Honestly, Juicy is one of the last stores I would like to see in the city. It's hardly fashionable and is, at this point, suburban. I don't even know where it allegedly going to be located. As for Theory, it's really a logical step in the "evolution" of Philly retail. It has a price-point that is lower than Gucci, Armani (real armani, not AX), etc, but is still considered to be among the high-end retailers. Furthermore, with the labels modern, yet wearable designs, it would be a great "tester" for this market. Should a Theory store thrive here, so could many others.
I was actually hoping for an Apple store in the sharper image space. Apple could really do a lot (or a little in the case of their SOHO spot) with the building if it's actually large enough. However, at this point, I'd be happy to see one open up anywhere in the city. Too bad they didn't want the "real world" house in Old City. Such a move could have transformed that neighborhood into a true "shopping district". It would have also made great use of a great space. Anyone who has been to the "gallery" that now occupies the space would probably agree that it is terrible. well, those are my two cents anyway...

Having not been an active participant in this long thread, let me just jump in and say that Center City Philly kinda sucks when it comes to shopping, when compared to Boston. I visited Boston for the first time in more than 10 years and was really amazed at top malls and stores located in town. Copley Place mall and Prudential Center shops put together would be something Center City should shoot for. Boston may not have a very big Little Italy or Chinatown nor a large theater district, but it really does a pretty good job of showing off its best parts and keeping its bad parts away from the eyes of a tourist. I simply loved the streets of Back Bay too, specially of course the Newbury St. It's probably comparable to Philly's Walnut St, though Newbury is wider and feels more upscale, more like 5th Ave.

Hopefully, the plans for the new super-tall tower with its five-star hotel and top-flight retail will come to fruition soon. Nothing wrong with Market East...Philly can cater to a wider spectrum of shopper that way, but Philly could certainly use some ritzy-glitzy place, specially near to its convention centers....

__________________
New term of the day 1/24:
Electile Dysfunction: The inability to become aroused over any of the choices for President put forth by either of only parties in the 2008 election year.
http://www.votenader.org/index.html


5/22, because i'm feeling punny:
As the great Jedi English teacher was quoted in saying, "metaphors be with you."

Newbury has its fair share of schlock. Everyone seems to forget about the blocks roughly between Gloucester and Mass Ave. Plenty of second rate galleries, ethnic food joints, ice cream shops, etc.

And Philadelphia should not aspire to have two upscale indoor shopping malls in town (Copley and Prudential). Philadelphia should aspire to have proper street front retail, like all great urban shopping districts do.

Aside from the really high end stuff (Saks, Neimans, Hermes, etc), I actually find retail in Boston to be quite lame. There is very little interesting, independent retail in Boston. But then again, when 80% of the city is clothed in pleated khakis (men and women) and flip flops and/or tevas with socks, I guess one can see why.

And the crowd/scene at the cafe in front of Armani (on Newbury)? I've never seen a less interesting, more wanna-be crowd of high end posers in my entire life.

If you had discerning taste and access to the variety of restaurants available in Boston (which is what these people are obviously trying to convey), you would never be caught dead eating a caesar salad at the Armani Cafe.

__________________
NUTTER 2007

FYI. Boston is under-rated as a restaurant city and over-rated in virtually every other category, as far as cities go. But I digress. This thread is about Philadelphia.

I guess my point is, that there is a certain amount of retail which a city needs in order to be perceived as a shopping destination. Saks, Neimans, Barney's, etc. A peppering of other high end purveyors of goods like LV, Gucci, and Hermes also helps.

But please god, don't lament that we don't have an A&F or American Eagle downtown but Boston does. I think we should aspire to NOT have those things, or if we do have those things, to have them play supporting roles in burgeoning retail districts where they might be needed to pull in a reliable crowd, like East Market or far South Broad, which I can imagine will be attracting more chain-like stuff once 777 S Broad extends CC further South.

PLease let's not devote energy to begging these places to come here, or measure our worth by how many choose to come here. I'd rather focus our efforts on attracting the outposts of hip, independent labels which can identify with our independent, gritty spirit. In other words, let's go after the independent labels on Melrose in LA or in East London and not the labels at Copley place.

On the high end for women, I'm thinking of places like Intermix and Scoop NYC. For more established labels, names like Elie Tahari, Ben Sherman, Mulberry, Chloe, etc. Known, but not ubiquitous, and not so exclusive that a typical person couldn't afford an occasional splurge there. Theory is a good start. Juicy just seems a bit tacky. But those would be the "big" names. I'd fill everything else in with cool independents and really small labels, if I were the god of retail in charge of this city.

__________________
NUTTER 2007

as much as I would love a chloe and tahari in CC, you people are out of your minds. Seriously...some brands simply dont open up in every city. they open in ny and la. MAYBE eventually they will open in san francisco and miami. and furthermore, many of these indie brands you speak of are actually owned by LVMH or Gucci Group.

We need mid to high level brands like monaco and juicy (which in fact is not tacky. actual juicy stores carry rather high priced ticket items - maybe you're used to seeing the sweatsuits at marshalls?) before we get Gucci back.

And can we please lay off the Boston comparisons? It makes me ill.

anyone else still doubting?

http://salove.com/pdfs/Juicy%201701%...t%20Street.pdf

"Ubiquitous" track suits?

Funny. Not exactly the badge of honor I'd include in my press release.

__________________
NUTTER 2007

I just got back from Seattle -- which I did not manage to go into this time, unlike last time; this weekend I spent with my brother, who finally had a Catholic wedding ceremony (he and his wife have been married legally for three years) on Friday and had to move out of his Woodinville home the next day. We all spent Saturday night and Sunday in a residence-suite hotel in downtown Bellevue, the Edge City on the opposite shore of Lake Washington from Seattle.

Copley Place and the Prudential Center would not be out of place at all in Bellevue, the first Edge City I've ever encountered that looked like an actual city. The official city bird, it appears, is the construction crane, with skyscrapers going up at an incredible rate. The in-town shopping malls are arrayed along blocks but do not cross them; instead, skybridges connect them to one another.

And yet you could tell that you were in a suburban city. The restaurants were all chains; the mall stores were the same as those you find in every other mall, except for the outpost of the strictly-local "Made in Washington" chain and the local-to-Seattle coffee shops (Tully's); the lesser stores were still arrayed in strip centers with the parking out front, except along Main Street in (Not All That) Old Bellevue, the one part of the downtown that displayed anything I'd call real local character.

Yeah, national luxury retailers do legitimize a retail strip (Bellevue has an advantage here inasmuch as Nordstrom is Seattle's sole remaining "hometown" department store, Macy's having bought out the parent of its competitor), but local style is not a function of whether you have a Saks or Neiman Marcus downtown (and btw, a fair number of high-profile cities lack the latter too; there's no N-M in New York, for instance, Washington's is just over the city line in Chevy Chase, MD, and LA's isn't on the Miracle Mile either, IIRC. I hate to diss your current home this way, Phillyaggie, but N-M is really more about money than taste, while Saks I would say is much less so and Bloomingdale's and Nordstrom quite the opposite).

I actually think we could learn a thing or two from Seattle, which has a far more secure sense of itself and its character than we appear to, judging from this thread. There's plenty of money in Seattle even after you factor out Bill Gates, but they don't seem as insecure about having their status validated as we seem to be here. Maybe that's because Seattle is still largely a working city with a geek overlay (after Microsoft, Boeing remains the region's largest private employer even if corporate HQ decamped for Chicago), while we're still fishing for an identity that, instead of acknowledging and moving past our industrial roots, seeks to act as if it never existed. Do we really want to be Washington?

__________________
Sandy Smith, Exile on Market Street, Philadelphia
“Basically I figure guns are like gays: They seem a lot more sinister and threatening until you get to know a few; and once you have one in the house, you can get downright defensive about them.” --Theresa Neilson Hayden

I've never stepped foot inside the downtown N-M, or any others in Dallas and Houston, so nope, I'm not offended at all by your comment about that store. To me, N-M seems much more of an older person's store, for some reason. Anyways, one of Dallas' top attractions to a tourist, believe it or not, is the shopping to be had here. Besides N-M in its original flagship downtown location, there are two first-class malls that offer not only the usual mall shops, specially in The Galleria, but also something nicer, specially in Northpark Mall. And now, the shopping in the new Victory Park district is truly becoming more urban, with local boutiques, but also top-flight names from elsewhere. I still don't quite like or appreciate Dallas, but it does offer a lot of choices when it comes to shopping and dining (most restaurants per capita of any major city).

What I said about Boston is that besides it having the Copley Place Mall and a clean Newbury St (and I forgot how central and delightful Fenuil Hall and Quincy Market are, even if they look and feel a bit made-up), what sets it apart is that Boston shows off its best sides much more easily, it seems, than does Philly. I can bet you that replacing Gallery with a CopleyPlace, specially since it's right next to the Convention Center, would do oodles of good for Philly's name among shoppers. Not that I'm dissing Gallery mall...I think it obviously has a place in Philly and serves a need, otherwise it wouldn't be there. Perhaps it or something like it should be elsewhere, I don't know.

As for chain stores vs non-chains, isn't Walnut St lined with quite a few chain stores? The question to ask is whether Philly's boutiques and locally owned names fill the void when the big name chains are missing from action. If they do, great...Philly should promote those names and it's own place as a shopping city. If they don't, at least I see nothing wrong in bringing those names that shoppers and tourists most identify with when they think of a shopping destination.


BTW, I never did get to try out Boston's much-vaunted "T" system and its overall transit system because it wasn't even that easily accessible from our hotel in Woburn. I guess this is mostly due to my mom's fractured foot and her need to use a wheelchair as much as possible. As far as roads and streets go, though, Philly wins it hands down, no question about it. Boston sucks when it comes to trying to navigate its streets and then to also find any parking..and when you do find a spot, it's frickin exorbitant!! $25+ for a couple hours parking?! Boston did have many sailing boats out on the Charles river, and it seems that river and its banks are nicely used for recreation. Philly really needs to clean up its act on the Delaware River and then I think it'll be pretty amazing. I'd love to see something like that band shell that's on the Charles, though I suppose Penn's Landing is our version.

Just some random thoughts on Boston vs Philly.... I still love Philly more so than Boston, just wish it'd get more recognition for what's there already, and just wish it'd clean up its act on a few things that would make a huge difference as well. Overall though, Philly feels like a big city, while Boston feels like a charming little town, all well kept and tidy, but a bit fake.

__________________
New term of the day 1/24:
Electile Dysfunction: The inability to become aroused over any of the choices for President put forth by either of only parties in the 2008 election year.
http://www.votenader.org/index.html


5/22, because i'm feeling punny:
As the great Jedi English teacher was quoted in saying, "metaphors be with you."

here's a blurb on a possible Philadelphia store I found on www.ifoapplestore.com:

Philadelphia - Originally reported as 1727 Walnut St., a 22,000 s.f., 2-story space in the Rittenhouse Row district of downtown, formerly occupied by Borders Books. It's was across from Rittenhouse Square Park and near other upscale retailers, and not far from the University of Pennsylvania and the Liberty Bell. In July 2004 a tipster said Apple would occupy some part of the building. In March 2005 a news story said the site was still an Apple store possibility, but tipsters said Apple has committed to the site. Work began on the site in late Aug. 2005. In Oct. 2007 locals said Chestnut Street is transitioning to an upscale retail location, and could become a store possibility. And then it was revealed that #1727 will become an H&M store. Should we be looking at 1830 Walnut St. now?
http://www.ifoapplestore.com/stores/chronology.html

But I'm pretty sure 1830 Walnut is the confirmed Barney's Co-Op.