Plans to convert the former Sports Authority building at 1690 Folsom Street into a full-service Target could be approved by San Francisco’s Planning Commission on October 4.

Once again, the conversion wouldn’t require an expansion of the 40,000-square-foot building nor a major change to the building’s façade, save new signage. And as proposed, a CVS Pharmacy and Starbucks would be located within the new Target as well.

17 thoughts on “Plans for San Francisco’s Next Target Slated for Approval”
  1. Hopefully they’ll clean up everything on 13th/Division. But then of course all that riffraff will just move slightly further south.

    1. Dealing with “riffraff” is rough, when you’re in… “San Francisco, open your golden gate. You’ll let nobody wait outside your door? San Francisco, here is your wanderin’ one, saying I’ll wander no more.” Like it or leave it.

  2. Would be great. I commute on my bike everyday and that street is littered with used needles, garbage and carts. Happy to have that pushed elsewhere

  3. What a waste. Could’ve built 5-10 stories of housing with target underneath. We need to replace soma’s surface parking with buildings or we will never get out of this housing shortage.

    Also not sure why anyone thinks having Target move in a block from 13th would change the homeless situation — Office Depot, Best Buy, etc. have been there for years. All those sites could be housing…

    1. There are lots of places in the city where you can build 5 -10 stories, or more. But, unless the city wants to pay market value for the property and then spend taxpayer money to build an affordable housing project on the site, and then screw around for 3-5 years before anything gets built and everyone and their mother files a lawsuit, what you are going to get is something the site is already zoned for. What would be far better and provide many more housing unites would be to make it easier in general to build housing in the city, but that will likely take action at the state level.

    2. If you want to fix the zoning that fuels the citywide housing shortage, start with the 73% of the city that bans new apartments. The Sunset is massive. There’s a lot of land on the Westside. Zoning in the Mission and SoMa isn’t the problem.

      That said, as someone who lives near here, I’d support your suggested 5-10 stories of apartments just because it would be nice to have more going on in Western SoMa and Northeast Mission.

      1. Those areas don’t have the transportation infrastructure to support higher density. Until you’ve lived there and tried to get around, stop trying to externalize the costs onto others. Build a subway and then we’ll talk.

        1. Nah. Don’t need a subway along light-rail lines (or frequent bus service). More demand/taxes = more frequent service, and potentially transit priority/transit-only lanes. We can do both.

    3. We need more than just housing. Retail is important too. We’ll never get out of this housing shortage because demand is insatiable.

      1. The city has overbuilt retail for decades (the whole country has, in fact)…and there are tons of ground floor retail spots that have been empty for several years. So nah, we don’t need retail more than housing.

      2. I don’t know about the whole country, but I can believe that SF has overbuilt retail. When you have much-demanded public services funded largely by sales taxes, that’s a heck of an incentive to approve retail over residential!

        As far as the tons of ground floor retail spots that have been empty for several years, it’s just a matter of time before they are converted to residential, whether legally or illegally, like in Los Angeles commercial districts. It’s comin’, whether you like it or not.

Leave a Reply

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