Westfield San Francisco Centre

[ClownLoach]

The theater was a hidden gem. There is the AMC Metreon across the street that plays many of the same movies. This type of competition only worked back when the Metreon was so crowded that the auditoriums were sold out. People could go to the Century Theater and find empty seats. I liked the atmosphere of Century better with real butter on the popcorn and mostly big movie screens.

The Century theater was on the top floor which was far from the food court on the lower level. The escalators to the top had a good view, but it was a long climb. Years ago, Borders Books was right next to the escalator and got tons of business. There were Express elevators from the ground level to the theater as well.

Century had a very upscale decor with granite tiles. AMC just seemed like a bland crowded multiplex.

Century was always a better operator than AMC. They built higher quality theater complexes and their food and beverage program is the best in mainstream theaters. Under Cinemark ownership it seems that they have not declined either aside from replacing box offices with kiosks before anyone else did.

AMC is just unfortunately inconsistent with their properties, and it comes off as being cheap. For example in Long Beach there was a 12 theater AMC complex in Marina Pacifica where one half had modern stadium style seating and large screens while the other half had nearly flat seating arrangements, old sound, inadequate restrooms, and tiny screens. Price is the same for either wing. Why would you want to see a movie on the old half? There was retail above but it was a constant revolving door of stores so they had ample opportunity to rework the space without interfering with the retail space, or even the chance to take the retail space and expand. I'm not sure if they've ever addressed the "old" wing but it created uncertainty for guests and once newer, larger complexes opened nearby I never went back. Newer AMC builds are very good, on par with Century and a superior product to Regal. But old AMC builds are still everywhere; an old Regal might not have contemporary color schemes and such but will have acceptable screen, seat and sound. An old AMC generally won't be acceptable in any way and very few have been "downgraded" to the discount AMC Classic format especially when they're the only big chain in town.

[storewanderer]

I think the large AMC near the City Target in San Francisco is a very modern theater.

[SamSpade]

The theater was a hidden gem. There is the AMC Metreon across the street that plays many of the same movies. This type of competition only worked back when the Metreon was so crowded that the auditoriums were sold out. People could go to the Century Theater and find empty seats. I liked the atmosphere of Century better with real butter on the popcorn and mostly big movie screens.

The Century theater was on the top floor which was far from the food court on the lower level. The escalators to the top had a good view, but it was a long climb. Years ago, Borders Books was right next to the escalator and got tons of business. There were Express elevators from the ground level to the theater as well.

Century had a very upscale decor with granite tiles. AMC just seemed like a bland crowded multiplex.

Century was always a better operator than AMC. They built higher quality theater complexes and their food and beverage program is the best in mainstream theaters. Under Cinemark ownership it seems that they have not declined either aside from replacing box offices with kiosks before anyone else did.

Off Topic

The Cinetopia sale to AMC did nothing to help any of those 3 cinemas out, unfortunately.

Century is the best operator locally, offering $6.75 tickets on Tuesday (more than double that at Regal on Tuesdays now), along with the big cinema recliner seats. Their popcorn and soda are also less expensive than Regal and AMC and until recently they were offering beer, wine, espresso beverages, ice cream products, and hot Indian food items. Now it's back to more classic cinema concessions, but the product, purchasing experience, and prices remain superior. Cinemark didn't really seem to change these places after assuming ownership, thankfully.

I agree with storewanderer that AMC at Metreon is very nice/modern/offered a deep food offering pre-COVID. Ironically one of the last big blockbusters I saw was at this theater in their premiere auditorium.

[Alpha8472]

Another Westfield Mall in the San Francisco Bay Area is doing great business in Santa Clara.

Westfield Valley Fair has a huge food court area that is a food destination. This mall is doing great.

The problem is clearly with the people who run the city of San Francisco. Santa Clara manages to keep the streets clean, clear out the homeless, and deal with shoplifters.

https://www.sfgate.com/food/article/bay ... 150975.php

[storewanderer]

Anothet Westfield Mall in the San Francisco Bay Area is doing great business in Santa Clara.

Westfield Valley Fair has a huge food court area that is a food destination. This mall is doing great.

The problem is clearly with the people who run the city of San Francisco. Santa Clara manages to keep the streets clean, clear out the homeless, and deal with shoplifters.

https://www.sfgate.com/food/article/bay ... 150975.php

Nothing wrong with San Francisco. The Mayor has a plan. The mall closure, Nordstrom closure, Park Hotels walking from hotels that have thousands of rooms (even if the hotels aren't great hotels they historically were literally printing money they were so busy/high rates), and then Friday 6/16 announcement of AT&T cell phone "Flagship" store closure right across the very visible spot at the base of Powell St. from the GAP Flagship store that is already vacant/closed, nothing to see here, all is going according to plan.

At this point I just am waiting to see what closes next.

I also find it funny so many businesses are making this decision to close these locations or walk from the loans.

I am sure the AT&T flagship cell phone store was never a profitable operation, so why close now? I guess AT&T is also closing a flagship cell phone store in Chicago so maybe this closure is just an odd coincidence of a bigger corporate situation at AT&T cell phone retail unit and has nothing to do with San Francloseco. The store is not self serve, products are behind locked doors, so theft should not be an issue there, so why close now if the city is doing so great? It just makes no sense, but no worries as the city leadership of San Franclosure has a clear plan to move forward, is unsurprised and unphased by these business closures.

[buckguy]

Westfield may have rethought their strategy but what they're doing isn't unusual---Richard Jacobs had malls under development when they liquidated their portfolio 20 years ago, Westfield is hardly the only mall owner that got rid of properties through a foreclosure. When Forest City (which once co-owned San Francisco Centre) was systematically selling off its properties (with the residual going to Brookfield), they walked away from several properties through foreclosure which was when I first noticed how landlords packaged centers as separate companies that would foreclose. Rouse did something like this with a couple of their marginal malls when they were selling off their inventory. there used to be a number of vulture mall owners who bought declining malls at a low price waiting for someone to propose some redevelopment that would give them a profit, but they really don't have the capital to buy all the malls in decline.

One thing that is noticable about malls is that when they die, they often go very quickly and they can be in otherwise stable areas. Water Tower Place, which ran for decades in the Magnificent Mile area of Chicago emptied quickly and that general area has remained vibrant with few streetside vacancies and plenty of pedestrian traffic. The same thing can happen to suburban malls---the one where we went when I was growing up is surrounded by fully rented retail, but the mall has been in a slow decline that accelerated when Sears and Macy's closed. That mall had outlasted it's nearest competition, but also no longer as central to the area as it once was---the larger big boxes when for an area several miles away which had more open land. there are simply few examples of malls that have been successfully revived---even the redevelopment of malls in middle class areas into big box centers or other retail doesn't always work out.

Because malls can die quickly and because there really aren't that many true A-list malls to buy and sell, I'd be surprised if Westfield becomes a large national player again. There has been a lot of buying and selling since the mid-90s, but there is less and less worth trading. The people who got out in the 90s did it because they needed to raise money (May Department Stores) or were liquidating a family business (Debartolo, Richard Jacobs)--they happened to do it at about the right time, when dead malls were still a novelty. After that you started to see bankruptcies and things like Simon's spinoff into Glimcher (which went bankrupt). Forest City was one of the smarter mall developers in that malls were always a small part of their business---they started building shopping centers to serve the GI Bill subdivisions they developed in the 50s and a lot of their retail was in mixed use projects, although they also owned conventional malls---they're a good example of someone who got out relatively recently but also wasn't stuck with too many weak properties.

[storewanderer]

One thing that is noticable about malls is that when they die, they often go very quickly and they can be in otherwise stable areas. Water Tower Place, which ran for decades in the Magnificent Mile area of Chicago emptied quickly and that general area has remained vibrant with few streetside vacancies and plenty of pedestrian traffic. The same thing can happen to suburban malls---the one where we went when I was growing up is surrounded by fully rented retail, but the mall has been in a slow decline that accelerated when Sears and Macy's closed. That mall had outlasted it's nearest competition, but also no longer as central to the area as it once was---the larger big boxes when for an area several miles away which had more open land. there are simply few examples of malls that have been successfully revived---even the redevelopment of malls in middle class areas into big box centers or other retail doesn't always work out.

Because malls can die quickly and because there really aren't that many true A-list malls to buy and sell, I'd be surprised if Westfield becomes a large national player again.

Westfield is exiting the US and won't become a large national player in the US in the immediate future after the exit (who knows what the future will bring).

As far as the other comments, I suggest you take a trip to San Francisco in the coming weeks/month and spend some time in the areas around Union Square and specifically San Francisco Center and see for yourself what is going on there. Book a night at Parc 55 or Hilton San Francisco Union Square. I say a night because that will be enough and you will then want to get out of that area into a nicer area like Fisherman's Wharf, Financial District, or maybe out of San Francisco entirely. Maybe you will better understand how/why this is happening there and the severity of the situation. This cannot be compared to other cities road bumps. I really like the perspective of how other cities have overcome various issues in the past but this with San Francisco at the present time is a much more complicated situation with a very rapid deterioration occurring in the Union Square area specifically.

[reymann]

i honestly think san francisco is the next detroit at this point. i think they will be forced to file chapter 9 bankruptcy in the next year or two. things are just that bad in the city.

[storewanderer]

i honestly think san francisco is the next detroit at this point. i think they will be forced to file chapter 9 bankruptcy in the next year or two. things are just that bad in the city.

The situation must stabilize quickly.

I do wonder if there is enough wealth behind San Francisco to somehow right that ship. I do think there is enough wealth available, but not sure if those in control of said wealth will actually use it to right San Francisco. The many who "love San Francisco" and "think nothing is wrong" are about to have to put their money where their mouth is. Not buy large new "vacation homes" in Florida.

I don't know the history of the demise of Detroit but my impression is there was a lot of arrogance/hubris on many involved and ultimately people were more interested in walking away than being committed to recovering the city somehow, plus when an entire industry contracted they never found anything to replace enough of it with.

[rwsandiego]

The situation must stabilize quickly.

I do wonder if there is enough wealth behind San Francisco to somehow right that ship. I do think there is enough wealth available, but not sure if those in control of said wealth will actually use it to right San Francisco.

I agree with you on both points. I'll add that the holders of wealth and leaders of businesses lack the leadership skills and maturity to help the city tackle the problems San Francisco faces. They complain about problems but don't offer solutions. Of course, their businesses are plagued by problems and often don't turn a profit, so this isn't surprising.

...
The many who "love San Francisco" and "think nothing is wrong" are about to have to put their money where their mouth is...

I think there are two categories here. One is people who love San Francisco and think everything is fine and another who love San Francisco and recognize there is a problem. The second category of San Franciscans are the ones who can help stabilize the city. Several articles have pointed out a lack of residential development in downtown San Francisco. Years ago, developers discovered that outmoded former warehouses, office buildings, and retail stores in New York and Chicago (to a lesser degree Los Angeles) were prime candidates for development into housing. By doing so, built-in foot traffic moved into these areas and retail followed. The same could happen in San Francisco if developers want to do so.

...
I don't know the history of the demise of Detroit but my impression is there was a lot of arrogance/hubris on many involved and ultimately people were more interested in walking away than being committed to recovering the city somehow, plus when an entire industry contracted they never found anything to replace enough of it with.

Detroit was a one-industry town: automobiles. The large bank (NBD) was started by General Motors and largely catered to the auto industry. The general population consisted of auto industry workers, whose jobs went away but who couldn't follow said jobs. There wasn't really a tourism industry to speak of and it wasn't a convention destination like Chicago, nor did it have a diversified economy. Unlike San Francisco, Detroit did not experience a spate of problems all at once. Its demise was decades in the making. San Francisco was doing well until office workers stopped going into the office and tourists stopped travelling due to the pandemic. Since San Francisco's downtown is so heavily reliant on office workers and tourists, it was hit hard by the pandemic sidelining both office work and tourism and is struggling to recover. his was compounded by the fact that San Francisco is unaffordable to the middle class.

Bringing this back to the topic, Westfield over-expanded San Francisco Centre and turned it into a middle-of-the-road shopping mall. It failed. Their hubris blinded them from seeing that a mall in the middle of San Francisco isn't the same as a mall in the middle of a suburb. When they redeveloped the site of The Emporium, they should have added residential and hotel space. (Think Water Tower Place in Chicago). The stories about feces in an elevator says more about Westfield's lack of investment in maintenance than it does about the city. (I also do not believe it was a recurring problem) I'm not saying defecation in an elevator is Westfield's fault, but staffing maintenance in a way that the feces remained in the elevator is Westfield's fault. Side note: the bathrooms in the mall always smelled terrible, not because people defecated on the floor but because they were designed without ventilation and were not adequately cleaned. The same issue persists in other Westfield properties.