San Francisco's Retail Scene

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by Manarii

Does anybody know what used to be at the corner of Kearny & Post st? (link attached). Where the "Diesel" store is? I am racking my brain trying to remember what used to be there. The present "diesel" store building is not bad and fits in well, but I know it was not there sometime in the 90's. The sherman clay building? Wasn't there some sort of "Rizzoli" (name not sure) bookstore around there that went in mid 90s?

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...543149171149,0

It was Hastings, a high end men's suit store; the building had a brick facade and looked rather classical. There was also another one on the southeast corner of the St. Francis at Powell and Geary.

[Manarii]

double post

[Manarii]

Thanks both of you. With your information I did a little more research.

Was this it? If so, did they tear it down and i wonder why if so. Or is that diesel bldg a modification of what was there? I still for some reason dont remember a Hastings there, but since I never went in there I guess I wouldn't remember.

Here is a photo I found of that corner. Just trying to rack my brain on what happened to the other building since the one there now isn't any larger and is in fact, smaller. You can see that the same building next door is still there..




Here in this photo it says Hastings at Post & Grant. the building is still standing and is now the COACH store. Across from it is the still standing Shreve & Co I believe. Still a beautiful building. I remember Hastings had several stores in SF. Wasn't the present Virgin Megastore on Stockton one? (or was that Mens Wearhouse).




And present day COACH store at Post & Granthttp://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...9,0.02017&z=16

[CHapp]

I think the long defunct Ransohoff was in there once.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by Manarii

Was this it? If so, did they tear it down and i wonder why if so. Or is that diesel bldg a modification of what was there? I still for some reason dont remember a Hastings there, but since I never went in there I guess I wouldn't remember.

Here is a photo I found of that corner. Just trying to rack my brain on what happened to the other building since the one there now isn't any larger and is in fact, smaller. You can see that the same building next door is still there..



I remember Hastings had several stores in SF. Wasn't the present Virgin Megastore on Stockton one? (or was that Mens Wearhouse).

No, the building in the picture must have been demolished to make way for Hastings, since it was not an old building. It had a light red brick facade with classical cement trim which framed a clock in the center of the front and a dark green canopy. The Hastings building was stripped down to its skeleton and redone for Diesel.

The present Virgin Megastore was Grodins. Across the street where Ross is was Roos-Atkins. Roos-Atkins also had a store in the Fitzhugh Building at Post and Powell. I don't remember another Hastings store other than the one that I mentioned in the St. Francis.

[BTinSF]

Pacific Heights residents clash over 99-cent store
Alexandria Rocha, The Examiner
2007-06-11 10:00:00.0
Current rank: # 22 of 6,895

SAN FRANCISCO -
While everything in the 99 Cent Only Store proposed for a Pacific Heights neighborhood would cost less than $1, neighbors are not sure the addition would come without a price.

The 99 Cent Only Store is hoping to open its first San Francisco discount house on the 1300 block of Post Street between Gough and Franklin streets, the former site of a Ralphs grocery store, vacated a year ago, that has been empty since.

Some nearby residents say the proposed bargain store would clash with the high-end neighborhood, attract people from outside the area and pose a safety risk.

“You have professional people that live here,” said one resident of nearby Sutterfield Condominiums who didn’t want to give her name. “I just don’t think it’s going to work. It just kind of degrades the neighborhood.”

Michael McDonagh, who has lived in the area since 1993, said he doesn’t think the deep-discount store would be a proper fit either. He said his friend suggested a Ferry Building-like indoor plaza with a variety of retail shops for the space.

Representatives of the West Coast chain, however, say 99 Cent Only Stores are clean, first-rate establishments that stock fresh produce, health and beauty products and other household items.

“Our stores are attractively merchandised. We pride ourselves on our stores and that they’re clean and well serviced,” said Will Judy, senior manager of property development for the chain.

In October 2006, The City adopted a strict policy for chain stores in certain areas of the The City, including Pacific Heights. The 99 Cent Only Store is the first project subjected to the new guidelines, including a public hearing.

Gaynell Armstrong, a San Francisco Redevelopment Agency project manager, said the new policy came about after residents strongly opposed a Starbucks in Japantown.

“They felt the Starbucks would put the mom-and-pop stores out of business,” she said.

For Margaret Carter, who has lived in Sutterfield Condominiums for 12 years, the store would give her a place to shop for groceries again.“One of the main reasons I bought into the building was because of the grocery store,” she said. “If this is not approved, I’m just afraid it will sit vacant for years.”

[email protected]

Source: http://ewww.sfexaminer.com/printa-77...ent_store.html

[MarkSFCA]

I can't believe a 99 Cent Store would be allowed at this location. I would prefer any other supermarket.

[BTinSF]

^^^It's pretty clear no supermarket wants the location. I don't know why--I used to shop there a lot in spite of Bell/Ralph's high prices--but it seems to be true.

[CHapp]

Sorry, double post.

[CHapp]

You have professional people that live here,” said one resident of nearby Sutterfield Condominiums who didn’t want to give her name.

O yea, how could they forget? Can't go around insulting professionals with stores like that!

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by MarkSFCA

I can't believe a 99 Cent Store would be allowed at this location. I would prefer any other supermarket.

I can't either. In one thread we talk about this ultra cheap store (not that I mind bargains!) and in another thread we talk about a beautiful new skyscraper a block away. It's incongruous and doesn't serve this neighborhood well at all. It's too bad that Trader Joe's didn't go in there since they always seem to be successful.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

^^^It's pretty clear no supermarket wants the location. I don't know why--I used to shop there a lot in spite of Bell/Ralph's high prices--but it seems to be true.

Maybe you should have eaten more!

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

I can't either. In one thread we talk about this ultra cheap store (not that I mind bargains!) and in another thread we talk about a beautiful new skyscraper a block away. It's incongruous and doesn't serve this neighborhood well at all. It's too bad that Trader Joe's didn't go in there since they always seem to be successful.

Trader Joe's already has advancing plans for a store two and a half blocks away at Sutter and Van Ness (ground floor of the building planned to replace the Galaxy Theater). I do wonder whether they considered changing plans when the Bell location became available but the location right on Van Ness will be more prominent (and good for the Van Ness corridor). Also, their stores are usually smaller than regular supermarkets and that space is regular supermarket sized.

As for my eating more--that's a VERY bad idea. I need to lose a lot of wieght(but it probably won't happen).

[nequidnimis]

I live across the street from the empty store and and liked what I heard at the presentation from 99 Cent Only at the Cathedral Hill Neighborhood Forum.

They would carry milk and produce. Because of the 99 cents price, the size of their goods tends to be small. As a result, their target clientele isn't families, but singles and seniors, which makes them a perfect fit with the Cathedral Hill demographics. They say they primarily compete with convenience stores, and people tend to walk out from their stores with a handful of items, as opposed to driving away with a carload.

Also, with a Trader Joe's opening around the corner, no bona fide supermarket will want to move in, so if 99 Cents Only isn't allowed, this storefront will remain vacant for the foreseeable future, depriving the street of foot traffic and contributing to an increase in petty crime.

Finally, I am shocked to hear of so called "professional" people declaring all aren't welcome. That's an unprofessional attitude.

[CHapp]

OT: can't wait for Trader Joe's to move at some Ea Bay sites!

[BTinSF]

Commissioners went too far in blocking Trader Joe's
Chip Johnson
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Folks living in Oakland's Lakeshore and Rockridge neighborhoods have made it loud and clear that they want Trader Joe's to open its grocery stores in their areas. You'd think the city's Planning Commission would bow to the will of the people.

Not quite. Two planning commissioners tried to hold up the approval of liquor licenses at Trader Joe's stores scheduled to open on Lakeshore and College avenues.

The move last week by Commissioners Michael Lighty and Doug Boxer (the son of U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer) had nothing to do with whether alcohol sold at the stores could end up in the hands of minors, one argument used in a failed attempt to block Trader Joe's in Berkeley.

They wanted the popular specialty market chain to agree to allow a Northern California grocery store workers' union to ask employees of the new stores whether they would want to vote to join the union.

While it's not the planning panel's job to include labor issues when determining conditions on a use permit, Lighty said it was as legitimate a concern as any other.

"What I was suggesting is that when we look at major projects we often look at affordable housing, and I've suggested we look at health impacts, socioeconomic impacts, gentrification," said Lighty. "We require developers to meet with community groups even when there are no conditional-use permits or variances involved. I think this is consistent with that."

I don't.

In this particular case, there were no issues over affordable housing and no founded concerns over loitering, which are the primary reasons for and the ones most often associated with the rejection -- or repeal -- of city permits issued to sell liquor.

This was a battle of political ideology for Lighty, a commissioner whose day job is director of public policy for the California Nurses Association, one of the largest and most active labor unions in California.

The crowd at Wednesday's meeting was stacked with partisans of the store that is to open on Lakeshore Avenue, and Lighty said they acted as if he had slighted "God's gift to retail" in what was a reasonable request for a union query of store employees.

But he should have done a little more homework on this subject. Lighty and the community's generally liberal politics take a backseat to community desire, especially for Lakeshore Avenue residents who have lobbied hard for years for a Trader Joe's, which offers quality food at rock-bottom prices.

As a shopping experience, it's far more efficient than some of its larger chain-store competitors. There are clerks at the counter, the line moves at a reasonable pace, and the food selection is unique and pretty darned tasty.

It also should be said that both Trader Joe's stores opening in Oakland are on sites where Albertson's stores shut down, and the competition from the trendy grocery is undoubtedly perceived as a threat to employees at other grocery chain stores nearby.

Oakland City Attorney John Russo, when he represented the Lakeshore Avenue area on the City Council, proposed a plan to wedge a Trader Joe's store across the street from the Grand Lake Theater, where a popular farmers' market is located on Saturdays.

That proposal died, but the community's desires didn't.

City Councilwoman Pat Kernighan, who sits in Russo's former seat, said she spent months lobbying on the community's behalf to bring the popular store to the neighborhood. And that could well have helped her win a close race.

"To this day," she said, "people stop me on the street and say 'Hey, thanks for the Trader Joe's.' "

The most obvious flaw in the plan to hold Trader Joe's feet to the fire was that the union did not contact the company and discuss the issues with them before taking up the issue in a public forum.

After learning that, Commissioner Madeleine Zayas-Mart, who at first abstained from voting on the liquor-sales permit last week, cast her vote to allow Trader Joe's a permit for the Lakeshore Avenue store. A vote on a permit for the College Avenue store was delayed for two weeks, during which time union officials are expected to contact Trader Joe's management.

It's completely reasonable for a city council, a county board of supervisors or a city planning commission to raise legitimate questions about local hiring rates, traffic and land impacts and certainly nuisance impacts on a new or existing business.

But in this case, Lighty and Boxer went too far by attempting to twist the arm of a business that has been invited to town, that is overwhelmingly favored by the neighborhoods it will serve and whose employees have the right to call a union vote any time they want to.

I can understand cases in which market climate should determine public policy. What I don't understand is how a union's concerns can trump -- even temporarily -- widespread public demand for a grocery store that will be a much-needed boost to the city's retail base.

Chip Johnson's column appears on Tuesdays and Fridays. E-mail him at [email protected].

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...AGFJQDKFJ1.DTL

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by nequidnimis

They say they primarily compete with convenience stores, and people tend to walk out from their stores with a handful of items, as opposed to driving away with a carload.

I can't say I've been in "99 Cents Only" but I'm more familiar with Dollar General and Family Dollar. Those places tend to be somewhat anarchic dusty basic places full of off-brands and knick-knacks that remind me of an old Kresge's or Woolworth's--what in my youth we called a "Dime Store" (yeah, the buck's worth about 10 times less now--gas was $.25 a gallon then). If only they had Woolworth's lunch counter--but I reminisce.

Are you familiar with the Bargain Bank on Polk near Sacramento? That might be the closest thing that's still around in SF but much, much larger--and less food, more cheap trinkets and no alcohol.

This is precisely what has me wondering about that location. It's just not a place very many people are likely to walk to. There are residents of The Sutterfield, of course and a few surrounding condos like, I suppose, yours, but that's not so many people. The old "Dime Stores" were invariably at busy downtown locations like the Woolworths next to the Powell/Market cable car turnaround--lots of foot traffic--or, after WW II, sometimes in strip centers with other shopping to attract people.

[nequidnimis]

Duplicate.

[nequidnimis]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

I can't say I've been in "99 Cents Only" but I'm more familiar with Dollar General and Family Dollar. Those places tend to be somewhat anarchic dusty basic places full of off-brands and knick-knacks that remind me of an old Kresge's or Woolworth's--what in my youth we called a "Dime Store" (yeah, the buck's worth about 10 times less now--gas was $.25 a gallon then). If only they had Woolworth's lunch counter--but I reminisce.

Are you familiar with the Bargain Bank on Polk near Sacramento? That might be the closest thing that's still around in SF but much, much larger--and less food, more cheap trinkets and no alcohol.

I wouldn't necessarily judge a business by its competition. Being better than your competition is actually a great growth strategy. I have actually heard good things about their stores from residents of my building who have visited their stores with relatives in Hayward, and in Texas.

Also, at their presentation, they assured us they wouldn't sell alcohol at this location.

[nequidnimis]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

This is precisely what has me wondering about that location. It's just not a place very many people are likely to walk to. There are residents of The Sutterfield, of course and a few surrounding condos like, I suppose, yours, but that's not so many people. The old "Dime Stores" were invariably at busy downtown locations like the Woolworths next to the Powell/Market cable car turnaround--lots of foot traffic--or, after WW II, sometimes in strip centers with other shopping to attract people.

I wouldn't be so sure about the not so many people within close walking distance. I believe Cathedral Hill has one of the highest population densities in town. Daniel Burnham Court, and other tall condos have large number of residents. It is a bedroom community, but convenience stores do well in bedroom communities . (I would get back to my old theme, that residential highrises do not generate a pedestrian friendly streetscape, but it would be off topic, and for now, we'll agree to blame this on highrises designed without consideration for street life).

Also, we have a very large number of seniors: not just the Sutterfield, but the older building next to it (I forget its name), the Sequoias, St Mark's Tower, the Carlisle, the Avenue, the San Francisco Towers. Many of them are not much on the streets around here, in part because they are frail, but also because there's not much street life, and they probably do not care much for what's offered in trendy stores anyway. 99cents Only views them as an ideal clientele: they like the low prices and the no-nonsense nature of the offerings.