Posts from — August 2008

A group of second-grade schoolchildren are among the most enthusiastic backers of a plan to turn John Coltrane‘s former home into “a place of learning,” reports Nat Hentoff in the Wall Street Journal (8/21/08). The children are students at P.S. 178 in Jamaica, Queens, who were turned on to Coltrane’s genius by their teacher, Christine Passarella. Christine is a disciple of Howard Gardner‘s theory of multiple intelligences that transcend reading, writing and arithmetic to include musical and kinetic intelligence. So, when she teaches her kids, she mixes art and music into their other studies.

Something unexpected happened when she played some Coltrane for her kids. Christine says they “were drawn to the range of feelings in the songs as I gave them the backgrounds of the compositions. ‘Alabama,’ for example, was about Martin Luther King and racial discrimination; and while ‘My Own True Love’ concerned a man and a woman, John Coltrane’s ‘Love Supreme‘ expressed a love for humanity.’” (Actually, it was a love of God.) Either way, says Christine, “I have discovered that young children have open, welcoming minds, and the more pure and emotional the music, the more they connect. Soon they were hooked on John Coltrane’s music.’”

They were also concerned that Coltrane’s former home, on Dix Hills, Long Island, was in danger of demolition. Fortunately, a Coltrane fan has started a “grass-roots effort” to raise money to buy the house. The kids at P.S. 178 have stepped up to the plate, holding “raffles, cake sales and a book fair” to help raise funds. Christine has now started a “Kids for Coltrane” club for Coltrane fans and newbies alike, and says she plans to continue to introduce other artists to her students. If you’d like to join them in saving Coltrane’s home, the address for donations is: Friends of the Coltrane Home, P.O. Box 395, Deer Park, NY 11729, or online, www.thecoltranehome.org. ~ Tim Manners, editor

“I think there’s a lot of confusion about what architects do,” says Brandy Brooks in a Boston Globe piece by Francie Latour (8/24/08). “It’s supposed to be about the health and safety and welfare of people, and how well this building you’re in — your house or office or school — helps you live or work or learn there.” The confusion happens because so many architects are instead focused on designing their “next $5 million home” or, better yet, Seattle Central Library. The thinking, says architect John Peterson, is that anything that gets in the way of that, like a social agenda for instance, “would dilute the design quality.”

John, himself, used to think that way until 2002, when he noticed what was going on right outside his office “in a light-industrial warehouse district of San Francisco.” He saw parks “closed off by imposing stretches of black fence. There was little access to public transportation. And the zooming, one-way traffic on road arteries through the area made creating a neighborhood fabric literally hazardous.” John created a solution, “including innovative sidewalk plazas that opened up pockets of open space,” that were embraced by the city.

This success at “public architecture” inspired John to create Public Architecture, a non-profit group, now involving some 400 architects nationwide, dedicated to donating one-percent of their time to projects with “social relevance.” Among their projects is a “day labor station” in San Francisco. “With an elegance worthy of a high-end design firm,” the station provides the workers who “gather at street corners … to wait for work” with “basic human needs — shelter, sanitation and a safe place to seek work.” Of course, such projects can also pay back dividends to an architect’s practice — raising a firm’s design standards, its business profile, its standing in the community, and ultimately attracting more for-profit contracts.” ~ Tim Manners, editor

“It’s like putting expensive Swiss seats in a generic car and then selling it as Swiss-made,” says Swatch ceo Nick Hayek in a Wall Street Journal piece by Martin Gelnar (8/25/08). Nick’s issue is with current laws requiring that “at least 50 percent of the value of a watch movement … must be manufactured in Switzerland for the product to qualify as Swiss-made.” Thing is, a watch’s “movement typically makes up only 15 percent to 20 percent of a watch’s value,” meaning that “less than 10 percent of the value of a watch qualifying as Swiss-made might have been added in Switzerland.”

This also makes it possible for smaller watch-companies to market “Swiss watches” and sometimes do so at a lower price. They fear that a proposed law, backed by Swatch as well Rolex and Piaget, would drive them out of business. These smaller makers counter that the law, which would require “that at least 60 percent of a watch’s value be created in Switzerland” would actually “hurt Swiss quality … because some producers would resort to cheaper foreign-made parts, thereby raising the relative value of the Swiss-produced components.”

“Rather than tightening regulation, Switzerland’s watch industry should be more preoccupied with quality, ” says Ronnie Bernheim, of Mondaine Watch Company, a relatively small Swiss watchmaker. “Why not, for instance, agree that every Swiss-produced watch should be water-resistant and superaccurate?” Meanwhile, if the new regs are enacted, as is expected, the biggest gainer likely will be Swatch, because “many Swiss producers would cut down on watch parts imported from Asia and use more Swatch Group-made items.” Exports of Swiss watches rose by 5.3 percent in the first eight months of 2008, and currently account for eight percent “of all Swiss goods exports.” ~ Tim Manners, editor

“It’s an upscale supermarket that also happens to be kosher,” says Mayer Gold, general manager of Pomegranate, reports Melissa Clark in the New York Times (8/20/08). “We’re the place you’ll want to shop,” he adds. You’ll have to move to Brooklyn, though, where the new 20,000 square-foot store opened recently. Pomegranate “is positioning itself as a grocery store for observant Brooklyn Jews,” and they are not likely to be disappointed. Everything in the store is kosher, “including an entire freezer case filled with gefilte fish variations.” But Pomegranate clearly “hopes to lure shoppers who do not keep kosher.”

In addition to “hard-to-find items (panko, for example), specialty produce (fresh kumquats),” Pomegranate boasts “a vast and competitively priced appetizing section … and extensive takeout counter … The takeout menu will include predictable items like barbecue chicken and coleslaw as well as unusual fare including sushi, burekas and salmon roulade with sun-dried tomatoes.” The prices are competitive, too, and the emphasis is on convenience as much as quality.

“Customers want the convenience of one-stop shopping, in an aesthetically pleasing atmosphere, and they want a large selection of high-quality food items,” notes Menachem Lubinsky of Lubicom, a kosher food industry consultant. “They are more careful about what type of food is provided, especially the meat and the vegetables and the dairy,” observes Tamara Nakolic, a shopper. But Pomegranate would do likely do well even if lacked appeal outside its base: “Orthodox families are larger on average than secular families and spend twice as much on groceries, about $15,000 a year,” says Menachem. ~ Tim Manners, editor

“Guys don’t wear orange or citron,” says J. Crew ceo Mickey Drexler, explaining why he wants to see more blue and white threads in his 267 retail stores, reports John Brodie in Fortune (8/22/08). It’s a bit of insight perhaps held over from his 19 years running Gap, turning what had been a largely undifferentiated apparel chain into “a pop-culture phenomenon.” That tour ended after two years of declining sales, when Mickey was fired by Gap. “The clothes got weird, and I went along with it,” says Mickey. “But I’m not allowing it to happen here. Whatever we do here has to be consistent with the mission of J. Crew.”

That mission, of course, is to grow the business because that’s what Wall Street wants to see. But Mickey doesn’t want to go that route, having seen “so much grief for overstretched retailers from Gap to Starbucks.” But he also doesn’t want so many stores that he can’t do what he loves to do most — “walk into every one of the stores … and quiz associates about what they’re seeing and hearing on the sales floor.” He learned a long time ago, back when he was a young buyer for Bloomingdale’s and Macy’s, of the perils of “managers who got too far removed from the sales floor and lost their touch.” One thing Mickey’s hearing is that big-name designers have had their day.

“Designer goods have become much too available, either through their own distribution or through logo counterfeiting,” says Mickey. Instead, he’s focusing J. Crew on “luxury-for-less.” He’s also trying to attract post-Abercrombie consumers with a new chain called Madewell. And he’s fostering a culture that’s “small and familial,” that encourages ideas “from any employee at any level,” and that extends to the retail environment itself. “Going into a store is kind of like meeting a person,” says Mickey. “I want J. Crew to come across as open, warm and friendly.” So far, both J. Crew’s operating margins (12.9 percent) and sales per square foot ($569) are beating industry averages of 7-8 percent and $400, respectively. ~ Tim Manners, editor