If by 'on campus' we mean 'on Penn-owned property' (which would include
much, but not all, of the 40th St. strip, for instance), then, by
definition, yes, all Penn's commercial tenants are lessees of Penn. That
is equally true of 'mom and pops' and of 'giant retail chains'.
Penn, like any owner of multiple rental spaces which it lets out, has
broad powers to dream of, and negotiate for, the 'mix' of its commercial
tenants it desires. Indeed, it would be rare for any such owner not to
try to plan a mix that works best for it. That's what shopping malls are
all about: the mix. They don't just throw up a parking lot and see which
retailers want to rent there. The owner has its wishlist; and other
lessees have their wishlists as well, which they communicate to the
owner, with greater or lesser degrees of control.
It's a necessarily fluid, multipartite business situation. There is no
guarantee that any party will get what it wants and no requirement for
anybody's plan or strategy to endure beyond the terms of whatever
contract is signed.
-- Tony West
whatever was meant, I think we can all agree that the 'mom and pops'
that are 'on campus' are ultimately (with few exceptions) all
dependent on some kind of permit/leasing arrangement with penn? and so
any 'mixing in' goal that's going on is really just 'more of the same'?
[aka ray]
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
