Of the list Florida Guy put of Downtowns Without Department Stores, these cities actually do have downtown department stores (and I'm not talkin' TJ Maxx or Ross):

 

Indianapolis - Carson Pirie Scott 

San Diego - Macy's, Nordstrom

Sacramento - Macy's (2; Men's and Women's)

Salt Lake City - Nordstrom, Macy's

Washington DC - Macy's (at a Metro station to boot!)

Updated, thanks for the corrections.

Johio...you're analysis nailed it. I went to Pitt and my wife is from Pittsburgh, so I've spent a lot time  in Pittsburgh. I kept telling people Cleveland and Pittsburgh are very different.

I recently went to Pittsburgh and really enjoyed it. But alot, and I mean alot, of their buildings downtown are in the condition that the Goldfish store and Family Sportswear buildings are in in Cleveland. And Stanley Block. Downtown Cleveland's old buildings are in far greater shape. But to that point, atleast Pittsburgh still has those buildings, which are waiting to be renovated, while Cleveland demolished large amounts of them.

 

Downtown Pittsburgh did not have better retail options, and a lot of their storefronts were in terrible shape, and either abandoned, or filled with some weird crappy store. If anything, Cleveland has more retail options because atleast we have Tower City.

There was an article last year about the downtown Pittsburgh Macy's. It seems it owns the building and can't do much to sell it--even tho it is trying. It also downsized from something like 8 floors to something like 4...which is a HUGE improvement--when you got to the eighth floor it was a ghost town.

 

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2011/09/21/downtown-macys-to-downsize/

 

ok, from 10 down to six

Pittsburgh does have a lot of crappy downtown stores. They really could stand a facade improvement program--which i believe they have in the pittsburgh-to-paris program

I think it is safe to save that no traditional downtown department store in the nation can hold a candle to what existed in every American city (large and small) up until the late 70's early 80's (and still exist in Europe).  The traditional stores that still exist are really nothing more than large clothing stores that sell lots of makeup and perfume and perhaps have a good home goods department.  Even the fewer and fewer stores that have things like book departments, toy departments, luggage departments, furniture departments and appliances are shadows of the glorious stores of the past.

I think it is safe to save that no traditional downtown department store in the nation can hold a candle to what existed in every American city (large and small) up until the late 70's early 80's (and still exist in Europe).  The traditional stores that still exist are really nothing more than large clothing stores that sell lots of makeup and perfume and perhaps have a good home goods department.  Even the fewer and fewer stores that have things like book departments, toy departments, luggage departments, furniture departments and appliances are shadows of the glorious stores of the past.

 

Mr. Humphries, are you free?

Of the list Florida Guy put of Downtowns Without Department Stores, these cities actually do have downtown department stores (and I'm not talkin' TJ Maxx or Ross):

 

Indianapolis - Carson Pirie Scott 

San Diego - Macy's, Nordstrom

Sacramento - Macy's (2; Men's and Women's)

Salt Lake City - Nordstrom, Macy's

Washington DC - Macy's (at a Metro station to boot!)

Updated, thanks for the corrections.

 

You forgot San Diego in your updates.

I think it is safe to save that no traditional downtown department store in the nation can hold a candle to what existed in every American city (large and small) up until the late 70's early 80's (and still exist in Europe).  The traditional stores that still exist are really nothing more than large clothing stores that sell lots of makeup and perfume and perhaps have a good home goods department.  Even the fewer and fewer stores that have things like book departments, toy departments, luggage departments, furniture departments and appliances are shadows of the glorious stores of the past.

 

Mr. Humphries, are you free?

 

If a downtown Cincy store had Mrs. Slocumb working, I'd visit everyday for comic relief. 

 

The most vibrant parts of the Burgh (at least in my opinion) aren't near Macy's. In general, that neighborhood is pretty dingy. I'll go to Shadyside over the clock any day of the week to do my shopping there. Shadyside doesn't have a department store, but I think most people consider it more attractive and trendier than downtown. Just look at the difference in the stores that are in Shadyside and compare it to the Golden triangle area. Its no contest.

 

Just to finish off on subsidies, sometimes its worth it, sometimes it isn't. I pointed out MacArthur Center because what's happened there is somewhat similar to what's happened at Tower City. MC is losing tenants left and right. Its losing its cache as a destination and as an upscale mall. All the subsidies in the world aren't helping it as long as the shoppers avoid it. Hard to say if that $90 mil was worth it when it starts to empty out only a few years later. Clearly, the market can't support it for various reasons. TC was heavily subsidized to get built in the first place. I'm not sure why you say Cleveland didn't make an effort to subsidize retail. TC was their attempt at it. Like in Norfolk, the good times didn't last.

 

In my Googling, I found <a href="http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2000/04/23/loc_nordstrom_price_tag.html">this interesting article from 2000.</a> It talks about how Cincy offered $50 mil to lure Nordstrom. It also mentions that as of then, Saks and Fountain Place had received well over $100 million in various subsides and loans. I'm sure that number has only grown as time has gone on. I also found that back in 1998, <a href="http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-4450772.html"> Macy's wanted $55 mil </a> to build a store on State St. in Chicago. The city rejected it. Makes you wonder what would've happened to Field's if that went through.

 

Re the Cincy subsidy numbers, they are a little vague in that article.  The $100 million no doubt includes the value of the land and improvements for the Macy’s.  That building was built under the guise of being a “base” on top of which a 30 story mixed use residential tower would be constructed.  The city spent a ton of money trying to make that happen, and the Macy’s building was indeed built structurally capable of supporting a tower, but it has never happened.  The Saks subsidies must just be the Skywalk, and maybe some sort of tax or ground lease deal.

 

While these subsidies are different than what a suburban location gets, they aren’t unmatched.  Millions go into road and site improvements for suburban malls, it just isn’t called a subsidy by the media.

 

Re: Impact of downtown department stores. Looking at the list of have nots, there are some prosperous growing cities on that list.

Give me Tower City every day of the week and twice on Sunday over any downtown department store.  Three times on Sunday if it is a TJMaxx...

The problem with Tower City (and any sort of downtown "mall") is its relative isolation versus an actual streetscape of retail and/or standalone department store.  What most department stores do is draw in the pedestrian from streetlevel while malls act as a barrier between a self-sustaining indoor, modern arcade and potential downtown retail.  Tower City is perhaps worse than others due to it being behind Terminal Tower, facing the Cuyahoga, thus forcing visitors off the streets of Public Square and into a controlled environment.  A mall that is actually successful in creating a perfect blend of street interaction and having a contained space is the City Creek project in Salt Lake City. Flow versus function is all it's about.  Downtown department stores are (were) mini-malls in some ways (indoor, vertical controlled environment) but at least they were generally a part of the streetscape, not withheld from it.  Tower City isn't the only urban mall in this state that suffers from this; Tower Place/Fountain Place in Cincinnati is similarly destructive (even though it is now a ghost town).  City Center in Columbus was perhaps the worst offender of all; thank God it's gone and High & Gay Streets are thriving because of it.

 

Now if that Amtrak station were kept at Tower City, the Rapid were more heavily used, and Cleveland's Euclid Avenue (or any street downtown) was a larger shopping street, I'd have no problem with it as it can function like one of those transit malls you'd find in Europe or Asia (or even that Gallery @ Market East in Philadelphia).  The problem is that the majority of Downtown Cleveland's retail is on the edge of downtown, inside Tower City, thus leaving streetscapes that would otherwise house a Rainbow or Banana Republic blank or filled with CVS's.

The problem with Tower City (and any sort of downtown "mall") is its relative isolation versus an actual streetscape of retail and/or standalone department store. 

 

Right you are. The "isolation" issue is a huge problem I see throughout the midwest. The solution, I think, lies in improving design. Take Tower City for example. It's location itself is a tremendous asset. It's not too hard to envision a future where things could be improved to foster more interaction with Public Square on one side, and the Riverfront on the other.

Sorry.... but I don't see a distinction in the street life sucking effect.  Nothing happens in that 100 foot (est) walk from Public Square to Tower City that does not occur when you walked in the turnstyle at Higbees.  That's just over-analyzing the situation.  Your shopping indoors, off the street either way.  I wasn't suggesting that it was preferrable to individual store street retail, just that it is preferrable compared to a department store.  You also aren't quite as familiar as the locals with the connectivity of Tower City given the way you try to paint it.  I also expect that connectivity to greatlyt improve with Phase II of the casino.  I'll stand by my statement 100% without expanding it to suggest it stands for something it does not. 

The fact that I'm NOT a local and seeing issues with Tower City saying something.  Higbees was one store; Tower City is an actual mall.  Thus, one, large retail outlet =/= multiple retail stores concentrated in one giant space.  I don't know about you but I'd much rather have a Higbees than Tower City. Shopping indoors isn't the issue; the issue is the fact that a large concentration of stores that would otherwise be on Euclid, Superior, etc are inside a giant (but very nice) mall.  A department store is just that, a store.  A giant TJ Maxx.  An even larger Hollister with obviously more amenities if we're talking traditional.

 

Locals were connected to City Center Mall in Columbus.  Locals were connected to the Shops @ RenCen in Detroit.  Locals, at one time, were connected to Tower Place Mall in Cincinnati.  They all failed in terms of improving retail vitality to their respective downtowns' streetscapes.  It's a visible pattern and shows the blindness of local connectivity to begin with.

Give me Tower City every day of the week and twice on Sunday over any downtown department store.  Three times on Sunday if it is a TJMaxx...

 

I agree. Pittsburgh has a Department Store and no retail. We have retail in Tower City, but no Department Store. I prefer the multiple options of retail, a possibly improving selection, over an aging department store that isnt in good shape, and is surrounded by crap. I think certain retailers are drawn to a mall, while others prefer the street. Without Tower City, I doubt any, or very few, of those stores would be located along our streets.

 

Also I believe the Galleria compares to other downtown malls that have failed or are failing. Mostly standalone building. Tower City on the other hand is part of a huge complex, housing two hotels, several office buildings, RTA, and a Movie Theater. It has way more reasons to be successful than a regular mall downtown. Thats why Tower City is doing fine, and the Galleria probably would have failed either way, even if Tower City was never built.

 

I don't know about you but I'd much rather have a Higbees than Tower City.

 

I would rather have Tower City. This is only because Higbees would most likely be in the state of other downtown department stores, facing a slow painful death, where the interior gets worn, the customers are less frequent, and the number floors in continually decreased. Eventually it would die and we would be left with nothing. I look at Macys in Pittsburgh, and I wouldn't want that for Higbees.

 

Now if this was a different world, and America never changed, I would 100% prefer Higbees at its best. Unfortunately that is not the case, so that is why I prefer Tower City.

^^

 

a) You're assuming those store would be on Euclid Avenue if not in TC.  I think you're wrong.  JMO

 

b) You ingore that large department stores and discount stores, such as TJMaxx, Walmart, KMart, Burlington also take significant business away from the imaginary stores that would be along Euclid, Superior, etc.

 

I'd definitely rather have a collection of smaller shops than one large mega stores which sells itself as a one-stop-shop and undercuts all of those smaller stores right out of business.

 

EDIT: ClevelandOhio - we are operating on similar wavelengths today

I also would rather have Tower City than Higbee's because of the diversity of options and services available. I've spent more money at Tower City than I ever did at Higbee's (I think I bought one thing at Higbee's) and I used to cut through Higbee's every day when I went to school downtown 1990-92.

 

But that's a choice that didn't need to be made. Dillard's closed its downtown Cleveland store because it was "marginally profitable." So the store wasn't even failing. It just wasn't preforming as much as other stores to keep Wall Street analysts and stockholders happy. Far too many businesses have been closed because they tend to see Wall Street as their most important customer base. So center-city Clevelanders suffered.

^I also think Dillards made a business decision to abandon downtown department stores nationwide (they might have one of two left) a long time ago.  By the way, don't even try to compare Dillard's to Higbees (Higbees and Halles were incredible stores in their downtown hey days).  Hard to describe to the "younger crowd" who never experienced them.  Higbees was almost an entire TC in one store.

Higbees was almost an entire TC in one store.

 

Eggsactly!

In the '70s, Wall Street liked it when companies conglomerated. AMF bowling lanes owned Harley-Davidson, CBS owned Fender Instruments and G.E. bought up everything. Those monster department stores of the 20th century were like that -- Lazarus was in the sit-down restaurant, pharmacy and candy business. These days, Wall Street likes companies that focus on their core competencies. Les Wexner really changed retailing by limiting the Limited's selection to only product that was a part of his vision for his store brands. Think about how many store concepts have been started under the Limited's umbrella then spun off into separate companies once they began to flourish. Also think about how cautious Wal-Mart is about adding new departments to their stores. They pretty much just carry the same type of stuff they always have with the exception of larger grocery departments.

 

What about the poor fortunes of the "category killers"? While the "category killer" stores suffer today, it's mainly because of changes in those products they've decided to "kill".

First off, I'm in no way advocating that department stores are going to be successful in today's retail climate as they were in the 1930's.  The thing I am responding to is would I rather have a department store than a self-enclosed mall in a midsized American city?  You damn right.  I think that's a no-brainer.  Yes, department stores are closing, yes they are downsizing, and they certainly are not what they used to be but a self-contained mall (not talking a City Creek or a Horton Plaza; I'm talking Tower City and St. Louis Galleria) is perhaps worse as it drains the potential retail tenant of something that could come along and be successful (re: a shopping street ["real" cities], an actual retail center with good connections with downtown [The Banks in Cincinnati], a pedestrian mall done right [16th Street Mall in Denver], etc). 

 

I agree. Pittsburgh has a Department Store and no retail. We have retail in Tower City, but no Department Store. I prefer the multiple options of retail, a possibly improving selection, over an aging department store that isnt in good shape, and is surrounded by crap. I think certain retailers are drawn to a mall, while others prefer the street. Without Tower City, I doubt any, or very few, of those stores would be located along our streets.

 

Retailers are drawn to a mall if that's the only option you have.  We all know downtown Pittsburgh isn't exactly a shopping mecca but it certainly has more retail on its streets (even side streets, re: the Burlington Coat Factory off Wood Street) than Cleveland.  And thus, it arguably feels more vibrant.  Why?  People aren't walking into a mall to shop.  Tower City is a gift and a curse for downtown Cleveland.  It provides a larger retail base due to it being, well, a mall versus, say, Detroit but at the same time it gives retailers a "only here" option due to management strategies.  I'm presuming the Erieview Galleria failed due to Tower City.

 

I would rather have Tower City. This is only because Higbees would most likely be in the state of other downtown department stores, facing a slow painful death, where the interior gets worn, the customers are less frequent, and the number floors in continually decreased. Eventually it would die and we would be left with nothing. I look at Macys in Pittsburgh, and I wouldn't want that for Higbees.

 

Now if this was a different world, and America never changed, I would 100% prefer Higbees at its best. Unfortunately that is not the case, so that is why I prefer Tower City.

 

But couldn't the same be said as Tower City?  I certainly remember Tower City having more "high profile" stores than it currently does.  Certainly more than A Dollar, Fashion Nails, and Just StringZ. How is this any different than a downsized Macy's?

 

a) You're assuming those store would be on Euclid Avenue if not in TC.  I think you're wrong.  JMO

 

I'm not assuming anything.  I'm suggesting that there wouldn't even BE an assumption as those stores would be in Tower City anyway, killing the idea that Euclid Avenue would have any sort of retail to begin with.

 

b) You ingore that large department stores and discount stores, such as TJMaxx, Walmart, KMart, Burlington also take significant business away from the imaginary stores that would be along Euclid, Superior, etc.

 

Ah, but that's the point.  Those KMart's, Burlington Coat Factories, etc should BE on the streetlevel but instead if they were in downtown Cleveland, they'd likely be in Tower City. 

 

I'd definitely rather have a collection of smaller shops than one large mega stores which sells itself as a one-stop-shop and undercuts all of those smaller stores right out of business.

 

I'm not defending department stores, I'm against poorly-done urban malls.  That's what your'e not getting.  I'd ALSO rather have smaller stores than one large department store.  I'm saying they should be in the downtown and not inside a mall that just happens to be in a downtown.  If I'm picking the lesser of the two evils, I'll pick the department store over a disconnected downtown mall anyday of the week.

I'm not "not getting" anything you are trying to sell.  We'll just have to agree to disagree on about 98% of your points..,... especially when you continue to label The Avenue at Tower City as 'disconnected' despite that it is directly connected (through multiple traffic flow patterns) to one of the largest mixed use facilities in the region.... not to mention two large government employment centers.... two professional sports complexes..... two major transit hubs (at least what would be considered 'major' here in Ohio).... a brand new casino (soon to be two)..... two hotels.... no less than 5 large office buidlings..... and more

 

There is also a second downtown retail killer in Cleveland, Steelyard Commons. TJ Maxx, Burlington would probably open a store there before they would downtown.

I'm not "not getting" anything you are trying to sell.  We'll just have to agree to disagree on about 98% of your points..,... especially when you continue to label The Avenue at Tower City as 'disconnected' despite that it is directly connected (through multiple traffic flow patterns) to one of the largest mixed use facilities in the region.... not to mention two large government employment centers.... two professional sports complexes..... two major transit hubs (at least what would be considered 'major' here in Ohio).... a brand new casino (soon to be two)..... two hotels.... no less than 5 large office buidlings..... and more

 

You kinda illustrated my point but I'll do the "agree to disagree" schtick.

Ahhh.... I see.  It is 'disconnected' from downtown because it is connected to so many things downtown, within and not within the mixed use facility it is a major component of.  Gotcha

Yes, that's it.  You read my mind!  It's connected to Progressive Field and that Horseshoe Casino Buffet!  Because that's apparently all of downtown Cleveland...

Malls just don't belong in downtowns. Department stores fair better because they tend to be one store that actually front the street. The problem with malls like the one in Tower City is that they focus all the possible retail in one location, thus reducing the attractiveness of traditional storefronts. It's similar to the skyscraper effect on downtown office vacancy. Also because the space is managed under one entity, it typically has an advantage over the traditional model (one storefront, one owner, etc). One of the reasons why retail in Cincinnati is slowly rebounding is because the owners of Tower Place either are not interested in marketing the mall or can't figure it out. A better Cincinnati example is Newport on the Levee which has failed so badly at attracting retail that they are now marketing their vacant space as office space.

 

Thus malls, and especially urban malls are on their way out. I would be less skeptical of downsizing the downtown department store only because they can serve as retail anchors to smaller street fronting storefronts.

 

Below is something from the Atlantic that I thought was applicable.

 

The Shopping Mall Turns 60 (and Prepares to Retire)

 

By Dunham-Jones' count, today about a third of our existing malls are "dead" or dying. That’s not to say they’re mostly vacant. But they have dreadful sales per square foot. High-end dress stores have moved out, and tattoo parlors have replaced them – "things," Dunham-Jones says, "that would normally be considered way too déclassé for a mall."

Tower City really isn't all that big, compared to most malls, so with the casino, if retail starts to take off, it would be pretty easy to fill it back up with "better" stores IMO.  We really aren't talking about a "Giant" super mall here...it's a pretty modest size which I think could work in tandem with street level retail .  A quick comparison by leasable square footage (mall only, no surrounding sites):

 

Tower City:  367,000

Beachwood 1.1 million

Great Northern: 1.1 million

Great Lakes: 1 million

South Park: 1.6 million

 

Columbus City Centre:  1.2 million

Circle Centre(Indianapolis): 786,000

Kaufmann's (downtown Pittsburgh original 12 story store) 750,000

Water Tower Place (Chicago):  729,000

 

(Disclaimer) The above stats are just from me doing a quick google search of the centers, so I'm not positve the sq ft is 100% accurate.

If retail starts to take off it will not be in malls, especially urban ones in small to mid-sized cities.

Calling Tower City a "Mall" is a misnomer in my opinion, considering what an average "mall" is today. Yes its covered retail, but its also convenience shopping, rail hub, dining options, hotel, etc.. so this is unique.

 

The retail aspect of Tower City will change with spinoff from Casino. Other than downtown convenience, shopping in any downtown is relatively downhill.

 

Give me a beautiful, historic rail hub that serves its population well, includes local shops, and continues to impress out-of-towners even at this point, rather than a slowly decaying, tax sucking department store. There is street level retail in both the warehouse district and e4th that has their own specific market which is on an upswing. Yes, I wish there was enough support to get another department store attached to tower city, but only if it would be from growth.

 

 

Just wondering, what stores, if any, left the streets for Tower City when it first opened?

I don't remember any stores moving but that was long ago. The fast food restaurants that used to line Euclid opened locations in Tower City and eventually the Euclid locations closed.

^^None that I can recall.  The only retail I remember surviving on the streets at that point (which was already post Galleria opening) were some discount mens fashion in the WHD, a few Bunce Brothers (?) like places in the financial district, some boutiques in the Halles building ground floor, and some really low end stuff on East 4th and lower Euclid/Prospect.

 

^^^I agree it's unique in many ways, but I think Tower City is most definitely, positively a "mall" in the normal sense of the word, from the storefronts to the fountains, food court, and modern acoustic tile ceilings.  It is definitely no longer a historic train station with shops.  Tower City can impress, but I know from personal experience because of its mall trappings, it can also come across as a depressing failed mall to out of town visitors, regardless of its history or other attributes.

Calling Tower City a "Mall" is a misnomer in my opinion, considering what an average "mall" is today. Yes its covered retail, but its also convenience shopping, rail hub, dining options, hotel, etc.. so this is unique.

 

The retail aspect of Tower City will change with spinoff from Casino. Other than downtown convenience, shopping in any downtown is relatively downhill.

 

Give me a beautiful, historic rail hub that serves its population well, includes local shops, and continues to impress out-of-towners even at this point, rather than a slowly decaying, tax sucking department store. There is street level retail in both the warehouse district and e4th that has their own specific market which is on an upswing. Yes, I wish there was enough support to get another department store attached to tower city, but only if it would be from growth.

 

 

Tower City needs to decide what it is and do it right because right now it's doing a ton of stuff and not doing it well.

 

 

Calling Tower City a "Mall" is a misnomer in my opinion, considering what an average "mall" is today. Yes its covered retail, but its also convenience shopping, rail hub, dining options, hotel, etc.. so this is unique.

 

The retail aspect of Tower City will change with spinoff from Casino. Other than downtown convenience, shopping in any downtown is relatively downhill.

 

Give me a beautiful, historic rail hub that serves its population well, includes local shops, and continues to impress out-of-towners even at this point, rather than a slowly decaying, tax sucking department store. There is street level retail in both the warehouse district and e4th that has their own specific market which is on an upswing. Yes, I wish there was enough support to get another department store attached to tower city, but only if it would be from growth.

 

 

Tower City needs to decide what it is and do it right because right now it's doing a ton of stuff and not doing it well.

 

 

It has to be doing something right, it is still open and fully rented for the most part (although no longer upscale). Look at what's happend to other urban malls.

Calling Tower City a "Mall" is a misnomer in my opinion, considering what an average "mall" is today. Yes its covered retail, but its also convenience shopping, rail hub, dining options, hotel, etc.. so this is unique.

 

The retail aspect of Tower City will change with spinoff from Casino. Other than downtown convenience, shopping in any downtown is relatively downhill.

 

Give me a beautiful, historic rail hub that serves its population well, includes local shops, and continues to impress out-of-towners even at this point, rather than a slowly decaying, tax sucking department store. There is street level retail in both the warehouse district and e4th that has their own specific market which is on an upswing. Yes, I wish there was enough support to get another department store attached to tower city, but only if it would be from growth.

 

 

Tower City needs to decide what it is and do it right because right now it's doing a ton of stuff and not doing it well.

 

 

It has to be doing something right, it is still open and fully rented for the most part (although no longer upscale). Look at what's happend to other urban malls.

 

This is not "something right" rather it is something slowly going wrong. Malls (which StrapHanger appropriately pointed out that Tower City is one) decline in degrees of generations from the upscale stores of when they open to the stores that represent slow decline. Just because a mall is occupied does it mean that it is either vibrant or successful.

 

Look Tower City is a wonderful building with so many great things. Unfortunately the mall aspect of it is what is hurting it and downtown Cleveland. What planners in Cleveland need to focus on is how to position this city asset in a way to connect it back to what matters most, the space in front of its front door, Public Square. The mall hinders that, it hinder the Euclid Avenue corridor and the area around the casino.

I don't think that having a downtown mall is always a bad thing. But I do believe they should be placed in urban areas with vibrant retail already in place and serve as an "over flow" to gain more retail and stores in this concentrated areas. Areas where I see this phenomenon occurring include Water Tower Place Mall along Michigan, Liberty Place Mall off of Chestnut street in Philadelphia and that Victorian Area mall located on M street in Georgetown. This malls do not seem to "steal" stores that would otherwise be located on the street nor to the really hurt pedestrian traffic since these corridors are filled with street-level retail.

Without Tower City, I truly see downtown having basically no retail. The stores weren't on the streets before, and they wont be after. And there is a possibility for Tower City to improve. I personally dont think its getting worse. Its not anywhere close to Richmond Mall bad. I agree that the Galleria is not good for downtown, and that is basically dead, or finding new life as something different. Tower City is not your average mall.

 

And besides, I still rather have that than a dying old department store that will go out of business by the next census. Department stores arent doing as good as they used to, even in suburban locations.

 

I would like to know how many people on here actually shop at department stores regularly. I for one, do not.

^^The difference between those examples and Tower City is that Chicago, Philadelphia, and Washington already have thriving urban retail districts and that malls compliment, not deter shoppers experience.  That's why I have no issue with the San Francisco Centres or the Horton Plaza's as both downtowns already have wonderful, urban, vibrant retail corridors (Union Square & Gaslamp).  And thus, if Cleveland had an already existing vibrant downtown with main-brand stores along Euclid or whatever street + Tower City, that'd be a great combination.  That's why I haven't really dogged Circle Centre in Indianapolis.  Indianapolis already has a vibrant downtown with numerous stores surrounding and branching out from Circle Centre.  Circle Centre compliments downtown Indianapolis; Tower City strangles downtown Cleveland.  There is no critical mass in ANY of Ohio's major (or minor) cities yet to actually embrace a thriving urban mall.  We're just not there yet.

Without Tower City, I truly see downtown having basically no retail. The stores weren't on the streets before, and they wont be after. And there is a possibility for Tower City to improve. I personally dont think its getting worse. Its not anywhere close to Richmond Mall bad. I agree that the Galleria is not good for downtown, and that is basically dead, or finding new life as something different. Tower City is not your average mall.

 

And besides, I still rather have that than a dying old department store that will go out of business by the next census. Department stores arent doing as good as they used to, even in suburban locations.

 

I would like to know how many people on here actually shop at department stores regularly. I for one, do not.

 

And conversely, how often do you shop at Tower City (and I'm not talking a foodcourt or some stamps)?  The fact of the matter is that downtown department stores AND urban malls in midsized stagnant cities are dying.  There are cities where department stores and urban malls are actually booming (Salt Lake City and Seattle come to mind immediately).  Then there are cities that are tearing/have torn down their old relic malls (Columbus, St. Louis, Phoenix).  Then there are cities that are holding on to them for whatever reason (Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit).

^^^My shopping habits have actually shifted greatly towards department stores as I've aged and gotten more comfortable spending my money.  [Much of the mall is just not age appropriate for an urban dude over 35, IMO.]  I'm sure you're right about department stores in many areas, but if you spend more time in cities with thriving downtown retail, you might have a different opinion of them.  The Neiman Marcus in central Boston is actually about to start a major expansion project, even in this economy.

 

I agree with you though that without Tower City, there likely would be almost no retail downtown, so it is a bit of conundrum between different needs.

JYP - you might want to slow down there with the prognastications.  Something big may be happening with TC in the near future which will make you learn how nasty your foot can taste.  We'll see.....

 

CDM - our Downtown is a 'gasper'..... although dangerous, it gets off on the near-death experience Tower City's stragulation gives it.  (And with that.... is it time again for a re-post of the PeterGriffin photo thread?)

 

 

^Agreed.  I definitely don't think Tower City is forever dead.  Though it's a separate question whether a different development pattern feeding off the casino would make for a more lively downtown (which is CDM's main point).

 

I know this is a recipe for disaster, but I honestly have no idea: what is the downtown shopping situation like in Columbus and Cinci (beyond its department stores)? Are there any street-level chain clothing retailers?

JYP - you might want to slow down there with the prognastications.  Something big may be happening with TC in the near future which will make you learn how nasty your foot can taste.  We'll see.....

 

 

Oh privy to top secret info? DO share!

It would be awesome to see something in the way of Nieman Marcus finally being able to act on their plans from so many years ago. But until there are all of the other components, I will keep my sad face.

JYP - you might want to slow down there with the prognastications.  Something big may be happening with TC in the near future which will make you learn how nasty your foot can taste.  We'll see.....

 

 

Oh privy to top secret info? DO share!

 

There is a whole thread of discussion about it.

To wit: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,26665.msg631521.html#new

I know this is a recipe for disaster, but I honestly have no idea: what is the downtown shopping situation like in Columbus and Cinci (beyond its department stores)? Are there any street-level chain clothing retailers?

 

 

For Columbus, it's nonexistent.  There are boutiques and a CVS but currently there is no visible retail in downtown Columbus.  Saying all that to say, the Columbus Commons complex is set to add retail to the first floor connection High Street to the new park.  With that, a new beginning born from the ashes of City Center.

 

Cincinnati arguably has the best downtown for retail disbursement in the state.  You have a TJ Maxx on 4th, you have a Saks 5th Avenue on 5th Street, you have a Macy's at Fountain Square, you have old school stores scattered all around downtown between Main and Plum, etc.  Due to Tower Place's demise, you have a more thriving adjacent neighborhood (Over-the-Rhine), more stores coming to The Banks (think your Flats Eastbank project), and retail options around Fountain Square with "name-brand" retailers like Jos. A Bank and Tiffany & Company.