>there is simply more retail-zoned space than is necessary in the delivery age
Although higher-end malls in growing cities are mostly doing pretty well, there's certainly no reason to think that urban retail in general should be immune from at least some of the same forces that help create the "dead mall" phenomenon.
I was walking through Cambridge yesterday for the first time in a while. In addition to a non-trivial number of empty storefronts my sense was that there was at least a bit of a shift away from retail and towards trendy-looking restaurants.
> Malls aren't dying. Some malls are, but that has nothing to do with the mall paradigm and has more to do with the local population. A mall can't get up and move. It's like a tree. It is where it is and it either thrives or dies.
I would argue this is exactly why malls are dying, that they can't keep up with more and more rapidly evolving socio-economic trends and shifting demographics across geographies. Another byproduct of globalization and technology-driven streamlining of commerce
> Even in areas where there is no true urban center, or the urban center remains essentially deserted, Malls are still dying at a phenomenal rate. The Internet and technology, has largely killed the mall. The Mall may live, but they're on life support.
Is this true? Current data largely supports the opposite argument.
There's no trend of malls (in general) going away, but of old/overbuilt/poorly-located malls dying (or their market dying) while new malls (or new types of malls) are being built. Most major markets are experiencing retail growth (net positive total retail sqft market-wide), despite many bad malls dying off.
> They're not urban shopping centers, they're urban entertainment centers that happen to have shopping.
Malls have always had a significant amount of entertainment. Nearly every major mall has had (and still has) a movie theatre and multiple restaurants. Some of folks may even remember a time when almost every mall had an arcade in it.
The "dead mall" story is a lot like pointing at Detroit or Flint or Baltimore and saying, "look at all those boarded up homes. Housing is dead! People hate having a place to live.". That may certainly be true in those specific areas, but most markets are actually experiencing modest-to-insane amounts of growth.
>The decline of the mall is an American thing, and its reasons are not entirely clear.
I remember an article in the Economist a few years ago that said America had nine times the square footage of mall space compared to the UK. If they have a decline it's probably because they overbuilt in the past.
> Malls are going to start becoming ghost towns, especially with no anchor stores like Penny's and the since-departed Sears.
Pretty sure that already happened. The US built waaay too much retail space[1], and still[2] has an overhang in most markets. And yea, Amazon kinda ate the Sears / JCPenny lunch, which has not helped matters.
> Amazon and other online shopping venues decimated these brick and mortar shopping venues
Brick and mortar stores are still just fine (or better thanks to Yuppies). Malls are getting decimated by Amazon and cultural trends against malls. The 80s suburban world where malls are the place to hangout is fading fast.
> No new indoor mall has been built in the US in 10 years.
This does not imply that malls are dying. Existing malls may be expanding, e.g. the largest in NY started another round of expansion in 2007 and shops are still opening up in the new space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destiny_USA
Online ordering is never going to put clothes & accessories or fragrance shops out of business, until you have very high resolution displays and tactile output, or figure out one-hour-or-less drone delivery for free.
In the aforementioned mall a large proportion of the shops are exactly this type, along with restaurants and entertainment (video games, bowling and the like). It's hard to deny that the expansion of online ordering has forced malls to adapt or die, but it's simply incorrect to pronounce the death of the concept.
>Malls aren't dying.
Cities are. Certain "rustbelt" cities and towns to be more specific. The malls that die are invariably in areas of decline.
Caruso may be shifting the game with his paradigm of outdoor faux townscapes [sic] but he is making malls that do not look like malls with the same single ownership structure--and this is the real problem: single entities developing millions of square feet, risking lots of capital and building as cheaply as possible because of the risk. He's just using modern design methods to emmulate old downtowns, as anachronistic as that may seem. But the style is just that. Style.
He does not build in places like Matteson, IL, for example because Lincoln Mall in Matteson is dying due to demographic trends (mostly white flight) and the thriving of another ...mall of the same - style - and vintage but with a shinny Apple store. Places like Matteson are unlucky because other malls in and around the Chicagoland are doing quite fine despite their tired, mid-century-gray motifs.
In places like Chicago where the weather is miserable most of the time winter and summer (IMHO), indoor malls still make a lot of sense. The "Gold Coast" downtown does well because it's a tourist attraction in one a wealthy zip code. But when it's 34-below an indoor mall is a nice respite.
Perhaps I am just venting because my thesis was on these greyfield malls and how to save them without starting from scratch or following the next trend in retail development because many places do not have the luxury to start fresh. Mall typologies are like hairstyles: you may not like afros, comb-overs or mullets, but each one had its day and will have its wearer and they are all here to stay. It's just a matter of how you maintain them.
>But B&Ns are typically located as drive-up "out of town" shopping. Somewhere you need to go to intentionally. They need to be in malls.
Malls are dying in the US, though. The only malls that remain successful these days feature more upscale products in affluent areas that people want to see in person before purchasing. For everything else, shoppers seem to prefer your outlet style strip malls where there's less crowding and inconvenience. Or if they can wait a day or two, just order it online.
>The real question is why no malls either care to, or are unable to, attract stores that appeal to customers.
No, the 'real reason' has nothing to do with shopping. The article touched on the actual problem. It is way too easy to get into billions of dollars in debt. If you own mall real estate, who do you want at your mall.
Small businesses that attract customers, but have to pay you with money they earn.
Or
Large chains that earn earn billions by playing leveraged debt games, and will pay stupidly high rates for rent, no customers required.
Malls will survive just fine, the moment rents and property prices are back in touch with reality.
I feel like the article was trying to make the point "traditional malls from the 80's are dying" but didn't do a good job at that (the title for example). So that's leading to a lot of comments saying "Well some malls are flourishing and some are dying" I suspect the flourishing ones are the newer malls that have a lot of unique features you can't get online (food/cinema/furniture)
>malls are dying because they're all based on materialist consumerism: something millennials want no part of.
There are more than millennials alive. The malls are dead because it's not longer convenient. Clothing stores are now in neighborhood shopping centers. Not to mention the real killer: the internet.
>The Internet and technology, has largely killed the mall. Teenagers, for example, no longer need to go to the mall to exchange gossip and be "seen." They also have high amount of disposable income. (see: millennials and car usage for similar changes in a market) And Shopping online has become too easy for many people.
I wonder how much is because of helicopter parenting: parents won't let their kids out of their sight until they're 18 these days. That'll keep kids from going to the mall to hang out. Also, the middle class is dying out and people have less disposable income, and jobs fit for teenagers have all dried up; this probably means teens aren't getting cars as much and are stuck at home. However, even back when I was a teenager and hung out at the mall, we teenagers did little more than make the mall look busy. We didn't buy very much, except maybe ice cream cones, and dinner at food court.
Malls have always had crappy prices for a lot of stuff, but they were convenient. But now Amazon is more convenient, and a lot cheaper. The only thing keeping malls open these days is clothing stores; there's rarely book stores or electronics stores or music stores or other kinds of stores there any more, just clothes. You can buy clothes online, but it's a crappy experience because you can't try them on and you can't feel them. You can still buy consumer electronics and appliances at Sears, but they're teetering on the edge of bankruptcy so that isn't going to last long.
>There are other reasons that malls have been struggling as well (Suburban sprawl is a big one, especially due to factors such as in part, the Concentric Zone Model [0] (as housing stock gets older, and population increase, many persons move further out to newer/better/larger housing stock, and the previously housing is then taken up by a lower socio-economic class, which may no longer be able to support the local mall.
Yep, I saw this in Phoenix. The malls near the urban center are smaller and older, and not doing well. "Metrocenter" mall used to be a really nice mall decades ago, and these days it's derisively called "ghettocenter". If you go to those malls, you'll find half the stores closed, and wonder to yourself how they're still in business.
> I think that malls could make a huge comeback with a focus on events that naturally draw people in and an emphasis on the kinds of high-touch products that people generally do prefer to buy in person.
Land prices in the cities where malls are developed have inflated past the carrying capacity of the prevailing disposable income in the same areas.
> There's a reason the big NYC area malls are in Paramus and Elizabeth.
I think the reason is that malls are just out-of-fashion.
If we consider the SoHo area to be the equivalent of a mall, or the North Williamsburg/Greenpoint area to be a mall, I'd bet they dwarf the Paramus & Elizabeth malls in GMV sold and foot traffic.
Although higher-end malls in growing cities are mostly doing pretty well, there's certainly no reason to think that urban retail in general should be immune from at least some of the same forces that help create the "dead mall" phenomenon.
I was walking through Cambridge yesterday for the first time in a while. In addition to a non-trivial number of empty storefronts my sense was that there was at least a bit of a shift away from retail and towards trendy-looking restaurants.
reply