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

61–70 of 127 posts

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

#61

Post by cozzyd »

bastawhiz wrote: post #40

Malls have been on the decline for decades. The two malls closest to me put a "no unattended minors" policy in place. When I was a teenager, you just...went to the mall. Mall management is choking off a huge source of foot traffic to avoid the hassle of telling kids to stop fucking around. The closest mall to me has lost two of its anchor stores. One of the malls near my old apartment in Chicago had a theater, an axe…

There certainly are more malls in downtown Chicago than are sustainable (900 N Michigan, Water Tower Place, Northbridge, Block 37, Roosevelt Collection). Water Tower Place probably should stop being a mall since it's probably the most bleak and it's basically across the street from the much nicer 900 N Michigan...Block 37 should put a grocery store in the basement (ok, I'm biased since that would be very convenient for me...)

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

#62

Post by duskwuff »

darth_avocado wrote: post #55
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 t…

> San Jose is also as expensive as San Francisco in terms of real estate?

Maybe for residential real estate. I have a hard time imagining that it's anywhere close to the same in the commercial sector; there's dramatically more supply in SJ.

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

#63

Post by retrocryptid »

evouga wrote: post #28
tedajax wrote: post #23

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

The store may or may not be telling the truth. Either way, it's undeniable that SF has changed dramatically over the last several years, with dramatic upswing in property crime and complete unwillingness on the part of law enforcement to fight it.

Good idea to watch something other than Fox News from time to time.

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

#65

Post by notthemessiah »

Seems luxury retail is dying more so to cheaper competition from fast-fashion such as Zara, to individualized fashion online from Etsy, to hypebeast brands that seems to target younger demographics, to rising commercial real-estate rents and failure of shopping malls, to competition from delivery services, an an aging target audience (I don't know any millennials or younger who shop at Nordstrom). Retail theft is a drop in the bucket of their cash flow.

Even the article mentions that "San Francisco has been in the midst of what some call a doom spiral, with office buildings and businesses still empty in the post-pandemic landscape." If you're working from home, no reason to make the commute to stop downtown at retailers. The major downtown retailers thrived in the pre-WWII age when people lived close to urban centers, white flight and suburbanization killed the department stores which were the Amazons of their age, in recent decades, this trend has been reversing as people moved into cities, but after the pandemic, if you get to work from home, there's not much to bring you into the city, especially in places like SF with skyrocketing housing prices.

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

#66

Post by seanmcdirmid »

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.

Not SF, but similar problem Seattle just got a Uniglo downtown (ironically in the old Macy’s/Bon Marche building). After losing more than a few brands this year (eg Nike), having a new one pop up was notable.

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

#67

Post by retrocryptid »

kernal wrote: post #16

Why would any company operate a store in San Francisco when there are no deterrents to shoplifting and the criminals aren't even prosecuted? Additionally, this is not isolated to San Francisco as Oakland and Los Angeles are just as bad if not worse. California reaps what it sows.

Asks someone who doesn't live in SF and accepts their news uncritically from cable outlets (and their web sites) with a vested interest in driving outrage driven online engagement.

EDIT: People who are up voting this comment: NO! It's a snarky comment in opposition to the prevailing wisdom. It's intended to be downvoted.

2ND EDIT: thank you for downvoting. I can now rest easy knowing I'm a misunderstood genius amongst a sea of profane luddites. (Though truth to tell, most people here when they're not being snarky seem reasonably intelligent.)

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

#69

Post by DylanDmitri »

jankyxenon wrote: post #19
DylanDmitri wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the people working at a store can’t afford any apartment within a forty minute commute the store will fail.

It's been true for a long time that people working at that store couldn't afford to live nearby (in general). What changed in the last few years though?

Stores with no nearby workers won’t spontaneously fail. But the situation is symptomatic of a precarious labor/housing equilibrium. In this precarious system, stores are likely to be toppled by external forces (Covid), and have farther to fall afterwards.

Other cities, with more robust labor/housing equilibriums, are bouncing back from the pandemic just fine.

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

#70

Post by jahewson »

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…

“lower foot traffic” would cover work from home, no? Also I’ve been to this store and the area around it is nasty to the point that I no longer take my children there. Yes, retail is having a hard time in general but my goodness just go walk down that street - do it.
Post reply on HN