Because arresting drug dealers is not actually a thing that means that retail will have more customers in downtown SF. There's a legitimate discussion about having downtown areas be economically viable and pretending that if we "just" arrested all the criminals or whatever then things would get fixed is very dismissive of real, actual things that could be improved.
You need customers for retail to exist. People working for SF-based companies don't want to go to the office (you might make an argument it's for crime reasons, but it feels obvious the overriding reason is just wanting to work from home). So retail is suffering. Notice how crime plays at best a second order effect there. Yet every story on HN about this topic is filled with people saying it's crime.
I mean the place is already next to a bunch of houses. I'm imagining that all of those places aren't exactly empty. But of course this thing is built across the street from a Safeway (which feels pretty relevant to the lack of the success to be honest).
It feels just like there are so many more simple narratives here. Like seriously, there's a supermarket that looks larger and has a parking lot just there! Why would people bother crossing a 4-lane highway to go to whole foods? And so you're left with a huge supermarket that is trying to cater purely to foot traffic, outside of a place with that much of it to begin with. It sure feels like hubris meant this site simply did not work.
It just feels like such a stretch to claim that crime is the thing here.
There is neither a highway nor a Safeway nearby. Also, the apartment complex where the WFM is located (the Trinity Place) seems to have ample parking for retail.
are you sure you are looking at the right place? i don't see any Safeway close to 8th and Market and there are plenty of boarded-up abandoned houses on Market and the streets next to it. Also, have you just seen it? It's the stinkiest most repulsive part of town with a bunch of deranged people hanging out nonstop day and night on that corner there.
According to the article, the store was closed due to security concerns. There was no suggestion in the article that it was due to insufficient sales. Are you suggesting the company is lying for some reason?
It’s well documented from last year that Walgreens similarly used crime as their reasoning for closing stores but it didn’t at all hold up to real scrutiny
Walgreens’ CFO has said outright that the crime stuff was overblown , 2 years later [0]
[1] has a breakdown of the arguments for why this stuff doesn’t align with reality (“biased” of course, as it’s a media critique podcast, but I find their arguments convincing. I admit they confirm my priors)
“Safety” and “shoplifting” are of course not the same. And many people here talk about feeling unsafe going there. But people also mention it being empty! And there’s a Safeway across the street.
Companies like making money. Something tells me you don’t close down a massive store if it were making money. “Large supermarket without a parking lot in an area without much foot traffic” just seems like an expensive proposition.
You need customers for retail to exist. People working for SF-based companies don't want to go to the office (you might make an argument it's for crime reasons, but it feels obvious the overriding reason is just wanting to work from home). So retail is suffering. Notice how crime plays at best a second order effect there. Yet every story on HN about this topic is filled with people saying it's crime.