Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.

[mcook2002]

Sorry, Jessie. Emotionless text strikes again. I live here as well, not elitist one bit either! Thanks for trying to bring some civility to this thread.

[Jesse]

Sorry, Jessie. Emotionless text strikes again. I live here as well, not elitist one bit either! Thanks for trying to bring some civility to this thread.

No harm done.

I do what I can :-)

[livincinco]

I am late to this thread but just finished reading it.

. Besides, I base most of my opinion on personal experience when Wal-Mart moved just OUTSIDE (to avoid taxes) of the city limits of my small college town into an unincorporated section of Ontario County.

Isn't that just a smart business move? If you have an opportunity to locate your business in two locations, one which has high taxes and one that doesn't, which one would you choose?

I'm not a huge Walmart fan, but I think that a lot of criticism of them is related to their extremely successful business model, comparable to the way that McDonald's has become a lightning rod for obesity.

Feel free to go protest Walmart, but don't delude yourself into thinking that there significant differences between their business model and many other major retailers.

[RedScare]

The benefits of having the Wal-Mart at Yale and I-10 are virtually non-existent if there is also going to be a location at 45 and Crosstimbers. This is just about Wal-Mart using its corporate largesse to cram an unwanted, unneeded store down our throats so they can take a shot at Target's market share. I would bet that the revenues for a Yale store would not come close to stores in the burbs. I would also bet that in less than 10 years, Wal-Mart would dump the location, as they have done in many other powerplays when the competitive justification for the store was lost.

I am reasonably confident that if the world's largest retailer, one with computers so large and programs so detailed, and with inventory and delivery systems so efficient that when hurricanes are forming in the Gulf, Walmart is intercepting deliveries in mid-route and redirecting them to areas in the hurricane's path, so that residents can stock up on batteries, water and even esoteric items known to sell during hurricanes, that should they choose to build on Yale, it is because their research shows that the number of Walmart opponents is dwarfed by those who will shop there, even those who will not admit to their bohemian friends that they do so. If Walmart builds on Yale, it will be because of the benefits and nothing else...and they will be correct. Virtually every empty Walmart in Houston is empty because Walmart outgrew the building and moved across the street, including the one on Sawdust in the Woodlands.

BTW, you may be the first protester to ever complain of a corporation's largesse.

[KinkaidAlum]

Isn't that just a smart business move? If you have an opportunity to locate your business in two locations, one which has high taxes and one that doesn't, which one would you choose?

I'm not a huge Walmart fan, but I think that a lot of criticism of them is related to their extremely successful business model, comparable to the way that McDonald's has become a lightning rod for obesity.

Feel free to go protest Walmart, but don't delude yourself into thinking that there significant differences between their business model and many other major retailers.

Sure, it's a smart business move to locate in an unincorporated area so as to avoid paying taxes for things like the local public schools. And sure it's a smart business move to hire folks just short of full-time. And sure it saves the company money to not offer health care to a huge % of their employees. It is also cheaper to produce goods in China (70% of Wal-Mart's non food product comes from or has Chinese components) and be the countries 8th largest trade partner (experts note that Wal-Mart does more trade with China than RUSSIA AND ENGLAND)! Heck, you can even save money by building newer and bigger stores often times right next door to your old one that you just leave empty and leave to scar local communities because it's the cheap thing to do.

But, you know what else is a smart move?

To not support such companies. I am sure that Wal-Mart isn't hurting because I don't spend $75 bucks there every few months, but it sure does make me feel better.

[little frau]

The small Pearland WalMart, on Hwy 35, took over the newer, larger failed K-Mart location right across the street from them.

Then, the Pearland ISD acquired the old small WalMart location.

No scars there, just a reuse of the building.

[sevfiv]

Referencing what I wrote earlier -- I think the Wal-Mart near Mall of the Mainland was moved right across 45. I think the original location was Texas City Palmer Highway..

[TheNiche]

And sure it's a smart business move to hire folks just short of full-time. And sure it saves the company money to not offer health care to a huge % of their employees. It is also cheaper to produce goods in China (70% of Wal-Mart's non food product comes from or has Chinese components) and be the countries 8th largest trade partner (experts note that Wal-Mart does more trade with China than RUSSIA AND ENGLAND)! Heck, you can even save money by building newer and bigger stores often times right next door to your old one that you just leave empty and leave to scar local communities because it's the cheap thing to do.

But, you know what else is a smart move?

To not support such companies. I am sure that Wal-Mart isn't hurting because I don't spend $75 bucks there every few months, but it sure does make me feel better.

Sounds like you need to join the TEA Party movement and go be pissy about the incumbent statesmen that have created crappy legislation. Your college town should have been allowed to unceremoniously annex adjacent businesses, eliminating any motive for any businesses to expand just beyond a municipality's incorporated limits. (That's what Texas towns can do, incidentally.) Likewise, if legislation did not define such a contrasted difference between a 30-hour employee and a 31-hour employee, you wouldn't see corporations such as Wal-Mart responding to it in a way that you dislike.

Wal-Mart does plenty of trade with China because it is a gigantic retailer catering to budget-minded consumers. I would bet that Big Lots or Family Dollar is no less guilty (except in terms of scale), but I don't see you railing against them. You also complain that 70% of Wal-Mart's products are made in China or have at least one Chinese component; I'll bet that government-owned General Motors Corp. exceeds Wal-Mart on that criteria...meaning, it probably is not a very good criteria.

And as for old stores (left behind when Wal-Mart decides to expand and hire more people), they do eventually get repurposed, and frequently to users that could not have afforded a new building. I've seen them converted into everything from office buildings to flea markets to churches. And in the mean time, they're on tax rolls, whether occupied or not.

You're welcome not to shop at a Wal-Mart if you find yourself ethically opposed to them for any reason. But (sticking to the subject of the thread) that's no reason to oppose the existence of Wal-Mart or one of its stores, any more than it would be reason for evangelicals to oppose the existence of gay bars. Live and let live, I say!

[barracuda]

Wal-Mart does plenty of trade with China because it is a gigantic retailer catering to budget-minded consumers. I would bet that Big Lots or Family Dollar is no less guilty (except in terms of scale), but I don't see you railing against them.

The difference is that Big Lots an Family Dollar don't have much power over their suppliers. Walmart has the ability to make or break a company due to their buying power and market share, so companies are forced to move production to China and other low-cost countries in order to meet Walmart's pricing demands. Target and others now do the same thing, but Walmart is known for being particularly aggressive in demanding pricing concessions.

What I find ironic about the recurrent theme that Walmart helps poor folks is that the company played a large role in the transforming job market and increase the reliance on service jobs. As a country, we've basically been cashing in our middle class for a growing lower class, one that is forced to shop at Walmart because it can't afford anything else on minimum-wage service jobs, the only viable option for a growing number of people after Walmart pricing pressure forced vendors to move manufacturing jobs overseas and eliminate once good-paying jobs in the states.

You also complain that 70% of Wal-Mart's products are made in China or have at least one Chinese component; I'll bet that government-owned General Motors Corp. exceeds Wal-Mart on that criteria...meaning, it probably is not a very good criteria.

I don't believe GM imports much in the way of Chinese components for the cars assembled in North America. The most recent domestic content statistic I found for GM was from 2006 and was 73 percent, significantly different from the 70% imported from China figure posted earlier for Walmart.

Speaking of GM, they sold more cars in China than in the U.S. for the first six months of 2010; 1,209,138 vs. 1,069,577. Of course, most of those were made in China for the Chinese market.

Edited July 8, 2010 by barracuda

[TheNiche]

The difference is that Big Lots an Family Dollar don't have much power over their suppliers. Walmart has the ability to make or break a company due to their buying power and market share, so companies are forced to move production to China and other low-cost countries in order to meet Walmart's pricing demands. Target and others now do the same thing, but Walmart is known for being particularly aggressive in demanding pricing concessions.

What I find ironic about the recurrent theme that Walmart helps poor folks is that the company played a large role in the transforming job market and increase the reliance on service jobs. As a country, we've basically been cashing in our middle class for a growing lower class, one that is forced to shop at Walmart because it can't afford anything else on minimum-wage service jobs, the only viable option for a growing number of people after Walmart pricing pressure forced vendors to move manufacturing jobs overseas and eliminate once good-paying jobs in the states.

I don't believe GM imports much in the way of Chinese components for the cars assembled in North America. The most recent domestic content statistic I found for GM was from 2006 and was 73 percent, significantly different from the 70% imported from China figure posted earlier for Walmart.

Speaking of GM, they sold more cars in China than in the U.S. for the first six months of 2010; 1,209,138 vs. 1,069,577. Of course, most of those were made in China for the Chinese market.

I consider myself human first, nationalist second. So whereas I see the cliched anecdotal claim that an ill-defined middle class is under attack (from both political parties but for differing reasons), I can definitely witness a burgeoning Chinese middle class by any reasonable definition, hundreds of millions of people that are pulling themselves up by their bootstraps...literally out of the muck. Good! I'm also witnessing an emerging nuclear superpower that cannot afford to be aggressive towards us, that actually would like very much just to be an ally, and that is boxing in North Korea diplomatically. Good!

Meanwhile, some number of manufacturers seek to deflect blame upon a third party for cost-cutting that would've made sense to do in the first place; and their competitors are then forced to adapt to modern business practices (increased capital intensity in a developed nation or labor intensity in a developing nation), thereby increasing the availability of products at lower costs to the U.S. and to heretofore untapped global markets. Whether Wal-Mart forced them to suddenly transform into smart businesspeople or they figured it out on their own... Good!

I wouldn't dare try to explain the Ricardian Model of international trade on HAIF (never again!), but feel free to Google it. It should leave you with a warm fuzzy feeling inside.

[AtticaFlinch]

For your entertainment.

I saw this last night and it made me think of y'all. Normally Trey Parker's and Matt Stone's conclusions annoy me, but this time I think they're spot on. If you don't like the Walmart, then you have to show restraint and don't shop there. It's that simple. You have to be committed to supporting your local businesses if you want them to survive.

[kylejack]

For your entertainment.

I saw this last night and it made me think of y'all. Normally Trey Parker's and Matt Stone's conclusions annoy me, but this time I think they're spot on. If you don't like the Walmart, then you have to show restraint and don't shop there. It's that simple. You have to be committed to supporting your local businesses if you want them to survive.

Of course. And also attempt to persuade others not to shop there.

[AtticaFlinch]

The difference is that Big Lots an Family Dollar don't have much power over their suppliers. Walmart has the ability to make or break a company due to their buying power and market share, so companies are forced to move production to China and other low-cost countries in order to meet Walmart's pricing demands. Target and others now do the same thing, but Walmart is known for being particularly aggressive in demanding pricing concessions.

If you make a deal with the devil, you shouldn't be surprised when he demands your soul in payment. Those business owners know very well what they're getting themselves into, and they do it anyhow. Those small businesses Walmart goes around pillaging and plundering are no better than Walmart. They're interested in increasing their profits regardless of the cost. Don't waste your tears on them.

[Jesse]

Another good WalMart related clip from Tuesday

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/340896/july-06-2010/i-s-on-edjukashun---loyola--texas-textbooks---wal-mart

(At least 2 out of the 3 topics are relevant here)

[s3mh]

I am reasonably confident that if the world's largest retailer, one with computers so large and programs so detailed, and with inventory and delivery systems so efficient that when hurricanes are forming in the Gulf, Walmart is intercepting deliveries in mid-route and redirecting them to areas in the hurricane's path, so that residents can stock up on batteries, water and even esoteric items known to sell during hurricanes, that should they choose to build on Yale, it is because their research shows that the number of Walmart opponents is dwarfed by those who will shop there, even those who will not admit to their bohemian friends that they do so. If Walmart builds on Yale, it will be because of the benefits and nothing else...and they will be correct.

You are right. Wal-Mart does do very detailed studies of the markets it invades. And they know that the store on 45 and Crosstimbers will serve residents living north of 20th. They also know that the market that is south of 20th is very different from the market that is north of 20th (spare me the allegations of classism/elitism; these are indisputable demographics that I did not make up). The market south of 20th is not nearly as likely to shop at Wal-Mart and is also more likely to shop at Target or other smaller retailers and grocers. The people running Wal-Mart are very aware of these demographics. Thus, why would Wal-Mart want to drop a supercenter in an area that is not in their usual wheelhouse (i.e. lower to middle income suburbia)? Or, more pointedly, where was Wal-Mart when people were marketing the property that is now home to the Sawyer Heights Target? The answer is that Wal-Mart didn't give a crap about the inner-loop until its competitor, Target, started making money there. As Wal-Mart and many other companies have done many times over, they want the Yale location not because it will be profitable, but because it will reduce the profitability of their competitor's store. If you take away Target's profits, you weaken Target's ability to compete in terms of cost and market share (i.e. expanding locations). It doesn't take an MBA to figure that out.

Thus, the point, again, is that the burden of the Yale location far outweighs its benefits because it will be largely duplicative of the Crosstimbers location for those who want to shop at Wal-Mart. So, there is no justification for handing out piles of variances and tax dollars to help Wal-Mart establish a store that is not needed by the community (because of the Crosstimbers location) and is really just a corporate power play on the part of Wal-Mart against its rival Target. If there were no plans to build at Crosstimbers, it would be a closer argument for or against. The Crosstimbers location makes it clear that there is just no reason to have the Yale location, especially given how poorly it fits in with the community.

[livincinco]

If you make a deal with the devil, you shouldn't be surprised when he demands your soul in payment. Those business owners know very well what they're getting themselves into, and they do it anyhow. Those small businesses Walmart goes around pillaging and plundering are no better than Walmart. They're interested in increasing their profits regardless of the cost. Don't waste your tears on them.

There's a saying in the retail industry that taking an order from Walmart is like trying heroin. You know it's probably not good for you, but once you get hooked on it, you can't give it up.

For everyone that is complaining about Walmart's heavy involvement in China - you apparently haven't shopped any other retailers recently. This is not a Walmart issue, this is an everyone issue. The vast majority of consumer goods that are imported to the United States are made in China today, they are following the trend , not creating it. If you want to get into a discussion about the ethics of importing consumer products and manufacturing in China, let me know and I'll set up a thread in the appropriate forum. I've got a lot of experience in that area and would be happy to clear up some of the common "misperceptions" of this issue.

It's also unrealistic to expect Walmart to support small suppliers due to the overall size of their organization. Their annual COGS (cost of goods sold) is $304 billion. Retailers generally don't work with suppliers that can't provide a reasonable percentage of their overall volume unless that supplier provides a particular niche product that cannot be obtained elsewhere. The logistics of dealing with thousands of small businesses is extremely costly and quite simply doesn't fit into their business model. This is the same model that most major retailers use, but Walmart is on a completely different scale than most of the other retailers that have been mentioned. For example, Walmart is approx. 25 times the size of HEB in terms of their annual volume. I can guarantee you that they don't maintain 25 times the number of suppliers.

Like I said before, it's certainly your choice to not shop there if you like, but recognize that they are a very efficient business that fills a niche in the consumer market very well.

[TheNiche]

You are right. Wal-Mart does do very detailed studies of the markets it invades. And they know that the store on 45 and Crosstimbers will serve residents living north of 20th. They also know that the market that is south of 20th is very different from the market that is north of 20th (spare me the allegations of classism/elitism; these are indisputable demographics that I did not make up). The market south of 20th is not nearly as likely to shop at Wal-Mart and is also more likely to shop at Target or other smaller retailers and grocers.

I dispute your "demographics" (such as is your apparent understanding of the term); they are supposition and you made them up.

Edited July 8, 2010 by TheNiche

[s3mh]

I dispute your "demographics" (such as is your apparent understanding of the term); they are supposition and you made them up.

And you dispute my demographics with what? Your own supposition? Very convincing.

My understanding of the term is completely accurate. I did not make up anything. I have seen real data on property values, income levels, age, and education for the area. I have been involved in commercial real estate development inside the loop for years.

Wal-Mart's data is a closely held secret. However, a leaked memo from Wal-Mart's ad agency revealed that Wal-Mart's attempt to appeal to shoppers of higher end products had failed. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3229759

The average Wal-Mart customer earns 35k a year. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/27/AR2005112700687.html Far more people fitting that demographic live north of 20th than south.

Thus, 1) Wal-Mart's attempts at upscaling have failed; 2) Wal-Mart's main customer base lives closer to the new Crosstimbers location; and, ergo 3) the Yale location is directed at harming Target's business far more than benefitting those in the neighborhood who will have to deal with the increased traffic, drainage issues, increased demand on fire and police, and resulting damage to property values of living near a big, ugly Wal-Mart. We don't need it, we don't want it. Our tax dollars are needed to support it, our elected officials are needed to grant the variances. We have a right to block it in favor of a better suited development.

[AtticaFlinch]

The average Wal-Mart customer earns 35k a year. http://www.washingto...5112700687.html Far more people fitting that demographic live north of 20th than south.

Did you read the rest of this article?! It totally demoslishes your earlier argument that Walmart causes more harm than good for poor people.

An excerpt:

But let's say we accept Dube's calculation that retail workers take home $4.7 billion less per year because Wal-Mart has busted unions and generally been ruthless. That loss to workers would still be dwarfed by the $50 billion-plus that Wal-Mart consumers save on food, never mind the much larger sums that they save altogether. Indeed, Furman points out that the wage suppression is so small that even its "victims" may be better off. Retail workers may take home less pay, but their purchasing power probably still grows thanks to Wal-Mart's low prices.

The article concludes that the poor would be the worst hit casualties in a campaign to stop Walmart.

I'm floored you'd even link that article.

And remember, there's much more to the inner loop than just the Heights. This Walmart is targeting the entire area, not just above 20th Street, and not just Target shoppers.

[TheNiche]

And you dispute my demographics with what? Your own supposition? Very convincing.

My position is that your position sucks. Defend it (if able).

My understanding of the term is completely accurate. I did not make up anything. I have seen real data on property values, income levels, age, and education for the area. I have been involved in commercial real estate development inside the loop for years.

Wal-Mart's data is a closely held secret. However, a leaked memo from Wal-Mart's ad agency revealed that Wal-Mart's attempt to appeal to shoppers of higher end products had failed. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3229759

The average Wal-Mart customer earns 35k a year. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/27/AR2005112700687.html Far more people fitting that demographic live north of 20th than south.

My conception of the term "demographics" involves a provision of data and/or quantitative analysis; you provided a supposition based on a one-dimensional north/south divide and undefined notions of Wal-Mart's customer base. You've also completely ignored approaches to market segmentation.

If you desire to conduct a proper analysis (and I'd certainly invite that), you ought to start by drawing a market area encompassing all neighborhoods that would be more adequately or appropriately served by the Wal-Mart Supercenter on Yale than any other Wal-Marts around town. 20th Street may be an appropriate boundary to the north, but what are the boundaries to the east, south, and west? Who lives within this polygon? Could it be...buttloads of Wal-Mart shoppers?

This would be my reckoning: even the trendier inner loop neighborhoods are heterogeneous--the average household for a neighborhood hardly defines it--but throw in much of the Near Northside, 5th Ward, the East End all the way to Gulfgate, 3rd Ward, South Union, and the area right around Northwest Mall...AND take into account the hundreds of thousands of low- and middle-income daytime populations that inhabit office towers, retail centers, industrial complexes, and universities.

Then consider that out of the higher- and middle-income residents of the area, they do have plenty of discretionary income, and that means that out of the smaller percentage of people from that group that do shop at this Wal-Mart, they will tend to purchase products with higher markups and won't be so finicky about seeking out a hard bargain. Wal-Mart may not cater to the higher end as a core customer base (and they shouldn't try), but I'd suspect that margins on sales to such people are a tad bit better. That might partly explain why there are so many stores in The Woodlands.

Take my word for it. I have been involved in commercial real estate development inside the loop for years. What? It's true.

The average Wal-Mart customer earns 35k a year.

If the average Wal-Mart customer makes $35k per year, that's actually not bad at all! Consider how many of these shoppers are in double-income households, too.

...ergo 3) the Yale location is directed at harming Target's business far more than benefitting those in the neighborhood...

Vindictiveness is hardly a justifiable business motive. It doesn't make any sense.

Edited July 8, 2010 by TheNiche

[Yankee_in_TX]

Looks like the attachment didn't work in my first post, so here it is the currently proposed Walmart center layout again in jpg format.

I had problems with the JPG; what are those north and south streets?

*edit* PDF worked. Heights to the right, Bonner to the left (Patterson 2 blocks over)

Edited July 8, 2010 by Yankee_in_TX

[crunchtastic]

Excellent point about people who work nearby. I'm hearing chatter in my office compound already from all the hardcore lunch hour shoppers. I'm sure more than a few commuters would like the option to do lunch hour/after work shopping in order to get it out of the way before slogging home down 10 or 45 north. I'd even go so far as to pull a number out of my ass, and say

that there are easily 800 to a thousand suburban WalMart shoppers here once you factor in non-AIG tenants. All within a quarter mile of the propsed Yale St store, 5 days a week.

[AtticaFlinch]

Vindictiveness is hardly a justifiable business motive. It doesn't make any sense.

Not only that, but by the figures listed in the article S3mh posted, Walmart and Target aren't even attracting the same financial demographic. If Target's shoppers make on average $50k/year and Walmart's shoppers earn $35k/year, then Target should have nothing to fear. Unless the Sawyer Target is currently drawing from Walmart's demographic, Target should see no discernable dip in sales. And, if Target is drawing from Walmart's demographic (I guess due to there not being any Walmart within the loop), then this new Walmart will increase these people's purchasing power, thereby improving their quality of life. Why would anyone oppose raising the quality of life for those less fortunate than themselves?

[s3mh]

Did you read the rest of this article?! It totally demoslishes your earlier argument that Walmart causes more harm than good for poor people.

An excerpt:

The article concludes that the poor would be the worst hit casualties in a campaign to stop Walmart.

I'm floored you'd even link that article.

And remember, there's much more to the inner loop than just the Heights. This Walmart is targeting the entire area, not just above 20th Street, and not just Target shoppers.

I never argued that Wal-Mart causes more harm than good for people in the lower income bracket (funny you deamningly call them "poor" people). My point has always been that a Wal-Mart supercenter is inappropriate for the neighborhood and is not even needed in light of the Crosstimbers location.

Wal-Mart had no interest in the area until Target showed up. Wal-Mart has a long history of using their size to accomplish their business ends, from supply to retail. Wal-Mart just wants to throw sand into Target's gears.

[AtticaFlinch]

I never argued that Wal-Mart causes more harm than good for people in the lower income bracket (funny you deamningly call them "poor" people).

I didn't realize "poor" was a bad word. I didn't realizing calling someone who's poor a poor person was demeaning. Oh wait, it's not.

And on your contention you didn't say the development was bad for the poor, I suppose you're right. You said Walmart's bad for everybody but the poor who'll get cheap toilet paper, but that the poor eking out an existence should take a back seat to preserving the character of a neighborhood in which Walmart is not even going to build. Observe your own words:

Lower income residents of the inner loop have done just fine without Wal-Mart for decades. Putting Wal-Mart in the middle of quickly gentrifying neighborhoods makes no sense. Wal-Mart will probably end up like Auchan and many other failed mega stores. Wal-Mart’s main profit center is suburban families who are on a budget, not the urban poor. Wal-Mart cannot survive on inner city lower income residents. This city is scarred with too many cheaply built big box developments that have gone bad. Economic development inside the loop will not benefit long term from ill fitting suburban style development. The reason areas like Rice Military, Washington Ave, the Heights and Upper Kirby have thrived is because they are not like Kingwood, Pearland or Spring. These are inner city neighborhoods with a completely different character. Wal-Mart will not only threaten the development of these areas, it will also destroy the struggling businesses in the lower income areas. So, sure. Some people will save money on toilet paper. But the net effect will be very negative for everyone else.

No elitism there! No sir, not at all.

My point has always been that a Wal-Mart supercenter is inappropriate for the neighborhood and is not even needed in light of the Crosstimbers location.

You keep repeating this mantra as if we've all accepted your premise that this Walmart is only intended to benefit Heights residents, when in reality, it's painfully obvious that it's intended to attract consumers from all over the inner loop, be they residents or employed in the area or just passing through. This isn't just for the Heights, and I suppose if it was, they'd have looked for land on Studewood and 14th.

Wal-Mart had no interest in the area until Target showed up. Wal-Mart has a long history of using their size to accomplish their business ends, from supply to retail. Wal-Mart just wants to throw sand into Target's gears.

Yeah! Next time I see two gas stations across the street from another, I'm going to have to protest whichever one was built last! That seems worthwhile!

[s3mh]

My position is that your position sucks. Defend it (if able).

20th Street may be an appropriate boundary to the north, but what are the boundaries to the east, south, and west? Who lives within this polygon? Could it be...buttloads of Wal-Mart shoppers?

This would be my reckoning: even the trendier inner loop neighborhoods are heterogeneous--the average household for a neighborhood hardly defines it--but throw in much of the Near Northside, 5th Ward, the East End all the way to Gulfgate, 3rd Ward, South Union, and the area right around Northwest Mall...AND take into account the hundreds of thousands of low- and middle-income daytime populations that inhabit office towers, retail centers, industrial complexes, and universities.

Then consider that out of the higher- and middle-income residents of the area, they do have plenty of discretionary income, and that means that out of the smaller percentage of people from that group that do shop at this Wal-Mart, they will tend to purchase products with higher markups and won't be so finicky about seeking out a hard bargain. Wal-Mart may not cater to the higher end as a core customer base (and they shouldn't try), but I'd suspect that margins on sales to such people are a tad bit better. That might partly explain why there are so many stores in The Woodlands.

Vindictiveness is hardly a justifiable business motive. It doesn't make any sense.

That is the largest pile of supposition I have ever seen.

The Crosstimbers location is barely 4 miles from the Yale location. By definition that means market cannabilization between the two stores. And the further out you go (Gulfgate, NW, East end), the weaker the argument gets. All you are saying is that Wal-Mart should get to put a big ugly unsuitable Supercenter in my neighborhood so people can save 4-7 minutes in the car. And you are completely forgetting locations on the Gulf fwy and 290 that are far easier to access than having to crunch through Downtown interchanges or mess with the 290/610 mess.

As for the "lunchtime" shoppers, you have got to be kidding me. It takes a minimum of 20-25 minutes round trip to get to the location (I make the trip every day) and that is assuming that the magic traffic fairy finds a way to keep the intersection of Waugh/Heights Blvd and Washington from becoming permanent impenetrable gridlock with the addition of Wal-Mart. That gives you an absolute maximum of 30 min to make your way through a couple football fields worth of cheap Chinese goods. And chances are very strong that these consumers have been cannabalized from suburban Wal-Marts, meaning a net zero in terms of revenue.

Finally, I am not saying Wal-Mart is being vindictive. I am saying that Wal-Mart is being Wal-Mart. They have had trouble competing directly with Target by trying to upscale their product lines and stores. So, they will use their size to compete with Target. A Target with no Wal-Mart nearby will always make more money than a Target with a Wal-Mart nearby. If Wal-Mart puts a store near every Target that is doing good business, they will hurt Target's bottom line. Bad numbers for Target means lower market capitalization means less money for advertising, expansion, and so on. Wal-Mart did this to kill off a number of local grocery and discount chains. They would open up as many competing stores as they could next to the targeted competitor chain, drop prices, operate at a loss if necessary, and then when the local chain folded, they would close up the duplicative location and raise prices.

[TheNiche]

The Crosstimbers location is barely 4 miles from the Yale location. By definition that means market cannabilization between the two stores.

Of course there'd be cannibalization. There's even cannibalization between Wal-Mart and Sam's Club, but the company often pairs them up side-by-side. And hey, if Starbucks can have up to three stores at a single intersection in Houston's urban core, surely it is not implausible that there could be two (or more) Wal-Marts operating profitably just four miles from one another. Wal-Mart understands this and employs a cannibalization model to estimate the impact. Do you believe that their analytical powers have led them astray? Perhaps you should posit a competing cannibalization model of your own design.

All you are saying is that Wal-Mart should get to put a big ugly unsuitable Supercenter in my neighborhood so people can save 4-7 minutes in the car. And you are completely forgetting locations on the Gulf fwy and 290 that are far easier to access than having to crunch through Downtown interchanges or mess with the 290/610 mess.

No, I'm saying that the pecuniary and non-pecuniary costs of a shopping trip have to be considered in addition to the price of the goods purchased, and that increased convenience is tantamount to offering lower prices to its prospective customers.

For instance, I live in Eastwood, near downtown and UH, and only visit a Wal-Mart about four or five times per year at present; and Target perhaps once or twice even though it is much more convenient. The nearest Wal-Mart store is 10 miles away in the middle of Pasadena and is inconvenient to anywhere else that I'd want to be. There's another store 11 miles away down the Gulf Freeway, another store 11 miles away down the East Freeway, and another store (which sucks) 12 miles away at 610 and S. Post Oak. Having one located half as distant--and along a freeway that I use frequently--will probably more than double the number of Wal-Mart trips. The closer it is, the more trips I'd make. Ideally, they'd build a Wal-Mart adjacent to my neighborhood...but there aren't any sites large enough to accommodate one, and it seems like they're getting as close as is reasonably possible. If it were within walking distance, like Battle Kroger, I'd probably go there at least once a week.

Convenience is important; to the extent that there is cannibalization, convenience can largely offset that.

As for the "lunchtime" shoppers, you have got to be kidding me. It takes a minimum of 20-25 minutes round trip to get to the location (I make the trip every day) and that is assuming that the magic traffic fairy finds a way to keep the intersection of Waugh/Heights Blvd and Washington from becoming permanent impenetrable gridlock with the addition of Wal-Mart. That gives you an absolute maximum of 30 min to make your way through a couple football fields worth of cheap Chinese goods. And chances are very strong that these consumers have been cannabalized from suburban Wal-Marts, meaning a net zero in terms of revenue.

If your argument is that "lunchtime" shoppers barely have the time to make the trip to Wal-Mart, you cannot also argue that these shoppers would be cannibalized from Wal-Marts that would be inaccessible to them within their lunch period. You can't have it both ways.

Finally, I am not saying Wal-Mart is being vindictive. I am saying that Wal-Mart is being Wal-Mart. They have had trouble competing directly with Target by trying to upscale their product lines and stores. So, they will use their size to compete with Target. A Target with no Wal-Mart nearby will always make more money than a Target with a Wal-Mart nearby. If Wal-Mart puts a store near every Target that is doing good business, they will hurt Target's bottom line. Bad numbers for Target means lower market capitalization means less money for advertising, expansion, and so on. Wal-Mart did this to kill off a number of local grocery and discount chains. They would open up as many competing stores as they could next to the targeted competitor chain, drop prices, operate at a loss if necessary, and then when the local chain folded, they would close up the duplicative location and raise prices.

Target is not a local grocery or discount chain, nor does it hold some kind of monopoly over urban Houston. You're working from Wal-Mart's small town playbook, but Houston isn't a small town.

[crunchtastic]

As for the "lunchtime" shoppers, you have got to be kidding me. It takes a minimum of 20-25 minutes round trip to get to the location (I make the trip every day) and that is assuming that the magic traffic fairy finds a way to keep the intersection of Waugh/Heights Blvd and Washington from becoming permanent impenetrable gridlock with the addition of Wal-Mart. That gives you an absolute maximum of 30 min to make your way through a couple football fields worth of cheap Chinese goods.

Kidding? I think not. You make it from where? My office with 2,000 other warm shopping bodies at Heights and Allen Parkway? The round trip drive time from my office to Sawyer Heights is 15 minutes with no train, and in 30 minutes I hit BOTH Target and Petsmart. I know this because I do it about once a month, as do countless others from my building. In fact, Target is commonly referred to as the 'The Caf' because the joke is more people go there at lunch than eat in the crappy cafeteria on campus. And many of those people will go to WalMart instead (or at least put it in the rotation) because it will be that much closer. lol, you clearly have a lot to learn about the lunch-hour powershopper.

Judging by your member data, I presume you joined HAIF expressly to spread the good NIMBY word. Why not humor us, and try to come to the table with some pertinent data, or at the very least, believable anecdotal stories. You still never cleared up exactly what Wal-mart's southern demnographic boundary is after your lecture on the 20th street Maginot Line. And I'm still waiting for you take another stab at your bizarre assertion that Wal-Mart will force out Canino's, despite the fact the 20 years of grocery store growth in the area hasn't already done so. Tick Tock.

[barracuda]

That is the largest pile of supposition I have ever seen.

The Crosstimbers location is barely 4 miles from the Yale location. By definition that means market cannabilization between the two stores. And the further out you go (Gulfgate, NW, East end), the weaker the argument gets. All you are saying is that Wal-Mart should get to put a big ugly unsuitable Supercenter in my neighborhood so people can save 4-7 minutes in the car. And you are completely forgetting locations on the Gulf fwy and 290 that are far easier to access than having to crunch through Downtown interchanges or mess with the 290/610 mess.

As for the "lunchtime" shoppers, you have got to be kidding me. It takes a minimum of 20-25 minutes round trip to get to the location (I make the trip every day) and that is assuming that the magic traffic fairy finds a way to keep the intersection of Waugh/Heights Blvd and Washington from becoming permanent impenetrable gridlock with the addition of Wal-Mart. That gives you an absolute maximum of 30 min to make your way through a couple football fields worth of cheap Chinese goods. And chances are very strong that these consumers have been cannabalized from suburban Wal-Marts, meaning a net zero in terms of revenue.

Finally, I am not saying Wal-Mart is being vindictive. I am saying that Wal-Mart is being Wal-Mart. They have had trouble competing directly with Target by trying to upscale their product lines and stores. So, they will use their size to compete with Target. A Target with no Wal-Mart nearby will always make more money than a Target with a Wal-Mart nearby. If Wal-Mart puts a store near every Target that is doing good business, they will hurt Target's bottom line. Bad numbers for Target means lower market capitalization means less money for advertising, expansion, and so on. Wal-Mart did this to kill off a number of local grocery and discount chains. They would open up as many competing stores as they could next to the targeted competitor chain, drop prices, operate at a loss if necessary, and then when the local chain folded, they would close up the duplicative location and raise prices.

In terms of territory overlap, the two stores may share some of the same customers, but the higher concentration will help prevent those customers from visiting competitors who may be farther away.

You may be right that the impetus for this location was Target, but again, it's no different from how other retailers often build across from their competitors (CVS and Walgreens, Lowes and Home Depot, McDonald's and Burger King, etc.).

[s3mh]

Kidding? I think not. You make it from where? My office with 2,000 other warm shopping bodies at Heights and Allen Parkway? The round trip drive time from my office to Sawyer Heights is 15 minutes with no train, and in 30 minutes I hit BOTH Target and Petsmart. I know this because I do it about once a month, as do countless others from my building. In fact, Target is commonly referred to as the 'The Caf' because the joke is more people go there at lunch than eat in the crappy cafeteria on campus. And many of those people will go to WalMart instead (or at least put it in the rotation) because it will be that much closer. lol, you clearly have a lot to learn about the lunch-hour powershopper.

Judging by your member data, I presume you joined HAIF expressly to spread the good NIMBY word. Why not humor us, and try to come to the table with some pertinent data, or at the very least, believable anecdotal stories. You still never cleared up exactly what Wal-mart's southern demnographic boundary is after your lecture on the 20th street Maginot Line. And I'm still waiting for you take another stab at your bizarre assertion that Wal-Mart will force out Canino's, despite the fact the 20 years of grocery store growth in the area hasn't already done so. Tick Tock.

You clearly have much to learn about market cannabilization. Wal-Mart isn't going to spend piles of cash to compete with itself. People who will shop Wal-Mart during lunch from their work downtown are the same people who would shop at suburban locations at night or on the weekend. Wal-Mart has no altruistic motives. And the point regarding the shopping time is that those customers are in a hurry and not likely to fill a shopping cart to the rim with product. Why pile all that traffic into the Heights, when people working downtown can just go up Travis to I-45 and be at Crosstimbers in the same time (more likely less as getting through Heights/I-10 and Waugh/Washington intersections will be a nightmare)?

Wal-Mart will wipe Canino's, Michoacana and even Fiesta off the map the same way they have cleaned out town squares across America. They will come into the neighborhood, undercut competitors (predatory pricing is Wal-Mart's specialty) and then bring prices back up when the competition has folded.

The reference to 20th street is pretty obvious to anyone who actually lives in this city. You haven't provided any data to support your notion that the residents of River Oaks, Tangelwood, Upper Kirby, Rice Military and the Heights will give up on Sur La Table and Williams Sonoma in favor of Wal-Mart's Mainstay aluminum cookware. So, I do not feel any obligation to provide my own.

The Heights/West End area has undergone a tremendous tranformation over the past fifteen years. Washington Ave used to be an economic wasteland. Now, restaurants and shops are flocking to new developments on the street. Drop a Wal-Mart in the middle of that, and all bets are off. The need to have Wal-Mart's cheap goods a few minutes closer than the Crosstimbers location does not outweigh the need to have thriving inner city neighborhoods that attract businesses to downtown Houston. I have hosted many visitors, both business and family, in Houston. People are always very impressed by the development that is going on inside the loop. People's impression of our abundance of big box stores outside the loop is, well, not so favorable.

Finally, I apologize for joining HAIF to dare to express my views on this issue with those who have been posting for much longer than I have. I assumed people on this board would welcome opposing viewpoints and debate. But it looks like this is just another message board where conservatives try to shout down anyone who dares to oppose big business.