Westfield San Francisco Centre

[pseudo3d]

Bringing this back to the topic, Westfield over-expanded San Francisco Centre and turned it into a middle-of-the-road shopping mall. It failed. Their hubris blinded them from seeing that a mall in the middle of San Francisco isn't the same as a mall in the middle of a suburb. When they redeveloped the site of The Emporium, they should have added residential and hotel space. (Think Water Tower Place in Chicago). The stories about feces in an elevator says more about Westfield's lack of investment in maintenance than it does about the city. (I also do not believe it was a recurring problem) I'm not saying defecation in an elevator is Westfield's fault, but staffing maintenance in a way that the feces remained in the elevator is Westfield's fault. Side note: the bathrooms in the mall always smelled terrible, not because people defecated on the floor but because they were designed without ventilation and were not adequately cleaned. The same issue persists in other Westfield properties.

I disagree about making it into a typical "suburban mall". One feature of the expanded mall was Bristol Farms (I believe it was split into two stores). Bristol Farms was the result of Albertsons wanting to expand the brand into Northern California, but by the time it actually opened, was owned by SuperValu and the NorCal expansion got scrapped; meanwhile the NorCal division of Albertsons went with LLC. Bloomingdale's and Nordstrom are more upscale than the typical mall fare at the time of its opening (Sears, JCPenney, etc.) and I believe there was some office space that was connected as well.

Of course, that was in 2006-2007, and a lot of those tenants have fled. A&F, Bristol Farms, Nordstrom, and the theaters...all gone.

[storewanderer]

Bringing this back to the topic, Westfield over-expanded San Francisco Centre and turned it into a middle-of-the-road shopping mall. It failed. Their hubris blinded them from seeing that a mall in the middle of San Francisco isn't the same as a mall in the middle of a suburb. When they redeveloped the site of The Emporium, they should have added residential and hotel space. (Think Water Tower Place in Chicago). The stories about feces in an elevator says more about Westfield's lack of investment in maintenance than it does about the city. (I also do not believe it was a recurring problem) I'm not saying defecation in an elevator is Westfield's fault, but staffing maintenance in a way that the feces remained in the elevator is Westfield's fault. Side note: the bathrooms in the mall always smelled terrible, not because people defecated on the floor but because they were designed without ventilation and were not adequately cleaned. The same issue persists in other Westfield properties.

I disagree about making it into a typical "suburban mall". One feature of the expanded mall was Bristol Farms (I believe it was split into two stores). Bristol Farms was the result of Albertsons wanting to expand the brand into Northern California, but by the time it actually opened, was owned by SuperValu and the NorCal expansion got scrapped; meanwhile the NorCal division of Albertsons went with LLC. Bloomingdale's and Nordstrom are more upscale than the typical mall fare at the time of its opening (Sears, JCPenney, etc.) and I believe there was some office space that was connected as well.

Of course, that was in 2006-2007, and a lot of those tenants have fled. A&F, Bristol Farms, Nordstrom, and the theaters...all gone.

I felt like they were trying to be an upscale mall. The food offer was not great. I liked Bristol Farms but it was a poor value for what it offered. They had various luxury stores inside the mall. Many more luxury stores had street facing stores outside in Union Square itself. Nordstrom and Bloomingdale's were above average on the department store end with Macy's being the lowest end department store in San Francisco (but that store is hardly low end) and then Neiman Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue out on the street in Union Square so on the department store end this mall had "above average" department stores but not the top upscale two. They also had some mid-tier type stores sprinkled around. What they did NOT have inside that mall were a ton of "teen" focused stores. Maybe at this point if I go to a mall that doesn't feel like it is mostly "teen" focused stores, I think I'm in an upscale mall.

Based on the tenant mix I labeled it as an A mall. But thinking about it, even pre-COVID, I wonder, was the mall too big? Perhaps sales per square foot were weak despite having a strong tenant mix...

[ClownLoach]

She seriously thinks they can tear down the mall and build a stadium? For who? Does she think the 49ers are going to leave their nearly new stadium, or the Giants are going to leave the waterfront?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... laces-mall

[pseudo3d]

She seriously thinks they can tear down the mall and build a stadium? For who? Does she think the 49ers are going to leave their nearly new stadium, or the Giants are going to leave the waterfront?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... laces-mall

Sporting stadiums in downtown areas are for troubled areas that have lots of land, lots of parking areas, and need an anchor to bring people downtown and help out the revive. To even admit that Market Street is like that is telling at best.

Besides, wasn't the existing stadium suppose to be part of the Candlestick Mills project?

[storewanderer]

She seriously thinks they can tear down the mall and build a stadium? For who? Does she think the 49ers are going to leave their nearly new stadium, or the Giants are going to leave the waterfront?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... laces-mall

Any idea if the block there even has dimensions that would make a stadium work? I guess until we know what kind of stadium she is referring to, it is tough to determine.

With the increase in remote work and major businesses leaving or downsizing their presence in the city, there will be less reason for start ups to need to have much more than a token presence (if any presence) in San Francisco. Plus they already have a glut of office space and more and more space is coming available every quarter as leases are not being renewed due to downsized offices or offices that exit San Francisco entirely. So any start ups that need to establish space in San Francisco in the future there is already a glut of space for them.

As far as people not shopping the stores anymore and buying online instead that is certainly true, but all those tourists who came and physically shopped in San Francisco and all those office workers who came and physically shopped in San Francisco paid in sales tax into the city that is not being paid in if they "stay home (with home being outside San Francisco) and shop online." So that is rather a problem. Less tax revenue, less revenue for other things that help the city (public transit, food while they are shopping, etc.).

The city needs to figure out how to get people/volume back.

The mayor also needs to watch her mouth. Implying this land is even a possible best use as a "stadium" is not going to help real estate values of it or what surrounds it any. The people who own property surrounding this area are probably not impressed by such comments. Unless there is some sort of a scheme going here to talk down the property to push its value down even more than the mall closing already has, so someone can swoop in and get control of it at an extreme discount.

Also love the "Miami has issues too" comment. Yes, it certainly has issues. But Miami's property costs are probably half what San Francisco's property costs are. You get what you pay for, well, you don't in San Francisco at the present time...

[storewanderer]

I am also going to take further issue with the "Miami" has issues comment because Miami makes it easier for everyone to do things and does not have the various junk fees and bloated costs that everyday people are subject to in San Francisco:

1. Miami does not have a junk "health care fee" that is added to restaurant bills
2. Miami does not have a junk 25 cent bag fee added at all retail stores, fast food restaurants, to go orders at normal restaurants (but the fee is mysteriously waived per their city regulation if you are dining in and have extra food from your dine in order to take home)
3. Public transit in Miami is nowhere near as good but they have the basics covered. You can do the 10 mile train connection from Miami Airport to Brickell (their quasi financial district in Miami) for $2.25. In San Francisco, a BART train from SFO Airport to Union Square is also about 10 miles and runs $10.50 (there is now a 50 cent paper ticket surcharge if you don't have a "Clipper" card which of course is impossible to get for some reason, some excuse about supply chain, never heard any other supply chain having issues getting plastic cards besides this BART outfit).
4. Miami does not hit you with a 1 cent per ounce "sugary beverage tax" if you order a beverage that has sugar in it.

Sure you can say you avoid these fees but it is all a hassle. It is a hassle for the business to collect and remit whatever has to be remitted, a hassle for the user, etc.

I also wonder if the skyrocketing cost of BART causes fewer people to go into San Francisco. This BART system is the bumpiest, dirtiest, most uncrowded, most expensive train system I've experienced anywhere. Sure the subways in NYC and Chicago may be subjectively dirtier but they have more extreme weather and are also elbow to elbow people so of course they'll be dirtier. They may want to look into that and why this BART system is so much more expensive than public transportation systems elsewhere. I bet if they got BART fares into/out of San Francisco down to $3 they'd suddenly have more foot traffic than ever despite the various issues.

[pseudo3d]

She seriously thinks they can tear down the mall and build a stadium? For who? Does she think the 49ers are going to leave their nearly new stadium, or the Giants are going to leave the waterfront?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... laces-mall

Any idea if the block there even has dimensions that would make a stadium work? I guess until we know what kind of stadium she is referring to, it is tough to determine.

With the increase in remote work and major businesses leaving or downsizing their presence in the city, there will be less reason for start ups to need to have much more than a token presence (if any presence) in San Francisco. Plus they already have a glut of office space and more and more space is coming available every quarter as leases are not being renewed due to downsized offices or offices that exit San Francisco entirely. So any start ups that need to establish space in San Francisco in the future there is already a glut of space for them.

As far as people not shopping the stores anymore and buying online instead that is certainly true, but all those tourists who came and physically shopped in San Francisco and all those office workers who came and physically shopped in San Francisco paid in sales tax into the city that is not being paid in if they "stay home (with home being outside San Francisco) and shop online." So that is rather a problem. Less tax revenue, less revenue for other things that help the city (public transit, food while they are shopping, etc.).

The city needs to figure out how to get people/volume back.

The mayor also needs to watch her mouth. Implying this land is even a possible best use as a "stadium" is not going to help real estate values of it or what surrounds it any. The people who own property surrounding this area are probably not impressed by such comments. Unless there is some sort of a scheme going here to talk down the property to push its value down even more than the mall closing already has, so someone can swoop in and get control of it at an extreme discount.

Also love the "Miami has issues too" comment. Yes, it certainly has issues. But Miami's property costs are probably half what San Francisco's property costs are. You get what you pay for, well, you don't in San Francisco at the present time...

If nothing else, the mall could reorient itself to be more downscale. The Gallery at Market East went from being anchored by JCPenney and Gimbels to Burlington Coat Factory and Kmart by the late 1990s, with stores to match.

[veteran+]

I am also going to take further issue with the "Miami" has issues comment because Miami makes it easier for everyone to do things and does not have the various junk fees and bloated costs that everyday people are subject to in San Francisco:

1. Miami does not have a junk "health care fee" that is added to restaurant bills
2. Miami does not have a junk 25 cent bag fee added at all retail stores, fast food restaurants, to go orders at normal restaurants (but the fee is mysteriously waived per their city regulation if you are dining in and have extra food from your dine in order to take home)
3. Public transit in Miami is nowhere near as good but they have the basics covered. You can do the 10 mile train connection from Miami Airport to Brickell (their quasi financial district in Miami) for $2.25. In San Francisco, a BART train from SFO Airport to Union Square is also about 10 miles and runs $10.50 (there is now a 50 cent paper ticket surcharge if you don't have a "Clipper" card which of course is impossible to get for some reason, some excuse about supply chain, never heard any other supply chain having issues getting plastic cards besides this BART outfit).
4. Miami does not hit you with a 1 cent per ounce "sugary beverage tax" if you order a beverage that has sugar in it.

Sure you can say you avoid these fees but it is all a hassle. It is a hassle for the business to collect and remit whatever has to be remitted, a hassle for the user, etc.

I also wonder if the skyrocketing cost of BART causes fewer people to go into San Francisco. This BART system is the bumpiest, dirtiest, most uncrowded, most expensive train system I've experienced anywhere. Sure the subways in NYC and Chicago may be subjectively dirtier but they have more extreme weather and are also elbow to elbow people so of course they'll be dirtier. They may want to look into that and why this BART system is so much more expensive than public transportation systems elsewhere. I bet if they got BART fares into/out of San Francisco down to $3 they'd suddenly have more foot traffic than ever despite the various issues.

Respectfully, you do not know Miami and it shows in the way you have cherry picked certain things (and even those are not totally accurate).

Sorry if I am being too direct.

It seems to be the zeitgeist in this venue to constantly eviscerate San Francisco (ad nauseum) and much of it is hyperbolized, but to paint Miami and by defacto Florida as "something better"?

No way Jose! I'm not even including political in this.

[pseudo3d]

I am also going to take further issue with the "Miami" has issues comment because Miami makes it easier for everyone to do things and does not have the various junk fees and bloated costs that everyday people are subject to in San Francisco:

1. Miami does not have a junk "health care fee" that is added to restaurant bills
2. Miami does not have a junk 25 cent bag fee added at all retail stores, fast food restaurants, to go orders at normal restaurants (but the fee is mysteriously waived per their city regulation if you are dining in and have extra food from your dine in order to take home)
3. Public transit in Miami is nowhere near as good but they have the basics covered. You can do the 10 mile train connection from Miami Airport to Brickell (their quasi financial district in Miami) for $2.25. In San Francisco, a BART train from SFO Airport to Union Square is also about 10 miles and runs $10.50 (there is now a 50 cent paper ticket surcharge if you don't have a "Clipper" card which of course is impossible to get for some reason, some excuse about supply chain, never heard any other supply chain having issues getting plastic cards besides this BART outfit).
4. Miami does not hit you with a 1 cent per ounce "sugary beverage tax" if you order a beverage that has sugar in it.

Sure you can say you avoid these fees but it is all a hassle. It is a hassle for the business to collect and remit whatever has to be remitted, a hassle for the user, etc.

I also wonder if the skyrocketing cost of BART causes fewer people to go into San Francisco. This BART system is the bumpiest, dirtiest, most uncrowded, most expensive train system I've experienced anywhere. Sure the subways in NYC and Chicago may be subjectively dirtier but they have more extreme weather and are also elbow to elbow people so of course they'll be dirtier. They may want to look into that and why this BART system is so much more expensive than public transportation systems elsewhere. I bet if they got BART fares into/out of San Francisco down to $3 they'd suddenly have more foot traffic than ever despite the various issues.

Respectfully, you do not know Miami and it shows in the way you have cherry picked certain things (and even those are not totally accurate).

Sorry if I am being too direct.

It seems to be the zeitgeist in this venue to constantly eviscerate San Francisco (ad nauseum) and much of it is hyperbolized, but to paint Miami and by defacto Florida as "something better"?

No way Jose! I'm not even including political in this.

I don't think criticism toward San Francisco is leveled unfairly. A bunch of retailers packing up and leaving in a relatively short timespan is not part of some grand conspiracy.

[storewanderer]

Respectfully, you do not know Miami and it shows in the way you have cherry picked certain things (and even those are not totally accurate).

Sorry if I am being too direct.

It seems to be the zeitgeist in this venue to constantly eviscerate San Francisco (ad nauseum) and much of it is hyperbolized, but to paint Miami and by defacto Florida as "something better"?

No way Jose! I'm not even including political in this.

The only reason I compared Miami is since the San Francisco mayor decided to bring up Miami for some reason (maybe she plans to move there). It is odd she brought Miami up for comparison purposes. But it doesn't have to be Miami. It could be just about any city that has a direct train transit between airport and downtown business district (Seattle, Denver, Vancouver, Chicago, etc.).

Let me put it this way- if I am a business traveler who needs to go visit something in the financial district, starting my journey at the train station in the airport at either SFO or MIA, and then doing all the things a normal business traveler goes and does over a few days (walks between hotel and office, eats, buys a few things in a store be it drinks or a few gifts to take back home, etc.) doing so in Miami's quasi-financial district is a lot cheaper and a lot easier than doing it in San Francisco.

As I've suggested go to San Francisco's Union Square area and see what is going on there for yourself, go to the BART/MUNI stations along Market Street (Powell, etc.). Until you go experience what is happening you will not fully understand. And there are many other parts of the city that are perfectly fine and are clean with no homeless in sight, as I have said many times before, someone can go there and still have a wonderful carefree trip and feel as safe as ever as long as they stay away from Union Square area and a few other areas that have always been no-gos for tourists and tourists have no reason to even visit in the first place. The unique thing with San Francisco is they have let their central retail/office district with some of the highest value real estate get so overrun with crime, drugs, loitering, etc.

I know there are awful parts of Miami that feel very unsafe, but those aren't the parts that are their central business district/central shopping district...