Apple gets official green light to build San Francisco flagship store

Posted:
in General Discussion edited March 2014
The San Francisco Planning Commission and the city's Board of Supervisors on Tuesday voted to green-light amendments to Apple's revised plans for the company's upcoming San Francisco flagship retail location.

Apple Store


Today's vote on amendments of Apple's Union Square Apple Store plans is the final operational step in obtaining a go ahead for construction and comes less than one week after the San Francisco Board of Supervisors signed off on a planning code variance. The news was first relayed by Re/Code.

"We are thrilled that the city of San Francisco has given its final approval to begin work on our new store and public plaza, which will make a wonderful addition to Union Square and create hundreds of local jobs," said Apple spokeswoman Amy Bessette. "Our Stockton Street store has been incredibly popular, welcoming over 13 million customers since it opened nine years ago, and we look forward to making a new home on Union Square."

Apple's new SF flagship will be located on the corner of Post and Stockton, directly across from Union Square. Architectural renderings of the building show an all-new design theme that builds on current Apple Stores' "open" feel.

As seen in the latest plans, the main attraction will be a two story-tall glass facade facing Union Square. Integrated into the six-panel design are two 44-foot-tall steel-framed sliding glass doors.

Along the approval process, Apple's project has seen a number of slight alterations since being announced in 2013. For example, a small controversy forced alterations when it was discovered that Apple's original plans called for the apparent removal of a fountain designed by local artist Ruth Asawa.

While Apple has yet to announce an official start date for construction, the publication cited sources who suggest the project will begin this summer.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 33
    Coulda been better if they opened up the side. Do they have underground parking?underground parking
  • Reply 2 of 33
    sudonymsudonym Posts: 233member

    The store really captures the essence of San Francisco.  I just wish that they could get rid of that ugly fountain.  Nobody likes it except filthy homeless people.

  • Reply 3 of 33
    There is a lot of parking nearby. Underground across the street under Union Square, and a large structure a block away (Stockton Sutter). This is a heavy retail area, and many locals use public transportation.
  • Reply 4 of 33
    just_mejust_me Posts: 590member
    sudonym wrote: »
    The store really captures the essence of San Francisco.  I just wish that they could get rid of that ugly fountain.  Nobody likes it except filthy homeless people.

    SF welcomes the homeless.
  • Reply 5 of 33
    irelandireland Posts: 17,684member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SudoNym View Post

     

    The store really captures the essence of San Francisco.  I just wish that they could get rid of that ugly fountain.  Nobody likes it except filthy homeless people.


     

    You have it in for homeless people?

  • Reply 6 of 33
    crowleycrowley Posts: 6,063member
    Homeless people don't have a lot in life. If they like the fountain, that's a good reason to keep the fountain.
  • Reply 7 of 33
    Simple question - Do all retailers in San Francisco or any other city go through such scrutiny or even gets discussed on Blogosphere? I can point to many other ugly retailers in the same neighborhood, which I doubt went through such intense approval process. We all should realize that Apple is way too much into aesthetics and it is ingrained in their blood to do anything otherwise.
  • Reply 8 of 33
    Amazing store, an engineering marvel; I can't wait to go to the outer edge of the second story overhang and jump up and down :)

    On the subject of the homeless people, the majority fit into two categories: 1) Drug addicts that are enabled to maintain their addiction lifestyle by ineffective, mindlessly liberal policies and a permissive culture. 2) Mentally ill individuals also enabled by the same permissive culture that falsely conflates civil libertiy with beneficence. Disorganized schizophrenics need institutional psychiatric care, not a sandwich and some cash to hold them over between dumpster dives (meanwhile, the people that make the ineffectual laws are loathe to eat anything that isn't 100% certified organic). Seems like a strange place to me. That said, I still love visiting SF.
  • Reply 9 of 33
    mpantonempantone Posts: 1,432member

    Wow, MacRumors has really gone downhill. Just read the comments on a post about the exact same topic:

     

    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1715502

     

    The comment string is a complete train wreck. Not sure if there's anyone there over fifteen years old anymore. It's like Slashdot circa 2004.

  • Reply 10 of 33
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SudoNym View Post

     

    The store really captures the essence of San Francisco.  I just wish that they could get rid of that ugly fountain.  Nobody likes it except filthy homeless people.




    That's a little offensive don't you think?

  • Reply 11 of 33
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,526member
    Amazing store, an engineering marvel; I can't wait to go to the outer edge of the second story overhang and jump up and down :)

    On the subject of the homeless people, the majority fit into two categories: 1) Drug addicts that are enabled to maintain their addiction lifestyle by ineffective, mindlessly liberal policies and a permissive culture. 2) Mentally ill individuals also enabled by the same permissive culture that falsely conflates civil libertiy with beneficence. Disorganized schizophrenics need institutional psychiatric care, not a sandwich and some cash to hold them over between dumpster dives (meanwhile, the people that make the ineffectual laws are loathe to eat anything that isn't 100% certified organic). Seems like a strange place to me. That said, I still love visiting SF.

    California once had state mental institutions, until noted liberal governor Ronald Reagan closed them down because of the amount of taxes required to maintain them.
  • Reply 12 of 33

    I can't quite see the point of having 44' tall sliding doors.  It just seem a bit excessive in height.  Are these doors automatic sliding doors that activate when someone approaches?  Which so much area, I would think the ambient temperature of the store would constantly be changing depending up the outside temperatures.  I could see if at least the store had inner and outer doors as a temperature buffer.  Whatever.  It seems like form over function but that's not for me to decide.  I like the way the store looks and I'm sure it will cost a small fortune to build, but as long as Apple is keeping its earnings for itself, they might as well make good use of it.  A nice monument to their own internal wealth.

  • Reply 13 of 33
    fred1fred1 Posts: 359member
    radster360 wrote: »
    Simple question - Do all retailers in San Francisco or any other city go through such scrutiny or even gets discussed on Blogosphere? I can point to many other ugly retailers in the same neighborhood, which I doubt went through such intense approval process. We all should realize that Apple is way too much into aesthetics and it is ingrained in their blood to do anything otherwise.
    Yes they do! San Francisco likes to think of itsefl as being very progressive, but I guess the Planning Comission didn't get that e-mail.

    A notorious case a few years ago was when Prada wanted to build a store (very close to where this new Apple store will be) designed by the Dutch architect Rem Koolhaas and it was vetoed.
  • Reply 14 of 33
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

    I can't quite see the point of having 44' tall sliding doors.



    I can.

     

    You see, now Samsung is going to build a store with 100’ tall sliding doors, but it will all go horribly wrong and they’ll collapse, crushing everyone.

     

    It’s the perfect plan.

  • Reply 15 of 33
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 1,070member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Lord Amhran View Post

     



    That's a little offensive don't you think?


     

    I'm sure the fountain doesn't care.

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SudoNym View Post

     

    The store really captures the essence of San Francisco.  I just wish that they could get rid of that ugly fountain.  Nobody likes it except filthy homeless people.




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by quinney View Post





    California once had state mental institutions, until noted liberal governor Ronald Reagan closed them down because of the amount of taxes required to maintain them.

     

    You do realize that even if this is the 100% truth (governors only sign the laws that the legislation passes) he was last governor in 1972?  How long now has California been run by liberal moon bats?  Are you saying they've been that incompetent for the last 42 years?

     

    The real reason why many of the people with mental issues are on the streets now is because of costs, no one (state or federal) can afford it with all the other social programs, so its easy to kick them out on the street.  Who's going to complain?  Not them for sure.  The nice political cover is to have groups like the ACLU come in and say it is inhumane to keep the mentally ill in special hospitals.

  • Reply 16 of 33
    crowleycrowley Posts: 6,063member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by razorpit View Post

     

    You do realize that even if this is the 100% truth (governors only sign the laws that the legislation passes) he was last governor in 1972?  How long now has California been run by liberal moon bats?  Are you saying they've been that incompetent for the last 42 years?


    Since 1975 (Reagan's final year, not 1972) California has had a Republican Governor for over 60% of the time - 24 years compared to 15 Dem.

     

    Though, to your argument's favour, the state legislature has been Dem for almost the whole run.

  • Reply 17 of 33
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

    Since 1975 (Reagan's final year, not 1972) California has had a Republican Governor for over 60% of the time - 24 years compared to 15 Dem.

     

    Though, to your argument's favour, the state legislature has been Dem for almost the whole run.


     

    You’ve heard of RINOs and DINOs, right?

  • Reply 18 of 33
    crowleycrowley Posts: 6,063member
    Sure, but that's a bit of a cop out answer, effectively a "no true Scotsman" argument. Plus, of the Republican governors it was only really Schwarzenegger that leant much to the left, and even then mostly in his second term iirc.
  • Reply 19 of 33
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

    Sure, but that's a bit of a cop out answer, effectively a "no true Scotsman" argument.

     

    Not… at all. In fact, it’s inherently the opposite. :???: 

  • Reply 20 of 33
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 1,070member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

     

    Since 1975 (Reagan's final year, not 1972) California has had a Republican Governor for over 60% of the time - 24 years compared to 15 Dem.

     

    Though, to your argument's favour, the state legislature has been Dem for almost the whole run.


    Sorry, not sure what I was thinking on the year.  Only had one cup of coffee this morning...  ;-)

Sign In or Register to comment.