Reader Chris spotted this item on SFist’s anonymous tip page: After this election thing is done, American Apparel will take over the space currently occupied by the Sanchez campaign. Chris says, “Not sure how I feel about it personally. It’s definitely not the type of development the mission needs.” Why not? You got a problem with my extra-short American Apparel gym shorts?
Update: Elly says:
I asked some mark sanchez reps about this when they doorknocked me yesterday and they told me that AA has actually had the lease on that space for years and not been able to move in because the zoning on valencia doesn’t allow franchises. they seemed to think that AA will never be able to open up there due to that, and pointed out how irritating it is that they’ve been paying like 8k a month to hold the space and keep it from other local businesses that the neighbs might actually want.
Link.
i’m no fan of AA as a company (soft porn adverts notwithstanding)…
but this “type of development” is inevitable in the Mission. get used to it.
and it’s only the beginning. wait till it starts happening on Mission Street proper….(count the vacant storefronts between 16th & 24th…there’s lots…can’t put a 99 cent china-bazaar in every one).
the current fiscal environ is a great opportunity for folks of all kinds to snap up cheap leases….and i hope it’s all indie / local-driven businesses, but it won’t be.
whether it’s “needed” or not i guess is subjective…i’m personally OK with it.
that said, isn’t there some kind of rule against “chain retail” or “formula retail” or whatever the fuck? isnt that something Ammiano put in place? how did this get through?
mcas of jimbeam or josh maybe have some point of view or knowledge to drop on that…?
The location at China Gate has said “coming soon” for about 2 years now. The rents on Valencia Street are sooo high, businesses like these will probably show up more and more.
That said, I personally have a love/hate relationship with AA. They have comfy cotton shirts and socks. But if I see one more 16yr old in gold lame leggings and a fanny pack, i might lose it.
@zinzin. I don’t know the details either but the activist supervisors make businesses, especially bigger chains, jump through so many hoops that it’s just not worth it to open here. It’s sad. Mission Street, though we all love it, looks and smells like shit and there are those who are determined to keep it that way. There is no progress in the so called “progressive agenda”, it’s just business( or no business) as usual.
oh i get what the “activist” “supervisors” do…. i just thought it was official: no formula retail. maybe it’s only on 16th.
far as the “progressive” agenda….well, i’ve written a million lines on here about this already. we’re aligned. it’s a pack of fucking lies.
why people can’t see through the smokescreen keeping mission st. the way it is….
why people dont see that it’s a land grab for public funds that drive largely (not completely) soul-less, do-nothing cottage industries built on the backs of the homeless, the addicted, the mentally ill and the recently immigtrated….
why we’ll elect a snake oil self-interested supervisor in D9….i will never understand it.
anything, anyone, would be better than the mainstream “progressive” choices we have.
one last point, i just cant help myself, it’s so infuriating…
we MIGHT be helped if the other districts get their heads out of their asses and elect someone form outside the Daly / Peskin dictatorship.
obviously it’s not going to happen in D9, given folks’ blind & puppy-like belief in candidates like campos (the puppet) and sanchez (the sleazebag) and quezada (the activist).
still not going to change mission street any time soon (though that will happen over time…..like it or not), but it will change the tenor of the board, which might do some good.
be interesting to see how things go tomorrow.
NIMBY
god, i hate AA
I asked some mark sanchez reps about this when they doorknocked me yesterday and they told me that AA has actually had the lease on that space for years and not been able to move in because the zoning on valencia doesn’t allow franchises. they seemed to think that AA will never be able to open up there due to that, and pointed out how irritating it is that they’ve been paying like 8k a month to hold the space and keep it from other local businesses that the neighbs might actually want.
THAT’S interesting. waiting for the tides to turn away from the “progressive” agenda.
it’s inevitable.
There aren’t any rules against formula retail in the Mission currently (though some have been proposed). Also, there was some sort of Bar/Cafe that was supposed to go into that space but they apparently ran out of money. I seriously doubt that AA has had that lease for a particularly long time.
I don’t know, I’d rather not have Valencia turn into Chestnut or Georgetown in DC. I have no real problem with AA, but chain retail begats chain retail.
According to the Department of Building inspection, on 20 Oct. 08 *someone* filed an application to upgrade 988 Valencia for retail sales use. The improvements are supposed to include: “RELOCATION AND UPGARDE OF E ACCESSIBLE RESTROOMS, FIXTURES, NEW SALES AREA AND DISPLAY LIGHTING, METAL AND GLASS STOREFRONT SYSTEM,EXT LIGHTING,NEW EXITS AT REAR. MEP AND SIGN SEPARATE PERMIT.”"
That’s all I have the patience to find. As for ownership of the building, I’m having difficulty finding that.
shoot. if only the city regulated “large scale photos of half naked teenagers” we would know who filed for the permit.
Isn’t there a way to prohibit development by companies run by creepy perverts who run around the office in their underwear and creat teen porn photographs for their advertising? American Apparel clothins is relatively harmless. But the company is owned and run by a nut job. Eww.
Read the LA Times piece on Dov Charney. I think it mentions the name of his real estate company. It certainly mentions the sexual harassment lawsuits and his questionable judgement on…well just about everything.
Oh come on, if we tried to hinder every company that was run by a nut job… um, there would be very few companies?
I just received a notice about a hearing regarding American Apparel moving into this space. So it is definitely moving ahead.
how are they going to do it? isnt it “against the law” for formula retail to move in? or is that not set up yet? what’s the process for it getting st up or not?
personally i dont give a fuck. i say let em move in. Terry Richardson soft core teen porn trumps formula retail any day.
Oh, and can you post when / where on the hearing?
yes aa has the lease to this building and has for a long time.
inorder for them to move in they have to get local businesses and neighbor support first.
regarding the china gate location, it just opened a few days ago.
so seeing as there coming soon sign was posted for years, dont expect to see an aa on valencia anytime soon.
I see nothing wrong with a company that fights for workers rights, pays a living wage to garment workers, supports progressive media, supports gay rights and sells cool product from moving in. Support those who support us. Soft core porn in ads? So is Abercrombie. But I don’t see them taking out full pages ads in the NYT taking on workers rights. AA did.
yeah I love AA rad.
We should restrict companies run by nut jobs. And actually, fewer giant companies might not be a bad thing.
But that’s not even that important repeated sexual harassment does not equal nutjob. It equals sexual offender.
For that matter, I’m sick of hearing about AA’s great work practices. It’s absolutely ridiculous to not consider a complete culture of sexual harassment (as dov charney himself agrees to though doesn’t use the term harassment – clearly) bad employment practices.
Great no sweat shops! Just get felt up at work instead!
American Apparel stores sell porn. Literally. These guys are classy!
A West Vancouver mother says she is angry a popular clothing store has openly displayed a pornographic magazine featuring explicit homoerotic images.
Trina Campbell told CBC News on Tuesday she and her 13-year-old daughter saw the magazine sticking out of a backpack on display inside the American Apparel outlet at the Park Royal Shopping Centre in West Vancouver.
“I pulled it out and I went to open it and it flipped open to a double-page spread of two men having full-on sexual activity, not just suggestive,” Campbell said.
“I don’t think this is something that the average person wants to see unless they’re ready or going out of the way to see it.”
The quarterly magazine, BUTT, focuses on homosexuality, and it is available for sale worldwide.
Campbell said she complained to store staff, who said it was a head-office decision to put the magazine in the display.
Repeated calls by CBC News to American Apparel’s U.S. head office were not returned on Tuesday.
Staff at the Park Royal mall’s American Apparel outlet said they sell the magazines only to people with identification to prove they are over 18, and they keep the magazines behind the counter.
Maybe Kink and American Apparel can work something out for the Valencia Street store.
heh.
maybe an AA + kink partnership would make it sufficiently gritty to pass muster of the missionista nimby types.
maybe it will be a trend.