This past week, Sears announced another 42 closures. As usual, we see even retail real estate executives posting or re-posting about the “Dying Retail Sector.” But, what I see regularly, not from these fatalists, is successful real estate companies take a different approach – “How do we take advantage of these opportunities?”
One particular client this week looked at an opportunity to expand one junior anchor’s presence at a property. In this case, the junior anchor has several other concepts not yet present in the market. The opportunity was to consider relocating the junior from its current big box to a prominent anchor position which would give it the ability to house multiple concepts under one roof.
Why relocate the existing box to a future vacancy? Besides the ability to have the concepts under one roof with the ease of passing through from store to store, the landlord realized it would be easier to backfill the smaller big box. Additionally, there is the potential opportunity to eliminate cotenancy issues that might have otherwise arisen.
Our exercise was to determine if one or more relocated/new concepts in an anchor space satisfied the definition of “acceptable replacement.” This is an issue that I have addressed in previous blogs, but it truly is one of the most pressing issues facing the industry today. In a property with 150 tenants, you might expect 60-90 of those tenants to have cotenancy requirements. Of those 60-90, there could be as many as 40-60 different definitions of cotenants and their respective replacements.
As an example, anchors could be defined as “department stores (may be further defined) operating in more than 60,000 sf.” Just considering that one definition, a theater operating in 85,000 sf would not be considered an anchor. Depending upon how department store is further defined, a discount department store in 100,000 sf or a sporting goods store operating in 70,000 sf may not be department stores. And, if it is vacant (not operating) it may not be a department store. Another lease might define department store as the building labeled as “A, B, C and D” as reflected on Exhibit A. In that case, the building, whether vacant or occupied, is the anchor. There are hundreds of variations, each with potential exceptions (things like “operating under one trade name,” “not a theater,” “must have multiple departments with both soft goods and hard goods,” and so on).
To further complicate the issue, an “acceptable replacement” for the anchor may be defined differently. It could be as simple as another tenant must begin operating in the premises, but could address issues such as the number of floors in the vacant anchor and the need to have an opening on each floor. As addressed in an earlier blog, many more recent (over the past 3-5 years) leases now address alternative uses or a lifestyle component as acceptable replacements.
As we adapt in the industry to the new reality of fewer true department store anchors, we have to take the opportunity at every instance to amend or revise the definitions of acceptable replacements.
Since I got into the industry in the late 80s, appraisals have always addressed the highest and best uses for properties. While the appraisals did address these other uses, the reality was (and to a certain extent, still is) that we could not truly adopt these uses because existing leases restricted any use other than retail. But, we now see that something other than a department store, whether still retail or not, may be a better use. Malls are evolving and will continue to evolve. The fatalists may continue to call out for the death of malls and shopping centers. But, those that recognize the opportunity will help direct the future of our industry.