Future of the closed Dominick's on Ridge in Rogers Park?

My wife and I are moving to Rogers Park in a couple months. We're wondering if anyone knows what's in store for the former Dominick's on Ridge Blvd. and Pratt. I don't know how long it's been closed, but there don't appear to be any "for sale" or "for lease" signs. Given the odd triangular lot and the unattractive power plant accross the street, I can't see any condos going up there. It would be great if another large grocery store were to go in. Any local intel?

My guess is there's probably some form of restrictive covenant on the property.

I called Alderman Stone's office. Apparently there are several bids on the property and the Alderman is "working hard" to make sure that a full-scale grocery store goes in there. Stay tuned, I guess.

pcharrig wrote:I called Alderman Stone's office. Apparently there are several bids on the property and the Alderman is "working hard" to make sure that a full-scale grocery store goes in there. Stay tuned, I guess.

I don't really know anything about grocery stores and where you put 'em, but I would think that there aren't a lot of candidates for tenants. There's a Jewel at Howard and Kedzie (technically in Evanston), a Jewel between Clark and Ashland south of Bryn Mawr. Maybe a Trader Joe's, if they are going to fill in more densely. I can't imagine a Whole Foods in there.

There was a Dominick's in Wauconda that has been closed for at least 2 years. Maybe they cannot put another store there..

They just announced a Garden Fresh Market going in on Elston Ave just south of the Drivers License Facility. Maybe Garden Fresh could be a candidate, although there may be a restriction against another food store on Ridge as Artie has pointed out. The closed Dominicks on Montrose and Kedzie had such a restriction. It is now a Walgreens and a Staples.

stevez wrote:They just announced a Garden Fresh Market going in on Elston Ave just south of the Drivers License Facility. Maybe Garden Fresh could be a candidate, although there may be a restriction against another food store on Ridge as Artie has pointed out. The closed Dominicks on Montrose and Kedzie had such a restriction. It is now a Walgreens and a Staples.

These issues of future tenants restricted to non-compete seems to go with Dominick's and Jewel. Thank goodness for our side, these issues didn't crop up with Eagle and Cub locations.

In Highland Park, Byerly's built a grocery store. When they moved on, this location became a Dominick's. I am sure due to a non-compete clause by Dominick's, it is now a Sams Liquor and Staples.

Regards,

Just looking for a little elucidation on the "non-compete" thing, because it's not making sense to me. So Dominick's vacates a property. I can see why Dominick's wouldn't want a Jewel in there if Dominick's had another Dominick's within a quarter-mile or something. But if they don't have another Dominick's within a quarter-mile or something, how is a Jewel in that location going to represent competition?

I accept that this clause is real, because some of you know about it, and I trust you. I just don't see the logic of it, or why it would even be called a "non-compete" (since there's no Jewel/Dominick's competition if Dominick's has left the neighborhood altogether), or how such a restriction could be legal.

Hi,

It is my understanding when Jewel or Dominick's lease a location, they put in a 'non-compete' to disallow a future tenant of this space to be a grocery store. Obviously they cannot control the neighborhood, though they do a good job of controlling future tenants with these clauses.

North Chicago has a shuttered Jewel that cannot house another grocery store. Effectively North Chicago has no grocery store within its boundaries, though there are a few corner Ma and Pa groceries.

While it may be protecting their interests, it can be damaging to the community in the long haul. I have occasionally read of Chicago Alderman wanting to revoke those clauses. I am sure no property owner wants to be the test case, because as much as the city father's might encourage that match. It is the property owner who will be footing the legal bill. Not so incidentally, how much of a premium (if any) did the property owner get for allowing this clause.

Regards,

riddlemay wrote:I accept that this clause is real, because some of you know about it, and I trust you. I just don't see the logic of it, or why it would even be called a "non-compete" (since there's no Jewel/Dominick's competition if Dominick's has left the neighborhood altogether), or how such a restriction could be legal.

It's a restriction on the property deed that Domionick's (and probably Jewel) negotiated when they agreed to build their store there in the first place.

Cathy2 wrote:It is my understanding when Jewel or Dominick's lease a location, they put in a 'non-compete' to disallow a future tenant of this space to be a grocery store. Obviously they cannot control the neighborhood, though they do a good job of controlling future tenants with these clauses.

I guess the "non-compete" is not so much a matter of competition in the neighborhood, but a matter of market share metro-area-wide. Like let's say Dominick's and Jewel each have 100 stores throughout Chicago and suburbs. (I have no idea what the real numbers are.) Dominick's is saying, "I'll be damned if I'm going to let Jewel have 101 stores to my 99 just because I'm leaving Rogers Park!"

Maybe there is a hefty premium paid to the property owner up front in return for his agreeing to a non-compete clause. On the other hand, maybe Dominick's and Jewel represent such a godsend to a property owner that they don't have to offer a premium to gain his agreement to this.

Based on my experience negotiating commercial leases, it's also possible the building owner didn't know (or care) about the clause. All they see is $$$ (and a long term lease) from a large corporation.

H-Mart is in an old Dominick's site....maybe it's just Jewel that can't place a store there. Wouldn't that be terrific - an H-Mart 5 minutes from my house (though I have a feeling I'd go broke if that happened)

I remember that in Norridge, the Jewel couldn't open an Osco because of a non-compete with the Walgreen's. When the Walgreens moved out, they finally opened their Osco after a waiting period.

I think non-competes have a time limit (I had to sign one when working for Starbucks, it was for a year, I think...)

It's not actually a non-compete. It's a restricive covenant on the use of the land.

stevez wrote:It's not actually a non-compete. It's a restricive covenant on the use of the land.

Yeah, I suppose it all depends on who owns the piece of land.
Does anyone know if Dominick's typically owns or leases their stores?

what I'd love is if supermercado Morelia could be lured back into the area

Not sure if the Morelia on Western is open yet - but driving by this closed Dominicks site on Ridge & Pratt, there appears to be some demo going on inside.

I think I read in a different, earlier discussion here on LTH that Dominick's was re-opening that particular store as part of it's "Fresh" concept. Substantial upgrading and renovation would be recquired to accomplish the task.

I had heard the same thing about Dominick's re-opening in that location.

There were at least 20 contractor trucks in the Dominick's parking lot when I drove by Saturday morning
and this morning I noticed that there were several large industrial dumpsters and a pile of crushed stone (debris?) in front of the building.

Progress has begun

Does anyone know specifically why the non-compete or covenant restrictions are generally implemented in these situations? I would hypothesize that it's because Dominick's, for example, spends time and money developing a customer base used to shopping for groceries at a certain location and does not want the landlord to be able to throw it out after it has done so and put another grocery store to take advantage of that customer base. Now, query whether it makes sense for such restrictions to apply if Dominick's is the one deciding to leave a location. But I think even then it is hard to define which is the party terminating if, for example, the change happens upon renegotiation of a lease. Dominick's would say the landlord wants too high a price and it is effectively forced to leave, while the landlord would say it's a fair price and Dominick's is voluntarily leaving.

I'm making all this up, of course, but would be interested if anyone knows more.

Tony's went into the space Dominick's vacated in North Riverside. IIRC they had to wait a year.

dukesdad wrote:Tony's went into the space Dominick's vacated in North Riverside. IIRC they had to wait a year.

A Pete's Fresh Market is opening soon in Dolton,in a former Dominick's store that has been closed for 2 years.

I drive or walk by there all the time. I've long dreamed of opening a modern, upscale Middle Eastern/South Asian/African grocery. Pipe dreams to be sure, but it would be awesome. Roger's Park has enough of that already, I guess, but it would be a landmark - like H Mart but with 50 cuts of goat instead of pork!

It's actually re-opening this summer, construction/remodeling has already begun. It'll have the format of the newer Dominick's, the "Lifestyle" brand. "Lifestyle stores feature more upscale trends than Dominick's last re-branding, "Fresh Stores." Usually Lifestyle stores feature an olive bar, carving station, Starbucks, and a sushi bar. Architectural changes include hardwood flooring and new direct lighting schemes that tend to be less abrasive." (Description from Wikipedia). I picked up a lot of my news and info from the West Ridge Yahoo Group site. While I still frequent smaller stores, I'm looking forward to having a closer large store choice than the Jewel on Howard in Evanston.

There is a sign tied to the boundary fence out on Damen saying that the Dominick's opens in 10 days.

deverett wrote:It's actually re-opening this summer, construction/remodeling has already begun. It'll have the format of the newer Dominick's, the "Lifestyle" brand. "Lifestyle stores feature more upscale trends than Dominick's last re-branding, "Fresh Stores." Usually Lifestyle stores feature an olive bar, carving station, Starbucks, and a sushi bar. Architectural changes include hardwood flooring and new direct lighting schemes that tend to be less abrasive." (Description from Wikipedia). I picked up a lot of my news and info from the West Ridge Yahoo Group site. While I still frequent smaller stores, I'm looking forward to having a closer large store choice than the Jewel on Howard in Evanston.

Will this be the first "Lifestyle" Dominick's? Has anyone been to one of these concept stores? Other than more prepared foods and nicer digs, will the products actually be any different than the regular Dominick's?

I'm looking forward to checking it out when it opens.

Several of their stores have been remodeled in this concept. The one in Edgewater on Broadway just south of Granville is one that I go to sometimes. Also, in Lincolnwood at Pratt and McCormick. I'm sure there are several others. I think most food products are the same but the bakery, deli, produce sections are more extensive, and most have a Starbucks.

deverett wrote:Several of their stores have been remodeled in this concept. The one in Edgewater on Broadway just south of Granville is one that I go to sometimes. Also, in Lincolnwood at Pratt and McCormick. I'm sure there are several others. I think most food products are the same but the bakery, deli, produce sections are more extensive, and most have a Starbucks.

The one in Edgewater is the Dominick's I go to on a regular basis. I thought that was a "Fresh Store" which most of the Dominick's now are. I thought the "Lifestyle" concept was going to be different?

The store opens next week , I believe august 12th.