Eastland goes into Receivership

[dtowncitylover]

You don't believe the current owners of Macomb Mall are doing the same thing the current owners of Northland and Eastland are doing?

No because they've added an H&M, Ulta, and Dick's as tenants, the latter being an anchor.

What name brand stores did/has Northland and Eastland bring in? Macomb is also a smaller mall that serves the immediate area well.

[313WX]

No because they've added an H&M, Ulta, and Dick's as tenants, the latter being an anchor.

What name brand stores did/has Northland and Eastland bring in? Macomb is also a smaller mall that serves the immediate area well.

Macomb Mall has a major anchor that's going to fold within the next few years and has removed half of its retail space.

Also, H&M [[which is essentially just a bigger Gap) and Dick's aren't anything special. The east side was heavily underserved by both in the first place.

[Bham1982]

No because they've added an H&M, Ulta, and Dick's as tenants, the latter being an anchor.

What name brand stores did/has Northland and Eastland bring in? Macomb is also a smaller mall that serves the immediate area well.

Northland brought in Target, Mervyns and other large retailers. Didn't save Northland. And their Macys was renovated a few years back. I'm pretty sure Eastland did the same. And Northland has better surrounding demographics than Eastland or Macomb. Southfield is a somewhat higher-income community.

Macomb Mall isn't guaranteed toast like Eastland, but I wouldn't give Macomb Mall more than 10-15 years before closure. Roseville was never the most desirable location, and the long-term demographic trends along Gratiot in South Macomb are pretty bleak.

Maybe Eastland closure will provide a temporary boost, though. It's a long way to Partridge Creek.

Come to think of it, Partridge Creek is really the only thriving mall in Macomb. Lakeside is looking fairly empty these days. Fairlane, Oakland, and Lakeside, while not in dire straits, are definitely weak malls in danger of not recovering.

[Onthe405]

Macomb Mall isn't guaranteed toast like Eastland, but I wouldn't give Macomb Mall more than 10-15 years before closure. Roseville was never the most desirable location, and the long-term demographic trends along Gratiot in South Macomb are pretty bleak.

Because it was a tiny location that was likely cannibalizing the sales at their mammoth [[nearly 400,000 sq. ft.) Macomb Mall store.

IMO, both of these speculations regarding the future of Macomb [[certainly as a "mall") are tied directly to the fate of the Sears store--and things aren't looking too good. When Sears does go, the owners will probably have difficulty finding a replacement. In general, brick-and-mortar retailers are struggling for market share like never before. Consequently, they are operating in defense/contraction mode [[closely evaluating results from each outlet and closing unprofitable stores), rather than offense/expansion mode on any kind of scale.


Given this environment, investments in questionable disposable-income demographic areas like Roseville are highly speculative and risky. Incidentally, I would include the new temporary fad retailers like H&M and Dick's in this group [[just because a few chains are willing to take the risk, does not automatically translate to long-term viability). For example, Summit in Waterford continued to expand in a vain effort to "compete" with other malls, long after its fate was already sealed.


Not only are traditional retailers getting hammered from online options, they are also attempting to deal with the challenge of a rapidly shrinking middle-class. Nordstrom & Wal-Mart will probably survive--anything in between is a question mark. Add to that emerging Millenials who have a completely different sense of material values than the two previous generations. Many of them view shelling out $400 for a new smartphone every year and $1200+ annually for a data plan as "necessities", while spending any more than $10 on an article of clothing an as an "unnecessary" luxury.

[Honky Tonk]

IMO, both of these speculations regarding the future of Macomb [[certainly as a "mall") are tied directly to the fate of the Sears store--and things aren't looking too good. When Sears does go, the owners will probably have difficulty finding a replacement. In general, brick-and-mortar retailers are struggling for market share like never before. Consequently, they are operating in defense/contraction mode [[closely evaluating results from each outlet and closing unprofitable stores), rather than offense/expansion mode on any kind of scale.


Given this environment, investments in questionable disposable-income demographic areas like Roseville are highly speculative and risky. Incidentally, I would include the new temporary fad retailers like H&M and Dick's in this group [[just because a few chains are willing to take the risk, does not automatically translate to long-term viability). For example, Summit in Waterford continued to expand in a vain effort to "compete" with other malls, long after its fate was already sealed.


Not only are traditional retailers getting hammered from online options, they are also attempting to deal with the challenge of a rapidly shrinking middle-class. Nordstrom & Wal-Mart will probably survive--anything in between is a question mark. Add to that emerging Millenials who have a completely different sense of material values than the two previous generations. Many of them view shelling out $400 for a new smartphone every year and $1200+ annually for a data plan as "necessities", while spending any more than $10 on an article of clothing an as an "unnecessary" luxury.

$400? Try closer to a grand. Otherwise I'm pretty much in agreement with your post, especially the part about Nordstrom/Wallmart. Look@ the rise of the dollar stores. They've become a staple for many middle-to-lower middle working class.