From time to time I read a blog called Anonymous Lawyer, which says that it's the fictional adventures of a hiring partner in a large firm. In the typical post, Anonymous Lawyer writes something that's sure to draw fire from lawyers, usually a darkly cynical view of law firm life. In this recent post he sparked some comments on whether a lawyer's career prospects are determined more by the law school, or by the grades the lawyer earned there, or by the lawyer's own innate ability. Put another way, does the brilliant graduate of Harvard Law or Yale Law succeed because of his/her brilliance or because of the education s/he received from a top-rated law school?
I had that question in mind when I read the Sunday Oregonian's story on the fate of downtown retail. The story on page B1 (the front of the Business section) described new and expanding suburban retail at Clackamas Town Center, Tanasbourne, Bridgeport (in Tualatin), the South Waterfront, the Pearl District, and Cedar Hills, and described retail industry experts as saying (in the Oregonian's words): "If [downtown Portland retailers] don't become more nimble and creative, the central city will increasingly find itself marginalized as shoppers vote with their feet -- and wallets -- for other retail options."
The connection between these two thoughts? It's fairly clear that downtown retail, except perhaps for Nordstrom and Pioneer Place, is moribund. The question is whether it's moribund because the retailers aren't all that good (e.g., akin to law students who aren't all that bright), or because downtown itself isn't a good place to operate retail stores that try to bring people into downtown to shop (e.g., downtown Portland is akin to the third-tier school that can't make its students into stars)?
I'd like to think that downtown Portland can regain its former retail vibrancy, despite the City's unintentional efforts to make it as hard as possible for retailers to do business here. But I'm not holding my breath.
Recent Comments