Toys ‘R’ Us Didn’t Have to Die • Hacker News Board

Re: Toys ‘R’ Us Didn’t Have to Die

#201

Post by autarch » Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 5:25 PM UTC

0xcafecafe wrote: post #129

wgerard wrote: post #39

What a trip. I used to go to the Times Square location with people who came in from out of town, as an attraction for when they inevitably wanted to check out Times Square. The article doesn't really do justice to what a spectacle it was (which is saying something, since the article calls it out repeatedly). The person-sized Lego Hulk they built for that store is still my phone background. Made this even more shockin…

Yes, visiting the times square location always used to be the highlight of my NYC visit. It reminded me of the toy store showed in home alone 2 (which I watched a lot growing up). Another one which I will miss is the FAO Schwarz store in NYC (which was also owned by Toys R Us). I feel sad thinking that my son will never experience that joy of going to these huge Toy stores. At best, his experience will be limited to…

The toy store in Home Alone 2 was based on FAO Schwarz. I remember going to it as a kid a few times. It was very cool and a big NYC attraction for families. But I don't remember if we ever bought anything there.

Re: Toys ‘R’ Us Didn’t Have to Die

#202

Post by nradov » Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 5:37 PM UTC

rtkwe wrote: post #199

taurath wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly a planned community around an abandoned mall is a great idea. You can tear up the parking lots and put a bunch of apartment buildings. Have the mall be the "town square" with a grocery store, restaurants and other shops. Build some transit there while you're at it. I'd love to live in a place like that, and it'd be much preferable over private single family homes. Of course, being new buildings it wouldn't b…

It'd be a neat idea if done well, most attempts at intentionally planned communities like that wind up being pretty fragile. It'd also ideally need a ton of parking though which brings a hard compromise between making a nice walkable pleasant park area and having enough parking that your reinvigorated area doesn't become too congested. On top of that most malls are way too large even for that, it'd be hard to build o…

The Santana Row planned community in San Jose, CA has been around since 2002 and seems successful so far. They have a walkable core area with retail and restaurants, apartments above and behind, and parking garages underneath and at the edge.

The developers tore down the existing structures and built from scratch. They didn't build around an existing mall (although there is an another mall across the street).

Re: Toys ‘R’ Us Didn’t Have to Die

#203

Post by Mankhool » Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 5:38 PM UTC

duxup wrote: post #41

thisisit wrote: post #8

Retailing seems to be dying in US irrespective of the company: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-17/retail-st... Couple of years ago, one of my friends bought a store at a strip mall. The store was making a loss. And the previously owners were an elderly couple. So my friends thesis was that they weren't exactly tuned into the digital presence business and it was still entirely possible to run a store i…

What I don't get is there are a lot of empty storefronts and places moving that I see... and retailers say the rents are still sky high for those storefronts. Is it really worth the property owners keeping them empty?

Here in Vancouver, BC, it IS. The property values are SO high and continue to go up every year, that retail income is almost irrelevant to the owners. They are just waiting for a developer to buy the property so they can cash out.

Re: Toys ‘R’ Us Didn’t Have to Die

#204

Post by hateful » Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 5:40 PM UTC

bunderbunder wrote: post #171

pouetpouet wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US have too much retail space. Retail is not really dying there is too much of it. https://www.statista.com/chart/9454/retail-space-per-1000-pe... https://qz.com/1032723/theres-much-more-empty-retail-space-i... https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/retail-...

I wonder if it's also a case of there being too much of the wrong kinds of retail space. If there's a retail store within a mile of our house, I'll happily walk to it and do my shopping there. Especially when it's a pleasant day outside, that's an enjoyable way to get out of the house and get a little light exercise. If the only kind of store left that sells what I need is one of the big box stores, so that going the…

All the stores that are walking distance from my house are: Mobile phone stores (fake resellers) Fast food/Chinese/pizza Liquor stores Gas stations 711 Laundromat Check Cashing etc...

None of these are stores I'd want to browse.

The alternative is the mall, which is all brand stores. Basically one big ad space. Shopping there is like running IE with 100 toolbars!

Same issue with some of the big box stores now. All are restructuring to be brand specific. Best Buy? Separated by Brand now. Want to buy a headset? Get ready to go to 6 different places and only see the the brands that paid to be there (just like with Facebook, we're the product, not the customer).

Toys'R'Us did the same thing before its death. It separated by brand. Which wasn't as bad in a toy store. I can see going shopping for Lego or Barbie more likely than going shopping for Corsair or Logitech. But it still feels based on who paid to get the space rather than making it easier for the customer.

Re: Toys ‘R’ Us Didn’t Have to Die

#205

Post by nradov » Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 5:43 PM UTC

eldavido wrote: post #185

clutchdude wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my personal datapoint, I agree with that question. There are 2-3 abandoned moderate sized retail buildings in a suburb I pass on my way into work that have sat vacant for the better part of a decade with a big "for sale" sign out front. On the odd times I look up the listing price, they want high hundred thousands to low million. Keep in mind this is for buildings and land that have not been maintained for years…

I think this is a general phenomenon in finance/valuation and I'm sure someone has studied it. Even when the value of something has fallen (as measured by market comparables, ability to generate incomes like rent, etc) people become anchored to a valuation and think they'll get the price they want if they just hold out a little longer. There's something psychologically difficult about accepting that you aren't going…

Large commercial landlords are usually fairly rational. They aren't as likely to fall victim to the sunk cost fallacy as individual homeowners are. More likely they're highly leveraged and gambling that prices will rise enough in a few years to deliver a huge return.

Re: Toys ‘R’ Us Didn’t Have to Die

#206

Post by ben1040 » Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 5:44 PM UTC

astura wrote: post #168

ben1040 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Meanwhile indoor playgrounds/play centers are a huge and growing business. They are happy for parents to unleash their children while they make their money from entry charges, selling cups of coffee to the parents and snacks for the kids. There's a mom and pop place like this near me. They rented an old dead big box store (I remember shopping there when it was a Circuit City) and filled it with bounce houses and arc…

So Discovery Zone? That business model appeared not to work in the 90s, because they all closed down, I wonder why. Unsustainable business model? Good business model but taking on too much debt? Kids get bored after a couple visits and don't come back? Rising rents? Admission prices too high? Around me there was a Discovery Zone and there was two more independent ones that opened up around the same time as Discovery…

I wonder if the real estate issue was the thing.

The DZ locations, at least where I lived, were in prime spots, and it was a time when they couldn't build strip malls fast enough to keep up with demand.

Now you've got an oversupply of dead big box stores and not enough ideas of what to do with them.

Re: Toys ‘R’ Us Didn’t Have to Die

#207

Post by padobson » Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 6:10 PM UTC

bunderbunder wrote: post #171

pouetpouet wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US have too much retail space. Retail is not really dying there is too much of it. https://www.statista.com/chart/9454/retail-space-per-1000-pe... https://qz.com/1032723/theres-much-more-empty-retail-space-i... https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/retail-...

I wonder if it's also a case of there being too much of the wrong kinds of retail space. If there's a retail store within a mile of our house, I'll happily walk to it and do my shopping there. Especially when it's a pleasant day outside, that's an enjoyable way to get out of the house and get a little light exercise. If the only kind of store left that sells what I need is one of the big box stores, so that going the…

What if your house was the shopping mall? When Sears, Macy's, JCPenny, etc all die, there's going to be a lot of shopping malls with big empty spaces. If those spaces were transformed to residential, it'd be trivial to walk to all the little shops currently between the big anchor chains, regardless of climate or season.

Re: Toys ‘R’ Us Didn’t Have to Die

#208

Post by downrightmike » Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 6:13 PM UTC

slfnflctd wrote: post #177

zer0faith wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once tried to stock up on some generator connectors and like electrical items in my department before Hurricane Sandy. My orders were denied because last year sales and previous three week trends weren't enough to justify the order. The shelves stayed empty for almost 2 months.

Modern logistics algorithms have massively increased supply chain efficiency, but there should always be a human override for cases like this. The models cannot and will not ever be able to account for everything.

But then someone has to be thinking, and doing it before it is reactive. Good luck.

Re: Toys ‘R’ Us Didn’t Have to Die

#209

Post by isostatic » Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 6:26 PM UTC

allannienhuis wrote: post #173

isostatic wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're a couple who transfer some of one earner's tax free allowance to the other via the marriage allowance, and the higher earner earns £46,350, they will pay £11,211.32 in income tax and national insurance If they earn an extra £1, the marriage allowance vanishes, and they pay £11,449.54 in income tax and national insurance That's a 23,822% tax rate on that pound.

there's a big difference between claiming > 100% tax rate and > 100% MARGINAL tax rate for a specific circumstance. Many jurisdictions have specific deduction boundaries where the next $ earned would bump someone into a very high marginal tax rated on that next dollar. In reality the net tax change for that person in your example isn't a significant material change - a couple hundred pounds on their yearly tax bill.

Earn some money from your savings, say £100, and you get taxed nearly £300. That's more than 100% tax.

You've also got the state where you have 7 kids (say you had 4 from a previous marriage and your partner had 3), and earn in the £50k-£60k range, where you attract a "High Income Child Benefit Tax Charge" which, combined with income and NI, works out to be 102% marginal rate, over a range of £10k.

As the OP said: "A wise colleague told me that until effective income tax rates reach 100 percent, a dollar of income is worth more than a dollar of deduction"

There are cases in the UK where that's demonstratably false. A dollar of income is actually worse than nothing. At the marriage threshold a pound of income is worth £-230. A pound of deduction is worth 33p.

Re: Toys ‘R’ Us Didn’t Have to Die

#210

Post by rtkwe » Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 6:34 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #202

rtkwe wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'd be a neat idea if done well, most attempts at intentionally planned communities like that wind up being pretty fragile. It'd also ideally need a ton of parking though which brings a hard compromise between making a nice walkable pleasant park area and having enough parking that your reinvigorated area doesn't become too congested. On top of that most malls are way too large even for that, it'd be hard to build o…

The Santana Row planned community in San Jose, CA has been around since 2002 and seems successful so far. They have a walkable core area with retail and restaurants, apartments above and behind, and parking garages underneath and at the edge. The developers tore down the existing structures and built from scratch. They didn't build around an existing mall (although there is an another mall across the street).

Yeah areas like that have the best chance of succeeding because they exist in an already lively downtown so they don't have to create all their traffic out of nothing. A community built around a dying mall though has to create enough traffic to justify businesses opening there unless they're small and cheap enough to exist solely on the business of residents.