San Francisco Braces For Hipster-on-Hipster Violence
Hold on to your skinny jeans. It looks like there’s a battle brewing amongst the ranks of the hipster elites in the Mission. No, they aren’t fighting over who’s more emo. Instead, they’re protesting the potential opening of an American Apparel on Valencia St. Yup, you read that correctly: The hipster enclave is rejecting the very beacon of hipster fashion. Surely there must be a misunderstanding.
Well, not exactly. After reading several blog posts and comments, I’ve discovered a vocal group that thinks big box franchises will destroy the charm of the Valencia corridor; once one opens, a domino effect will occur leading to “Union Street”-ification followed very closely by the apocalypse and the the end of civilization.
Eileen Hassi, owner of Ritual Roasters, states her case on the Stop American Apparel Blog:
I frequently have people come to Valencia St to check out Ritual and have a coffee. Out-of-towners then ask what else they should do while they are in the neighborhood. I take pride in directing them to the many unique offerings this neighborhood has: check out the bizarro furniture at X-21, stroll down to Paxton Gate and visit the taxidermied mice, stop into 826 for an eye-patch, cross the street for hand-made books, meander over to Dolores Park etc. Having an internationally recognizable store in the midst of it would definitely take away from our distinctive neighborhood.
This isn’t an attack on American Apparel. But as far as City Planning is concerned, once a neighborhood has allowed one formula retail to open, it must allow others. After the Kentucky Fried Chicken at 22nd St closed its doors, another fast food chain tried to take over the space. My neighbors here fought a long, hard battle to make sure that didn’t happen.
Eileen, first off: Thanks for directing tourists to my three favorite stores in the city: X-21, Paxton Gate and 826. Each one of those are indeed precious pearls, and I often take tourists and friends there to experience the feel of the Mission. But here’s the deal: We are in a tough economic climate. Those stores and the other independent retailers and restaurants on Valencia need as much foot traffic as possible to increase business. If having an American Apparel gives these shops 10 more visitors, then that’s more money that comes into the neighborhood. And what about the jobs it will bring?
Look, I can’t stand American Apparel. I don’t like big chains. I buy my clothes at thrift stores like Mission Thrift, from local artists like Upper Playground or Free Gold Watch, or from retailers like Villains. I vote with my wallet. If the neighborhood doesn’t want it, don’t shop there. It took the Haight a couple of decades, but they finally chased the Gap out.
Also, I’m all for neighborhood pride. But what about the latent racism that separates Mission Street from Valencia Street? What about the fact that Ritual’s popularity has ushered in a new era of gentrification, causing rent increases that force out the very population that keeps the Mission unique? I would love to see the business owners come together to try to improve the standard of living for all citizens of the Mission, not just white elites that can afford fancy handbags and overpriced furniture.
That said, I feel that the voice of the people should be heard. Should American Apparel be allowed to open a store in the Mission? Let us know in the comments.
Also, feel free to flex your democratic muscle through any of the following outlets:
Write a letter to the Planner in charge of this case:
Subject: 988 Valencia – Case No. 2008.0720C
M. Pilar LaValley
Preservation Technical Specialist/Planner
City & County of San Francisco Planning Department
1650 Mission Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94103
pilar.lavalley@sfgov.org
Go to the hearing, Thursday February 5th
Case No. 2008.0720C
Call 558-6422 after Monday the 2nd for a more specific hearing time
BTW: Great discussion in the comments on this post, but it features a very NSFW American Apparel ad.
[...] a comment » The fracas over American Apparel reminded me of a sticker I saw in New York last [...]
Speaking of Hipsterian Violence « skrapnel
January 23, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Your three favorite stores (x-21, 826, and Paxton Gate) are all against American Apparel moving in on Valencia Street.
Isaac
January 23, 2009 at 12:35 PM
Hi Isaac:
Yup. That’s what the last paragraph is about. If local businesses are truly about their community, they need to also give back to the community. A group of businesses that refuses to raise the standard of living for *all* people in the community is showing the shallowness of their “movement” by exposing where their true interests lie. How come people can’t band together to clean up Mission street? Or fight for rent control? Simple: Those people only care for the elite members of their community.
Chris Lynn
January 23, 2009 at 1:11 PM
You make a good point, Chris.
The mission has a lot more problems than trying to stop a business from moving into a retail space that is all but abandoned. We all know how the economy is now. Bringing more potential customers and providing jobs to people in the area can only help. But this is definitely something that is misguided and energy that could be put towards a more worthy cause.
If you don’t want it there, you don’t have to go there. Just on principle, I think the notion of literally butting into someone else’s business isn’t right. Let the consumer decide and think about using all of that outrage on fixing up the real problems of the Mission.
Linda
January 23, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Linda:
Exactly! I can understand zoning laws to some degree, but when you have vacant storefronts, why? Let the consumers decide. Plus, there are so many other social issues that this energy could be channeled into solving.
Chris Lynn
January 23, 2009 at 3:27 PM
To all the people who think there are bigger and more important issues I ask: Why are you wasting your time on this one then? Why don’t you go channel your energy into something you care about? Formula retail needs a Conditional Use hearing in San Francisco for a good democratic reason. In the last election on the subject 80% of the Mission is against having formula retail here. I’m sure on Valencia Street its even more overwhelming. One of the many things I care about is stopping American Apparel from opening a store on Valencia. The people who argue for why there ought to be an American Apparel on Valencia still haven’t given any good reasons. It seems like they are just against progress. Progress for SF means having local businesses be successful on Valencia. Sorry if you disagree, but then again, that’s probably your job.
Will
January 23, 2009 at 9:47 PM
Will, you crack me up. No need to get defensive, bud. It’s just people expressing opinions.
Not everything is always so black and white, so it helps to discuss things in an open forum.
Just because 80% of the population vote on something doesn’t always make it “progressive” or “right”. You say supporters are “against progress” and I ask you, does progress look like vacant store fronts and super-high rent? Not for me.
Like I said in my post, I don’t like American Apparel. Never have. What I do support is less government control. I also am a strong believer in the power of the dollar. If people really don’t want a major chain, then don’t shop there. You will put them out of business.
I understand the anti-AA folks want to hold on to something special. Instead of preventing growth in the neighborhood, however, they should invest in the community and make an effort to make it special for everyone. That way, special means a welcoming, unique place for everyone and not just a neighborhood where working families can’t afford to live, eat or shop.
BTW, I do spend my time and energy on things that I care about. I volunteer for several organizations, including one to help poor children get the education they deserve and another to help feed people in need.
It’s not my job to disagree, it’s my right and that’s part of a democracy. With that in mind, Will, I’d love to hear the reasons why you are so passionate about stopping American Apparel.
Chris Lynn
January 23, 2009 at 10:14 PM
In the long run, I think that letting chain stores in the neighborhood won’t make other empty storefronts appealing to local businesses because it is hard to compete with them and their presence makes rent go up. Local businesses are the ones that really promote growth because they use other local businesses as resources…like accountants for example. Big chain stores give jobs like this to local residents of their headquarters’ city, in AA’s case, LA.
In 2006, 80% of the Mission voted yes on Proposition G, known as the Small Business Protection Act. This proposition was placed on the ballot by several progressive supervisors. This act “allows residents to voice their concerns at a Planning Commission hearing and helps ensure the survival of local small businesses by preventing monopolization.”
As the proponents said “the community can use the conditional use process to address the traffic and other impacts that may be caused by the chain store. This process shifts the responsibility onto chain stores to collaborate with communities and demonstrate that proposed chain stores fit the needs and wants of a particular community. San Franciscans have the opportunity to provide their input before these chains homogenize our neighborhoods and push out the City’s small businesses.”
The San Francisco Republican Party, the San Francisco Association of Realtors and the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce were the Opponents to this measure.
If it wasn’t for this proposition, American Apparel or any other formula retail store would have sneaked in.. and one day, hey! there is an American Apparel (or you name it) on Valencia and on Mission!
I encourage everybody to go to the hearing.
Also, I think the Mission Economic Development Agency is not in favor of formula retail stores in the Mission. They help latino business owners, who often get screwed by landlords and their lawyers.
ppp
January 27, 2009 at 5:35 PM
Something I haven’t heard mentioned is that Urban Outfitters is hanging in the shadows waiting to see how the American Apparel deal works out…then they plan on moving in near 18th and Valencia. And then, well the floodgates are open…
Frog
January 30, 2009 at 11:35 AM
“….once a neighborhood has allowed one formula retail to open, it must allow others.”
Because T-Mobile @ 17th & Valencia isn’t a chain, right, Eileen?
mcas
January 31, 2009 at 1:25 AM
“….once a neighborhood has allowed one formula retail to open, it must allow others.”
Because Burger King @ Mission & Valencia isn’t a chain either. Oh sorry- that’s not the same Valencia you’re talking about.
Love your coffee, but Ritual doesn’t quite ‘represent’ the Mission…
mcas
January 31, 2009 at 1:28 AM
Chris, I thought you were all cool and down with the people and everything until you said “vote with my wallet” and “power of the dollar.” So you reveal yourself as just another righteous CONSUMER and nothing more. “Give the people want they want” and don’t question why people want these things. We are ALREADY living in a society established by the power of the buck and it sucks for the majority. Any other high-minded ideas? All these people who say they don’t want “the Mission” to turn into a shopping mall but Valencia street already is. Where were these chumps when the little Mexican business got evicted? (http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2009/01/protests_for_eviction_of_mex_r.php) And none of you are really talking about the mission, just a little corridor of it where the well-heeled or well-connected go shopping for things most residents can’t remotely afford. You smug citizen-shoppers make me want to barf. Do yourselves a favor, take a little adventure in poverty before your personality suffers irreparably.
Thomas Frank
February 2, 2009 at 11:04 PM
Hi Thomas:
Thanks for stopping by.
The American Apparel issue is complex. It’s easy to simplify things into black and white categories, but it’s really more gray. My personal opinion is that it will help the neighborhood. The Valencia street businesses that are coming together should devote their energy into making the neighborhood an affordable place for all people and businesses. That way the little Mexican business that you mention doesn’t get evicted.
The post was not a discussion of WHY people want to consume. If it was up to me, everyone would be self-sufficient, off the grid and growing our own food. That’s what I strive towards, but it’s not a solution everyone wants to attain. If American Apparel is so hated, people shouldn’t shop there. I don’t. I don’t care that the guy might be sleazy. I’m not swayed by the fact that the clothes are made in the US by people with benefits. I prefer clothing that isn’t new. When I do buy new clothes, I prefer to support artists and local businesses.
As far as living in poverty: For six months, I got my clothes out of a dumpster and earned a sizable portion of my income solely from bottle deposits and collecting cans–and it wasn’t by choice. I’m not being self-righteous, but maybe it will help you to realize that you don’t know me or my experiences
You’ve assumed that because I believe one thing I must be one way. It’s not so simple, my friend. Life is more gray than black or white.
Now, if you’d like to come up with some ideas or share thoughts that will progressively move the conversation, please feel free to do so. Otherwise, don’t just sling insults and call it an opinion.
Chris Lynn
February 3, 2009 at 2:53 AM
The argument about empty storefronts is the weakest of all. That location has sat vacant for the last year because AA is already paying the lease while they go through the planning process.
Before AA signed their lease at least three (fact) and possibly more local businesses attempted to rent that location to open 1) a bookstore/gallery, 2) a clothing boutique and 3) a restaurant. All were denied because the landlord wanted to charge American Apparel 300% more per square foot than the average going rate for retail space on the Valencia Corridor.
The issue isn’t AA and what it does or doesn’t stand for. The issue is do you want to NOT be able to live in the Mission, just like You can’t afford to live in SOHO, The Marias, an Chelsea in London. Because not only did the retail rents skyrocket overnight in those places with the onslaught of chain stores, but the residential rents as well.
There are a number of chain stores waiting on the wings to jump into that area. They have been waiting for years. This isn’t the Haight or the Castro. The Mission is set up by the fact that it is so large and there are so many large land footprints of either existing retail space or vacant lots – to be something on par with say, Soho.
If that ball gets rolling we will all be displaced within 10 years and when we are living in Bayview we can fondly remember the days when we could afford to live, shop, eat or drink in the Mission.
jaj
February 5, 2009 at 12:13 PM