Cyclists: Let the Backlash Begin (or Not)
Muni Ticket Agent Arrested After Assaulting Juvenile
So Much For That Plastic Bag Ban
Verizon Droid: Big Deal? Or Just Another Late Arrival Rival?
Feinstein : Will She Or Won't She?
We were happy to find a photo of ourselves -- or is it "ourself"? -- on Flickr the day after we went down to Ritual Roasters to type a letter registering our disapproval of chain stores on Valencia Street.
The photographer, Timoni Grone, duly noted the irony: a man in the picture is wearing American Apparel, but the people are typing letters against American Apparel! In fact, we ourself was wearing an item from American Apparel (and we are wearing the same item as we type this entry on a blog supported by American Apparel advertising). And yet we would rather not have their store on Valencia.
Wait, how can we stand the cognitive dissonance?
Here's how:
As we pecked away on a rickety typewriter, swathed in the stylish comfort of our expensively casual American Apparel hoodie, we felt that the focus on this particular brand has been somewhat misleading. The real issue, it seems to us, is the question of chain stores on the Valencia corridor. Perhaps this confusion is due in part to the many posters visible in shop windows up and down Valencia, the message of which is essentially "No American Apparel in the Mission."
(By the way, our American Apparel hoodie is NOT the new bat wing hoodie, the very existence of which makes our skin crawl, in spite of our fond, nostalgia-tinged memories of the slightly bat-winged mock turtlenecks that were everywhere in about 1987.)
There are plenty of good arguments for and against American Apparel as a company and as a sartorial choice. Nato Green and Daniel Alarcon offered a few of these arguments at Amnesia on Monday night.
But the hearing at City Hall tomorrow afternoon is more fundamentally about this:
Should chain stores be absolutely everywhere in the universe, or could we just have a couple of places in the world where there aren't any?
Because that's where we'd rather live.
Photo by Timoni. Some Rights Reserved. Used by permission.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Its not that I don't like heterosexuals, per se, but I just don't want them in my neighborhood ... or something like that.
Should chain stores be absolutely everywhere in the universe, or could we just have a couple of places in the world where there aren't any?
OK. I'll buy into this bit of NIMBYism. So how do we delineate what areas would be affected by a chain? How do we delineate who gets to choose? How do we delineate what actually is a chain?
I mean, it's pretty interesting when AA opponents get riled with the insinuation that Ritual, with three different stores, is a "chain," but have no issue tossing the phrase "big box" around when describing AA.
please stop conflating everyone you disagree with. i never said i didn't think ritual was a chain; i said that there is a clear difference between a local chain with 3 locations and an international chain with over 200. but i never said anything about american apparel being a big box store, and i think that charachterization was in error.
thanks.
Who said I was talking about you?
i apologize, i assumed when you mentioned people getting "riled up" about ritual being a chain you were talking about this conversation:
http://sfist.com/2009/02/04/american_apparel_planning_commissio.php#comment-1580009
but i guess you were talking about a different one?
That indeed was one of the conversations I was talking about...I thought Travin had wrote that about Ritual, my bad.
That said, it still soeaks to the core question: when is a business too large for a neighborhood, and why, and just who gets to decide?
So essentially you were baiting and got it wrong. Nice!
Well, to be fair, you've said a lot of ridiculous AA-related shit lately
ritual roasters, or "ritual coffee roasters, inc." is a california corporation, reg. #C3056474. which means RR is legally bound to have a board of directors, shareholders, a ceo, etc., all of whom have NO personal liability for the business decisions they make. they are both corporations, that's why RR is the "same" as AA.
corporations give individuals the right to shit over everyone else without getting sued. they're all evil. get over it.
This post is a perfect example of the kind of overconfident pretzel logic that torpedoed the No8 campaign and characterizes so many activist movements. There is no "cognitive dissonance" because nobody (save possibly the unhinged) is saying that AA should not exist as a company and thus not be able to provide products for purchase. I mean really, that aside about the batwing hoodie should put you in the hipster stockade I'm hoping will someday be built outside Ritual.
I think they were referring to the juxtaposition of wearing american apparel apparel while getting a photo taken and/or typing this blog entry. It's something akin to "I have many gay friends, and they don't have a problem with me sayin faggot, so it's ok, chill."
Pretzel logic, perhaps. Any recognizable logic at all, not so much.
I cant tell if I'm choking on a particularly dense smug cloud or If Im choking on just how utterly TWEE this painted picture is.
Hipsters that come from "everywhere else" wearing the clothing they profess to not want in "their" mission typing on antigue - probably artisanal manual typewriters.
Does NASA know there is literally another black hole forming as we speak on Valencia in the mission? Yup large groups of white progressive hipsters are having their heads disappear right up their own asses.
The only thing missing from this perfect storm of Fauxhemian Fauxleterianism is some white dude holding a sign in spanish "American Apparel no en mi barrio"
Well, the further irony is that AA is already sold on Valencia. In the future words of SFIST_Jonathan, "Should stores on Valencia always live in fear of having their inventory stolen from their backrooms by Gavin's friends, or will we all finally learn to accept things that other people want?"
HOT TOPIC
CRAEG FOR THE WIN!
(again.)
scoreboard:
Craeg-2 Others-0
Craeg, although I appreciate your contributions to this discussion, you're missing the point. Nobody is taking issue with the clothing. To think so is to entirely, utterly, completely misunderstand the basis of the discussion.
For example, a store on the same block already sells AA clothing.
Then I can expect an expansion of these protests to cover ALL chain stores in the mission? - Since this is totally NOT about AA.
Uhhhh....maybe you haven't noticed but the very basis of this whole effort, the underlying motive and discussion, is about the effect of the presence of chain stores on valencia and the mission as a whole.
"Should chain stores be absolutely everywhere in the universe, or could we just have a couple of places in the world where there aren't any?"
this just made me laugh.
I take back my previous comments on the other thread -
Clearly the Mission Artisans are fighting for EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD that already perished due to "chain stores".
This is the most righteous struggle of our time. I cannot believe I was so wrong. Quick, get me an ironic typewriter - STAT.
I've grown so tired of this topic if for no other reason than the hysterical reaction of the hipsters on Valencia Street and their ridiculous posturing (typewriters? is this some kind of ironic joke?) has rendered the entire thing beyond rational discussion. Short of rounding up all the hipsters and having them gassed (my preferred means of dealing with this situation), all I can say is this - Fine, ban the fuckers from Valencia Street. However, it should be added to the zoning ordinance that the minute one of the businesses already there (e.g., Ritual Roasters) opens up another location anywhere, their store on Valencia Street should be burned to the ground and they and their families should be dragged out of their homes, stripped, shaved, and paraded through the Mission to be jeered at and pelted with rotted vegetables. I think that's a solution we can all live with, don't you?
Yet strangely, not so tired of the topic to remain silent?
I kind of always felt Mission-issues were over-represented on SFist, but I never had any empirical proof.
Till now.
You are all so stupid. Who gives a rat's ass? You act like the Mission is the West Village or Soho in NY...the Mission is sooooooooooooo over-rated. BFD.
you're too cool.
You're a cool tool.
So you're going to take your Audi A3 and drive to American Apparel?
This actually sums up the opposition to AA quite well.
If you still oppose AA in the mission after viewing this - well then - have a nice life.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gretchenrobinette/3251994715
Rotten traitor to the hood, shopping at national chain Whole Foods
Please refer to the hipsters writing signs that say "no more hipster scum"
Yeah, caught that. Thanks!
isn't SFist itself, as part of the Gothamist network, a blog-version of a chain store?
That's a pretty good point, I think. Nationally owned, locally operated? Something like that?
"As we pecked away on a rickety typewriter, swathed in the stylish comfort..."
...such artisanal imagery.
Set aside the issues of union busting an organizational culture of routine sexual harassment. (Both legitimate issues worthy of discussion.) If you want to know whether American Apparel is a chain, read Dov Charney's own words:
"We want to improve the T-shirt industry in the way that Starbucks has improved the coffee industry. You might find Starbucks to be predatory in their business practices, but let's face it, they provide Americans with better coffee. Not only by the coffee that they serve but by breaking their competition to get there."
Say hello to even higher rents on Valencia and say goodbye to ATA.
Goodbye, ATA.
You make a fine point. That's the most amusing part of this whole discussion. Everyone seems to only want to focus on the false idea that this protest has anything to do with AA. But that's because that's the easiest thing for people to understand, even if it is woefully misinformed.
I hereby petition to rename this web site to "americanapparelist.com".
for fuck's sake, put a (model #RSASK Unisex Stripe Calf-High) sock in it already.
*heh* SFist just jumped the shark.
The San Francisco Motto; I Don't Like it so Neither do You.
I always thought it was: San Francisco: but we still want to see other people
That batwing hoodie is godawful. I'm starting to think that AA shouldn't be allowed anywhere if they're selling that.
Here is a quote form a book I just started reading, "Big-Box Swindle" by Stacy Mitchell.
"Another space-affordability problem arises when a business district becomes so popular that chain stores arrive in droves and rents scale rapidly, pushing out locally owned businesses and replacing stores that serve local needs with high-end boutiques."A common pattern is that it’s a challenge to get people to locate in your district and then you get those independent businesses to come in and before too long, the property owners start raising the rent and bringing in national tenants,” said Alex Padro, director of the Shaw Main Streets program in Washington , DC. While modest increases in rent are often a good thing - a sign of the health of the district and a source of funds for building maintenance - steep., rapid increases destabilize local businesses, giving them no time to make adjustments."
"Some communities handle this partly through legislation, adopting ordinances that bar formula businesses and require that new stores be “neighborhood-serving". Berkeley even has a quota system in some of its neighborhoods to ensure that retail stores are not pushed out by restaurants….”
I hope you all agree with me when I say that this sounds familiar and it is happening on Valencia Street.
Although there are still "regular" neighborhood serving independent stores on Valencia, like the Printing shop on Valencia and 21st, or the hardware store on Valencia and 24th, high-end boutiques/coffee shops and restaurants are already there. The next round of commercial tenants coming up, and very much desired by landlords, are chains. This is the reality and it is happening all over the country. Wake up, smell the whatever coffee you are drinking (Starbucks or Ritual), and if you care say something!
And then do what? Support a national economy serving the needs of 300 million people on the backs of mom and pop boutiques that sell second hand, mid 20th century tschokes at ridiculous mark ups? Sorry, sweetie, but a used Eames chair does not a nation make.
usually i like the posts here, despite the fairly annoying and consistent air of self superiority, but this one is full of crap.
the meeting tomorrow is DECIDEDLY NOT about "Should chain stores be absolutely everywhere in the universe, or could we just have a couple of places in the world where there aren't any?"
it's about ONE SINGLE INSTANCE. that's the purpose of Prop G...for each and every instance to be weighed, measured & judged upon. this isnt the first, and it isnt the last.
jeez. it's amazing how fast hyperbole and self-reference become the norm in a blog. but i guess that's the nature of the medium.
that, and mediocre writing.
your butthurt tickles me.
i knew it would!
Have you ever thought that San Francisco is basically "Rick" from the Young Ones?
then who should be our "Cliff Richard" to idolize?
Gav
These anti-AA people are basically modern day Marie Antoinette's - Let them shop at boutiques!
ourself? I think the correct usage is yrs truly.
DFW..FTW
The real question is would it really be so bad if a few chain stores were allowed on Valencia St. so the neighborhood could have a clothing store option that was somewhere in between a high-price boutique and a cheap dollar store?
Unfortunately, that question has never been asked. Indeed there has been little commentary about AA -- all the anti-AA stuff has been that chain stores are evil and if we let AA in then Walmart will be next.
The neighborhood would be well served with a store like that. Now all we need is a local business person to decide to open one, which is dependent upon rent prices and demand. If the demand is there, and the rents aren't being driven up by chain store presence, that could very well happen. And the area residents and shop owners objecting to this threat can help loosen up some landlords so that can happen, instead of them keeping their shops boarded up in dreams of outrageous fortunes.
That's the most amusing part of this whole discussion. Everyone seems to only want to focus on the false idea that this protest has anything to do with AA. But that's because that's the easiest thing for people to understand, even if it is woefully misinformed.
AA corporate headquarters just threw a party when they saw all this free advertising
...I'm going to bop on down to Walgreens (at 23rd and Mission) and grab some more tape for my sign. you need anything? looks like you could use more yellow highlighter.
uck. i'm burnt out on this online argument thing.
800 comments later, and aside from a couple brief glimpses of actual discussion, we're pretty much where we started: a lot of angry (bitter?) people are really really upset that some people care about a chain store moving into their neighborhood, and they're ready and willing to use 10% of the world's bandwidth to tell the world about how upset they are.
i'm starting to think this not only isn't about american apparel, but also isn't about chain stores, or the mission, or san francisco, or anything like that.
let's talk about feelings.