Apple's Grand Central Neighbor Seeing 7% Increase In Sales

Sure nothing but MTA losing a boatload of money on a sweetheart deal with Apple. Someone is paying a price.

They aren't losing a boatload. The previous tenant had a lower rent than Apple is paying and their contract had another 7 years or so (can't remember). So, by Apple getting in this space, MTA is making more than they would have.

Further, the $60 per square foot Apple is paying to MTA isn't the total cost. Apple bought out the previous tenant with Millions of dollars up front, and Apple contributed even more to necessary renovations to the building (new elevator is what I heard.)

So, if you're the MTA, and you have someone willing to come in and bring more foot traffic, and that person agrees to improve your building, and that person agrees to pay more than a low rent tenant with a long contract, and they agree to pay-off that tenant.... what is there to say no to?

Sure nothing but MTA losing a boatload of money on a sweetheart deal with Apple. Someone is paying a price.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the MTA was actually getting more per square foot than they did from the previous restaurant that occupied the premises.

That seems a bit low. You both remove an empty anchor store, increase foot traffic, and there's a 7% increase? That's the equivalent of an extra 10 tables a night I would estimate. I don't understand how this is news.

10 extra tables a night, and let's say $50 a table (which is probably on the low side) X 7 days a week X 7 weeks so far = almost $25000 in extra sales without doing a single thing.

So, if you're the MTA, and you have someone willing to come in and bring more foot traffic, and that person agrees to improve your building, and that person agrees to pay more than a low rent tenant with a long contract, and they agree to pay-off that tenant.... what is there to say no to?

Ah that would be the rational response that one would have to the entire situation. However some in these forums think that Apple can do no right, so your logic won't have any effect on them.

The entire deal works in the MTA's favour.

They aren't losing a boatload. The previous tenant had a lower rent than Apple is paying and their contract had another 7 years or so (can't remember). So, by Apple getting in this space, MTA is making more than they would have.

Further, the $60 per square foot Apple is paying to MTA isn't the total cost. Apple bought out the previous tenant with Millions of dollars up front, and Apple contributed even more to necessary renovations to the building (new elevator is what I heard.)

So, if you're the MTA, and you have someone willing to come in and bring more foot traffic, and that person agrees to improve your building, and that person agrees to pay more than a low rent tenant with a long contract, and they agree to pay-off that tenant.... what is there to say no to?

The whole rent thing has been debunked long ago and it works in MTA's and other retailers favor, consistently, and that's from independent accounting reports. Some people just won't let go or have to find fault somewhere, and here they land.

"...10 extra tables a night, and let's say $50 a table (which is probably on the low side) X 7 days a week X 7 weeks so far = almost $25000 in extra sales without doing a single thing..."
It's actually more than that. The place is very spendy, food is great, often hard to make a reservation, and serves 200 to 360 depending on configuration. Figure all that in and it's like a grand a night. And both MTA and Apple got so much criticism (mainly from people who didn't know the facts), why not show a first look response....or is it only good to show the negatives?

its impressive that one store could increase traffic that much, but i am not surprised given just how busy all the apple stores are that i have been to, so there is obvious demand for more stores.