It's certainly a smart move for Target to open smaller-format urban stores. The retailer just announced it will open up its first new concept in Seattle in 2012 and more of the 60,000-square-foot to 100,000-square-foot locations in 10 other metro areas over the next few years.
But what took it so long?
It's not as if it hasn't had its larger stores in places like Chicago and Brooklyn, NY for years. A smaller concept that can better fit in tight spaces in urban markets that have density and income just makes sense, even to those such as us, who certainly don't have a fraction of the retail smarts that Target execs possess.
Could any of this have to do with Walmart? Target's larger competitor is going into urban markets with stores as small as 20,000 square feet.
One could make the argument that real estate is now at a more palatable price for these giants to try out these concepts. But if any chains could afford to spend a little more for infill locations wouldn't it be these guys?
Why do you think they waited, and was it a good idea to hold out?
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
