Nordstrom, Saks Off 5th Closing San Francisco

Predicting the demise of Sears & Kmart since 2017!
buckguy
Store Manager
Store Manager
Posts: 1042
Joined: January 31st, 2017, 10:54 am
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 67 times
Status: Offline

Re: Nordstrom, Saks Off 5th Closing San Francisco

Post by buckguy »

storewanderer wrote: June 13th, 2023, 12:56 am
ClownLoach wrote: June 12th, 2023, 9:33 pm Westfield has stopped payments along with Brookfield and will allow the bank to foreclose on the center.

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/ ... 148703.php

I opened a new thread over on the Shopping Centers category.
The dominos are really starting to fall...

How many others will follow their lead?

They appear to have followed Park Hotel's (Hilton spin off) lead... who is turning the Union Square Hilton and Union Square Parc 55 back to lenders. Both hotels were in particularly nasty locations based on current conditions in the area. Previously they were a little iffy if you went the wrong way out an exit, now they are outright bad no matter which way you go.

Still looking forward to that Ikea grand opening... but with what has happened now I don't think it will turn the tide.

I am actually shocked at what is happening with San Francisco. I know it is bad, I've been there, I can see it, but things are getting very real now...
If large hotels are having problems, it speaks to the convention trade rather than the tourist trade. SF has tons of small hotels scattered around the various inner neighborhoods like North Beach, South of Market, Little Tokyo, etc. and even some near Union Square. Those are the places that rely on the tourist trade and I haven't heard anything about them being in trouble. The Hilton is a huge, rambling, confusing place that probably went-up in stages--I've stayed there a couple times and met people there for work. It's probably 40-50 years old and could easily be a candidate for redevelopment depending on the land value---otherwise it would be very expensive to do the kind of renovations they've done on flagships like the Washington Hilton or the Palmer House in Chciago. Big chains seem to be replacing hotels like this---Marriott just did that with the Wardman, a similar, rambling, outdated kind of place which used to be the largest convention hotel in DC. The back door at the Hilton does open right into the Tenderloin, but that's always been the case and the Tenderloin was much bigger in the past.

Seattle recently added an annex to their convention facility which makes it easier to have multiple meetings at once (but its awkward for larger meetings) and it seems to be drawing the West Coast meetings for large meetings that rotate around the country that used to stop in San Francisco instead. San Diego also seems to be a bigger draw than in the past--it's probably cheaper to do meetings there than SF, although it doesn't have a hub airport like SF or Seattle. Large conference arrangements are made years in advance, so COVID or the media coverage of SF wouldn't be playing much of a role.
Alpha8472
Posts: 4032
Joined: February 24th, 2009, 8:55 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 86 times
Status: Offline

Re: Nordstrom, Saks Off 5th Closing San Francisco

Post by Alpha8472 »

The mayor talked about turning the mall into housing such as luxury condominiums. The movie theater is closing as well. This leaves a huge amount of top floor space for luxury penthouse condos.

However, you have to sell the city as clean and safe otherwise no one will want to live in this area. The mayor has to clean the streets and clear out the dangerous people.
ClownLoach
Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor
Posts: 3188
Joined: April 4th, 2016, 10:55 pm
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 325 times
Status: Offline

Re: Nordstrom, Saks Off 5th Closing San Francisco

Post by ClownLoach »

Alpha8472 wrote: June 14th, 2023, 8:55 pm The mayor talked about turning the mall into housing such as luxury condominiums. The movie theater is closing as well. This leaves a huge amount of top floor space for luxury penthouse condos.

However, you have to sell the city as clean and safe otherwise no one will want to live in this area. The mayor has to clean the streets and clear out the dangerous people.
The mayor and lots of other politicians know nothing about building construction either. Converting a giant empty box like this to residential would basically mean demolishing and starting from scratch as a series of several towers.

Offices and retail stores won't convert to residential well, unless of course there are many people who won't mind living in an entirely "inside" unit with no windows to the outside world for fresh air. In a conversion of a giant facility like this they could only convert anything that's against a outside wall with window access, leaving a giant open space in the center and as such the cost per square foot would be astronomically high.

I love it when I read these brain dead proposals about converting office towers to residences to solve housing shortages cheaply, and then I ask what the height of each floor is and how much exposure to outside walls/windows exists... The plumbing and ventilation requirements would make it impossible to convert most office buildings to residences without very, very low ceilings and/or exposed ceilings with noisy overhead plumbing, electrical and ventilation if it can even fit in. Anyone with the least bit of construction experience laughs it off as they know that the building can't be converted and would have to be imploded then rebuilt thus costing the same or even more than new builds from scratch.

If it was so easy and cheap to convert office towers, shopping malls etc. to residential without demolishing and starting again developers would be doing this everywhere already. There are indeed some buildings where it might be feasible, but these are primarily newer buildings which were built with taller floors and have the weight capacity to handle all the additional plumbing, wiring, walls and so on. Of course the newest and best buildings aren't the ones being vacated. And knowing the profits these developers make (the people who understand how buildings work, what they cost etc.) if the politicians had the same knowledge they'd be working for the developer making a lot more money than they do in government.
storewanderer
Posts: 14932
Joined: February 23rd, 2009, 3:54 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 341 times
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: Nordstrom, Saks Off 5th Closing San Francisco

Post by storewanderer »

To be fair I am not really surprised the movie theater is closing. It was sort of hidden and I don't think it ever had much traffic. I never saw much going on around it any time I was in the mall. It was not near the busy food court (in the basement) but there were some full service restaurants closer to it. I think they built it in such a way that it and the sit down restaurants could be easily accessible after mall hours.

I've watched quotes from the very in denial mayor and all I can say is reality is going to hit her very hard if we start hearing multiple closures in the coming weeks which I am expecting.

The Hilton San Francisco Union Square is a massive hotel and not a very pleasant property in my opinion as I've stayed in it multiple times. Supposedly I was upgraded every time. Luckily I was alone every time as the rooms were tiny. I've stayed in no name hotels in Chinatown with larger rooms. After my last stay at Hilton nothing went wrong but for the price the value just isn't there and has not been. You are paying for the location yet you have to be careful to not turn left as you exit the hotel. That type of thing is not worth a premium price. The Parc 55 Hilton is in a much better/busier location but there have always been "issues" around that location for years, but the issues have intensified in the past year.

The mall however is a beautiful mall.
ClownLoach
Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor
Posts: 3188
Joined: April 4th, 2016, 10:55 pm
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 325 times
Status: Offline

Re: Nordstrom, Saks Off 5th Closing San Francisco

Post by ClownLoach »

storewanderer wrote: June 15th, 2023, 12:07 am I've watched quotes from the very in denial mayor and all I can say is reality is going to hit her very hard if we start hearing multiple closures in the coming weeks which I am expecting.

The mall however is a beautiful mall.
I do wonder about this... Clearly there are a number of very large property owners who have collectively decided that they are going to do the same thing... Create a run on the bank with San Francisco properties... We all know about three very expensive properties worth hundreds of millions each, the two hotels and the mall that are being abandoned and turned over to the lenders. It makes me wonder how many more commercial real estate owners in SF are currently doing the same thing and we just haven't heard yet. If there are dozens of others - and I suspect that there are - then the count will explode exponentially as suddenly everyone abandons their properties due to plummeting values. It becomes the 2008-2009 housing market crash, but localized and in commercial property instead. Suddenly these corporations that own this stuff are better off cutting their losses and walking away as their property is suddenly underwater.

And the ramifications for the city, county and state are just incredible. It will cause all types of property values to crash in SF. Anyone who doesn't abandon will immediately file for reassessment (unless they're already paying very little in property tax due to the way CA works). This could cause the legislature and governor to try to pull another rabbit out of a hat and try to destroy Prop 13's annual 2% cap and no reassessment upon transfer to your children. They've already reduced many protections from reassessment, but if they removed them all you would surely see millions of homes reassessed to current market value and the homeowners who can't afford that level of tax would have to put it on the market immediately and move out of state to a more affordable place. So a local commercial real estate problem turns into a much larger issue for the state. Without getting political, let me just say that there are some awfully warm seats right now for this mayor and this governor...
veteran+
Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor
Posts: 2346
Joined: January 3rd, 2015, 7:53 am
Has thanked: 1434 times
Been thanked: 85 times
Status: Offline

Re: Nordstrom, Saks Off 5th Closing San Francisco

Post by veteran+ »

Alpha8472 wrote: June 14th, 2023, 8:55 pm The mayor talked about turning the mall into housing such as luxury condominiums. The movie theater is closing as well. This leaves a huge amount of top floor space for luxury penthouse condos.

However, you have to sell the city as clean and safe otherwise no one will want to live in this area. The mayor has to clean the streets and clear out the dangerous people.
Perhaps it might be easier to sell the city as clean, etc. if other States stopped shipping their homeless and migrant folks to California.................................

:lol: ;)
veteran+
Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor
Posts: 2346
Joined: January 3rd, 2015, 7:53 am
Has thanked: 1434 times
Been thanked: 85 times
Status: Offline

Re: Nordstrom, Saks Off 5th Closing San Francisco

Post by veteran+ »

storewanderer wrote: June 15th, 2023, 12:07 am To be fair I am not really surprised the movie theater is closing. It was sort of hidden and I don't think it ever had much traffic. I never saw much going on around it any time I was in the mall. It was not near the busy food court (in the basement) but there were some full service restaurants closer to it. I think they built it in such a way that it and the sit down restaurants could be easily accessible after mall hours.

I've watched quotes from the very in denial mayor and all I can say is reality is going to hit her very hard if we start hearing multiple closures in the coming weeks which I am expecting.

The Hilton San Francisco Union Square is a massive hotel and not a very pleasant property in my opinion as I've stayed in it multiple times. Supposedly I was upgraded every time. Luckily I was alone every time as the rooms were tiny. I've stayed in no name hotels in Chinatown with larger rooms. After my last stay at Hilton nothing went wrong but for the price the value just isn't there and has not been. You are paying for the location yet you have to be careful to not turn left as you exit the hotel. That type of thing is not worth a premium price. The Parc 55 Hilton is in a much better/busier location but there have always been "issues" around that location for years, but the issues have intensified in the past year.

The mall however is a beautiful mall.
Hilton is one of the worst hotel chains in America. I am generously not including their "luxury properties".

I successfully received a $2000.00 refund for my stay in Denver recently. Never again will I give them another chance (I will book with their upscale locations).
storewanderer
Posts: 14932
Joined: February 23rd, 2009, 3:54 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 341 times
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: Nordstrom, Saks Off 5th Closing San Francisco

Post by storewanderer »

veteran+ wrote: June 15th, 2023, 9:33 am

Hilton is one of the worst hotel chains in America. I am generously not including their "luxury properties".

I successfully received a $2000.00 refund for my stay in Denver recently. Never again will I give them another chance (I will book with their upscale locations).
Many hotel chains have not come out of the pandemic well. Hilton, in particular some of its brands, specifically "Hilton" US and "Hilton Garden Inn" US seem to have become quite troubled. "Doubletree" has been troubled for years with some excellent properties and some that should not have the brand. It seems now "Hilton" and "Hilton Garden Inn" are in the same spot as Doubletree. Though in the case of Hilton Garden Inn I'm afraid there are more marginal or terrible properties post-COVID than excellent ones. I also received significant service recovery (refund+additional compensation) out of a horrible stay at a suburban Denver property. I guess some hotels play a little game where they act like they don't have a general manager- first time I ever encountered that- when asking for one when at the hotel. Until filling out a negative survey after leaving then magically there is indeed a general manager who immediately sends a generic apology e-mail, but then "isn't available" when you call the hotel 3 minutes after receiving said generic apology. The management company who owned the hotel handled the service recovery/additional compensation after I contacted them directly. The worst part was that property had a 4.5/5 on Trip Advisor and also around a 4.2 on Google Maps and that was all I looked at before booking it. I was familiar with the location, had driven by it multiple times, great neighborhood, quiet-ish location, but once inside wow that was one of the filthiest rooms I've ever received, sleep quality was poor, odd odor/HVAC noises all night, was told could not move rooms despite the hotel seeming dead (I think they had an entire floor out of service or possibly housing long term tenants who were entering/exiting via staircase only and did not have vehicles). I did not bother to actually read that more recent reviews were very negative so that was my fault for booking the place I guess.

However I did have a nice stay at the Hilton Denver Inverness after the above disaster occurred. Aside from the terrible restaurant food and a couple spiders who came in through the ceiling vent in the middle of the night, issues I accepted and did not report, it was very good there and I'd recommend it. Also the 8 minute walk between the parking lot and the hotel room at the end of the very long corridor was a trek for sure but once in the room it was great, also super quiet.

At this point I am not loyal to any hotel brand. I'll look for the most convenient for me/newest properties/reasonable price. I have yet to try an air B&B or any such thing but I hear good things from people about them (also have heard a few horror stories, but more good than bad).
buckguy
Store Manager
Store Manager
Posts: 1042
Joined: January 31st, 2017, 10:54 am
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 67 times
Status: Offline

Re: Nordstrom, Saks Off 5th Closing San Francisco

Post by buckguy »

ClownLoach wrote: June 14th, 2023, 11:09 pm
Alpha8472 wrote: June 14th, 2023, 8:55 pm The mayor talked about turning the mall into housing such as luxury condominiums. The movie theater is closing as well. This leaves a huge amount of top floor space for luxury penthouse condos.

However, you have to sell the city as clean and safe otherwise no one will want to live in this area. The mayor has to clean the streets and clear out the dangerous people.
The mayor and lots of other politicians know nothing about building construction either. Converting a giant empty box like this to residential would basically mean demolishing and starting from scratch as a series of several towers.

Offices and retail stores won't convert to residential well, unless of course there are many people who won't mind living in an entirely "inside" unit with no windows to the outside world for fresh air. In a conversion of a giant facility like this they could only convert anything that's against a outside wall with window access, leaving a giant open space in the center and as such the cost per square foot would be astronomically high.

I love it when I read these brain dead proposals about converting office towers to residences to solve housing shortages cheaply, and then I ask what the height of each floor is and how much exposure to outside walls/windows exists... The plumbing and ventilation requirements would make it impossible to convert most office buildings to residences without very, very low ceilings and/or exposed ceilings with noisy overhead plumbing, electrical and ventilation if it can even fit in. Anyone with the least bit of construction experience laughs it off as they know that the building can't be converted and would have to be imploded then rebuilt thus costing the same or even more than new builds from scratch.

If it was so easy and cheap to convert office towers, shopping malls etc. to residential without demolishing and starting again developers would be doing this everywhere already. There are indeed some buildings where it might be feasible, but these are primarily newer buildings which were built with taller floors and have the weight capacity to handle all the additional plumbing, wiring, walls and so on. Of course the newest and best buildings aren't the ones being vacated. And knowing the profits these developers make (the people who understand how buildings work, what they cost etc.) if the politicians had the same knowledge they'd be working for the developer making a lot more money than they do in government.
These kinds of conversions are happening in a lot of cities, including seemingly unlikely candidates for downtown living like Cleveland. The successes tend to be pre-WWII buildings which often were built with light wells or various kinds of setbacks that permit conversion. Those buildings would have been constructed before modern lighting and a/c and would needed to promote ventilation and maximize natural light. Hotels are usually the easiest buildings to convert because they were designed to have daylight, except in the case of a few suites that would have been rentout as display/showroom spaces.

The real problem, and perhaps, this is what you really mean are the post-WWII buildings, espcially buildings from the 70s and 80s which would be considered obsolete now, but were in demand not too long ago. Those structures only work in terms of their original uses, which is why malls are such white elephants and seemingly "modern" office buildings in downtowns and suburbs often wind up as tear downs.

My office used to be in 1/2 mile row of 70s/80s buildings most of which have been empty since before COVID. Our building replaced a smaller, older one with "sick building syndrome" and had plenty of modern amenities--a small gym, flexible conference space and a cafe and has been able to retain tenants. The buildings in this area housed government agencies, a statistical center for a university, non-laboratory research, etc., all of which began to downsize or introduce working off-site before COVID. They're not really practical for small tenants who only want a single office. The only buildings in good shape in terms of vacancies were built as medical office buildings or labs and conversion to those kinds of space is prohibitively expensive because of the plumbing, electrical, hazmat, etc. requirements. One of the smaller buildings is being torn down for apartments and I wouldn't be surprised if other buildings meet the same fate eventually once their value beyond the land diminsihes enough. Nearby are stable residential areas in one of the better high school districts in that County and the nearby commercial area is a thriving, "classic" chain store strip that has been attracting continual redevelpment over the years. A couple miles away, a large office building that had had long-term government and commercial tenants for many years recently went for 1/4 of its asking price---I've been in that building (actually 2 structures with common ownership and it seemed ok but pretty unremakrkable. I wonder if that will be redeveloped---it's near a relatively healthy mall, stable well-off residential areas, etc. and convenient to two major freeways. It's just not viable for its original use.
ClownLoach
Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor
Posts: 3188
Joined: April 4th, 2016, 10:55 pm
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 325 times
Status: Offline

Re: Nordstrom, Saks Off 5th Closing San Francisco

Post by ClownLoach »

storewanderer wrote: June 15th, 2023, 10:52 pm
veteran+ wrote: June 15th, 2023, 9:33 am

Hilton is one of the worst hotel chains in America. I am generously not including their "luxury properties".

I successfully received a $2000.00 refund for my stay in Denver recently. Never again will I give them another chance (I will book with their upscale locations).
Many hotel chains have not come out of the pandemic well. Hilton, in particular some of its brands, specifically "Hilton" US and "Hilton Garden Inn" US seem to have become quite troubled. "Doubletree" has been troubled for years with some excellent properties and some that should not have the brand. It seems now "Hilton" and "Hilton Garden Inn" are in the same spot as Doubletree. Though in the case of Hilton Garden Inn I'm afraid there are more marginal or terrible properties post-COVID than excellent ones. I also received significant service recovery (refund+additional compensation) out of a horrible stay at a suburban Denver property. I guess some hotels play a little game where they act like they don't have a general manager- first time I ever encountered that- when asking for one when at the hotel. Until filling out a negative survey after leaving then magically there is indeed a general manager who immediately sends a generic apology e-mail, but then "isn't available" when you call the hotel 3 minutes after receiving said generic apology. The management company who owned the hotel handled the service recovery/additional compensation after I contacted them directly. The worst part was that property had a 4.5/5 on Trip Advisor and also around a 4.2 on Google Maps and that was all I looked at before booking it. I was familiar with the location, had driven by it multiple times, great neighborhood, quiet-ish location, but once inside wow that was one of the filthiest rooms I've ever received, sleep quality was poor, odd odor/HVAC noises all night, was told could not move rooms despite the hotel seeming dead (I think they had an entire floor out of service or possibly housing long term tenants who were entering/exiting via staircase only and did not have vehicles). I did not bother to actually read that more recent reviews were very negative so that was my fault for booking the place I guess.

However I did have a nice stay at the Hilton Denver Inverness after the above disaster occurred. Aside from the terrible restaurant food and a couple spiders who came in through the ceiling vent in the middle of the night, issues I accepted and did not report, it was very good there and I'd recommend it. Also the 8 minute walk between the parking lot and the hotel room at the end of the very long corridor was a trek for sure but once in the room it was great, also super quiet.

At this point I am not loyal to any hotel brand. I'll look for the most convenient for me/newest properties/reasonable price. I have yet to try an air B&B or any such thing but I hear good things from people about them (also have heard a few horror stories, but more good than bad).
Hilton, Marriott and all of these other "major brands" are nothing more than franchises. The same issues that affect the fast food franchises affect these hotels. Inconsistent supervision and inability to hold the operator accountable. So it becomes a crapshoot to find a quality hotel. Some franchises are doing a terrible job - the Embassy Suites I just stayed at was in great physical condition, fresh clean paint, they had even painted and dusted the high rafters in the atrium which was completely new. Food service (the free breakfast including made to order omelets) was also excellent; they even used local natural eggs from Cal Poly SLO farm. But all that was negated by the fact that they completely failed to staff housekeeping. They were still running the same Hilton chain BS program of "optional housekeeping because our guests like privacy and health and safety" but the front desk apologized and said they're short staffed so they can offer fresh towels etc. but nobody can come clean the rooms. Basically they maintain just enough housekeeping to clean the rooms when they turn.

Another Hilton property that I used to frequent was a newer Hampton near Solvang. This hotel was newer, very well run, nice facility with very high ceilings in the rooms and excellent insulation (no noise comes in). But I stopped going there because suddenly the operator has decided that pricing is going to be $399 a night on the weekends! I stayed there less than two years ago, during the reopening period after COVID and it was around $150 a night with no junk fees. What in the world would justify this location going from $150 to $399 a night? Obviously franchisee greed. They'd rather have half their rooms sit empty and use less labor, utilities etc.

But I've heard all the same problems are happening at the Marriott family of hotels too. And I've never seen so many hotels swapping banners and hotel networks than in the last 18 months either. The staffing excuse is poor at best because many of the lowest end Motel 6 and other hotels have closed or been acquired by the state for transitional housing; obviously a waste of government money when you look at how much they're paying (some of these motels are selling for over half a million a room to the state; they still need millions in construction costs after - buying a brand new house elsewhere like the far Inland Empire would be cheaper!) but the personnel can move to other hotels as the overall available room count goes down. Unfortunately this turns into a double-whammy: we are paying for the state actions, and we are also paying the price in higher hotel costs since there is far less competition now.

What has surprised me the most is that the most reliable hotel operator I can think of off the top of my head is MGM Resorts in Las Vegas. Housekeeping every single day without fail. The rooms are clean and better maintained than they were pre-covid and parking is free if you have even the 2nd lowest tier loyalty card (which is a topic I'm not going to get into other than it's a lot easier to earn than a free night at Hilton or Marriott these days). Prior to COVID you were basically gambling if you booked anywhere except a high end property like Bellagio or Venetian; now it seems that they're going out of their way to provide a clean and safe experience at everything but the "low end" hotels (Excalibur, Luxor, etc.). I've stayed at Park MGM in a nice freshly remodeled strip view room, smoke free hotel for $27 a night (yes the junk resort fees and taxes basically take that to about $90, but I challenge you to find that quality of hotel in a major destination for that price). I find myself visiting Las Vegas far more often now than the California coast I love so much because of unreliable hotels.

So really at this point nothing is reliable other than really closely reading recent guest reviews on reliable sites if you're looking at a hotel you haven't stayed at before. The sign outside is meaningless.
Post Reply