CFAH

3166%2016th%20Street.jpg
With San Francisco’s Board of Appeals having voted 4-1 to revisit the determination of whether Jack Spade should be defined as formula retail, a definition which would likely block their ability to move forward, Jack Spade is abandoning plans for a store at 3166 16th Street in the Mission.

“We at JACK SPADE are disappointed with Wednesday’s Board of Appeals ruling. In our minds and in accordance with the district’s code, JACK SPADE is not ‘formula retail’ and we have been completely transparent regarding our relationship to our parent company.”

That being said, Jack Spade “respect[s] the Board and the community’s passion and will not pursue plans to open in the Mission District.”
Jack Spade Pulls Out of the Mission [missionlocal.org]
The Formula For Success Or Protectionism In San Francisco? [SocketSite]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by gribble

    This sucks.
    The front of this building will be covered in graffiti for the foreseeable future. There are two open storefronts on this block right now and both are covered every night with tags. The former Tokyo-Go-Go and the former Adobe books.
    I just hope something moves in soon. It would be even nicer if the owner of the auto body shop would ask the police to stop the folks from having a sidewalk party in front of his establishment every Friday-Sunday night.

  2. Posted by 94114

    Time to put this whole formula retail business to the voters.

  3. Posted by conifer

    How much time will it take until SF stops this self-destructive policy?

  4. Posted by James

    Time will tell if it’s self-destructive. I suspect it will be fine. The Mission will continue to be a hot neighborhood without Jack Spade. And perhaps there will be a successful tenant who actually keeps profits in the city, which would certainly not be self-destructive.

  5. Posted by Jackson

    Remember the SF legislation against “Formula Retail” was conceived by progressive darlings Matt Gonzales and Tom Ammiano.
    Yes, it is time for a City-wide vote on the issue.

  6. Posted by SFZ

    What a joke this ordinance is becoming. The fact that the anti-Spade movement was led by a yuppie selling $2000 designer bicycles is laughable.
    What is wrong with a balanced mix of formula and local tenants? This City is headed to heck in a hand-basket….

  7. Posted by anon

    And perhaps there will be a successful tenant who actually keeps profits in the city, which would certainly not be self-destructive.
    Yes, because there clearly isn’t enough money flowing into San Francisco. Best to hog some more. Other places should not be allowed to have successful companies! Only us! Use our Twitter! Buy clothes from our Gap! Bank at our Wells Fargo! Keep your stinky stores to yourself!

  8. Posted by Mark

    And people wonder why businesses hate to set up shop in SF.
    Since I’ve over 40 and, therefore, not a hipster, I couldn’t care less if the Mission is “hot.” The point is that there isn’t a consistent policy towards formula retail in SF. Put it to the voters.

  9. Posted by Zig

    This ban is nonsense. All we need to form based codes and the rest will work itself out.

  10. Posted by James

    I think in this case it’s business owners and landlords, not hipsters, who care about the hotness of the Mission. Anyway, it’s true that there isn’t a consistent policy toward formula retail. It varies by district and neighborhood. And why not? Should residents of the whole city decide what kind of stores are on a local street they probably never shop on? I live in the Richmond. Should I be consulted on commercial policy for West Portal?

  11. Posted by anon

    ^I see no compelling case for having a different commercial policy for each neighborhood. You shouldn’t be “consulted” on commercial policy for West Portal, but you should be for commercial policy in San Francisco – which should be the same for West Portal and the Richmond.
    But…if we want to landmark specific districts to not allow specific types of stores, that should absolutely be something decided by the city as a whole, since it affects the city as a whole through the market(s) that it creates and the taxes that are collected. Are you seriously suggesting that each neighborhood should be allowed complete autonomy? I don’t really want schools in my neighborhood (kids are noisy), should that be something that my neighborhood can decide without involving the whole city?

  12. Posted by DanRH

    @James – agree. There’s no easy answer (you can’t go ‘anything goes’ and you can’t totally go ‘only local’), so without that, I lean toward letting each neighborhood decide on their own.
    The process can work (albeit slowly). Noe (24th) had a ban on restaurants and later reversed itself when it realized it didn’t work well.
    Cow Hollow (Union street) takes a different approach, as does West Portal, etc. Since you can’t have a perfect policy, leave it to the neighborhood to decide. If the Mission doesn’t want this and it results in years of graffiti, it knows only to blame itself.

  13. Posted by Joe

    You could put a law to the voters that would legally require everything in SF to be free, and it would pass.
    Voters here vote based on extreme ideology, and have no connection to reality.
    The worst thing that could happen would be to have a city wide vote on chain stores.

  14. Posted by Frank C.

    Given demographic changes in SF, I bet the formula retail ban won’t last 20 more years. Maybe even 10.

  15. Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

    I think we can all agree that the best way to preserve the “character” of the Pission is to leave this blighted dump as is. My god, if 16th Street suddenly didn’t look and smell like an open sewer in Managua the yuppies would have won.

  16. Posted by Joel

    The last time voters passed formula retail policy was Prop G in 2006, requiring Conditional Use for ALL NCDs in the city. That went in the opposite direction of self-determination for neighborhoods by allowing anyone who lives in any neighborhood to oppose any proposed formula retail store for any reason. The current policy has too much breadth and not enough structure or integrity. There is no way of knowing whether a project will be approved until neighbors break out the pitchforks, making it a game of russian roulette for business owners.

  17. Posted by lyqwyd

    SF has one of the lowest retail vacancy rates in the nation, possibly the lowest, rivaled only by Manhattan.
    http://llenrock.com/blog/top-10-u-s-retail-markets-by-vacancy-rate/
    http://www.costar.com/News/Article/Market-Trend-San-Franciscos-Retail-Vacancy-Decreases-to-27/150705
    I’m fine with tweaking the regulation, but contrary to popular belief, if the rules are having any effect city wide, it would appear to be possitive. I’m sure it’s frustrating in these one off cases for the people involved, but it appears that city wide the effect is positive.

  18. Posted by Spencer

    San Francisco is its own worst enemy. so stupid

  19. Posted by Spencer

    ” There’s no easy answer (you can’t go ‘anything goes’ and you can’t totally go ‘only local’), so without that, I lean toward letting each neighborhood decide on their own.”
    “I live in the Richmond. Should I be consulted on commercial policy for West Portal?”
    I dont understand the above sentiment. I dont live in the mission, but feel i have the same rights to say what happens there as someone who does. I live .5 miles away from it and go there frequently. Why would someone’s locale within the city give them more rights to the business policy for a specific neighborhood. Its a TINY city and we all shop throughout many neigborhoods. My taxes dont only go to my neighborhood.

  20. Posted by anon

    SF has one of the lowest retail vacancy rates in the nation, possibly the lowest, rivaled only by Manhattan.
    @lyqwyd – I’m sure that you know this, but the reason for this is because both SF and Manhattan have massive regional shopping districts that have basically zero occupancy – and lo and behold, no chain restrictions! (Union Square is essentially all chains) These massive shopping areas that serve the whole region overwhelm the tiny amount of square footage in the neighborhoods that are mostly neighborhood-serving. A single department store in Union Square is larger than the whole Inner Sunset shopping district, for example.
    SF would be middle of the pack or lower if you just look at the neighborhood retail districts, which is the only place that these regulations come into play.

  21. Posted by $AN FRANCI$CO

    I could give a rat’s kootchie about Jack Spade. I would rather there was a Starbucks in that space than that annoying Kenneth Cole clone.

  22. Posted by anon94123

    Hey Jack Spade, come on over the Chestnut Street! How about where “The Grove” closed after the property owner wanted to raise their rent to over 20K a month to rent the 1,500 square foot space.
    In all seriousness, I wonder why anyone would want to try to open a retail business in this city at this point?

  23. Posted by James

    I don’t see how it’s untenable to have different regulations by neighborhood. It seems analagous to other forms of neighborhood zoning. You can have different kinds of buildings in SOMA than in the Sunset. You can have different kinds of shops in Union Square than on Valencia. And you have neighborhood input on the planning/permitting process. Seems reasonable to me.

  24. Posted by lyqwyd

    “both SF and Manhattan have massive regional shopping districts that have basically zero occupancy”
    That doesn’t overpower the fact that SF is #1. There are many other shopping districts with similar characteristics, some of them in the same top 10 list I provided above.
    “SF would be middle of the pack or lower if you just look at the neighborhood retail districts”
    Interesting theory, feel free to provide supporting data.

  25. Posted by Justin

    It is ironic the gentleman leading the fight against Jack Spade owns the shop selling $2000 bikes AND is a former GAP executive.
    I cannot believe the hipsters would rather have a boarded up building instead of this proposed store.

  26. Posted by Futurist

    What a small minded, little provincial town we live in.
    We are becoming a joke to the world.

  27. Posted by lyqwyd

    Here’s the top 10 retail markets by transaction volume as of 2012:
    http://llenrock.com/blog/top-10-u-s-retail-markets-of-2012/
    While San Francisco has the single best vacancy rate in the nation, it’s not even in the top ten list as far as transaction volume goes.

  28. Posted by Mike

    Blu Dot (tm.) just opened around the corner.

  29. Posted by ciparis

    “I dont live in the mission, but feel i have the same rights to say what happens there as someone who does.”
    It’s not an un-compelling argument to suggest that others should also have a say, but I don’t think I’d go so far as to suggest that people who actually live in a place aren’t the most important parties. It’s your shopping area; it’s their home.

  30. Posted by Gordon

    lyqwyd: You note (per your link) that San Francisco is “not even in the top ten list as far as transaction volume goes”, but the chart doesn’t account for city size. Los Angeles has nearly five times the population as SF, so of course their total retail transaction volume is higher. The link you gave notes that SF would be #2 in transaction volume per square foot, which seems like a more relevant metric.

  31. Posted by lyqwyd

    Boston is on the list and it’s smaller than SF, so that doesn’t change anything.
    In my opinion it’s best to fit one’s opinion to the data, not the other way around.

  32. Posted by Moto mayhem

    I don’t get how someone who lives one neighborhood over should have EXACTLY as much input. It’s a small city we all live in

  33. Posted by anon

    lyqywd, they make no mention how they’re assembling “markets” on that list. Could be the Boston MSA versus SF city for all that we know. Most on the list are cities, but then Manhattan is tossed in there. A ranking without the methodology is as useless as a wet cat.

  34. Posted by lyqwyd

    It’s perfectly reasonable to separate Manhattan out from the greater city of NY. Manhattan would be one of the biggest cities in the U.S. if it were on it’s own, and it’s quite distinct from the rest of NY.
    The list is based on a paid study, which is not publicly available. Those who pay for these reports are basing multi-million dollar projects on the results of these types of reports.
    The methodology may not be public, but I’m comfortable with the assumption that it’s reasonable. Feel free to provide better data that contradicts what I’ve provided.

  35. Posted by anon

    ^Better than what you’ve provided? You haven’t provided any data, but simply a list. Here’s another list:
    1. Fresno
    2. San Ramon
    3. Zebra
    4. Cheese
    5. Goats
    As you can see, Fresno has more retail sales than Zebra.
    Regardless, if this list is accurate (a gigantic if), it shows that the arbitrary chain restrictions are having tremendous negative impact on the San Francisco retail market, if somehow San Francisco has smaller retail sales than much, much smaller cities (with smaller regional retail within their borders) like Seattle, DC, and Nashville (!!!).

  36. Posted by Alai

    If San Francisco is ranked #2 in “transaction volume per square foot”, but below #10 in total transactions, the only conclusion you can draw (assuming that those are both measuring the same thing) is that SF has an unusually small number of square feet of retail.
    Obviously if SF had as much retail area as Nashville AND had a higher volume per square foot, it would have a higher total volume too, mathematically speaking. So apparently it doesn’t.
    So I don’t see the chain restrictions as having that big an impact, unless you believe that chains would drive volume per square foot–already #2 in the country–even higher. If you really wanted to increase total volume, it would probably be more effective to increase the number of square feet (not that that’s likely to happen).
    Personally I’m dubious about the numbers. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if their report was based on data provided by national companies, i.e. chains, simply because that’s a whole lot easier than trying to collect data from a bunch of independent businesses.

  37. Posted by Marc

    James, keeping profits in the City is a BAD thing, keep in mind it will only drive up rents and housing costs!
    Keeping business down is good because it makes people poorer and rents go down.
    I’d like to see a vote to allow no new stores on 16th. Eventually they would all go bankrupt and squatters could move in to the broken storefronts. Better for everyone really.

  38. Posted by lyqwyd

    @anon
    Making up your own crazy list is not the same is discrediting what I’ve provided, it just makes your arguments look even weaker.

  39. Posted by Pfffttt

    Cool! A run-down, dilapidated blight is WAY better than formula retail any day! Way to go, SF!

  40. Posted by anon

    @lyqywd – so you don’t have any actual data to provide? Thanks, assumed as much.

  41. Posted by Anonandon

    Does anyone know if the so-called “celebration” protest/demonstration planned to actually take place in front of this location did occur last night? I’m curious who was in this group of Nimbys.
    I have read it was mostly other retail stores nearby who were against Jack Spade.

  42. Posted by JWS

    Can we stop pretending that formula retail is a “one size fits all” discussion? Hayes Valley and North Beach are THRIVING because of/despite formula retail. Unreal selection of boutiques and restaurants (respectively) that draw people from all over the city. Those areas would be less attractive with chains allowed. Then again, the Haight and Castro are suffering from those same restrictions, with many empty storefronts. The Mission depends on the area. Chestnut is thriving with chains allowed.
    In short, I completely support formula retail in locations that are thriving because of their one of a kind boutiques/cafes/restaurants, because these are areas where Starbucks or J. Crew would easily outrpice the local options. In other areas where it is struggling financially, with many stores vacant, it does not seem to make sense.

  43. Posted by anon

    ^I’ve got no issue with a different regulation for different neighborhoods, but within each area the rules should be transparent and enforced equally in all circumstances. The “go ahead and apply and we’ll see how it goes from there” silliness is what’s absurd and corrupt.
    Of the neighborhoods you mention, I think Hayes Valley does it best, by simply banning chains (implicitly at least). The others have an implicit “find out who to pay off” policy, which doesn’t work as well.

  44. Posted by Truth

    There are very few empty storefronts in the Haight these days. Whoever said that hasn’t been over there in a while.

  45. Posted by toady

    It’s ok. I’m sure San Mateo County welcomes all sales tax revenue left on the table by San Francisco. You guys have enough money to blow on bloated and wasteful homeless programs anyway.
    Clearly you don’t need anymore.

  46. Posted by lyqwyd

    @anon
    Just because you don’t like the data in the links I provided doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

  47. Posted by anon

    @lyqwyd – you didn’t provide any data. You linked to a site that merely claimed to be using data from an inaccessible report. That’s the same as providing no data. A ranking with supporting data is 100% useless.

  48. Posted by lyqwyd

    no, it’s not nearly the same as providing no data. Providing no data is what you did.
    Colliers International is one of the largest commercial real estate services in the world. The list of vacancy rates is based on their data, which is not free, they sell it to thousands of subscribers.
    If you believe Collier’s data is incorrect, you better provide some strong evidence to prove your theory. Until you do, you are just talking a lot of hot air.

  49. Posted by anon

    Take another look at the link you provided on 10/11 at 5:14 pm.
    That list comes from data provided by Collier’s? Where does it state that?

  50. Posted by anon

    Sorry, 5:04pm.

  51. Posted by lyqwyd

    Take a look at what I just wrote, I clearly said the list of vacancy rates (which is found in my 3:48 posting) was from Colliers.

  52. Posted by anon

    Ah, gotcha, so just your list that we were most recently talking about is worthless. Understood.

  53. Posted by lyqwyd

    Nice try, but completely failed logic. Try supporting your arguments with evidence, rather than hot air.

  54. Posted by anon

    So the list that we were talking about is worthless then?

  55. Posted by lyqwyd

    Wrong, hence the comment about your failed logic.
    Of course the list that’s important, and the one I’ve been talking about all along, is the one pointing out that SF’s retail vacancy rate is the best in the nation, which is evidence that these regulation have little, if any, negative impact.
    The list you seem fixated on says that SF is not a top ten retail market, which helps to disprove your completely unsupported theory that the reason that SF’s vacancy rate is the best in the nation is that SF is somehow unique. It’s not at all important to the idea that formula retail regulations are not harmful to SF. So even if you showed that it is incorrect (which you haven’t even come remotely close to doing) it wouldn’t matter. That’s why I didn’t even bother mentioning the source for that list, because I don’t really care…
    As I said before, our retail regulations are not hurting the city in any noticeable way, they might even be helping.

  56. Posted by anon

    ^So you admit your list is worthless? Good.

  57. Posted by lyqwyd

    Nope.
    Well, you’ve certainly shown yourself to be adept at coming to absurd conclusions based on nothing.

  58. Posted by anon

    I’ll take that as a yes.

  59. Posted by 49yo hipster

    This argument is nutters.

  60. Posted by anon

    ^VERY much agreed.

  61. Posted by lyqwyd

    @49yo
    Yes, it’s a debating with anon, he lives in a strange world where facts are not facts and “no” means “yes”.
    Thanks for the reminder, adios.

  62. Posted by anon

    So bizarre when someone can’t admit that they made a mistake.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Articles