Chain Invasion

[rlibkind]

....Not just restaurants, but all manner of retailers.  Compounding things - South Delaware Avenue's burgeoning strip mall killing off the local hardware stores, movie theatres, furniture stores and many other retailers.

←

In broad strokes, I don't take much exception to this statement, but I think the independent retailers who do disappear often have problems to begin with, or fail to take advantage of their advantages; those who have their act together can not merely survive, but thrive.

What got me going on this off-thread comment was the hardware store reference. Yes, there are a fair number that have closed. But in my neighborhood, Fairmount, the local store has expanded and thrived, even though it faces competition of HD and Lowe's. Why? They have all the basics and they are convenient. They charge a tad more for that convenience, but like Wawa and am/pm, we urbanites don't mind being gouged a little (how's that for an oxymoron?) if it saves us some time and effort.

[Capaneus]

I think there are a couple of salient points to be made: I still can't get a near-term reservation to Django, Matyson, Marigold. If a thousand chain restaurants open, I won't be able to get a table at any of these any more easily. Because they aren't catering to the same market. Conversely, I cannot imagine a chain managing to compete for this niche. The threat is to local restaurants that vie for the same dollars: by and large, accessible common denominator food; or business-lunch-friendly settings. But not only are there few local places trying for these patrons, the ones there are have few advantages over the chains. I am not convinced anyone ever picks McDonald's over Tony Lukes, though I can see the evolution going the other way. They might pick a familiar-looking greasy spoon. But there isn't any guarantee that place has any merit over the chains, apart from the economic advantage of keeping profits local. In food terms, the restaurants that might suffer are going to be the lowest-common-denominator ones. And though I feel their pain, that does mean pressure on local restaurants to distinguish themselves, to be better. And that can only be good.

As to the real estate crunch... anyone else notice how the good restaurants are springing up all over? West Philly. Northeast. Places in South Philly that are not Italian, or that are ambitious takes on Italian food? Restaurants won't stop appearing, they'll just open where the market allows it. And that is likely, in turn, to expand their appeal, as local people who might not have made the trek to Walnut St. do try the place on their corner.

I cannot believe I'm making the "The Market is Good" argument. But I really don't see much of a threat from these chains to anything we care about.

Edited August 5, 2005 by Capaneus (log)

[philadining]

But I really don't see much of a threat from these chains to anything we care about.

←

I agree with this argument, but the phenomenon Holly refers to is probably an element in Lombardi's not relocating in Philly, to give a concrete example. I know that rent was not the only factor, and I'm not sure we can blame rent increases completely on chain restaurants, but it is a factor that makes it harder for the independent locals.

But this is the way of urban cycles, isn't it? Creative pioneers stake out an area, make it attractive, soon they can't afford it any more. That's happened to most of Center City now, can't be long before Northern Liberties gets an Olive Garden. I'm not sure the chains are causing it, they're probably more of a symptom....

Edited August 6, 2005 by philadining (log)

[MarketStEl]

Riffing off Capaneus' observation about what sorts of local restaurants the chains will hurt most, I can think of an analogue within the gay community.

I imagine that some of you on this board have heard of The Venture Inn. One of the oldest continuously operating restaurants in the city, this intimate spot in a charming old building on Camac Street (next to the late, lamented Inn Philadelphia) has been a fixture in the gay community for more than a quarter century.

For about the first 20 of those 25 years, it was also the place to go for gay men who wanted a reasonably priced fine-dining experience in an atmosphere where they could be who they were. The restaurant was busy just about every night of the week and on Sundays, when it offered a popular brunch special. Even though it had a reputation for drawing an over-the-hill crowd (it is still widely known as "The Denture Inn"), it did a very good trade among the mature gay set.

That no longer seems to be the case. The Sunday brunch has been discontinued, former frequent patrons such as myself now dine there infrequently, and longtime owner Ted Wasserman is rumored to have the place up for sale.

What has made the difference over that time is that the "regular" restaurants (indie, chain, doesn't matter) have become much more sensitive and accommodating to the needs of gay customers. When you can be who you are at a reasonably priced fine-dining establishment of any stripe, there's less of a need for a place specifically for a gay clientele. After all, it's the food we're going out for. (On the other hand, the advent of a number of establishments that are either openly gay-oriented [bump] or extremely gay-friendly [Valanni] that also serve outstanding food also hurt The Venture Inn's business, as its food has never really been much better than average.)

And so it is with the chains and the indies. The chains, in this case, are to dining what the old B-movie theaters were to cinema. They do well in urban locations because there are still lots of urbanites who are simply looking for a place to eat for not much money, not necessarily for a specific sort of cuisine or experience. While there are high-end chains that cater to that latter crowd, the indies should continue to dominate this segment, for they offer the uniqueness a chain cannot match. If I were the owner of Pasion!, I wouldn't worry that much about Applebee's opening next door. If I were the owner of the Locust Rendezvous around the corner, I would.

Now some speculation as to why chains do better in cities than indies do in the 'burbs. Actually, it probably boils down to one factor: walking.

You will note that in the Philadelphia area, there are some suburbs, most notably but not exclusively on the Main Line, that do support a number of good independent and local chain restaurants. (For purposes of this argument, I will lump the local chains [Lamberti, e.g.] in with the indies.) Almost all of these, however, are either 18th-century towns that have since been surrounded by expanding suburbia (Moorestown, N.J.) or 19th- and early-20th-century railroad suburbs (the entire Main Line). What these communities have, and postwar Auto Age suburbia lacks, is pedestrian-scale business districts that people can "browse" on foot. Unfortunately, "browsing" a business strip is much harder behind the wheel of a car traveling 40 mph. An attractive storefront or a menu displayed by the door just won't cut it. You have to have a building and signage that can be read much more quickly and from much further away. For an independent restaurant operator working from a small capital base, the expense of desiging such structures and signage takes money away from the restaurant itself. That all but cedes the Auto Age 'burbs to the chains, with maybe the occasional indie strip-mall standout restaurant.