[blueberry]

All the bickering is moot.

SF's retail market is not as strong as LA/OC. It's nice and dandy that you guys are getting these wonderful stores (it's about time, actually, since LA has had a Barney's for decades).....

Not to mention LA/OC has some of the more exclusive boutiques that SF Bay Area doesn't have like:

Asprey London (only a few in the world)
Ascot Chang (only LA and NY in America)
Dior Homme
Ghost (actual North American flagship on Robertson)
Georg Jensen
Etro
Roberto Cavalli
De Beers
Harry Winston
Giuseppe Zanotti
Armani Casa
J. Lindenberg
Prada (Rem Koolhaas designed)
CH Carolina Herrera
Chloe
Bijian
American Girl
Gucci Jewelry Boutique (first one in North America), etc.
Marc Jacobs (Men and Women separate boutiques)

And do you guys have Miu Miu, Costume National, Dolce and Gabbana (not just D&G), Jimmy Choo? ;)

Anyone in the know in the fashion industry is quite aware of LA's stronghold on the luxury market.

:previous:

i don't think anyone here is saying that the SF bay area has a greater market for high fashion than LA. it's obvious that LA would have more couture options given its size and the fact that it's ground zero for the entertainment industry.

but i can't help but feel that you're on a mission to belittle SF's retail scene at any chance you get. enough already with the LA vs SF/NYC comparisons! in the end, SF's got the best downtown retail district in the US after NYC (maybe throw in Chicago), while LA is second to NYC in retail offerings as a whole. unless you're a trophy wife or some celebrity with a fastidious taste for high fashion, who cares if LA has *separate* men and women's marc jacobs boutique, or a jimmy choo store?

:rolleyes:

(fyi, SF has a marc jabobs boutique in union square and just got a new marc by marc jacobs store on filmore street.

back to SF retail:

does anyone know what tenant will go into the former site of the Koolhaas prada store? i hear it will be a 'ghost' building with glass over the historic facade, but what's going to be inside?

[EastBayHardCore]

Dude, could you portray more of a stereotype in every single post ?
1)celebrity name dropping (TYRA!)
2)FAbulous FABulous FAbulous! "It's common for papparazzi to camp out in front "
3)Exclusive EXCLUSIVE "Most premium denim is made in LA to be exact"
4)We're better than you "Not to mention LA/OC has some of the more exclusive boutiques that SF Bay Area doesn't have "

I cant help but feel like I'm lacking for not being the obvious ultracool, hip, celebreality featuring wheeler and dealer you are. I hope that some day I can run with your west central rat pack.

OMG :haha: :worship:

[San Frangelino]

fastidious taste

From my experience I would say just plain bad taste. If I have to deal with another person where I work, who is so impressed with the money they spent on an outfit, and the label it has on it....I am gonna scream. When I deal with someone like that, I always think of a line from a Joni Mitchell song called "Otis And Marlena." If you hadn't heard it still echoes the times now. But the line goes " All those Pagliacci summer frocks."

Pagliacci was one of the worlds most famous clowns. If you keyword him you will get a picture.

Someone please tell me the Von Dutch truck driver look thing is going out. Just when I think it is, then comes in another gal decked out in like garbs

[blueberry]

From my experience I would say just plain bad taste. If I have to deal with another person where I work, who is so impressed with the money they spent on an outfit, and the label it has on it....I am gonna scream. When I deal with someone like that, I always think of a line from a Joni Mitchell song called "Otis And Marlena." If you hadn't heard it still echoes the times now. But the line goes " All those Pagliacci summer frocks."

Pagliacci was one of the worlds most famous clowns. If you keyword him you will get a picture.

Someone please tell me the Von Dutch truck driver look thing is going out. Just when I think it is, then comes in another gal decked out in like garbs

:haha:

well, i can appreciate the quality and unique design of some couture brands but a lot of what's out there is just overpriced garbage. i can't understand why someone would pay $200-300 bucks for a pair of crusty jeans that are harder than cardboard.

[shrek05]

LABeauty, I don't think anyone was refuting LA's hold in power in the fashion world. Seems more like this thread is just casually discussing what SF is gaining and how that is good? Not even you can deny that SF is one of the hotspots for designers rite now. Most other places (LA, Las Vegas, Southern Florida, Chicago, Boston, NYC) already have a good majority of the big names and these designers are looking at new places to open boutiques. I dont think it will be long before SF sees many of the stores that you have on that list. Jimmy Choo is apparently looking at SF for its next US expansion. SF, Dallas, DC and a number of other locations are slowly but surely gaining many more big names. Though SF doesnt match LA (which not very much can), SF has a pretty good hold on to leading designers.

[fflint]

LA boosterism is entirely beside the point in a thread called "San Francisco's Retail Scene." Indeed, there is already a thread for LA retail--I think it is called West Central--where Angelenos are free to boost, boost, boost away about obscure and unimportant paparazzi-encrusted boutiques laying low behind the SUV traffic in fancy strip malls somewhere far away from San Francisco.

Let's just get this out of the way, officially, so we can move on: are there more actual stores in metros three times bigger than the Bay Area? Yes. Are there more kinds of stores? Yes. Is that what this thread is about, even nominally? No.

It seems to me the primary purpose of this thread isn't even to discuss the stores themselves, at least in terms of label-whoring or celebrity name-checking, but rather to discuss the effects of San Francisco's retail scene on the city as a whole, from the architecture to the tax revenues to the increasingly crowded sidewalks.

[sf_eddo]

You mentioned Grant St. but I'm not sure if you meant the part in Chinatown, the part south of Chinatown or all of it. If you are meaning Chinatown, I'd also include Stockton St. which caters more to locals doing their shopping rather than tourists. There's also a retail area on Portola up on Twin Peaks. Oh, and why only "Upper" Haight? Haight St. between Webster and Steiner is also solid retail.

I meant the part in Chinatown. And I think I typed Upper Haight, and was going to type Lower Haight, but just flat out forgot.

I consider Grant below the Chinatown Gates to be "Union Square" area... that's where the big Banana Republic is, right?

Yes, I forgot Stockton St. too.

Would be fun to see a street map of SF that highlights all the streets with significant retail activity.

I think they should do this for all cities, it would be GREAT for tourists.

[blueberry]

I think they should do this for all cities, it would be GREAT for tourists.

there is actually a really cool map that shows just this... i think i saw it in an SF planning book which had land-use maps for the city.... they color-coded all the different uses and it was very detailed (down to parcel-size!).... i'll see if i can scan it in and post it somewhere.

[BrighamYen]

San Francisco closed down nearly all it's sweatshop garment industry years ago or drove it out of town requiring decent benefits and pay.

The reason why the premium denim A LOT of people plunk $200-300 down for (sometimes $2,000 for Great Wall China denim) is because the labor costs are actually decent. Even American Apparel ("Made in Downtown LA"), which has been wonderfully successful in the world expanding rapidly (Mexico City, Berlin, Paris, etc.) pays their employees I believe up to $14 an hour (with health benefits).


As a matter of fact, I can hardly ever recall seeing "New York, Los Angeles, Chicago". What I HAVE seen is "New York, Chicago, Beverly Hills".


There has never been a single high-end designer boutique I can think of from the top of my head (and trust me, I take note about fashion city rankings all the time), that has put Chicago before Bevery Hills or even Los Angeles. I can bet you pretty much anything you want (that's how sure I am) that if you were to go to any bookstore today, check out the fashion magazines from the United States like GQ or even Vogue and they have TONS of designer ads in the magazine. 90% of them will list cities in preferential order in the fashion industry (otherwise they list cities in alphabetical order, like St. John always does, or some instances, they'll list it by cities and continents usually putting North America first with New York, Beverly Hills in the front, Europe in the middle, and Asia and Tokyo, Hong Kong in the back). You will usually see "New York, Beverly Hills, Chicago..." The fourth city can change. Sometimes you'll see even South Coast Plaza (or Costa Mesa) listed in fourth place. But then again, sometimes you'll have designers in NY and LA that are NOT in Chicago and only in Las Vegas or South Coast Plaza or Bal Harbour. So that would take third slot.

For example, Hugo Boss' ad listed cities on their page like this:

"New York --------- Los Angeles" (lines not actually there in ad)
Atlanta Bal Harbour Bevery Hills
Chicago Costa Mesa Dallas
Houston Las Vegas....

Even Beverly Hills, with a larger store, was included in the alphabetically ordered section. Only NY and LA were listed on top.


Do the folks in BH tell friends they live in "Los Angeles"?

They may tell people they live in BH to be specific enough, yes. Just like someone in New York will say he lives in "Nolita" or "UES." Just like in LA, someone will say "I live in Hollywood."

Plus, businesses/organizations themselves use LA (obviously) to designate places in LA. For example:


http://img426.imageshack.us/img426/9649/etro8oi.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


http://img311.imageshack.us/img311/2118/etro27ek.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


http://img311.imageshack.us/img311/8202/cavalli6wb.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/9786/mrt8dq.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


http://img426.imageshack.us/img426/1658/gensler5wj.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[BrighamYen]

(fyi, SF has a marc jabobs boutique in union square and just got a new marc by marc jacobs store on filmore street.


I know, I've been to the Marc Jacobs store in SF when I lived up there.

[BTinSF]

This is getting really tiresome, Beauty. No matter what you say, LA simply doesn't have a concentrated, walkable, exciting high end retail shopping area to rival Union Square and adjacent streets (and alleys). It may have a few couture names we don't, but to shop there you have to DRIVE in terrible traffic. Works for a movie star, I guess, but the experience is nothing like the fun of shopping in a place like Union Square (arrived at by excellent public transit), 5th Ave. or Michigan Ave.

Enough said. This thread is about San Francisco retail, not LA retail--if half what you say is true, there must be a thread about that somewhere.

[BrighamYen]

^ A few more couture names? Did you NOT see the long list there?

"Half true?" you've got to be kidding me kiddo. Like I said, go to a bookstore (investigate a little, it's always nice to know what you're up against) and all your doubts will be erased.

[Wright Concept]

Can we let this little ego fight go? They were talking about San Fran and Union Square. They have been more than nice to us about issues regarding LA. Let's just let the thread continue in peace.

[craeg]

I know, I've been to the Marc Jacobs store in SF when I lived up there.
The Marc Jacobs store on fillmore just opened a month or so ago. I know because they are an LVMH brand and I assisted.
Maybe your "friends" in the "industry" heard about that.
Anyway, dont you have a phone call to Tori to return? Or some theoretical west central boundaries to redraw?

[BrighamYen]

^ That's fine, I am behind a lot of what's opening up in Downtown LA too (Wolfgang Pucks Gourmet Express, BLENDS, getting Rite Aid to remodel, getting a bookstore in, HOOTERS, Souplantation, a lounge from WeHo, finding American Apparel's next FLAGSHIP store, etc).

[blueberry]

The reason why the premium denim A LOT of people plunk $200-300 down for (sometimes $2,000 for Great Wall China denim) is because the labor costs are actually decent. Even American Apparel ("Made in Downtown LA"), which has been wonderfully successful in the world expanding rapidly (Mexico City, Berlin, Paris, etc.) pays their employees I believe up to $14 an hour (with health benefits).





There has never been a single high-end designer boutique I can think of from the top of my head (and trust me, I take note about fashion city rankings all the time), that has put Chicago before Bevery Hills or even Los Angeles. I can bet you pretty much anything you want (that's how sure I am) that if you were to go to any bookstore today, check out the fashion magazines from the United States like GQ or even Vogue and they have TONS of designer ads in the magazine. 90% of them will list cities in preferential order in the fashion industry (otherwise they list cities in alphabetical order, like St. John always does, or some instances, they'll list it by cities and continents usually putting North America first with New York, Beverly Hills in the front, Europe in the middle, and Asia and Tokyo, Hong Kong in the back). You will usually see "New York, Beverly Hills, Chicago..." The fourth city can change. Sometimes you'll see even South Coast Plaza (or Costa Mesa) listed in fourth place. But then again, sometimes you'll have designers in NY and LA that are NOT in Chicago and only in Las Vegas or South Coast Plaza or Bal Harbour. So that would take third slot.

For example, Hugo Boss' ad listed cities on their page like this:

"New York --------- Los Angeles" (lines not actually there in ad)
Atlanta Bal Harbour Bevery Hills
Chicago Costa Mesa Dallas
Houston Las Vegas....

Even Beverly Hills, with a larger store, was included in the alphabetically ordered section. Only NY and LA were listed on top.




They may tell people they live in BH to be specific enough, yes. Just like someone in New York will say he lives in "Nolita" or "UES." Just like in LA, someone will say "I live in Hollywood."

Plus, businesses/organizations themselves use LA (obviously) to designate places in LA. For example:


http://img426.imageshack.us/img426/9649/etro8oi.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


http://img311.imageshack.us/img311/2118/etro27ek.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


http://img311.imageshack.us/img311/8202/cavalli6wb.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/9786/mrt8dq.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


http://img426.imageshack.us/img426/1658/gensler5wj.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

i know i'm new here and i don't know you (wouldn't want to), but honestly, you need to get out more.

i can't believe one would spend the time and energy to capture screen shots of fashion websites and bother to highlight "LOS ANGELES" just to prove a moot point.

it's obvious that SF's downtown retail experience trumps anything in downtown LA and it appears that this bothers you tremendously (seeing your manhattan photo thread). because of this, you feel the need to *relentlessly* bash SF's retail scene and repeat the same comments over and over again.

what is your problem?

[blueberry]

^ A few more couture names? Did you NOT see the long list there?

"Half true?" you've got to be kidding me kiddo. Like I said, go to a bookstore (investigate a little, it's always nice to know what you're up against) and all your doubts will be erased.


:dead:

[danvillain]

Can we let this little ego fight go? ... Let's just let the thread continue in peace.
this bears repeating.

guys, especially LAB, knock it off.

[blueberry]

http://img426.imageshack.us/img426/1658/gensler5wj.jpg

why on earth would you put an architecture/design firm to prove a point about fashion/retail??? that's just ridiculous.

and just so you know, Gensler was founded in SF.

[BrighamYen]

^ LOL Trust me, I wouldn't really want to know you either (or most people from SF for that matter). And I have a fantastic social life thank you (many friends here in LA and NY). No qualms about it!

[BrighamYen]

why on earth would you put an architecture/design firm to prove a point about fashion/retail??? that's just ridiculous.

and just so you know, Gensler was founded in SF.

The screen shots were in reference to something completely unrelated to fashion. (IF you just read :( )


Do the folks in BH tell friends they live in "Los Angeles"?


The screen shots were used as examples to prove that the name "Los Angeles" entails numerous municipalities like Beverly Hills and Santa Monica.

[BrighamYen]

this bears repeating.

guys, especially LAB, knock it off.

Then people should stop coming back with more quips and I'll stop replying to them.

[danvillain]

or you could be the bigger man and just stop altogether. sound good?

[San Frangelino]

Would be fun to see a street map of SF that highlights all the streets with significant retail activity.

There is this website that list most of the main shopping districts in San Francisco. Although it doesnt list all thats on offer in the districts they seem like well made maps. http://www.superfuture.com/city/city/city.cfm?city=4

[shrek05]

that map is awesome. Do you know if they make it in printed form?

[BTinSF]

Look at that map of Union Square and then consider THIS (from SF Business Times) concerning the new half of Westfield SF Center yet to open:

The 1.5 million-square-foot shopping center is 95 percent leased, with all signed tenants slated to open at once on Sept. 28.

The project is noteworthy because of Forest City's savvy in partnering with rival Westfield to move the project forward. And Westfield's clout in the mall world has meant that the project has signed some of the most coveted names in retail.

American Eagle Outfitters will introduce its brand-new concept, Martin + Osa, in San Francisco. Abercrombie & Fitch will open its first San Francisco Ruehl and Hollister stores at the mall, and Gap Inc. will introduce Forth & Towne to the Bay Area there. Almost half of the new tenants signed are entering the San Francisco market with Westfield.

The project will also feature a 30,000-square-foot Bristol Farms market in the lower level food emporium. The store will be Bristol Farms' first in Northern California, and the hope is that it will succeed as well as Whole Foods has in New York's Time Warner Center.

Other food offerings in the shopping center include fine-dining options from Bay Area locals such as Lark Creek Restaurant Group and Tom Colicchio of New York's Gramercy Tavern, among others.

We are about to get a whole lot of new retailing concepts we have never before seen here and all those names would have to be added to that map.

[San Frangelino]

I think its interesting that 3 borders bookstores can survive in a 20 block radius. Not to mention the Cody's Books and Staceys bookstore (which seems huge to me). Funny that there is no Barnes downtown (only in Fishermans Wharf). I personally would like to see a Great Bookstore on Van Ness or something to help the retail scene around there.

Does anyone think Folsom Street will emerge as a glitzy retail district as more of the luxury condos come online. Be very interested to see how the retail South of Market Changes in time.

Looking foward to see what else is coming to the Westfield Mall. I only wonder if it will get the foot traffic they estimate. It's definitly got the "hype" and we americans are suckers for hype.

[BTinSF]

I personally would like to see a Great Bookstore on Van Ness or something to help the retail scene around there.

Does anyone think Folsom Street will emerge as a glitzy retail district as more of the luxury condos come online. Be very interested to see how the retail South of Market Changes in time.



Double Huh?? Since 1982 we have had a "great bookstore on Van Ness," A Clean Well-lighted Place For Books, and it is closing tomorrow for lack of business. People don't buy books in stores any more. They buy them on the internet.

I think both the closing of ACWLPFB and the closing of the original Cody's in Berkeley is symptomatic of this and I have to wonder how long the new Cody's in SF will last. And even that great institution Stacey's was ominously empty when I went there yesterday. I remember long lines in the store waiting to pay for a book. Yesterday--only one clerk at the counter, no line.

As to SOMA retail, I was thinking the same thing walking down Folsom yesterday. It's pretty hard to imagine where a lot of retail would go. It will, of necessity, have to go on the ground floors of the new buildings and the model for that is pretty clearly the stuff now in place along King St. in Mission Bay: Starbuck's; Quizno's; Subway; a couple banks; yes, a Safeway and a Borders(!). But certainly nothing to challenge Union Sq. or even Hayes St. or Haight St. or Union St. or most of the other existing neighborhood retail strips in SF.

[J Church]

Don't be so sure that those spaces will remain franchises forever.

[BTinSF]

Don't be so sure that those spaces will remain franchises forever.

I'm not sure, just depressed.

[San Frangelino]

Since 1982 we have had a "great bookstore on Van Ness," A Clean Well-lighted Place For Books, and it is closing tomorrow for lack of business.

Oh i definitly dont disagree that it was a great store. When I visit SF it and Builders Book source on wharf (also closed) were the two stores I made an effort to see. I only disregarded because I knew it was closing. Thats why I added the "or something" since its now left Van Ness even more Vacant of bustling retail street :-(. I hope that changes.

I think both the closing of ACWLPFB and the closing of the original Cody's in Berkeley is symptomatic of this and I have to wonder how long the new Cody's in SF will last. And even that great institution Stacey's was ominously empty when I went there yesterday. I remember long lines in the store waiting to pay for a book. Yesterday--only one clerk at the counter, no line.

This is why I wondered why they were putting another Borders in the Westfield Mall. 20,000 square foot leasing. If bookstores are having trouble with in store sales, and that there is one near union square already and one near the Ball park.

As to SOMA retail, I was thinking the same thing walking down Folsom yesterday. It's pretty hard to imagine where a lot of retail would go. It will, of necessity, have to go on the ground floors of the new buildings and the model for that is pretty clearly the stuff now in place along King St. in Mission Bay: Starbuck's; Quizno's; Subway; a couple banks; yes, a Safeway and a Borders(!). But certainly nothing to challenge Union Sq. or even Hayes St. or Haight St. or Union St. or most of the other existing neighborhood retail strips in SF.

Do you think that will be true for all of SOMA....meaning west to civic Center and South going to Mission Bay. Or could an interesting diverse retail neighborhood emerge. Its Huge and growing in populations so i think there could be something great above the mundane. I kinda thought Soma could be an extentsion to Union Square or at least Mid Market could.

[Chase Unperson]

Double Huh?? Since 1982 we have had a "great bookstore on Van Ness," A Clean Well-lighted Place For Books, and it is closing tomorrow for lack of business. People don't buy books in stores any more.

That's a little bit of a heartbreaker. Authors would speak there all the time. They had that great back room, that cook kids section. That's amazing that even in a city like San Francisco (indepedent, affluent, "nimby", neighborhoody, relatively intellectual) a store like that can't make it.

It is just the way the world is now. Corporations constantly in search of increasing profits have changed retail, music, film, scientific research, medicine, how our cities look and how we live forever. Though only a teen at least I was able to get a taste of the golden era of the 80s and early 90s before all this went done.

[Trojan]

Now it is time for Westfield to provide a new Bloomingdale's to Sacramento. :)

[dimondpark]

Now it is time for Westfield to provide a new Bloomingdale's to Sacramento. :)
Roseville Galleria is getting a Tiffany as announced by the bee a couple of weeks ago.

That map is hella tight. All within blocks of each other:tup:
http://www.superfuture.com/city/area/sanfrancisco/unionsquare.gif

[BTinSF]

Do you think that will be true for all of SOMA....meaning west to civic Center and South going to Mission Bay. Or could an interesting diverse retail neighborhood emerge. Its Huge and growing in populations so i think there could be something great above the mundane. I kinda thought Soma could be an extentsion to Union Square or at least Mid Market could.

First of all, let me correct one thing I said--I actually realized I'm not sure if the book store on King near AT&T Park is a Borders or a Barnes & Noble but I'm not sure it matters. I've been in there a few times, but I just don't remember.

But anyway, SOMA, you know, is such a huge area. Westfield, the developers of San Francisco Center (and Bloomies), now owns the Metreon as well and, as far as I know, haven't yet said what they intend to do with it. Surely it will become a more conventional shopping venue which will move the Union Square area two blocks south into SOMA. Then, there are already some interesting stores in SOMA but they are so spread out. There used to be a neat little concentration of commercial restaurant supply stores on Howard but I think it's largely gone now. There's still a little mini discount mall with Burlington Coat Factory and Shoe Pavillion at 5th and Howard. There is, of course the mini-mall with Trader Joe's, Bed/Bath/Beyond, Nordstrom Rack and few more at 9th and Bryant (not to mention CostCo nearby). There are furniture stores scattered throughout SOMA including Bellach's, also on 9th. And here and there are clothing outlets including Rolo on 9th . But there have been losses as development has occurred--there used to be another discount clothing mini-mall (with a Tower Outlet) on 3rd between Townsend and Bryant but it's gone.

Anyway, I'm not sure there will be, in the next decade or two, a new concentrated retail area south of Mission St. But one area I'm wondering about will be Howard around 5th St. It's pretty bleak now, except for the Burlington mini mall, but when the new Intercontinental Hotel opens, I'd think some retailers (or restauranteurs) might want to give it a go.

[BTinSF]

Hey, I took another look at the fantastic maps linked above and noticed that of all the little restaurants in the part of the Tenderloin shown, the only one they identified was Soups. Wow. Interesting choice. I like that place a lot too, but THE ONLY ONE?

http://www.superfuture.com/city/area/sanfrancisco/soma1.gif

[blueberry]

First of all, let me correct one thing I said--I actually realized I'm not sure if the book store on King near AT&T Park is a Borders or a Barnes & Noble but I'm not sure it matters. I've been in there a few times, but I just don't remember.

it's a borders. i like that one more than the union square one. love the high ceilings.

[blueberry]

http://www.superfuture.com/city/area/sanfrancisco/unionsquare.gif

something isn't quite right with this map, and it's dated 2005, which is fairly recent.

1. the cartoon art museum is between 2nd and 3rd st, not between 4th and 5th.

2. there's a clothing store called 'a motion studio' between 3rd and 4th along howard? that's the entrance to moscone convention center! no such thing exists.

3. they're missing st. john's at the four seasons. also missing the old-navy flagship, virgin megastore (!!!), A/X, crate/barrel, Cody's, etc etc....

the map is a great start, but it should be enlarged 3x to accurately fit the number and diversity of retail in union square. a map like that would truly show the true concentration of retail in downtown SF.

[blueberry]

i'm curious who else would enter the expanded SF center, seeing that SF still could accommodate a lot of new retail brands. i am a little underwhelmed by the short list of tenants published so far... sounded like a lot of average, repeat brands (isn't banana republic going to be there?!?!). the posh food court sounds awesome, but i'm hoping that some more exclusive, high end brands would call the new center home. maybe we can pull some brand names off of LABeauty's list for starters? :laugh:

i'd personally like to see a John Varvatos boutique, a D&G, an Armani Casa, Costume National, maybe a Dean & DeLucca, and maybe throw in a Jimmy Choo or Manolo Blahnik for the ladies. ;) i can't see why those stores wouldn't survive in SF, seeing that the bay area has a very high concentration of gays and wealthy people.

[trvlr70]

i'm curious who else would enter the expanded SF center, seeing that SF still could accommodate a lot of new retail brands. i am a little underwhelmed by the short list of tenants published so far... sounded like a lot of average, repeat brands (isn't banana republic going to be there?!?!). the posh food court sounds awesome, but i'm hoping that some more exclusive, high end brands would call the new center home. maybe we can pull some brand names off of LABeauty's list for starters? :laugh:

i'd personally like to see a John Varvatos boutique, a D&G, an Armani Casa, Costume National, maybe a Dean & DeLucca, and maybe throw in a Jimmy Choo or Manolo Blahnik for the ladies. ;) i can't see why those stores wouldn't survive in SF, seeing that the bay area has a very high concentration of gays and wealthy people.
Don't forget what happened after 911. Many of the city's finest boutiques closed in the city, but remained open in LA, NYC and Chicago. Maybe SF's retail requires tourism more than the other cities.

[BTinSF]

i'd personally like to see a John Varvatos boutique, a D&G, an Armani Casa, Costume National, maybe a Dean & DeLucca, and maybe throw in a Jimmy Choo or Manolo Blahnik for the ladies. ;) i can't see why those stores wouldn't survive in SF, seeing that the bay area has a very high concentration of gays . . . .

Are dykes are wearing Manolo Blahnik now or are you saying you think there's that many cross-dressers here?:haha: :haha: :haha:

But, seriously, you are right that we haven't heard what else is going in there. But we'll all find out within 3 months. Since I've read it'll be the largest mall in the West, I think Westfield is doing their best to recruit quality tenants and maybe there'll be some positive surprises ultimately (probably not Dean & DeLucca, though).

[BTinSF]

Don't forget what happened after 911. Many of the city's finest boutiques closed in the city, but remained open in LA, NYC and Chicago. Maybe SF's retail requires tourism more than the other cities.

Maybe, but if so they have it. Hotel occupancy rates have climbed most of the way back and downtown is crowded with tourists once again.

[shrek05]

i'd personally like to see a John Varvatos boutique, a D&G, an Armani Casa, Costume National, maybe a Dean & DeLucca, and maybe throw in a Jimmy Choo or Manolo Blahnik for the ladies. i can't see why those stores wouldn't survive in SF, seeing that the bay area has a very high concentration of gays and wealthy people.
One problem is that an extraordinary amount of wealth in the bay area is in silicon valley and the silicon valley has many of these stores (Santana Row, Stanford Shopping Center, Valley Fair). When I visit family and friends from school, most of them say though there is a lotta wealth in sf, but many of them dont spend it on these types of items. Many stores like celine, bottega, ferragamo arent doing too well in union square but the new ferragamo at santana row is doing very well. So though there is the wealth, the market isnt there. Balenciaga was looking at sf to open a new store but after analyzing union square it decided not to cuz the sales just arent there (but other stores like juicy couture expects to do very well and some stores like kate spade has very high sales and their union square locations are some of the highest). What WWD has said is there isnt a huge market for brands that target the middle aged. Its similar at Americana Manhasset where many stores like dana buchman and barneys and others closed because the target market isnt there (even though its a wealth magnet).

From what I heard, jimmy choo is looking at santana row, so its not too far =P and sanata row is very quaint and lively. its one of my favorite places to shop. and there is already a dean and deluca in napa which isnt too far.

[dimondpark]

Don't forget what happened after 911. Many of the city's finest boutiques closed in the city, but remained open in LA, NYC and Chicago. Maybe SF's retail requires tourism more than the other cities.
Which ones closed their boutiques after 9/11? I dont recall.

Also,
According to Westfield, The 2.7 Million Households that surround SF Center have an average HH Income of $97,000. That's a higher average then all of the above mentioned cities so while Im sure tourists play some role, the region is wealthier then just about any other metropolitan area in the US with high disposable income.

[sf_eddo]

In general, San Francisco's "new money" frowns upon luxury brands in Union Square. They show off not by name-brand clothing and money, but by lifestyle choices (i.e. I'm more liberal, more weird, and more adventurous than thou). Hipness is defined differently than in Los Angeles or in Silicon Valley.

[blueberry]

One problem is that an extraordinary amount of wealth in the bay area is in silicon valley and the silicon valley has many of these stores (Santana Row, Stanford Shopping Center, Valley Fair). When I visit family and friends from school, most of them say though there is a lotta wealth in sf, but many of them dont spend it on these types of items. Many stores like celine, bottega, ferragamo arent doing too well in union square but the new ferragamo at santana row is doing very well. So though there is the wealth, the market isnt there. Balenciaga was looking at sf to open a new store but after analyzing union square it decided not to cuz the sales just arent there (but other stores like juicy couture expects to do very well and some stores like kate spade has very high sales and their union square locations are some of the highest). What WWD has said is there isnt a huge market for brands that target the middle aged. Its similar at Americana Manhasset where many stores like dana buchman and barneys and others closed because the target market isnt there (even though its a wealth magnet).

From what I heard, jimmy choo is looking at santana row, so its not too far =P and sanata row is very quaint and lively. its one of my favorite places to shop. and there is already a dean and deluca in napa which isnt too far.

i heard there was a dean and delucca in napa. time to put one in downtown SF! the city is a culinary capital and a mecca for foodies... and high end grocery stores are most apropo in downtown/SOMA with a growing luxury residential sector.

but yes, i agree for the most part. the SF bay area is one of the wealthiest metros in the world, and while the retail scene is definitely good, it can be better or more "high fashion oriented". the reason why a few exclusive or esoteric couture brands have not opened in the SF area is precisely because the population doesn't demand as much volume for those things that would justify the cost/investment of a free-standing boutique, although that could change. people here spend money on real estate, fine food, travel, or other luxuries that generally tend to be less on the superficial, flashy "look at my $1000-blahniks" side. millionaire techies and i-bankers don't need to look a certain way that an entertainment mogul or hollywood celeb would.

btw, the luxury department stores in SF - Neimens, Saks, Wilkes Bashford - already carry most of the couture brands that don't have a free-standing store here.

while santana row/valley fair and stanford shopping center have matured into the pseudo-south coast plazas of nor-cal, the retail offers still pale in comparison to union square. someone should really make a large union square map showing all retail components. the selection would surprise many. maybe when i'm really bored this weekend.... ;)

[blueberry]

Are dykes are wearing Manolo Blahnik now or are you saying you think there's that many cross-dressers here?:haha: :haha: :haha:

But, seriously, you are right that we haven't heard what else is going in there. But we'll all find out within 3 months. Since I've read it'll be the largest mall in the West, I think Westfield is doing their best to recruit quality tenants and maybe there'll be some positive surprises ultimately (probably not Dean & DeLucca, though).

:previous:

well, one would think that a city with a very high concentration of gay men, many of whom are quite wealthy - would support a classy john varvatos boutique or a D&G. of course, i could be wrong. maybe that's more of a WeHO thing.

i'm not so sure about dykes. :laugh:

[BTinSF]

In general, San Francisco's "new money" frowns upon luxury brands in Union Square. They show off not by name-brand clothing and money, but by lifestyle choices (i.e. I'm more liberal, more weird, and more adventurous than thou). Hipness is defined differently than in Los Angeles or in Silicon Valley.

How 'bout I grow better grapes and make better wine at the weekend place in Napa than you?:rolleyes:

[trvlr70]

Which ones closed their boutiques after 9/11? I dont recall.

Also,
According to Westfield, The 2.7 Million Households that surround SF Center have an average HH Income of $97,000. That's a higher average then all of the above mentioned cities so while Im sure tourists play some role, the region is wealthier then just about any other metropolitan area in the US with high disposable income.Oh Lord, I can't remember all that. My girlfriend worked in management in retail in the city and several high end boutiques closed post 911 and said the result was the lost touist dollar. I'll ask her and get back to you. Hmmm...Jill Sander and Ultimo come to mind. Both were right off Union Square.

FYI, because everything costs more in SF, especially housing, there is no way San Franciscans have the highest disposable incomes.

[shrek05]

Yea, i would definitely invest in real estate over luxury shoes haha.

also adding on, as you said earlier or someone said, i think union square needs more tourism to get a lot of those brands. if you have ever gone to rodeo drive, there are very few local, la shoppers there. most of them (a lot of them) are foreigners and people from other states just browsing cuz its so famous. very few people from beverly hills actually shop there, whereas at union square (my friends work at north face and diesel) say most of their customers are all sf people and dont see tourists all that often.

but i wish dean and deluca expanded more, to have locations in all major cities. my apartment in nyc is only a couple blocks from it and its definitely one of my favorite stores. i wish we had one in phoenix. but ur underestimating the silicon valley shopping =P a lot of it rivals union square and they are still building up! (rent is not nearly as expensive either) (though of course their stores arent as big) but its still decent.

[TowerDistrict]

In general, San Francisco's "new money" frowns upon luxury brands in Union Square. They show off not by name-brand clothing and money, but by lifestyle choices (i.e. I'm more liberal, more weird, and more adventurous than thou). Hipness is defined differently than in Los Angeles or in Silicon Valley.


Now see, you actually sound like you're from the Bay. Or you're a keen observer. I don't know where the rest of you are from, but who are you people and who do you associate with?

I mean, I come from the standard, middle class family - third generation, Bay Area born and bred. My family and friends are scattered throughout SF, Oakland, Berkeley, El Cerrito, Richmond, Kensington, Hayward, Concord, Danville, San Ramon, Walnut Creek, etc..

I don't know a single person that would frequent the vast majority of the places you people are rattling off.

[blueberry]

Oh Lord, I can't remember all that. My girlfriend worked in management in retail in the city and several high end boutiques closed post 911 and said the result was the lost touist dollar. I'll ask her and get back to you. Hmmm...Jill Sander and Ultimo come to mind. Both were right off Union Square.

FYI, because everything costs more in SF, especially housing, there is no way San Franciscans have the highest disposable incomes.

^ true.

i can think of several stores that took a hit during the 9-11/dotbomb years (which was a combination of lost tourism and tech money):

jil sander, ultimo, bally of switzerland (right ON the square), the Rizzolo bookstore (the best in downtown at the time), versus (of versace), etc.

in recent memory a lot of new stores have come to take their place: g-star, agent provoceteur, H&M (2 stores), zara, lucky brand, and soon to join them quicksilver, juicy couture, mango, barneys ny, bloomies, and a bevy of stores in the expanded SF center.....

:banana:

[shrek05]

Jil Sander closed almost all their locations throughout the us tho, so it wasnt just sf. Didnt SF have a helmut lang? they closed virtually all their stores worldwide.

Now see, you actually sound like you're from the Bay. Or you're a keen observer. I don't know where the rest of you are from, but who are you people and who do you associate with?
My brother lives in Los Altos and aunt/cuzins live in Woodside. I visit bay area quite a bit, especially since a lot of my friends from college live in silicon valley area so most of them frequent places like santana and valley fair all the time, i dont go to SF too often tho :-/

[blueberry]

also adding on, as you said earlier or someone said, i think union square needs more tourism to get a lot of those brands. if you have ever gone to rodeo drive, there are very few local, la shoppers there. most of them (a lot of them) are foreigners and people from other states just browsing cuz its so famous. very few people from beverly hills actually shop there, whereas at union square (my friends work at north face and diesel) say most of their customers are all sf people and dont see tourists all that often.

i don't think that's really true. union square gets a TON of business from tourists, as most of the tourists who come to SF stay in and around union square. union square (along with fisherman's wharf) is ground zero for tourists, as well as many regional shoppers who are SF denizens. while SF or any city for that matter could always use more tourism, i don't think SF "needs" more tourism to get a D&G or Costume National or Miu Miu. SF needs a bigger couture market, and it's growing. Call me crazy but I think the addition of so many luxury condos in SOMA/Rincon Hill would help spur the arrival of new couture brands. The marketing brochure for One Rincon Hill even has a map of the downtown area that marked the location of the chanel, hermes, dior, and gucci boutiques. :laugh: talk about lifestyle branding....


but ur underestimating the silicon valley shopping =P a lot of it rivals union square and they are still building up! (rent is not nearly as expensive either) (though of course their stores arent as big) but its still decent.

i've been to all those bay area malls and while santana/valley is definitely up and coming, it's still got a long way to go to match union square. union square is so much more than just a retail strip like rodeo, madison, or even ginza. it's the nexus of downtown, with tens of thousands of hotel rooms in a 3-block radius... it's a gathering space flanked by retail and restaurants that span the entire economic spectrum.

[blueberry]

Jil Sander closed almost all their locations throughout the us tho, so it wasnt just sf. Didnt SF have a helmut lang?

helmut lang? that's news to me.

btw, SF should really open a Nice Collective boutique. that is my favorite clothing brand.

for people who don't know, Nice Collective is an SF-based clothing company that caters to the urban street gear style. i believe their clothes are also made in SF, which would explain their hefty price tags. but talk about comfort and style.... :)

Nice Collective is featured in SF's 3 Rolo stores and they also carry them in Barneys NY and other independent retailers nationwide.

[shrek05]

i don't think that's really true. union square gets a TON of business from tourists, as most of the tourists who come to SF stay in and around union square. union square (along with fisherman's wharf) is ground zero for tourists, as well as many regional shoppers who are SF denizens. while SF or any city for that matter could always use more tourism, i don't think SF "needs" more tourism to get a D&G or Costume National or Miu Miu.
Sorry I should have been clearer, I didnt mean union square doesnt get tourists i meant more there are millions of people who go to LA with their sole purpose to shop at rodeo drive. A lot of people from my high school and surrounding high schools took trips to rodeo just to shop for prom dress or any other fancy occasion. I dont know if this is true but what I never really hear people going to SF for Union Square (most go to relax, look at the culture/history/all the art), i know SF has a lotta tourists just that I dont think people go there just to shop at union square and dont necessarily have the mindset to spend the extraordinary amounts of money like at rodeo (cuz thats their purpose). but i might be totally wrong ive only been to union square a few times but just from knowing people that vacation there, not many go to visit those shops, they may browse and hang out, and buy a few things but not to the scale of rodeo which attracts tourists by its name.

Oohh interesting, does Nice Collective make its own clothing mainly? Or is it like a store that carries multiple brands.

[TowerDistrict]

btw, SF should really open a Nice Collective boutique. that is my favorite clothing brand.

for people who don't know, Nice Collective is an SF-based clothing company that caters to the urban street gear style. i believe their clothes are also made in SF, which would explain their hefty price tags. but talk about comfort and style.... :)

Nice Collective is featured in SF's 3 Rolo stores and they also carry them in Barneys NY and other independent retailers nationwide.


Now actually you're talking something. That's the kind of stuff that makes SF what it is. I come down from Sacto just to find stuff like that. And yeah I do own a jacket from Nice Collective, and spent waaay too much on it. But D&G and stuff like that is for Las Vegas, and LA.

Give me stores like Villains.

[blueberry]

Sorry I should have been clearer, I didnt mean union square doesnt get tourists i meant more there are millions of people who go to LA with their sole purpose to shop at rodeo drive. A lot of people from my high school and surrounding high schools took trips to rodeo just to shop for prom dress or any other fancy occasion. I dont know if this is true but what I never really hear people going to SF for Union Square (most go to relax, look at the culture/history/all the art), i know SF has a lotta tourists just that I dont think people go there just to shop at union square and dont necessarily have the mindset to spend the extraordinary amounts of money like at rodeo (cuz thats their purpose). but i might be totally wrong ive only been to union square a few times but just from knowing people that vacation there, not many go to visit those shops, they may browse and hang out, and buy a few things but not to the scale of rodeo which attracts tourists by its name.

Oohh interesting, does Nice Collective make its own clothing mainly? Or is it like a store that carries multiple brands.

no i get your point totally. i think the answer is, people go to SF to obviously visit the city, to see the landmarks, the experience the neighborhoods, to eat good food. but definitely, union square is a HUGE draw for people, tourists & bay area peeps alike. but like i said, union square is so much more than just couture shopping. it's shopping of all kinds, it's restaurants, hotels, businesses, art galleries, and people-watching of course. come to union square during the holiday season.... it is PACKED with people (think midtown manhattan rush hour) from all over. it's most definitely a "destination", and for locals especially those in the east bay or marin who don't have santana row in their backyard.

Nice Collective is a brand, not a retailer. they're kinda similar to G-star but much less denim-oriented.

check them out! www.nicecollective.com

Chris Martin of Coldplay wore Nice Collective for their last tour and Brad Pitt is also a huge fan. (Don't shoot me for the cheesy celeb-name dropping!)

[dimondpark]

Oh Lord, I can't remember all that. My girlfriend worked in management in retail in the city and several high end boutiques closed post 911 and said the result was the lost touist dollar. I'll ask her and get back to you. Hmmm...Jill Sander and Ultimo come to mind. Both were right off Union Square.
Now that I think about it, is the DFS Store closed too? Is it still there-anyone remember? What about Bally of Switzerland?

FYI, because everything costs more in SF, especially housing, there is no way San Franciscans have the highest disposable incomes.
Your point is well taken.

However, the latest EBI(Effective Buying Income) stats for 2005 puts the Bay Area a bit higher then any other area.

Average HH Effective Buying Income(TV Markets)
$60,000+
1 San Francisco $74,278
2 Washington DC $66,769
3 New York $62,662
4 Anchorage $61,823
5 Boston $61,609
6 West Palm Beach $60,991
6 Chicago $60,367

other west coast metros..
Seattle $57,507
San Diego $57,207
Los Angeles $55,628

http://www.tvb.org/DMA/DMA.asp?dma=1&mod=R

Also, the Bay Area has a highly skilled workforce that commands higher pay in general.

US Counties ranked by average weekly wage $1,000+(2005)
Manhattan, NY........$1,419
Santa Clara, CA......$1,403
Arlington, VA...........$1,292
San Mateo, CA........$1,268
Washington DC.......$1,265
San Francisco, CA..$1,219
Suffolk, MA.............$1,198
Fairfield, CT.............$1,197
Fairfax, VA..............$1,188
Somerset, NJ...........$1,148
Middlesex, MA.........$1,110
Morris, NJ................$1,086
Alameda, CA............$1,053
Montgomery, MD......$1,027
Hudson, NJ..............$1,024
Durham, NC.............$1,019
Alexandria, VA.........$1,013
Loudon, VA..............$1,008
Fulton, GA...............$1,007
Westchester, NY......$1,005

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/H....04122006.news

[blueberry]

Now actually you're talking something. That's the kind of stuff that makes SF what it is. I come down from Sacto just to find stuff like that. And yeah I do own a jacket from Nice Collective, and spent waaay too much on it. But D&G and stuff like that is for Las Vegas, and LA.

Give me stores like Villains.

Yeah, i like the fact that Nice Collective is SF-based, and the style is very street urban (not in a hip-hop way), very alternative, a little grungy/kitsche sometimes but very city-oriented. lots of unusual pocket-designs, buttons, sewing patterns etc. i've also spent way too much money on them. i love their cargo pants and pullovers... i got a few of their cashmere pullovers that almost add up to my mortgage payment!

:crazy: :help:

[blueberry]

Now that I think about it, is the DFS Store closed too? Is it still there-anyone remember? What about Bally of Switzerland?


i just mentioned a few posts earlier about the boutiques that closed during the dot-bomb, incl. bally (that was most noticable since it sat right across from the square), and yes, DFS went away, which didn't bother me so much.

why didn't Barney's go into the former I-magnin space (now macy's office or something)?? that big white box with the square windows is such a waste of space, and the location is prime!

[dimondpark]

thanks blueberry-I dont mind DFS leaving either, reminds me of the airport.

LOL...I just called you burberry by accident-oops. sorry for the freudean slip.

[shrek05]

no bally no longer has a bay area location

where is the old i magnin building located?

[dimondpark]

no bally no longer has a bay area location

where is the old i magnin building located?
LV and Ferragamo are at the base of the I. Magnin building...I miss that store.

[blueberry]

:previous:

the big white box with the square windows on the right of this pic:

http://andreea.francu.com/travel/san%20francisco.vr/places.vr/pic/med-union_square.jpg

such a blah bldg in such a visible corner. maybe a Mitsukoshi should go there....anything but offices or dead space.

[trvlr70]

LV and Ferragamo are at the base of the I. Magnin building...I miss that store.
I miss the old Union Square. You remember the one, a big green space full of lush palm trees. :(

[dimondpark]

I miss the old Union Square. You remember the one, a big green space full of lush palm trees. :(
I do too-but Im just glad the city has been able to keep its shopping district in tact. All too often other parts of the country have seen their downtown retail wither to a point where its celebrated when they get a Target!

At least cities like SF and Chicago have fought against rising suburbia and have at least been able to retain their status as the premier shopping destinations in their respective Metro Areas.

Most cities cant say that anymore.

[stumpound]

Now see, you actually sound like you're from the Bay. Or you're a keen observer. I don't know where the rest of you are from, but who are you people and who do you associate with?

I mean, I come from the standard, middle class family - third generation, Bay Area born and bred. My family and friends are scattered throughout SF, Oakland, Berkeley, El Cerrito, Richmond, Kensington, Hayward, Concord, Danville, San Ramon, Walnut Creek, etc..

I don't know a single person that would frequent the vast majority of the places you people are rattling off.

I agree with these sentiments. I am also a bay area native, and after living in seven bay area counties over 37 years, I can't think of ANY natives who shop at these stores. I've only heard of a handful, and I bike past Stanford Shopping Center every day!

I DO know of people who've come from other areas of the US or the world, (often marrying locals and/or staying for a long time), and who shop at Union Square. I agree with the characterization that we compete with one another based on what's "cool" rather than what's fashionable (probably not precise enough terms), what's socially and environmentally responsible, etc.

Because LA's industry elite relies upon setting and meeting a standard in appearances, and SF's is based more on innovation and individuality, there will probably always be that kind of difference. Vive le difference!

Also, I believe that some time ago this thread had some statistics on how many Union Square visitors were tourists.

Stumpound

[TowerDistrict]

I understand that the tourist money is a great thing for SF, and you have to give a little to get a little.

I just don't like to see people who live in cities like SF, get too excited about HUGE name brands plopping themselves down with all the subtle class of MTV's Rapper du Jour.

I think the mega-boutiques only alienate the residents from their own city.

[sf_eddo]

Now see, you actually sound like you're from the Bay. Or you're a keen observer. I don't know where the rest of you are from, but who are you people and who do you associate with?

I mean, I come from the standard, middle class family - third generation, Bay Area born and bred. My family and friends are scattered throughout SF, Oakland, Berkeley, El Cerrito, Richmond, Kensington, Hayward, Concord, Danville, San Ramon, Walnut Creek, etc..

I don't know a single person that would frequent the vast majority of the places you people are rattling off.

Hehe, I'm from San Diego, but I moved here 6 years ago to go to college. My friends are generally young college-educated 20somethings with decent financial service or dot-com jobs, and my family around here is middle to upper middle with plain tastes. And yes, I agree. None of my friends frequent Union Square, except for H&M (which we all love, but only on weekdays), disposable Forever 21 crap for the ladies, and Cody's Books. For clothing, we tend to patronize Crossroads, Buffalo Exchange, and other Mission/Haight type stores.

And for work, it's all about Marshall's, Ross Dress for Less, and Nordstrom Rack for me. But then, who likes to shop for boring old work clothes? =)

[J Church]

I miss the old Union Square. You remember the one, a big green space full of lush palm trees.

And shopping carts. Don't forget the shopping carts.

[stumpound]

Although many object to "conspicuous consumption" while there are starving children and collapsing fisheries around the globe, I don't know that anybody objects to these shopping districts themselves.

Personally I'm perfectly happy to have people of a very different mindset here in SF. Although things were a bit hairy after the dot commers were exempted from the Prop M restrictions, the pace of change today seems to pressure, but not expel wholesale, other valued neighborhood cultures. This is what we expect in SF.

The idea that the tourist dollars are helping with our schools, roads, is definitely nice as well. However you'd think that we'd therefore have great schools, roads, etc, and that doesn't seem to be the case.

[craeg]

I understand that the tourist money is a great thing for SF, and you have to give a little to get a little.

I just don't like to see people who live in cities like SF, get too excited about HUGE name brands plopping themselves down with all the subtle class of MTV's Rapper du Jour.

I think the mega-boutiques only alienate the residents from their own city.
Why does the simple act of enjoying shopping in union sq turn into a lifestyle statement?
I am simply happy to see union sq picking up after years of store closings. I welcome any brand that fits within its footprint - no use getting all wrapped up in the uniqueness or san franciscosity of a particular brand.
Honestly I find this need to have everything fit into some kind of nostalgic romantic san francisco shrinkwrap really small minded. Does NYC endlessly hand wring about its retail choices? Does Chicago - or LA?
Let the mom and pops that can provide a unique and competitive product flourish AND let the new brands come set up shop. If you dont like a store - there's no reason to shop there.

[sf_eddo]

Why does the simple act of enjoying shopping in union sq turn into a lifestyle statement?
I am simply happy to see union sq picking up after years of store closings. I welcome any brand that fits within its footprint - no use getting all wrapped up in the uniqueness or san franciscosity of a particular brand.
Honestly I find this need to have everything fit into some kind of nostalgic romantic san francisco shrinkwrap really small minded. Does NYC endlessly hand wring about its retail choices? Does Chicago - or LA?
Let the mom and pops that can provide a unique and competitive product flourish AND let the new brands come set up shop. If you dont like a store - there's no reason to shop there.

Maybe they're just saying - we're glad that these stores are there, but they don't really speak to me. I can honestly say I feel alienated by Union Square, but then again, I feel alienated by everything. And it's not like I'm an SF-native or anything.

And yes, shopping in Union Square IS a lifestyle statement. This entire city is a lifestyle statement. At least that's what I've noticed, with all the self-aware San Francisco smug propaganda we're all exposed to on a daily basis.

[San Frangelino]

Gosh!!! I'm still trying to figure out how all these large bookstores, 6 department stores and multiple clothing chains survive around Union Square.:dissy:

Always was so bad at economics...oye!!! :doh:

[blueberry]

Maybe they're just saying - we're glad that these stores are there, but they don't really speak to me. I can honestly say I feel alienated by Union Square, but then again, I feel alienated by everything. And it's not like I'm an SF-native or anything.

And yes, shopping in Union Square IS a lifestyle statement. This entire city is a lifestyle statement. At least that's what I've noticed, with all the self-aware San Francisco smug propaganda we're all exposed to on a daily basis.

shopping in any high-profile retail district IS a lifestyle statement. so is shopping on the boutiques in hayes valley, or on valencia street.

the great thing about union square compared to many other similar high-profile districts is that union square has a plethora of retail that spans a diverse economic spectrum. you have everything there.... from the casual mainstays like walgreens, comp-usa, old navy, apple, and shoe pavilion juxtaposed with the likes of chanel, YSL, armani, marc jacobs, hermes, etc.

i guess quite a few locals are adverse to shopping in union square because of the crowds, the "mainstream" brands, etc. i personally happen to like shopping in the square because of the department stores, and i happen to like some brands, like A/X, Diesel, etc. but on the same token, i love shopping in hayes valley, union st, valencia, etc. and let's not forget Rolo, the land of Nice Collective. :D

[TowerDistrict]

Why does the simple act of enjoying shopping in union sq turn into a lifestyle statement?
I am simply happy to see union sq picking up after years of store closings. I welcome any brand that fits within its footprint - no use getting all wrapped up in the uniqueness or san franciscosity of a particular brand.
Honestly I find this need to have everything fit into some kind of nostalgic romantic san francisco shrinkwrap really small minded. Does NYC endlessly hand wring about its retail choices? Does Chicago - or LA?
Let the mom and pops that can provide a unique and competitive product flourish AND let the new brands come set up shop. If you dont like a store - there's no reason to shop there.


Don't jump down my throat Louis Boy. I didn't draw any lines in the sand. But what you have going on in Union Square could easily jump off the deep end and eat itself up again.


http://www.hellobubba.com/images/louisvuitton.jpg

[J Church]

Louis Boy? Uncalled for.

[TowerDistrict]

i'm sorry.

craeg of the infamous louis vuitton

[stumpound]

Louis Boy? Uncalled for.

Agreed.

Interestic pic though- where's it located?

[stumpound]

craeg of the infamous louis vuitton

I think the point is that this thread is about retail, not about craeg- try starting a thread about him if you want to get personal.

[dimondpark]

I remember there used to be this huge warehouse store on Brannan close to where ATT Park is now, that sold nice prom and ballgowns for $20-$50-Jessica McClintock type frocks. Used to take the female family members there when they came from outta town-it was huge.

Wonder if its still there?

the great thing about union square compared to many other similar high-profile districts is that union square has a plethora of retail that spans a diverse economic spectrum. you have everything there.... from the casual mainstays like walgreens, comp-usa, old navy, apple, and shoe pavilion juxtaposed with the likes of chanel, YSL, armani, marc jacobs, hermes, etc.
yup. Not to mention Ross and Marshall's right on Market(along with Old Navy(which will be next to Bloomingdale's), they have hecka prominent locations)-I cant tell you how many times Ross saved the day for me when I spilt something before a big something or other. LOL

Agreed.

Interestic pic though- where's it located?
Paris on the Champs Elysses. That was put there to conceal the renovations of the store. I think every person that visited Paris during that time took a picture in front of those gigantic suitcases including me and my entire family...it became a tourist destination LOL

[TowerDistrict]

It's not personal at all - and it's very much retail oriented. the correspondence was on the previous page, incase you missed it. My immature remarks were a knee jerk reaction to having words and ideas put in my mouth. sorry.

and sorry to craeg - you totally misunderstand.

[sf_eddo]

I remember there used to be this huge warehouse store on Brannan close to where ATT Park is now, that sold nice prom and ballgowns for $20-$50-Jessica McClintock type frocks. Used to take the female family members there when they came from outta town-it was huge.

Wonder if its still there?


It's still there. At least, the building and the Jessica McClintock logo is still there.... I've never stepped foot in it.

[dimondpark]

It's still there. At least, the building and the Jessica McClintock logo is still there.... I've never stepped foot in it.
good to know-maybe you should go inside next time and pick up a nice ball gown-you can never have too many of those.:D

[craeg]

Sheesh. Just for the record, I don't own a single LV item.
I suppose shopping in Union sq is a lifestyle statement for some. It isnt for me. Shopping is just shopping. There are much more important things to make statements on.

"But what you have going on in Union Square could easily jump off the deep end and eat itself up again."
I've only been here for 6.5 years so I'm not sure I'm aware of Union sq eating itself up.. When did this happen and what were the circumstances.
I dont think I've ever seen pics of a blighted union sq - outside of a bum ridden union sq park pre renovation.

[blueberry]

Agreed.

Interestic pic though- where's it located?

Paris.

[BTinSF]

FYI, because everything costs more in SF, especially housing, there is no way San Franciscans have the highest disposable incomes.

On average, I bet that's more than counterbalanced by the scarcity of kids. A two-income no-kid household is likely to have high disposable income even after paying high rents. And not everything else (besides housing) does cost more in SF. I split my time between SF and rural southern AZ these days. I compare prices a lot between the two areas. The availability of shopping options here that don't exist there quite often offers lower prices here.

[TowerDistrict]

"But what you have going on in Union Square could easily jump off the deep end and eat itself up again."
I've only been here for 6.5 years so I'm not sure I'm aware of Union sq eating itself up.. When did this happen and what were the circumstances.
I dont think I've ever seen pics of a blighted union sq - outside of a bum ridden union sq park pre renovation.


I'm speaking of the aftermath of the dot-com era, recession, and now todays rebirth of Materialism - which i think is kinda crazy, and appears to be rampant accross the the USA, not just Union Square.

Union Square doesn't seem to even appeal to those who live in the city or around it. It's like donated land to a separate entity. I always wonder if a better balance could be achieved, that's all. Or is that ideal, and I don't get it?

[BTinSF]

but i might be totally wrong ive only been to union square a few times but just from knowing people that vacation there, not many go to visit those shops, they may browse and hang out, and buy a few things but not to the scale of rodeo which attracts tourists by its name.


Are the people you know Japanese or German or British? Because an awful lot of the tourists one sees shopping up a storm in Union Square do seem to be non-Americans. Not being a clothes horse, I probably go in the Apple store more than anywhere else down there and I know that it often seems half the serious buyers in there (not counting the kids playing with the computers) are German. And I do think a substantial number of tourists do come to SF in part because of the shopping. It's part of the urban mix they enjoy and it's hard to say how dominant a factor it is or isn't, but I think SF would get a lot fewer tourists if the shopping weren't as good.

[blueberry]

I'm speaking of the aftermath of the dot-com era, recession, and now todays rebirth of Materialism - which i think is kinda crazy, and appears to be rampant accross the the USA, not just Union Square.

Union Square doesn't seem to even appeal to those who live in the city or around it. It's like donated land to a separate entity. I always wonder if a better balance could be achieved, that's all. Or is that ideal, and I don't get it?

i think you are heavily exaggerating the disdain *some* locals have for union square.

to assume that union square no longer appeals to those living around it or in the city is absurd, to say the least. just because some 'hipster' you know claims to not shop does not speak for the masses of SF-denizens of millions of others who *do* shop there. i personally know of many locals who do shop there because of the variety.

enough with the sweeping generalizations, please.

[BTinSF]

i just mentioned a few posts earlier about the boutiques that closed during the dot-bomb, incl. bally (that was most noticable since it sat right across from the square), and yes, DFS went away, which didn't bother me so much.

why didn't Barney's go into the former I-magnin space (now macy's office or something)?? that big white box with the square windows is such a waste of space, and the location is prime!

Because it wasn't available. You may think it's being wasted but Macy's, which owns it, doesn't. Actually, I recall reading an articel about the Barney's that said they've been looking for a good location near Union Square for some time and couldn't find one until the FAO Schwartz space became available (FAO had complicated problems of its own, somewhat unique to the retail market in toys where Wal-Mart is putting everybody esle out of business).

[sf_eddo]

^^ I think what TowersDistrict is getting at is kind of Kotkin-esque, who has described San Francisco as an amusement park for restaurants. There are many swaths of the City that are heavily populated with tourists and serve and cater to tourists, and not particularly the local SF citizen. When visiting The City, you're apt to think this is an urban Disneyland of sorts. Now, residents are clearly likely to disagree, but Union Square's throngs of tourists tend to prove otherwise.

Anyways, I realize that Union Square is not my type of place. But it's ok, because there is a diverse enough retail scene that I *do* know my type of place. And that's good for San Francisco that multiple retail scenes can survive and be healthy.

[blueberry]

:previous:

figures.

the FAO schwartz space would be nice, since it's in a historical bldg. brikenstock is out and ghirardelli will move into the former birkenstock space. i will have insider knowledge into the design of the interiors since i know people who will work on it. ;) will keep ya'll posted.

[BTinSF]

I'm speaking of the aftermath of the dot-com era, recession, and now todays rebirth of Materialism - which i think is kinda crazy, and appears to be rampant accross the the USA, not just Union Square.

Union Square doesn't seem to even appeal to those who live in the city or around it. It's like donated land to a separate entity. I always wonder if a better balance could be achieved, that's all. Or is that ideal, and I don't get it?

What you call the "rebirth of materialism" is nothing more than the revival of economic prosperity and, in the case of Union Sq., the rebirth of foreign tourism. We will always have economic cycles which means there will be good times and bad times but Union Sq has been a high end retail focus for many decades (probably more than a century). Somebody else posted the average rents which showed that the rents around Union Sq are second only to 5th Ave. That means stores aren't going to come in there and do mediocre business. If they don't do really well, they will leave, so there will be turnover. But on average, when there's a vacancy it doesn't last long. As I said Barney's, for example, has been prowling for a spot for some time and I've read about that in the case of other well-known retailers.

Union Square, by the way, may not be a shopping destination for many Bay Area people, but for a whole lot of them it's an employment destination. In the 24 years I've lived in downtown SF, I've met far more people who worked in the Union Sq area than who regularly shop there. So it's far from "donated land". It's what pays the rent for a lot of us.

[blueberry]

Union Square, by the way, may not be a shopping destination for many Bay Area people, but for a whole lot of them it's an employment destination. In the 24 years I've lived in downtown SF, I've met far more people who worked in the Union Sq area than who regularly shop there. So it's far from "donated land". It's what pays the rent for a lot of us.

:yes:

and again, many people fail to realize that union square is so much more than just a collection of LV's, Chanels, and Old Navy's. It's the commercial hub of the city... it's ground zero for the hotel/service industry... it's got restaurants galore, spas/salons, theatres, art galleries, nightclubs, design firms, media/publishing offices, etc etc. not to mention mom and pop establishments sprinkled among the brand-name stores.... hell, there's even a shady massage parlour just steps from the grand hyatt... :laugh:

union square can easily contend to be the most comprehensive and diverse downtown retail district in the nation.... moreso than Fifth Ave, Michigan Ave, or Rodeo Drive (which are heavily focused on high fashion and big department stores). seriously, a map is in order...

[fflint]

I'm speaking of the aftermath of the dot-com era, recession, and now todays rebirth of Materialism - which i think is kinda crazy, and appears to be rampant accross the the USA, not just Union Square.

Union Square doesn't seem to even appeal to those who live in the city or around it. It's like donated land to a separate entity. I always wonder if a better balance could be achieved, that's all. Or is that ideal, and I don't get it?
Two forumers have already explicitly said they shop Union Square, and I'll be the third.

My partner and I buy most of our clothes and houseware items in that vicinity, from bath towels to cookware to shoes. Why? Certainly not because there are a bunch of high-end boutiques from which to choose. No, we shop Union Square because it is easy for us. We don't own a car, so we hop out of the subway knowing there are many stores selling the sort of item we seek within a very short walk. If we can't find what we're looking for at Macy's, we hit up Crate and Barrel, or Nordstrom, or Old Navy, or Sketchers or the Gap or Sephora or whatever--all are nearby and open for business. I don't have time to traipse all over town looking for the right color towel or shoes that fit. I want what I want, and I want it now--and Union Square gives me that.

[TowerDistrict]

Union Square, by the way, may not be a shopping destination for many Bay Area people, but for a whole lot of them it's an employment destination. In the 24 years I've lived in downtown SF, I've met far more people who worked in the Union Sq area than who regularly shop there. So it's far from "donated land". It's what pays the rent for a lot of us.

That's a great point, and one well taken. When I say stuff like that, I guess I'm posing questions borne of a curiousity to see the bigger picture of how a great city like SF ticks. I can't say I'm fond of certain parts, but I'm honestly trying not presume anything - So thanks to you and SF_Eddo for not jumping up my ass like the others.

[DubbaG]

I suppose this thread was destined to get all faggy.

I want to hear more about the paparazzi who follow Tyra Banks around her New York loft that somehow relates to Los Angeles!

[BTinSF]

This week's SF Business Times has an article entitled "Sixth Street Revival". It says since 2003 14 new business have opened (and stayed open) on 6th between Market and Harrison, 3 more will open soon. Further it says there have been 35 facade and tenant improvement projects in the area and 50 more are underway. Four new retail leases have been singed in the past 2 months, 2 in storefronts that have been vacant for at least 5 years and one that has been vacant for four decades.

But, as the article concludes, "upgrading 6th St. remains a work in progress. Pawn shops still outnumber banks or credit unions or pizza joints and about 20 retail spaces remain vacant, with gritty metal gates pulled down tight. Half of those spaces are ready to lease, the rest require landlord imporvement to make them habitable."

Still, I didn't realize all this was happening there. It's good news, I think.