What: CityPlace community meeting with the development team for “the proposed new value-based retail project for the Mid-Market neighborhood.”
When: Wednesday, December 2, 6:00pm
Where: 901 Market Street
Why: Learn more about the proposed development. And perhaps report back…
∙ Details To Augment Designs For “CityPlace” (935-965 Market Street) [SocketSite]
∙ CityPlace (935-965 Market Street) [discovercityplace.com]
I’ve been interested in Mid-Market for years (I’ve worked and lived down there since the mid-90’s) so I’m very excited about this development. I hope it works out.
Let turn Market St. into SF’s equivalent of the Magnificent mile.
That sounds good but I wonder if there’s enough retail sales to support both Union Square and a new stretch of Market.
Please let this move forward. Mid-Market is pathetic and depressing and after the defeat of Prop D it’d be nice to know people actually want this city to progress.
What kind of euphemism is “value-based retail”?
Heh, I can imagine the advertising campaign now,
“Come to mid-market to shop, we have ‘value-based retail’ unlike Union Square with its ‘label-based non-value retain’.”
Bad idea, bad location and it’s possible it will sit mostly empty.
The surrounding building in the photo are run down and mediocre but even they have more vissual appeal than that flat glass wall that will be this building.
The surrounding buildings have visual appeal? I hadn’t noticed that.
“The surrounding buildings have visual appeal? I hadn’t noticed that.”
That’s why I describer them as ‘rundown and mediocre’. What makes is all sad is that design for the new building is even more mediocre. San Francisco seems generally incapable of doing good let alone great architecture.
San Francisco seems generally incapable of doing good let alone great architecture.
Absolutely. You guys should see what other cities are doing with value-oriented big box shopping centers. Some marvelous stuff out there. Check out the Queens Walmart or the numerous parking lot-surrounded stores in Chicago. Amazing indeed. (rolling eyes)
Yeah Gil, San Francisco is no Portland or Seattle — veritable bastions of world class architectural excellence both! LOL.
Yikes! Gil mentions the need for better design standards in San Francisco and the Chamber of Commerce Police jump all over him. What is it about some San Franciscans that reminds me of religious fundamentalists? They do not allow any discussion, any criticism, or any facts to get in the way of their non-stop love with “the greatest place on earth”.
Why does a discussion about architecture on San Francisco’s main boulevard have to be compared to suburban big box stores? Why NOT set the standards higher? Why not Michigan Avenue?
Why not Paseo de la Reforma for that matter!?!? Mexico City’s main street is an urban showcase, as are their Metro stations. I feel safer riding their subways, and find the trains and stations FAR cleaner than MUNI. I would also feel much safer walking Paseo de la Reforma than Mid Market.
Why does a discussion about architecture on San Francisco’s main boulevard have to be compared to suburban big box stores? Why NOT set the standards higher? Why not Michigan Avenue?
Um, you do realize what kind of development this IS, don’t you? How many value-oriented big box stores are on Michigan Ave? Best Buy? That it?
People complain about the city raising the cost of building here by micromanaging what is built where, and then complain when a building catering to low cost stores doesn’t want to spend loads on a fancy schmancy architect? I just don’t get it. If we’re looking for a nice architectural achievement, why not look practically next door at the adaptive reuse of the Emporium building? Absolutely gorgeous, inside and out.
I feel safer riding their subways, and find the trains and stations FAR cleaner than MUNI.
Agreed. I’d also say the same for EVERY other American subway system aside from the DC Metro. It’s well established that the US doesn’t give a rat’s behind about having nice, clean, safe transit systems outside of the nation’s capital. New York’s is nasty, Boston’s is gross, Chicago’s is absolutely horrid, LA’s is nasty, SF’s is gross, etc, etc. Even Hugo Chavez has a much nicer subway system than every one in the US, in terms of cleanliness and safety (except for maybe DC).
Really Anon? I actually think the trains and stations on L.A.’s Metro are very clean.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29157048@N06/3206036602/
Chicago trains are “absolutely horrid”? Have you been there in the last two years? Chicago has a major program under way to refurbish almost every one of the hundreds of urban stations, replace a large amount of their rolling stock, and the trains seemed quite well maintained to me. I have never felt fear for my safety on Chicago or New York subway trains.
I have never felt fear for my safety on Chicago or New York subway trains.
Then I must guess that you’ve not spent much time on the NYC subway (any part really), and certainly not much time on Chicago L line south of the Loop.
Chicago has billions and billions in deferred maintenance on the L, so I’d be much more fearful about your safety than you let on. It’s a century old system that has been allowed to essentially fall apart. The signalling systems are archaic, tracks are falling apart in many places, and trains that should have been taken out of service ten years ago are still running every day. Pay attention to pages two and three of this:
http://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/miscellaneous_documents/20090615_chairremarks-apta.pdf
On that block, 901 Market Street is on the National Register of Historic Buildings, and is quite beautiful.
http://www.noehill.com/sf/landmarks/nat1986003492.asp
Once CityWalk is approved, four boarded-up buildings on that block will be demolished to make way for the new building. (I like the design, by the way.) And the developers have bought much of the block, and plan to fix up the remaining buildings.
Yikes! Gil mentions the need for better design standards in San Francisco and the Chamber of Commerce Police jump all over him. What is it about some San Franciscans that reminds me of religious fundamentalists? They do not allow any discussion, any criticism, or any facts to get in the way of their non-stop love with “the greatest place on earth”.
You are the same poster who turns every semi-critical bit about LA into, “LA doesn’t care about SF, but SF cares about LA … and by the way, LA has a lot more rich people” — right?
hahahahhahah. Good one. You’ve had everyone going for a while now. Not falling for it this time tho. Sorry.
I can’t believe that there is anyone opposed to this idea. What, is it better to leave that dillapitated building standing there, the one that is boarded up and looks like a crackhouse?
Remember this isn’t even tax payer money we are talking about but a legitimate real estate investment in what has been an embarrassing part of the most important street in this city. This is by far the best idea I’ve ever heard of for mid-market. It brings the much needed foot traffic and it fills the need for more affordable shopping in the city, all in one elegant measure.