Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday April 25 2017, @04:27PM   Printer-friendly
from the the-need-for-pants dept.

In the 1980's people wrote about malls as cultural centers, as temples to shopping. Now, they're dying.

Many observers are speculating about the growing trend of so-called dead malls: once-flourishing, large retail spaces that now have a high vacancy rate, low numbers of pedestrian traffic, or the lack of an "anchor" store (typically a department chain). Is it because of economic recession, or stagnant middle-class wages and growing income inequality? Or has the death of these malls been hastened by the rapid growth of online shopping?

It's difficult to say, but the dead mall phenomenon is becoming a cultural item of interest -- for retail historians, urban explorers and documentarians alike. We may read about dead malls in The New York Times or The Atlantic, but film footage can say much more than words.

Is Amazon to blame?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 25 2017, @08:32PM (2 children)

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday April 25 2017, @08:32PM (#499545)

    Yeah, but you're not answering the question: where are they going to find someone to take out a $1B mortgage on this place, who isn't going to also fail like the current mortgage holder?

    Basically, if you're a bank lending to people for real estate, you're basically letting them manage property that you technically own (sorta). If you foreclose, that means you no longer believe they'll manage it profitably (they're going to default on your loan), so you want to find someone else who will manage it more profitably (they'll pay more over their loan's lifetime than the current mortgagees). But if the property is losing value anyway, that's just not going to happen. The current mortgagees can only do so much; they're subject to market conditions just like anyone else, so the only reason you'd want to give up on them is because they're incompetent.

    I'm not saying the banks are really making the best decision here, or that they're not thinking the way you describe, but it sure seems stupid to me. If someone buys a Pontiac Aztek at full price, and then wants to pay less because they had to take a lower-paying job, does it make sense to repossess it, knowing that you'll probably not find anyone willing to pay anywhere remotely near the outstanding balance for it because it's such an eye-sore?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by migz on Tuesday April 25 2017, @08:40PM

    by migz (1807) on Tuesday April 25 2017, @08:40PM (#499556)

    That's easy. It's called QE. Uncle Sam will loan them the money, and the taxpayers will pay for it. Win! Win! Win!

  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday April 25 2017, @09:00PM

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 25 2017, @09:00PM (#499572)

    so the only reason you'd want to give up on them is because they're incompetent.

    Yeah that was kinda my last paragraph.

    Note that real estate is interchangeable cog as is property managers, and about half the property managers out there are below the median in performance, so maybe we only hear about the bad half where the bank pulls the trigger and not the other half.

    Also if the property can be turned around, its not even a median / on average thing, if the bank can find a prop mgr who can sweet talk them into pulling the trigger so they can take over...