The Seattle Times Editorial Board seems to think the Great Recession of ’08 and the current pandemic (in it’s 16th month) are to blame for Seattle’s hollowed out retail core:
Across the country, the pandemic wreaked havoc on traditional retail. Eighty seven million square feet of retail space went dark during the 2008 Great Recession. By comparison, an estimated 158 million square feet emptied out in 2020, mostly due to major chains closing.
More than 450 street-level businesses in downtown Seattle have permanently closed since March 2020, according to the Downtown Seattle Association. Brooks Brothers, J. Crew, Forever 21 and Sur La Table were some of the national retailers with a downtown presence that filed for bankruptcy.
I can’t decide if they should go look out the window, being as how their office is close to Amazon HQ, or if they should go talk to people in the ‘burbs who haven’t had a reason to go downtown in years. No shows, no cultural happenings, no street life, and nothing to shop for that they can’t get online. The Pandemic didn’t do that and the closures from the Great Recession were more effect than cause.
There are a lot of Seattleites who would love to go downtown, as long as they could park on the street at the front door, but now that they might have to look for parking or perhaps take a train or bus, they’re more inclined to lament how things have changed. And let’s face it, people are more likely to go to Capitol Hill or Georgetown or Ballard or the U Village. Downtown is all offices and government buildings, not street level, foot-scale retail. There’s no reason for people to stay there after work, not with the hellish commutes most people endure and no reason to go there from home, given how hard it is. If Forward Thrust had gone through in the 70s maybe downtown would be someplace to go, would be easy to get to.
As for the old Macy’s building mentioned? Let’s take a look. The property is divided into three parts, paying about $1.5M in tax, not much less than my ideal assessment of $1.8M would be. But the land is taxed far less — like 1/4 to 1/3 of the building’s value — showing that the building is considered to be worth more than 1.8 acres of land in this location. If that building were leveled, would it seriously only be worth $70M when the whole property was sold for $600M and is still assessed at $350M? Why doesn’t Seattle (or many other cities) value location like speculators do?