What Would Really Be Great To Have on Merchants Row...

[313WX]

That's what I've been saying - get Century 21 in here. When I lived in BKLN, that is where I got most of my clothing [[and I lived walking distance). Same with most of the people I knew. A Dillard's would be good as well. Get stuff that isn't in every mall and "lifestyle center" in the burbs

Exactly.

If we want to see a true retail renaissance along Woodward, it must have destination retailers that you can't find just anywhere, so that people will practically have no choice but to come downtown and shop.

Moosejaw and John Varvados are both a start. But Woodward Avenue still needs an anchor store [[like Hudson's was) to get it over the tip of the ice berg.

[ghettopalmetto]

There are a couple ideas on this thread that don't make sense to me, so I'm hoping you guys can maybe help provide some clarity.

I think it's a bit ironic that folks are clamoring for "unique", yet are calling for chain stores downtown. Does this seem the slightest bit disconnected to anyone?

Second, who is going to shop at all these stores? The downtown population, while growing in number and income, is not tremendous. Maybe John Varvatos knows something I don't, but I just don't see that store making much money. I find it hard to believe that folks will drive 25-30 miles from the Troy/Bloomfield area just to shop there.

Third, what's up with this "creating a destination" to "lure" people downtown? Especially if it's going to be all chain stores? To me, this sounds like a rehash of the great 1980s idea to put malls in downtowns to trick, er lure, suburbanites to shop downtown. That didn't work then. Why would it work now?

Retail--and in particular, chain retail--is always the last thing to appear in a "revitalized" area. I think downtown Detroit is on the uptick and headed in the right direction. I just don't see a robust market for large-scale retail yet. Chain retailers are incredibly risk-averse, and I can't imagine them flocking to Detroit en masse in the absence of a vibrant and robust locally-owned retail market.

Finally, do we think it's a *good* think to "mall-ify" downtown Detroit?

Those are just the thoughts off the top of my head. Happy to read other opinions.

[FormerDetroiter]

Although I don't live in Detroit anymore I would have loved being able to shop at Macy's, Kohl's, Penney's, etc. etc., without having to leave the city. I lived in Midtown and it would have been nice to have stores like that so close.

[313WX]

There are a couple ideas on this thread that don't make sense to me, so I'm hoping you guys can maybe help provide some clarity.

I think it's a bit ironic that folks are clamoring for "unique", yet are calling for chain stores downtown. Does this seem the slightest bit disconnected to anyone?

Second, who is going to shop at all these stores? The downtown population, while growing in number and income, is not tremendous. Maybe John Varvatos knows something I don't, but I just don't see that store making much money. I find it hard to believe that folks will drive 25-30 miles from the Troy/Bloomfield area just to shop there.

Third, what's up with this "creating a destination" to "lure" people downtown? Especially if it's going to be all chain stores? To me, this sounds like a rehash of the great 1980s idea to put malls in downtowns to trick, er lure, suburbanites to shop downtown. That didn't work then. Why would it work now?

Retail--and in particular, chain retail--is always the last thing to appear in a "revitalized" area. I think downtown Detroit is on the uptick and headed in the right direction. I just don't see a robust market for large-scale retail yet. Chain retailers are incredibly risk-averse, and I can't imagine them flocking to Detroit en masse in the absence of a vibrant and robust locally-owned retail market.

Finally, do we think it's a *good* think to "mall-ify" downtown Detroit?

Those are just the thoughts off the top of my head. Happy to read other opinions.

Wasn't Woodward a shopping destination [[not just for Metro Detroit, but for much of MI/OH/IN and Ontario) in the 1950s, when Hudson's was the 2nd largest department store in the world? It was even featured in a 1957 or 1958 Times Magazine article.

Remember Downtown Detroit Days?

Why can't we at least try to recreate that?

[Hermod]

Hudson's, Crowley's, Kern's, Annis Furs, Sam's, Detroit was the place to go back in the day.

[Richard]

Dillard's is family owned,middle and upper class women is thier target market.Strictly domestic.

They are good if one has a upper scale product to market made in the US.

Thier weak spot is they do not market to upper scale teens or collage students,maybe a test store in the city could be feasible expanding thier currant coustmer base target.

At the same time JC Penny,Macy,Nordstrom are thier competion so adding a younger line would then also add Forever 21 and others to the list.

Even though there is a uptick downtown including Midtown, Corktown and similar others a specific brand would be a hard sale, the quickest would be something like a limited city Target type central located. Something like Macy's is nice but realistically how many times a week does one vist and spend money there.

You have to start somewhere.

[D_Town]

Bloomingdales would make the most sense. It would be more of a "destination" department store compared to Dillards

[canuck]

The ideal outcome would be a recreation of everything that makes up a thriving, bustling downtown, built incrementally, bit by bit, in a long sequence of time.

We tend to think that Detroit had the readymade features we long for; the bars and restaurants, the Cigar stores and bookstores that vanished but the boom years of the early 20th Century did away with a lot of the old and quirky bits of city that some had loved and grown accustomed to also. Think of the spittoons and other weird stuff that decorated peoples lives 100 years ago. Think of the disappearance of gaslight a generation before that.

I believe that Gilbert gets a lot of flak for being the knight in shining armor that others would like to be. he is doing a lot to improve a major downtown with the limited means one player has at his disposal.

I believe also that somebody or bodies will come up with a bit of shtick to razzmatazz certain aspects of Detroit whether it be old architecture funkified or themeparkified, mallified in certain circumstances. The state does its bit with Belle Isle, it may take on other tasks soon enough that may surprise us.

None of this can be end-all be-all. Pieces of the puzzle are strangely being put in by actors in city government also, let's be positive about the bike paths, the Riverwalk and led lighting schemes.
Let's look at how the city can compete by introducing an extraordinary transit system that outdoes all the others because it will be the newest, and most effective. These are all prob-o-ble and pos-o-tive outcomes.

Everybody knows the suburbanitis that affects Detroit needs to be cured so that the core becomes a magnet for the region. So OK, there may be some Head office pullback toward Southfield and other burbs by certain entities, that is fine; it actually speaks of regional benefits.
The goal has to be an enticing one; let's make Detroit a successful and enviable city.

Regional government, regional transit, core development as a showcase for regional success are to my mind, the values to shoot for in the near future. I am leaving out neighborhoods for now, but it goes without saying that a stronger core will provide opportunities in the areas nearest the core.

[canuck]

There is a good chance a themepark design team would have a certain success at recreating interest in real estate in downtown as opposed to speculators and developers who tend to idle longer with less of a "Big Picture" emphasis. That is why, in the case of downtown Detroit, a bit of prefab excitement such as exists in any projection, be it a Casino or Cobo Hall or new boutique needs to happen. I am sure Gilbert and Illitch meet with all kinds of actors in this area of design to create a certain excitement. Urban planning can only go so far, other players need space to do their stuff also; big investors and small operators alike need encouragement from the city and state.

[Bucket]

Zara would be fantastic and would provide a potential shopping destination for those who live and/or work in the greater downtown area with the potential to draw from inner suburbs as well. Zara is higher end than H&M, but much more reasonably priced than Varvatos. Zara and Varvatos would complement each other nicely. There are no Zara stores in Michigan. The nearest Zara store is in Chicago.

[erikd]

There are a couple ideas on this thread that don't make sense to me, so I'm hoping you guys can maybe help provide some clarity.

I think it's a bit ironic that folks are clamoring for "unique", yet are calling for chain stores downtown. Does this seem the slightest bit disconnected to anyone?

Second, who is going to shop at all these stores? The downtown population, while growing in number and income, is not tremendous. Maybe John Varvatos knows something I don't, but I just don't see that store making much money. I find it hard to believe that folks will drive 25-30 miles from the Troy/Bloomfield area just to shop there.

Third, what's up with this "creating a destination" to "lure" people downtown? Especially if it's going to be all chain stores? To me, this sounds like a rehash of the great 1980s idea to put malls in downtowns to trick, er lure, suburbanites to shop downtown. That didn't work then. Why would it work now?

Retail--and in particular, chain retail--is always the last thing to appear in a "revitalized" area. I think downtown Detroit is on the uptick and headed in the right direction. I just don't see a robust market for large-scale retail yet. Chain retailers are incredibly risk-averse, and I can't imagine them flocking to Detroit en masse in the absence of a vibrant and robust locally-owned retail market.

Finally, do we think it's a *good* think to "mall-ify" downtown Detroit?

Those are just the thoughts off the top of my head. Happy to read other opinions.

This is a pretty good post, with a number of valid points and questions. Let me offer my response point by point:

1. "I think it's a bit ironic that folks are clamoring for "unique", yet are calling for chain stores downtown. Does this seem the slightest bit disconnected to anyone?"

I agree with this assessment. It is disconnected.

2. "Second, who is going to shop at all these stores? The downtown population, while growing in number and income, is not tremendous. Maybe John Varvatos knows something I don't, but I just don't see that store making much money. I find it hard to believe that folks will drive 25-30 miles from the Troy/Bloomfield area just to shop there."

There are a number of things that are incorrect with this assertion. First off, there is a widely accepted assumption that there are very few residents of Detroit [[downtown or otherwise), who have enough discretionary income to support specialty and/or high-end retail business in the city. Secondly, there is a similar assumption that people from the suburbs will not come to the city to patronize these specialty/high-end establishments.

While it is true that the city of Detroit has a large percentage of residents who are poor, it is also true that there are tens of thousands of Detroit city residents who do very well financially, and have quite a bit of disposable income. While it is also true that most suburbanites do not come into the city to do their daily shopping, there are many who do come into the city and patronize these specialty businesses.

The proof can be seen at businesses like Shinola, Hugh, Nora, The Peacock Room, City Bird, Nest, Whole Foods, and all of the new high-end bar/restaurants that are thriving in the city. Most people said that a store selling $600 watches and $2000 bikes could never make it in Detroit, but that clearly hasn't been the case.

3. "Third, what's up with this "creating a destination" to "lure" people downtown? Especially if it's going to be all chain stores? To me, this sounds like a rehash of the great 1980s idea to put malls in downtowns to trick, er lure, suburbanites to shop downtown. That didn't work then. Why would it work now?"

There are a few conflated concepts in this statement. First off, retail in America went through a period where shopping malls were all the rage, and traditional storefront retail was in decline. This went hand-in-hand with the exodus of residents and businesses out of the cities and into the suburbs. For multifarious reasons, that was just what people were doing. As a result of the suburban shift, most cities tried to combat the decline by building malls and other suburban-style developments. In the vast majority of cases, these attempts did not work. This was due to a number of reasons that are deserving of their own discussion.

Having said all of that, the simple answer is that people are now coming back to cities and downtowns. Shopping malls are passé, and are no longer being built. Downtown retail districts are coming back, and the suburbs are now building outdoor "lifestyle centers", which are basically fake downtown/mainstreets. It is clear that the preference is changing, and that is a big reason why ideas and concepts that didn't really take off in the 80s are working in 2014.

Cellphones, tablet computers, and electric cars were all brought to market in the 80s/early 90s, and they didn't take off at that time. Just because something didn't work 30 years ago doesn't mean that it won't work today.

4. "Retail--and in particular, chain retail--is always the last thing to appear in a "revitalized" area. I think downtown Detroit is on the uptick and headed in the right direction. I just don't see a robust market for large-scale retail yet. Chain retailers are incredibly risk-averse, and I can't imagine them flocking to Detroit en masse in the absence of a vibrant and robust locally-owned retail market.

Finally, do we think it's a *good* think to "mall-ify" downtown Detroit?"

I pretty much agree with this assessment. Mall-ifying downtown with a bunch of ubiquitous chain retailers is not the way to go. However, adding specialty retail to the surging city center storefronts is a great idea, which is likely to be quite successful.

[canuck]

4. "Retail--and in particular, chain retail--is always the last thing to appear in a "revitalized" area. I think downtown Detroit is on the uptick and headed in the right direction. I just don't see a robust market for large-scale retail yet. Chain retailers are incredibly risk-averse, and I can't imagine them flocking to Detroit en masse in the absence of a vibrant and robust locally-owned retail market.

Finally, do we think it's a *good* think to "mall-ify" downtown Detroit?"

I pretty much agree with this assessment. Mall-ifying downtown with a bunch of ubiquitous chain retailers is not the way to go. However, adding specialty retail to the surging city center storefronts is a great idea, which is likely to be quite successful.

Mall-ifying downtown with a bunch of ubiquitous retailers may seem negative but in reality, if these businesses compete and attract customers, they will find their niche. I think that all big cities experience the repetitious offer in retail, but it is better to have these operate than not. Whatever small independent biz opens before or after is a consequence of upping the offer by creating a retail buzz.


I think a savvy mix of small mall type business using street frontage at different parts of the core plus cultural offers in rotation such as small exhibits taken from a museum collection would do well. It's a bunch of different solutions not just an "Ideal solution" that Detroit needs. All cities have their fucked-uppedness, their shortcomings but Detroit metro with its massive wealth disseminated in the suburbs can surely regroup and find its center in the next twenty years.

[TTime]

Wasn't Woodward a shopping destination [[not just for Metro Detroit, but for much of MI/OH/IN and Ontario) in the 1950s, when Hudson's was the 2nd largest department store in the world? It was even featured in a 1957 or 1958 Times Magazine article.

Remember Downtown Detroit Days?

Why can't we at least try to recreate that?

You can try but there are a few problems with making it happen. First and most importantly, Detroit is no longer anywhere near as relevant as it was in the 50's and then there's that whole internet shopping thing and Partridge Creek and Somerset and a plummeting population and on and on and on....yeah[[Lumberg voice)

[DetroitPlanner]

Gibraltar Trade Center. Yeah thats the ticket!

[DetroitPlanner]

Wasn't Woodward a shopping destination [[not just for Metro Detroit, but for much of MI/OH/IN and Ontario) in the 1950s, when Hudson's was the 2nd largest department store in the world? It was even featured in a 1957 or 1958 Times Magazine article.

Remember Downtown Detroit Days?

Why can't we at least try to recreate that?

Not even Chicago is what is was in the 1950's in terms of retail. People don't shop like that anymore. Big boxes and the internet has killed nearly every downtown in the country.

Adapt or fade away.

[dtowncitylover]

Not even Chicago is what is was in the 1950's in terms of retail. People don't shop like that anymore. Big boxes and the internet has killed nearly every downtown in the country.

Adapt or fade away.

Though downtown Chicago isn't even dead. At all. It's very much alive.

[313WX]

Not even Chicago is what is was in the 1950's in terms of retail.

I'm not sure what you mean there.

Chicago is still home to the largest shopping destination in the Midwest [[The Magnificent Mile) and the largest shopping destination in the country outside of New York City and possibly San Francisco.

460 stores [[many of which are national retailers) along a mile-long strip with 22 million visitors yearly is hardly something to balk at.

Detroit was right behind Chicago [[in the Midwest and the entire country) as far as its retail experience when factoring in Woodward Avenue, The New Center Area and Washington Boulevard...

[DetroitPlanner]

I'm not sure what you mean there.

Chicago is still home to the largest shopping destination in the Midwest [[The Magnificent Mile) and the largest shopping destination in the country outside of New York City and possibly San Francisco.

460 stores [[many of which are national retailers) along a mile-long strip with 22 million visitors yearly is hardly something to balk at.

Detroit was right behind Chicago [[in the Midwest and the entire country) as far as its retail experience when factoring in Woodward Avenue, The New Center Area and Washington Boulevard...

The idea of large full service department stores are dead. Chicago has tourist-style shopping downtown, clothes, foo foo eateries etc. It is a very narrow slice of what most people need. Where do you buy appliances? How about home goods? Back when I was younger you could buy appliances and televisions in stores like Hudson's.

A good indicator of this is seen in the tax rates you pay to buy stuff in Chicago. Like Florida, they make the tourists pay. The people who live there shop elsewhere. It was recently decreased to 9.25 percent. What do you think that does to the people who live there? They leave and buy stuff like freezers, cars, and other durable goods elsewhere.

In the 1950's you could buy just about anything in Downtowns. Now you can't, they are ghost towns in terms of hardware, electronics, etc. Sure you can find an apple store or something similar, but lets face it those people buy with emotion [[suckers).

Chicago has adapted, it has not faded away but don't kid yourself things are very different than they once were. You think that it had all of those high end stores along Michigan even 30 years ago? Sure they had some, but it is nothing like it is now. It is there for the rest of the mid-west rubes who want to experience downtown shopping, though it is night and day compared to when Colonial Merchandise Mart was across State from Kresge's.

[313WX]

The idea of large full service department stores are dead. Chicago has tourist-style shopping downtown, clothes, foo foo eateries etc. It is a very narrow slice of what most people need. Where do you buy appliances? How about home goods? Back when I was younger you could buy appliances and televisions in stores like Hudson's.

A good indicator of this is seen in the tax rates you pay to buy stuff in Chicago. Like Florida, they make the tourists pay. The people who live there shop elsewhere. It was recently decreased to 9.25 percent. What do you think that does to the people who live there? They leave and buy stuff like freezers, cars, and other durable goods elsewhere.

In the 1950's you could buy just about anything in Downtowns. Now you can't, they are ghost towns in terms of hardware, electronics, etc. Sure you can find an apple store or something similar, but lets face it those people buy with emotion [[suckers).

Chicago has adapted, it has not faded away but don't kid yourself things are very different than they once were. You think that it had all of those high end stores along Michigan even 30 years ago? Sure they had some, but it is nothing like it is now. It is there for the rest of the mid-west rubes who want to experience downtown shopping, though it is night and day compared to when Colonial Merchandise Mart was across State from Kresge's.

I don't disagree with what you're saying.

That said, I think some people [[Dan Gilbert and his supporters mainly) are setting their sights too high when it comes to Merchants Row, as downtown/midtown alone just doesn't have the population and wealth to support this retail renaissance they desire.

[[as an aside, even Downtown Chicago only has 20,000 people. It's highly unlikely just those 20,000 alone are supporting all of the retail along Michigan Avenue)

The fact is Detroit will have to also rely on people who live outside of downtown/midtown and even the city to support the level of retail some would ideally like along Woodward. But there would have to be a unique attraction about the retail along Woodward that attracts these people, as people aren't going to travel all the way into the heart of the city just for the Apple store or Moosejaw, especially with the headache of having to find cheap/free parking, when they can just go into the suburbs and access the same retailers with less of a headache.

[dtowncitylover]

While I'm a big supporter of bringing more retail into the city, I also don't see Detroit becoming Chicago in terms of such a popular shopping destination, but I don't think it would hurt to market itself as such when we are prepared to. We have tons of Canadians, rural Michiganders, and Ohioans who come into the metro for Great Lakes and Somerset. Why not offer them an urban alternative? Offer them entertainment, sports, and shopping. Seems pretty logical to me. A Pure Michigan commercial in 5-10 years time all about downtown-midtown-New Center Detroit will be gold.

There was a post earlier about "uniqueness" and being "corporate". In my posts, I was positioning that any new retail that comes to downtown Detroit has to be unique to the Detroit market, not unique in the general sense, though that would be awesome as well. Nordstrom or JC Penney aren't gonna open up shop downtown. People go to Somerset because there's stores there that aren't available in Grand Rapids or Toledo and they can afford it.

[iheartthed]

That said, I think some people [[Dan Gilbert and his supporters mainly) are setting their sights too high when it comes to Merchants Row, as downtown/midtown alone just doesn't have the population and wealth to support this retail renaissance they desire.

I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what having a John Varvatos store in downtown Detroit means. John Varvatos doesn't have to sell much of anything in his store for this to be successful. His products are already sold in every mid to high end department store in America. However, from many of the comments in the thread about him opening a shop in Detroit, a lot of people who didn't know about his label before know who he is now just by virtue of him announcing his intentions.

Likewise, having a John Varvatos store in downtown Detroit also mutually benefits Detroit because it might become a place where major design labels locate a boutique to get press and visibility. It's a play ripped straight from the Shinola playbook...

[MSUguy]

Crains did an article on retail scene downtown. It hits some of the points that other have made, that Detroit is actually better suited for higher end, destination retail, as those stores will draw from outside the local population. That said, it is interesting to note Moosejaw is doing so well that they are now going seven days a week. A store than can be found every suburban mall is doing well enough downtown to add hours. I think that their room and basic

Last week, Bedrock Real Estate Services LLC announced that upscale menswear designer John Varvatos is returning to his native Detroit with a store on Woodward Avenue, arguably the most desirable retail block in the downtown area.

Though the demographics in the downtown area aren't yet what many retailers expect in terms of density when scouting locations, high-end retailers are less dependent on population numbers than other retailers. The very high-end retailers draw traffic of their own, local real estate brokers say.

Sales for Moosejaw's Detroit store have been strong throughout the summer even with the M-1 Rail construction taking place on Woodward, said President and CEO Eoin Comerford, in an email.

"We'll often have people tell us that they drove past another Moosejaw store in Birmingham or Grosse Pointe just to visit and support our Detroit location.

To attract Moosejaw downtown initially, Bedrock offered it lower rent.

But it isn't having to subsidize its leased retail space at this point with other retailers, Mullen said.

"I think the retailers are seeing the opportunity and how successful other companies have been when they're [[downtown)," he said.

Rents in the downtown area, including the central business district, Greektown, Midtown and Corktown, have more than doubled in the last three years, Griffin said. Average rent for retail spaces in those areas today is $20 to $26 per square foot, compared to under $10 three years ago.

There are enough people living and visiting the downtown area currently to support some of the early retail "pioneers" like Moosejaw and Varvatos that have a unique brand and are willing to be early adopters and hang out waiting for others to come, said Jim Bieri, president of Detroit-based Stokas-Bieri Real Estate.

But Bieri said he believes there aren't enough people living in the greater downtown area to support broader retail yet. In the near term, he expects the focus to stay primarily on food and beverage and entertainment venues.

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...ld-spur-others

[mwilbert]

There are a couple ideas on this thread that don't make sense to me, so I'm hoping you guys can maybe help provide some clarity.

I think it's a bit ironic that folks are clamoring for "unique", yet are calling for chain stores downtown. Does this seem the slightest bit disconnected to anyone?

Second, who is going to shop at all these stores? The downtown population, while growing in number and income, is not tremendous. Maybe John Varvatos knows something I don't, but I just don't see that store making much money. I find it hard to believe that folks will drive 25-30 miles from the Troy/Bloomfield area just to shop there.

Third, what's up with this "creating a destination" to "lure" people downtown? Especially if it's going to be all chain stores? To me, this sounds like a rehash of the great 1980s idea to put malls in downtowns to trick, er lure, suburbanites to shop downtown. That didn't work then. Why would it work now?

Retail--and in particular, chain retail--is always the last thing to appear in a "revitalized" area. I think downtown Detroit is on the uptick and headed in the right direction. I just don't see a robust market for large-scale retail yet. Chain retailers are incredibly risk-averse, and I can't imagine them flocking to Detroit en masse in the absence of a vibrant and robust locally-owned retail market.

Finally, do we think it's a *good* think to "mall-ify" downtown Detroit?

Those are just the thoughts off the top of my head. Happy to read other opinions.

Your thoughts are correct thoughts. That doesn't mean there can't be pioneers, or retailers that are subsidized in some way, but unless you are putting them someplace that can draw from a wide area with easy transportation and free parking, retailers locate where there are already shoppers around. Larger retailers, larger numbers of pre-existing shoppers. Downtown has to work its way up to that status. More residents in greater downtown will help.

[erikd]

The idea of large full service department stores are dead. Chicago has tourist-style shopping downtown, clothes, foo foo eateries etc. It is a very narrow slice of what most people need. Where do you buy appliances? How about home goods? Back when I was younger you could buy appliances and televisions in stores like Hudson's.

A good indicator of this is seen in the tax rates you pay to buy stuff in Chicago. Like Florida, they make the tourists pay. The people who live there shop elsewhere. It was recently decreased to 9.25 percent. What do you think that does to the people who live there? They leave and buy stuff like freezers, cars, and other durable goods elsewhere.

In the 1950's you could buy just about anything in Downtowns. Now you can't, they are ghost towns in terms of hardware, electronics, etc. Sure you can find an apple store or something similar, but lets face it those people buy with emotion [[suckers).

Chicago has adapted, it has not faded away but don't kid yourself things are very different than they once were. You think that it had all of those high end stores along Michigan even 30 years ago? Sure they had some, but it is nothing like it is now. It is there for the rest of the mid-west rubes who want to experience downtown shopping, though it is night and day compared to when Colonial Merchandise Mart was across State from Kresge's.

The entire retail industry is changing dramatically and rapidly. Many of the products that we have traditionally bought at brick and mortar stores are increasingly purchased online and home delivered. The selection, price, and convenience of online shopping is simply transformative, especially for standardized goods like consumer electronics and appliances.

With every year that goes by, I purchase more and more and more of these type of goods online. Even now, I can't even imagine a scenario where I would buy something like a computer in a store. I have purchased my last 3 computers, 2 TVs, pair of speakers, microwave, 6 pairs of shoes, 3 cellphones, and dozens of other similar type goods, all online. I still go to brick and mortar stores for clothing and other goods that I want to touch or try out, but that isn't necessary for many basic, standardized consumer goods.

While many people still buy these things from brick and mortar stores, that number is shrinking rapidly every year.

[Danny]

Not even Chicago is what is was in the 1950's in terms of retail. People don't shop like that anymore. Big boxes and the internet has killed nearly every downtown in the country.

Adapt or fade away.

Technically not true! People still shop in malls, big boxes and mom and pop retails. Most downtowns in most American cities are not dying. People want to keep shopping traditional. It's good exercise, keeping up with your health and learning the value of the dollar. People shop more outside instead of the internet. It's to keep us from being slothful.

One day Gilberttown Detroit will come back to life where people live, work and play all around.