Mostly about Oakland and it's various challenges the number of restaurants have had, including Roses on Telegraph, the Lodge on Piedmont, Friends and Family, Standard Fare, Edith's Pie.
Ok a lot of these business owners are being really unrealistic. The article ends with “the city should bal us out now with loans and grants.”
With what money?!?!? The city cut the arts program budget that was like $1M.
The budget is screwed and the city had to make tons of cuts, and counts on one time land sales to cover gaps. We are entering into an unnamed recession. Things are much more dire in the city budget than in the Great Recession and real estate transfer taxes are not gonna bail the budget out.
Restaurants are pretty much the hardest business to run, and it has gotten harder at every end from labor to food costs to operating costs to materials and lifestyle patterns of patrons.
Only one person quoted in the article said anything like that, where do you get the sense that “a lot of them” are being unrealistic.
I own a business in a similar boat to these people and this article generally rings true, especially the stuff about the city being difficult to work with.
I could fill volumes with the instances of the city’s incompetence and disrespect I’ve dealt with for my one tiny storefront. From the inspector that delayed our opening for 4 weeks for no reason (his supervisor said he had “no idea why he didn’t pass us,”) to the annual exemption we have to file for a $900 fee that doesn’t apply to us, to the literally multi-year process it took to get a simple single space parklet permitted, among many many other instances. I genuinely feel like the city doesn’t care if my business fails or thrives and it shouldn’t be that way if we want to have a culture beyond big box stores and soulless chains.
I will say that the council person referenced in the article, Zac Unger, is my districts council person and he had been awesome. Hopefully more people in the city follow his lead.
The city absolutely has work to do to be easier to work with. The larger Bay Area cities are notoriously horrible. And Oakland, Berkeley, and SF are trading spaces to be tops of the worst. Mayor Lee and so e council members are working on that end. But cash bailouts are not going to be a thing. And cities move slowly, so hitching your wagon on something 18-24 months out isn’t realistic either.
Some areas have active and vocal business improvement groups. And others do not, but the city has shown the squeaky wheel gets the grease for decades.
Oakland business owners need to band together, by district or type, to advocate to the city to make changes. And not expect it to be instant.
The city needs to be banned from using the permit office as a profit center and force reasonable timelines and standards for inspections and sign offs.
I had one guy say “I don’t like how that work was done,” and fail me. Not “it’s not to code for this specific reason,” not “here’s a way to fix this and I’ll sign off,” just “I don’t like it.” I was livid.
I disagree with this. My takeaway is that it’s much more difficult to stay afloat here and the city has not the desire nor the resources to do anything to support its own retail economy. Pre-pandemic, Oakland was becoming a destination, especially for dining and nightlife. 20-30% of the base of that business is now gone and has yet to come back.
I also don’t buy the sound bite that it’s a generational drinking trend. Yes, People are drinking less, but rates of alcohol consumption have only declined around 5% below the peak around 20 years ago. That’s lower but not catastrophic and can’t explain a broader change in people’s habits for drinking and dining out.
The most impactful changes Lurie has made in SF is quality of life, making visible changes that have improvised safety and cleanliness in retail corridors. Seeing really is believing and when people feel like they can go somewhere safely, they will.
Gen Z + Alpha doesn’t drink much. Or go out much. Or have friends. Or have sex. They aren’t that social.
Socializing is not in person and together. Lots of text/chat/video games. This generation didn’t have much unstructured time. Everything was scheduled with a purpose. And hanging out at the bar is the opposite. Really different mindsets.
I went to a bar on a weekend recently, one that seemed like it was for young people - everyone was 35+. No 20-somethings in sight.
And we don’t have cheap bars here. Not everyone, especially young people have $15 cocktail budget. I am a lightweight so I am not having more than 2 anyway. But most of the time I have one and switch to water. $50 a night every night is steep with all the other life expenses.
I think its even more, people have forgot in many generations how to be social especially with covid and social media. No one wants to be uncomfortable which going out opens for uncomfy situations.
But youre absolutely right, 35+ has always been ages when you stop going out as much, and so relying on youth was always the thing. But now everyone is anti social. Its sad especially when we have a loneliness epidemic in the country. :(
To some extent that’s true but drinking among the under 30 crowd has been in decline for 30+ years. It’s not a Gen Z thing.
There is a lot of data that shows that the trends are overstated and may have more to do with the economics of inflation and high interest rates (two factors that caused a steep but temporary decline in the 70’s as well).
No city should bail out a restaurant unless it's considered a landmark IMO. Months or years from now, I hope some of the owners looking for a city grant look in the mirror instead
Yet some still make it. Now that COVID protocols are over, business owners lost an excuse.
I'm not denying that Oakland/Alameda County is easy to work with, however, there are undoubtedly other issues that most restauranteurs don't address until it's too late. POST-COVID restauranteurs aren't able/willing to adjust to the new realities they face, no matter where they are located
You’re right. But I’d argue that if we want a survival of the fittest model then the government should stay out on both ends — both benefits and regulations.
Oakland businesses (not just restaurants) are saddled with all kinds of city fees, rules, taxes, ect. I don’t doubt that some of them should fail. But the city needs to provide commensurate services.
long time 510 from when it was 415, seen a few boom busts in my time ... observations ...
the bay area economy is more influenced than most by venture capital ... esp since the early 1980's ... and the demographic trends that accompany those capital flows as job and opportunity seekers flow in from the rest of the US and more recently internationally
those flows concentrate in sub regions, early on silicon valley, starting in the mid 90's SF as well
demographic and income overflows these sub regions as office space and housing becomes tight, initially Silicon Valley up the Peninsula to SF, later SF to Oakland
when the capital inflows fall off, it is the spillovers that take the first hit and are the longest to recover
Oak finally boomed (again, first time since the 50s) in the 2010s as SF got red hot, it is now returning to the Oak I knew in the late 90's (have been here since the mid 80's) but ...
it's a bit different as WFH and hybrid is still out there while that was just not available in earlier booms
this was all predictable and really not all that bad ... there still are lots of cool spots on this side of the water ... i prefer it more run down and hallowed out as it leaves more space to breathe for us moderately successful dirtbags who are ok with things a bit less precious and a bit more dirty ...
i used to tell my fellow tech workers in SV in 1990 (who were shocked I preferred Oakland thru Richmond and commuted down to SV every day) the crime and the grit kept the riff raff out ... which meant the SV tech crowd and all the non locals flowing in ...
almost none of them ever got it ... or ever even visited ... their loss my take, we were fine without them just as we'll be fine with these closures ... life goes on
new places with appropriate cost operating structures will adequately take their place
You have been in tech in SV & living in Oakland for 4 decades and you like the crime, grit, run-down-ness, because it keeps some people you don’t like away?
i guess it could be confusing ... i got sick of the SV commute so it was either move there or stay up here and find something in SF ... i worked tech in SF just pre dot com until the dot bomb ... then got a better career track in Oak after the dust settled and left that grind behind ... my SF teammates though had the same attitude about Oak ... when rents got crazy south of market 98'ish (we were right on minna at the time by the old piano warehouse near moma) I suggested we move the office to downtown/uptown Oak to keep our burn rate down and that it was actually a better even cooler spot for us than SF ... the founder (complete asshole) literally said I was insane (i was) ... not two years later he got married to this great gal who talked him into moving to San Leandro ... what a putz ... not dissing San Leandro ...
I agree with you for the most part, but today’s version of Oakland is lamer than both pre-gentrified Oakland and post-gentrified/pre-covid Oakland tho. Even my friends/neighbors that are lifetime Oaklanders agree with the sentiment.
I’m born and raised in Hayward, and spent weekends/summers at my cousins who lived here growing up. And then settled down here early 2010s gentrification era basically right after all that family left Oakland.
We’re basically a commuter town now with dope restaurants but less identity than we ever had before. I prefer Richmond over Oakland in 2025 all else being equal, which is insane to think about given where things were 10 or 20 years ago
i agree, lot of truth in that ... esp north oak and grandlake ... the temescal is mostly unrecognizable ... we used to walk there from adams point, too poor to own a car in the late 80's, just to grab a sandwich at lucca's or the old genova's before they tore it down ... 4 bucks ? or to eat fancy at asmara (still there amazingly, my gal was born in addis and that was the only place around) ... the pussycat was still showing porn on screen before loma prieta shut that place down or at least the marquee was still up, where WF is now ...
large swaths of east oak still feel the same but i never knew the avenues that well ... we generally only went down there to buy crack or see a buddy who lived there, usually both ... or get those pre mount davis $2 bleacher seats and drink smuggled booze / get high all afternoon ... between shitty jobs ...
we were broke but felt like kings living cheap in the bones of a once grand mansion most had shunned ... loved it, good times, easy ...
i also prefer richmond these days as well, it's reminiscent of how oak was in attitude, but skinnier in the offerings ... i moved to EC 10 years back ... so it's all right there and it feels good in a faded kinda way but not nearly as evocative or place rich as oak was ...
Ya I feel you. I had and still have so many great memories in the town, and it sounds so dumb but all 3 teams leaving Oakland and my family moving on to buy nice ass houses in Solano, CoCoCo, and out of state makes me think I should move on too. I’m always gonna root for Oakland, but maybe I should do it from a distance now. Whatever Oakland was before, it won’t ever be that way again an I should just make peace with it
One theory I have is there’s a large increase in people nursing single drinks over an hour or two, sinking their revenue per seat. This would explain why Roses always was always packed whenever I walked by and why it fell out of my rotation. Finish your drinks and move along, people!
this is totally true ... the standup quick drink at the bar, maybe two, no looking at the phone, just raw dogging the booze, that's a lost art ... i feel strange doing that these days ... it makes me feel like i must look like an alcoholic (i'm not ! but i probably look like one) ... can't a guy just catch a buzz and move on ... i hope the bartenders appreciate i'm mostly just trying to hold up my end of the bargain ... and kill a few brain cells with minimal fuss, while tipping respectfully ...
There are problems unique to Oakland that mostly are ignored in the article eg lack of enforcement for property crimes and parking issues and understaffed police. Eliminating free parking on Sundays surely will attract those previously reluctant.
Non-Paywalled version
https://archive.is/JLso8
That said, also not a bad idea to support them if you like their articles.
Yeah, it is literally $.99 for 6mo right now... so I am going to go ahead and subscribe
Absolutely reasonable and I only took off the paywall so people can see the quality of the article, or not. Support local everyone....
If you subscribe, that's great - thank you. That said, it's not for you to decide.
Ok a lot of these business owners are being really unrealistic. The article ends with “the city should bal us out now with loans and grants.”
With what money?!?!? The city cut the arts program budget that was like $1M.
The budget is screwed and the city had to make tons of cuts, and counts on one time land sales to cover gaps. We are entering into an unnamed recession. Things are much more dire in the city budget than in the Great Recession and real estate transfer taxes are not gonna bail the budget out.
Restaurants are pretty much the hardest business to run, and it has gotten harder at every end from labor to food costs to operating costs to materials and lifestyle patterns of patrons.
Only one person quoted in the article said anything like that, where do you get the sense that “a lot of them” are being unrealistic.
I own a business in a similar boat to these people and this article generally rings true, especially the stuff about the city being difficult to work with.
I could fill volumes with the instances of the city’s incompetence and disrespect I’ve dealt with for my one tiny storefront. From the inspector that delayed our opening for 4 weeks for no reason (his supervisor said he had “no idea why he didn’t pass us,”) to the annual exemption we have to file for a $900 fee that doesn’t apply to us, to the literally multi-year process it took to get a simple single space parklet permitted, among many many other instances. I genuinely feel like the city doesn’t care if my business fails or thrives and it shouldn’t be that way if we want to have a culture beyond big box stores and soulless chains.
I will say that the council person referenced in the article, Zac Unger, is my districts council person and he had been awesome. Hopefully more people in the city follow his lead.
The city absolutely has work to do to be easier to work with. The larger Bay Area cities are notoriously horrible. And Oakland, Berkeley, and SF are trading spaces to be tops of the worst. Mayor Lee and so e council members are working on that end. But cash bailouts are not going to be a thing. And cities move slowly, so hitching your wagon on something 18-24 months out isn’t realistic either.
Some areas have active and vocal business improvement groups. And others do not, but the city has shown the squeaky wheel gets the grease for decades.
Oakland business owners need to band together, by district or type, to advocate to the city to make changes. And not expect it to be instant.
This.
The city needs to be banned from using the permit office as a profit center and force reasonable timelines and standards for inspections and sign offs.
I had one guy say “I don’t like how that work was done,” and fail me. Not “it’s not to code for this specific reason,” not “here’s a way to fix this and I’ll sign off,” just “I don’t like it.” I was livid.
Can't help wondering if the inspector that delayed for 4 weeks might have moved faster after a little payout.
You already know the answer.
I disagree with this. My takeaway is that it’s much more difficult to stay afloat here and the city has not the desire nor the resources to do anything to support its own retail economy. Pre-pandemic, Oakland was becoming a destination, especially for dining and nightlife. 20-30% of the base of that business is now gone and has yet to come back.
I also don’t buy the sound bite that it’s a generational drinking trend. Yes, People are drinking less, but rates of alcohol consumption have only declined around 5% below the peak around 20 years ago. That’s lower but not catastrophic and can’t explain a broader change in people’s habits for drinking and dining out.
The most impactful changes Lurie has made in SF is quality of life, making visible changes that have improvised safety and cleanliness in retail corridors. Seeing really is believing and when people feel like they can go somewhere safely, they will.
Gen Z + Alpha doesn’t drink much. Or go out much. Or have friends. Or have sex. They aren’t that social.
Socializing is not in person and together. Lots of text/chat/video games. This generation didn’t have much unstructured time. Everything was scheduled with a purpose. And hanging out at the bar is the opposite. Really different mindsets.
I went to a bar on a weekend recently, one that seemed like it was for young people - everyone was 35+. No 20-somethings in sight.
And we don’t have cheap bars here. Not everyone, especially young people have $15 cocktail budget. I am a lightweight so I am not having more than 2 anyway. But most of the time I have one and switch to water. $50 a night every night is steep with all the other life expenses.
I think its even more, people have forgot in many generations how to be social especially with covid and social media. No one wants to be uncomfortable which going out opens for uncomfy situations.
But youre absolutely right, 35+ has always been ages when you stop going out as much, and so relying on youth was always the thing. But now everyone is anti social. Its sad especially when we have a loneliness epidemic in the country. :(
To some extent that’s true but drinking among the under 30 crowd has been in decline for 30+ years. It’s not a Gen Z thing.
There is a lot of data that shows that the trends are overstated and may have more to do with the economics of inflation and high interest rates (two factors that caused a steep but temporary decline in the 70’s as well).
No city should bail out a restaurant unless it's considered a landmark IMO. Months or years from now, I hope some of the owners looking for a city grant look in the mirror instead
Lake Merritt bakery was bailed out like three times, meanwhile the owner was cruising around in a Ferrari. No joke.
I'll be honest, I would have done it the first time. 2nd and 3rd? The audacity
Every time it was a fire, always sounded suspicious to me.
No city should make it incredibly difficult and expensive, through negligence or malice, for small business to be able to survive.
Yet some still make it. Now that COVID protocols are over, business owners lost an excuse.
I'm not denying that Oakland/Alameda County is easy to work with, however, there are undoubtedly other issues that most restauranteurs don't address until it's too late. POST-COVID restauranteurs aren't able/willing to adjust to the new realities they face, no matter where they are located
You’re right. But I’d argue that if we want a survival of the fittest model then the government should stay out on both ends — both benefits and regulations.
Oakland businesses (not just restaurants) are saddled with all kinds of city fees, rules, taxes, ect. I don’t doubt that some of them should fail. But the city needs to provide commensurate services.
Unfortunately this is true, these businesses generally had horrible customer service, weird hours and high prices (Ediths Pies! wtf)
Whether or not your point stands, you did not finish reading the article if the last sentence you read was about grants and loans.
That wasn’t. But it was a point that stood out to me.
Can you summarize? I can't see chron articles and I'd rather spend my money with the East Bay Times.
long time 510 from when it was 415, seen a few boom busts in my time ... observations ...
this was all predictable and really not all that bad ... there still are lots of cool spots on this side of the water ... i prefer it more run down and hallowed out as it leaves more space to breathe for us moderately successful dirtbags who are ok with things a bit less precious and a bit more dirty ...
i used to tell my fellow tech workers in SV in 1990 (who were shocked I preferred Oakland thru Richmond and commuted down to SV every day) the crime and the grit kept the riff raff out ... which meant the SV tech crowd and all the non locals flowing in ...
almost none of them ever got it ... or ever even visited ... their loss my take, we were fine without them just as we'll be fine with these closures ... life goes on
new places with appropriate cost operating structures will adequately take their place
You have been in tech in SV & living in Oakland for 4 decades and you like the crime, grit, run-down-ness, because it keeps some people you don’t like away?
I am so confused.
i guess it could be confusing ... i got sick of the SV commute so it was either move there or stay up here and find something in SF ... i worked tech in SF just pre dot com until the dot bomb ... then got a better career track in Oak after the dust settled and left that grind behind ... my SF teammates though had the same attitude about Oak ... when rents got crazy south of market 98'ish (we were right on minna at the time by the old piano warehouse near moma) I suggested we move the office to downtown/uptown Oak to keep our burn rate down and that it was actually a better even cooler spot for us than SF ... the founder (complete asshole) literally said I was insane (i was) ... not two years later he got married to this great gal who talked him into moving to San Leandro ... what a putz ... not dissing San Leandro ...
Thanks for sharing this perspective.
I agree with you for the most part, but today’s version of Oakland is lamer than both pre-gentrified Oakland and post-gentrified/pre-covid Oakland tho. Even my friends/neighbors that are lifetime Oaklanders agree with the sentiment.
I’m born and raised in Hayward, and spent weekends/summers at my cousins who lived here growing up. And then settled down here early 2010s gentrification era basically right after all that family left Oakland.
We’re basically a commuter town now with dope restaurants but less identity than we ever had before. I prefer Richmond over Oakland in 2025 all else being equal, which is insane to think about given where things were 10 or 20 years ago
i agree, lot of truth in that ... esp north oak and grandlake ... the temescal is mostly unrecognizable ... we used to walk there from adams point, too poor to own a car in the late 80's, just to grab a sandwich at lucca's or the old genova's before they tore it down ... 4 bucks ? or to eat fancy at asmara (still there amazingly, my gal was born in addis and that was the only place around) ... the pussycat was still showing porn on screen before loma prieta shut that place down or at least the marquee was still up, where WF is now ...
large swaths of east oak still feel the same but i never knew the avenues that well ... we generally only went down there to buy crack or see a buddy who lived there, usually both ... or get those pre mount davis $2 bleacher seats and drink smuggled booze / get high all afternoon ... between shitty jobs ...
we were broke but felt like kings living cheap in the bones of a once grand mansion most had shunned ... loved it, good times, easy ...
i also prefer richmond these days as well, it's reminiscent of how oak was in attitude, but skinnier in the offerings ... i moved to EC 10 years back ... so it's all right there and it feels good in a faded kinda way but not nearly as evocative or place rich as oak was ...
Ya I feel you. I had and still have so many great memories in the town, and it sounds so dumb but all 3 teams leaving Oakland and my family moving on to buy nice ass houses in Solano, CoCoCo, and out of state makes me think I should move on too. I’m always gonna root for Oakland, but maybe I should do it from a distance now. Whatever Oakland was before, it won’t ever be that way again an I should just make peace with it
The problem is the perception of a pervasive sense of disorder. The Town has a lot of great neighborhoods that people could come to and enjoy.
But they don’t because there’s a perception (often unspoken) that Oakland’s government cares more about criminals than about protecting people.
That perception is wrong, but it doesn’t matter.
Mayor Lee has so far failed to change that perception.
And business owner’s dreams are being crushed because of it.
I definitely think that’s part of it.
Reader mode gets through the Chron paywall FYI.
One theory I have is there’s a large increase in people nursing single drinks over an hour or two, sinking their revenue per seat. This would explain why Roses always was always packed whenever I walked by and why it fell out of my rotation. Finish your drinks and move along, people!
this is totally true ... the standup quick drink at the bar, maybe two, no looking at the phone, just raw dogging the booze, that's a lost art ... i feel strange doing that these days ... it makes me feel like i must look like an alcoholic (i'm not ! but i probably look like one) ... can't a guy just catch a buzz and move on ... i hope the bartenders appreciate i'm mostly just trying to hold up my end of the bargain ... and kill a few brain cells with minimal fuss, while tipping respectfully ...
paywalled
There are problems unique to Oakland that mostly are ignored in the article eg lack of enforcement for property crimes and parking issues and understaffed police. Eliminating free parking on Sundays surely will attract those previously reluctant.