5 ms·

While I've no reason to doubt that safety concerns were the primary driver of this move, I wonder if economic concerns weren't also a big factor. This store wa

While I've no reason to doubt that safety concerns were the primary driver of this move, I wonder if economic concerns weren't also a big factor. This store was opened in 2022 and presumably the decision to open it was made in 2021, back when people were anticipating a big return to offices and downtown SF in general. That certainly didn't wind up happening, and SF's downtown hasn't recovered nearly as much as other major metros. A big expensive store at 8th and Market probably saw far fewer customers than they'd planned for. Low revenue could have been a driving factor in the decision to close, alongside safety.

prottog 3y ago
Flagship stores (which TFA describes this store as) often run at a loss, because the visibility in a highly-trafficked, prestigious area is worth it. That math changes drastically if you have to account for the potential PR headache that this particular location brings.
- SllX 3y ago
  Highly trafficked? Yes. Prestigious? Not once in my lifetime has that part of Market Street been prestigious. I know there was some lingering optimism going back through the previous decade that things might be looking up, but since then the crime and grime has only expanded further up Market Street. There’s another Whole Foods on Market, which for now is open and seems to be doing everything right across the street from a Safeway that’s been doing everything wrong—more so since the Albertsons acquisition—but to be fair my perspective is limited only to their evening hours when things seem fine. Some of the restaurants that opened up between the two areas are also already gone, either shut down or moved locations. They took their temporal location-based tax benefits to the end of their life and moved on.
dylan604 3y ago
Saying "due to safety concerns" makes it sound less of a failure on the parts of the business decision and more along the lines of "things out of their control". move the goalposts and look like a win.
- gregbander 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - dylan604 3y ago
    It's not like it's just Amazon here. Walgreens (or is it CVS? whichever one) is pretty well known for their negative experience in SF as well. There's plenty of evidence that crime in SF has had a very negative affect on quality of life.
ceejayoz 3y ago
That’s what happened with Walgreens: economic reasons, with crime as a scapegoat. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/06/business/walgreens-shoplifting.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/06/business/walgreens-shopli... > A Walgreens executive said this week that the company, which cited “organized” shoplifting as a reason to close five stores in San Francisco in October 2021, might have overstated the effect of theft on its business. > Mr. Kehoe also said that the company had “probably” spent too much on security measures and that it might have mischaracterized how much theft took place in its stores.
- rossdavidh 3y ago
  I don't know the truth of it, but it could also be crime reasons, with no economic reasons to justify putting up with it. Corporations aren't that worried about employee safety if there's a lot of money being made.
  - justizin 3y ago
    The Walgreens CEO was forced to admit on a public investor call that they had completely fabricated all of their concerns, that these closures were simply planned because San Francisco has far too many drugstores (in some areas there might be 3 walgreens within 2 blocks in each direction), and that they continued to suffer after closing the stores. I’ve lived in SF almost 20 years, and Walgreens basically exists as a large corner store for people who want gatorade or doritos, and every single in-person pharmacy experience I have had in SF has been awful, sometimes an hour plus wait with 2-3 people in line. Often there are pharmacists behind the counter who simply refuse to talk to anyone. These days I use Alto, and most people I know who don’t use some sort of online delivery service. In-person pharmacies suck unless you need a prescription with absolutely zero notice, and then they still suck at doing that. As for the whole foods, anyone could have told folks that was a really stupid location for any sort of retail. That area has been struggling for a long time and the attempted solution was basically, “Bring a bunch of rich people to the area and hope all of the ‘problem’ people get locked up as a result.” Shocking that did not work.
    - 3y ago
Arelius 3y ago
While I think it only furthers your point, this particular Whole Foods has actually been expected for much longer, here is an article from 2018: https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-s-massive-new-Whole-Foods-set-to-12611117.php https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-s-massi...
asveikau 3y ago
> This store was opened in 2022 and presumably the decision to open it was made in 2021 I think it was earlier than that. Pre-pandemic. Here's an article talking about it in early 2018. https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-s-massive-new-Whole-Foods-set-to-12611117.php https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-s-massi... Pre-pandemic, one of several possible narratives about that area was that Twitter had moved in successfully and trends were looking up. That was the sort of optimism that brought Whole Foods. I remember that there were some local reactions that they could be getting ahead of themselves.
- kelp 3y ago
  There kind of was a brief period, maybe 4 years? 2014 - 2018 or so when mid-market was looking up. Twitter was there. Square, and Uber. Businesses were moving in, buildings were getting renovated. Then it turned the wrong direction again, and now we have what we have.
  - asveikau 3y ago
    It's complicated. In some ways, the new occupants seemed like they propped things up artificially. I remember going for one of my regular walks around there one afternoon a few years ago and noticing that either block of Market surrounding Twitter had a lot of people sitting on the sidewalk. The block with Twitter was devoid of this. Then I saw a nonviolent-looking homeless guy looking tired, attempting to sit on the "wrong" block. Without a beat, private security comes in to protect the techie outpost, maybe he tells them to move one block over. I was kind of disgusted. Like human misery is ok so long as no techies need to see it. But I also think it was good they they were revitalizing those old buildings. It is unfortunate that the decline of office work has been pretty hard on SF's downtown. I hope it'll be back some day.
Me1000 3y ago
Anecdotal, of course, but this was my Whole Foods and just about every time I went in it was pretty well trafficked. In addition to the apartment complex right above the store, there are several high density complexes within a couple blocks of that store. I really doubt it was for economic reasons. But it was fairly common to see someone riding the long escalator up to the exit (the store is below ground) while yelling profanities at the security below watching them leave. When the store opened it used to have a nice selection of hard liquor, but they stopped selling that due to theft. And there are always several people so high they're barely able to stand, pretending to shop.
- wpietri 3y ago
  I don't understand why that population is something they did not plan for. The neighborhood has been sketchy for 25 years at least. I get that the Whole Foods vibe is deeply suburban, but surely this all crossed their minds?

prottog 3y ago

Flagship stores (which TFA describes this store as) often run at a loss, because the visibility in a highly-trafficked, prestigious area is worth it. That math changes drastically if you have to account for the potential PR headache that this particular location brings.

SllX 3y ago
Highly trafficked? Yes. Prestigious? Not once in my lifetime has that part of Market Street been prestigious. I know there was some lingering optimism going back through the previous decade that things might be looking up, but since then the crime and grime has only expanded further up Market Street. There’s another Whole Foods on Market, which for now is open and seems to be doing everything right across the street from a Safeway that’s been doing everything wrong—more so since the Albertsons acquisition—but to be fair my perspective is limited only to their evening hours when things seem fine. Some of the restaurants that opened up between the two areas are also already gone, either shut down or moved locations. They took their temporal location-based tax benefits to the end of their life and moved on.

dylan604 3y ago

Saying "due to safety concerns" makes it sound less of a failure on the parts of the business decision and more along the lines of "things out of their control". move the goalposts and look like a win.

gregbander 3y ago
[flagged]
- dylan604 3y ago
  It's not like it's just Amazon here. Walgreens (or is it CVS? whichever one) is pretty well known for their negative experience in SF as well. There's plenty of evidence that crime in SF has had a very negative affect on quality of life.

ceejayoz 3y ago

That’s what happened with Walgreens: economic reasons, with crime as a scapegoat. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/06/business/walgreens-shoplifting.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/06/business/walgreens-shopli... > A Walgreens executive said this week that the company, which cited “organized” shoplifting as a reason to close five stores in San Francisco in October 2021, might have overstated the effect of theft on its business. > Mr. Kehoe also said that the company had “probably” spent too much on security measures and that it might have mischaracterized how much theft took place in its stores.

rossdavidh 3y ago
I don't know the truth of it, but it could also be crime reasons, with no economic reasons to justify putting up with it. Corporations aren't that worried about employee safety if there's a lot of money being made.
- justizin 3y ago
  The Walgreens CEO was forced to admit on a public investor call that they had completely fabricated all of their concerns, that these closures were simply planned because San Francisco has far too many drugstores (in some areas there might be 3 walgreens within 2 blocks in each direction), and that they continued to suffer after closing the stores. I’ve lived in SF almost 20 years, and Walgreens basically exists as a large corner store for people who want gatorade or doritos, and every single in-person pharmacy experience I have had in SF has been awful, sometimes an hour plus wait with 2-3 people in line. Often there are pharmacists behind the counter who simply refuse to talk to anyone. These days I use Alto, and most people I know who don’t use some sort of online delivery service. In-person pharmacies suck unless you need a prescription with absolutely zero notice, and then they still suck at doing that. As for the whole foods, anyone could have told folks that was a really stupid location for any sort of retail. That area has been struggling for a long time and the attempted solution was basically, “Bring a bunch of rich people to the area and hope all of the ‘problem’ people get locked up as a result.” Shocking that did not work.
  - 3y ago

Arelius 3y ago

While I think it only furthers your point, this particular Whole Foods has actually been expected for much longer, here is an article from 2018: https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-s-massive-new-Whole-Foods-set-to-12611117.php https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-s-massi...

asveikau 3y ago

> This store was opened in 2022 and presumably the decision to open it was made in 2021 I think it was earlier than that. Pre-pandemic. Here's an article talking about it in early 2018. https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-s-massive-new-Whole-Foods-set-to-12611117.php https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-s-massi... Pre-pandemic, one of several possible narratives about that area was that Twitter had moved in successfully and trends were looking up. That was the sort of optimism that brought Whole Foods. I remember that there were some local reactions that they could be getting ahead of themselves.

kelp 3y ago
There kind of was a brief period, maybe 4 years? 2014 - 2018 or so when mid-market was looking up. Twitter was there. Square, and Uber. Businesses were moving in, buildings were getting renovated. Then it turned the wrong direction again, and now we have what we have.
- asveikau 3y ago
  It's complicated. In some ways, the new occupants seemed like they propped things up artificially. I remember going for one of my regular walks around there one afternoon a few years ago and noticing that either block of Market surrounding Twitter had a lot of people sitting on the sidewalk. The block with Twitter was devoid of this. Then I saw a nonviolent-looking homeless guy looking tired, attempting to sit on the "wrong" block. Without a beat, private security comes in to protect the techie outpost, maybe he tells them to move one block over. I was kind of disgusted. Like human misery is ok so long as no techies need to see it. But I also think it was good they they were revitalizing those old buildings. It is unfortunate that the decline of office work has been pretty hard on SF's downtown. I hope it'll be back some day.

Me1000 3y ago

Anecdotal, of course, but this was my Whole Foods and just about every time I went in it was pretty well trafficked. In addition to the apartment complex right above the store, there are several high density complexes within a couple blocks of that store. I really doubt it was for economic reasons. But it was fairly common to see someone riding the long escalator up to the exit (the store is below ground) while yelling profanities at the security below watching them leave. When the store opened it used to have a nice selection of hard liquor, but they stopped selling that due to theft. And there are always several people so high they're barely able to stand, pretending to shop.

wpietri 3y ago
I don't understand why that population is something they did not plan for. The neighborhood has been sketchy for 25 years at least. I get that the Whole Foods vibe is deeply suburban, but surely this all crossed their minds?