San Francisco's Retail Scene

[J Church]

Malloy is actually a friend of mine, so I shouldn't say too much. I'll just say that this was not my group's idea, although I'm sure as much will be assumed in the next round of Gay Shame anti-gentrification fliers pasted on light poles at 3 in the morning.

The idea originated with Rudy "rock-and-roll" Colombini, the lead singer in a Rolling Stones cover band who wants to open a music school in the Gulch. Ironic, isn't it? In any case John might have the funding to put up the banners but given the, um, level of neighborhood support (90% of merchants are in favor, he says? Again, I shouldn't say too much), I'd be surprised if it got any farther than that.

[sf_eddo]

Interesting... it sounds like a one (or few)-guy(s) campaign...

i kind o fprefer polk gulch over polk village. it just *sounds* better. polk village reminds me of seaport village in san diego, which is hella gnarly.

i get really annoyed that the only way we've found to revitalize neighborhoods is to bring gentry in, or to somehow make neighborhoods more appealing to those on the outside.

i guess there's no profit in making neighborhoods pleasant for those who *already* live there....

even official policy with some places (SoMa, Hayes Valley) seems liek they are bent on luring gentry into places in order to kick out those less desirable.

i mean, i understand capitalism and all that crap, i just wish some ppl were rich enough that they'd pay for and build just out of th ekindness of their heart

[J Church]

Ed, we really need to talk about this. I think you're getting your impression of how neighborhood improvement works from the Bay Guardian. My little group has been working for years to reduce crime, clean up trash and graffiti, plant trees in Polk Gulch--all things that would benefit residents (existing and future), merchants, visitors, everybody. There is no scheme to bring in new residents, although many have been moving into the neighborhood--I wish we could take credit for that, but it's more because it's easier to get large apartment buildings built in the Van Ness corridor than elsewhere in the city. But anyway, for these efforts--and they have been efforts--we get tagged with the g-word by activists whose idea of a noble calling is midnight fliering and shouting strangers down at meetings, and by armchair observers.

Sorry, but I'm calling bullshit. There is little if any displacement going on around here. This neighborhood is literally 99% renters--I ran the numbers awhile back. There is a gi-normous stock of relatively affordable apartments--the building I'm looking at out the window right now is all immigrants. That building is not going away, and rents haven't gone up in the five years I've been here. We're just getting some infill in place of one-story commercial, and some new businesses that are somewhat swankier. So fucking what. There's room enough for everyone. That's the point of the city. Some folks just have a knee-jerk negative reaction to people who aren't like them, and believe me, it's not just the rich recoiling at the sight of the poor. I will say, though, that the progs are much better at rationalizing their prejudices.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by sf_eddo

i guess there's no profit in making neighborhoods pleasant for those who *already* live there....

even official policy with some places (SoMa, Hayes Valley) seems liek they are bent on luring gentry into places in order to kick out those less desirable.

i mean, i understand capitalism and all that crap, i just wish some ppl were rich enough that they'd pay for and build just out of th ekindness of their heart

Believe me, I don't want to fight about this but I think there is no way to make "neighborhoods pleasant for those who already live there" without attracting more people to want to live there, thereby increasing demand for the available space and, ultimately, the rents. People want to live in the most pleasant (as they define it) hood they can afford. Why shouldn't they? The only way to keep rents low enough for the least affluent and to guarantee that people who live in a neighborhood won't have competition is to make the place as unpleasant as possible and I believe this is what San Francisco has more or less done in certain areas (Mid Market, the Tenderloin, 6th St., parts of the Mission).

JChurch, you want to clean up Polk St.? I think I can tell you how to do it (but I bet you already know). Two institutions there would have to go: (1) The homeless shelter at Polk and Geary, (2) my former employer, the methadone clinic at 1040 Geary. And once there was a third--the Leland Hotel where rooms rented by the hour to the young gay male hookers who lined Polk, but that has been gone now for several years. Actually, the second is also programmed to go because they agreed to sell the building to Pacific Medical Center for their rebuild, but as of the time I left it wasn't known where they'd be relocating. But SF seems to rope off certain areas and concentrate services for all our least attractive citizens which naturally concentrates them and all their problems there. I am certain that if the methadone clinic goes, so will the drug supermarket at Geary and Van Ness (which existed in spite of clinic rules that clients were not allowed to hang around on the street near the clinic). And if the homeless shelter also went, voila! Polk would be back in the hands of the mostly middle class folks who live near it. It might even become a pleasant eating and entertainment zone once again. And rents would probably go up (sorry!)

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by fflint

I think they should call it West Central.

Call it Nob Hill Ouest (just to add a little foreign mistique and some class).

[J Church]

You worked at BAART? They're nice folks and I support their cause, but the synergy between that and the second-biggest homeless shelter in the city two doors down is undeniable.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by J Church

You worked at BAART?

Yup. I'll email you the details if you want but I don't think I should post them publically. I support what they do as well (not unexpectedly) but I still think it's wrong for the city to encourage such services to cluster in certain neighborhoods as much as they do. Are you aware BAART used to have a clinic on Townsend near the Embarcadero--the heart of the new South Beach? And they pretty much got run out when all the development started. That clinic is now at 7th and Market which I always thought was too close to the Geary clinic (I used to walk from one to the other in 10 minutes and so could the clients). I always thought one of them should have stayed way south of Market or in the Outer Mission.

[sf_eddo]

Originally Posted by J Church

Ed, we really need to talk about this. I think you're getting your impression of how neighborhood improvement works from the Bay Guardian.

Originally Posted by BTinSF

Believe me, I don't want to fight about this but I think there is no way to make "neighborhoods pleasant for those who already live there" without attracting more people to want to live there, thereby increasing demand for the available space and, ultimately, the rents.

I've gotten flak about this before. I really don't know how neighborhood associations and the like work. And I think I do tend to have a knee-jerk SFBG-esque reaction to this sort of stuff.

But I do know what I see and what I observe, especially in my own neighborhood, the rapidly gentrifying and hip-ifying Hayes Valley, where businesses cater to the goofy white kids with expensive tastes in shoes, messenger bags, liquor, and local designer clothing, despite the fact that the majority of residents of Hayes Valley and adjacent are working-class blue collar (and hence, in SF, "poor") minorities.

Yes, I am also fully aware of the sort of hypocrisy I'm practicing. I'm one of the people paying over-priced rent in this here 'hood. Perhaps it's a guilt thing on my part - enough of the psychology.

A legitimate question: Developers must have financial incentive to build. Oftentimes, this comes in the form of building luxury condos and selling it at overpriced values. Other times, this comes in the form of subsidies and agreements for low-income housing. What, if any, incentives do developers have to build private housing for working or middle class folks, and sell them at prices that median incomes can afford? Can or does The City do anything to encourage this type of development?

Or does the middle class have to wait for the luxury market to bottom out in order to be able to live in this city?

Am I being totally irrational and SFBG-like here?

[EastBayHardCore]

I'm curious about this too. Because land is in short supply here I often wonder what incentive anyone has to develop the property into anything but luxury (high margin) units, unless compelled otherwise.

err... just realized this was the retail thread, sorry to get it off track.

[J Church]

Or does the middle class have to wait for the luxury market to bottom out in order to be able to live in this city?

Uh, well ...

Hey, Trinity will be rentals. No, really. Nearly 2,000 of 'em.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by sf_eddo

I've gotten flak about this before. I really don't know how neighborhood associations and the like work. And I think I do tend to have a knee-jerk SFBG-esque reaction to this sort of stuff.

But I do know what I see and what I observe, especially in my own neighborhood, the rapidly gentrifying and hip-ifying Hayes Valley, where businesses cater to the goofy white kids with expensive tastes in shoes, messenger bags, liquor, and local designer clothing, despite the fact that the majority of residents of Hayes Valley and adjacent are working-class blue collar (and hence, in SF, "poor") minorities.

Yes, I am also fully aware of the sort of hypocrisy I'm practicing. I'm one of the people paying over-priced rent in this here 'hood. Perhaps it's a guilt thing on my part - enough of the psychology.

A legitimate question: Developers must have financial incentive to build. Oftentimes, this comes in the form of building luxury condos and selling it at overpriced values. Other times, this comes in the form of subsidies and agreements for low-income housing. What, if any, incentives do developers have to build private housing for working or middle class folks, and sell them at prices that median incomes can afford? Can or does The City do anything to encourage this type of development?

Or does the middle class have to wait for the luxury market to bottom out in order to be able to live in this city?

Am I being totally irrational and SFBG-like here?

The mayor has been trying: http://www.gavinnewsom.com/index.php?id=15

But the SFBG has fought him all along the way.

If you really want to know what would help the blue collar, middle class folks (this is going to really stir things up!): A Super Wal-Mart. I shop there all the time in Tucson and save piles of money on everything from cat litter to DVDs. They did gave me a really wierd look when I asked, once, if they had any lemongrass.

But San Francisco is a boutique city. It's too small and too wealthy to expect those with money not to bid the price of housing above the level that most folks can afford. Those of us who bought years ago (me), live in rent-controlled apartments or inherited homes here are lucky (or smart). The only real solution would be to do the exact opposite of what the SFBG and the current Supervisors want: lift the moratoria and flood the market with housing. Overbuild to the point where prices collapse. But most (if not all) of the current Supes are homeowners and I'm sure enjoy seeing what's happening to their property values as much as the rest of us do. So don't hold your breath.

[BTinSF]

Oh, yeah--it's retail. Well, here's a real retail tragedy unfolding:

Clean Well-Lighted Place for Books to go dark
San Francisco Business Times - 2:56 PM PDT Fridayby Mark Calvey
A Clean Well-Lighted Place for Books in San Francisco told customers Friday that it closing the book on the popular bookstore.
"We deeply regret to announce that we will be closing A Clean Well-Lighted Place for Books as soon as we can liquidate our inventory," owner Neal Sofman said in an email to customers.
The liquidation sale started Friday at the bookstore located at 601 Van Ness Ave.
"Many will ask why this is happening," the company said. "The reasons are many and complex. The simple answer is that the book buying market has moved on, either geographically or culturally.

Killed by Amazon!

[BTinSF]

Deleted

[EastBayHardCore]

Barneys signs lease for S.F. flagship store
San Francisco Business Times - 9:08 AM PDT Tuesday
by Sarah Duxbury

Barneys has tied the knot: The New York based retailer signed a lease at 48 Stockton St. to open a San Francisco flagship.

The 60,000 square foot store, scheduled to open next fall, is the latest in a massive expansion by Barneys New York, the upscale fashion institution owned by Jones Apparel Group (NYSE: JNY).

San Francisco has been a goal for the company since it began expanding outside New York several years ago, said Howard Socol, chairman and CEO of Barneys.

The San Francisco store follows similar-sized stores in New York, Beverly Hills, Chicago and Boston.

The Boston store is the chain's newest and opened to great fanfare in March. A Dallas flagship will open in September, and later this fall, another flagship will open in the expanded Venetian resort in Las Vegas.

The flagships are only part of an ongoing Barneys boom.

In addition to its flagships, Barneys runs three smaller regional Barneys stores, 12 outlets and 10 Co-ops, a major growth vehicle for the company, which announced last week that it would open new Co-ops in Los Angeles and Austin, Tex. next spring. The smaller Co-op store focuses on contemporary sportswear and premium denim. Barneys hopes to open four Co-ops a year, and last month announced it would also open stores in Troy, Mich. and White Plains, N.Y. this fall.

Barneys' arrival in San Francisco, first reported in this paper in November 2005, heightens the competition in Union Square, and removes a significant vacancy from the market.

When it opens in 2007, Barneys will be the sixth department store within a five-block radius, joining the much-hooplahed Bloomingdale's flagship scheduled to open in September, Nordstrom, Macy's flagship, Neiman Marcus and Saks.

Barneys' new home has stood three-quarters vacant since 2002, when FAO Schwarz closed shop. Vikki Johnson of Johnson Hoke brokered the deal.

Barneys said it plans to restore the facade of the 1909 building while bringing the interior to the most luxurious modern standards.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

^ Interesting how often SF's papers call retail "flagships." I can understand calling the new Bloomingdales a flagship store, but the SF Barney's New York will not be the flagship of the West Coast. Usually the term "flagship" means "your biggest and best store" or at least "your best one in the area." In the Bay Area's case, and for any other Barney's market, there is usually only one in each city, so you can't have a "best one" when there is only one.

New York's Barney's is the flagship in the country followed by Beverly Hills as the West Coast flagship.

[EastBayHardCore]

Maybe it was Barney's who used the term? Call it what you want to call it, but maybe they feel that this store is the WEST COAST flagship, thereby reducing the BH store to non-flagship status. OH NOES!!!

...honestly who gives a flying f.

[shrek05]

Barneys calls everything a flagship. The newly built Barneys in Las Vegas, Dallas, and Boston are all flagships. They also call the Beverly Hills, Chicago, and NYC locations flagships.

The sadder thing is..that is pretty much all their stores...minus the store at Americana Manhasset, i guess their only non-flagship

[EastBayHardCore]

So much for the SF flagship conspiracy of '06.

[fflint]

Forumers from outside SF have complained of our local media's use of the word "flagship" for years now. Usually the complaining forumers believe their respective hometowns should have bragging rights to various and sundry "flagships." There's really no standardized definition of what constitutes a "flagship," and no way to patrol the stores' usage of that description. Homers will have to live with that.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by fflint

Forumers from outside SF have complained of our local media's use of the word "flagship" for years now. Usually the complaining forumers believe their respective hometowns should have bragging rights to various and sundry "flagships." There's really no standardized definition of what constitutes a "flagship," and no way to patrol the stores' usage of that description. Homers will have to live with that.

Ok, but it remains a fact that only three US cities I can think of have a huge concentration of DOWNTOWN upscale retail--New York, San Francisco and Chicago. LA probably has more upper end stores but they are in malls or streets in ultra-luxe enclaves like Rodeo Drive. At least until recently, any chain's "flagship" was a downtown store. LABeauty can call a store in Beverley Hills a "flagship" if she wants, but she can't count it as a downtown LA store.