Larger more iconic right now would be a great real estate PURCHASE strategy in this environment, but if LEASING, they are being more flamboyant at premium cost than anybody at a time of recession and budget gutting everywhere except governments where it is needed most.
The fact the stores "pencil" at 5x their peers "justifies it" but is it really just a marginal waste of cash on an "extreme statement on retail first impression"?
I suppose they could add a mezzanine floor to that West Side store later if they wanted to be more space efficient, but on LEASE?
They PURCHASED a new campus, a telco center, a new cloud farm, and now they LEASE retail space? Probably long term leases no less. Gotta question that one, especially in this market.
Rocketman
This sort of response is truly baffling. These stores - about 280 of them, and all of them small by retail standards - did $6.6bn last year. That's a staggering number for an industry dominated by a race to the lowest prices and online purchasing.
Do people really think that the architectural distinction and strong emphasis on design aren't factors? Do they really think Apple should be cramming every square foot with stuff? Can they not see the role of simplicity and sophistication in the experience?
OK, floor space is one thing, but how do 40 foot ceilings benefit me as a consumer? Somebody is paying for all this wasted vertical space. Guess what, it's you!
Personally, I think having smaller crowded stores is better in terms of generating revenue than having larger, empty looking stores. A crowded store has the "where it's at" feel to it that attracts the curious.
Bad move, Apple.
I'm guessing you haven't been to the Fifth Avenue store if you think either is ever empty-looking.