3 Miles Per Hour

The front page of last Sunday's Los Angeles Times featured a story that hardly seems like news to anyone in our city: traffic is horrible, especially on the Westside. The title of this blog post was derived from a statement in the article: "MTA research shows that during the evening rush, it can take as long as 19 minutes to drive just one mile of Wilshire near the San Diego Freeway." Read the whole article, by Martha Groves and Sharon Bernstein, here.

While Groves and Bernstein made a valiant effort to describe the traffic woes on the Westside with a bevy of mind-boggling statistics, their analysis was conspiciously short on solutions. Although congestion problems in our metropolis may seem intractable, political leaders and policy makers cannot afford to ignore them; horrendous traffic diminishes our quality of life and threatens the long-term economic health of our region.

Fortunately, there are many people on the local scene who are looking for ways to fight traffic. Walter Moore, who made waves with a maverick campaign for Mayor of Los Angeles last year, recently published "Unlock Gridlock," a thoughtful essay on some of the policy choices that can extricate us from our congestion morass. In order to further discussion on this important topic, I'd like to offer a critique of Moore's essay along with some of my own recommendations.

(Exerpts of Moore's essay are displayed in bold italics)

Traffic is worse for at least three reasons: increased population density, rent control, and the "non-portability" of Proposition 13.

Population Density
The number of people per square mile in Los Angeles rose from 6,322 in 1980, to an estimated 8,472 in 2005.

It is absolutely true that increased density leads to congestion: more and more people are trying to move about in the same space. However, Moore seems to have missed the central point of the Times article: traffic problems on the Westside aren't related to population density, they're related to employment density. After all, the headline read "Job Boom Makes Driving a Chore on the Westside," not "Housing Boom Makes Driving a Chore on the Westside."

Consider the following quotes from the Times story:

"Job growth has transformed the area into the region's premiere commercial hub, second only to downtown Los Angeles in the number of jobs."

"So many workers drive to Santa Monica from other parts of the region that the city's population nearly doubles during the day, to 150,000 from 87,000 at night."

"The MTA projects that the Westside's population will jump by an additional 15% and jobs by 23% in the next 15 years."

What we have on the Westside is a severe case of jobs-housing inbalance. There are far more jobs on the Westside than dwelling units to house those who work at those jobs. Over the last 20 years, increases in employment density, not population density, have created traffic problems. If the MTA is correct in assuming that employment density will continue to increase faster than population density, things will only get worse.

And just how dense is the Westside, anyway? According to Demographia, a Web Site run by libertarian Wendell Cox, in 1998 population density in the region was 3,416 people per square mile, far short of the City-wide population density of 7,975 people per square mile. By contrast, most of Central and South L.A. had population densities of more than 10,000 people per square mile. West L.A. ranked #18 out of 18 City regions in terms of population density.

Can we prevent increased population density? Absolutely. The City of L.A. can stop granting variances for bigger and bigger buildings; stop subsidizing the construction of same with our tax dollars; and start enforcing the building and safety code to prevent overcrowding (e.g., by preventing people from living illegally in garages).

Angelenos know why West L.A. is less dense than the rest of the City: its wealthy and politically powerful residents have fought most attempts to build substantial amounts of new housing in tony neighborhoods like Brentwood, Cheviot Hills, Holmby Hills, Westwood, and the hillside communities of the Santa Monica Mountains. Furthermore, people on the high end of the income spectrum have little economic incentive to "double up" or "triple up," sharing their homes with other families, or to convert their garages to rental units.

As the supply of housing has been constrained on the Westside, prices have increased dramatically. To wit, this quote from the Times article: "Primarily because housing is so expensive, only about 30% of these workers actually live on the Westside, according to a Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority study. That leaves more than 300,000 people a day commuting to the area."

It's quite telling that Demographia lists the impoverished Rampart district as having the highest population density in the City: 34,398 people per square mile, which (according to Moore) puts it on par with Tokyo. In Rampart, people do "double up" and "triple up," convert their garages to rental units, and even rent out trailers in their back yards. Ironically, Central and South L.A. are the places where zoning is most permissive and where most taxpayer-subsidizied "affordable housing" is placed. Angelenos know traffic is not nearly as bad in Central and South L.A. as it is on the Westside: that's because there aren't jobs in those communities.

Contrary to Moore's "conventional wisdom" concerning population density, it might actually make sense to build more housing on the Westside because it will bring people closer to their jobs. Housing "overcrowding" is a problem in Rampart and Watts, not in Brentwood and Holmby Hills.

Rent Control And The "Non-Portability" Of Proposition 13
Not only do we have more people on the road, but they're driving longer distances to get to work. Why don't people move closer to their jobs? Economics.

The City of L.A.'s rent control laws apply to 56,295 registered properties with approximately 550,000 units. People living in those hundreds of thousands of units have a tremendous financial incentive to stay put.

Someone with a below-market-rent apartment would prefer to drive 20 miles to work rather than lose it. Conversely, someone else, who commutes in the opposite direction, will never have the opportunity to rent the apartment -- at any price. So instead of having two people walking to work, we wind up with two more cars on the road, clogging traffic and burning gas.

There are many reasons why people move, and research by the United States Census indicates that the most compelling factor is "New/better house/apartment," cited by 18.5% of survey respondents. "Wanted to own home/not rent" was cited by 11.5% of those same respondents. Such sentiments shed doubt on Moore's contention that people cling to rent-controlled apartments. People living in rent-controlled units have an incentive to stay put, but it is hardly "tremendous," as many of those people (especially the more prosperous ones) quickly seek out better apartments or buy their own property.

In Los Angeles, it's important to remember that only apartments built in 1978 or earlier are rent-controlled. In 2006, those units aren't exactly "the cream of the crop." Discerning renters, especially those who work at high-paying jobs on the Westside, are interested in newer apartments with modern amentities and are inclined to "upgrade" relatively often.

If people endure 20 mile commutes in order to cling to rent-controlled apartments, they probably work outside the City (even people who live in Rampart are much closer to Century City than that). It's more likely that people endure long commutes because they like the amenities their building offers, their neighborhood, and/or their local schools. "Real life" is about much more than the economics of rent costs.

Take this example: the yuppie writing this post is about to give up his rent-controlled apartment in Hollywood for a much nicer unit in Studio City, as the complex has far more amenities despite the fact that it is not rent-controlled. Before you label me a fool on economic grounds, let me share that there were other factors in my decision, i.e. the realities of my "real life" beyond my housing costs. Besides, I've only lived in my apartment for 3 and a half years, so my rental price is not too much "below market." I suspect that my landlord will rent my soon-to-be former unit for not much more than what I paid.

The "non-portability" of Proposition 13 -- for those under age 55 -- has the same impact. The longer a person has owned a home here, the more his property taxes will go up if he buys another home, closer to work. Rather than pay thousands more per year in taxes, homeowners who change jobs opt to endure longer commutes, thereby aggravating the gridlock.

I share Moore's concerns over Proposition 13. It's problematic, to say the least.

Moore has a point about homeowners not wanting to "upgrade" or change location because of the higher taxes they will face. But while Moore thinks this concern merits an expansion of Proposition 13, I think the oppositie: we should repeal Proposition 13. If property taxation is tied to the actual market value of said property, homeowners won't have an incentive to hold onto homes that no longer fit their lifestyles.

Proposition 13 is a relic of an ancient era that isn't very relevant today. In the 1970's, runaway inflation led to runaway increases in property taxes relative to "real" property values and income, especially for retirees on a fixed income. In the 2000's, runaway increases in property values have no relation to inflation or "real" income. It's a whole different ballgame; inflation and wages have increased in the single digits while housing prices have multiplied several times over. Property owners who "got in" prior to 1999, including retirees on a fixed income, have enjoyed unprecedented increases in wealth (i.e. the equity in their homes) while their "real" income hasn't decreased.

Even Howard Jarvis didn't think Proposition 13 needed to be "portable" for everyone. The results of such a move would devastate local governments. While Moore and others with a libertarian bent may think that the best way to kill the "bureaucratic dragon" is by depriving him food (i.e. money), the policies of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush demonstrate that lower taxation does not lead to lower spending at any level of government. Local governments would turn to higher sales taxes and other levies on business, making it even harder for Southern California to attract new employment.

Not only would the expansion of Proposition 13 "freeze" government budgets, it would reduce them, possibly to the point of making it impossible to provide essential services like police protection and trash disposal. Consider this scenario under a "portable" property tax strucutre: a person who moved into their house in 2002, before Proposition 13 was expanded, sells his house to someone who bought their previous house in 1992; the new owner brings his 1992 property tax rate with him, substantially decreasing the amount of funding the local government can collect on that house.

Can we repeal rent control? Can we extend the "portability" of Proposition 13 to all homeowners, instead of just those over 55? Yes, but only if L.A.'s voters are willing to fight developers who want to avoid having to compete with a flood of 550,000 rental units suddenly entering the market.

Moore is right: rent control and Proposition 13 have "the same impact" on housing affordability. People are less inclined to move on to more appropriate dwellings if their housing is subsidized by the government. I think we should get rid of both rent control and Proposition 13 and use land use regulation as a means to create "affordable" housing. Do both, or do neither.

What remains, though, is the need for a "safety net" for working people with low incomes and retirees with fixed incomes. Let's replace rent control and Proposition 13 with new regulations that only help those who truly need it.

<<<>>><<<>>><<<>>>

There are a couple additional issues that Moore failed to touch upon.

1) Public Transit

According to the Times article, "The Westside is the most densely populated area in Los Angeles without a light rail or subway line." It's ironic that we've provided Central and South L.A. with a plethora of transit options, none of which connect them to the Westside, which has the second highest density of employment in the region. The primary purpose of transit is to get people to jobs, not from one job-poor area to another.

Consider Downtown Los Angeles: All the Metrolink commuter-rail lines converge there, as do three (and soon to be four) Metro Rail lines, as well as countless bus routes. And yet, Century City, Westwood, Santa Monica, and other Westside employment hubs are starved for transit connections. More public transit is not likely to dramatically reduce traffic congestion, but it will keep it in check and prevent it from getting much worse.

We need to extend the Wilshire subway to the Westside. We also need to create a transit corridor linking West L.A. to LAX and the San Fernando Valley. Does Moore, with his libertarian bent, support the massive investment required?

2) Mixed-Use Development

Most of the vehicle trips on the Westside, and in much of Los Angeles, don't have anything to do with commuting. Across the United States, the number of cars and the amount of VMT (vehicle miles traveled) has grown far faster than actual population for a simple reason: people can't get much done without driving. Housing, employment, and services are segregated and dispersed to an ever-increasing (and ever unsustainable) degree.

Developers are not the enemy. We have land use laws that regulate them and have the power to bend them to our will. Our own political leaders and urban planners are often the enemy, clinging to antiquated concepts of urban growth that keep people from being able to walk to a corner grocery store or dry cleaner. Of course, developers are major contributors to the politicans that make land use decisions; if you have a problem with that, advocate publicly-funded elections, don't just criticize zoning policies.

New housing and office developments on the Westside and elsewhere should include civic spaces and local services that support walkable communities where people can buy bread, drop off their kids at day care, or enjoy open space without getting in their cars. Rather than railing against growth, as Moore does, let's decide where growth should occur and how it shoud look. This is not a new idea; despite their density, older neighborhoods like Rampart and Boyle Heights avoid crippling traffic by offering their residents shops and services within walking distance. Future development on the Westside can do the same.

<<<>>><<<>>><<<>>>

Gridlock and overcrowding are the results of public policy choices, not fate. We need not accept our city's deterioration. We have no obligation to let others turn L.A. into another New York, Tokyo or Manila.

Moore is right, public policy got us where we are and it can get us out. However, I do not accept his pessimistic view that our city faces "deterioration," instead it faces rejuventation, but only if citizens educate themselves on the "real issues" and not the "stalking horses" of libertarian demogagues. Portions of Los Angeles are already similar to New York, Tokyo, and Manila, but the City is a unique place that deserves creative solutions. There are no "others" here, as we are all in this together.

To sum up my points:

1) Increase housing densities in areas close to employment. Stop dumping housing in areas that already have Tokyo-like densities and move it to places people want to live and can get to their jobs quicky.

2) Repeal rent control in the City of L.A. and overturn Proposition 13 in the State of California. Replace them with economic controls that are a "safety net" only for people who can genuinely demonstrate need for assistance.

3) Encourage the expansion of mass transit to the Westside conmensurate with its role as the second largest employment center in the region.

4) Require that future development include a mix of uses to decrease the amount of VMT (vehile miles traveled) unrelated to commuting. Create neighbrhoods where people can walk to from their homes to jobs, stores, day care centers, and parks.

Getting Lucky Again

One of my favorite Flickr-ites, Roadsidepictures, recently shared the photo displayed above to announce that grocery shoppers in Las Vegas and Southern California are getting Lucky again. That's right -- Lucky, a beloved supermarket chain thought to be relegated to the retail graveyard -- is making a comeback under the aegis of grocer Supervalu, which also operates Albertsons and Bristol Farms stores in the Southland.

For decades, Lucky was one of the largest supermarket chains on the West Coast, priding itself on a budget-conscious reputation as "the low price leader." Many folks remember its television and radio ads featuring spokeswoman Stephanie Edwards, such as this one from 1997, presented by David Gwynn of supermarket history site Groceteria:

Lucky was acquired by American Stores, a Salt Lake City-based retail conglomerate, in 1988. American Stores, in turn, was merged into Albertsons, based in Boise, Idaho, ten years later. While Albertsons kept American Stores' Jewel-Osco banner in Chicago and its ACME banner in Philadelphia, it decided to dump the Lucky name in California and Nevada and re-brand the units as Albertsons because the company already operated its namesame stores in those markets. The 1999 "marriage" of Lucky and Albertsons proved to be a marketing blunder, as Lucky had a stronger market position in most of the markets the two chains had shared.

The once high-flying Albertsons, having grown into the second largest supermarket chain in the nation, encountered severe problems due to the same type of mismanagement that led to the arrogant dismissal of the Lucky brand. After speculation that the company would sell out to Kroger, its largest competitior, earlier this year Albertsons management announced a complicated deal in which it would be sold to three seperate entities. CVS gained the Osco and Sav-On drug store chains while Supervalu acquired most of the supermarkets, including ACME, Bristol Farms, Jewel-Osco, Shaw's, and Star Markets. A group of investment firms led by Cerberus Capital Management grabbed what was left, a group of poorly performing Albertsons stores in second-tier markets like Arizona, Florida, Northern California, and Texas.

While the dismantling of Albertsons was underway, "extreme value retailer" Grocery Outlet decided to place the Lucky name on its store in Rocklin in Northern California, taking advantage of the brand's reputation for low prices. Albertsons quickly filed a lawsuit, claiming it owned the Lucky name and that Grocery Outlet was breeding confusion; Grocery Outlet countered that Albertsons had abandoned the name 6 years prior and that copyright law dictated the name was fair game after 3 years. Desperate, Albertsons put the Lucky logo back on its Web Site, asked employees to scout shopping carts and stockrooms for any mention of the name, and announced plans to open new stores with the old banner. Many observers felt that Albertsons had blundered again, including rights to the Lucky name as part of its sale to Supervalu when it didn't actually own them.

The Courts have decided that Supervalu (nee Albertsons), and not Grocery Outlet, can use the Lucky name while the legal drama is sorted out. The Lucky name was quickly hoisted over 5 Supervalu stores previously known as MaxFoods (Albertsons' "low price" banner), including 2 Southland units in Alhambra and Montebello. Quite literally, the jury's still out on whether this move is a genuine effort to reinvigorate the Lucky brand as a new discount format or if it is simply a legal ploy to gain the upper hand over Grocery Outlet. I certainly hope that Lucky is here to stay, as its optimistic name and distinctive logo still resonate after nearly 7 years of absence from the local retail scene.

In a related development, Supervalu's Southern California Albertsons division has purchased advertising on billboards throughout the region. The message "Sav-On Pharmacy: We'll Always Be Here" is meant to let folks know that while free-standing Sav-On Drugs stores will soon be converted to CVS units, Albertsons in-store pharmacies and drug departments will still proudly display the Sav-On name. This "co-branding" strategy is a hold-over from American Stores, which exported the concept from its successful Jewel-Osco stores in Chicagoland after buying Lucky and Sav-On.

It should be noted that Sav-On has nearly as much cachet as Lucky in the Southern California region. In the late 1980's, American Stores renamed the units Osco Drug only to change them back after 3 years of declining sales. It will be interesting to see if CVS is successful in converting Sav-On to its namesake banner without alienating customers. As strange as it may seem, folks are very attached to local store names; witness the controversy over the renaming of Marshall Field's to Macy's.

Westfield Topanga Expansion Opens October 6

Photo credit: Tom Mendoza, Los Angeles Daily News

Despite unprecedented consolidation in the department store industry, the rise of big-box stores, and the popularity of outdoor "lifestyle centers," the future of the enclosed super-regional mall remains bright. As consumer preferences and the American retailing business have evolved, so has the building type that Victor Gruen pioneered with Southdale in 1956. Case in point: the "new and improved" Westfield Topanga in the San Fernando Valley.

A "sneak preview" of the 1.6 million square foot mega-mall was enthusiastically presented on the front page of today's edition of the Valley-based Los Angeles Daily News. Read the article here.

Image credit: Los Angeles Daily News

The $500 million redevelopment effort is the largest ever undertaken by international shopping mall magnate Westfield Group. The mall will nearly double in size, adding two department stores, a "white napkin" food court with plates and silverware, a double-decker carousel, and "The Canyon," a remarkable arched concourse that will serve as its centerpiece. Two new parking garages are already in use, and a third will open with the expansion this fall. With 60 new stores that are unique to the Valley, Westfield Topanga has been heralded as a long-awaited alternative to traveling "over the hill" for the finest in retail.

Perhaps the most unique aspect of the expansion is that it includes a massive new Target store, which will join existing anchors Nordstrom, Robinsons-May (soon to be Macy's), and Sears. When Neiman Marcus opens at the location of the current Nordstrom building in 2008, the mall will have the most unique collection of anchor stores in the United States. A decade ago, placing a big-box store like Target in an enclosed super-regional mall was contrary to conventional wisdom, and the idea that it would be compatible with luxury retailers like Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus was laughable. Westfield Topanga charts a bold new direction for conventional malls in a fashion and value conscious retail environment with far fewer department store operators.

Though the bulk of the repositioning of Westfield Topanga will soon be complete, the Australian-based mall operator isn't through investing in the Southern California marketplace, where it manages more than a dozen centers. Although it recently completed expansions at Westfield Santa Anita in Arcadia and at Westfield Century City on L.A.'s Westside, it's looking to expand them further. Redevelopment plans are also being made for Westfield Fox Hills in Culver City, Westfield MainPlace in Santa Ana, and several properties in greater San Diego. Folks throughout the region can expect more innovative efforts in the vein of the "new" Westfield Topanga, ensuring that super-regional malls will remain competitive and compelling for decades to come.

History of Westfield Topanga

Image credit: Malls of America

Originally known as Topanga Plaza, the mall is actually one of the region's oldest, opening in 1964 as the first enclosed mall in Southern California. It was oriented towards the middle-class families that had moved to the San Fernando Valley in droves after World War II, with solid middle-market anchors May Company, Montgomery Ward, and The Broadway. It was able to co-exist with Fallbrook Center, an outdoor mall anchored by JCPenney and Sears that was located about a mile west.

In 1973, a third mall, the enclosed Promenade at Woodland Hills, opened a block south on Topanga Canyon Boulevard as an "upscale" alternative with fashionable anchors Bullock's Wilshire, Robinson's, and Saks Fifth Avenue. The land around the two shopping complexes transformed into Warner Center, an "edge city" with office towers, multi-family housing, hotels, and restaurants that became the hub of the western San Fernando Valley. Despite more competition, Topanga Plaza continued to thrive, adding a new Nordstrom and a food court in 1983.

As the 1990's progressed, Topanga Plaza became the dominant mall in the market. Saks Fifth Avenue shut its doors at the Promenade at Woodland Hills, and the Robinson's branch closed after the chain was consolidated with May Company. While the Robinson's building was occupied by a second Bullock's and the Saks store was replaced by a 16-screen AMC Theatres multiplex, the ritzy mall had lost much of its luster, losing many key tenants to the newly renovated Topanga Plaza. In 1996 The Broadway at Topanga Plaza closed, its building sold to Sears, whose move sounded the death knell for the long-suffering (then enclosed) Fallbrook Center, which has since been redeveloped into a big-box "power center." The loss of Montgomery Ward when the chain liquidated in 2001 didn't hurt the mall and provided space for a portion of the new addition.

Westfield acquired both Topanga Plaza and the Promenade at Woodland Hills in the late 1990's and has oriented the smaller Promenade towards dining and entertainment while remaking Topanga into an even more dominant center appealing to a wide range of customers. Westfield also owns the largely vacant land between the two malls; company officials have stated they intend to somehow connect them someday, which portends even more expansion of the retail mecca.

Although Federated Department Stores announced it would close one of the two Macy's (former Bullock's) stores at Westfield Promenade after its merger with May Department Stores, the operator of Robinsons-May, it now plans to keep both stores open for the time being as well as convert Westfield Topanga's Robinsons-May into yet another Macy's branch. With its abundance of real estate, I think that Federated may end up converting one of the three stores to its upscale Bloomingdale's banner. The most likely candidate is the unit at Westfield Topanga, as it would compliment Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus.

After 42 years of successful operation, Westfield Topanga will continue to be at the forefront of retailing in Southern California and will likely become one of the most popular and profitable enclosed super-regional malls in the United States.

Literary Los Angeles

Los Angeles has many wonderful bloggers that share profound and meaningful insights about our complex and expansive metropolis. While the "concept" of Los Angeles is known throughout the world, I have found that the actual city itself is widely misunderstood, even by many of its own residents. The challenge of bloggers, and writers in general, is to shine light on the opaque mysteries of our lives and our surroundings. In that regard, Los Angeles and its mythology will always be a compelling subject matter.

One of my favorite local bloggers is Los Angeles City Nerd. Over the course of the last few months, he (or she) has been compiling a list of 225 unique ways to celebrate our city's impending 225th anniversary. As an homage to his (or her) efforts, I've decided to compile a list of my own. I would like to present a list of "Literary Los Angeles," namely the 22 books in my private library that discuss our city of triumph and tragedy, discovery and loss, dreams and nightmares. To my brethren who find themselves in a place where the written word long lost prominence to the moving picture*, I recommend all of these books wholeheartedly.

Bear in mind that this list is hardly exhaustive nor definitive. As you might expect, my selections reflect my own interests in local history and the built environment, and many are gifts. I present this list in the hope that others will add to it, beginning an exchange on what "Literary Los Angeles" is, if it even exists at all. Your thoughts are encouraged.

* N.B. Academy Award or not, Crash is not an accurate depiction of Los Angeles

An Architectural Guidebook to Los Angeles

by David Gebhard and Robert Winter

City Center to Regional Mall: Architecture, the Automobile, and Retailing in Los Angeles, 1920-1950

by Richard Longstreth

City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles

by Mike Davis

Counter Intelligence: Where to Eat in the Real Los Angeles

by Jonathan Gold

El Cholo Cookbook: Recipes and Memories from California's Best-Loved Mexican Kitchen

by Merrill Shindler

Googie Redux: Ultramodern Roadside Architecture

by Alan Hess

Looking for Los Angeles: Architecture, Film, Photography, and the Urban Landscape

edited by Charles Salas and Michael Roth

Los Angeles and the Automobile: The Making of the Modern City

by Scott Bottles

Making a Better World: Public Housing, the Red Scare, and the Direction of Modern Los Angeles

by Don Parson

Metropolis in the Making: Los Angeles in the 1920s

edited by Tom Sitton and William Deverell

My Blue Heaven: Life and Politics in the Working-Class Suburbs of Los Angeles, 1920-1965

by Becky Nicolaides

Not for Tourists (NFT) Guide to Los Angeles 2003

by Not for Tourists

Southern California in the '50s: Sun, Fun, and Fantasy

by Charles Phoenix

The Drive-In, the Supermarket, and the Transformation of Commercial Space in Los Angeles, 1914-1941

by Richard Longstreth

The Fragmented Metropolis: Los Angeles, 1850-1930

by Robert Fogelson

The Last Night of the Earth Poems

by Charles Bukowski

The Provisional City: Los Angeles Stories of Architecture and Urbanism

by Dana Cuff

The Reluctant Metropolis: The Politics of Urban Growth in Los Angeles

by William Fulton

Walking L.A.: 36 Walking Tours Exploring Stairways, Streets and Buildings You Never Knew Existed

by Erin Mahoney

Whitewashed Adobe: The Rise of Los Angeles and the Remaking of Its Mexican Past

by William Deverell

William Mulholland and the Rise of Los Angeles

by Catherine Mulholland

Wilshire Boulevard: Grand Concourse of Los Angeles

by Kevin Roderick with contributions by J. Eric Lynxwiler

Reign of the Red Star

From Flickr user Roadsidepictures (click to enlarge)

The End is Near

It's been a year since Cincinnati-based Federated Department Stores acquired its biggest rival, May Department Stores, in a bid to become a fixture at shopping malls from coast to coast. Billions were spent on the premise that a new "national brand" of department stores would produce growth in a slumping sector that must contend with discounters like Wal-Mart, Target, and Kohl's as well as luxury retailers like Nordstrom, Neiman Marcus, and Saks Fifth Avenue.

However, the true price of the merger has been the end of the "hometown" department store. Though decades of consolidation have made numerous treasured names extinct, May still operated under 12 regional banners when it was purchased. Only one (Lord & Taylor) was spun off into a seperate entity; the other eleven will be consolidated with Macy's on Saturday, September 9.

The Southern California Effect

While Macy's is new to many markets, it has been familiar to Southern California shoppers for nearly a decade. Having absorbed both Bullock's and The Broadway, two legendary Los Angeles retailers, Macy's West is now ready to consume Robinsons-May, a regional chain that was itself a product of retail mergers. At its end, Robinsons-May was nearly identical to May's other regional chains but represented the proud histories of predecessors J.W. Robinson's and The May Company.

The end of Robinsons-May has cost the Southern California region thousands of jobs through the closure of its headquarters and more than two dozen stores. In addition, mall operators are faced with the challenge of replacing vacant "anchor" spots at many of their key properties. Furthermore, all consumers are at a disadvantage because there is one less competitor on the retail scene. Yet the rise of Macy's star in the region has garnered little attention from anyone here in Los Angeles.

Windy City Blues

Chicago appears to be the city most offended by Federated's "national brand." The legendary Marshall Field's, including its landmark building on State Street, are not exempt from September 9. Field's, with operations in Detroit and Minneapolis as well as Chicago, will become Macy's North.

After the "Keep it Field's" Web Site shut down, "Field's Fans Chicago" set up shop to channel the sadness and rage of Chicago residents and other Field's fans nationwide. For many of these folks, the triumph of Macy's, a product of New York City, over the venerated Marshall Field's, synonymous with Chicago for over a century, is a slap in the face to civic pride and retailing history.

Protests are being planned at the State Street store on September 9. Devotees plan to carry Field's iconic green bags but not purchase anything. In light of a recent report that Federated's sales have fallen in markets where it replaced local names with Macy's, the Field's fight is definitely worth watching.

Reign of the Red Star

Come September 9 and the days after, will Federated prove successful in growing the nearly 1,000-unit Macy's chain as a "national brand"? The future of the department store sector hangs in the balance.

Life is Good

I'm a Val?

Life takes you to strange places. After nearly a decade living in Los Angeles, I never thought I'd take residence in the San Fernando Valley. Yet I have.

In September, P.U. headquarters will move to Studio City, at the cusp of the Cahuenga Pass as it flows into Hollywood. There are many good things to say about my new neighborhood, as it enables me to maintain my identity as an Angeleno while offering an exciting new lifestyle.

More to come.