I'm confused. I've always been told Whole Foods' decision not to build a new structure was due to the difficulties they've had with Dallas' lovely planning and zoning folks. Scott Simons of Whole Foods sent me an email that included this explanation.
"...this decision was a business decision that came down to timing. After we had “sat” on that building for an entire year (much longer than we had hoped) to get our game-plan together and navigate the unique landlord situation and zoning, we simply cannot afford to sit on it for six more months to a year to gain the zoning amendment for the new construction."Understandable and exactly what we all though. Then comes news by way of Angela Hunt's blog that says,
"I spoke with Whole Foods' Seth Stutzman two days before they publicly announced their decision, and he explained that after they got into the zoning case, they did a cost comparison of building a new store versus redoing the old Minyards store. They were shocked to see that the redo would cost $4.5M less than a new store. It would also allow for a more environmentally-friendly store."So which is it? Someone isn't telling the complete truth. Mrs. Hunt goes on to say,
"I just want to make sure our inclusive zoning process is not blamed for a business decision."To which I ask, if your "inclusive zoning process wasn't as onerous as you say it is then what happened to the Andres brothers and the development at Lovers and Amesbury? But the Wachovia Bank on Abrams popped up within a year's time. So what's really going on? Let's face it. We'll never know.
