Anthropologie Heads To Bedford Square; Tenant Signed For Kemper-Gunn Too

The first 40,000 square feet of Bedford Square has been leased.

AnthropologieAnthropologie — the women’s clothing store owned by Urban Outfitters, now located 2 miles east, next to Balducci’s — will move into the retail/ residential development downtown. Its specific location is the Bedford building and adjacent former firehouse, on the corner of Main Street, the Post Road and Church Lane.

The new Anthropologie will include a full restaurant, clothing, home and beauty stores, and BHLDN, Anthropologie’s wedding brand.

Serena and LilyMeanwhile, across Church Lane, Serena and Lily will move into the Kemper-Gunn house, newly relocated from Elm Street in the Baldwin parking lot. They sell home decor, custom bedding, nursery furniture, rugs and wallpaper. This will be their 3rd US store.

Still on the market: 30,000 square feet of space.

Bedford Square

A rendering of Church Lane, from the Bedford Square website.

11 responses to “Anthropologie Heads To Bedford Square; Tenant Signed For Kemper-Gunn Too

  1. And what happened to Sherwood square? Named changed.

    • It become Sconset Square MANY years ago. I’m not sure why, and I’m not sure if Sconset has any meaning whatsoever. Sherwood sure did!

      • Yes, John Sherwood also gave Sherwood Island to the exclusive use of Westport residents but the town found a way to sell it to the state; now it regularly gets traffic crossing the GW bridge en route to the park.

      • Jack Whittle

        Sconset square is clearly named / modeled after the village of Sconset in Nantucket, right down to the nautical flagpole. Seemed to have changed around 25 years ago.

  2. Serena and Lily is a California based retailer. It has raised over $60 million in capital thus far. It is not a “mom and pop” entity, nor is it local. Is this the sort of tenant envisioned by the 34 RTM members who voted to overturn the P&Z, or by those who exhorted us to “Save the Gunn House”?
    http://www.savekempergunn.com/

    Fortunately, 14 members of the RTM were wise enough to not vote to overturn the P&Z in the case of Baron’s South, another instance in which representations were made with respect to the nature of the tenants on leased town land.

    It is bad public policy to give town owned assets to a privately own profit making entity or a private special interest group. Such transactions give off an odor.

    • James Erlich

      Michael – I do not mean this in reply to this particular article but selling, leasing, or giving away town or state owned property to private entities is how this country was built. Its why many towns all over the country even exist. It is done every day of the year all over the country. The question is, does the sale or leasing of land produce a financial, economical, and/or social benefit. Some places do it to create jobs, some places do it for tax revenue, some places do it to fund budget gaps, etc. It only stinks when it is done in a back room dealings without transparency and without an open and fair bidding process.

      • Government ownership of private property was minimal when this nation was founded. When the government buys land and gives it away, it is distorting factor allocations. The issue is not whether or not the giving away of publicly owned land creates a “economical, and or social benefit”, in almost every case it does not. The giving away of land creates a benefit for special interests. That is its only purpose. The net effect is to reduce overall economic welfare. Government owned land is not a public good; there is rivalry in consumption.

        If the government wants to increase tax revenues, it should stop taking land off the tax roles. Selling assets to fund operating expenses will result eventually in bankruptcy.

        The acquisition of land by the government reduces overall welfare, and creates an opportunity for cronyism. The fact that it is done every day is testimony to just how prevalent is cronyism.

  3. Maybe this is a dumb question but I’ll risk it — any local mom and pops moving into Bedford Square?? Maybe?? Hoping?? Have to say it looks beautiful though.

  4. Bart Shuldman

    Great news for many reasons.

    First, Bedford Square turns a non tax paying property into a property that will pay taxes. The added amount of tax revenue the town is already receiving could help minimize or even insure our taxes will not go up this year. Added to the new taxes collected and the Grand List going up with all the new construction, we just might see no tax increase. And once Bedford is finished, our tax revenue from the building will go up more

    The other good news is the new tenant taking 40,000 feet is not Walmart. I say this with a bit of tongue in cheek as most never believed Walmart would take the space, but now that conversation is over. Looks like the space will be ‘cool’. This area of our main town will eventually be filled with lively stores and restaurants making Westport a place many will want to live in.

    So congrats to Westport. And congrats to the developers who continue to invest in Westport

  5. Joyce Barnhart

    As long as it doesn’t all flood in the next super storm.

  6. BEATUS, CARYL

    IN REFERENCE TO SHERWOOD ISLAND, I THOUGHT IT WAS JOHN’S FATHER HARRY THAT DONATED THE LAND TO THE TOWN. I MAY STAND CORRECTION.

    RE SHERWOOD SQUARE: B.V “DEXTER” BROOKS, JR BOUGHT THE PROPERTY FROM SHERWOOD,. PROBABLY JOHN. DEXTER WAS AN AVID SAILOR, OFTEN CRUISING UP AND DOWN THE EAST COAST.
    I’M ASSUMING HE WAS ESPECIALLY FOND OD SCONSET VILLAGE IN NANTUCKET, THUS THE NAME “SCONSET SQUARE” AND IT’S BANNER.