Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Spartan

Walgreen's on Pelham

Recommended Posts

This may have been brought up before, but I can't recall where, exactly. So, I'd like to get your opinion on this issue, which some of you you may be familliar with:

There is a proposed Walgreen's at the intersection of Pelham Road and Roper Mountain Rd. right accross from the hospital. It seems like a good location to me, but the naighborhoods around it seem to think that its construction means the end of Pelham Road as we know it.

Have a look at their website: http://www.protectpelhamroad.com/

They make some interesting points on this issue, partuclarly that it could lead to more commecrial developments along the Pelham Rd corridor, and that there is an empty pharmacy just down the road.

What makes this tricky is that the property is within the city limits, but its right on the edge. Most of the surrounding neighborhoods are not in the city. You can take a look at the area here at the Greenville County GIS website: http://www.gcgis.org/disclaimer.asp (just click accept and zoom in to the site). The site is located on the corner, and I think it affects all three of those properties.

I know this has recieved a bit of coverage on the local news, but they can't get too in depth.

What do you think about this issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


It is a good fit. Pharmacies don't create traffic, the are positioned so people will stop by them when they are passing, not seek them out.

Ya, that are a lot of them, but so what, having a drug store near by isn't going to change their neighborhoods.

Now I can understand the argument that this could just lead to more development but so time that is just inevitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NIMBY's who don't have a clue. Not surprising.

I think it's a great idea. Walgreen's is far superior in price & service to CVS and Eckerds. The idea of having one next to a hospital is logical...and this may also increase the chance of this Walgreen's being a 24hr location.

With Walgreens building their new dist. center in Anderson, I only hope that they build more locations in the Upstate. A lot more, if only to better compete with CVS.

As many of you know, CVS recently bought Eckerds, so in the near future, look for the Eckerd locations to start closing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last I heard, CVS is planning on keeping an overwhelming majority of Eckerd stores open. I think that is smart, as Eckerd has a loyal customer base (yours truly included - I prefer them over Walgreen's and certainly CVS).

I have also noticed that there are still certain brands/products that you can purchase at Eckerd that you cannot purchase at CVS, and vice versa. Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last I heard, CVS is planning on keeping an overwhelming majority of Eckerd stores open. I think that is smart, as Eckerd has a loyal customer base (yours truly included - I prefer them over Walgreen's and certainly CVS).

I have also noticed that there are still certain brands/products that you can purchase at Eckerd that you cannot purchase at CVS, and vice versa. Interesting.

Interesting indeed, as many CVS & Eckerd locations are across the street from each other, in many cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NIMBY's who don't have a clue. Not surprising.

I think it's a great idea. Walgreen's is far superior in price & service to CVS and Eckerds. The idea of having one next to a hospital is logical...and this may also increase the chance of this Walgreen's being a 24hr location.

With Walgreens building their new dist. center in Anderson, I only hope that they build more locations in the Upstate. A lot more, if only to better compete with CVS.

As many of you know, CVS recently bought Eckerds, so in the near future, look for the Eckerd locations to start closing.

When Eckards was sold it was split up, CVS did not buy all the stores. I am about positive that our stores were bought buy a Canadian company not CVS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every Eckerd that I remember from Orlando has been converted into a CVS. However, CVS had very few stores of their own at the time of the sale of Eckerd from J.C. Penney to CVS and Jean Coutu (Brooks).

As I recall, the 1500 or so Eckerd stores that were purchased by Coutu were located from Maine to the Mid-Atlantic. Does that include our area or are our Eckerd stores owned by CVS?

The main reason I'm curious as to which of the two purchasers of Eckerd own the stores in our area is that Eckerd very recently opened a new store in Travelers Rest, only a quarter mile from CVS:

7db7.jpg

Travelers Rest isn't that large of a city, so I'm wondering why CVS would cannibalize its own sales with an Eckerd if CVS owned the Eckerd stores in this area? Perhaps they did this for competitive reasons, heading off the imminent opening of Wal-Mart and their pharmacy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cannibalization is one reason I can't understand why CVS would keep Eckerd's open. And yes, CVS purchased all the Eckerd's from Virginia, south.

I know in Houston, CVS has shuttered all the Eckerd locations there. A whole bunch of shiny, new Eckerds, closed there. Looks so strange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm. Well, then, the logical conclusion would seem to be that CVS/Eckerd wanted 2/3 of the Travelers Rest Pharmaceutical Retail Market rather than just 1/2 of it. What better way than to outnumber the competition 2:1? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see what the big deal is about this location. This area of Pelham isn't exactly quiet residential. You have all the hospital and medical offices. Roper Extension is a very busy road. I fail to see how this pharmacy is going to hurt the residents quality of life, or change the current quality to any degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see what the big deal is about this location. This area of Pelham isn't exactly quiet residential. You have all the hospital and medical offices. Roper Extension is a very busy road. I fail to see how this pharmacy is going to hurt the residents quality of life, or change the current quality to any degree.

I agree. I'd presume the parcel in question is already zoned commercial. Would the residents prefer a Taco Bell instead? :shok:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. I'd presume the parcel in question is already zoned commercial. Would the residents prefer a Taco Bell instead? :shok:

Excellent point! I'd take the pharmacy over Kentucky Fried Taco Pizza Chicken Bell Hut any day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that CVS will leave Eckerds open when it is next to a CVS. Just think about it, they are making twice the money with that setup.

The location is already approved, and its pretty much going to happen, but this group is just vehemently against this project. Personally, I don't see the big deal.

The fact is that they are not located in the city, so they really don't have much say in it, not to mention that nobody in their right mind would want to live on that lot if it stayed zoned residential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. I'd presume the parcel in question is already zoned commercial. Would the residents prefer a Taco Bell instead? :shok:

It is now zoned C-1N. It is the only parcel on that side of Roper Mountain Ext. zoned commercial. It is also the only parcel on that side that is in the City. Really seems to me like an end around on the local residents.

It will most likely have a domino effect on the area between Pelham and Roper Mountain Ext. with more parcels going commercial.

I am going to retract my earlier statement that I think its a bad idea. It really seems like that southern side of Pelham could go commercial without affecting the northern side. On that note, I would like to see some medical office parks in this section. That would make for a good transition in my humble opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cannibalization is one reason I can't understand why CVS would keep Eckerd's open. And yes, CVS purchased all the Eckerd's from Virginia, south.

I know in Houston, CVS has shuttered all the Eckerd locations there. A whole bunch of shiny, new Eckerds, closed there. Looks so strange.

FYI

CVS purchased the target markets of Florida and Texas. They also bought Arizona, Kansas, Oklahoma, Missisippi, Louisiana, Missouri, and Alabama markets.

Jean Coutu ended up with the Mid Atlantic and Southeastern states from New York to Georgia, including SC. Tennessee, Ohio, and West Virginia went to them as well.

CVS has closed any duplicate stores that the FTC allowed them too. The FTC has required that some locations remain operational that they intended to close and that some locations close that they intended to keep open. These decisions have been made primarily pursuit to the antitrust laws.

Jean Coutu has shuttered any store directly across from a Walgreens location. Their main intent in the deal was to strengthen their presence in the Mid Atlantic areas. They also own Brooks Pharmacies up in the land of the north. They have kept open the stores that have little or no competition. Their operational structure does not have the efficiencies of a Walgreens or CVS and therefore makes it more difficult to compete head-to-head. I have seen them shutter a 6 month old store because a Walgreens was announced across the street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI

CVS purchased the target markets of Florida and Texas. They also bought Arizona, Kansas, Oklahoma, Missisippi, Louisiana, Missouri, and Alabama markets.

Jean Coutu ended up with the Mid Atlantic and Southeastern states from New York to Georgia, including SC. Tennessee, Ohio, and West Virginia went to them as well.

Thanks, Sparkle City! That pretty much confirms my suspicions. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was posting from a recollection I had once the CVS buyout was initially announced. I happened to be out & about today and drove by an Eckerds...lo & behold, in the upper left hand corner of one of their sale banners in a window was a "Brooks" logo.

Looks like you guys were correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that CVS will leave Eckerds open when it is next to a CVS. Just think about it, they are making twice the money with that setup.

The location is already approved, and its pretty much going to happen, but this group is just vehemently against this project. Personally, I don't see the big deal.

The fact is that they are not located in the city, so they really don't have much say in it, not to mention that nobody in their right mind would want to live on that lot if it stayed zoned residential.

This parcel was annexed as part of the rezoning as I understand it.

You are correct to say that the residents don't have much say. I have seen this scenario play out many times before in one city or another. The residents can't vote out the city councilmen or mayor, so they have little clout. The commercial interest is agreeing to annex and will therefore pay taxes and business license fees.

I don't think this will add much traffic, but I don't know if this parcel will be buffered from the residential yards adequately. Perhaps that is some of the objection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the above article:

Brody Glenn of Centennial American Properties, developer of the Walgreens, said he is working with the department and is willing to pay for intersection improvements at Pelham Road and Roper Mountain Road Extension.

City staff is requiring Centennial American Properties to build a Walgreens store with a brick facade, a pitched roof, acorn-style light posts and other features not typically found on the chain drug store, said planner Jennifer Rigby.

I think it's great when developers are willing to pay, out of their own pockets, the costs associated with upgrading the nearby intersections, as well as being willing to upgrade the properties to make them aesthetically pleasing. I'm seeing very little for the vocal minority on Pelham to be upset about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the above article:

I think it's great when developers are willing to pay, out of their own pockets, the costs associated with upgrading the nearby intersections, as well as being willing to upgrade the properties to make them aesthetically pleasing. I'm seeing very little for the vocal minority on Pelham to be upset about.

:thumbsup::thumbsup: Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.