CFAH

CityPlace: Rendering

From the CityPlace website:

Located in the Mid-Market neighborhood between 5th and 6th Streets, this exciting new development will continue the enhancement of San Francisco’s primary retail corridor. The proposed project will stretch from 935-965 Market Street and bring approximately 250,000 square feet of new value-based retail to the neighborhood….If City approvals are secured in a timely fashion, construction on the project can begin in July 2009 and will be completed in July 2011.

935-965 Market: Before and After

In addition to the public-serving improvements that are directly related to CityPlace, the project development team is committing to making further enhancements to the area, focusing on Stevenson Street in particular….The plan for Stevenson includes landscaping and design elements, as well as the creation of three small retail spaces for micro-vendors – small, local entities with a need for a storefront to get their business off the ground.

CityPlace: Stevenson Impact

From the Examiner: “David Rhoades of developer Urban Realty Co. said the project will be filled with several large “value-based” retailers, along the lines of Ross and Marshalls.” Luckily no mention of a Mervyns.

And from an earlier overview of the project: “If City approvals are secured in a timely fashion, construction on the project can begin in mid-2008 and will be completed in mid-2010″…

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by zig

    this is the sort of project that should be approved without the typical protracted process
    I also like the idea of micro-vendor space
    I hope when the central subway ped tunnel is built they consider this option if they plan to have some retail to allow little guys to open up shop.

  2. Posted by sf

    We already have a Ross 2 blocks away. Why can’t they just say Target? Because then the Sue Hestors will come out of their caves and ruin all the fun for everyone! “No big box retailers!” This looks like a great project and I look forward to it’s opening in 2239.

  3. Posted by zzzzzzzzz

    Why would the Sue Hestors of the world find Ross or Marshall’s any less objectionable than Target? I have no problems with any of the above, but I can’t see why the knee-jerk reaction to formula retail would distinguish among the choices here.

  4. Posted by jlasf

    To paraphrase McCain, “Build here. Build now.” Anything that can help eliminate the blight of that part of Market Street is a vast improvement. Can you imagine a day when Market is presentable all the way to 9th?

  5. Posted by derrysf

    I will be interested to see what this development might mean to that piece of Stevenson Street, which is currently just about the nastiest 300 yards in San Francisco.

  6. Posted by sf

    zzz- because there is already a Ross 2 blocks away, and SF is used to Ross, but I feel Target would be too much of a drastic change for the faint NIMBYs out there.

  7. Posted by zig

    I have no doubt that this could be a success
    Its easy to be critical of SF but in the area of downtown post WWII planning it has been better than most cities. We have a great downtown with real stores. Bringing in this mid level and lower level retail to mid-market just enhances that more

  8. Posted by Willow

    If Manhattan can get away with a K-Mart surely San Francisco is not too precious for a Target store.

  9. Posted by zzzzzzzz

    It is supremely ironic that SF, which wears its progressivism like a badge of honor, would welcome Bloomingdale’s, Nordstrom’s, Neiman Marcus, Saks, Barney’s and Macy’s – yet forbid Target! The mind boggles.

  10. Posted by Live Smart

    If you want this development to become a reality, vote all the progressives and anti-growth prop measures out!!!
    I am sick and tired of people who bitch and whine about how we aren’t able to move forward projects and businesses quickly enough only to find out people vote the same progressives back into office and the anti-growth and anti-landlord measures are enacted into law.

  11. Posted by Eric in SF

    I see three reasons, zzzzzzzz:
    * Target is big box. We all know how toxic that can be to a development.
    * The high-end stores are where a portion NIMBYs shop. Educated guess on my part.
    * Target doesn’t bring in people from Asia and Europe to shop. A good friend works one of the high-end boutiques located inside Neiman Marcus. He tells stories of insanely rich Asians flying to SF for the weekend just to shop for $100,000 luggage (I kid you not) because it’s half the price here that it is in Tokyo/Shanghai/Kuala Lumpur.
    I think New York, by virtue of its size, still has sane people who understand having a wide variety of retailers is a winning proposition. Unlike the West Coast New York is not as infatuated with process over results and so a small vocal group can’t derail things that 99% of the community want.

  12. Posted by g

    But I thought Target is supposed to be the hip, better designed alternative to Wal-Mart for cheap Chinese products for us snobby liberal-elites?

  13. Posted by Zig

    “New York, by virtue of its size”
    This IMO is the source of a lot of our problems
    If SF was bigger and incorporated areas like South City and Milbrae as examples into a single political entity you would have a lot more balance and middle class representation
    Much like NYC seems to have
    As it is now in SF we have a very high ratio of assholes the self centered and politically extreme to “normal” people

  14. Posted by Victor Traycey

    knock down that PG&E powerplant as well

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles