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

71–80 of 127 posts

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

#71

Post by topspin »

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 difficult to communicate and explain

Yes, it is. And it's not getting easier is it?

Nordstrom was there for the tourists. But SF tourism hasn't recovered as well as conventional group-think imagined.

When a tier 1 operation like Nordstrom bails it rings out like artillery fire for all the lesser operations. We're officially well past "didn't want that company anyway," aren't we?

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

#72

Post by renewiltord »

That place lost a dramatic amount of foot traffic. But all these things have been a long time coming. Many big employers were already moving out of SF when the pandemic hit. PG&E and Bank of America were already out. Citi and McKesson are both going. And all the tech companies, of course. SF is a pretty parochial city and has attempted to keep local homeowner taxes as low as possible by extracting it from employers through payroll and gross revenue taxes. But ultimately the city as it was financially shaped was only possible through the employers.

Unfortunately, SF locals do not see the link between things like a gross receipts tax and Friends of the Urban Forest losing funding so we're here.

But I think it's overall a good thing. I'm not pro-austerity: we should spend on things. But now SF will be forced to spend on things that return.

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

#73

Post by retrocryptid »

fourseventy wrote: post #6
lusus_naturae wrote: post #3

I fail to understand how this is different from organized rings of train robbers in the old, old west. Maybe we need modern day cowboys now (per my recollection, cowboys played both sides of the law)? Most likely we'll have security drones, like Boston Dynamics's robot dog. Edit to say that having people hounded by security drones sounds like a terrible state of affairs. Having businesses robbed by organized gangs do…

Instead of giving criminals UBI how about the police actually enforce shoplifting crime?

Lol.

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

#74

Post by ribosometronome »

TheBlight wrote: post #42
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…

My suspicion is many people would be less reluctant to return to the office if the area didn't resemble the set of Mad Max.

People don't want to RTO even in places that aren't downtown SF.

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

#75

Post by retrocryptid »

ethanbond wrote: post #13
fourseventy wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of giving criminals UBI how about the police actually enforce shoplifting crime?

Ain't gotta be either-or. Give everyone UBI and enforce the daylights out of crime.

I dunno. Doing basic due-diligence level investigation of law enforcement policy and effectiveness first is a good idea.

I'm a fan of UBI, but you may also want to do a web search or two before saying UBI should be 'U'.

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

#76

Post by Trias11 »

johnny99k wrote: post #29
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…

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.

Elections are coming soon.

Can't prosecute the voters if you want to be reelected.

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

#78

Post by JackFr »

tedajax wrote: post #23

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

To be clear, if you read the article no one from Nordstrom says anything remotely close to that. They're closing the store because it's losing money, and it's losing money cause there's no foot traffic. The spokesman for Westfield the owner of the mall comes close when describing a "unsafe conditions" in the area.

That being said, if you read the transcript of the earnings call from four days ago they're also shuttering stores in Canada. They also do see unusually high levels of 'shrinkage' and theft, but within the levels that had been accounted for in their internal financial models. In the earnings call crime did come up but in the context of the mob smash and grab at the Topanga location in Los Angeles, and to his credit the CEO was more concerned about the safety of staff and shoppers, rather than property loss during this episode of organized looting.

So yeah, click-baity article, but Nordstrom never actually said what the article implies.

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

#79

Post by nradov »

duskwuff wrote: post #20
lusus_naturae wrote: post #3

I fail to understand how this is different from organized rings of train robbers in the old, old west. Maybe we need modern day cowboys now (per my recollection, cowboys played both sides of the law)? Most likely we'll have security drones, like Boston Dynamics's robot dog. Edit to say that having people hounded by security drones sounds like a terrible state of affairs. Having businesses robbed by organized gangs do…

> per my recollection, cowboys played both sides of the law Cowboys were animal herders, not police officers. You're probably thinking of the romanticized "Lone Ranger" image of the cowboy as seen in Western movies. This is almost entirely fictitious.

Not entirely fictitious. Cowboys and ranch hands at times also worked as mercenaries or deputized law enforcers in 19th-century organized conflicts not unlike the urban gang wars we occasionally see today. The best known example is probably the Lincoln County War, which involved 15 murders and probably a few hundred participants at various levels.

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

#80

Post by retrocryptid »

duskwuff wrote: post #20
lusus_naturae wrote: post #3

I fail to understand how this is different from organized rings of train robbers in the old, old west. Maybe we need modern day cowboys now (per my recollection, cowboys played both sides of the law)? Most likely we'll have security drones, like Boston Dynamics's robot dog. Edit to say that having people hounded by security drones sounds like a terrible state of affairs. Having businesses robbed by organized gangs do…

> per my recollection, cowboys played both sides of the law Cowboys were animal herders, not police officers. You're probably thinking of the romanticized "Lone Ranger" image of the cowboy as seen in Western movies. This is almost entirely fictitious.

Reality is less popular than romanticized ideals, and always has been. Sir Humphrey Appleby famously quipped "All government funding is symbolic." And to paraphrase: "Funds aren't distributed to government programs based on need, utility or expected benefits, but on what politicians think will convince the electorate they're spending government funds appropriately."
Post reply on HN