Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...
  • 3 weeks later...

i guess that i find it really surprising that there is no planned enclosed walkway, as per customers to and from the houston galleria. wouldn't this be most feasible, since it is located directly across the street.

That would look cool, but it would also eliminate pedestrian traffic. And we need more of that! Plus the Galleria doesn't own the land that the Hyatts are being built on.

I was in the Galleria today and if anyplace needs a walkway it is from Dillard's to Neimans. Speaking of (rambling) why is the Dillard's even still there? That whole place could be redeveloped!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would look cool, but it would also eliminate pedestrian traffic. And we need more of that! Plus the Galleria doesn't own the land that the Hyatts are being built on.

I was in the Galleria today and if anyplace needs a walkway it is from Dillard's to Neimans. Speaking of (rambling) why is the Dillard's even still there? That whole place could be redeveloped!

i concur, regarding the need for more pedestrian traffic upon the immediate galleria vicinity.  however, i am all for eliminating any form of pedestrian accidents as well.  not to mention, expensive wet shopping bags during inclement weather conditions.  please trust me my pal, this hotel shall seem like a very long walk during one of houston's famous thunderstorms.  in regards to dillards, i have been hereby stating for quite a number of years, that this particular edifice should be completely torn down and reconstructed elsewhere.  nonetheless, a few months ago, i read that this particular diillards, shall indeed be torn down at some point.  this shall be in lieu, as per new plan to reconstruct it as part of an anchor for a new galleria 5.  not at all certain if this is indeed the truth, but this is what i read.  trust me, my fingers are indeed crossed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simon doesn't want Dillard's, because they don't feel that Dillard's is high end enough. And, they don't want Hyatt competing with their Westins, under the same roof. It's Pretty Simple.

I seriously doubt that Simon doesn't want Dillard's as a tenant. It's a major department store that would be a anchor tenant. Also Dillard's and Macy's are about neck and neck as far as their rank in department store class, especially since Macy's purchased Foley's. Also every store in The Galleria is not high end there are plenty of lower end stores in The Galleria. I think the amount of lower end stores in The Galleria will only increase due to the new retail developments coming online like River Oaks District. It has already been stated that some of the higher end retailers are jumping ship for River Oaks District.

Dillard's owns that stores location. I hope they sell the land for redevelopment and become the anchor for a new Galleria extension like Monarch stated. Maybe Simon can purchase the property for another Galleria expansion. Simon is going to have to do what it takes to stay competitive.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simon doesn't want Dillard's, because they don't feel that Dillard's is high end enough. And, they don't want Hyatt competing with their Westins, under the same roof. It's Pretty Simple.

 

 

I seriously doubt that Simon doesn't want Dillard's as a tenant. It's a major department store that would be a anchor tenant. Also Dillard's and Macy's are about neck and neck as far as their rank in department store class, especially since Macy's purchased Foley's. Also every store in The Galleria is not high end there are plenty of lower end stores in The Galleria. I think the amount of lower end stores in The Galleria will only increase due to the new retail developments coming online like River Oaks District. It has already been stated that some of the higher end retailers are jumping ship for River Oaks District.

Dillard's owns that stores location. I hope they sell the land for redevelopment and become the anchor for a new Galleria extension like Monarch stated. Maybe Simon can purchase the property for another Galleria expansion. Simon is going to have to do what it takes to stay competitive.

 

All that, Fortune, plus, at the risk of over-burdening the forum with facts, Simon does not own the Westin Hotels.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Simon/Galleria wanted Dillard's, "under the roof", then why aren't they?  They have been sitting just across the street for Decades.  You don't really think that Dillard's is holding out or opposing the idea, do you?  It's been a ongoing discussion for a long time.  Houston19514, you probably are correct that Simon does not own the Westins...But, I they do own contracts with them and you can bet that there is something in there about not introducing any competing hotels to the property. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Simon/Galleria wanted Dillard's, "under the roof", then why aren't they?  They have been sitting just across the street for Decades.  You don't really think that Dillard's is holding out or opposing the idea, do you?  It's been a ongoing discussion for a long time.  Houston19514, you probably are correct that Simon does not own the Westins...But, I they do own contracts with them and you can bet that there is something in there about not introducing any competing hotels to the property. 

 

I have no idea whether Simon wants Dillards "under the roof" (and all indications are, neither do you).  But to say they don't want Dillards because they don't feel Dillards is high end enough is patently ridiculous.  The Galleria has plenty of stores that are at or below the level of Dillards.  Starting with Macy's and going down from there.  A mall that has a Payless Shoesource is not going to thumb its nose at Dillards for being insufficiently high-end.

 

Re:  the hotels;  Perhaps; although I think it's unlikely.  But this is all a silly academic discussion anyway.  The idea of building a skywalk to connect the new hotels to the Galleria is a horrible idea for myriad other reasons and I doubt that either Simon or the hotel developer would have much interest in spending the money to build it.

Edited by Houston19514
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea whether Simon wants Dillards "under the roof" (and all indications are, neither do you). But to say they don't want Dillards because they don't feel Dillards is high end enough is patently ridiculous. The Galleria has plenty of stores that are at or below the level of Dillards. Starting with Macy's and going down from there. A mall that has a Payless Shoesource is not going to thumb its nose at Dillards for being insufficiently high-end.

My point exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

why doesnt Simon develop a mall in downtown? or at least help out with the planned retail district, instead of throwing up outlet malls all across the burbs.

The Cypress Outlet is one of their most profitable malls. I believe they bring in ~$900 per square foot monthly. Edited by BigFootsSocks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps he since he can't tell us what it is, he can tell us what it's not?

If I had to guess - I'd say Simon at the Astroworld plot. Nearest shopping centers are Meyerland, Pearland and Gulfgate. Plenty of income nearby with the MedCenter. Potential hookup to both NRG Park & MetroRail (would be city's only shopping center connected to Rail).

But IIRC half of the site got sold to the county? Who knows ...just a guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point exactly.

Agreed. If Dillard's was smart, they would move...they would get a premium for that premier site. Then use some of the money to build a fresh modern expression of itself nearby.

Maybe configure themselves into BLVD Place in a deal with Wulfe & Co. or the Uptown Park redevelopment. They're clearly out of place with that old tired store in the midst of all that extraordinary Galleria development. The Dillard's tract is a waste of land, as that store doesn't fit the location anymore. It's now a relic and BUTT UGLY.

I'm not saying they need to get out of town, just away from the Galleria. Something fabulous and iconic could be built there...something Williams Tower-ish.

Edited by HTOWN LIVE
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. If Dillard's was smart, they would move...they would get a premium for that premier site. Then use some of the money to build a fresh modern expression of itself nearby.

Maybe configure themselves into BLVD Place in a deal with Wulfe & Co. or the Uptown Park redevelopment. They're clearly out of place with that old tired store in the midst of all that extraordinary Galleria development. The Dillard's tract is a waste of land, as that store doesn't fit the location anymore. It's now a relic and BUTT UGLY.

I'm not saying they need to get out of town, just away from the Galleria. Something fabulous and iconic could be built there...something Williams Tower-ish.

Agreed.  The Dillard's really detracts from the beauty of the Zone D'erotica building.  

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you ever seen how many people cross Post Oak to get from the Galleria to Dillard's on any given weekend?

From a business perspective, Dillard's is absolutely not out of place.

Those masses of people are making their way back to their cars...everybody knows Dillard's exists for the sake of extended Galleria parking. They certainly aren't going there to shop.

Dillard's is a morgue on good days...but it's parking is great for Galleria overflow. That Dillard's isn't making much money...but they would make some if they took a page from Tootsie's book and moved nearby to a refreshed new location. They should swallow their pride and take the money and run.

They definitely need a new `do' and developers could use the space. Everybody wins, especially Houston.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. If Dillard's was smart, they would move...they would get a premium for that premier site. Then use some of the money to build a fresh modern expression of itself nearby.

Maybe configure themselves into BLVD Place in a deal with Wulfe & Co. or the Uptown Park redevelopment. They're clearly out of place with that old tired store in the midst of all that extraordinary Galleria development. The Dillard's tract is a waste of land, as that store doesn't fit the location anymore. It's now a relic and BUTT UGLY.

I'm not saying they need to get out of town, just away from the Galleria. Something fabulous and iconic could be built there...something Williams Tower-ish.

I'll bet Dillards owns that lot (but not the Zone d'erotica) and will gladly sell it for a cool $100 Million, otherwise I'm sure we would have seen a redevelopment there many years ago.  Otherwise they aren't leaving.  They're not "attached" to the Galleria, but they are essentially a part of that complex and they would be a fool to leave the biggest, best performing mall in this whole region of the US.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to Houston Photo: The Galleria Mall On Sage Rd. Facing Williams Tower

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...