Integration of Albertsons and Safeway

[storewanderer]

It isn't too hard to jazz up a stucco exterior by adding some rocks or bricks or something along the sides. Some different lighting can also really make or break the darkness appearance of the buildings. At least these are not 1970's Kmart buildings where short of a total re-do of the front there is simply no way to make it look modern or inviting.

In a lot of cases these stores are leased and the exteriors are to some degree controlled by the landlord. Sometimes this is not the case. In Sparks, NV an older late 70's shopping center did a renovation about 12 years ago and one of the anchors sandwiched in was Safeway (owned building by Safeway) and Sav-On Drugs on an end (also owned by Albertsons). The other anchor was Mervyns and I guess it was leased. The shopping center did a total re-do including the parking lot (got rid of a bunch of trees) and re-doing the entire front to look more modern. Safeway and Sav-On did not participate so their storefronts kept looking "old." Safeway later had an issue where snow piled onto the roof and the roof became unstable and at that time Safeway took the opportunity to close the store and sold the building to whoever owned the shopping center. Safeway had been trying for a while to expand but due to the building ownership situation and no space to expand they couldn't make it happen.

[arizonaguy]

In some cases, all a store needs is a new coat of paint on the outside and some sign that the grocer cares on the inside.

This Safeway in Tucson (Craycroft / Grant) takes the prize for the worst store that either Albertsons or Safeway operates in the state.

The exterior is a well worn beige. There's a Ross next door that appears to have a different owner that has a freshly painted white exterior and looks a lot more inviting.



The difference between the Ross and Safeway is much more striking in person.

Here are some photos I'd taken of the Safeway:





Inside needs some work as well:



Notice the two cork boards on the wall: 1 with a "USDA Choice" logo and one with a TV monitor:



This is just tacky:



This store is also the only supermarket where I've ever been told I'm not allowed to take photos of without speaking with Safeway corporate. A manager walked up to me and told me photos weren't allowed (after I'd already taken several).

If I had to guess, Safeway owns the store (but not the adjacant Ross) and has decided that it makes enough money to remain open but not enough money to spend anything on capitol improvements. There is an significantly nicer Albertsons about 1.25 miles east of here (Grant / Tanque Verde) so I anticipate that this store's days are numbered. Still, the physical condition of the store isn't very welcoming nor comforting.

[Super S]

Wow. That store looks as though it has potential with the skylights which isn't too common for Safeway. It is interesting though that this one hasn't seen a lifestyle remodel, or even an outside sign update. The lack of updating alone often hints that a store is just riding along until a lease ends. WIth an Albertsons so close, this may be the case here.

I work in a non-grocery small business. I have had customers try to be sneaky with their cell phones and take my picture. When I notice this, I politely mention that next time they should ask. With social media and the internet being what it is today, I can see why a no photography rule exists as things can sometimes get twisted around. In this case, however, I think the management may just be embarrassed by the condition of this store.

[arizonaguy]

*** DUPLICATE POST ***

[arizonaguy]

Wow. That store looks as though it has potential with the skylights which isn't too common for Safeway. It is interesting though that this one hasn't seen a lifestyle remodel, or even an outside sign update. The lack of updating alone often hints that a store is just riding along until a lease ends. WIth an Albertsons so close, this may be the case here.

I work in a non-grocery small business. I have had customers try to be sneaky with their cell phones and take my picture. When I notice this, I politely mention that next time they should ask. With social media and the internet being what it is today, I can see why a no photography rule exists as things can sometimes get twisted around. In this case, however, I think the management may just be embarrassed by the condition of this store.

I think you're right about management embarrassed by the condition of the store.

For the fun of it, I looked at the tax records to see who was the owner of the store. It turns out that the store is owned by Safeway (not leased) as this shows up under taxpayer information:

Taxpayer Information:
SAFEWAY INC
COMPREHENSIVE PROPERTY TAX SERVICE
1371 OAKLAND BLVD STE 200
WALNUT CREEK CA

[Super S]

I think you're right about management embarrassed by the condition of the store.

For the fun of it, I looked at the tax records to see who was the owner of the store. It turns out that the store is owned by Safeway (not leased) as this shows up under taxpayer information:

Taxpayer Information:
SAFEWAY INC
COMPREHENSIVE PROPERTY TAX SERVICE
1371 OAKLAND BLVD STE 200
WALNUT CREEK CA

If Safeway actually owns that, then it really says a lot about how Safeway has been known to pick and choose which stores to spend money on, instead of trying to make a shopping experience at least somewhat consistent. I know of a handful of stores around the Portland area that Safeway has not updated to either the lifestyle format or to new signage. And Safeway's experience is even more inconsistent in small towns.

[marshd1000]

Safeway has a non-lifestyle store in Cle Elum, WA. In this case, they are the only game in town. It has the same décor package as shown above. But just prior to the Albertsons merger, they had gotten approval for a remodel and was even going to have a Starbucks. But they hit the brakes on that the moment the merger was announced.

[pseudo3d]

I think you're right about management embarrassed by the condition of the store.

For the fun of it, I looked at the tax records to see who was the owner of the store. It turns out that the store is owned by Safeway (not leased) as this shows up under taxpayer information:

Taxpayer Information:
SAFEWAY INC
COMPREHENSIVE PROPERTY TAX SERVICE
1371 OAKLAND BLVD STE 200
WALNUT CREEK CA

If Safeway actually owns that, then it really says a lot about how Safeway has been known to pick and choose which stores to spend money on, instead of trying to make a shopping experience at least somewhat consistent. I know of a handful of stores around the Portland area that Safeway has not updated to either the lifestyle format or to new signage. And Safeway's experience is even more inconsistent in small towns.

I see they're going with the Sears Holdings method of "running junker stores as long as they still make a profit" for that store.

Safeway's ridding of Genuardi's was strange as well, they were in a hurry to close or sell stores (even stores they owned, the Barnegat store for instance, even got a Lifestyle upgrade) but then they let the Audubon store (which had original Genuardi's decor if I recall) just run out of the lease's time, letting the Genuardi's name linger on for another three years.

[arizonaguy]

I think you're right about management embarrassed by the condition of the store.

For the fun of it, I looked at the tax records to see who was the owner of the store. It turns out that the store is owned by Safeway (not leased) as this shows up under taxpayer information:

Taxpayer Information:
SAFEWAY INC
COMPREHENSIVE PROPERTY TAX SERVICE
1371 OAKLAND BLVD STE 200
WALNUT CREEK CA

If Safeway actually owns that, then it really says a lot about how Safeway has been known to pick and choose which stores to spend money on, instead of trying to make a shopping experience at least somewhat consistent. I know of a handful of stores around the Portland area that Safeway has not updated to either the lifestyle format or to new signage. And Safeway's experience is even more inconsistent in small towns.

I see they're going with the Sears Holdings method of "running junker stores as long as they still make a profit" for that store.

Safeway's ridding of Genuardi's was strange as well, they were in a hurry to close or sell stores (even stores they owned, the Barnegat store for instance, even got a Lifestyle upgrade) but then they let the Audubon store (which had original Genuardi's decor if I recall) just run out of the lease's time, letting the Genuardi's name linger on for another three years.

Just out of curiosity, I wanted to see if I cold break down the % of owned versus leased stores in Pima County (where Tucson is located).

According to county records, Safeway Inc. owns 6 out of 18 (soon to be 19) stores in Pima County (including the one pictured above) and Albertsons LLC owns 4 of the 6 (soon to be 7) stores in Pima County. Albertsons no longer owns the store at Grant Rd. and Tanque Verde Rd. 1.25 miles from the store above as it was sold in 2010 to a REIT.

Also, it appears that the store at 8740 E Broadway (a former Safeway turned Haggen and the only Tucson store that Albertsons did not re-acquire) was owned by Safeway as it's tax records now show it being owned by Haggen.

[pseudo3d]

The one thing that Albertsons didn't do to integrate was do any rebrandings with the exception of one Albertsons-to-Safeway conversion, and I think that really benefitted the chain as a whole. The Haggen spin-off was bad news to everyone involved, but not repeating what Albertsons did to Lucky in 1999 was a smart one.