Re: [UC] more on 'anchor institutions' to Mom Pop
In a message dated 9/20/2007 4:40:32 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: but whatever was meant, I think we can all agree that the 'mom and pops' that are 'on campus' are ultimately (with few exceptions) all dependent on some kind of permit/leasing arrangement with penn? and so any 'mixing in' goal that's going on is really just 'more of the same'? A month or so ago, in an item in the DP that was reproduced on this list, statements were made by the wonderful folks in the Penn Real Estate Dept to the effect that there would be no space for local entrepreneurs -- more or less a synonym for the mom-and-pop operations being discussed here -- at Domus (or was it the Radian) because they were setting the bar on rents too high. Of course, to show that none of these people had been near Planet Earth for a while, they quoted figures greatly exaggerating the actual rents charged by mom-and-pop property owners for commercial space. So, while they implied that the Penn-property rents were about twice those available in the 'hood, they were actually four to six times as high. Earth, calling Craig Carnoroli. Come in please. Always at your service ready for a dialog, Al Krigman -- 36-year local resident and housing provider ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
Re: [UC] more on 'anchor institutions' to Mom Pop
Anthony West wrote: It's anybody's guess! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's possible he's referring to the food carts which would certainly qualify as Mom-and-Pop in many cases. Frank wrote: Most (all?) of the businesses on Sansom St. between 34th 36th are at least independent and would qualify, I think. Elizabeth F Campion wrote: I think of Mom Pop as a real estate term with business connotations. this is all pretty interesting, how the term 'mom and pop' can mean different things to different people -- anything from a food cart, to upscale places like modern eye and white dog, to non-upscale places like greek lady or last word, to franchised chains like metropolitan bakery or bucks county coffee or 7-11... the article seemed to want 'mom and pop' to mean 'non-upscale', 'non-chain', and to imply that they were the established norm that needed 'mixing in' with: Taken together, these new retail opportunities [ems, starbucks] represent a move toward the University's goal of providing more upscale options to mix in with the mom-and-pop operations on campus, Datz said. but whatever was meant, I think we can all agree that the 'mom and pops' that are 'on campus' are ultimately (with few exceptions) all dependent on some kind of permit/leasing arrangement with penn? and so any 'mixing in' goal that's going on is really just 'more of the same'? .. UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN [aka laserbeam®] [aka ray] SERIAL LIAR. CALL FOR RATES. It is very clear on this listserve who these people are. Ray has admitted being connected to this forger. -- Tony West Ray's falsehoods are more sophisticated, more believable -- Tony West __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] more on 'anchor institutions' to Mom Pop
If by 'on campus' we mean 'on Penn-owned property' (which would include much, but not all, of the 40th St. strip, for instance), then, by definition, yes, all Penn's commercial tenants are lessees of Penn. That is equally true of 'mom and pops' and of 'giant retail chains'. Penn, like any owner of multiple rental spaces which it lets out, has broad powers to dream of, and negotiate for, the 'mix' of its commercial tenants it desires. Indeed, it would be rare for any such owner not to try to plan a mix that works best for it. That's what shopping malls are all about: the mix. They don't just throw up a parking lot and see which retailers want to rent there. The owner has its wishlist; and other lessees have their wishlists as well, which they communicate to the owner, with greater or lesser degrees of control. It's a necessarily fluid, multipartite business situation. There is no guarantee that any party will get what it wants and no requirement for anybody's plan or strategy to endure beyond the terms of whatever contract is signed. -- Tony West whatever was meant, I think we can all agree that the 'mom and pops' that are 'on campus' are ultimately (with few exceptions) all dependent on some kind of permit/leasing arrangement with penn? and so any 'mixing in' goal that's going on is really just 'more of the same'? [aka ray] You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] more on 'anchor institutions' to Mom Pop
Anthony West wrote: If by 'on campus' we mean 'on Penn-owned property' (which would include much, but not all, of the 40th St. strip, for instance), then, by definition, yes, all Penn's commercial tenants are lessees of Penn. That is equally true of 'mom and pops' and of 'giant retail chains'. Penn, like any owner of multiple rental spaces which it lets out, has broad powers to dream of, and negotiate for, the 'mix' of its commercial tenants it desires. Indeed, it would be rare for any such owner not to try to plan a mix that works best for it. That's what shopping malls are all about: the mix. They don't just throw up a parking lot and see which retailers want to rent there. The owner has its wishlist; and other lessees have their wishlists as well, which they communicate to the owner, with greater or lesser degrees of control. It's a necessarily fluid, multipartite business situation. There is no guarantee that any party will get what it wants and no requirement for anybody's plan or strategy to endure beyond the terms of whatever contract is signed. -- Tony West ie, ALL YOUR MOM POP ARE BELONG TO US. .. UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN [aka laserbeam®] [aka ray] SERIAL LIAR. CALL FOR RATES. It is very clear on this listserve who these people are. Ray has admitted being connected to this forger. -- Tony West Ray's falsehoods are more sophisticated, more believable -- Tony West You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] more on 'anchor institutions' to Mom Pop
HA HA HA HA!!! Frankus Sleek. Edgy. Infinitely flexible. On Sep 20, 2007, at 06:40 PM, UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN wrote: Anthony West wrote: If by 'on campus' we mean 'on Penn-owned property' (which would include much, but not all, of the 40th St. strip, for instance), then, by definition, yes, all Penn's commercial tenants are lessees of Penn. That is equally true of 'mom and pops' and of 'giant retail chains'. Penn, like any owner of multiple rental spaces which it lets out, has broad powers to dream of, and negotiate for, the 'mix' of its commercial tenants it desires. Indeed, it would be rare for any such owner not to try to plan a mix that works best for it. That's what shopping malls are all about: the mix. They don't just throw up a parking lot and see which retailers want to rent there. The owner has its wishlist; and other lessees have their wishlists as well, which they communicate to the owner, with greater or lesser degrees of control. It's a necessarily fluid, multipartite business situation. There is no guarantee that any party will get what it wants and no requirement for anybody's plan or strategy to endure beyond the terms of whatever contract is signed. -- Tony West ie, ALL YOUR MOM POP ARE BELONG TO US. .. UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN [aka laserbeam®] [aka ray] SERIAL LIAR. CALL FOR RATES. It is very clear on this listserve who these people are. Ray has admitted being connected to this forger. -- Tony West Ray's falsehoods are more sophisticated, more believable -- Tony West You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] more on 'anchor institutions' to Mom Pop
Not really tenants don't belong to their landlord. It's the ground and the buildings that belong to Penn. Penn has the right to wish for a particular mix of tenants and the power to try to wangle it. It may or may not work, depending on the marketplace and on Penn's competency. And its wishes may or may not be a good idea. Off campus, it's a different matter. -- Tony West ie, ALL YOUR MOM POP ARE BELONG TO US. [aka ray] You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] more on 'anchor institutions' to Mom Pop
I think of Mom Pop as a real estate term with business connotations. To me a classic example was the Fireside Restaurant that used to be on 43rd Street near Pine. The row of stores on the 4500 block of Baltimore provided other examples. The Davis Family lived above and behind their Drug Store. Norman and Mary Weister raised 5 kids above their appliance repair shop. Joe the Butcher lived above his place, until his wife made him move out to Overbrook. In a Mom Pop arrangement, the 'family' would live above or behind the business (store, restaurant, beauty parlor) and they would pull together to keep costs low. Mom could sub for Pop behind the counter. One could do the banking or pick up supplies while the other ran the register and kept the place clean. Kids if any would sweep, restock and do homework under a parents eye. This use is still a way for recent immigrants to create equity, buy a home and start the climb up the income ladder. And it is still a common property use in North and South Philly. On the 3400 block of Sansom, the White Dog qualified under my definition, as Judy Wicks lived above the Restaurant. I thought I read somewhere that she retired or sold it, to concentrate on good deeds and changing of minds and the world. Another great old term is In-Law apartment. These are now more often used for income, guests, live-in help, or seriously indulgent entertaining. Best! Liz On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 22:42:27 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's possible he's referring to the food carts which would certainly qualify as Mom-and-Pop in many cases. Quoting Anthony West [EMAIL PROTECTED]: It's anybody's guess! For starters, upscale does not contrast logically with mom-and-pop; many a Napa Valley winery is an upscale mom-and-pop operation. For another thing, I'm hard pressed to think of any on-campus operations that are mom-and-pop -- Penn's real-estate wing has long favored chains -- and not many that are downscale (unless you count their fast-food franchisees, etc.). Either that Penn real-estate wonk hadn't had his coffee before he was interviewed, or, more likely, the Penn kid who wrote the story had little grasp of either business or geography and was flinging around terms wildly, hoping they had a nice ring to them. -- Tony West Ray wrote: here's another: [thursday's dp]: http://tinyurl.com/2zydee [if anyone can figure out what they mean by mom-and-pop operations, I'd like to hear!] You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
