Unnatural Selection, Part 3

Parts 1 and 2 of this post are dated October 30, 2014 and November 7, 2014 respectively.

That there would be a Part 3 to this site selection tale of woe seemed inevitable, and regrettably it has come to pass. This is a case study in how not to select a location for a new grocery store.


The final chapter of this unfortunate true story: the attractive facility built in 2013 is already closing despite the property’s general location at a major intersection in a popular and populated suburb, with very high income demographics in one of the country’s largest and most dynamic metropolitan areas.

The first post about this property Unnatural Selection, Part 1 described a modern & appealing development located in an area that should have fully supported it. The development also appeared to have the advantages of local brand recognition, lack of proximate competition, and adequate parking. Even the landscaping was nice.

However, the second post Unnatural Selection, Part 2 tested the site for both accessibility and visibility from all directions through a simple scoring process.

It failed the test.

While visibility was good from three directions, access was good from only one direction and nonexistent from the other direction.

This is a classic case of “I can see it, but I can’t get there” otherwise known as self imposed obsolescence. Too bad.