Dan416
Senior Member
As much as people don't like Walmart , if CF offered it to them, maybe they'd take it. But I'd prefer Simons, or somehow turning it into part of the mall. We'll see what CF has in mind I guess.
- Thread starter grey
- Start date
W. K. Lis
Superstar
If T. Eaton Company had kept going with its mail order department, they could have turned it into an on-line order department.
zang
Senior Member
They actually have one. CB2 at Queen and Bathurst.
yrt+viva=1system
Senior Member
Just noticed tonight that Chick Fil-A is opening in the former Japanese restaurant at the north end of the foodcourt. Not sure if this has been mentioned.
Natika33
Active Member
There's a pattern here. Part of the issue with department stores is that they get people horizontally transversing levels 1 & 2 but the higher floors get ignored - they can't seem to figure out what will draw people up vertically. I think the older department stores that had food courts/cafeterias on the upper floors were onto something, but since the Eaton centre already has those on the lower levels, perhaps they could make the higher floors interesting by adding an observatory over Dundas Square, adding greenery, water features and a lounging area? Or what about a floor for lockers/coat check? Or better yet - put the lockers where the dark and dingy food court is now and move the food up to the new "observatory" level.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
I doubt anyone would want to head up there for a view. The problem here is you have nothing that attract anyone from going up - and you won't unless you break up that space and seriously improve vertical circulation. East Asian and Europeans have mastered this.
AoD
Northern Light
Superstar
I think the resto' concept could be part of an answer for sure; but let's back up for a moment. To the extent that as you go higher in a department store, circulation is lower, there are three things to contemplate.
1) To what extent can you make it worth someone's time in escalator/elevator travel to spend an extra few minutes getting to that level? This is the 'attraction' piece.
2) To what extent can you make getting to said level less of a hassle? This is Alvin's entirely legitimate point. This can mean a number of things, longer, escalators that perhaps jump a floor at times. This can mean higher speed elevators. It can also mean open staircases between floors. It's some combination of less travel time, less hassle, less waiting etc.
3) To what extent does that upper level already have a worthwhile offer; but that is poorly communicated to the levels people are traveling through? As opposed to just an old-school directory, can one use screens and physical displays to remind people of what's going on up on '5' as it were?
4) Finally, is it ok to have some lower traffic areas because you offset that with high price point sales? This is the logic of putting furniture and appliances on upper levels as was often common in years past. You don't need a high volume of shoppers buying bedroom suites, dining tables or refrigerators to make that pay off. The sales per ft2 remaining competitive with the higher volume floor, moving lower priced and lower margin socks, t-shirts and sneakers.
***
I'll mostly skip over the vertical circulation question, because the general answer is clear, and the specific will vary by layout, number of levels and floorplate; except to say, yes, less hassle equals more patronage. Though the ROI needs to be watched closely on such things.
On 'attraction'; I think any large-scale department store that is or hopes to be successful in this day in age needs to be 'experiential'. Shopping as entertainment, education, brand-awareness and association.
This is true throughout the store; but it's potentially more true in areas that might not otherwise draw traffic. Briefly, at considerable expense, HBC moved the kitchen section up to level 7, I think. They created a gorgeous space, and it did draw; though probably (I don't have their numbers) less than when it was in the basement. (where it is again). I would argue that while they could create an attraction out of that section, they traded that off with a huge amount of impulse-buy/browsing by commuters passing through the store. So again, one has to be careful with those choices.
I would argue any attraction should generally be the opposite of impulse buys to most people. That would then suggest, other than major furniture/appliance type areas; that super high-end fashion like the 'room' or custom suits might be well suited to a higher floor. That items on which you are likely to expend $1,000 or more are worth extra travel time; don't require the same volume of customers.
I'm big on the idea of furniture/housewares etc having a place in this type of store; but I think it needs to not be Ikea, not be Canadian Tire or The Brick etc. It needs not to be an environment where one simply gets lost in endless (mostly crap) to choose from.
Instead, the focus needs to be on robust displays (Simpsons, the former Bay Queen St) used to have full rooms set up with everything coordinated. So you saw a dining room, with placemats, napkins, cutlery, stemware, china, a buffet, and artwork that was all for sale. An illustrative guide on how it could all fit together.
A bedroom suite, showing you the furniture, the mattress, the linens, the hamper, the artwork the side lamps etc etc.
I think offering that sense of curation, and experience, rather than a warehouse vibe is key to making that work.
Creating interactivity, beyond great service matters. What about lesson from an expert on different ways to set a table for dinner party; or different ways to dress a bed fancily. Think of it as in-person youtube.
Same thing in the kitchens department, you offer an integrated a cooking lesson or food samples while showing off those expensive chef knives and even letting people try them out.
As department stores faced off with category killers (ie. Best Buy, or Bed, Bath and Beyond etc.); they took the wrong lessons. They most often chose one of two directions:
1) Surrender - exit the category in question entirely
2) Try to emulate the 'box' retailer by cutting service and expertise and focusing on lower price and deeper selection.
Both of these were mistakes in my mind. You need to own what you do well and not to copy someone else and be a pale imitation of the real thing.
Department stores never had the floorspace, except, maybe in their flagship stores, and even then, not really to compete with 50,000ft2 'boxes. Nor could they drive their price points that low when paying AAA - mall rents.
Their advantage was service and curation, they simply needed to refresh it, where it was tired, and emphasize their point of differentiation. Exiting the categories entirely simply means fewer shoppers walking in the door.
When you can no longer get your fridge at the department store, you just don't go there for that purpose (and pickup socks while you're there).
One particularly dumb category exit was toys. The thought was they were too seasonal and Toys R US or the like would own the market. The failure was to realize that children are a huge factor in drawing parents into a store, the toys that mesmerize the kids may or may not have produced enough direct sales to justify their space, but the indirect sales were huge. Not to mention, developing life-long customers from an early age!
A note here, that department stores used to be able to interest the entire family. The woman might be shopping for clothing; the child into looking at toys or the candy counter; while the man was off in electronics.
Exit those categories and you change who walks through the doors.
***
Doing 8 floors is hard; but making 5 work shouldn't be; and 8 can be made to with a bit of effort. But you have to know what you're doing and you have to care; something most department stores stopped giving a sense of generations ago, in North America.
Last edited:
W. K. Lis
Superstar
I remember the toy departments for Eaton's and Simpson's were up on the upper floors. Meaning if the parents were looking for Christmas toys for their kids, they had to pass the other floors and getting glimpses of the the goods on their way up and down. Even Santa Claus was upstairs.
Why is Santa Claus located on the lower floor these days?
Why is Santa Claus located on the lower floor these days?
Last edited:
Irishmonk
Senior Member
Could TMU work out some arrangement with CF? The university must be salivating over all of that empty space right on their doorstep. A large downtown public library would also fit in nicely.
rdaner
Senior Member
Also a performing arts centre. Does TMU have any large theatres besides the one on Gerrard East?
Northern Light
Superstar
A few points here.
TMU leases the screens in the Cineplex as lecture halls during weekday mornings; they also are the buyer of the City's building at 277 Victoria; and have a new building set for the corner of Jarvis and Dundas (with or without the housing on top as we've much discussed); I doubt very much that TMU is in the market for more space, space that can't easily accommodate lecture halls or labs, all at class-A office rents.
The area will get a new public library, in Old City Hall, that's long been planned, so no library is going into TEC.
A performing Arts Space, I suppose, could work physically on the higher ceiling, lower floors, but it won't. The space is worth more in other forms, and a performing Arts Space would still be constrained by what's above it and below it, by how it's accessed, and if up against the street-at grade could be quite deadening, as windows aren't normally a prominent feature of such facilities.
I will note that if you re-thought how everything there is laid out, there might be an argument for bringing Cineplex over; as I would describe its Yonge-Dundas facility as over-sized for current demand. Note that they are set to downsize Scotiabank/Paramount to 8 screens from 14 when construction happens there; and Y-D carries 20+ screens.
That said, I would expect any such re-lo to actually go back where Cineplex started, where the Tire and Best Buy are; when that building comes down, which it will, in due course.
Rufus8
Active Member
I wonder if anyone would invest in a playdium style development in the Eaton's Centre. There is only 1 bowling alley downtown now, why not some other kind of adult entertainment? For the most part if you go out downtown it is either to eat or shop it would be nice to have other options. Good transit links so you don't have to drive.
rdaner
Senior Member
Intrigued by the notion of redevelopment at the southeast corner of Bay and Dundas!
Natika33
Active Member
I lived in Japan for 8 years which is why I wondered if some designs from there could work here. Japan tends to put their restaurant levels on the top floor of their vertical malls and reserves the basement for groceries and specialty food counters (deli, fish, cakes, etc). But I think Canadians would prefer more sunlight & patios if the restaurants weren't in the basement. As for improving vertical circulation, they alternate the escalators so you have to walk around one side to keep going up (or down). Of course, you can also "cheat" and take the elevators" but lots of people (including me) seemed to be happy to take the scenic route because you never know what you'll find and the displays for each "boutique space" were also interesting.
Natika33
Active Member
Cinemas, performing arts spaces, bowling alleys etc would all be perfectly suited to the basement as none of them require (or would even want to have) windows. I'm now even more interested in my own idea. Lol. I would actually love to go hang out high over the city, particularly Dundas Square where I could watch all the people scurrying across the scramble. In fact, I went to Milestones TWICE to do exactly that and I don't even like Milestones. Where else in Toronto can you go hang out in a sun-filled atrium/observatory with a lounge area and food areas at a reasonable price point?