Some Area Starbucks Closing, Forcing People to Go to One Across Street

I find it interesting that crummy neighborhoods always want chains to come in, but better areas (like Oak Park, Evanston, etc.) are always fighting to keep them out.

Makes you wonder how crappy a suburb Country Club Hills must be if a Starbucks gave it 'cache.'

I once read that chain sotres like this over-filled areas so that if there were lines at stores, especially in urban areas, instead of going down the block to a competitor, they could go down the block to another starbucks. It struck me then and still strikes me as insanely idiotic.

I remember when my college town got our starbucks. It went in an old Taco Bell and was very exciting.

Starbucks doesnt even have free wifi.

"Close by"?

As in, a few towns over, right? It's not like if you live in Country Club Hills you just casually walk right on over to another Starbucks in Homewood.

I don't think the Trib is overstating this -- these stores ARE a source of civic pride in low-income areas. How do you show the outside world that you're not a ghetto? For better or worse, having a Starbucks around is one of the signifiers of a community on the move upwards (while it may not actually be happening, it at least gives the appearance of moving up).

I don't give a rat's ass about those affected by the closings like your headline mentions. However, the Trib's comments, or as you facetiously call their attempt at offering "deeper meaning," are actually on point. You don't have to be such an ass about the whole thing.

Bud,

Don't they generally commute via cars in the burbs. So a few miles a way seems a bit of a hop, skip, and a jump to me.

But, I don't think the closings were decided by whether or not they wanted to define certain townships as "ghetto" (Didn't know that was what defined a ghetto. . .as I think the term came WELL before Starbucks was invented), but based upon actual profit and number of customers. Me thinks that business was down due to people not making purchases at the Starbucks, and that if it was such an important sign of economic maturity there, maybe they could have actually purchased a thing or two from the store every now and then.

Personally, I think its sad to define your economic status in life by the proximity of chain coffee stores to your home. I would suggest evaluating that based upon your household salary instead?

They shoot porn across the street from my apartment currently, but that doesn't effect my sense of civic pride. If you define civic pride in this way, then perhaps the best thing for you to do is move to Seattle. Then you know you're REALLY made it.

I just found the posting to be a bit snarky for my tastes for two reasons. First, it comes off as, "duh, people, use google and you'll find some other coffee shops." Yes, most people use cars in the suburbs, but most people don't like to drive 10 minutes when yesterday they could walk down the block. Second, we shouldn't just completely dismiss the Trib's discussion of Starbucks as town status symbols. I want to make this clear: I DON'T AGREE WITH THIS, but to some people having a Starbucks is a sign of commercial growth and vitality. That's it. Iamgray, you're really way off, and completely missed my points. Starbucks, or lack thereof, is not the definition of ghetto. Look, this happens all the time. How did Chicagoans start to think of yuppified areas as safe and/or fun to live in? When places like Starbucks, Cheetah Gym, etc., are in the neighborhood, it gives the appearance of an up and coming place to be.

And I wasn't sure if you were talking to me or not, but no thanks, I'd rather not move to Seattle. Too expensive.

"How do you show the outside world that you're not a ghetto?"

Bud, those are your exact words.

I'm way off in thinking that if you MUST have starbucks coffee its not a big deal to have to drive 10 minutes? If I have to have Starbucks coffee, I have to walk for 25 minutes, or get there via bus for 10 minutes. The point being, I don't HAVE to have a Starbucks or need it as a sign of my personal socioeconomic status. Anyone can brew coffee, or still obtain coffee from other vendors in the area (Dunkin Donuts was mentioned). So, I don't think I'm way off in saying that I think its sad that people have are upset about losing a starbuck 4 miles away and having a 10 minute commute to a starbucks as they attribute the store to sign of commercial growth and vitality in their personal lives. I think its ABSURD, and I think that's a valid opinion AND a valid mockery by chicagoist.

Personally, as a Chicagoan that is moving, proximity to chain places like Gyms and Starbucks did not play into my determination of neighborhood safety (My apartment with the closest Starbucks was in a neighborhood with the worst crime rates that I have lived in (Sheridan and Wilson) actually). Nor did they play in to being a HUGE reason as to why I selected the place I wanted to live. Personally, I chose a place that was a great and reliable commute to work (via Metra!), in close proximity to friends, and had the best rent and furnishings for the size we needed. Stores downsize and close. . .

In some areas, they are justified in putting a Starbucks right down the street. I work at the busiest Starbucks in the Midwest, and we have a store right down the street. We still have customer overflow.

They closed some of the newer stores rather than the more established stores. Also, they closed stores rated as "Underperforming".

As far as the Starbucks = Not Ghetto argument, I believe that the idea was that development = not "ghetto". Starbucks is a form of development, as well as all coffee joints.

At least that one likely has SOME reasoning behind it. That stretch of Harlem has a median, and those stores are on opposite sides of the street. Starbucks must have felt they were only getting half the traffic they could be, because people couldn't turn left into their store.