|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Stanford University has dropped its ambitious plan to expand the Stanford Shopping Center and to add a hotel to the mall site.
Stanford officials said the university decided to abort its plan for a shopping-center expansion so that it could focus all its energies on its other major Palo Alto project — the massive renovation of its medical center. Stanford announced its plans to withdraw the shopping-center application in a letter and at a meeting with City Manager James Keene and Mayor Peter Drekmeier Tuesday morning.
“It is unfortunate we have had to take this step, especially given the effort, time and dollars invested by all parties,” stated the letter, signed by Stanford Vice President Robert Reidy.
The Simon Property Group of Indianapolis, which owns and manages the shopping center under a lease with Stanford University, has been planning to add 240,000 square feet of retail space, as well as a new 120-room hotel, to the shopping center. Simon’s agreement with Stanford gave the university the right to withdraw the application.
Simon’s application has been crawling through the city’s approval process since August of 2007. City officials have been consistently referring to the expansion as one of Stanford’s two potentially “transformative” projects, with the other one being Stanford’s proposed hospital expansion.
On March 30, City Manager James Keene stressed the potential financial benefits the shopping-center expansion would have on the city and called the shopping center “a critical sales-tax generator for the city.”
The withdrawal of the Simon’s shopping-center application means the city will not receive the millions in sales- and hotel-tax revenues it planned on drawing from the shopping-center project. City staff has estimated that the new retail space would have brought in about $1.6 million in annual sales-tax revenues, while a 120-room hotel would have given the city $1.1 million in revenues.
The city was also planning to collect about $9 million in impact fees from Stanford for the shopping-center expansion, money that would be used to mitigate the project’s impacts on local schools.
A recent city report stated that Palo Alto is expecting a 10.4 percent slump in sales taxes — or $2.3 million out of a total estimated $22.1 million — for the current fiscal year, which ends June 30.
Stanford officials said the university decided to withdraw its shopping-center plans because the city has been consistently lumping the two major projects together, which Stanford said creates “confusion and distraction” and diverts focus from the hospital project. Reidy argued in his letter that the City Council and the Planning and Transportation Commission have been routinely treating the two projects as “one large project.”
“The intertwining of the Shopping Center with Stanford’s priority for hospital renewal has created confusion for the public and even the City Council that sought it,” the letter stated.
The shopping-center expansion, Stanford noted, was the city’s idea and not Stanford’s. But in recent months, the plans for new retail space have been interfering with the university’s main goal: to renovate Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital and Stanford Hospital and Clinics.
Stanford plans to add 104 beds to the Children’s Hospital, raising its total to 361, and to create more space for families in patients’ rooms. The university also plans to furnish Stanford Hospital with 144 beds — raising the total bed count to 600 — and add 824,000 square feet of new space. Stanford estimates the medical center will have 2,243 new workers by 2025.
Jean McCown, Stanford’s director of community relations, said the university’s application withdrawal reflects Stanford’s position that the hospital project is the higher priority of the two. Stanford needs to retrofit its hospitals to meet California’s seismic requirements by 2013 and university officials say the project is already at least a year behind schedule.
Stanford has also argued that the hospital facilities desperately need more space. Close to 900 patients had to be turned away from the two hospitals in 2007 because of a lack of space.
Stanford had previously agreed to apply for the two projects concurrently, though university officials insisted that the merits and impacts of each projects be considered separately.
Stanford has been particularly concerned about the city’s request that the hospital provide 594 units of housing. Stanford has argued that the city has been asking the hospitals to shoulder a disproportionate burden in mitigating the housing and traffic impacts from the two expansion projects.
Drekmeier said that while the two projects were studied simultaneously, the City Council could have easily voted on them separately, after evaluating the merits of each.
“This wasn’t a packaged deal,” Drekmeier said. “Stanford’s concern was that the perception of the community was that this was a big, packaged deal.”
McCown said that the shopping-mall plan may or may not return to the city in the future.
“The priority now is to expedite the entitlement process for the hospitals, so there will be no further consideration of the Shopping Center. At some point after the hospitals’ entitlement process is resolved, a discussion of whether it comes back or not can begin,” she said.
Stanford Hospital and Children’s Hospital officials also sent the city a letter underscoring the need to seriously consider the inherent community benefits of the hospital projects, namely world-class health care to Palo Alto and neighboring communities. The city has repeatedly acknowledged that the hospital would provide major benefits, but council members insisted that Stanford provide other benefits because its proposed expansion calls for development at a greater density than the city’s zoning regulations allow.
The letter,co-signed by Christopher Dawes, president and chief executive officer of Children’s Hospital, and Martha Marsh, president and chief executive officer of Stanford Hospital and Clinics, says the hospitals are currently evaluating which mitigation measures they would be able to provide.
“We are facing higher financing costs, greater difficulty in raising private donations, and the need to provide more care to those who cannot afford to pay for health care,” states the letter, “This reduces the hospitals’ financial ability to afford these projects, which are much needed by the community.
“If, in addition, the City requires millions of dollars in costs for items that are not related to the health care or the impacts of the projects themselves, these projects will be in great financial jeopardy.”
Related article:
OMG! Stanford unhappy about being blackmailed by Palo Alto! Palo Alto to lose potential revenue from the shopping center expansion that it requested! Time for the Palo Alto Process! Hire a consultant!
This is good news. Now Stanford can concentrate on upgrading the hospital. The size of the hospital should not be increased because we do not have the water or energy (or roads) to support a larger hospital. This does not mean that Stanford can not find another location for a new hospital.
The many new dense housing projects in Palo Alto have forced us to add another story to elementary schools, and caused higher power and water usage. A larger hospital will mean we will have to increase the size of our water/sewer/power infrastructure. This is a costly consequence.
While there have been some improvements in this year’s hydrologic
conditions, allocations to state and federal water contractors are expected to remain at or near record lows for the rest of 2009. As a result, many parts of California will be faced with reduced water supplies this year.
Responding to conditions this year and preparing for possible future
dry years pose compelling, yet critically important, challenges to meet statewide waterneeds.
http://www.water.ca.gov/news/newsreleases/2009/040209droughtrpt-gov.pdf
The Palo Alto City Council themselves wanted the Shopping Center enlarged and then a boutique hotel built on site. Then they decided to give Stanford endless grief about it and tried to leverage their request to extort concessions from Stanford.
Great decision by Stanford–focus on the hospital which faces a 2013 mandate for seismic upgrades.
As usual, the council is clueless.
This will give Stanford the opportunity to greatly scale back its density request for their new regional Medical Center and hospitals or locate this complex somewhere else. With all the other expansions Stanford plans and given the economic upheaval in America, now is the time for Stanford to reduce their own appetite for growth to better align with their fund raising realities.
The Stanford Medical Center proposal has always been a giant regional expansion project jammed onto limited Stanford land at twice the density zoning allows which ABAG says Palo Alto alone must provide housing for. Palo Alto’s request that Stanford mitigate the housing imbalance is completely reasonable, in fact, the only thing Palo Alto can do. Stanford should acknowledge that fact and stop its shameful game-playing.
Good for Stanford! The hospital is clearly the higher priority of the two. Too bad the City Council screwed up the process and insisted on burdening the hospital with the housing projects. Handled in a smarter manner, the city of Palo Alto could have ended up with both.
“Handled in a smarter manner, the city of Palo Alto could have ended up with both. “
Not with our city council–we have members whining about “too much traffic” and others saying 50+ demands are non-negotiable. Stanford does not need this headache
No,Stanford does not need this headache and Palo Alto does not need this clueless city council which should be tossed out of office individually or collectively. It has been a disaster.. Kishimoto should drop the idea of running for the Assembly. She hasn’t got a chance -or a clue. AS wfor losing the $1.2M revenue….do you suppose that bonus money will disappear? Or am I being naive.
Sounds like some Palo Alto whiners haven’t heard about the depression.
People aren’t spending money, hotel income is way down, stores are losing money and closing.
Get a clue, fellas.
Stanford, job well done. Growing population will need best possible health care. City of palo alto council need anther surprise blow on the headech they are giving to palo altons on high speed rail.
If the Childrens Hospital is so short of space, why do they advertise so much in all the papers soliciting new patients?
Something funny going on there.
Love our mayor’s quotes:
“Mainly, it would eliminate the traffic”
Anybody else see this one coming?
“”Obviously, having a couple of million extra dollars in the general fund is a huge benefit to the city,” “
From a person who has no concept of money. I guess he feels we can raid the utility fund some more
“”This wasn’t a packaged deal,” Drekmeier said. “Stanford’s concern was that the perception of the community was that this was a big, packaged deal.””
You could have fooled me. The cities list of 50+ demands had them linked. the way the council dealt with the issue made it sound like it was a package deal.
This was poor strategy on Stanford’s part. I would have held the threat of foregoing the shopping center expansion to get more leverage on the hospital project. Then after the hospital entitlements were in place I would have decided whether or not to cancel the shopping center expansion.
Maybe now our City Council will look into providing us with some affordable shopping in our City so that we can shop and bring sales tax to PA instead of Mountain View, Redwood City or wherever the average man on Palo Alto streets shops for everyday items everyday.
How much longer do you you think Anderson Honda is goingto stay around. they have said many times that they need a location near the freeway for their showroom. They are getting pressure from HQ to do something. Our city council has been aware of this issue for a number of years–and yet no council member has shown any leadership about this issue. Maybe this should be a priority instead of climate change, civic engagement, farmer’s markets and other nonsense the council likes to toy with
Drekmeier is incapable of taking any bit of the blame. Stanford specifically stated it withdrew because the City Council and the Planning Commission were lumping the two projects together. Drekmeier turns around and says it’s because Stanford thought the “community” was lumping them together.
Not sure why the city council thinks they can out smart Stanford. Stanford will eventually get their hospital and their bigger mall, as they should. The city is broke and they’re worried about a bit more traffic. But, they want to attract more people here to spend money to increase revenues. Pure genius.
I actually don’t blame the city too much. Stanford plays very hard ball and anyone who doesn’t see this latest move as some serious gamemanship is crazy. Stanford needs to be willing to put some housing and even a school on their land.
This will be the usual PA-Stanford win-win: Stanford will get what it wants, and Palo Alto will get what Stanford wants it to hzve.
I remember this happening when I was a little boy. It wasn’t going the way the big bully in the neighborhood thought it should, so he picked up his football and went home.
FYI: Stanford already hosts four PAUSD schools (Paly, Gunn, Nixon, and Escondido) on its lands. Stanford also contributed $10 Million to the renovation and reopening of Terman in 2001. Stanford also provides land for one MP school and Stanford’s School of Education is responsible for a charter school in EPA.
Maybe they already are doing enough to support our local schools…
Darn! I was so looking foward to more overpriced shops and rubbing elbows with the Shallow Alto residents.
We must throw out these two ideologues before they wreck our city. How about a recall campaign? Also a new party committed to getting rid of Drekmaier and Kishimoto?
As I see it, the problem with the hospital proposal has never been the seismic retrofit. The problem is the HUGE amount of expansion Stanford is asking for. If Stanford really wants to move the hospital upgrade forward expeditiously, it could achieve that by doing a major scale back on the amount of proposed expansion. If meeting the seismic upgrade deadline really is the top concern, then propose an upgraded hospital with little or no expansion; just design the project so that future expansions (if adequately mitigated) could be still be added after the 2013 deadline.
Perhaps, with the Shopping Center expansion off the table, City officials can focus on the merits/impacts of the hospital project without being distracted by the enticement of the potential sales/hotel tax of the Shopping Center expansion.
The problem with the hospital proposal is Palo Alto, it’s lack of leadership on the council and the feeling that the “Palo Alto Process” is sacred.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2007/november28/med-rebuild-112807.html
“The proposal calls for replacing the 50-year-old Stanford Hospital building, built during the Eisenhower era. The new hospital—a seven-story structure with some buildings up to 130 feet—would be nearly twice as large, offering single-bed rooms for patients and increasing its total beds from 456 to 600. Also, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital would increase its capacity by 104 patient beds for a total of 361 beds on site. The medical school would replace and renovate 400,000 square feet of outdated laboratories and related facilities.
A top priority is expanding the emergency department, which serves both Stanford and Packard Children’s hospitals and is the only level-1 trauma center between San Francisco and San Jose. It was built to serve 70 patients per day but now serves 125 to 150. The emergency department planned for the new hospital will more than double the existing space. Marsh noted that on the afternoon of Nov. 16, there were 18 patients waiting up to 44 hours in the emergency department for admission to the hospital because of a lack of available beds. Christopher Dawes, the Packard Children’s Hospital CEO, also recounted a single evening last week when the hospital turned away two boys with head injuries because no beds were available.
The council first heard an encouraging report from Marlene Berkoff, a California architect specializing in health care who was hired by the city to conduct a peer review of the project.
Berkoff evaluated Stanford’s design concepts and found them within norms for comparable hospitals, including academic medical centers nationwide.
“The numbers Stanford is proposing for the size of the rooms are very consistent with their peers across the nation,” Berkoff said. “If you stack up three floors, you’re pretty much at a 50-foot height limit,” she said, referring to Palo Alto’s citywide construction ceiling. Stanford is requesting rezoning to build higher and more square feet. “
It is entirely possible that there is no capital for both projects, and one needs to be cut.
They are saying this and that so that when they do get the capital, they’ll have a barganing chip.
They should just be honest about it all: THEY DON’T HAVE THE MONEY.
I would be very surpised if the SIMON property group who has a lot of debt and who’s stock has been hit by the economy will have the ability to raise new capital at a reasonable cost for this project.
Put two and two together, people!
I agree with the opinion above that this is Stanford gamesmanship.
This will soften up the City of Palo Alto for the next rounds. Stanford has the very best on its business strategy and negotiation team. We have Gray Davis-grade politicians and bureaucrats.
Stanford is going to win this one, and in their preferred timeframe.
It is the Economy Stupid has it right.
There is a depression going on with stores closing left and right.
Luxury hotels are hurting. Why would Stanford and Simon push ahead
with something that is stupid economically? The city was goading them into doing this and made Stanford think it would grease the skids for the hospital. Now Palo Alto was using the shopping center as an excuse to delay the hospital.
The city council needs to get a clue.
You are all missing the real point here. Look around and see what is going on everywhere lately. PA Medical clinic putting on hold a facility in San Carlos. A 14 acre development in Foster City be shelved. The Bay Meadows development project in San Mateo be delayed indefinitely.
Stanford can lay the blame wherever they want, the real reason they are pulling out is the economy. Their endowment has shrunk dramatically. Look at the big picture and understand.
Chop Keenan summed it quite nicely in today’s Daily Post:
“The current council are unbelievably disconnected from reality. This city is so misguided”
The facts may be that many PA residents did not want the shopping center to expand, but the truth is that the council did and had put their eggs in that basket. They were not interested in what residents wanted (affordable shopping) but had their own agenda. They have done their best to discourage affordable shopping expecting the Stanford expansion to bring in more tax dollars to line the coffers. Now that that is not going to happen, the reality sets in of how to bring in more sales tax. The council does not like this, they have egg on their face.
Many of us have been saying that we want affordable shopping and not boutique shopping as in downtown, Stanford and T & C. Now it appears we have no affordable shopping and no Stanford expansion.
I’m sure Mountain View and Menlo/Redwood are rubbing their hands in glee.
Ellieg: Of course plastic bags are bad for the environment. I agree wholeheartedly. What I object to is Council spending so much time on bag bans, hate-free zones, Color of Palo Alto, and other (costly) non-essentials, while spending miniscule amounts of time on economic planning and budgeting.
To all those who keep complaining about traffic: Unless we build a moat around the city, traffic isn’t going to stop. People drive through the city — e.g., along Oregon, Embarcadero, Middlefield, El Camino — to spend their money at stores in Mountain View and EPA.
Palo Altan says, “No need to be whores for a small increment of sales tax revenue.” What’s a “small increment”? From http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=11963: “City staff has estimated that the new retail space would have brought in about $1.6 million in annual sales-tax revenues, while a 120-room hotel would have given the city $1.1 million in revenues.”
Would you rather have utility rates raised even more to pay for the deficit?
Unless we want to be another Atherton, we have to have a tax base. AND we have to cut staffing/salaries/benefits!
>>>I’m sure Mountain View and Menlo/Redwood are rubbing their hands in glee.<<<
Er, maybe you haven’t noticed, but Menlo Park does not have any discount shopping areas either. However, this decision by Stanford is good news for us. Why? Because an expansion of the shopping center would have dumped much more traffic onto our streets. But, unlike Palo Alto, we don’t get any revenue from the shopping center, and we wouldn’t have received one penny from the increase in sales tax revenues.
Stanford may be selfish, but so is Palo Alto. In Menlo Park, we’re used to picking up after both of you, for free. And nothing we can do about it.
What Stanford Shopping Center needs is a Kohl’s (marvelous store) and a good ole JC Penny for the ‘rest of us to shop’. The nearest one is in Cupertino, a long way to drive. We need more affordable stores – and restaurants like Appleby’s, Shoney’s, and IHOP. Even Denny’s is gone now. Popular Fresh Choice is in Mt. View having been thrown out of Stanford Shopping Center. There is a new restaurant at Town and Country, Mayfield Cafe and Bakery. But the prices even for lunch are wallet-breaking for most of us. The rich, like the “Steve’s” and the Google-ites et al get the publicity, but a vast area of the city is not in that $$$ class, and there is a growing number of those over sixty, retired, and on Social Security. . Over 50% of the city is rental. With all of this ‘affordable’ and below market housing, the ratio is going up and we have to drive to Mountain View and RWC to drive. Palo Alto and Stanford – GET A CLUE.
Last night there was little milk left at Safeway Midtownat 8:30 p.m. ., but when I asked if there were any, I was told that it was in the back – but no one would get me any because “we are on break”. GIVE ME A BREAK.
This is the biggest roadblock: “Stanford has been particularly concerned about the city’s request that the hospital provide 594 units of housing. Stanford has argued that the city has been asking the hospitals to shoulder a disproportionate burden in mitigating the housing and traffic impacts from the two expansion projects.” Why did the Palo Alto City Council insist on this?
I love how the Town & Country sign for Trader Joe’s says opening Spring 2009 and they haven’t even broken ground.
So off I went yesterday to the Menlo Park Trader Joe’s and some other stores in Menlo Park to do some routine shopping. Why would Palo Alto want my tax revenue?
Oh, just a reminder to check the mailing from the PA Utilities Commission describing the next round of increases. Buried in the verbiage is an invitation to comment and a note saying that if enough people object to the increases, they won’t be implemented.
Stanford throws Simon Properties under the bus. That’s the headline folks back at Indianapolis headquarters now see.
Simon Properties, who heretofor was trying to act like the poor guy who was asked to expand his itty bitty Mall by the City of Palo Alto and was willing to accomodate to a point, now is ‘very disappointed’ Stanford isn’t backing the Shopping Center expansion anymore. Simon is just realizing they could be stuck with a $350 investment they can’t freshen up or expand at will. I’ll bet the guy who master-minded that acquisition by Simon is standing at attention in front of his CEO right now.
Now, this is all about Stanford, the Palo Alto community, and the Palo Alto Council. Remember, the community has yet to see the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on this monster development. Now a revised EIR is in order, before the original even sees the light of day. You can feel the beads of perspiration building up on Stanford’s brow as it braces for the EIR, which can’t be good news for anyone.
Stanford clearly is trying to deflect attention from, if not wiggle free from, the one City request with big financial implications… the 594 housing units Palo Alto seeks to accomodate the 2,200 new employees the expanded Medical Center will need. Notice all the claims of community and medical benefits coming from Stanford strategist Jean McCown. Nary a concilliary statement; nary an olive branch extended. It certainly looks like Stanford’s ‘scorched earth’ strategy; burn everybody blocking their path.
Couldn’t that overload Stanford’s world-renownd burn unit, just like the BIG ONE will?
Nary a mention of how Stanford plans to rationally accomodate all the new emergency staff this regional hospital complex will require. When the BIG ONE hits, neither Stanford nor anyone else wants to see emergency employees stuck in Turlock, unable to report to help the life-or-death emergency cases piling up from six counties at the Stanford Hospitals.
Greg Schmid noted that Stanford agreed with the County in 2000 to add 300+ housing units for grad students; not one has yet been added. “Let’s make sure,” Councilmember Schmid added, “that Stanford does not try take credit for the 300+ housing units promised to the County years ago, but still not built, to any new total now being requested by the City.”
Many Palo Altans regularly do grocery shopping in Safeway, Menlo Park. Not discount, but it is full service. We also use MP Trader Joe and Big 5 Sports (but that may change since Sports Authority has opened in EPA.
Yes, we do shop in Keplers too.
Grant–FYI regarding Grad housing:
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/rde/shs/grad/munger.htm
“We are pleased to announce the opening of the Munger Graduate Residence, available to graduate students in all disciplines, with priority given to Law School students. All units—consisting of studios, one-, two-, and four-bedroom apartments—include a private bath for each student. Four bedroom apartments also include a guest bathroom. All units are furnished with beautiful custom-designed furniture.
This premiere, architecturally distinctive property features exceptional campus views, beautifully appointed, fully-furnished air-conditioned apartments with open floor plans, spacious living rooms, private bedrooms and ensuite bathrooms, contemporary full kitchens, and other high-quality services and amenities.
These apartments offer generous square footage (utilities included), as well as green, sustainable features. Both nine- and twelve-month lease options are available. Two of the five buildings are currently open, with the remaining buildings scheduled to be available Fall 2009.”
Greg Schmid looks like he is out of touch with what is happening also. Not surprising considering he is on the city council and you, Grant, should not take everything a councilmember says as being the truth or even vaguely correct
The City of Palo Alto is notorious for being hard to deal with for commercial construction. The permit process is the biggest set back for most businesses and causes the most ill will towards the City’s employees. There’s no accountability and the delays are endless. That’s the holdup with Trader Joe’s and how much revenue do you suppose the City has lost because of the delays they’ve caused in the construction? I think Stanford did the right thing, too.
“The size of the hospital should not be increased because we do not have the water or energy (or roads) to support a larger hospital. This does not mean that Stanford can not find another location for a new hospital.”
and
“This will give Stanford the opportunity to greatly scale back its density request for their new regional Medical Center and hospitals or locate this complex somewhere else. With all the other expansions Stanford plans and given the economic upheaval in America, now is the time for Stanford to reduce their own appetite for growth to better align with their fund raising realities.”
and
“Notice all the claims of community and medical benefits coming from Stanford strategist Jean McCown. Nary a concilliary statement; nary an olive branch extended. It certainly looks like Stanford’s ‘scorched earth’ strategy; burn everybody blocking their path.”
Are these posters for real?!? God help us all is policy makers listen to any (and more) of the misguided statements above! per another post, there are serious structural deficiencies in high-end retail. The pull-away by Stanford has NOTHING to do with Palo Alto’s demands! Bone up on your negotiation tactics, folks!
You want your roads fixed? How about better intra-urban mass transport? You want our schools to remain tip-top? Do you realize how much Stanford’s medical center presence draws a certain demographic to our city, as home buyers? I see a lot of very wrong assumptions on this thread, from a few who think they really understand out city, but are really not looking out for our future, and, in fact, have not considered what the future is going to look like given the changes that are happening at 30,000 feet on the policy side, in America. How about the revenues necessary to go forward into the future, without stripping our city of most of its core services? There had better be some appreciation of Stanford’s contributions to the Palo Alto’s cache and future viability. If we don’t find a way to repair a very bad relationship, we’re missing huge opportunities!
Yes, residents can vote on two utility increases BUT there is a catch. The vote must be a letter to the City, not an e-mail and it is not a simple majority of letter writers It must be a majority plus ONE of all the utility ‘customers’. Two years ago after a concerted campaign to get people to write, I think only sixty – THAT 60 – customers did so. The legislature deliberately wrote the law that way to make sure the rates could not be overturned. Sneaky, huh?
Yes, residents can vote on two utility increases BUT there is a catch. The vote must be a letter to the City, not an e-mail and it is not a simple majority of letter writers It must be a majority plus ONE of all the utility ‘customers’. Two years ago after a concerted campaign to get people to write, I think only sixty – THAT 60 – customers did so. The legislature deliberately wrote the law that way to make sure the rates could not be overturned. Sneaky, huh?
Oh, POOR STANFORD!!!!!!!! Maybe there is something ELSE to do with their GOLD and their BRILLIANCE and their INSUFFERABLE real estate golums. GET BACK TO BEING A UNIVERSITY, you effing idiots!
AND to think I spent 8 years sucking that tit.
Has anyone walked around the Stanford Shopping Center on a week night? It’s like a ghost town. Except for Macy’s, the shops now close an hour earlier, at 8 p.m. Salespeople are thrilled to see the handful of shoppers. Stanford is smart to pull the plug on the proposed expansion.
The Stanford Shopping Center is lovely, but I’d love to see a “regular” mall in Palo Alto, with affordable shops. It’s odd to me that one was never created, but there is so much to me about Palo Alto that is unfathomable.
Its encouraging for us in Menlo Park to see that a few Palo Alto residents do venture to our City to shop. Compared to how many of us use your much bigger and varied retail shops in Palo Alto, it is really a very small number.
If you think shopping here is on the cheap, however, you are mistaken. As an example our ACE hardware has about 1/4 the inventory our your ACE on Alma and your store consistently charges at least 30% less.
Yes we do suffer already from the traffic that comes through our City on the way to your shopping centers, and yet we receive no revenue. Now the Stanford Medical Center has put 300 workers from the hospital into a building at SRI, generating plenty of extra traffic here, while relieving Palo Alto and removing this traffic from Santa Clara Co. into San Mateo county, keeping the University within the traffic count allowed by your county. That’s why Stanford Medical is expanding into Redwood City and San Carlos, all in San Mateo county; shifting traffic loads from your county into San Mateo.
Simon properties may end up in deep financial trouble just like other operators around the country. Just this week General Growth Properties, the 2sd largest Mall manager in the country filed for bankruptcy.