Acclaimed SF eatery One Market Restaurant closing after 32 years
Founded by chef Bradley Ogden and restaurateur Michael Dellar, One Market held a Michelin Star from 2008 to 2012. The year it opened, it was named the San Francisco Examiner's 'Best New Restaurant of 1993.'
Additional accolades include two 3 1/2-star reviews from former San Francisco Chronicle food critic Michael Bauer, and recognition in the 'Top 10 American Restaurants in the U.S.' by Gayot Guide.
Bay to Breakers photos capture outrageous costumes from this year's race
'What a run it's been!' read a letter from the restaurant to guests. 'After 32 years anchoring the foot of Market Street in San Francisco, One Market Restaurant will be reaching retirement on June 11, 2025. Until then, it's lunch, dinner, all-day happy hour, and private events Monday through Friday.'
Among the reasons cited for the closure were a hoped-for sale to the restaurant's management team, the pending retirement of founder Michael Dellar, and 'the after-effects of COVID-19.'
The decision, according to the restaurant team, was 'inevitable and bittersweet.'
'We may be moving on, but we truly are leaving our hearts in San Francisco,' the letter from the restaurant team concluded.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
39 minutes ago
- The Hill
Amid bitter partisanship, permitting reform is a golden opportunity for bipartisanship
With states now fighting over redistricting maps, America's two political parties will need an opportunity to work together again. Permitting reform is one issue that is just right for this, even amidst an apparent trifecta. Strengthening American energy production has long been a bipartisan issue, as it fosters economic growth, protects national security, and increases the energy supply to drive down or stabilize utility costs for U.S. households in the face of growing demand. There has never been a better time for it. Done right, it secures American global leadership for another century. While recent debates around tax credits have made this issue seem increasingly partisan, reforming our existing energy permitting process is something on which lawmakers on both sides of the aisle largely already agree. Congress should capitalize on consensus to pass comprehensive permitting reform legislation. Debates surrounding energy tax credits in the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act, in particular, brought energy production back into the spotlight this year. Reconciliation can leave bitter feelings, but permitting reform has a chance to offer both parties something they dearly want — energy dominance, reduced emissions, fewer arcane rules, and less back and forth political games undermining the development of new energy projects. All energy production would benefit from permitting reform. America's permitting system should be a gateway for energy projects. Right now, it's a bottleneck. Unpredictable processes and delays in approval are bringing new developments to a grinding halt. With the rise of AI and a digital world that increasingly relies on data centers, global energy demand has spiked. Congress is now tasked with ensuring that American energy production can keep pace with this demand and not fall behind foreign adversaries vying for our position as the global leader in innovation and technology. But as of late, lawmakers have remained stagnant on addressing permitting reform. Yet, while demand for all energy production is on the rise, Democrats have a lot less to fear from loosening rules than they may think. The vast majority of projects stuck in grid connection queues are renewable — over 95 percent of proposed new generation capacity is solar or wind. Much-needed reform to the approval process could free up all new projects, strengthen American energy dominance and unleash clean energy all at once. Permitting reform has long been a bipartisan issue. Last year, Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), then-ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and then-Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Joe Manchin ( introduced the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 aimed at streamlining and expediting the approvals process. While this legislation was not ultimately passed, it is a prime example of members reaching across the aisle to drive movement on this front. Most recently, a bipartisan group of governors made an urgent call for permitting reform. 'It shouldn't take longer to approve a project than it takes to build it,' said Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt (R). He also highlighted the bipartisan nature of the issue, 'Democrats and Republicans alike recognize permitting delays weaken U.S. economic growth, security and competitiveness. Governors from both parties are working together to inject some common sense into our permitting process.' Voters in both parties agree. Recent polling conducted by Cygnal found that two-thirds of respondents agree that Congress should modernize permitting rules to accelerate completion of energy projects and reduce long-term cost pressures. Some conservative stalwarts will never support anything they see as helping clean energy, while some environmental activists are more concerned with punishing fossil fuel companies than they are with actually addressing climate change. These short-sighted visions represent the horseshoe of scarcity, decline and pessimism that has plagued American energy politics for decades. They believe we can succeed only by taking from the other side. America cannot afford delay. A dangerous world requires energy dominance in all industries, including new ones like clean energy. Moreover, Americans deserve to know that they will have reliable, accessible energy needed to power their businesses and residences. Permitting reform will make energy access more reliable, more abundant, cheaper and much cleaner. All Americans, and our planet, will win. The only losers will be those profiteering from political polarization. With some energy tax credits phasing out sooner than originally planned, many energy producers want to act swiftly to get new projects up and running. The permitting process, as it stands, is their biggest obstacle. As we head into the fall, our lawmakers should keep the cross-partisan opportunity on permitting reform top of mind. Liam deClive-Lowe is the co-founder of American Policy Ventures, an organization that builds projects to help policymakers collaborate and get things done.
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Putin got a warm Trump meeting. Europe is afraid Zelenskyy won't.
While publicly Europe and Ukraine have appeared upbeat, privately officials were wary of Putin's red carpet welcome back to the West, where he secured the veneer of global legitimacy without making the kind of gestures toward peace the U.S., Europe and Ukraine have sought. 'Worries have been there all the way this year, and yesterday's meeting did not really help,' a European official said. Trump's position on the war has yo-yoed in recent weeks. While he had for months blamed Ukraine for the conflict, he had been more critical of Putin and Russia in the lead-up to the summit. He even said Putin would face 'severe consequences,' if he did not agree to stop the war after Friday's gathering. But after several hours of meetings with Putin in Alaska, Trump backtracked on a demand for an immediate ceasefire, again said it would be up to Ukraine to end the fighting and advised Kyiv to 'take the deal,' without specifying what Putin had suggested. Trump said after the summit that he negotiated with Putin over land swaps but declined to provide more details. The White House didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. French President Emmanuel Macron and U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Sunday will lead a teleconference among the 'coalition of the willing' — countries that have indicated they will provide troops and other support to Ukraine at the end of the war, according to a European official. Ahead of the summit, Trump said he supported some American role in providing security guarantees — some form of assurance or support from Washington to deter Russia from attacking again after a peace deal is agreed. Nordic and Baltic leaders welcomed those commitments again after Trump spoke with European officials late Friday. While Trump did much more than usual to consult with Europe in the lead-up to the summit with Putin and after, the frequent contact does not seem to have yielded tangible results. European officials are relieved that Trump did not agree to a deal with Putin but disappointed that the threat of steep secondary tariffs targeting third countries buying Russian oil was tabled. 'They want to try to influence the negotiation process as much as possible, because they know Trump really wants to do it this way, and they don't want to leave the initiative to Putin,' said Giuseppe Spatafora, a former NATO official who is now a research analyst at the EU Institute for Security Studies. 'In general, the Europeans talk much more often to Trump than during the first 100 days, which is good. They have influence. But it's limited.' Zelenskyy's last visit to the Oval Office in February quickly went off the rails when Vice President JD Vance and later Trump both lectured him for not being grateful enough for American support and overplaying what they said was a weak diplomatic position. Zelenskyy's decision to wear a black polo, black pants and boots rather than a suit further soured the atmosphere. But Trump and Zelenskyy have been on better terms in recent meetings, as Kyiv's allies sought to improve the relationship and Trump's frustration with Putin mounted.
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Want your son to be a CEO? New study reveals the most powerful male name in the US — and you won't guess what it is
It's not Tom, Dick, or Harry. A new study has revealed that Robert is the most powerful male name in America, with a whopping 21 of the Fortune 500 company CEOs bearing the moniker. The analysis was conducted by Profit Engine, with the company interested in examining whether a person's name had an impact on their professional life. 'The patterns we discovered were quite striking,' Jason Morris, CEO of Profit Engline, proclaimed in a press release. 'While correlation doesn't equal causation, these results definitely make you wonder if there's something to the old saying about names shaping destiny.' 'These findings reveal something notable about representation in American corporate leadership,' Morris said. 'The complete dominance of traditional male names isn't a coincidence.' New Africa – Powerful Americans bearing the name include Disney boss Robert 'Bob' Iger and Boeing boss Robert Ortberg. Interestingly, however, no US president has ever been named Robert. 'Robert has been a powerhouse name for decades,' Morris declared. 'It projects authority and tradition, both of which are qualities that boards of directors clearly value when selecting leadership.' Since the year 2000, however, the classic name has fallen far from favor. That year, it was the 29th most popular name for boys born in the US, according to the Social Security Administration. By 2020, it had fallen to number 80. Last year, it slipped further and is now the 90th most popular boys' moniker in America. Profit Engine found that Fortune 500 CEOs were far more likely than the general public to possess traditional names. Dusan Petkovic – If you want your son to be a CEO and you're not a fan of the name Robert, the analysis shows that it's still best to stick to the classics. Profit Engine found that male Fortune 500 CEOs were far more likely than the general public to possess traditional names. After Robert, Michael was revealed to be the second most powerful name, with 19 Fortune 500 CEOs bearing the moniker. James, John, Christopher, William, David, Mark, Timothy, Brian, Andrew, Thomas and Scott followed in that order. 'These findings reveal something notable about representation in American corporate leadership,' Morris said. 'The complete dominance of traditional male names isn't a coincidence. It reflects decades of systemic patterns in who climbs the corporate ladder.' 'What's particularly telling is that we're not seeing the diversity of names that reflects modern America. No Aidens [or] Ethans, despite these being popular baby names in recent decades,' he added. 'This suggests either a generational lag or that certain naming conventions still carry unconscious advantages in professional settings.'
