Did Whole Foods and Nordstrom Close Prematurely in San Francisco?
I must say I’m a bit puzzled by recent announcements from WHOLE FOODS and NORDSTROM that they will be suspending operations along SAN FRANCISCO’s Market Street. I am working right now on a revitalization strategy for the particularly troubled stretch that passes through the Tenderloin (aka “Mid-Market”), so I’m aware of the challenges posed there by antisocial behavior and fear of crime (as it relates to both would-be customers and employees). That said, a ton of money was put into the new Whole Foods location and barely a year had elapsed since its opening. The grocer has a reputation for taking chances on transitioning urban submarkets before other brands would (e.g. D.C.’s Logan Square; Downtown Newark, NJ; Detroit’s Midtown), and amidst the grit and grime in Mid-Market (as well as the endless negativity from the press), it must have recognized the boom in high-density upscale housing along the corridor in recent years – which actually suggests a brighter long-term outlook for Mid-Market than, say, the city’s office-dominated Financial District. (To be fair, Whole Foods only said it was shuttering the store “for now”). Meanwhile, Nordstrom’s decision flies in the face of something else that has been happening recently in Union Square (and that has escaped the notice of most journalists): a doubling-down by luxury fashion houses, with new or expanded locations, purchases of the buildings housing their stores, etc. Brands like Chanel, Bottega Veneta, Yves St. Laurent, Van Cleef & Arpels, Brunello Cucinelli, Omega, Rolex and Patek Philippe realize that the international tourists will ultimately return in full force, and have been reinvesting accordingly. Could the news about Nordstrom, then, have as much to do with the company as the location? As those who work in place management know all too well, a store’s closure in a suburban mall is blamed on the retailer, but if the same happens in a Downtown, it’s assumed to be Downtown’s fault.