Anyone else think it is time for Macy's and Kroger's to build new headquarters? (fit in, subdivisions)

[flashes1]

Originally Posted by Briolat21

Most employees look at Pay package, relo benefits, benefits in general (vacation, stock options, health care packages, etc..) and cost of living of the surrounding area (if they're relocating), before they look at whether or not the 1970's building is going to bring them down.

Which isn't to say it might not be a fleeting thought, but its not normally at the top of what candidates are concerned about (the right stock options and benefits can do a lot to mitigate "the building is ugly" in the eyes of new hires)

Show me where I said the sight of the buiding is at the top of most candidates' wish lists. Please show me. But it is a factor for most very highly recruited people....again a factor. One of many factors.

Jeez.

[SWOH]

Originally Posted by flashes1

I'm fiscally conservative, but I believe an argument could be made that the Kroger HQ building is ugly enough that it could effect recruiting. The ugliness of the building could have an effect on the company's ability to attract top talent outside of Kroger. Recruiting a top Safeway/Albertson's merchandiser from Pleasonton, CA who's accustomed to pleasant working facilities, might be less inclined to accept a KR job offer if they think KR's HQ is hideous.

Additionally, Kroger has employees sprawled all over the city---at a minimum in separate facilities in Blue Ash and Montgomery. It probably makes sense to consolidate these people into one building.

Framing arguments in dollars and cents works with corp types....don't try to appeal to the sense of "architectural importance." Corporate people have P&L's they're accountable to.....that's what moves them.

A facade re-do could be done for not much, if that's what you guys are going after.

I'm assuming most of you have at least a loose familiarity with Dayton. One of the biggest positive changes to a downtown skyscraper happened with the 40 W. Fourth St. facade re-do.

Before (to far right):


After:

[Briolat21]

Originally Posted by flashes1

Show me where I said the sight of the buiding is at the top of most candidates' wish lists. Please show me. But it is a factor for most very highly recruited people....again a factor. One of many factors.

Jeez.

You seemed to suggest that it might be the deciding factor. paraphrasing (because I'm a luddite and don't know how to double quote from multiple posts) "A safeway top recruit might used to pleasant working conditions might not accept the kroger job if the building is hideous"...

I agree its a factor. All else being equal between a job opportunity in a place I like, vs a place I don't like, I'm going to pick the place I like. But that's why good recruiting rarely makes an "equal" offer. If they want someone, they generally go after them with the proverbial "can't refuse" offer. Which most wouldn't refuse based on an older looking work place.


As far as SW's last post regarding the rehab of the building in dayton... what am I missing? The pictures look the same to me. Same arches at the top (though they may have painted a different color in the "after"), same columns of windows, same radio antennae outfit...? Is there a dramatic difference I'm not seeing?

[cincydave8]

Attractiveness of a building has nothing to with whether I'd work for the company or not BUT location is huge. I'd much rather work for company located downtown in a 1960s bland building then a company with a brand new building in West Chester. That's just personal preference though. Of course, pay with benefits would end up trumping all.

I think a companies building should be a point of pride, can't imagine too many at Kroger are proud of their downtown building or their tri-county ones for that matter.

[SWOH]

Originally Posted by Briolat21

As far as SW's last post regarding the rehab of the building in dayton... what am I missing? The pictures look the same to me. Same arches at the top (though they may have painted a different color in the "after"), same columns of windows, same radio antennae outfit...? Is there a dramatic difference I'm not seeing?

Glad you asked!

What they did wasn't much - they changed the cladding. The stark (and by that point) dirty white was swapped out for a beige/gray (looks different depending on the lighting. And by the looks of it, they cleaned the black middle panels too, and fixed the mismatched glass.

Either way, it's amazing how much better the building looked before and after. Again, you'd have to travel through downtown Dayton enough to have noticed it in the first place and then the change, but it made the building and downtown look immensely better.

Again, the perfect image for this is on a "competitor" site. Starts with an E, ends with an mporis. I'll try linking it below but no promises that it won't get removed.

Before:

Moderator cut: vertical or not, it has a HUGE watermark in 2 places, what made you think it's ok to post it ??

link: http://www.emporis.com/images/show/559272-Large.jpg
(wish it was vertical but beggars can't be choosers)


After:

[flashes1]

Everyone is different. Some people care about what their office building looks like, other's don't. There's plenty of obstactles to overcome Recruiting "big city" talent to a mid-size city like Cinti. You shouldn't have to worry about what your office looks like if you're a Fortune 100 company----obviously KR feels like they're not having problems recruiting talent to their HQ's.....but when they do, my argument is, it's time to update their building.

Until then, urban fanatics crying for a "glamorous" building are going to be on the sidelines.

[Ohiogirl81]

Originally Posted by Cincygrad2015

Anyone else think it is time fro Macy's and Kroger's to build new headquarters in Cincinnati? More so Kroger's than Macy's. I like the Macy's building other than I feel like its to short for its design. But the Kroger's building in my opinion is way outdated.

Building a new headquarters just because someone thinks the current building is unattractive is unnecessary and wasteful unless the company in question is out of office space.

Whatever happened to conserving resources? *sigh*

Originally Posted by WILWRadio

There is little point in building a new building if the current building is not functionally obsolete.

Finally! A voice of reason.

Originally Posted by flashes1

I'm fiscally conservative, but I believe an argument could be made that the Kroger HQ building is ugly enough that it could effect recruiting.

LMAO. Seriously? That would be one of the last things I'd worry about if Kroger were recruiting me.

Originally Posted by jlawrence01

Considering the performance of Safeway/Albertson's in recent years, you might not want to attract all that "talent". Safeway/Albertson's is known through the industry as one that is not "female friendly" which is interesting considering its target market is women ...

They also both suck as retailers, individually and now as one entity.

Originally Posted by SWOH

I'm assuming most of you have at least a loose familiarity with Dayton. One of the biggest positive changes to a downtown skyscraper happened with the 40 W. Fourth St. facade re-do.(to far right):

That looks nice, and was done without changing the architectural style of the building *cough*RoeschLibrary*cough*.

[Briolat21]

Originally Posted by flashes1

Everyone is different. Some people care about what their office building looks like, other's don't. There's plenty of obstactles to overcome Recruiting "big city" talent to a mid-size city like Cinti. You shouldn't have to worry about what your office looks like if you're a Fortune 100 company----obviously KR feels like they're not having problems recruiting talent to their HQ's.....but when they do, my argument is, it's time to update their building.

Until then, urban fanatics crying for a "glamorous" building are going to be on the sidelines.

Agreed with that - unless a business case is made, it won't get done.




As far as your building SW - thanks for the better pics. Agreed, in that 2nd pic the building looks a little "cleaner" / More modern.

THough I kinda dug the retro contrast in the before.

[Briolat21]

Originally Posted by flashes1

Everyone is different. Some people care about what their office building looks like, other's don't. There's plenty of obstactles to overcome Recruiting "big city" talent to a mid-size city like Cinti. You shouldn't have to worry about what your office looks like if you're a Fortune 100 company----obviously KR feels like they're not having problems recruiting talent to their HQ's.....but when they do, my argument is, it's time to update their building.

Until then, urban fanatics crying for a "glamorous" building are going to be on the sidelines.

Agreed with that - unless a business case is made, it won't get done.




As far as your building SW - thanks for the better pics. Agreed, in that 2nd pic the building looks a little "cleaner" / More modern.

Though I kinda dug the retro contrast in the before.

[flashes1]

Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81

LMAO. Seriously? That would be one of the last things I'd worry about if Kroger were recruiting me.

And I seriously doubt you're the kind of top talent KR is trying to attract.

What other mainline nationwide grocers do you consider to be better than Safeway/Albertson's? I'm actually very curious because I follow the industry pretty closely.