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

lamgray

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:07:50 -0600

Bud - I think we both posted sarcastic remarks, which don't always translate the best in writing. . .Going to read back with that in mind, I see what you're getting at. Have you read the 'McDonaldization of Society?' Very applicable to what you are pointing out.

Tower18

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:05:50 -0600

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.

dj_skilz

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:29:59 -0600

Also speaking of Starbucks in the SW Burbs... http://www.southtownstar.com/neighborhoodstar/tinleypark/1058004,071608starbucks.article Tinley got another one across the street at 159th & Harlem. I caught this about a week ago, and immediately shook my head in disgust. Someone is taking cues from Walgreen's it seems.

curios789

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:41:22 -0600

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.

Bud Selig

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:50:33 -0600

Touche. Bad choice of words. Basically what I meant was that it's the easiest way to cosmetically show the neighborhood is a-ok. Not a solution, but a cover-up of the surrounding neighborhood. I think we actually agree more than you might think. Yes, I agree it's stupid to base your life on the location of the nearest Starbucks. I am not a drinker of Starbucks (mostly for cost reasons) and love Dunkin Donuts coffee. That being said, because I'm stubborn, I'm holding on to part of what I found annoying with the posting. I still think this statement is true (and I think my problems with the snarkiness might have to do with my occasional problems with snark in general on blogs): "To people who live in more fashionable ZIP codes, the loss of a Starbucks might not be viewed as a wound to civic pride. But in Country Club Hills, the opening of the ubiquitous chain in May 2007 signified a certain cachet." I've been to Country Club Hills -- I say they need all the cachet they can get, regardless of how absurd it is.

lamgray

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:37:17 -0600

"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. . .

lamgray

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:21:11 -0600

Swag, I think the starbucks press is generated based upon all the case studies and articles that came about the growth of starbucks. If McD's was making as big of closings across the nation, it would be in the press too, as there are many case studies and books (McDonaldization of Society, etc) on the growth of these chains (There was even a study about how exchange rates were judged by the price of a hamburger).

Bud Selig

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:16:39 -0600

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.

swag

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:07:11 -0600

Frozen yogurt stores closed in a bloodbath a decade ago but nary got so much as a peep in the presses. I'm really dumbfounded how much press coverage a handful of oversaturated Starbucks is getting.

lamgray

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:21:12 -0600

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.

dj_skilz

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:40:08 -0600

The CC Hills Starbucks is directly across the street from a Dunkin Donuts. Being a working class area, people tend to choose DD over the bux. 2nd, that store has been there little over 1 1/2 years. It is in a relatively new development complex with a Walmart as an anchor. I don't think they really gave it a proper chance to gain traffic. Half of the acreage is still being developed. The only thing there for years has been an AMC Lowes, and the other side of the street had a Wendy's and leads into an Oak Forest industrial park. Business is coming to the area, but a return on investment will only be seen when the complex fully develops. I could give a crap, bring me some Lavazza cafe's out south ;-)

Bud Selig

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:11:09 -0600

"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.

DROOO

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:57:27 -0600

funny headline

jennyblur

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:15:29 -0600

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.

edkotch

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:11:03 -0600

www.delocator.net not quite anti-starbucks. but very pro everything else.

ophmarketing

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:06:31 -0600

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.'