33 ms·

Seattle has a number of large grocery stores built in, I believe, the mid-90s. Single story, no attached retail storefronts, and a big parking lot. Suburban "st

by pkamb 9y ago

Seattle has a number of large grocery stores built in, I believe, the mid-90s. Single story, no attached retail storefronts, and a big parking lot. Suburban "strip mall" buildings but in the middle of reasonably dense neighborhoods. (15th/John Safeway, 15th QFC, 15th Walgreens, etc.) Today they'd be built as 5+ story housing + grocery store + 10 retail spots + underground parking. I've always wondered about the math of a store like that. Why aren't they being turned, like every other single-story building in Seattle, into modern mixed-use development? I'd like to see it happen to these stores. No problems with historic listings or beloved architecture. Is bringing the store down for a year or two the primary hurdle?

pchristensen 9y ago
As long as the store is profitable and either owns the land or has a long-term lease (the two most common models), there's no rush to redevelop them. They're in the grocery business, not land speculation or complex development.
thinkythought 9y ago
I know in some areas a large part of this has been neighborhood opposition to development/NIMBY stuff. For example a bunch of projects in Roosevelt, including i believe one to redo the old QFC just off 65th were held up in asinine arguments for years about how this kind of smart development would "ruin the character of the neighborhood" and such. I remember this being an issue with the rebuild of the Wallingford store as well, and probably others. The only developments like this really going through that aren't just brand new builds where no store previously existed are for example, the 23rd ave Safeway, and the old Red Apple(which are fraught with their own gentrification issues). Basically, it only really happens in POC or lower income neighborhoods where there isn't super dedicated opposition, or where it will just be ignored. I do know for a fact that some stores, like the brooklyn ave Safeway, and the two broadway QFCs basically barely make enough money after theft to stay open, which might contribute to this. At least the latter two have retail/other businesses within the structure, and the thomas st store has some apartments as well in the back section...
- pkamb 9y ago
  I'm probably a bit of a "development opposition" guy myself, coming from the side of historical and architectural preservation. But I'd much rather have an ugly new mixed used development than those block long blank walls facing 15th from both the Safeway and the QFC. It's a pity if NIMBYism is stopping even car-centric strip mall buildings from turning into something better.

by pkamb 9y ago

pchristensen 9y ago

As long as the store is profitable and either owns the land or has a long-term lease (the two most common models), there's no rush to redevelop them. They're in the grocery business, not land speculation or complex development.

thinkythought 9y ago

I know in some areas a large part of this has been neighborhood opposition to development/NIMBY stuff. For example a bunch of projects in Roosevelt, including i believe one to redo the old QFC just off 65th were held up in asinine arguments for years about how this kind of smart development would "ruin the character of the neighborhood" and such. I remember this being an issue with the rebuild of the Wallingford store as well, and probably others. The only developments like this really going through that aren't just brand new builds where no store previously existed are for example, the 23rd ave Safeway, and the old Red Apple(which are fraught with their own gentrification issues). Basically, it only really happens in POC or lower income neighborhoods where there isn't super dedicated opposition, or where it will just be ignored. I do know for a fact that some stores, like the brooklyn ave Safeway, and the two broadway QFCs basically barely make enough money after theft to stay open, which might contribute to this. At least the latter two have retail/other businesses within the structure, and the thomas st store has some apartments as well in the back section...

pkamb 9y ago
I'm probably a bit of a "development opposition" guy myself, coming from the side of historical and architectural preservation. But I'd much rather have an ugly new mixed used development than those block long blank walls facing 15th from both the Safeway and the QFC. It's a pity if NIMBYism is stopping even car-centric strip mall buildings from turning into something better.