I spent the end of last week in San Francisco. Indulge me one SF post. Like any good city, Seattle has doubts about its ability to guide itself. We frequently look to SF and sigh, wishing we could be more like that city — cosmopolitan, sophisticated, modern, progressive.
Some of us are embarrassed by things like Seattle’s development strategies.
Some, our version of progressive politics.
Me, I envy the city’s district-based board of supervisors (For one, I believe it’s a better way to represent a city. For two, man would it create more content for neighborhood blogs!)
But last week, San Francisco was going through its own session of self-flagellation and embarrassment that made Seattle look relatively well adjusted.
- The Mission District rose up against the opening of an American Apparel, of all chains
- At a hearing on the Thursday of my visit, the city’s planning commission denied AA a use permit. The meeting included a whopping 3 hours of public comment. The SF Chron lamented, “If you can get 200 people together and persuade them to show up at a meeting and raise a fuss, you can stop damn near anything in this town.”
- The location will remain empty until a new potential tenant braves the waters
I don’t hold this up to say SF was wrong to reject AA. I don’t hold this up to applaud SF’s NorCal pinko commies. Instead, I want Capitol Hill and Seattle to feel better about ourselves. It’s hard to be a city run by hipsters. SF struggles. We struggle. Now let’s go shopping.
Our current at large city council thing makes no sense to me. We only need one mayor.
As for the American Apparel issue, from what I gather SF has zoned some commercial streets for no chain stores. Sounds intriguing but apparently results in empty storefronts which we already have plenty of.
The American Apparel is being protested for trying to open in the MISSION not the CASTRO. The Castro long ago succumbed to nothing but chains. It is Gay EPCOT. The Mission has an incredible history of resisting chains.
I wish I could come up with a good Seattle analogy to make this difference more clear, but Seattle doesn’t *have* a neighborhood as ridiculously pandering as the Castro, nor as amazingly independent as the Mission.
yes, super lame. fixing the error. doesn’t even make sense.
I understand the intentions of my City pre-Seattle. The method taken to achieve it, however, could be improved. How about instead of zoning out chains, zone in smaller units (of which the Mission is not lacking, but still). I think it was this blog that someone mentioned horizontal zoning limits. Instead of limiting the building size, what if we limited the store front size? Creates smaller retail units of smaller rents where shops of local flavor can afford to start. This would achieve the intentions of the Mission nay-sayers.
We could even allow for combining of units into a larger store front with creative readaptation of the facade outside the storefront. Then we get the perception of a different building at each retail unit, achieving the intentions of the fellow on this blog with the horizontal zoning idea. Making the chain pay for combining the units, facade improvements, and splitting the units up again when they vacate should help to reserve most the smaller spaces for non-chain non-large retail shops. Seems a lot better than a blanket no on all chain shops…unless its walmart.
This is an issue that should be addressed seriously. Since council members represent ‘everyone,’ they listen first to those who make the most noise, i.e., have money. A district-based council would (in theory) be more responsive to individuals and neighborhoods.
One of many frustrations some felt over the city’s response to December’s week-long snowfall was that there was no one in charge. My own experience in another city (not SF) tells me that district-based council members tend to be more responsive if they a.) know you are a voting constituent, and b.) share your interest in and concern for your neighborhood.