RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
The Dispatch wrote
3 big retailers discover the World Wide Web
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
BY MARLA MATZER ROSE
Three Columbus-based retailers seem to have realized that this Internet thing is more than a fad.
DSW, Big Lots and the company that’s keeping “The Limited” name alive have all begun selling online within the past four months. The moves come several years after a majority of their chain-store peers starting selling in the virtual world.
The Limited started selling on the Internet in September. Shoe retailer DSW, which opened its first store in 1991, launched its e-commerce site in June. Discounter Big Lots has been outperforming retailers of almost every stripe with its off-price and closeout deals. This week, the retailer rolled out an e-commerce site for the first time, with a “Deal of the Day” feature.
Might be a great way to redevelop the Scioto. BIG Lots/ Aqua.
Department stores can have have multiple floors. A former Department store downtown that starts with an L was converted into an office space.
I have never understood the whole apples to oranges thing. Please explain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apples_and_oranges
Apples and oranges can be compared. It is an idiom I have never liked.
They are both fruits, they both make popular and healthy juices, both are acidic, both are mass produced, both are internationally eaten. Both grow on trees. etc.
They have a lot of difference too, but comparison is entirely possible.
I think it a positive and smart idea that the city insists on denser building types for large retailers to set-up shop. Big box stores/retailers can fit into multi-story buildings. I am not proposing the Borden building turning into a Target, but there is plenty of ways a big retailer can fit into spaces. Humans have designed much more complicated thing than that.
Oh and while reading this cute article, I found this from wikipedia:
“Criticism of the idiom
Various scholars have questioned the premise of the incomparable nature of apples and oranges, both in serious publications and in weblogs and spoofs (see below). These criticisms of the idiom, however, tend to assume that “you cannot compare apples and oranges” is a descriptive statement capable of logical or scientific counter-example, without addressing the possibility of interpreting the idiom as a normative statement (meaning something such as “it’s not fair to judge apples and oranges by the same criteria”).
[edit] “Legal” criticism and “mathematical” interpretation
Law professor Eugene Volokh argues that the idiom is inappropriate, because “we compare apples and oranges all the time! We compare them by price, by how much we like the taste, by likely sweetness and ripeness, by how well they’ll go in a tasty fruit cocktail, and so on. In fact, every time we go to the store and buy apples rather than oranges — or vice versa — we are necessarily (if implicitly) comparing apples and oranges”. He suggested that a better idiom would involve “two items that really are radically dissimilar” like “apples and democracy” or “oranges and the multiplication table”. He believes that such “comparisons really would be hard to conduct”. One of Volokh’s readers noted that even such radically dissimilar nouns as apples and the multiplication table can be compared fairly easily, as when one compares the number of syllables in each word or the relative age at which children learn each concept; another reader noted that the idiom was still relevant in situations where someone criticized oranges for not being good apples.[1] Alexander “Sasha” Volokh argued that mathematically, only the properties of apples and oranges can be compared; the fruits themselves cannot be. Mathematically astute bloggers and readers forced him to partially retract his analysis, however.[2] Also, in his blog, Volokh admitted that his argument “was a joke”.[3]
[edit] “Scientific” criticism
Oranges, like apples, grow on trees.
Oranges, like apples, grow on trees.
At least two tongue-in-cheek scientific studies have been conducted on the subject, each of which concluded that apples can be compared to oranges fairly easily and on a low budget and the two fruits are quite similar. The first study, conducted by Scott A. Sandford of the NASA Ames Research Center, used spectrometry to analyze both apples and oranges. The study, which was published in the Annals of Improbable Research, concluded: “[...] the comparing apples and oranges defense should no longer be considered valid. This is a somewhat startling revelation. It can be anticipated to have a dramatic effect on the strategies used in arguments and discussions in the future.”[4]
A second study, written by Stamford Hospital’s surgeon-in-chief James Barone and published in the British Medical Journal, noted that the phrase “apples and oranges” was appearing with increasing frequency in the medical literature, with some notable articles comparing “Desflurane and propofol” and “Salmeterol and ipratropium” to “apples and oranges”. The study also found that both apples and oranges were sweet, similar in size, weight, and shape, that both are grown in orchards, and both may be eaten, juiced, and so on. The only significant differences found were in terms of seeds (the study used seedless oranges), the involvement of Johnny Appleseed, and color.[5]
The Annals rejoined that its “earlier investigation was done with more depth, more rigour, and, most importantly, more expensive equipment” than the British Medical Journal study.[5]
You could fit your bed in a big closet if you stand it upright. That doesn’t make it functional.
You could fit your bed in a big closet if you stand it upright. That doesn’t make it functional.
You are comparing apples to mattresses now. That’s just nonsense.
Are you doing the old Walkeroo Switcheroo and pushing for big box retailers?
Is there a DSW at the Lennox Center?
That still doesn’t make comparing retail properties to office properties appropriate. The square footage is a secondary concern; remodeling would be a royal pain in the neck. There are urban big-box stores out there, certainly, but they’re not generally converted office buildings–certainly not high-rises.