Target might be considering Metreon location (crime, murders, place)

[gettys]

I live three blocks from there and would love to see Target move in.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale

I agree. I actually prefer the idea of Target opening on Market Street somewhere between 5th and 7th Streets. That stretch is sort of a dead zone. Target could be seen as a savior if they moved in there.

Well, since the City voted down having a Times Square type environment(such shortsightedness) along that section of Market Street, you might be right.

Although they arent going to clean up Market Street if they don't also clean up the adjacent blocks on either end of Market in that section. Imo.

Its almost like a deliberate irony that one of the most prosperous and sophisticated cities in the world would have literally at its heart and soul, its most grotesque and raunchy area-right there for everyone to see. Almost like comeuppance.

But that's another conversation.

[sonarrat]

I like this idea, but it would have a big impact on the San Bruno Target. A lot of San Franciscans seem to use it because it's convenient to BART.

[matt345]

Originally Posted by sonarrat

I like this idea, but it would have a big impact on the San Bruno Target. A lot of San Franciscans seem to use it because it's convenient to BART.

But I was told parking is of the utmost importance because everyone drives in San Francisco.....

Originally Posted by bellalunatic

SF v. NYC...a tale of two completely different cities. One has more cabs and barely anyone drives, the other, not enough cabs, clueless cab drivers and lots of people drive drive drive...

[sonarrat]

Originally Posted by matt345

But I was told parking is of the utmost importance because everyone drives in San Francisco.....

Certainly not, and certainly not around SoMa which has easy access to both Caltrain and BART. Most (not all, of course) of the people driving in SF are commuters or visitors from out of town. The southbound Caltrains in the morning are twice as busy as the northbound ones, and the N-Judah is rarely anything short of packed to the gills.

[rah]

Originally Posted by sonarrat

Certainly not, and certainly not around SoMa which has easy access to both Caltrain and BART. Most (not all, of course) of the people driving in SF are commuters or visitors from out of town. The southbound Caltrains in the morning are twice as busy as the northbound ones, and the N-Judah is rarely anything short of packed to the gills.

SF has one of the highest public transportation usage rates in the nation, behind only NYC, Washington DC and Chicago...I believe we're also right above or below Boston too, though i can't remember. Despite this, tons of people still use cars in SF. As far as mode of transportation San Franciscans use to get to work, around 60% drive, which seems like a big chunk to me...maybe not as big as say, Phoenix, or LA, but still big nonetheless. There's also an average of 2 or so cars per household in SF...we're a high transit-usage city yes, but we're also a car city at the same time, like basically everywhere else in the US, except for Manhattan i guess. The idea that most people in SF don't drive or don't have a car is more myth than reality...we're just lucky that we have the option of an extensive and actually useful public transportation system that covers all of SF, as well as some other systems that reach much of the of the rest of the Bay Area too.

[sonarrat]

Originally Posted by rah

SF has one of the highest public transportation usage rates in the nation, behind only NYC, Washington DC and Chicago...I believe we're also right above or below Boston too, though i can't remember. Despite this, tons of people still use cars in SF. As far as mode of transportation San Franciscans use to get to work, around 60% drive, which seems like a big chunk to me...maybe not as big as say, Phoenix, or LA, but still big nonetheless. There's also an average of 2 or so cars per household in SF...we're a high transit-usage city yes, but we're also a car city at the same time, like basically everywhere else in the US, except for Manhattan i guess. The idea that most people in SF don't drive or don't have a car is more myth than reality...we're just lucky that we have the option of an extensive and actually useful public transportation system that covers all of SF, as well as some other systems that reach much of the of the rest of the Bay Area too.

Granted, but SoMa is a unique beast because parking is extremely scarce and expensive, and all of the most powerful transit options are just a short walk away. Need to take a ferry to Alameda or Vallejo? No problem. Bus to Santa Rosa? You're covered. Need to get to Sacramento in a pinch? Easy. I bet that car utilization in SoMa wouldn't be anywhere near the 60% mark. I personally would not even consider living in that area, because the nature of my musical work means I drive a lot to areas on the peninsula which are poorly served by transit, and I couldn't afford to park my car near my own home. By its very nature the area discourages cars.

[uptown_urbanist]

I know a LOT of people in San Francisco who drive; it's not just, or even mostly, visitors or commuters.

All that said, the urban Targets usually have a different blend of stock. The Target in downtown Minneapolis does sell stuff to people who drive, too, but the people I know who use it don't access it by car. They buy things during their lunch hour or during work (or in special shopping trips downtown, as it's easier to access for the non-driver than most of the suburban locations), then carry it home on foot, bus, or bike. Many Target shopping trips don't involve large bulky items, so presumably this proposed location would sell more of the things that can be carried home and less of the bulky furniture. Those who do want big stuff or to do large in-bulk stocking up trips would probably still drive to Colma or somewhere else for that anyway.

[bellalunatic]

Originally Posted by sonarrat

I like this idea, but it would have a big impact on the San Bruno Target. A lot of San Franciscans seem to use it because it's convenient to BART.

"seem" is the most important word in this sentence. There's a Target in Colma that is geographically closer than San Bruno.
Most people who bother to go to Target that live in SF usually go to the Colma one, not so much the San Bruno one.

[Radical347]

Originally Posted by sonarrat

Granted, but SoMa is a unique beast because parking is extremely scarce and expensive,

Not really. While it's true parking is scarce around the Metreon (and that's because it's borderline Union Square), go a few blocks down & out and parking is plentiful.

and all of the most powerful transit options are just a short walk away. Need to take a ferry to Alameda or Vallejo? No problem. Bus to Santa Rosa? You're covered. Need to get to Sacramento in a pinch? Easy.

Yes to this part.

I bet that car utilization in SoMa wouldn't be anywhere near the 60% mark. I personally would not even consider living in that area, because the nature of my musical work means I drive a lot to areas on the peninsula which are poorly served by transit, and I couldn't afford to park my car near my own home. By its very nature the area discourages cars.

I disagree with this too. I think of all areas in SF, SoMa is the one (or one of them) whose nature most encourages cars. The streets are wide and far apart, stores are sparse, and there's many big box-type stores, including ones that aren't chains (i.e. Rainbow Grocery) & warehouses. There's plenty of little alleyways where you can easily find parking, except on Friday and Saturday nights. Everyone I know who lives in SoMa (which admittedly isn't a lot, but still) drives as their primary method of transportation. This isn't the case with the majority of people I know who live in other areas such as Hayes Valley, Haight Ashbury, or even the Inner Richmond or Inner Sunset.