Chicagoist: Unapologetically Local Cups'a Joe: Bridgeport Coffee House

eric

Sat, 20 Aug 2005 19:47:39 -0600

Chuck, why the quotation marks around my name? My name is Eric, so feel free to write it without the quotations, otherwise it seems as though you are inflecting my name with a level of snarkiness. I agree with you, Chuck, places like Bridgeport Coffee are important, especially when those places help new artists. My problem with your post was that you couldn't promote Bridgeport Coffee House without degrigating Starbucks, which is totally uncalled for considering how Starbucks has brought a new coffehouse experience to more people worldwide than any other company. As for the other stuff in this thread, my take is that only those restaurants/stores that innovate and compete with the national chains have any chance of survival; they simply can't expect people to visit them because of nostalgia or other antiquated notions (that has nothing to do with gentrification or corporatization, only good business). Hopefully Bridegport Coffee House and other places you profile do that. If not, I see nothing wrong with somebody else taking their places.

John

Sat, 20 Aug 2005 12:18:08 -0600

It's a good coffeehouse, for God's sake: why do tedious arguments about corporatization and gentrification always have to enter into it? These themes have become the mantra of the educated middle class.

Matt

Sat, 20 Aug 2005 09:55:48 -0600

I get what Chuck is trying to say, I just think he took it too far. Seems to me what he's angry about is that since metropolitan areas like Chicago are turning around for the better (and I agree with GriffinMill that residential is better), that a lot of newcomers are moving to the city. These newcomers don't know established small-names, like Bridgeport Coffee House, Cermak Produce, etc. They know whole foods and Starbucks. New people (of which quite a few read this blog) deserve to know that there are other options out there. Usually other, cheaper options. It's these local places that give cities their distinctive flavor. What he meant by saying that cities are becoming large suburbs is the homogenization effect. I mean, what's the difference between Elk Grove Village and Arlington Heights? Glen Ellyn and Wheaton? They all have pretty much the same stuff (pretty much, not entirely). I think Chuck just doesn't want the same thing to happen to the city and it's neighborhoods. Put up enough new condo construction with national chain retail on the street level and it just might.

GriffinMill

Sat, 20 Aug 2005 01:15:40 -0600

Chuck: you're so self-righteous and yet so ignorant it makes my head spin. Starbucks coffee has one-third more caffeine than Dunkin’ Donuts, and that makes it the same as Marlboro? "The lowest-common-denominator homogeny that symptomizes gentrification"? Give it up already. You've been rehashing this same bullshit for weeks—blah blah blah Whole Foods, blah blah blah Starbucks—and no matter how many ways you awkwardly phrase it, it's still bullshit. Get over yourself, and please get over this delusional notion that your beloved corner coffee shops and produce markets exist for some reason other than the Almighty Dollar. They still charge four bucks for a 10-cent cup of coffee. They pay their employees the going rate, no more. And local or not, any place that sells macchiato "symptomizes gentrification."Seriously, do you even read what you write?"Cities are becoming largeer (sic) versions of suburbs?" "The class divide that's becoming more problematic in urban areas in the early 21st century"?And I love this: "As metropolitan areas transform from rundown industrial areas into giant residential areas where everyone is stacked on top of each other, a lot of the melting pot mentality that marked cities is becoming either homogenized or altogether wiped clean."What the hell? Since when does "metropolitan" mean "rundown industrial"? Aren't "metropolitan areas" by definition "giant residential areas"? Are you arguing that "rundown industrial" is better than residential? Wouldn't a "giant residential" area possess a greater "melting pot mentality" than a "rundown industrial area"? And don't "melting pot" and "homogenized" mean exactly the same thing?Anyway, you're a pompous asshole. I'm going to go back to my Starbucks, Chicago Tribune, and Whole Foods Two-Bite Brownies.

S

Fri, 19 Aug 2005 17:19:51 -0600

"Mom and pop coffee houses didn't really exist pre-Starbucks" Uh, The nearest Starbucks to my house is in a space that was formerly occupied by a mom and pop coffee house.

Chuck

Fri, 19 Aug 2005 17:02:07 -0600

First thing. JG: "outside of Seattle, mom and pop coffee houses didn't exist pre-Starbucks." Change the placing of some words there and you have a nearly accurate statement. Starbucks recognized the market potential for coffee that wasn't being tapped by the mom-and-pop coffee houses and capitalized on it. To say that Starbucks led to the creation of the independent coffee houses is factually inaccurate. It's like saying chickens and reptiles evolved into dinosaurs. As for "Eric's" comments about whether Bridgeport Coffee House is a socially responsible company? Please. Research shows that the caffeine levels in a 16 oz. serving of Starbucks' house blend are one-third more than that of the same serving of Dunkin' Donuts coffee and twice that of Folger's (link). And that cchocolate espresso drink they introduced over the winter supplies nearly one-quarter the amount of a 2,000 calorie diet. A cynic might say that they're encouraging the addictions of their own consumer base by borrowing liberally from both the McDonald's and Big Tobacco playbooks. Yet you find them "socially responsible" because they offer health insurance. Mr. Smith is right. If you're gonna flood a market, the least you can do is provide quality benefits for your employees. Most large corporations do this as a means to avoid the pressure of organized labor. In so doing, I've often heard first-hand that employees (and this is particularly true of retail employees, which Starbucks baristas qualify) are offered basic and far-from-attractive benefits packages. How "fairly priced" is this health insurance if the employee needs something more than a routine check-up? Do part-time employees get the same coverage as full-time employees? Or is management given directives to creatively schedule their employees so that they don't qualify for benefits? Are you speaking from experience, "Eric?" Or are you just being contrary for the sake of being contrary? Finally, the point of the article is to venture out, to introduce the readers to places they might not otherwise not know about. Keep visiting your Starbucks and you're encouraging the lowest-common-denominator homogeny that symptomizes gentrification. Places like Bridgeport Coffee House are necessary because by encouraging artistic interests and community building they contribute more than just tax dollars and revenue to the community. They're places where people can congregate and, just maybe, feel like a part of the neighborhood they chose to live.

Mr. Smith

Fri, 19 Aug 2005 16:41:09 -0600

Sorry. Guess I'm just hallucinating. Or not. Nothing in Chuck's post denigrates Starbucks either. He merely states that there are other options out there.

jg

Fri, 19 Aug 2005 16:22:16 -0600

"And not for nothing but when you squeeze out smaller businesses by flooding the market" Mr. Smith, outside of Seattle, mom and pop coffee houses didn't really exist pre-starbucks. Starbucks created the market, it's the smaller shops that are flooding it.

Mr. Smith

Fri, 19 Aug 2005 15:57:20 -0600

Elitism cuts both ways, I think. Especially if you eschew the smaller spots for the trendier big houses. And not for nothing but when you squeeze out smaller businesses by flooding the market, the least you can do is provide quality benefits for your employees. Social responsibility is often the cover that large corporations use to keep from seeming like...well, large corporations.

eric

Fri, 19 Aug 2005 15:43:10 -0600

And I'm sure Bridgeport Coffee House offers thier employees fairly priced health insurance. I mean, it's not like The Ubiquitous Caffeinated Elephant from the Pacific Northwest can offer that to its employees. Face it, the "support the independents" mantra fails when the chain is actually more socially responsible, oh, and the one who introduced the country to high-end coffee/espresso beverages. Elitist snob.

~L.

Fri, 19 Aug 2005 15:38:40 -0600

They're also really good about pets. My husband and I are often walking the dog and they don't mind at all if we sit at the sidewalk tables with him. We just have one person go in and order while the other one waits outside with the dog. It's nice to go there and not get the dirty looks! (Well, unless he sees a squirrel. Then all bets are off.)