Never built, but proposed

[FrankMoore99]

Looking at how retail was run in the recent or far past, I notice a certain pattern of how many retail stores operate or operated in certain areas. And there are areas that have gaps in that pattern. I am wondering, where were certain retail stores (Walmart, Sam's Club, Best Buy, Barnes and Noble, Bed Bath and Beyond, Office Depot, OfficeMax, Staples) were proposed in the mid to late 2000s, but never built?? Specifically around the Sacramento area and Northern and Central California.

[ClownLoach]

Looking at how retail was run in the recent or far past, I notice a certain pattern of how many retail stores operate or operated in certain areas. And there are areas that have gaps in that pattern. I am wondering, where were certain retail stores (Walmart, Sam's Club, Best Buy, Barnes and Noble, Bed Bath and Beyond, Office Depot, OfficeMax, Staples) were proposed in the mid to late 2000s, but never built?? Specifically around the Sacramento area and Northern and Central California.

Once again this isn't news. It's par for the course. At any given time my last company was working on up to a hundred sites, but they never actually opened or relocated more than about 20 sites a year. That meant nearly 80% of the sites where internally we had a store number, blueprints and floorplans, an assigned district manager, and so on never actually came to fruition. They would eventually go away as the letter of intent would expire and so on.

Landlords, developers, and all sorts of other things fall through all the time. For example maybe TJMaxx announces they are willing to open a store at a new center but the lease is contingent on the developer providing two of the following co-tenants before they will finalize the lease: PetSmart or Petco, Michaels or Joann, Dicks Sporting Goods, Sephora or Ulta, and Sprouts or Trader Joe's. The smart retailers have internal "successful co-tenants" lists they expect to see before they will finalize a new development. TJMaxx probably knows for example their sales will be higher with Ulta, Sprouts and Joann next door than Staples, Best Buy and Planet Fitness. So if say that strip mall developer had TJMaxx on the line but leased to Tractor Supply and Total Wine instead of the wanted pet store, craft store, makeup store etc. then TJMaxx will pull out of the site even though they were previously committed. Maybe then that site becomes a Ross or something else. But the most common issues are co-tenants and that is why some developers are much better than others at building successful properties because they have better relationships with more retailers. Other retailers have lease clauses to prevent competitors too. Michaels famously had leases that didn't allow anyone to sell craft supplies or seasonal decorations in the same shopping centers. So maybe HomeGoods was going in but then Michaels was signed and intended to restrict competition, so HomeGoods dropped out. Michaels had this blow up in their face when many stores were in centers with Mervyn's stores sold by the bankruptcy Court to Hobby Lobby. Because a federal court ordered the sale they could not enforce their lease restrictions and got their worst nightmare competition sometimes next door.

There are other oddities as well. Ever seen a Target that has a miniature food department? I'll bet you'll find it's in the same center as a Albertsons (or former Albertsons). Albertsons used to enforce lease restrictions where no other retailer in the center could sell more than a certain amount of food, could only have so many square feet of foods etc. When Target first opened there, they didn't really participate much in the food business. When they decided to introduce P-fresh and add 20 aisles of foods including 6 aisles of refrigeration they realized they could not do so in those Albertsons neighbored stores so to this day they feel like a late 1990s Target with a few basics like milk and some snacks only.

[FrankMoore99]

Looking at how retail was run in the recent or far past, I notice a certain pattern of how many retail stores operate or operated in certain areas. And there are areas that have gaps in that pattern. I am wondering, where were certain retail stores (Walmart, Sam's Club, Best Buy, Barnes and Noble, Bed Bath and Beyond, Office Depot, OfficeMax, Staples) were proposed in the mid to late 2000s, but never built?? Specifically around the Sacramento area and Northern and Central California.

Once again this isn't news. It's par for the course. At any given time my last company was working on up to a hundred sites, but they never actually opened or relocated more than about 20 sites a year. That meant nearly 80% of the sites where internally we had a store number, blueprints and floorplans, an assigned district manager, and so on never actually came to fruition. They would eventually go away as the letter of intent would expire and so on.

Landlords, developers, and all sorts of other things fall through all the time. For example maybe TJMaxx announces they are willing to open a store at a new center but the lease is contingent on the developer providing two of the following co-tenants before they will finalize the lease: PetSmart or Petco, Michaels or Joann, Dicks Sporting Goods, Sephora or Ulta, and Sprouts or Trader Joe's. The smart retailers have internal "successful co-tenants" lists they expect to see before they will finalize a new development. TJMaxx probably knows for example their sales will be higher with Ulta, Sprouts and Joann next door than Staples, Best Buy and Planet Fitness. So if say that strip mall developer had TJMaxx on the line but leased to Tractor Supply and Total Wine instead of the wanted pet store, craft store, makeup store etc. then TJMaxx will pull out of the site even though they were previously committed. Maybe then that site becomes a Ross or something else. But the most common issues are co-tenants and that is why some developers are much better than others at building successful properties because they have better relationships with more retailers. Other retailers have lease clauses to prevent competitors too. Michaels famously had leases that didn't allow anyone to sell craft supplies or seasonal decorations in the same shopping centers. So maybe HomeGoods was going in but then Michaels was signed and intended to restrict competition, so HomeGoods dropped out. Michaels had this blow up in their face when many stores were in centers with Mervyn's stores sold by the bankruptcy Court to Hobby Lobby. Because a federal court ordered the sale they could not enforce their lease restrictions and got their worst nightmare competition sometimes next door.

There are other oddities as well. Ever seen a Target that has a miniature food department? I'll bet you'll find it's in the same center as a Albertsons (or former Albertsons). Albertsons used to enforce lease restrictions where no other retailer in the center could sell more than a certain amount of food, could only have so many square feet of foods etc. When Target first opened there, they didn't really participate much in the food business. When they decided to introduce P-fresh and add 20 aisles of foods including 6 aisles of refrigeration they realized they could not do so in those Albertsons neighbored stores so to this day they feel like a late 1990s Target with a few basics like milk and some snacks only.

Can you list stores and what town they were proposed in?? For example, Best Buy was proposed in Yuba City, but didn't open.

[ClownLoach]

Looking at how retail was run in the recent or far past, I notice a certain pattern of how many retail stores operate or operated in certain areas. And there are areas that have gaps in that pattern. I am wondering, where were certain retail stores (Walmart, Sam's Club, Best Buy, Barnes and Noble, Bed Bath and Beyond, Office Depot, OfficeMax, Staples) were proposed in the mid to late 2000s, but never built?? Specifically around the Sacramento area and Northern and Central California.

Once again this isn't news. It's par for the course. At any given time my last company was working on up to a hundred sites, but they never actually opened or relocated more than about 20 sites a year. That meant nearly 80% of the sites where internally we had a store number, blueprints and floorplans, an assigned district manager, and so on never actually came to fruition. They would eventually go away as the letter of intent would expire and so on.

Landlords, developers, and all sorts of other things fall through all the time. For example maybe TJMaxx announces they are willing to open a store at a new center but the lease is contingent on the developer providing two of the following co-tenants before they will finalize the lease: PetSmart or Petco, Michaels or Joann, Dicks Sporting Goods, Sephora or Ulta, and Sprouts or Trader Joe's. The smart retailers have internal "successful co-tenants" lists they expect to see before they will finalize a new development. TJMaxx probably knows for example their sales will be higher with Ulta, Sprouts and Joann next door than Staples, Best Buy and Planet Fitness. So if say that strip mall developer had TJMaxx on the line but leased to Tractor Supply and Total Wine instead of the wanted pet store, craft store, makeup store etc. then TJMaxx will pull out of the site even though they were previously committed. Maybe then that site becomes a Ross or something else. But the most common issues are co-tenants and that is why some developers are much better than others at building successful properties because they have better relationships with more retailers. Other retailers have lease clauses to prevent competitors too. Michaels famously had leases that didn't allow anyone to sell craft supplies or seasonal decorations in the same shopping centers. So maybe HomeGoods was going in but then Michaels was signed and intended to restrict competition, so HomeGoods dropped out. Michaels had this blow up in their face when many stores were in centers with Mervyn's stores sold by the bankruptcy Court to Hobby Lobby. Because a federal court ordered the sale they could not enforce their lease restrictions and got their worst nightmare competition sometimes next door.

There are other oddities as well. Ever seen a Target that has a miniature food department? I'll bet you'll find it's in the same center as a Albertsons (or former Albertsons). Albertsons used to enforce lease restrictions where no other retailer in the center could sell more than a certain amount of food, could only have so many square feet of foods etc. When Target first opened there, they didn't really participate much in the food business. When they decided to introduce P-fresh and add 20 aisles of foods including 6 aisles of refrigeration they realized they could not do so in those Albertsons neighbored stores so to this day they feel like a late 1990s Target with a few basics like milk and some snacks only.

Can you list stores and what town they were proposed in?? For example, Best Buy was proposed in Yuba City, but didn't open.

I am very cautious about disclosing specifics from my last companies as all those discussions are under a confidentiality agreement. That's why I don't name where I worked most recently. I'm just sharing an insiders view from a major, multinational, multi billion dollar Fortune 500 retailer where I've worked the corporate and regional management sides. They all work the same way, as you learn when you get far enough up the ladder you're unfortunately interchangeable.

Things like this are common though. For example where I am today there is a shopping center under proposal in Murrieta that never broke ground because it was waiting for a major arterial street (Clinton Keith Rd. extension to Hwy 79) to be finished. That street took almost 20 years. The center has had and lost the following proposed tenants over the decades: Whole Foods, SuperTarget, Lowe's, Home Depot, PetSmart, Ross, Best Buy, Hobby Lobby, AMC, Regal, and Costco amongst others. The latest map showed Sprouts, HomeGoods, Petco, Ulta, and Five Below only... Imagine how much better the center would be if they were able to retain two or three of the above major tenants? It STILL hasn't broken ground but they are actively pouring the driveway to the site to begin construction as we speak.

Costco, Home Depot, SuperTarget, Ross, and PetSmart all wound up a mile or so to the west where they're either open now or actively under construction to be finished this Fall.

Few if any of these changes, dropouts etc. Ever get announced and it would take one hours of researching a particular company to figure out all the stores that were proposed but never finalized.

[storewanderer]

Can you list stores and what town they were proposed in?? For example, Best Buy was proposed in Yuba City, but didn't open.

Construction permits, city council minutes/planning commission minutes, can be a good resource to find this sort of thing out.

But once the openings don't happen it gets buried quick.

[buckguy]

You need to explore old newspapers, as well as the public docs storewanderer mentioned. basically, you need to play historian.

Sometimes developers act as though they've recruited tenants but really haven't. One of the DeBartolo malls had an anchor space signposted for a store that never expressed interest and the store successfully sued to have it taken down.

A new development on the old Walter Reed campus in DC was initially premised on getting a Wegman's, except Wegman's never committed and came out to say so---they went into a different location in DC with great fanfare. The developer later claimed Harris Teeter would be a tenant and finally a Whole Foods actually opened.

Projects that involve historic properties or other expensive and/or difficult to develop parcels may go through numerous plans. The former Tivoli theater complex in DC went through multiple plans over a period of 15 years. Safeway was to be an anchor initially, later it was Shoppers, and finally it was Giant which does enormous volumes there.

Developers also sit on properties for many, many years. Every large region seems to have at least one of these. Douglas Development in the DC area is a prime offender and they have properties elsewhere in the Northeast. They will periodically propose something but it's often more a matter of talking points and "potential" tenants to keep neighbors off their backs for neglecting properties. There also are the developers who specialize in buying distressed properties and do likewise, waiting for the underlying real estate to gain value while they neglect the existing physical plant.

[ClownLoach]

You need to explore old newspapers, as well as the public docs storewanderer mentioned. basically, you need to play historian.

Sometimes developers act as though they've recruited tenants but really haven't. One of the DeBartolo malls had an anchor space signposted for a store that never expressed interest and the store successfully sued to have it taken down.

A new development on the old Walter Reed campus in DC was initially premised on getting a Wegman's, except Wegman's never committed and came out to say so---they went into a different location in DC with great fanfare. The developer later claimed Harris Teeter would be a tenant and finally a Whole Foods actually opened.

Projects that involve historic properties or other expensive and/or difficult to develop parcels may go through numerous plans. The former Tivoli theater complex in DC went through multiple plans over a period of 15 years. Safeway was to be an anchor initially, later it was Shoppers, and finally it was Giant which does enormous volumes there.

Developers also sit on properties for many, many years. Every large region seems to have at least one of these. Douglas Development in the DC area is a prime offender and they have properties elsewhere in the Northeast. They will periodically propose something but it's often more a matter of talking points and "potential" tenants to keep neighbors off their backs for neglecting properties. There also are the developers who specialize in buying distressed properties and do likewise, waiting for the underlying real estate to gain value while they neglect the existing physical plant.

And some of that will still never reveal the deals. At my most recent company there was a store under development for a relocation, lease signed. Old store really needed to move and it's shopping center was in decline with multiple vacancies unfilled for years. The developer kept screwing around and delaying completion of the project. Finally it got to the point where the lease term was about to expire on the old store and no progress had been made on the new one so we had to make a choice: keep the crummy old store and renew its lease which would mean abandoning the new site, or continue with the new store which could mean no store at all if it wasn't finished before the lease was up at the old site. We couldn't risk closing entirely for an unknown period of time, an outcome which seemed possible and would result in a major lawsuit. Obviously he didn't finish the new building because he was having money issues so he was told we are walking away and if he tries to fight it we will sue which will be a public process of course and damage his reputation. He didn't, the old store is still running today, the new site never got finished, and the only people who know about it are the disappointed employees at the old store that didn't get moved to a pretty new building. If I search for the (confidential) location and chain name nothing comes up.

I estimate that only about 25% of store deals ever get announced publicly and that usually only happens when they are far down the process and "pretty much guaranteed" to happen. Only 20% in my experience do actually come to fruition. So that means 80% of store deals don't actually get built or opened. So do the math, only about 5% of the time does the public hear the store is coming to the XYZ Power Center but then gets retracted later... 75% of store deals don't get past letter of intent and nobody will ever know outside of the asset committee at the company and the developer.

I think the worst case scenario I know of is a store that had been operating since the 60s at a company I worked for that they had been trying to move for over 30 years... Site after site kept falling through while the building was falling apart. It only got moved about 2 years ago. Most of the employees at that store weren't even born when the company first started trying to relocate it.

[FrankMoore99]

You need to explore old newspapers, as well as the public docs storewanderer mentioned. basically, you need to play historian.

Sometimes developers act as though they've recruited tenants but really haven't. One of the DeBartolo malls had an anchor space signposted for a store that never expressed interest and the store successfully sued to have it taken down.

A new development on the old Walter Reed campus in DC was initially premised on getting a Wegman's, except Wegman's never committed and came out to say so---they went into a different location in DC with great fanfare. The developer later claimed Harris Teeter would be a tenant and finally a Whole Foods actually opened.

Projects that involve historic properties or other expensive and/or difficult to develop parcels may go through numerous plans. The former Tivoli theater complex in DC went through multiple plans over a period of 15 years. Safeway was to be an anchor initially, later it was Shoppers, and finally it was Giant which does enormous volumes there.

Developers also sit on properties for many, many years. Every large region seems to have at least one of these. Douglas Development in the DC area is a prime offender and they have properties elsewhere in the Northeast. They will periodically propose something but it's often more a matter of talking points and "potential" tenants to keep neighbors off their backs for neglecting properties. There also are the developers who specialize in buying distressed properties and do likewise, waiting for the underlying real estate to gain value while they neglect the existing physical plant.

I am specifically wondering if there were any plans for more Bed Bath and Beyond stores in the Sacramento area in their expansion days since Bed Bath and Beyond only had 5 stores in the area (Folsom, Roseville, Sacramento-Arden, Natomas, and Elk Grove), 1 per 400,000 people. And most areas seemed like they had one per 250,000 to 300,000 including the Bay Area. Were there any planned for Citrus Heights or Rancho Cordova, Rocklin, and Woodland??

[BillyGr]

There are other oddities as well. Ever seen a Target that has a miniature food department? I'll bet you'll find it's in the same center as a Albertsons (or former Albertsons). Albertsons used to enforce lease restrictions where no other retailer in the center could sell more than a certain amount of food, could only have so many square feet of foods etc. When Target first opened there, they didn't really participate much in the food business. When they decided to introduce P-fresh and add 20 aisles of foods including 6 aisles of refrigeration they realized they could not do so in those Albertsons neighbored stores so to this day they feel like a late 1990s Target with a few basics like milk and some snacks only.

You also see a (fairly small number of) Walmart locations that have the same issues, being in a plaza with an existing supermarket (the couple in this region that come to mind are with a Hannaford and a Market 32 respectively).

For whatever reason, they haven't found an option to move the Walmart elsewhere to make it a super format in those specific areas (as was done with several others over the years when they were able to do so).

[FrankMoore99]

You need to explore old newspapers, as well as the public docs storewanderer mentioned. basically, you need to play historian.

Sometimes developers act as though they've recruited tenants but really haven't. One of the DeBartolo malls had an anchor space signposted for a store that never expressed interest and the store successfully sued to have it taken down.

A new development on the old Walter Reed campus in DC was initially premised on getting a Wegman's, except Wegman's never committed and came out to say so---they went into a different location in DC with great fanfare. The developer later claimed Harris Teeter would be a tenant and finally a Whole Foods actually opened.

Projects that involve historic properties or other expensive and/or difficult to develop parcels may go through numerous plans. The former Tivoli theater complex in DC went through multiple plans over a period of 15 years. Safeway was to be an anchor initially, later it was Shoppers, and finally it was Giant which does enormous volumes there.

Developers also sit on properties for many, many years. Every large region seems to have at least one of these. Douglas Development in the DC area is a prime offender and they have properties elsewhere in the Northeast. They will periodically propose something but it's often more a matter of talking points and "potential" tenants to keep neighbors off their backs for neglecting properties. There also are the developers who specialize in buying distressed properties and do likewise, waiting for the underlying real estate to gain value while they neglect the existing physical plant.

I am specifically wondering if there were any plans for more Bed Bath and Beyond stores in the Sacramento area in their expansion days since Bed Bath and Beyond only had 5 stores in the area (Folsom, Roseville, Sacramento-Arden, Natomas, and Elk Grove), 1 per 400,000 people. And most areas seemed like they had one per 250,000 to 300,000 including the Bay Area. Were there any planned for Citrus Heights or Rancho Cordova, Rocklin, and Woodland??

Was Bed Bath and Beyond proposed in Eau Claire and La Crosse?? They never had one, but seemed ripe for one.