, it is busy, but it lacks that pulse that defines it as its own. 90% of the people in midtown do not do anything more than try to get from point A to point B. You can call that life, but most of us don't.

Again, I think you're being too nitpicky in how you define streetlife. If you want to call an area "cultural," you're not going to be able to do so for a place like Midtown, where the vast majority of people are commuters or aimless tourists. In that case, there's really no "streetlife" to begin with, thus the banks have nothing really to "drain." I'll stick to my definition, which again, does not distinguish between the demographics of the people walking on the sidewalk.

Um, you are taking it as if limiting bank development will somehow hurt the people. You have a rather slanted view on that.

Demographics show where these things want to be, but they do not show what their over-placement will do in the long run. You get too many branches rushingto areas where they see all these people, and you incur a loss of character that brought them in in the first place. You think Chase will say "Well, that corner is doing really well, but if we open a place there it might not do well. I think we will just let HSBC have that corner all to themselves!"

As far as me saying that it will "hurt people," it was part of a broader point I was making with reference to changing demographics in general. Presumably, if we are to accept the justifications for limiting things like banks (because they kill "cultural" streetlife), then we have to question what we're implying about the area itself. My contention is that there's no justification for forcibly trying to change a street's, or a neighborhood's, makeup. If you limit banks in a neighborhood, chances are you're not going to stem the tide of gentrification/yuppiefication/chain-store-ization, etc. The cultural streetlife that you value so highly and see in places like the Village will not be there, regardless. And it's futile to try to make an area be something that it's clearly not.

It always strikes me as odd that of all the buisness out there, banks are the only ones that not only dont worry about proximity to others, but actually build right no top of each other.

The only other buisness I have seen do that is fast food. Another great cultural stimulus.

Patently false. There are almost limitless examples of businesses that like to congregate close to each other. Take an area like the Bowery Lighting District, or the Diamond District, for example. Take the (former) Meatpacking and Flower Districts. Take the Financial District, or high-end retail area of 5th Avenue. Need I go on?

Keep this in mind. Free capitalism does not harvest, it pillages. If ther eare no checks and balances in todays global economy, they will get what they can over all others, and worry about the aftermath later.

If you truly believe that capitalism "pillages," then I don't know what else to say. Do I think we need regulations in certain areas? Yes. But not the kind that are justified by vague sentiments of what makes for "interesting" streetlife.

I would rather have a buffer in there now than wait until entire blocks are converted to bank-rows and we have to deal with the result when half of them "consolidate" and move out later.

If that truly does happen, then the only people to lose will be landlords in the short-term. After all the new retail spaces open up, rents will fall, and retailers that were previously pushed out will be able to come back. The free market has a way of finding equilibrium.

antinimby

April 27th, 2007, 01:17 AM

New Bank Courts in Queens Neighborhood Where Many Have Long Trusted Only in Cash

By ELLEN BARRY
Published: April 26, 2007 (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/26/nyregion/26branch.html)

By yesterday’s opening, the building on 21st Street in Long Island City, Queens — once home to a Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet — seemed distinctly banklike. Four tellers waited at their stations, deposit slips were lined up in neat stacks, and easy-listening music was playing over the sound system. The only thing missing was customers.

They filtered in to the Amalgamated Bank branch slowly, like explorers.
Jacqueline Williams, 48, has never had a bank account; she keeps her money in a tight roll inside a hollowed-out prayerbook. Sylvia Williams, 50, has never had one either: for 27 years, she has taken her paycheck to the same check-cashing business. “I’ll break it to him easy,” she said, beaming.

She said she could not wait to tell her relatives who already use A.T.M. cards that she would soon be opening an account and joining their ranks. “Now I’m going to have the plastic, too,” she said.

A year and a half ago, when Councilman Eric Gioia and the East River Development Alliance, a group that represents public housing residents, commissioned a survey of people living in the Queensbridge Houses, a public housing project that is home to 15,000 people, they found that more than a third had never used a bank account.

They began a campaign to bring a bank to Queensbridge residents, who they said live more than a mile from the nearest bank. The effort culminated quietly, on Wednesday, with the opening of the Amalgamated branch, near 36th Avenue.

Josh Andre, the soft-spoken branch manager, is a veteran of “underbanked” neighborhoods — he has headed branches in Harlem and Jamaica — and he did not expect to be mobbed the first day. People who have never used banks are fearful: fearful that the bank will disappear overnight, or freeze their assets, or be robbed. Some just do not trust banks. Mr. Andre’s plan is to begin walking the neighborhood’s streets and explaining himself.

“I just want to create the feeling: This is what banks are for,” he said.
Mr. Gioia, who represents Long Island City and the surrounding neighborhoods, has long worried about his constituents’ financial health; at one point, after some of his constituents received checks for the Earned Income Tax Credit, he realized that many of them were planning to store the whole sum — thousands of dollars in some cases — in cash.

People who live in an all cash-economy can damage their credit profiles, foreclosing opportunities to buy homes, he said, so a bank account “can literally change the trajectory of a family’s life.”

In January 2006, Mr. Gioia and the Rev. Mitchell Taylor, of the East River Development Alliance, led a march of several hundred residents through the neighborhood, chanting: “We don’t need a liquor store! We don’t need a check casher! We need a bank!”

Amalgamated offered to open a branch there last June, and the state designated the area a Banking Development District, offering banks that moved there tax incentives, employee training and public-funds deposits.

Derrick D. Cephas, Amalgamated’s president and chief executive, said he expected it to turn a profit within a year.

“I don’t think it’s a gamble that we don’t understand,” he said. “This is what we should be doing.”

In the meantime, Mr. Gioia and other community leaders will act “almost like a dating service,” he said, offering courses on banking to fifth graders and holding seminars on homeownership and credit repair for adults. The effort was aided, he said, by the delayed mail delivery of 1,800 Social Security checks to people in Queensbridge Houses last month. When Social Security recipients realize that direct deposit of their checks is more reliable, he said, it will nudge them further toward having bank accounts.

“If this works the way I think it will, I think we have a model here,” he said.

Jacqueline Williams, an analyst for a telephone company, said that having a bank account would relieve the panic she feels when she forgets where she stashed her money and the exasperation of hearing another lecture from her boyfriend, who will not let her forget the “thousands and thousands of dollars” in fees she has paid to check-cashing businesses.

Walking out of the bank yesterday afternoon — she was the only customer at the time — she said an employee there had been more than encouraging.

“He was all in there: ‘Can I help you do this? Can I help you do that?’ ” she said, with a look of mild alarm. She said she had gone in to find out about an account for her son, Tyquan, who is 10, and has saved $130, and expects to open accounts for each of them soon.

“He’s thrilled about the interest” he will earn, she said. “He doesn’t believe they’re going to give him this money for nothing.”

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Ninjahedge

April 27th, 2007, 10:31 AM

I'm still awaiting any proof that validates your claim. The only time I mentioned banks and Times Square in the same sentence was here:

Your statement implies that banks made times square vibrant by grammatical imposition of implied opposites.

As for proving to you that banks did not make TS vibrant? MOST OF THE FRIGGING BANKS CAME IN AFTER DISNEY AND THE CORPS TOOK OVER! How can you prove that water is wet when nobody takes the time to do a study that you can quote online about a subject so obvious!

I see nothing here that can be construed as causation. Notice how I used the word "but": as if to say, "Despite there being a lot of banks, Times Square is still busy, and in fact busier than it's ever been."

Wrong. It is busy because of foreign money. That was a subject I believe someone here posted a year or so ago from the NYT about the weak dollar making places like NYC an attractive vacation destination.

I still fail to see the connection between vibrancy and banks. Banks feed of it, they do not produce it.

Hard to do when you're twisting around my statements like you just did above.

Think of it as straitening them out so you can see all the nooks and crannies that are in your argument.

I made that comparison (and it wasn't only to Times Square, but Midtown in general. The original claim made by MG, and backed up by you and others, is that banks drain streetlife. My logical response to this was to point out that Midtown, the area with the highest concentration of banks, has as busy a streetlife as any other part of the city.

Then you would say something like street traffic creates vibrancy then? You are taking some unrelated items and making them seem cause-and-effect rather than actually exploring what causes the effects you are seeing.

Banks are a symptom of desirable and expensive real estate. Chains are too. An area becomes popular based on different factors, when that area becomes desirable, and intersects with other demographics like the push from banks to assert their presence in the city, and you get them moving into areas that they feel would best represent them.

Now, most of what we have been saying is that this drains the area of character. Being that areas like Times Square still have a lot of other competition for space, they have not killed it. But what would happen if Virgin Megastore was replaced by HSBC? What about Toys R Us and the ferris wheel? What if that was a Commerce Bank? What would happen to the area if you were to remove the things that tourists are specifically coming for and left the banks?

That is the extreme, and a pure look at what that will bring. Real estate is like farming. A little fertilizer may be a good thing, but too much Sht and all you end up with is crap.

Porn shops and sex districts in general have a way of scaring away a majority of people. Only a certain clientèle frequents them. On the other hand, everyone uses banks.

And they all RUN to the banks to spend their vacations!!!!!

BS. They spend 5 minutes, at most, on average, at the ATM to get cash.

Great use of space. The busiest I have seen a bank there have been maybe 20 people waiting in line to get something done by a teller, during business hours. Then they are closed after 6.

Compare that to a restaurant and how many people use that. Compare it to just about any other business and you will see that banks are not a draw, they are a utility. They are needed, but not to the degree and extent that they are being pushed.

It is like a subway stop. It is nice to have one close to where you need to go, but if that subway stops every 2 blocks, it gets to be more of a pain than it is worth.

Too much "convenience" in the name of sacrificing everything else is not convenience.

What is the use of being able to get cash if you have to go to the other side of town to use it?

Again, I think you're being too nitpicky in how you define streetlife. If you want to call an area "cultural," you're not going to be able to do so for a place like Midtown, where the vast majority of people are commuters or aimless tourists. In that case, there's really no "streetlife" to begin with, thus the banks have nothing really to "drain." I'll stick to my definition, which again, does not distinguish between the demographics of the people walking on the sidewalk.

You are disqualifying any statement because it does not fit your definition. Guess what, when more people see "vibrancy" in a different light than you do, it is a sign that you may not be seeing things right.

You want vibrancy like you are describing it? Come over to the Hoboken train station. There are thousands of people there every day, but I would not call it vibrant.

As far as me saying that it will "hurt people," it was part of a broader point I was making with reference to changing demographics in general. Presumably, if we are to accept the justifications for limiting things like banks (because they kill "cultural" streetlife), then we have to question what we're implying about the area itself. My contention is that there's no justification for forcibly trying to change a street's, or a neighborhood's, makeup.

You are so ironic.

So the companies that can pay to change the neighborhood can force other companies out because of the rents jumping up?

So you cannot but restrictions on densities of establishments in order to buffer a trend swing fueled by economic dominance?

If you limit banks in a neighborhood, chances are you're not going to stem the tide of gentrification/yuppiefication/chain-store-ization, etc. The cultural streetlife that you value so highly and see in places like the Village will not be there, regardless. And it's futile to try to make an area be something that it's clearly not.

How the HELL do you get that? Prove to me that banks gentrified SoHo, Tribecca, the East village. Prove it! They don't cause the gentrification, they FEED off it. They are not the first ones in there. I have NEVER seen a bank move into an artists enclave and the place turns into a yuppie mecca!

Patently false. There are almost limitless examples of businesses that like to congregate close to each other. Take an area like the Bowery Lighting District, or the Diamond District, for example. Take the (former) Meatpacking and Flower Districts. Take the Financial District, or high-end retail area of 5th Avenue. Need I go on?

Yes you need to go on. Show me where this has worked for Cell Phones. Where it has worked for service industries like Barber Shops, Taylors and the like. You get too many of them too close together and you have a problem.

The diamond district is like a market. With products that are almost impossible to directly compare. No two shops have the same stones, and they all have limited supply. Comparing that to banks is not exactly fair.

If you truly believe that capitalism "pillages," then I don't know what else to say. Do I think we need regulations in certain areas? Yes. But not the kind that are justified by vague sentiments of what makes for "interesting" streetlife.

How vague is making banks limited to certain densities? You are the one making things vague in this argument. Siting banks as a key component to vibrancy and saying that without them there would be no (or limited) gentrification.

And it does not take a genius to know a street full of banks is not "interesting" :rolleyes:

If that truly does happen, then the only people to lose will be landlords in the short-term. After all the new retail spaces open up, rents will fall, and retailers that were previously pushed out will be able to come back. The free market has a way of finding equilibrium.

No it doesn't. It finds a way of swinging back an forth. You get a swing, you do not get a few shops having problems, you get entire areas having problems. NYC has gone through swings like this in the past for various reasons. Sometimes it is best to put in BUFFERS to curb the extremes in the capitalistic pendulums motion and slow it down a bit as well.

pianoman11686

April 27th, 2007, 03:23 PM

Your statement implies that banks made times square vibrant by grammatical imposition of implied opposites.

As for proving to you that banks did not make TS vibrant? MOST OF THE FRIGGING BANKS CAME IN AFTER DISNEY AND THE CORPS TOOK OVER! How can you prove that water is wet when nobody takes the time to do a study that you can quote online about a subject so obvious!

Wrong. It is busy because of foreign money. That was a subject I believe someone here posted a year or so ago from the NYT about the weak dollar making places like NYC an attractive vacation destination.

I'm not going to continue arguing with you about this stupid issue, so here goes: I AGREE that banks neither led to the cleanup of Times Square, nor to its becoming vibrant! All I was saying was, DESPITE the presence of banks today, in comparison with sex shops yesterday, Times Square is still an active place. There is no causation, only correlation. I can't explain it any other way to you.

I still fail to see the connection between vibrancy and banks. Banks feed of it, they do not produce it.

The connection is thus: banks don't detract from Midtown's vibrancy. Period. If they did, then people would be avoiding areas that are heavily saturated with banks. Since we know the sidewalks are busier than ever, my point stands.

Then you would say something like street traffic creates vibrancy then? You are taking some unrelated items and making them seem cause-and-effect rather than actually exploring what causes the effects you are seeing.

No, I'm taking a term and looking at it fundamentally. You and others are instead adding superficial meaning to it by claiming that there are differing levels of vibrancy based on what KINDS of people are on the streets.

Banks are a symptom of desirable and expensive real estate. Chains are too. An area becomes popular based on different factors, when that area becomes desirable, and intersects with other demographics like the push from banks to assert their presence in the city, and you get them moving into areas that they feel would best represent them.

Now, most of what we have been saying is that this drains the area of character. Being that areas like Times Square still have a lot of other competition for space, they have not killed it. But what would happen if Virgin Megastore was replaced by HSBC? What about Toys R Us and the ferris wheel? What if that was a Commerce Bank? What would happen to the area if you were to remove the things that tourists are specifically coming for and left the banks?

That is the extreme, and a pure look at what that will bring. Real estate is like farming. A little fertilizer may be a good thing, but too much Sht and all you end up with is crap.

I don't think it's in anyone's interest (financial or not) to replace huge spaces like the Toys R Us store (which brings in millions in revenue) with banks.

And they all RUN to the banks to spend their vacations!!!!!

BS. They spend 5 minutes, at most, on average, at the ATM to get cash.

Great use of space. The busiest I have seen a bank there have been maybe 20 people waiting in line to get something done by a teller, during business hours. Then they are closed after 6.

Compare that to a restaurant and how many people use that. Compare it to just about any other business and you will see that banks are not a draw, they are a utility. They are needed, but not to the degree and extent that they are being pushed.

Great, I will compare it to restaurants. I'll compare it to every restaurant out there that allows people to step in for 5 minutes and get something for take out. Same dynamic.

It is like a subway stop. It is nice to have one close to where you need to go, but if that subway stops every 2 blocks, it gets to be more of a pain than it is worth.

Too much "convenience" in the name of sacrificing everything else is not convenience.

What is the use of being able to get cash if you have to go to the other side of town to use it?

Is this another of your extreme hypotheticals?

You are disqualifying any statement because it does not fit your definition. Guess what, when more people see "vibrancy" in a different light than you do, it is a sign that you may not be seeing things right.

You want vibrancy like you are describing it? Come over to the Hoboken train station. There are thousands of people there every day, but I would not call it vibrant.

And God help me, I have TRIED to make the distinction between the two different things we're talking about. There are CONCRETE, QUANTIFIABLE things about streetlife as far as I'm describing it. Things like numbers of people per hour, and how that relates to retail businesses doing well, and an area being active enough for long periods of the day in order to be considered safe. Your version of vibrant streetlife is CULTURAL, and I dare you to justify to me on legal grounds the right for government to step in and tell us what is "good" culture and why we should legislate to encourage THAT type of culture.

It's not that I'm seeing things the wrong way. It's that I'm trying to keep this argument objective, instead of relying on what a certain group of people consider to be good (subjective).

You are so ironic.

So the companies that can pay to change the neighborhood can force other companies out because of the rents jumping up?

So you cannot but restrictions on densities of establishments in order to buffer a trend swing fueled by economic dominance?

I don't see how I'm being ironic. Companies coming into a neighborhood and taking part in its evolution into something different are doing so under the rules of the free market. Competitors that can no longer afford the rent are forced out because, presumably, the environment for their business has become unsuitable and unsustainable. This is not at all the same dynamic as saying: "let's bring the government in to prevent neighborhood change. Let's artificially support the companies that are paying rent to do business by keeping out other companies that are willing to pay more in rent." That's an unfair attitude, because it presupposes that one type of company is more deserving of doing business than another. Not to mention the fact that you're denying the landlord the opportunity to maximize his revenue.

How the HELL do you get that? Prove to me that banks gentrified SoHo, Tribecca, the East village. Prove it! They don't cause the gentrification, they FEED off it. They are not the first ones in there. I have NEVER seen a bank move into an artists enclave and the place turns into a yuppie mecca!

Again, you're misreading. Nowhere did I say banks CAUSE gentrification. I explicitly said that limiting banks won't PREVENT a neighborhood from gentrifying, because other forces are already at work in changing it. You said it yourself when you noted the connection between banks moving into a neighborhood when its real estate values go up and it becomes more "desireable". Please, read between the lines and don't jump to rash conclusions.

Yes you need to go on. Show me where this has worked for Cell Phones. Where it has worked for service industries like Barber Shops, Taylors and the like. You get too many of them too close together and you have a problem.

The diamond district is like a market. With products that are almost impossible to directly compare. No two shops have the same stones, and they all have limited supply. Comparing that to banks is not exactly fair.

Nice how you focused on just one of my examples. How about the financial industry, and all the companies that were concentrated initially around the NYSE? How about former Radio Row? How about restaurants in general? How about car dealerships? How about gas stations? How about hotels? How about ANY example where all you need for multiple iterations of the same retailer/service to exist in close proximity is a high enough population density?

How vague is making banks limited to certain densities? You are the one making things vague in this argument. Siting banks as a key component to vibrancy and saying that without them there would be no (or limited) gentrification.

What's vague is your justification for doing so.

And it does not take a genius to know a street full of banks is not "interesting" :rolleyes:

It also doesn't take a genius to know that one man's food is another man's poison. Why is it that Times Square and all its attractions are continuously denounced on this forum? Why is it that, at the same time, millions of people visit it every year and are fascinated by it? Answer: differing conceptions of what's interesting and entertaining. And that's precisely my point.

No it doesn't. It finds a way of swinging back an forth. You get a swing, you do not get a few shops having problems, you get entire areas having problems. NYC has gone through swings like this in the past for various reasons. Sometimes it is best to put in BUFFERS to curb the extremes in the capitalistic pendulums motion and slow it down a bit as well.

But that's EXACTLY what I said. It's on an upswing now, and soon it'll be on a downswing. That's what "finding" equilibrium is all about. The thing is, once you get there, you find that the new equilibrium is somewhere else, so it starts swinging in a new direction all over again.

Ninjahedge

April 27th, 2007, 04:04 PM

I give up.

ZippyTheChimp

April 27th, 2007, 04:21 PM

There are CONCRETE, QUANTIFIABLE things about streetlife as far as I'm describing it. Things like numbers of people per hour, and how that relates to retail businesses doing well, and an area being active enough for long periods of the day in order to be considered safe.That alone does not define the quality of the streetscape, what makes walking a positive experience.

Think of a simple town in the shape of a barbell, with one long street, and all the buildings at the ends. The "bar" has all the things you describe: x people per hour passing by; activity, so it's safe; it connects the two retail ends of town, so it relates to business doing well.

Would anyone say the "bar" has good streetlife?

Think visual complexity, and how the private realm on one side of the streetwall engages those on the public side.

MidtownGuy

April 27th, 2007, 05:20 PM

Ninjahedge

April 27th, 2007, 05:35 PM

When Ninja said "And it does not take a genius to know a street full of banks is not "interesting", you have the nerve to try to disagree even with that!! Offering some drivel about "different conceptions".

He said that??? Glad I did not read it!!! ;)

Many of your other statements are equally unreasonable, but their fallacy will be so apparent to most readers that it would be foolish to ennoble them with specific responses.

Yep. I was foolish.

MikeW

April 27th, 2007, 06:33 PM

You're just going to have to learn to love the banks :p

I give up.

MikeW

April 27th, 2007, 06:38 PM

pianoman11686

April 29th, 2007, 11:04 PM

Pianoman, please try to step back for a minute and see what people are trying to say. You're just rehashing the same misconceptions, again and again, and it's hopeless. Just because you say the same thing a bunch of different ways, it doesn't mean your "point stands", it means you're
as stubborn as an old mule. You're hardly keeping this "objective" as you claim.
When Ninja said "And it does not take a genius to know a street full of banks is not "interesting", you have the nerve to try to disagree even with that!! Offering some drivel about "different conceptions". This is really grasping at straws. Who the hell is going to find a row of banks a fun place to be, pianoman? WHO?? It's disingenuous and unreasonable. GET REAL. You are arguing just to argue. You can't admit you're wrong and it creates quite a spectacle.
Many of your other statements are equally unreasonable, but their fallacy will be so apparent to most readers that it would be foolish to ennoble them with specific responses.

I've tried in earnest to ignore your repeated responses to my arguments, in case you haven't noticed. But here goes anyway.

I am not interested in hearing you repeat the same, tired appeals to "think outside the box," to "get real," or to do anything in the way of sharing your perspective. I've seen it, and I think it stinks.

The fact of the matter is this: we've debated back and forth about something that you think needs to be changed - specifically, government regulation of bank branches. The status quo is that they're unregulated, thus the burden is on you to offer convincing proof of why it should change. The ONLY argument that you consistently give is that there is harm to the vibrancy of the street, which equates to you saying: "The government should regulate our streetlife." The only justification you offer is that it needs to be more "interesting".

All I can say at this point is, good luck getting people in charge to agree with you, and good luck getting all the concerns that would be negatively affected to step back and just let it happen.

I'm done arguing.

Ninjahedge

April 30th, 2007, 10:16 AM

Does anyone have any reasonable expectation that the city is actually going to do anything about this issue (I'll leave to the reader as to whether it's a problem or not)?

I mean we can argue all we want, but I really don't see anything changing at a regulatory level. But as I stated a page or two ago, one way or another, the market will take care of it.

No.

Too much money involved. It will go way beyond the level of tolerance, or backswing before the administration even suggests something to do about it.

MikeW

May 1st, 2007, 12:21 AM

^ 'zactly. In a town that has had residential rent regulation essentially forever, commercial rent regulation never went anywhere. Now that even residential regulation is holding on by it's fingernails, I really don't think they'll ever do anything about commerical, either rents or usage.

Rational Plan

May 1st, 2007, 06:33 PM

It is perfectly possible to control what type retail use of occupies a particular building. In the UK all local council draw very detailed land use plans. That pay particular attention to maintaing the vitality of their town centres.

A local plan will define certain streets primary retail frontage and others as secondary. Plus different types of use will have different classifications. For example comparison retail is classified as A1 use, cafes and restaurants are A3 and banking and professional services have another.

In primary frontages each authority will set a maximum percentage that non comparison good stores can occupy. Often it is set 25%. In secondary locations there are few limits. This is why British town centres are often crammed with fiercely competing chain stores in the centre with little clusters of banks, estate agent, hairdressers and cafes and bars occupying side streets and the extreme ends of the main street.

This control of what occupies what building is no different from a Mall owner deciding on his tenent mix to ensure the overall vitality of his shopping mall.

I work for a bank and we experience great difficulty upgrading our premises. All banks want to occupy the highest footfall locations and despite all the bullshit about cross selling more to our existing customers, it is walk in trade that makes the most difference.

In one town we tried for over a decade have a larger branch and the only let us expand our branch when the neighbouring bank decided to quit the town. For the established banks this is an advantage as they are often occupying prime sites from when before planning laws were tightened and often had many sites to chose from the varoius different chains they took over as the expanded.

Whether any such a system will be introduced to New York is merely a matter of political will. I suspect it runs counter to your own traditional planning system and so will never be seriously considered.

pianoman11686

May 1st, 2007, 11:26 PM

This control of what occupies what building is no different from a Mall owner deciding on his tenent mix to ensure the overall vitality of his shopping mall.

Um, yeah...except you're forgetting the crucial distinction that in one case, it's the OWNER of the property deciding what retail he wants there. In the other case, the owner is being told by GOVERNMENT what retail he wants there.

MidtownGuy

May 2nd, 2007, 12:27 AM

blah blah blah piano

MikeW

May 2nd, 2007, 01:05 AM

Rational is talking about England, which is really an oligarchy posing as a democracy. They have no guarantee of individual or property rights. Why do you think we kick them out.

Um, yeah...except you're forgetting the crucial distinction that in one case, it's the OWNER of the property deciding what retail he wants there. In the other case, the owner is being told by GOVERNMENT what retail he wants there.

Ninjahedge

May 2nd, 2007, 09:51 AM

Rational is talking about England, which is really an oligarchy posing as a democracy. They have no guarantee of individual or property rights. Why do you think we kick them out.

What does that have to do with retail diversity and street vibrancy/life?

Nothing.

Thank you for imposing an unrelated political view on a social/economical issue.

MidtownGuy

May 2nd, 2007, 10:45 AM

User Name

May 2nd, 2007, 12:16 PM

Banks are overrated, an ATM kiosk would do me just fine 364 days of the year.

I'd rather see retail of any sort (except maybe DR) than another bank branch in any 'new' space.

MikeW

May 2nd, 2007, 01:08 PM

Rational Plan

May 2nd, 2007, 06:27 PM

I'm simply stating an unrelated political view on a social/economic issue. I'm sorry (well not really) if you feel imposed upon.

I was replying to Rational comment on the intrusive, nearly to the point of confiscatory, political enviroment in the Uk with regard to land use. Based on the comments in this thread, it seems that a number of the posters here would like to see that environment take root here. However I'm not one of them.

It all depends on what you want to achieve, and what balance is struck between individual rights and the rights of the rest of the community.

Planning is only an attempt balance those, through a process of democratic control. All land use impose externalities on neighbouring land owners and the wider community. Would you say that all those who don't own property should have no say in what happens around them.

With few controls, the growth of new car centric Malls killed off most town centres in the US because it was easier and cheaper to develop on a new greenfield site than to redevlop an existing centre to the needs of the car born shopper.

European countries as a whole have preserved the primacy of their town centres. A balance has been struck between hypermarkets and big box stores out of town and the maintenence of exisiting centres. As a rule most large scale developments have been only permitted in exisitng centres. Every region is governed by a structure plan which designates what level each town centre occupies. So Metropolitan centres or regional centres are at the highest tiers are allowed to develop large malls and departments stores, right down to local centres where clusters of small convenience stores and service outlets are allowed.

The plans have emphasised the preservation of existing historical centres. New centres have only emerged where population could not be catered for in existing centres. For example the Brent Cross shapping mall in NW London was permitted because it was judged the local suburban town centres could accomodate a large retail expansion without large scale residential demolition.

Planning regualtions have changed with political fashions, and the UK was in a deregulatary mood in the 1980's, hence the reason for the few out of town super regional malls and power centres that managed to get past the planners before the rules tightened again.

Now all large scale retail has to pass a sequential test. Applicants have to first show that there were no suitable sites in a town centre, then they could not occupy a site on the edge of town (within 300m of a primary retail street) and only then can an out of town site be considered.

Again, if the wider community does want these controls then they could be brought in. If you can zone where sex shops can open or how many night clubs are permitted then you can certainly specify what percentage of a street can be used by each type of user.

Rational Plan

May 2nd, 2007, 06:39 PM

Banks do impose externalities on the street. Banks want the highest footfall, but they don't actually generate that much footfall themselves. They have a deadening effect on the street. People will travel further to comparison stores and therefore crowds will be heavier where they are based. If Banks cluster in one spot then it will break the pedestrian flow. I can see the same effect in my town centre. Pedestrian flows are heaviest between the two Mallslining the pedestrianised main street. There is a Department store further up the High street, but not many crowds as six banks sit side by side. The left over shops between the banks and the department store are occupied by lower rent shops some of a shabby appearence.

pianoman11686

May 3rd, 2007, 06:32 PM

Hmm, pianoman, with all that planning and government intervention you rail against so much, England seems to be doing pretty damn well economically. Last time I checked the pound was worth what, literally twice as much as our dollar (which continues to fall against the euro as well). This, in countries where the cities have guidelines. :eek:
Your personal aversion to the suggestion of any planning or guidelines when it comes to retail placement must be based only on personal misconceptions or dislikes, because there is certainly nothing economic to back you up.

Ha! You've got to be kidding, Midtown. Are you actually trying to suggest that stricter city planning makes national economies stronger on the whole? And the proof is the currency exchange rate? You've really lowered your credibility with that attempt.

Forget that currency rates are notoriously volatile, and their movements are driven by international investors (most notably Central banks) who likely have no idea how Anytown, Britain is regulating its retail. Forget that they depend on the inflation rates in the home countries (Britain's inflation is far outpacing ours). Forget that they depend on the interest rates that the Central Banks (like the Fed) decide to set, balancing the demands of foreign investors who're looking to earn some easy money, vs. the need to keep domestic investment strong. Forget that they depend on rates of national debt. Forget all that, because - of course! - it MUST be tied to local retail planning. How silly of me!

"government regulation of bank branches" is misleading here. You worded that in a generalized way that seems to distort my posts on this. An appropriate response to that distortion would be "they're already regulated in a thousand ways, don't act like it's a radical concept". A more accurate summary than the one you shoveled would be that I think some retail planning is acceptable to foster vibrant street life. The fact that we are talking about bank branches right now doesn't mean I have it out specifically, and only, for banks. Don't try to frame me as some kind of anti-capitalist or big-government zealot, and this as some type of choice between free capitalism and dirty socialism. I told you before, we don't have pure capitalism here (or in any other country that I can think of). It's your perogative to hold any opinion you want, but don't try to pull that government-telling-us-what-to-do crap. Keep your slogans and sound bites about a free-market...just let me know when you find one!
People realized about 100 years ago that unregulated capitalism is as bad as its opposite. Unless you're an across-the-board libertarian, stop trying to pick one example of regulation that you wouldn't favor and then trying to paint it in terms of one system against another, or as some radical new type of attack on freedom.
And why are you always talking about the "status quo"? You mentioned that before in the smoking thread. It's dumb.

This post (yours) is what started this debate, more than two months ago:

Thanks. This needs to be regulated. Ooh, the dirty R word.

The "this" referred to, at the time, BANK BRANCHES. I already told you a few posts ago that I would not continue arguing this point. And it's precisely because of the status quo, which you think is a "dumb" concept. Why am I not surprised?

I've given numerous reasons and examples of why there's no legal or economic justification for doing what you're proposing, which is: substantial government intervention in the free market. Your only reason of note is the concern about the harms to streetlife. This just won't cut it.

So before you launch another attack on me again, trying to frame me as some unrealistic, unsympathetic, unconventional crusader for freedom, check your premises, and make sure you know what you're talking about. I happen to think the way things are now (the status quo) isn't perfect, but it doesn't warrant the type of regulation that you're advocating. End of story.

pianoman11686

May 3rd, 2007, 06:47 PM

It all depends on what you want to achieve, and what balance is struck between individual rights and the rights of the rest of the community.

Planning is only an attempt balance those, through a process of democratic control. All land use impose externalities on neighbouring land owners and the wider community. Would you say that all those who don't own property should have no say in what happens around them.

How familiar are you with the influence of common law on the British system of government? It's traditionally been substantial. And while its effects are felt in the US as well, there's a stronger emphasis on individual rights here. Any such system in Britain thus faces a very different legal-judicial context in America.

With few controls, the growth of new car centric Malls killed off most town centres in the US because it was easier and cheaper to develop on a new greenfield site than to redevlop an existing centre to the needs of the car born shopper.

Not exactly right. The "few controls" that you mention actually were the CONTRIBUTING factors to that trend. City planners and proponents of zoning deliberately created the suburban model, which usually sets aside only small portions of land for commercial use. I see it all the time in my town: 95% of it is housing (1 per acre is the maximum), and shopping centers are confined to the areas adjacent to the local highway.

European countries as a whole have preserved the primacy of their town centres. A balance has been struck between hypermarkets and big box stores out of town and the maintenence of exisiting centres. As a rule most large scale developments have been only permitted in exisitng centres. Every region is governed by a structure plan which designates what level each town centre occupies. So Metropolitan centres or regional centres are at the highest tiers are allowed to develop large malls and departments stores, right down to local centres where clusters of small convenience stores and service outlets are allowed.

Again, different contexts. It might be easier to have that "balance" when you start out having well-defined town centers in the first place. The trend in the U.S. is starting to change now with New Urbanism.

Now all large scale retail has to pass a sequential test. Applicants have to first show that there were no suitable sites in a town centre, then they could not occupy a site on the edge of town (within 300m of a primary retail street) and only then can an out of town site be considered.

You see, this is exactly the type of governmental overreaching that I'm wary of. If you're a developer looking to build a new retail complex, you should have the benefit of the doubt as far as whether or not it's situated in the right place. Assuming you're not an idiot who loses money with every such venture, you've done the necessary research to know that demand exists.

Again, if the wider community does want these controls then they could be brought in. If you can zone where sex shops can open or how many night clubs are permitted then you can certainly specify what percentage of a street can be used by each type of user.

That's a dangerous precedent, in my opinion. Further down the road, it can only lead to government controlling every retailer's location. The goal will be to ensure that every type of retail is represented, and eventually, every retail corridor will look the same, because they will have "discovered" what makes for the best distribution.

Rational Plan

May 3rd, 2007, 07:27 PM

You see, this is exactly the type of governmental overreaching that I'm wary of. If you're a developer looking to build a new retail complex, you should have the benefit of the doubt as far as whether or not it's situated in the right place. Assuming you're not an idiot who loses money with every such venture, you've done the necessary research to know that demand exists.

Then every developer would build an out of town mall, becaue the land assembly is so much easier, and it is easier to plan, cheaper to build etc. This sort of plannig is designed to force developers to build in existing town centres where exisitng public transport networks are focused. This of course means that is more expensive to build shopping malls this way, and that means the things we but are more expensive due to the higher rents.

That's a dangerous precedent, in my opinion. Further down the road, it can only lead to government controlling every retailer's location. The goal will be to ensure that every type of retail is represented, and eventually, every retail corridor will look the same, because they will have "discovered" what makes for the best distribution.

Well it's all a bit late now to reverse these trends in the US.

While the huge growth in population and suburbanisation would have reduced the importance of historic towns. If the US had wanted to it could have designated certain area as new urban focal points with new retail and office devlopment concentrated in certain areas. A less difuse suburban growth pattern would have concentrated communting patterns and helped support public transport use. It would not have stopped low density sprawl, but it could have been a bit neater and a bit more sustainable.

Which is all academic really, as it will take decades of concentrated political will to reshape planning goals in america. At best you could follow Oregon (in particular Portland) with its Urban growth boundaries and decent investment in public transport. But that is unlikely.

It's one thing to increase density and public transport use in Long Island but another to see it happening in Houston.

As far as use classification of retail goes it would be folly for it to develop as far as you envisage. A system that is too rigid would collapse, It does not specify that only designer stores can be here or a book discount store there.

People can apply for permission to change the use classification of a building. It all depends on where in the town you make this application. Prime pitch in a town migrates around the centre as New Malls are built and older ones become outdated. Once rents re-adjust to reflect changed retail demand then class re-classification is easy, as no council wants a long stretch of empty units.

pianoman11686

May 3rd, 2007, 07:54 PM

Then every developer would build an out of town mall, becaue the land assembly is so much easier, and it is easier to plan, cheaper to build etc. This sort of plannig is designed to force developers to build in existing town centres where exisitng public transport networks are focused. This of course means that is more expensive to build shopping malls this way, and that means the things we but are more expensive due to the higher rents.

Right, it's a tradeoff. But it all depends on the structural preconditions. No developer's going to build a mall out in the boonies if the townsfolk largely rely on buses and trains to get around. He needs to know people will be able to get there. In some cases, the owner of the mall will supply bus shuttles to take people (either free or for a small fee) to make sure those without a car aren't left out.

Well it's all a bit late now to reverse these trends in the US.

Which is all academic really, as it will take decades of concentrated political will to reshape planning goals in america. At best you could follow Oregon (in particular Portland) with its Urban growth boundaries and decent investment in public transport. But that is unlikely.

It's one thing to increase density and public transport use in Long Island but another to see it happening in Houston.

It is happening though, even if our attempts at integrating more mass transit are not nearly as extensive as yours. Municipalities in such unhistoric cities as Denver, Charlotte, and Salt Lake City are expanding light rail networks and partnering with developers in the process. See this recent Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/business/yourmoney/22natreal.html?vendor=GABRIELS&partner=GABRIELS&ex=1178337600&en=acc918e9fe7f4a76&ei=5103

As far as use classification of retail goes it would be folly for it to develop as far as you envisage. A system that is too rigid would collapse, It does not specify that only designer stores can be here or a book discount store there.

I'm only thinking out loud about what the natural extension of that system would look like.

People can apply for permission to change the use classification of a building. It all depends on where in the town you make this application. Prime pitch in a town migrates around the centre as New Malls are built and older ones become outdated. Once rents re-adjust to reflect changed retail demand then class re-classification is easy, as no council wants a long stretch of empty units.

Even if you claim that reclassification would be easy, it's an extra step that seems unnecessary. You're a landlord, you know what you need to do to accommodate changing demand. Just do it yourself.

MidtownGuy

May 3rd, 2007, 08:00 PM

I already told you a few posts ago that I would not continue arguing this point.

I already told you a few posts ago that I would not continue arguing this point.

I already told you a few posts ago that I would not continue arguing this point.

So why are you still blabbering on about it? It's anathema to you that someone else should have the last word, so my prediction is you will go on with this for as long as you breath. It's your nature. And each time you post, you make it harder for this discussion to actually go anywhere because you like to do this:

Are you actually trying to suggest that stricter city planning makes national economies stronger on the whole?

Why do you do that? Why? You extrapolate someone's point to a place that YOU think it was going and then expect someone to take the time to refute what YOU just made up??
Your post above is RUBBISH. Not worth another round of back and forths.

Rational Plan, God bless you for attempting to engage this individual, but in the end you will find it fruitless.

pianoman11686

May 3rd, 2007, 08:07 PM

So why are you still blabbering on about it? It's anathema to you that someone else should have the last word, so my prediction is you will go on with this for as long as you breath. It's your nature. And each time you post, you make it harder for this discussion to actually go anywhere because you like to do this:

And how many times have you said you're not going to argue? God help me, I went through a stretch where I ignored your posts for about a week, but you just never quit pestering. You can't let anything go either. At least I'm not rehashing the same nonsense.

Why do you do that? Why? You extrapolate someone's point to a place that YOU think it was going and then expect someone to take the time to refute what YOU just made up??
Your post above is RUBBISH. Not worth another round of back and forths.

Forgive me, but I was amazed at the sheer stupidity of your juxtaposition.

MidtownGuy

May 3rd, 2007, 08:12 PM

At least I'm not rehashing the same nonsense.

Really, now.

MidtownGuy

May 3rd, 2007, 08:13 PM

God help me, I went through a stretch where I ignored your posts for about a week

What a saintly soul you are.

Ninjahedge

May 4th, 2007, 12:09 AM

What a saintly soul you are.

That's nothing. I think I ignored you for two weeks!!!

;)

MidtownGuy

May 4th, 2007, 02:11 AM

Yes, we have had our moments.;)
I feel like we've resumed diplomatic relations though.:)

antinimby

June 13th, 2007, 08:36 PM

Going small: Drugstores' prescription for success

Latest strategy uses smaller footprints to squeeze into new neighborhoods

http://www.therealdeal.net//issues/JUNE_2007/images/1180039235.jpg
Drugstores in high-traffic areas include
CVS at 22nd Street and Third Avenue,
Duane Reade at Park Avenue South
and 22nd Street, Rite Aid at 24th Street
and Eighth Avenue, and Walgreens at
14th Street and Fourth Avenue.

By Rachel Deahl
June 2007 (http://www.therealdeal.net/issues/JUNE_2007/1180039235.php)

While it may seem like there's a Duane Reade on every Manhattan street corner, national chain drugstores, collectively one of the city's biggest retail tenants, think there's still new territory to conquer.

The largest players in Manhattan -- Duane Reade leads with more than 130 locations, followed by Rite Aid with more than 40, CVS with more than 25 and Walgreens with five -- are changing course and opening smaller stores to squeeze into new neighborhoods and, sometimes, between their larger existing stores. Brokers said the Lower East Side, West Side and Financial District are underserved by drugstores. To attract more consumers, these retailers will continue to open more "express" stores and expand their food and other non-drug offerings.

Duane Reade has been the undisputed leader in the local drugstore business for more than 20 years. Despite its overwhelming presence in Manhattan, the company thinks "there is still room to grow," according to Jeff Winick of Winick Realty Group, who represents the chain in commercial deals.

He said the company's success is linked to its willingness to open stores in a variety of layouts and locations. Duane Reade is "expanding all over," looking specifically at the Upper West Side and Lower East Side, he said.

The retailer sees an opportunity to capitalize on supermarket closings in New York. Recent reports indicate the Gristedes on First Avenue between 20th and 21st streets may be one of several low-performing stores that will be leased to Duane Reade.

"The drugstore is becoming a convenience store," Winick said, adding that two of Duane Reade's newest locations -- at 47th Street and Eighth Avenue and at 63rd Street and Broadway -- are "both duplex stores that carry more packaged food."

Duane Reade locations generally range from 3,000 to 15,000 square feet. However, the chain is looking to open up smaller locations in order to "infuse themselves" between its other stores and succeed in markets that don't generate enough sales to sustain the rents of larger-size stores, said Gary Trock, a senior vice president at CB Richard Ellis.

"Duane Reade wants to open up more express stores," said Trock, who recently closed a number of commercial deals for drugstores. He would not provide the specifics of those deals.

In Manhattan, going smaller may sometimes be the only option. Rob Eder, editor-in-chief of the trade publication Drug Store News, pointed out that "Walgreens stores are generally 14,400 square feet, but they have been unable to secure that amount of space in Manhattan so far," he said. Eder added that the chain recently closed two deals. One is for space on Astor Place, where the drugstore is opening a location in what was once Astor Wines & Spirits. The other is for space in a new luxury high-rise condo currently under construction at 52nd Street and Second Avenue.

Drugstores are aggressive when it comes to retail rents. Prudential Douglas Elliman broker Faith Hope Consolo said drugstore tenants are "willing to pay whatever the market will bear" and sometimes 10 to 15 percent more, if it means closing the deal. They often seek out high-traffic locations on the corners of prime blocks, she added.

Trock wouldn't commit to an average figure, but said for large footprints -- from 8,000 to 10,000 square feet -- they customarily pay between $100 and $200 a square foot.

While market watchers "won't see them in places like Times Square paying ridiculous rents," they are "aggressive in stronger residential markets," Trock said. Duane Reade in particular maximizes its shelf space while minimizing its costs by operating two-story stores -- paying lower rent for a basement space while having a higher square footage rate for the ground-floor space.

Consolo said that some stores may possibly consider some prime locations as loss leaders, especially in the areas "that tend to be most expensive: Times Square, Madison Avenue, 57th Street."

To gain more market share, Walgreens, which has fewer Manhattan locations than the other major chains, is also going deeper into the food business.

"Drugstores have become part of the food shopping experience," said Patrick Smith, a principal at Staubach Retail who works with Walgreens. "In Manhattan it's especially true, because of how many food stores have gone away. Customers will do most of their impulse shopping close to home, and it's easier to go to the pharmacy than hike to the food store."

And while food is becoming a more important source of revenue for the drugstore industry, the pharmaceutical component still offers the highest margins of any part of its business. Some sources interviewed estimated that a drugstore does 35 to 45 percent of its business through the pharmacy.

Drugstores may seem ubiquitous, but for many consumers, they can't be too close.

Consolo said a good location for New Yorkers often means it is along their daily route. "Drugstores are like Starbucks," she said. "Whether it's a residential or commercial neighborhood, the customer doesn't go more than a block or two for a drugstore. That's why there are so many of them."

Consolo agreed that the Lower East Side and neighborhoods such as Tribeca, Battery Park City and the Financial District are all still in need of more drugstores.

She also sees an evolution in drugstore shopping behavior. "No one is going primarily for prescriptions anymore. They're going for everything a drugstore carries, and that includes stationery, food and cleaning items. The drugstore has become a combination of stationery store, supermarket and sometimes even hardware store."

Copyright © 2003-2007 The Real Deal