Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

‘San Francisco changed dramatically’ – Nordstrom is bailing on a flagship store

fortune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 127 posts

Re: ‘San Francisco changed dramatically’ – Nordstrom is bailing on a flagship store

#51

Post by johnny99k »

rcme wrote: post #41
johnny99k wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

doubtful? Have you see the crime in SF? Walgreens has to have nearly everything locked up. You are right though. It's not just the crime. It's because the current government isn't willing to prosecute criminals that are stealing from these businesses. SF is starting to resemble Detroit, which has nearly no grocery stores in the city limits because of rampant crime.

A quick Google search seems to suggest there are plenty of grocery stores within San Francisco.

I said starting to resemble. I referenced a Walgreens, so obviously they still have stores.

Re: ‘San Francisco changed dramatically’ – Nordstrom is bailing on a flagship store

#52

Post by vikramkr »

Their stock is down 33 percent over the past month and 75% over the past 5 years and this location is in a shopping mall - not exactly something that's been performing well. Therefore clearly store closures that were announced in may are entirely because of issues with the location? It's obviously a factor in the decision but I don't think it's a good idea to take a corporate executive's stated reason for shutting down stores/factories/etc as gospel. Remember a few months ago layoffs were happening almost like it was a fad? Once people started laying folks off it provided cover for everyone else? Interesting how all the retailers also announced their closures all at once.

Re: ‘San Francisco changed dramatically’ – Nordstrom is bailing on a flagship store

#53

Post by retrocryptid »

tedajax wrote: post #23

Another store lying about "crime" being the reason they're closing.

Also... I'm pretty sure seattle is their flagship store. Not sure why people are saying it's the tiny store in SF. Up in seattle talk about Nordstrom is how they're sort of failing to effectively compete in the modern retail environment (amazon, dollar tree, walmart, costco, etc.)

I always thought their niche was high touch service / moderately high price, bit peeps around town have mentioned they've been trying new models.

I'm sure crime doesn't help, but Nordstroms has been struggling since assuming debt for expansion in the 90s.

Re: ‘San Francisco changed dramatically’ – Nordstrom is bailing on a flagship store

#54

Post by duskwuff »

Tiktaalik wrote: post #21

> the latest retailer to capitulate to rising crime and lower foot traffic. Nordstrom also bailed on the entirety of the Canadian market. Was that also due to crime in SF? It's difficult to communicate and explain the enormous secular and systemic rippling shifts in economic conditions that have followed the pandemic and the shift to work from home, particularly and extraordinarily pronounced in SF for various reason…

As a luxury department store, Nordstrom was feeling a lot of pressure from both online retail and from big-box retailers even before the pandemic. It's a tough business to be in.

Re: ‘San Francisco changed dramatically’ – Nordstrom is bailing on a flagship store

#55

Post by darth_avocado »

Tiktaalik wrote: post #21

> the latest retailer to capitulate to rising crime and lower foot traffic. Nordstrom also bailed on the entirety of the Canadian market. Was that also due to crime in SF? It's difficult to communicate and explain the enormous secular and systemic rippling shifts in economic conditions that have followed the pandemic and the shift to work from home, particularly and extraordinarily pronounced in SF for various reason…

It’s typical of people who don’t live in SF to completely downplay the situation there as “propaganda” because it puts their favorite tribe under scrutiny.

Stores can be shut down in one place for a specific reason while another place for a completely different reason. Nordstrom is located in probably the most expensive real estate in San Francisco, while the conditions just outside the stores are deteriorating. If this was just broader systemic problems, why is their massive store in San Jose still continuing? Clearly that should also be closing considering the fact that San Jose is also as expensive as San Francisco in terms of real estate?

Re: ‘San Francisco changed dramatically’ – Nordstrom is bailing on a flagship store

#56

Post by Timon3 »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #17
QuercusMax wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the issue is that articles like this one tend to conflate individual poor people shoplifting small items with these organized gangs. These gangs aren't shoplifters, and calling them such is extremely misleading.

> Part of the issue is that articles like this one tend to conflate individual poor people shoplifting small items with these organized gangs. I consider myself liberal, but this sentence highlights the point a lot of people have issue with: that somehow many "on the left" have rationalized theft as being OK if you're poor. That is absolutely the point at which society and the social contract breaks down, because it…

> I consider myself liberal, but this sentence highlights the point a lot of people have issue with: that somehow many "on the left" have rationalized theft as being OK if you're poor. That is absolutely the point at which society and the social contract breaks down, because it becomes exceedingly easy for anyone to rationalize taking something from others because "they deserve it" in some way.

But what is the alternative? Let's look at a dirt-poor person who hasn't eaten in multiple days. Sure, there are places you can try to get donated items, but those are getting more and more over-run. You can beg and try to get enough together to buy something, but it's not really a good alternative either, especially since it's not guaranteed. So at what point would someone be in their right to steal food to survive? Is it never okay, meaning they'll have to starve in the worst case?

Naturally these problems should be solved long before anyone comes to the place of having to steal - but that's not the world we live in. And I'm strictly talking about absolute necessities, nothing beyond that. But surely at some point a human life is worth more than a bit of money in the store owners pockets?

Re: ‘San Francisco changed dramatically’ – Nordstrom is bailing on a flagship store

#57

Post by seanmcdirmid »

johnny99k wrote: post #49
duskwuff wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> SF is starting to resemble Detroit Ways you can tell that someone has never been to either San Francisco nor Detroit: a case in point.

heh. I lived in Detroit for 2 decades (I was born there) and still visit regularly. I also worked in SF for a long time as well. Reply-guys being reply-guys.

I lived in Toledo for four years so visited Detroit often during that time, and I lived in the Bay Area for a few years as well. I just can’t see anyone saying SF is like Detroit without some huge distortions going on.

Re: ‘San Francisco changed dramatically’ – Nordstrom is bailing on a flagship store

#58

Post by sometimesjerks »

gaulish wrote: post #44
tedajax wrote: post #23

Another store lying about "crime" being the reason they're closing.

I think I good question we can ask, are any major brands building new stores in San Francisco? That would be a good indicator of whether or not brands see the market as too-risky or that Nordstrom is using a convenient scapegoat. I’m asking here the locals here, I haven’t been to the city in over 20 years so I haven’t the slightest idea.

Ikea just opened a new store + cafe just around the corner from the mall mentioned in the article.

Re: ‘San Francisco changed dramatically’ – Nordstrom is bailing on a flagship store

#59

Post by darth_avocado »

jeffbee wrote: post #38
johnny99k wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

doubtful? Have you see the crime in SF? Walgreens has to have nearly everything locked up. You are right though. It's not just the crime. It's because the current government isn't willing to prosecute criminals that are stealing from these businesses. SF is starting to resemble Detroit, which has nearly no grocery stores in the city limits because of rampant crime.

Whole Foods just broke ground in the Western Addition, Lucky opened a new store in the Bayview, and a whole new local grocery chain called Luke's just sprang into existence in the last year.

Flagship Whole Foods on market just shut down because of safety reasons.

https://abc7.com/amp/whole-foods-san-francisco-store-closing...

Re: ‘San Francisco changed dramatically’ – Nordstrom is bailing on a flagship store

#60

Post by retrocryptid »

bluescrn wrote: post #50
tedajax wrote: post #23

Another store lying about "crime" being the reason they're closing.

Surely most of us have seen videos of mobs of youths shoplifting/looting stores in broad daylight. This isn't individuals shoplifiting covertly or even breaking in under cover of darkness. It appears to be a new and more openly lawless kind of theft, and those involved are surely aware that the risk is minimal? And the footage spreading on social media will be likely be encouraging copycat groups to do the same, or e…

I always thought I was seeing a mediated representation of an event...
Post reply on HN