San Francisco Mayor: Tear Down Abandoned Retail Spaces Downtown (cnn.com) 118
On Thursday San Francisco's mayor London Breed "proposed remaking the city's struggling downtown by tearing down abandoned retail space..." reports CNN, "and building new structures to reshape the struggling city..."
Breed's comments come as San Francisco faces empty offices, a cratering commercial real estate market, and an exodus of retailers from its once-bustling downtown area, especially as pandemic work-from-home policies saw many residents leaving for less expensive parts of the country... Breed argued that an overall shift to online shopping post-pandemic has contributed to declining foot traffic in the area.
"You can convert certain spaces. A Westfield Mall could become something completely different than what it currently is," she said. "We can even tear down the whole building and build a whole new soccer stadium. We can create lab space or look at it as another company in some other capacity," she added...
Many tech companies in the city were quick to switch to remote work or flexible hybrid policies over the last few years, resulting in many workers filtering out of the city. Office vacancies in San Francisco have reached a 30-year high, negatively impacting the city's commercial real estate market and local retailers and restaurants, which have experienced declining sales and foot traffic. "Would I like for everyone to come back to the office five days a week? Of course, I would. But is that going to happen? Probably not. So, let's make some adjustments to do everything we can to reimagine what parts of San Francisco can be," Breed said.
"You can convert certain spaces. A Westfield Mall could become something completely different than what it currently is," she said. "We can even tear down the whole building and build a whole new soccer stadium. We can create lab space or look at it as another company in some other capacity," she added...
Many tech companies in the city were quick to switch to remote work or flexible hybrid policies over the last few years, resulting in many workers filtering out of the city. Office vacancies in San Francisco have reached a 30-year high, negatively impacting the city's commercial real estate market and local retailers and restaurants, which have experienced declining sales and foot traffic. "Would I like for everyone to come back to the office five days a week? Of course, I would. But is that going to happen? Probably not. So, let's make some adjustments to do everything we can to reimagine what parts of San Francisco can be," Breed said.
Who pays? (Score:4, Insightful)
We can even tear down the whole building ...
What's this "we can" nonsense? Who pays for that? That's in addition to writing-off a perfectly 'usable' building. Then, there's the cost of new plans and permits and bank-loans: Up-front costs the property-owner wants to avoid.
TL;DR: The brighter, better future costs too much.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah she is obviously not aware of the enormous costs of construction in the Bay Area. Any one who has ever tried to get even minor fixes on their home done could tell you this.
She just knows that her ass is on the line in 2024 and she's going to come up with some crazy shit to try and save her political career.
Re: (Score:2)
Who pays for that?
What a strange question to ask in the country that invented the skyscraper and the bustling city. Is a place earmarked for only a single development? You get to build once and then are stuck with the structure that ended up there for all eternity?
If you're able to build something once and it paid for itself then you can build something again. It's neither rocket surgery nor brain science.
Then, there's the cost of new plans and permits and bank-loans: Up-front costs the property-owner wants to avoid.
Yep that's why there's no buildings anywhere.
Re:Who pays? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a 600-800 day wait just for permits. It has lengthened from 300 days decades ago. There are unprecedented environmental studies, energy efficiency requirements, building codes, earthquake requirements, impact studies, etc. etc. They are each independently probably good ideas. The net result is that the cost for building there is way higher than some nice open field and you could not build what is currently standing there.
If a highly successful company decides they want to plunk down the corporate treasury then all that can be resolved. If there is a growing community there then they may have to in order to chase talent. If not then you get Detroit. If it weren't for the rest of the Bay area supporting SF these days by just being close you'd be there already.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a 600-800 day wait just for permits.
And? Waiting for a permit doesn't mean someone needs to pay. Heck you can make finance conditional on the permit too. Project list for denied permits is generally very low.
The net result is that the cost for building there is way higher than some nice open field and you could not build what is currently standing there.
Not everyone wants to live work or shop in an open field. That is why city centres became dense in the first place, and why the biggest complaint about city centres is the high cost, not because of building costs mind you, but because of supply and demand.
If a highly successful company decides they want to plunk down the corporate treasury then all that can be resolved.
Yay we figured out who pays!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Who pays? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Who pays for that?
The owner/developer. Part of the cost of construction is preparing the site, clearing trash and poorly-placed vegetation. Sometimes the "trash" is an existing building, set of them, previous foundation, etc.
That's in addition to writing-off a perfectly 'usable' building.
Except it's not usable. The new usage is residential: Some commercial buildings can be effectively converted. Others it's cheaper to just reduce them to rubble, haul it away, and start fresh. Either way it's part of
Re: Who pays? (Score:2)
Isn't San Francisco overdue for a major earthquake?
Re: Who pays? (Score:2)
Re: Who pays? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Its the democrats mantra. Tax-and-Spend, like the worlds gonna end.
As opposed to the Republican mantras of Cut-Tax-For-The-Wealthy-and-Spend-Even-More and Deficits-Only-Matter-When-Democrats-Are-In-Charge.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
With a massive wealth tax. We go back to the tax rates we had in the 50s and 60s
This ^^^^
Make the wealthy pay their fair share, period.
No bullshit, no tax haven, no tricky-dicky write-offs, just pay the same rates they did in the in the 50s and 60s.
When a nobody working chump like me pays more tax than GE or Amazon, you know shit is fucked up. NO company should get away with paying an effective tax rate of zero percent (or 5 or 10 percent or whatever).
For example, Amazon's "effective federal income tax" rate of 6 percent means it avoided about $5.2 billion of federal income tax in 2021
Re: (Score:2)
Needs great management and planning! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember! Government created this mess and now they are going to fix it. This rarely turns out well.
There's countless examples of governments around the world which have turned around city design to make places more pleasant to live in and prevent their centres from turning into rotting shitholes. You use the term "government" as if it is an unchanging entity rather than an entity which turns over policy makers with a very fixed frequency.
Government != Government.
Re: Needs great management and planning! (Score:2)
Tear it down and put in farmland. (Score:2)
Just to be clear, I'm not talking about tax farms.
Re: (Score:2)
Venezuela built four million homes for the poor and homeless in a decade while under brutal economic warfare from the United States. Just because American neoliberal government - designed for elitists by elitists - so often fails the people doesn't mean all governments do.
citations please, preferably citations that include pictures, to prove your statement
Re: (Score:1)
Easier done than said. Imagine the Staples Easy button gif as Slashdot has never had images for comments:
https://www.plenglish.com/news... [plenglish.com]
Google images:
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Also, even Fox News was hailing the Venezuelan economy before Obama decided it had to be destroyed to protect the petrodollar:
https://www.foxnews.com/world/... [foxnews.com]
If socialism always leads to failure, why have the CIA and the Pentagon had to spen
Venezuela a failing state ... (Score:1)
Venezuela built four million homes for the poor and homeless in a decade while under brutal economic warfare from the United States. Just because American neoliberal government - designed for elitists by elitists - so often fails the people doesn't mean all governments do.
Tens of thousands of Venezuelans **walking** to the US border, risking their lives on the way, surrendering what wealth they have to coyotes and cartels, suggests a government failing its people in quite fundamental ways. The marxist professor in the ivory tower you attended may not be the best informed person on such matters. Go talk to Venezuelan migrants in the US.
Re: (Score:1)
You missed the p
Re: (Score:2)
Venezuela built four million homes for the poor and homeless in a decade while under brutal economic warfare from the United States.
Oil rich Venezuela's dictatorial government basically forced slave labor wages upon those workers building shitty structures, yet so many Venezuelans still risking their lives to escape to the US. Is that really something yo believe is an example of how to do it?
Re: (Score:1)
LOL at the CIA fan fiction. Everyone who has actually looked at Venezuela's elections says they have some of the best in the world. Henry Kissinger is easily the worst living war criminal, but at least he was honest enough that "realpolitik" was about the US doing whatever it wants and to hell with everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Streams of people fleeing America's economic war against Venezuela, Sherlock. See my response to your fellow trained seal:
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Do you also complain about the state of Iraq's infrastructure while pretending the country only started to exist in 2005?
Re: (Score:2)
Venezuelans problems and corruption are well documented for all to see and so no need to argue with me or try to bring up other countries as a distraction.
https://globalvoices.org/2023/... [globalvoices.org]
https://www.hrw.org/world-repo... [hrw.org]
I could point to many many more. So lets just agree that you'll not acknowledge any of this
Re: (Score:1)
So what you're saying is I nailed it on the first try:
Re: (Score:2)
I never said nor responded to that quote. I was only responding to your irrational reverence for what you believe is a wonderful Venezuelan government, one that you seem to believe serves as some sort of example for the world. You brought them up, not me.
As for Iraq, which I've said nothing about to this point, at least they are no longer under the brutal dictatorship of Sadam Hussein. I would not be surprised if you think he was wonderful as well.
Re: (Score:1)
No. It's you blaming the victim and pretending wars from the most powerful nation on the world on other nations have nothing to do with present conditions in said nations. In Iraq the war was with bombs, with Venezuela it's been economic and constant regime change efforts from the CIA. This meme was made for people like you:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Polit... [reddit.com]
Re: (Score:2)
People that think meme's are useful to discuss an issue have a lot to learn. I understand you have certain hatreds and beliefs and are looking for ways to express them, you just aren't making any real sense.
Good Day.
Re: (Score:1)
Denialism. Like I said, someone throwing shade at Iraq for shabby infrastructure in 2005 while ignoring the invasion.
Willfully stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Ask a small child to explain to you this funky concept called an "analogy". But it's hard to get a psychopathic western excetpionalist to understand something when his ideology is dependent on his not understanding it.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand your are a hateful idealist, that's all I can get from your incoherent statements that seem to be almost at random.
Re: (Score:1)
I make every bit of sense, quantitatively, quantitatively, morally and logically. You're just another toughguychickenshit victim-blaming western exceptionalist asshole who's ideology is dependent on not understanding remedial current events or cause and effect.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think anyone takes you seriously you are sadly mistaken. I, on the other hand, don't really care what anyone thinks. Stop trying so hard and think a little about what comments your reply to, and stop imagining people said things they never actually said. Maybe you should just take break for your own sake. You are
Re: (Score:1)
Anyone with one moral in their body and two brain cells to rub together is against western imperialism. Dozens of democracies overthrown since WWII, tens of millions killed in bullshit wars. In your immediate past life you were most likely a Good German.
Re: (Score:2)
Crime?? (Score:5, Informative)
Really?
it’s not clear that crime has grown significantly more serious, according to industry watchers.
A yet, people are leaving their cars unlocked and trunks open [abc7news.com] and San Francisco PD [abc7news.com] reports a 14% rise in larceny theft year on for 2022 over 2021. Nope, no new crime. No lack of police to enforce. No homeless [sfchronicle.com] on the streets. No maps of human feces [kron4.com] required.
Yup, it was tech leaving and online shopping that killed San Francisco. Not over priced housing (NIMBY) and horrible living conditions.
I grew up (and still live) not far from The Bay. I used to love going on day trips or quick overnights for fun. No plans necessary. No longer. I loved the city. I don't any longer. I do not go for tourism any longer. I miss the city. It is dead to me.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: Crime?? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Rather than quoting shock articles, consider maybe looking up trends and comparing historical data. SF's crime rate across all categories have plummeted compared to what they were one or two decades ago. In terms of American cities it doesn't even rank in the top 10.
Maybe if everyone stopped shitting on SF because politics made doing so cool you wouldn't need a map of feces.
Re: (Score:3)
Rather than quoting shock articles, consider maybe looking up trends and comparing historical data. SF's crime rate across all categories have plummeted compared to what they were one or two decades ago. In terms of American cities it doesn't even rank in the top 10.
Maybe if everyone stopped shitting on SF because politics made doing so cool you wouldn't need a map of feces.
Have you ever considered that people are not reporting crimes to the cops out of fear that they themself might be picked up by the cops for some legal transgression?
Many people in many countries live in fear of police every day. Say the wrong thing and they haul you off.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever considered that people are not reporting crimes to the cops out of fear that they themself might be picked up by the cops for some legal transgression?
Crime statistics do not come just from police, they also come from insurance. No, people do not sit at home and cry about being involved in a crime. And no SF police are not magically worse than elsewhere in the country, and haven't magically gone down downhill over the past 20 years.
Your whataboutism is bad and you should feel bad. Actually you should feel worse than bad because it's not just whataboutism, it's also really dumb whataboutism.
Re: (Score:1)
Hey look, you're full of shit, and completely oblivious to reality:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf... [sfchronicle.com]
Note the numbers in the article are for crimes reported to the SFPD, meaning if it's not reported, it's not counted. Out-of-sight, out-of-mind, amirite?
Just because something is not being reported doesn't mean it's not happening, but I get it: can't let the chucklefucks in Sacramento get called out because their stupidity.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Crime?? (Score:3)
How about natural areas with dispersed camping? (Score:1)
Why can't we camp in biodegradable wigwams?
Return on Investment ROI 101 (Score:3, Insightful)
Corruption as usual (Score:2)
Breed proposed a sports stadium: Westfield [sfgate.com] Here is the stink spewing from professional "sports" in nearby Santa Clara: Santa Clara [sfgate.com] .
are people really this dumb? (Score:2)
"We can even tear down the whole building and build a whole new soccer stadium..."
Who's going to build it? Who wants to invest in that - literal - shithole? A city that has become synonymous with doomspiral local governments?
With what money, since the companies that feed your tax base are literally fleeing?
My prior comment hasn't aged badly yet (Score:2)
I've speculated on the decline [slashdot.org] of San Francisco earlier, before these store closures were announced. That's not a long track record though. I think we need a good 10 years to be sure, but I also thought reddit would be its old self for years, then it absolutely went berzerk just a week after I said something about it.
"Predictions are hard, especially about the future" --Yogi Berra.
Who's going to pay for it? (Score:1)
Oh, sure, we'll tear down abandoned retail spaces and build housing for the homeless. Great idea. Who the hell is going to pay for that? Those rich people? Ooops, they all just moved. C'mon, bozo, housing projects never worked. Didn't you see that movie Koyanisartsyfartsy?
Wow... she needs to go. (Score:4, Interesting)
That mall is a space that could be converted to another use quite easily; no need to tear it down.
The problem is that segment of Market Street (especially 4th St to 7th St or so) is dying (again). It was scary as hell in the 90's, recovered a bit in the 00's and has been in decline again since the late 10's. The traditional solution is to let that area be *the* shithole and focus improvements on other areas that can sustain themselves. Push the homeless from the Financial District to there, and the rest of the city can survive until it has the money/determination to fight for gentrification there again.
But the issue with this plan today is all the development south of Market. If you let Market St atrophy then nobody is going to be inteterested in Moscone or Yerba Buena Center again.
Personally I think the only viable approach is going to be to do office to residential conversions in the Financial District; there are a handful of buildings that it would work reasonably well on. If they expand the fringes of residential a bit then the work becomes sustainable.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with office to residential conversions is, just exactly who is going to want to live there? People are looking to get out of SF. The only demographic moving in is drug addicts.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep telling yourself that. Plenty of people want to live there, and many beautiful areas; the affordability issue makes it a challenge.
Detroit II (Score:2)
If they start razing the commercial center of SF, it will look like downtown Detroit soon. It's already well on its way to that, I guess. Soon they will start filming dystopian movies there.
Abandoned spaces (Score:4, Insightful)
They could start with the SF prosecutor's office.
Like a laxative (Score:1)
Just post a slashdot headline with the word "San Francisco" in it, and just like that, the assholes start spewing shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Just post a slashdot headline with the word "San Francisco" in it, and just like that, the assholes start spewing shit.
Literally, onto the street!
Riiiiiight... (Score:2)
Breed argued that an overall shift to online shopping post-pandemic has contributed to declining foot traffic in the area.
It's not the crime, the cost, the homeless, etc - the reason San Francisco is struggling is because of this brand-new phenomenon called "shopping over the Internet."
Apparently the Internet just came to San Francisco...
Who will invest 10's-100's millions in failure? (Score:1)
It's cheaper to leave it and repurpose it because no investors want to burn good money on an already sank ship. Tearing it down and reconstructing cost money.
It's also cheaper to house people in locations that are cheaper and where services and cost-of-living is cheaper. Sorry, but the reality of finances is that housing the unhoused of America requires a federal program that states pay into to relocate people to nationwide to affordable areas. There's just no way to afford placing 10 million people in the
delusional (Score:1)
Mixed Zoning (Score:3)
I suspect downtown SF doesnâ(TM)t really have much in the way of mixed zoning. Doing so would allow people to live closer to the shops and services they need. Offices or co-working spaces could also be closer to where people live.
I think this is a great opportunity to look to European and Asian cities where mixed zoning works, for inspiration.
Westworld-SF (Score:1)
They got what they asked for (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It took about 50 years to destroy SF, and it started with building high rises in the 70s, notably TransAmerica tower. At that time the left was against what was ruining SF. For SF to return to its real glory days, say before 1980, will take an utter change in its politics, and that will take at least a generational change in its population, so figure a minimum of 30 years. In addition, SF is hamstrung -- if it had the will -- by state law and court rulings, so the entire politics of California would have
Re: (Score:2)
eye rolls ... (Score:1)
"You can convert certain spaces. A Westfield Mall could become something completely different than what it currently is," she said. "We can even tear down the whole building and build a whole new soccer stadium. We can create lab space or look at it as another company in some other capacity," she added...
Unless this is a new kind of soccer that incorporates dodging feces into the game, or unless the lab studies crap on the sidewalk, then no.
nice theory (Score:2)
She has a nice theory. Of course, someone else is supposed to pay for it.
Who owns them? (Score:2)
Does Mayor Breed own these properties? Does the city of San Francisco? If not, I'm not sure why we care what the a mayor things other people should build.
At most, the mayor and city council should just relax zoning to allow any number of alternate uses and see what evolves. Oh, but this is SF, the city council just can't abide other people making decisions about their property.
That's a lot of carbon (Score:2)
Demolishing buildings and putting new ones up produces a metric f-ton of carbon. The greenest buildings are the ones with the longest life.
Zoning fails us big. Please change now. (Score:2)
Just my 2 cents, but changing how you assign a huge region of unimportant (now) real estate isn't the solution here. Reconsider your job's purpose, and make a place you want to live. And you want your family and their families to live in.
Another fine idea! (Score:2)
San Francisco's mayor London Breed "proposed remaking the city's struggling downtown by tearing down abandoned retail space
This is the same genius who thought we should cut $120mil from the police budget, to, you know, "Defund The Police!"
Not only was she NOT able to get this horrible idea passed through, she had to actually INCREASE the police budget for additional overtime to pay the cops that didn't leave San Francisco after all her police bashing and threats of cutting funds.
"We can even tear down the whole building and build a whole new soccer stadium.
I had to really laugh at this one. Yes, let's take a piece of land worth tens of millions of dollars, and put in a stadium. Not only that, she decid
Such Insight! (Score:2)
We can even tear down the whole building and build a whole new soccer stadium.
Why didn't I think of that? EXACTLY what SF needs right now!
How about some affordable fucking housing? Or transitional housing to help with your MASSIVE homeless problem?
Re:"homeless" shelters (Score:5, Funny)
But the freeloading people who provide no value to the community and siphon away any assets already own those buildings.
Re:"homeless" shelters (Score:4, Funny)
But the freeloading people who provide no value to the community and siphon away any assets already own those buildings.
Politicians? :-)
Re: "homeless" shelters (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The perfect response to the AC's stupid post, nicely done.
Re: "homeless" shelters (Score:2)
At least one mall owner and one hotel (Hyatt?) literally handed the keys to the banker and said they were not paying the mortgage any more.
I expect that trend to continue for a while...
Re: "homeless" shelters (Score:2)
Re: "homeless" shelters (Score:3)
Why does society make us dependent by cutting off access to commons on which we might self-provision, thus grossly violating the Lockean Proviso? Why should anyone do anything for a society that has taken so much freedom away?
What do you suggest they do? (Score:1)
Go dig their own graves and lie down and wait? You do know many homeless people are employed full time but can't afford housing, especially in a city with one of the highest costs of living in the world?
Re: What do you suggest they do? (Score:2)
We used to treat mental health issues, then Geraldo Rivera did an expose of mental health facilities in NY State, then we decided to shut down the vast majority of the facilities to 'respect their rights'.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, some people are homeless because of mental health issues, but (not saying you are) it's as gross to assume homeless people are mentally ill as it is to assume they are all drug addicts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's tough to do that (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
There's only about 8,000 homeless people in San Francisco at any given time. Just give each of them $5,000 cash.
$40 million to cut the number of homeless people in half? You'd think people would jump at the chance!
Re: (Score:1)
> There's only about 8,000 homeless people in San Francisco at any given time. Just give each of them $5,000 cash.
A few would be helped and the rest would buy $5,000 worth of drugs, remaining homeless.
Re: It's tough to do that (Score:2)
I doubt many addicts would survive a sudden influx of cash.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: It's tough to do that (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Grossly inadequate resources.
Which is why many prefer the street, as opposed to you putting on the up-to-the-shoulder cattle gloves to reach aaalll the way up their asses with rules and negative assumptions that you would never put up with if someone did the same to you. Imagine applying for a job, an apartment or a mortgage and have the person start off
Re: It's tough to do that (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When somewhere between 40 and 60% of your homeless people have full-time jobs
I doubt you even know where that number comes from or what it actually means.
Re: (Score:2)
Its also clear that when full time employed people who find themselves homeless its almost always temporary.
There's also no distinguishing between the homeless people sleeping on the streets vs the person who has a job or is temporarily out of a job and is sleeping on a friends couch. Those on the streets are almost entirely made of up drug users and mentally ill, and are rarely employed.