Chicagoist: Roundy's To Squeeze Into More Overdeveloped Neighborhoods

joseph_dunphy_in_chicago

Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:22:27 -0600

"Of course there are, Chuck, but where do you draw the line? Are the people of Preservation Chicago who publish the annual list of the most endangered Chicago buildings wasting their time?" Basically yes, sad to say.

Seth Anderson

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:07:10 -0600

Re: not enough foot traffic. I could see that. There are plenty of people walking around downtown sure, but I don't see them loading up their car trunks with $200 worth of groceries. Maybe when the density of actual full-time residents increases, but not currently. Grocery chains have pretty thin margins, and I assume the rent downtown would be pretty steep (compared to 40 years ago). Monroe and Halsted is pretty close to the Skybridge Dominick's, isn't it? And there's a Jewel being constructed at Halsted and Fulton (or nearby).

itbusch

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:17:38 -0600

As a former Roundy's employee I find some of the comments humorous in regards to a Wisconsin company. Mariano and his primary cronies are all former Dominick's boys that run Roundy's as a Chicago company not a Wisconsin one. They don't even live in the state, they live in Lake Forest and Barrington. While this mentality works down there it doesn't here and he has screwed the company around in more ways than one. More people are pissed off at Pick 'n Save than they are thrilled at shopping there. There, as always are exceptions, but for the most part you don't have to worry about a dairyland mentality. I will say, being a former flatlander, that I to remember the banner days of Dominick's. But as was done with Roundy's and its labels, Dominick's will become nothing more than a memory of what the grocery business was versus being run with the all mighty bottom line in tow - not the customer.

itbusch

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:17:18 -0600

spookhatespuppies

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:45:32 -0600

Hey, I'm all for Wal-Mart. All the anti-union, sexist, outsourcing crap they pull is the same stuff Target, K-Mart, and everyone else does anyway nowadays.

YoknapatawphaTourismBoard

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:14:14 -0600

There are quite a few problems with the food deserts that the existence of another chain won't affect one way or the other. To wit: - One of the reasons that grocery stores proliferate in these neighborhoods is a concentration of professionals who buy prepared and partially prepared meals at a premium - These same consumers purchase profitable gourmet options (artisanal, imported, and organic) at a larger mark up than most groceries. - The cost of building a new grocery store, with all of the attendant hardware, display cases, etc. is high. - Former chain grocery store tenants often stipulate that even if they leave, the space may not be used by another grocer for some period of time. (There was a push to outlaw this practice, but I don't recall ever hearing that it passed.) The problem with the food deserts is one that needs to be solved with large tax incentives and, quite possibly, city ownership of the land in question and discounted rental/lease rates until the building and start up costs can be recooped. Wal-Mart has also expressed interest in building some combo grocery & retail stores on the south side. I wonder whether my fellow liberals on Chicagoist who opposed Wal-Mart would protest even if it meant alleviating some of the nutritional impoverishment of Chicago's most disadvantaged citizens. The alternative is to create a cheritable foundation to subsidize a grocer until it can turn a profit. Even then, it's still cheaper to get 2000 calories from Hostess cupcakes than from a well-balanced diet. I wonder to what degree the latter would need to be incentivized on the consumer end, too.

Scooter Libbby

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:59:44 -0600

Mariano is an idiot if he thinks there isn't the foot traffic, let alone the need for a grocer in the Loop. 40 years ago the Loop had Hillman's on Washington Street, a Hillman's in the basement of the Sears store & a grocery in the basements of both Wieboldt's & Goldblatt's. So from four grocers to zero & he can't figure out that just one could make a lot of money. It just shows you that the bigger the business, the bigger the fools that run them!

mepps

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:38:12 -0600

Do you really think Dominicks, Jewel, etc... dont have very specific numbers and formulas relating to area demographics, income, location, accessability etc... in regards to where a store will make money?? As soon as it becomes viable or profitable for a grocery store to open up around these food deserts, they will! There is no reason for them not to...well actually this is chicago and they would have to go through city hall which has proved to be hostile to markets and goods being provided cheaply in underserved areas, so maybe my theory is wrong.

Pinko

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:22:15 -0600

What sense does it make for Roundy's to invest in a grocery store where there isnt any money to be made (e.g., food desert)? "Food desert" doesn't mean that there are no people living there, only that there are few viable options for feeding oneself (i.e. grocery stores) outside of fast food restaurants. And even if the area residents are low-income, they still have to eat, don't they? It seems to me that a grocer would want to build in a food desert--there's no competition...

matty

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:10:07 -0600

I agree with the grocery stores in developed neighborhoods argument. A lot of Chicago has food deserts and this is not the way to get more food out to those areas. Not that any of these stores are charities, however, I would just think that there would be a market in these areas for food.

boris ramrod

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:01:30 -0600

When asked why he robbed banks, Willie Sutton said "because that's where the money is". What sense does it make for Roundy's to invest in a grocery store where there isnt any money to be made (e.g., food desert)? I know you think they "should" but seriously, why would they?

mss2400

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:24:28 -0600

I respectfully disagree. More competition in a market is almost always better. Oh, don't hold your breath waiting for any of the proposed sights to become parks....they will be zoned for retail. So if we don't get a grocery store there, it will be some other retail chain (which Chicagoist, no doubt, will complain about). With respect to those "grocery deserts" in the city, I don't recall Chicagoist being very supportive of Wal-Mart's efforts to build supercenters on the south and west sides....

rwkozlowski

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:21:55 -0600

The Dominick's nearest us is the one at Foster and Lincoln, and to say it's an afterthought of a grocery store would be a severe understatement. It is beyond horrible. I would gladly welcome a replacement.

Pinko

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:18:19 -0600

Of course there are, Chuck, but where do you draw the line? Are the people of Preservation Chicago who publish the annual list of the most endangered Chicago buildings wasting their time? Were the people who fought to keep the White Sox in Chicago and not Tampa Bay during the late eighties misguided in their efforts? It takes all kinds, and what's important to some may not be important to others, but not everyone has to work at curing cancer or solving world hunger for their efforts to be appreciated... I'm not a Field's protester, but I'm encouraged anytime I see people working together for something bigger than themselves. The type of people that mobilize to try and save the legacy of a historic department store are probably the same type of people who are more likely to become involved in other worthwhile community efforts. Meanwhile, the majority of people are content to just sit back and look no further than the walls of the tiny bubble in which they live their daily lives...

smussy

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:18:14 -0600

i'm not saying that i want them to change the dominick's name, but it would be a trip to have a pick-n-save here. maybe my parents would feel more comfortable in the SCAAARY city! seriously though, i remember when target came here (before they became the giant they seem to be today) and i was all 'what's the big deal?' we used to go to ratty-ass target when i was a kid. it was slightly better than k-mart, but it was still dark and grungy.' and now ... just look at them, giving michael jackson money for using beatles songs in their ads and stuff ... they're all grown up.

Chuck Sudo

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:57:30 -0600

Or maybe I'm just reminding you that there are more important issues facing this city than the name change of a department store.

Pinko

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:47:28 -0600

Yeah... Because Dominick DiMatteo was another Chicago icon who was just as instrumental in shaping Chicago history and his respective industry as Marshall Field. I mean, what Chicagoan doesn't have fond childhood memories of family trips downtown to the historic flagship Dominick's store for an afternoon of grocery shopping? Or of visiting the Dominick Museum of Natural History or one of the other storied cultural institutions that the DiMatteo family established? Nice attempt to ruffle feathers, Chuck, but you're comparing apples to oranges and you know it...