Photo du Jour 516
Welcome Back! Um, Why Are You at Work Today?
Tiger Woods In "Serious" Condition After Car Crash
-thumb-110x110-461569.jpg)
Photos from Black Friday
Builder of Oakland's Fox Theater Once Imprisoned For 'White Slavery'
OK. We lied. THIS will be our final American Apparel post. We know we said otherwise, but you'll thank us when you find out why we're bringing up the beleaguered retail chain one last time. See, after an Oskar Schindler-like awakening, the fine folks over at American Apparel are offering up a mea culpa in the form of a 25%-discount to any and all Mission residents at any of their SF American Apparel stores. (What, no love for LoRi residents? Pft.) Mission Mission has more details.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I forgive you for the picture alone. Holy Jeebus!
That leg almost makes it looked photoshopped. I'm gonna stare it for a few more minutes just to make sure it's authentic.
what?? why?! how silly.
It's a great marketing opportunity. They had a whole room full of people who said "I love American Apparel! Just not where it can bring in all those icky shoppers!" So of course they should turn these American Apparel lovers into icky shoppers somewhere else in town.
How about some $12-$14 hourly wages and a health care plan instead?
Oh...wait.
The "Magic of Valencia" will just have to do.
I think we should protest the ending of AA stories on this blog, where's me type writer?
Clearly this is not the type of business we want polluting our neighborhood.
A 25% discount?! For what?! They should charge residents of the Valencia Street Boutique Paradise/Hipster Community 25% more for the sheer stupidity of it all! As a resident of the Haight, I should get a 50% discount because all the knuckle dragging cretins who'd have shopped at an AA on Valencia will now continue to enter my neighborhood and continue to combine with the crowds of hippies, homeless youth, and stupid tourists into a foul miasma that never gets out of my way on the turd smeared sidewalks! Unbelievable!
I now boycott BOTH that Shelly Duvall looking woman's Ritual Roasters AND American Apparel!
I double boycott Ritual, just because.
I might go to my neighborhood American and ask them to match the discount. Because I'm part of "the community," one with a store in fact. It should be amusing.
This is awesome! It's a comical pairing to their deer-in-headlights misunderstanding why the community didn't allow them to move into the neighborhood because they'd previously given away free clothes.
"But we gave you free clothes and then deep discounts...so why are you still being so mean to us?"
Wow, these guys really are desperate to get into the Mission. Well, to get onto Valencia st, anyway.
Fuck 'em. They've already got stores elsewhere in town and Valencia has more than enough clothing stores as it is.
You know what Valencia street has too many of? Taquerias. Why don't we all organize a rally and protest next time someone tries to open a taqueria in our neighborhood? Our neighborhood not theirs! These taquerias are taking up valuable commercial real estate that could be used by local artisans. They are driving up rent and driving out artists! NO MORE TAQUERIAS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD! After all, if you want a taco, you can go to any of these other taquerias. Or just get on the bus and go to one of the taquerias in the Haight.
No way. The nuber of Taquerias is juuust right.
I am so glad I don't pay attention to stupid ass stories like this. The chick with her legs spread pic totally got my attention. Oh, I hate hipsters.
Will now come back 4 or 5 times this afternoon to look at photograph. What is it about their models? Thx, brock.
I've stayed away from these AA stories so far but really, I mean really - so much hate for Valencia street? So much hate for a silly clothing store (who produces nice quality t-shirts that take screen ink real well, and mountains of other ugly crap)? So much hate for 'hipsters', as if anyone even knows what that means beyond 'younger people' who don't wear office casual?
Let's take a real look at what happened? A small number of neighborhood types went after a store moving into smallish store front. The company that wanted to open the store bungled its response and the detractors won at the city commission meeting. Seriously, that's it. Boring. Yes, stupidity was involved, along with the oversized egos of some of the participants. I ultimately question if some involved were in it for the publicity or actually to stop the store. Still even then it seems to have been effective street theater...
To the larger questions of gentrification I can only say, the Mission isn't the semi-industrial Irish/Polish neighborhood it once was and I really wish they still drove cattle down Army street...and we like the St. Stupid's Day Parade, yes?
Gad! let it die, bury it. If you hate AA - let it go, because you've got your vacant storefront. If you hate 'hipsters' - let it go, because by hating and being vocal about this you are giving your objects of scorn precisely the validation they seek.
Fortunately, these events have nothing to do with hipsters or American Apparel. Only the folks that really have no idea what they're talking about (aka haters) are concentrating on such trivialities.
As if. Out of the mouth of hipsters and suckers...
Respectfully, no one ever proved that it "had nothing to do" with "hipsters" or American Apparel.
These were over-whelmingly white people on the white, "hip" stretch of the Mission upset about a very specific chain store moving into their turf, claiming that it was about "chains" in "the Mission," ("YOUR Mission, not THEIRS") yet there had not been an organized outcry from them about the many chains already in the Mission prior to this (nor is there now). It was never about chains in the Mission on the whole--it was about this specific chain in this very specific section of the neighborhood.
Which is all well and good, I suppose (if ridiculous, in my opinion); get your NIMBY up and knock yourself out, but don't paint it as an issue about chain stores in the Mission District itself, and don't be surprised when people find the whole thing a wind-up.
Actually, as I've mentioned before, as have others, there has been opposition to chains in the mission, but never before this vocal and organized. So if you choose to concentrate on the fact that they are white and newish neighbors, that's entirely your choice. But that's more out of convenience than actually understanding or empathizing with the community as a whole. And one way to really get a handle on the disparities, puzzle out the saturation of computer/technology ownership, skill and connectivity comparing younger whites and the latino community as a whole. You'll find there's still a marked disparity. And this fight in particular was fought with techonology.
In addition to that there is the rich history of urban cultural progression of artist communities moving into and revitalizing immigrant neighborhoods. Likely you and others would argue it semantics--'revitalizing' being code for gentrification. But that also illustrates a gross misunderstanding. Artists don't welcome gentrification because it ultimately leads their culture to a quick and timely death. Artist communities and their kin have historically been supportive of and have made great efforts to help preserve immigrant neighborhoods from gentrification because they have shared needs and vision.
Gentrification is performed by a wholly different group in the economic ecology. And that's what this fight was really about--preventing the scavengers appropriating the cultural environment for the sake of a retail dream. So you can rail all you want about the various factions: white, latino, hipsters, etc. all you wish. But doing so illustrates no insight into the heart of matters. Instead it illustrates how easily you've been manipulated by the voices of the extremes from each side of the discussion, how media amplifies and exaggerates those extremes and non-issues into facts, and how willing you are to parrot these pseudo-facts and opinions with misplaced righteousness--essentially scavenging the dialog. Becoming a hipster tourist.
Try speaking with your own voice, first-hand knowledge and with personal interests at stake. Then you and others can stop pretending to care, to be informed and involved. Your not. If you want to behave like a tourist, please find your way to the tourist safe-zone, Pier 39.
Thanks in advance.
You sure threw around a lot of pretty phrases illustrating abstract concepts there in the process of not addressing the surface reality of the situation (although I know the alliteration of "economic ecology" was probably irresistible).
"Preventing the scavengers appropriating the cultural environment for the sake of a retail dream" sounds so much more noble than a bunch of bedheads pounding on vintage typewriters in an artisnal coffee joint to prevent a chain t-shirt store from opening up amongst their tiny fiefdom of pricy boutiques and navel-gazing galleries (or should I call Paxton Gate and the other products of "revitalization" the "needs and vision of the Mission immigrant working-class"?). That said, it's also quite different than the whole "Keep the Mission chain-free" mission statement that the apple scruffs at the Planning Commission meeting last week tried painting it as.
You're right in one aspect: that I don't particularly care. I don't stand for anything here other than this was generally a farce. But it's your farce, and I respect that.
It's similar to the issues surrounding Bay to Breakers. If you choose to blindly follow media sensationalizing the extremes--all the jackasses whooping it up for the cameras, throwing trash everywhere and peeing on every doorstep--as the authoritative version of events, that's cool and that's a valid choice. But it's not the only choice and it's not the only truths to be told. In fact, as often is the case, those sensationalized truths are a very small portion of the subject.
When discussing my community and fellow citizens I prefer to do so without taking media's lead in reducing them to caricatures and labels so it's easier to entirely discount their needs and desires for living life. Apparently you and many others are comfortable doing so. I think that's really unfortunate for us all. But hopefully there are enough tolerant people around to balance out this deficit. You'd better hope there are as some day a cause will be important to you and you'll want your community to support it.
hehehe Nah. Albeit strangely misguided, that's a pretty funny interpretation.When discussing my community and fellow citizens I prefer to do so without taking media's lead in reducing them to caricatures and labels
We're obviously not going to agree about this, which is fine, really, but I wish you'd stop pretending I'm taking all my cues from the media about this. I'm sure these folks contain multitudes, but it's pretty easy for one to jump to their own general conclusions (and perhaps, yes, caricatures) about the overall racial makeup, socio-economic status, and cultural leanings of the people behind this brouhaha when you see the photos from the protestors' events:
http://www.sfweekly.com/slideshow/view/234546
http://flickr.com/photos/timoni/3249916518/
http://sfist.com/2009/02/06/scenes_from_american_apparel_meetin.php
Like it or not, these things color the way people viewed the "protest," especially when it was often speciously swathed as an overall Mission gentrification issue. Perhaps there were working-class families involved, too, wishing to "keep the Mission chain-free," as the slogan went, but they seem to be conspicuously absent. Perhaps it was a media conspracy to keep them hidden, though, who knows.
Albeit strangely misguided,
You're trying to say that the Valencia "artists" portion of the Mission community, including the pricy niche businesses there now, "revitalized" the neighborhood, but that American Apparel, a t-shirt and socks chain, would "gentrify" it. I guess I was just trying to understand what part of a steampunk-esque toystore and indie rock record stores were the "shared dreams and vision" of the neighborhood's working-class. Certainly there are differences between AA and these places, but like it or not, they are two sides of the same coin.
Again, though, whatever gets you through the night. It's your Mission, not mine.
because they choose to be spoon-fed media-consumers that believe everything they see and read.
There you go again. You can't disavow what the words and images that multiple sources have presented of the anti-AA protests so you try to paint those who found the whole thing a luxury propagated by a certain people of a certain status of certain tastes rather than a Mission-wide movement against chains (as the anti-AA people tried painting it as) as spoon-fed drones who can't interpret those images and words on our own(without actually proving it, of course). Worse, you try and throw my incredulity at that argument in with garden-varity homophobia. Please.
You're off on a tangent of your own construction.
The tangent was constructed by the fact that you imtimated that what Mission "artists" generally do and did here derives in part from the shared needs and vision with the immigrant working-class, while at the same time stating that the "cultural progression" they provide when they move in and plant roots in a neighborhood is "revitalizing" while chains like AA from a different economic strata is "gentrifying." I probably don't even disagree with you, but what I've been hoping you can clarify is how the "revitalizing" independent stores and restaurants on Valencia reflect those needs and vision of the neighborhood by Mission immigrant workng-class (really, even if there is indeed a difference between revitalizing and gentrifying, they would seem to have much the same ultimate effect on the working class in these neighborhoods). I ask since making "great efforts to help preserve" the Mission on-the-whole and making this anti-AA protest seem as it is such an action indeed sounds so much more noble than what the movement actually appeared to be from the outsider perspective: Valencia boutique owners concerned about higher rents on their stretch of the neighborhood (which is fair enough on its own) and consumers/residents on that stretch of Valencia being concerned about the effects having said chains will have on the flavor of the neighborhood (again, fair enough). You've yet to do so, despite your condescension that I don't understand the concepts. I get them just fine, it's just that I find your use of them less than consistent with the way many in the anti-AA protest have tried painting it as.
For the last time, I don't really care that the protests happened and that AA isn't moving in, I really don't. Congratulations. I just found the occasional attempts to connect it to the concerns of the working-class of the rest of the Mission total garbage.
I'm here for you, trav. o/
You know what Valencia street has too many of? Taquerias. Why don't we all organize a rally and protest next time someone tries to open a taqueria in our neighborhood? Our neighborhood not theirs! These taquerias are taking up valuable commercial real estate that could be used by local artisans. They are driving up rent and driving out artists. NO MORE TAQUERIAS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD! After all, if you want a taco, you can go to any of these other taquerias. Or just get on the bus and go to one of the taquerias in the Haight. They are all just formula businesses anyway. All with the same carne asada/carnitas menus. We should value diversity in our neighborhood.
Do you have a recommendation for a taqueria that has great fish tacos? It's easy to find a taqueria that serves good carnitas, but the superb fish taco joint is elusive. Thanks in advance!
Unfortunately, I am more of a vegetarian taco man myself. But remember, this isn't about tacos. Nobody is hostile to tacos. We just want to keep rents low for local artists. I eat tacos everyday. I just don't mind going to another neighborhood to do it.
Rubio's in the basement of Westfield SF Centre, though a chain store, is a San Diego based chain store that does make acceptable (for SF) fish tacos.
Fewer tacquerias, more bacon-wrapped hot dog carts!
Most importantly, Rubio's is not on Valencia street, so it won't be raising rents and driving artisans out of the Mission. Unlike all those other, cookie-cutter taquerias that litter my neighborhood, decreasing its diversity, and driving up rents. I mean, just because you have enough money to open a taqueria does not give you the right to homogenize my neighborhood.
Also, we cannot have too many bacon-wrapped hot dog carts. They may begin to create undue competition. And they may take up too much sidewalk space, thereby driving out our local sidewalk merchants.
I think we need a tacqueria exchange program. TL Pho joints and sandwich places for for decent tacquerias. It's very hard to get decent Pho in the Mission and even Cancun can't make an edible burrito in the TL. It'd be like a cultural exchange program. We could even expand it to swapping street people passed out drunk dudes exchanged for cracked out twitchy types. Wait - that last part is a bad idea.
Yes. And the TL neighborhood needs to get organized to prevent anymore cookie cutter Vietnamese restaurants from opening there. These Vietnamese restaurants are driving out the indigenous people of the neighborhood. The zoning board needs to step in to preserve the TL community from homogenization. Where will artists be able to open studios if all the studios become Pho restaurants? They are driving up rents! Why doesn't the government do something?
We are all taquerias.
I wonder if I'll see 700 people marching for that man murdered for daring to ask the police to, um, police?
......crickets chirping.....
the thing that interests me the most is the way this argument has devolved into white people vs white people each claiming to speak for the brown people-- the brown people are all poor.
I only speak for the t-shirt wearing masses.
scintillating analysis. Now if only it had something to do with this conversation...
Well, the anti-AA "artists" do have the "shared dreams and vision" of the Mission immigrant community.
See...and for some reason I was thinking you weren't involved in this conversation to troll for cheap points.
Fortunately, I find passive-aggression to be quite precious.
motherjones.com - San Francisco Rejects American Apparel: Has the Fight Against Chain Stores Gone Too Far?
You've done a better job than CJ
I'd thank you but I'm quite certain that's not a compliment. Consistency, hobgoblins, and all that noise.
At any rate, CJ has an obvious agenda that speaks for itself. Remember my mentioning the vocal extremes on each side of the discussion clouding the dialog? They don't speak or act for everyone, even if the interview appears on the AP wire. Everyone would do well to keep that in mind, and, you know, like, maintaining some rational perspective. The intertubes can haz broad shoulders, it can handle it.