Seriously, this is such a solid Ribity, whatever business takes over this decrepit old theater when the block goes upmarket must retain it as its official marquee. Hereby decreed.
Previously:
Resless Ribity Photography + Perfunctory Photoshoppery = GOLD
Allan -
I had always hoped that they would put in an Independent sized venue in the Mission, and though this would be the perfect site it’s unfortunately slated to become an eighty foot condo – a full 20 feet higher than ANY building on Mission Street. Funny I think that this is way more disturbing than the prospect of an American Apparel on Valenica.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/04/BAO915MO0L.DTL
@ Devin – actually, this is a different derelict 20 – 30K sft space sitting unused on mission street, attracting blight and crime, from the one you’re referring.
there are 4 or 5 of them, and the one you’re talking about is the new mission theater, which is also between 21st & 22nd. (across the street, i think, from cine latino, which has the ribity).
the theater itself is not slated to become condos….it’s slated to be refurbed, and become a nightclub or some such.
it’s the giant ugly $.99 store next to it (“giant value”) that’s slated to become the condo development.
there’s a lot of info out there on the web about the new mission theater development hoo ha. probably it will be 5 – 7 years for it all to happen, if it happens.
my opinion, we COULD REALLY use an independent music venue in the hood, and one of these theaters would be great, but the economics of running that type of business probably makes that impossible. these spaces are too big to fill them often enough. shit, little 12 galaxies couldn’t make a go of it. and the cost of the tickets required to support the huge venue would certainly make people freak out, and given that many folks attending the shows would have to be from outside the hood, my guess is MAC would shut that shit down in a hot “progressive” minute.
far as the condo dev being “disturbing”, everyone’s entitled to their opinion of course.
i believe the legal height limit on mission was cite-specifically boosted to 65 feet for this property, and the one between 20th & 21st that contains the Ambassador SRO (also formerly a theater). i’m not sure that the standard limit is…
the bost i would say is appropriate given the giant size of the cites, the need for housing, proximity to public transpo on mission, market demand, and the fact that we’re living in the 21st century, not the 1940s.
that the NMT scammed another 20 feet is sleazy, but it’s not the end of the world in my opinion. business is better than blight, and another 2 floors of people moving in who might give a fuck about the hood would be OK with me.
Yeah, that ribity is gorgeous. Also, the inverted “ytibir” on the reverse side is great, although unfortunately there isn’t a matching frog.
Just looks like urban blight to me.
Yes, devin is ignorant on so many levels…
I want Girafa on the opposite side.
that piece of graffiti is ugly. If I could I would paint over it.
Zin zin, why do you always have to take a shot at MAC
@missionborn – i think that the basic precept of MAC is a good one. as i understand it:
let’s not displace long time mission residents, merchants etc., simply because of changing economic times…let’s afford them protections for the betterment of the hood in general, let’s respect traditions and keep the hood accessible to as broad a range of people as possible, as it is this diversity that makes the hood what it is and what we love.
right? who would argue with that? not me.
but then, in my observations, i kind of see that MAC is anti-development of any kind (other than low cost housing, maybe), anti-change of any kind, and in that, imho, are pretty much NOT for the betterment of the hood.
more, they are interested in perpetuating their own philosophical views, in many cases, PREVENTING things that would be good for the hood.
my main example – and please, prove me wrong – is that MAC (and MEDA i guess?) prevented a gym (mission cliffs maybe?) from opening in one of these theaters. because “the mission community doesn’t go to the gym”. or because “some people in the mission couldn’t afford to go to the gym”.
is that a good enough reason? or is it dogmatic grandstanding with an insular focus….not a focus on the ACTUAL betterment of the hood? what’s bad about a gym? health is good. jobs are good. commerce is good. and someone using this giant building – hard to use 20K sft – is good. why stop them?
same thing – again, please prove me wrong – happened when someone tried to put a resto in that building across folsom from rainbow. it has a zigzag awning, used to be rehearsal space…now behind a cyclone fence, and derelict for 10 years maybe. my understanding, MAC et al shut them down in planning because “the mission community doesn’t go to that kind of resto”. or because “some people in the mission couldn’t afford to go to that kind of resto”.
is that good for the hood? is that preventing displacement?
i am 10000% FOR preservation of the diversity in our hood. what i can’t understand is folks that say they are for “improving” the hood, when actually they are simply forwarding their own narrow (and increasingly outdated) political agenda, and in some cases, actually PREVENTING good things from happening.
my view, responsible development is GOOD for the hood. Murad gets nailed on the 20 feet, he’s got it coming, whatever. but responsible development is GOOD. it brings jobs, commerce and revenue. to everyone.
[...] in the minus category — I am sad to report that the Cine Latino Ribity has been painted [...]