This is what seems so bizarre to me about this debate. Do you really think a zoning board is qualified at all to determine what businesses will “serve people in the neighborhood”? Or what the “level of demand” is for retail space? The answer is obviously no. In fact, an American Apparel would have definitely served people in the neighborhood. I see people in the neighborhood wearing their clothes all the time. And why should a zoning board make any effort to regulate the “level of demand”? Does that principle make any sense at all?

I wish everyone in this debate would just take a minute and try to understand what a pecuniary externality is. It would really raise the level of intelligent discourse a level of magnitude.

“because there isn’t as great a demand for retail space on mission street and it isn’t (yet) seen as being up-and-coming the way valencia is.”

How do you know there is not a great demand for retail space on mission street? Mission street, I would bet, has fewer or just about the same number of empty storefronts as valencia.

The 99 cent stores and discount stores are not going anywhere. The demand for them is too great, that why they have been around for a while.

Wasn’t that the location of Ben Alexander’s (from Dragnet fame) Used Cars?

uck, that’s not what i was saying at all. valencia street is virtually all locally-owned and is making a lot of money. it’s not “precious” (jeez) and a lot of it is gross. mission street already has some chain retail. some of it is kind of bad, but some of it (anna’s linens for example, or at least it seems to me) actually serves people in the neighborhood and hasn’t really set any kind of precedent (the way american apparel absolutely would have on valencia) because there isn’t as great a demand for retail space on mission street and it isn’t (yet) seen as being up-and-coming the way valencia is. i don’t necessarily want to see more of it; i’d just much rather have another store like that than an urban outfitters or a pottery barn.

yes, i totally agree. i was more trying to say that aa being or not being on valencia wouldn’t change mission street because it is so similar to what is already on valencia.

formula retail or gentrification is not the answer.

i don’t think it’s the answer; i’d much rather have locally owned businesses, and like i said, i’d hate for mission to become pricy and ritzy. i don’t think “chain stores are ok;” i think we need to be really cautious, but i think it’s fair to recognize that mission st is built for a different kind of retail than valencia street. if walnut creek-style chain retail is the only other option, i’d rather it stay as it is. but mission street is going to change a lot over the next decade or so. i’m not altogether unhappy with how it is now, but all those discount stores probably won’t be around too long, and we need to start figuring out what we want mission street to look like, because the people behind the new mission project and all the condo development obviously have their own ideas.

http://www.leanos.net/projects/missionY2K/doc_1969.htm

But regardless, construction plus suburban flight were a hell of a blow. SF did better than other cities like Detroit and St. Louis, but still…

Anyone have any pictures of BART construction on Mission? I’m coming up with bupkis.

Some interesting neighborhood perspectives on BART from 1970 — let’s just say they weren’t fans:

“Is Senor Taco the type of urban renewal we want? BART will bring tourists from downtown to 16th and Mission in three minutes. Our homes will become hotel rooms and restaurants and serape stores, and Topless Taco Clubs that do not serve Mexicans.”

A little known fact is that Topless Taco Clubs are indeed the secret to urban renewal. My European friends pay top dollar for that.

All I know is I want my BART station at 30th and Mission. Anyone got any extra stimulus package?

Mission street works for the people that live in the neighborhood. It may have more litter and graffiti than Valencia, but formula retail or gentrification is not the answer.

What happens on Valencia affects Mission Street. More restaurants like wierd fish, the one next to cha cha cha’s will continue to locate on Misssion street and attract the valencia crowd.

What do you think is going to happen to the rents and businesses along Miision.

You are so funny, valencia street is so precious and unique that AA is not appropriate, but chains are ok on Mission Street. AA is actually the perfect chain store for valencia, if you are only considering the type of store.

Thank you for making a rational argument in an otherwise senseless discussion.