Marshall Field's vs. Macy's (Chicago, Palatine: sale, condos, to buy)

[Dexterguy]

As a metro Detroiter I had shopped at Marshall Field's for 5 years when it was operating in metro Detroit and Michigan. Anyway, since the name change on State Street in Downtown Chicago I have read numerous articles on the internet and heard from my relatives in Palatine, IL that the State Street Macy's is doing very poor. Is boycotting the State Street store really going to help the city or hurt it? What about if Macy's decides to totally shut down the State Street store and it sits empty as the Hudson's Department store here in Detroit did until it was demolished. I guess the way that I look at it is that yes, Marshall Field's no longer has the beloved Field's name but at least Chicago still gets to keep the landmark department store on state. In Detroit we not only lost the Hudson's name after being in the Detroit market since the 1800's. But we also lost the historic Hudson's flagship store in downtown.

I agree that Macy's should have kept the State Street stores name "Marshall Field's" but whats done is whats done. We are living in a United States were every store, restaurant, and barber shop is owned by a bigger company. So is it really worth it to hurt a landmark? I would love to hear from other people that live in Chicagoland and that are familiar with the topic.

[Attrill]

Macy's is not being hurt by a boycott, it is being hurt by the fact that the Dept. Store retail model is outdated and it is a poorly run chain. Carson's and Marshal Field's went under without any boycott for the same reasons.

The building will not be torn down, it is landmarked and will be re-purposed, hopefully for businesses that fill the needs of the modern world and a changed loop. The Carson's building is being turned into a much needed grocery store, small retail spaces, and offices. All of them will be much more successful than Carson's ever could be in this day and age. The same will happen when Macy's leaves Chicago or folds.

[Drover]

Marshall Field's didn't go under. They were bought out and re-branded. Small difference.

[lincolnparker]

I beg to differ. One example is neiman marcus, which is still doing well

Originally Posted by Attrill

Macy's is not being hurt by a boycott, it is being hurt by the fact that the Dept. Store retail model is outdated and it is a poorly run chain. Carson's and Marshal Field's went under without any boycott for the same reasons.

The building will not be torn down, it is landmarked and will be re-purposed, hopefully for businesses that fill the needs of the modern world and a changed loop. The Carson's building is being turned into a much needed grocery store, small retail spaces, and offices. All of them will be much more successful than Carson's ever could be in this day and age. The same will happen when Macy's leaves Chicago or folds.

[Lookout Kid]

I wish it were still Marshall Fields too, but the boycotters are doing a disservice to this city. If you don't want to have any department store AT ALL in that wonderful old building, by all means keep up your boycott. But then don't be shocked when that gem of a building becomes condos or offices in a few years. And the Loop will lose even more of it's retail fabric.

I know the general wisdom is that department stores are "old hat", but I think they will make a comeback after peak oil. Many people are also predicting the end of big box right now, so what's the future of retail? Retail in general is suffering right now. A few more department stores may fail in the near future, but the few that survive will come back strong in a decade or so. Or "big box" retailers like Target will continue to become more department store-like in their approach. I think there will be little difference between Target and department stores in the future.

[aragx6]

I'm not boycotting it, but I've been in there and it's awful. I can't stand Macy's. They did the same thing in St. Louis with Famous Barr and the Macy's are all flopping. Not because people still refuse to shop there but rather because the stores have gone downhill and their selection is poor.

Oh and Neiman's has struggled too - and they've closed several stores in the last couple of years.

[long101]

I think the Macy's name just gives it a negative vibe before you even walk in. And accompany that with subpar products and a bad economy the outlook doesnt look to well.

[elikhom]

I've been there a few times, and I rarely find anything I like, I went for shoes and they have a pretty small selection of men shoes for such a big store, same when I went for other clothes and things, the only thing I find and they have a lot are long sleeved shirts. Now I usually go to stores that are specific for what I'm looking for, whether it's shoes, business clothing, sporting clothing, casual clothing, etc

[Costa Rica Chica]

I was saddened when I found out about the buy-out. It doesn't feel the same when I go in there now, but it's usually bustling (at least at lunch time.) It's a big tourist destination. I don't think the boycott is really affecting the store, more the sagging economy.

[Lookout Kid]

I don't like to walk around looking like I bought all of my clothes from the same catalog or mall store, so I'll definitely give Macys some business frome time to time. It fills a spot in the void between Carson's and Bloomingdales. Marshall Fields was a slightly higher-end place (which I liked), but I think Macys is a good place to buy sort of plain clothing items like dress shirts, belts, and pants. I bought a wrinkled cotton blazer there recently that was quite nice. I'll then dress up my wardrobe with more exciting clothing from elsewhere.

However, Macys lost a sale from me recently because Nordstrom had better service. I needed a new suit quickly, and found one I liked at Macys. They told me it would take a week for the tayloring. I found a similar suite at Nordstrom and they would do the tayloring the same day. I went with Nordstrom, even though the price was a bit higher.