# Starbucks coming to Brixton



## Caroline27 (May 16, 2010)

Apparently next to the tube station within a couple of months. It was mentioned in the Standard and here http://www.building.co.uk/sustain_story.asp?storycode=3157905 
But was confirmed by @Starbucks on Twitter, who gave me the 'couple of months' timing.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 16, 2010)




----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 16, 2010)

The world as you know it, is over.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 16, 2010)

The best coffee in Brixton was in the caff in the arcade down the side of the tube. It was closed 'in the short term' a very long time ago. It was run by the people who now run the flower stall. I'd rather they were running a caff again than poxy Starbucks who wouldn't give me a black coffee unless I called it an Americano. FUCK OFF! I've never set foot in one since.


----------



## miss minnie (May 16, 2010)

waste of shop space


----------



## hendo (May 16, 2010)

Federation Coffee ftw


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 16, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> The best coffee in Brixton was in the caff in the arcade down the side of the tube. It was closed 'in the short term' a very long time ago. It was run by the people who now run the flower stall. I'd rather they were running a caff again than poxy Starbucks who wouldn't give me a black coffee unless I called it an Americano. FUCK OFF! I've never set foot in one since.



Americano isn't regular black coffee, and it existed before Starbucks started selling it.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 16, 2010)

Not in the UK, as far as I know Johnny....anyway, they told me they didn't do black coffee, if it wasn't an espresso that I wanted I'd have to ask for an Americano....


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 16, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Not in the UK, as far as I know Johnny....anyway, they told me they didn't do black coffee, if it wasn't an espresso that I wanted I'd have to ask for an Americano....



Surprising. As I understand it, Americano is espresso with water added. Any starbucks I've been in also sells regular brewed coffee.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 16, 2010)

According to this site, Starbucks in UK sells regular filter coffee along with all the fancy drinks.

http://www.starbuckscoffee.co.uk/drinks-beverages/


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 16, 2010)

Near where I work, there is a Starbucks, a Tim Hortons, and a single owner proprietorship coffee house. I go to the single owner place the most by far, but I'll go to Timmy Ho's from time to time, and also Starbucks. I probably like Starbucks the least, but it hasn't put the other places out of business. In fact, there are two Timmy Ho's within two blocks, one right across the street from the Starbucks.


----------



## live_jayeola (May 16, 2010)

Oh shit, runs for tah hillz. The Yuppies are coming. Oh, they are already here!


----------



## ernestolynch (May 16, 2010)

What's wrong with just having a pint?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 16, 2010)

Have there never been any in Brixton before this?


----------



## Pat24 (May 16, 2010)

This is so crap. I set foot in a shitty Starbucks once, and never been again since. If you like your tasteless watered down coffee, by all means go to Starbucks.


----------



## Geri (May 16, 2010)

I love Starbucks Vanilla Latté. I don't find it watered down, but then again it is made with milk.

I hardly ever go there though as a) it's ridiculously expensive and b) I don't like having to queue to order, and then have to queue again to pick up my drink.


----------



## nagapie (May 16, 2010)

Starbucks is hideous and their coffee is undrinkable as well as being overpriced. Let's boycott it.


----------



## miss minnie (May 16, 2010)

An American working in our office made the mistake of going to Starbucks instead of the regular coffee place for the morning coffee order.  He was sooo shocked at the looks of disgust from nearly everyone in the office. 

Its just shit tasting coffee.  I suppose you can spend time experimenting with their multitude of styles and flavours until something nice turns up but why bother when you can go to nearly any other coffee shop/chain (except Coffee Republic, if that's still around) and just get something reasonable, good even, without the hassle.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 16, 2010)

miss minnie;10660506  said:
			
		

> He was sooo shocked at the looks of disgust from nearly everyone in the office.



If you do that when you disapprove of someone's choice of coffee, what do you do when they commit a transgression that actually matters?


----------



## miss minnie (May 16, 2010)

lmao jc


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 16, 2010)

Poor american must have thought he took a wrong turn, and went through the door into The Hive, instead of back into the office.


----------



## miss minnie (May 16, 2010)

what, you want the British to be polite and lap it up?  

Brits have moved on buddy.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 16, 2010)

miss minnie said:


> what, you want the British to be polite and lap it up?
> 
> Brits have moved on buddy.



Lap up what? A fellow in the office with the temerity to show up with a starbuck coffee cup?


Good thing you let him know what for!


----------



## miss minnie (May 16, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Poor american must have thought he took a wrong turn, and went through the door into The Hive, instead of back into the office.


Ok, it might be worth mentioning that both the Brits and the Americans in that office saw the funny side of it.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 16, 2010)

miss minnie said:


> Ok, it might be worth mentioning that both the Brits and the Americans in that office saw the funny side of it.



What's funny about drinking a cup of starbucks coffee?


----------



## miss minnie (May 16, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Lap up what? A fellow in the office with the temerity to show up with a starbuck coffee cup?


ffs lap up the coffee.  sheesh


----------



## miss minnie (May 16, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> What's funny about drinking a cup of starbucks coffee?


absolutely fucking nothing


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 16, 2010)

miss minnie said:


> ffs lap up the coffee.  sheesh



Let me guess: the new starbucks opening up is a toehold of american economic imperialism creeping into Brixton with a master plan of taking over?

Actually, it's one coffee outlet. Even if there were a hundred, you don't have to go there. If there get to be a hundred, it means someone in Brixton likes the coffee.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 16, 2010)

miss minnie said:


> absolutely fucking nothing



Which must be why everyone in the office gave him dirty looks.


----------



## miss minnie (May 16, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Let me guess: the new starbucks opening up is a toehold of american economic imperialism creeping into Brixton with a master plan of taking over?
> 
> Actually, it's one coffee outlet. Even if there were a hundred, you don't have to go there. If there get to be a hundred, it means someone in Brixton likes the coffee.


No.

Its just shit tasting coffee


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 16, 2010)

Anyway, I'm sorry for messing up the thread. I don't even live in Brixton.

I'll back out, and stay out of the way of the caterwauling over the major catastrophe in the offing. 

p.s. after drinking ten cups of starbucks coffee, it becomes mandatory to wear cowboy boots, and eat a stack of ten flapjacks each morning for breakfast. It's freaking insidious.

Don't say you haven't been warned.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 16, 2010)

miss minnie said:


> No.
> 
> Its just shit tasting coffee



So the dirty looks were because your co worker has poor taste in coffee.

What happens if someone wears shoes that match the colour of her dress?


----------



## AverageJoe (May 16, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Surprising. As I understand it, Americano is espresso with water added. Any starbucks I've been in also sells regular brewed coffee.



Was invented during the war when the US soldiers in Italy would go a little hyper after downing Expressos. So the Italians watered it down, and called it Americano.


----------



## miss minnie (May 16, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> So the dirty looks were because your co worker has poor taste in coffee.
> 
> What happens if someone wears shoes that match the colour of her dress?

















oh, sorry... pardon me, you were saying....


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 16, 2010)

live by the cup die by the cup


----------



## brix (May 16, 2010)

This is depressing because, even with a few chain stores, Brixton retains it's own individual character but Starbucks is another step towards blandville.  I also worry that excellent local independent coffee places like San Marino and Federation will lose business as a result.  Not good news


----------



## Sesquipedalian (May 16, 2010)

brix said:


> This is depressing because, even with a few chain stores, Brixton retains it's own individual character but Starbucks is another step towards blandville.  I also worry that excellent local independent coffee places like *San Marino* and Federation *will lose business as a result.*  Not good news



They already lose a shed load of business,
By ignoring their customers at the counter.


----------



## brix (May 16, 2010)

Sesquipedalian said:


> They already lose a shed load of business,
> By ignoring their customers at the counter.



I've never seen that happen .  Perhaps they just didn't like the look of *you*.


----------



## miss minnie (May 16, 2010)

San Marino is looking resplendent this morning with its smart black and white branded canvas 'fence' surrounding the outdoor tables and chairs.  With its new location I think it will do very well this summer.


----------



## Sesquipedalian (May 16, 2010)

brix said:


> I've never seen that happen .  Perhaps they just didn't like the look of *you*.



Yeah,
Maybe it's just me.


----------



## editor (May 16, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Let me guess: the new starbucks opening up is a toehold of american economic imperialism creeping into Brixton with a master plan of taking over?


It's just a depressingly bland, corporate identikit addition to the High Street with the potential to damage local businesses, Johnny.

Thankfully, we have several independent cafes serving up far superior coffee, but it's a shame to see valuable High Street space falling to yet another major.

I wonder if we'll be getting one of their sneaky 'stealth' shops?

http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/921446/Starbucks-trials-unbranded-stores-stealth-move/


----------



## Caroline27 (May 16, 2010)

Think I read they're rolling out their 'local design concept'.


----------



## nagapie (May 16, 2010)

As ed said, there are plenty of local businesses that do good coffee but cannot afford to pay the mega rent charged by TFL for a prime position next to the tube station. They will lose out because of this. 
And the coffee is shit.


----------



## trabuquera (May 16, 2010)

but whyyyyyyy are they even bothering?

People who want chain-style coffee can already get it at Caffe Nero in Morleys.
People who want a good caff with food as well as coffee can go to San Marino.
People who actually want to drink the most divine coffee ever brewed can go to Federation (tho admittedly its opening hours are limited.)

I have high hopes that a Brixton branch of Starbucks might be one of their few ventures to fail utterly. Urbanites can boycott it, the coffee aficionados will certainly go elsewhere and the yoof round here might be able to mount a display of really 'unacceptable behaviour' to make Sbux (spawn of the devil) leave.


----------



## nagapie (May 16, 2010)

If it's right next to the tube station, people who would have otherwise gone slightly out of their way to get a good coffee may go there out of convenience, especially when pushed for time on the way to work.


----------



## passivejoe (May 16, 2010)

So where exactly will it be? Where next to the tube is 1000 ft2?


----------



## editor (May 16, 2010)

nagapie said:


> If it's right next to the tube station, people who would have otherwise gone slightly out of their way to get a good coffee may go there out of convenience, especially when pushed for time on the way to work.


If it stays open late, it'll also scoop in all the Academy traffic.


----------



## miss minnie (May 16, 2010)

passivejoe said:


> So where exactly will it be? Where next to the tube is 1000 ft2?


facing the station entrance there is an empty shop on the right of the steps, before Iceland.


----------



## Badgers (May 16, 2010)

brix said:
			
		

> This is depressing because, even with a few chain stores, Brixton retains it's own individual character but Starbucks is another step towards blandville.  I also worry that excellent local independent coffee places like San Marino and Federation will lose business as a result.  Not good news



Pretty much my feeling. I never go in Starbucks but shame to see another tacky bland corporate setting up shop in Brixton. A lot of people will ignore it but it will be busy I fear. There is plently of good independent food places but McDonalds and KFC are often rammed.


----------



## Gramsci (May 16, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Let me guess: the new starbucks opening up is a toehold of american economic imperialism creeping into Brixton with a master plan of taking over?
> 
> Actually, it's one coffee outlet. Even if there were a hundred, you don't have to go there. If there get to be a hundred, it means someone in Brixton likes the coffee.



Because Starbucks have a reputation for moving into areas where there are already independant coffee shops and pushing them out of busness.I hope we dont get a "Brand" name coffee war like in Soho. 

Big chains dont mind paying big rents to get a toehold in an area.

Still I dont think they will threaten Brixton. It wont be cool to drink coffee there.

Can we post up a hall of shame? Pics of people drinking coffee there and ask if anyone knows them?

Urban Coffee Police.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 16, 2010)

Gramsci said:


> Because Starbucks have a reputation for moving into areas where there are already independant coffee shops and pushing them out of busness.I hope we dont get a "Brand" name coffee war like in Soho.
> 
> Big chains dont mind paying big rents to get a toehold in an area.



That's just what they did in Hertford. We had a small independent coffee shop that applied to expand into an empty shop next door but were denied planning permission. Along came S.bucks and opened up in there anyway in defiance of planning rules. By the time the local authority woke up to what was happening s.bucks were about ready to open and the local authority decided it would be too expensive to take them on.

Most locals won't go in there and happily the small independent coffee shop is still going despite s.bucks being right next door.


----------



## ernestolynch (May 16, 2010)

Coffee snobbery is such a rah-rah issue, ffs. 

Have you seen the sort of people that frequent coffee shops.


----------



## brix (May 16, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> Coffee snobbery is such a rah-rah issue, ffs.
> 
> Have you seen the sort of people that frequent coffee shops.



Try telling that to the Portuguese workmen propping up the counter of my local coffee shop


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 17, 2010)

miss minnie said:


> oh, sorry... pardon me, you were saying....



I was saying lighten up. It's one freaking coffee shop amongst hundreds of other businesses. It's not in fact one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, which is the impression one might form after reading this thread and others.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 17, 2010)

editor said:


> It's just a depressingly bland, corporate identikit addition to the High Street with the potential to damage local businesses, Johnny.rl]



It's one store. Other businesses won't suffer if they have a good product and a loyal clientele. People go to starbucks out of choice, not because they've been enslaved or hoodwinked into drinking shit coffee.

And to the extent that some people in Brixton might want a starbucks because they like the coffee - and that can happen - then there's absolutely no reason why one shouldn't open there.


----------



## editor (May 17, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I was saying lighten up. It's one freaking coffee shop amongst hundreds of other businesses. It's not in fact one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, which is the impression one might form after reading this thread and others.


It's just local people expressing their concern for the future of local, independent businesses, Johnny.

I think it's rather healthy that people are bothered about this, to be honest.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 17, 2010)

nagapie said:


> If it's right next to the tube station, people who would have otherwise gone slightly out of their way to get a good coffee may go there out of convenience, especially when pushed for time on the way to work.



Oh my god! Heaven forbid! Starbucks is putting a store where it might be convenient!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 17, 2010)

Gramsci said:


> Because Starbucks have a reputation for moving into areas where there are already independant coffee shops and pushing them out of busness..



If that happens, then it means starbucks is doing something right that the other places aren't doing. Maybe better service, who knows?

If that's the case, then starbucks deserves to succeed. If that doesn't happen, then people will continue to go to the places they like. Why would they switch from a place they like, to a place that sells shitty-tasting coffee?


----------



## editor (May 17, 2010)

Here's an interesting spin on Starbucks:



> Starbucks kills communities, academic claims
> 
> Prof Simon visited 425 Starbucks branches in nine countries, including Britain, over a year and talked to customers. He said he witnessed few spontaneous discussions or interactions. He said the rise of Starbucks and its rivals was a far cry from the British coffee houses of the 18th and 19th centuries “which were the cornerstone of democracy with a small 'd’”.
> 
> ...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 17, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Most locals won't go in there and happily the small independent coffee shop is still going despite s.bucks being right next door.



The small independent is still open?

So the sky didn't fall when starbucks opened?


----------



## editor (May 17, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> If that happens, then it means starbucks is doing something right that the other places aren't doing. Maybe better service, who knows?
> 
> If that's the case, then starbucks deserves to succeed. If that doesn't happen, then people will continue to go to the places they like. Why would they switch from a place they like, to a place that sells shitty-tasting coffee?


Or better advertising, bigger budget, better premises, more convenient location,  better placed to run the store as a loss leader to kill off the competition, more resources, more brand power etc etc.

Even with all that additional corporate muscle, Starbucks have been struggling in the UK:

Starbucks to close outlets as UK loses its taste for premium coffee
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/13999/Starbucks-to-close-outlets-as.4791251.jp


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 17, 2010)

editor said:


> It's just local people expressing their concern for the future of local, independent businesses, Johnny.
> 
> I think it's rather healthy that people are bothered about this, to be honest.



It's more than that, though. It's something akin to hysteria. We have minnie's office coworkers giving dirty looks to someone drinking a starbucks. People talking about the end of Brixton individuality. I can't see how it will be identikit when there's only one of them, occupying maybe 2000 square feet.

I've said it before: we have more starbucks in vancouver than london has, with about a fifth of the population. The demand for small independent coffee places, along with maybe a half dozen or more chains, remains strong.

A good product and good service will always do well.


----------



## editor (May 17, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The small independent is still open?
> 
> So the sky didn't fall when starbucks opened?


They may be still open, but it's likely profits fell, no? Why should anyone celebrate that happening to their local independent coffee shop?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 17, 2010)

editor said:


> Or better advertising, bigger budget, better premises, more convenient location,  better placed to run the store as a loss leader to kill off the competition, more resources, more brand power etc etc.l]



But the coffee tastes like shit. 

And to repeat, there are many starbucks in many NA cities, and they exist cheek by jowl with small mom and pop organizations; and NA starbucks has all the economic muscle of UK starbucks and more.

It's a boogeyman that isn't real.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 17, 2010)

editor said:


> They may be still open, but it's likely profits fell, no? Why should anyone celebrate that happening to their local independent coffee shop?



You can conjecture that the profits fell but you don't know that.

What happened here is that starbucks was formed in the early Seventies in Pike's Market in Seattle. I recall seeing it on visits there. It grew, and spread to other places.

As it grew, 'coffee culture' grew along with it, because of it. Soon, Seattle's Best Coffee was formed, and Blenz, and various others. Here in Vancouver, the little italian places on Commmercial Drive, did better business than they ever did before, because the demand for their coffee spread beyond the Italian community, because of starbucks.

Starbucks creates demand for coffee that ultimately it can't completely satisfy itself. And that demand is good for other businesses offering the same product.


----------



## ernestolynch (May 17, 2010)

brix said:


> Try telling that to the Portuguese workmen propping up the counter of my local coffee shop



Different culture, which you are locusting.


----------



## peterkro (May 17, 2010)

brix said:


> Try telling that to the Portuguese workmen propping up the counter of my local coffee shop



I don't think you can get brandy in your coffee in Starbucks.


----------



## Kanda (May 17, 2010)

brix said:


> Try telling that to the Portuguese workmen propping up the counter of my local coffee shop



That isn't exactly a coffee shop now is it...


----------



## Kanda (May 17, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> Coffee snobbery is such a rah-rah issue, ffs.
> 
> Have you seen the sort of people that frequent coffee shops.


----------



## ajdown (May 17, 2010)

I presume the good people of Urban will be organising a leafletting campaign and a round-the-clock picket line outside when it opens, to encourage people to think about the choice they've made.

Perhaps we should get the SWP table outside as well.  Bad haircuts always help.

I can see the incense table man being "moved on" more frequently as well, especially if the wind's blowing in their direction.


----------



## Badgers (May 17, 2010)

Nah, Facebook campaign will do


----------



## ernestolynch (May 17, 2010)

ajdown said:


> I presume the good people of Urban will be organising a leafletting campaign and a round-the-clock picket line outside when it opens, to encourage people to think about the choice they've made.
> 
> Perhaps we should get the SWP table outside as well.  Bad haircuts always help.
> 
> I can see the incense table man being "moved on" more frequently as well, especially if the wind's blowing in their direction.



Except it's poncey right wing fucks like you that bemoan the muscling out of small businesses, and poncey right wing fucks like you who sit in coffee shops reading big papers and scratching your chins.


----------



## ajdown (May 17, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> Except it's poncey right wing fucks like you that bemoan the muscling out of small businesses, and poncey right wing fucks like you who sit in coffee shops reading big papers and scratching your chins.



I don't like coffee, so I won't be sitting in Starbucks reading a big paper and/or scratching my chin over a large skinny double mint choc chip caramel frappelattemochachinno.


----------



## ajdown (May 17, 2010)

Badgers said:


> Nah, Facebook campaign will do



Sounds like a good plan.  Who wants to head it up?


----------



## miss minnie (May 17, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I was saying lighten up. It's one freaking coffee shop amongst hundreds of other businesses. It's not in fact one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, which is the impression one might form after reading this thread and others.


Its a chat about a coffee shop in my neighbourhood and I'll say what I want.

Do I tell you how to react to events and stuff in your neighbourhood?  No I don't.


----------



## Badgers (May 17, 2010)

ajdown said:
			
		

> Sounds like a good plan.  Who wants to head it up?



Someone with an account I guess? I will just moan from the sidelines


----------



## miss minnie (May 17, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> It's more than that, though. It's something akin to hysteria. We have minnie's office coworkers giving dirty looks to someone drinking a starbucks. People talking about the end of Brixton individuality.


You are just trolling here aren't you?

Do you honestly think that we treated our American chum like scum over a cup of coffee?  

Dear god if you cannot imagine the humour in the situation I despair for you.


----------



## editor (May 17, 2010)

Here, Johnny. This is how they operate:


> Market strategy
> 
> Some of the methods Starbucks have used to expand and maintain their dominant market position, including buying out competitors' leases, intentionally operating at a loss, and clustering several locations in a small geographical area (i.e., saturating the market), have been labeled anti-competitive by critics.
> 
> For example, Starbucks fueled its initial expansion into the UK market with a buyout of Seattle Coffee Company, but then used its capital and influence to obtain prime locations, some of which operated at a financial loss. Critics claimed this was an unfair attempt to drive out small, independent competitors, who could not afford to pay inflated prices for premium real estate.



And then there's their horrendous record on workers' rights, and their policy of opening without planning permission for a change of use....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starbucks


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 17, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The small independent is still open?
> 
> So the sky didn't fall when starbucks opened?



Yes, the independent just about hung on and is still open two years later. They got a lot of positive publicity when s.bucks singled them out and people rallied round. 

However other busineses did suffer and planning rules that they adhered to and s.bucks ignored were supposed to help protect them. S.bucks know they can afford to take on local authorities like ours wherever and whenever they like by continually appealing against decisions until they win.


----------



## Kanda (May 17, 2010)

> The company's rich benefit blend keeps turnover low and employee satisfaction high. And that's why it's the Optimas Award winner for Quality of Life.



http://www.workforce.com/section/02/feature/23/52/96/



I know that's old but am pretty sure they won something similar last year in the UK when their branches had demo's outside them. Found that a bit odd.


----------



## ajdown (May 17, 2010)

I wonder why there wasn't uproar about other big chains like Iceland, H&M and the phone shops being in Brixton... yet a coffee shop (albeit an overpriced one) seems to?


----------



## Choc (May 17, 2010)

starbucks spreads mc donald style speed. it is a pitty one is coming to brixton as well.

can't stand that place and am angry that so many people love to go there. its very expensive too.


----------



## Gromit (May 17, 2010)

nagapie said:


> Starbucks is hideous and their coffee is undrinkable as well as being overpriced. Let's boycott it.


 
Poor Starbucks. They'll be bankcrupt in no time if you meanies boycott them. Think of all all those people out of work etc.

Its a bit like the Clerks 'Deathstar civilian contractors' chat.


----------



## Gramsci (May 17, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> If that happens, then it means starbucks is doing something right that the other places aren't doing. Maybe better service, who knows?
> 
> If that's the case, then starbucks deserves to succeed. If that doesn't happen, then people will continue to go to the places they like. Why would they switch from a place they like, to a place that sells shitty-tasting coffee?



Starbucks is a multinational brand that has the resources to pay through the nose to get a foothold in an area. Its got nothing to do with them running a better business.

Its an unequal playing field between big brands and the little guy. Federation Coffee- could they afford the rental on the high street?


----------



## Gramsci (May 17, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> It's more than that, though. It's something akin to hysteria. We have minnie's office coworkers giving dirty looks to someone drinking a starbucks. People talking about the end of Brixton individuality. I can't see how it will be identikit when there's only one of them, occupying maybe 2000 square feet.
> 
> I've said it before: we have more starbucks in vancouver than london has, with about a fifth of the population. The demand for small independent coffee places, along with maybe a half dozen or more chains, remains strong.
> 
> A good product and good service will always do well.



Sorry ur are Canadian? Cant u make Coffee in Canada?

Starbucks is seen by a lot of Brits as a place they avoid as it represents the US. It might be cool in other countries ( see Eds link to academic survey) but not here. 

I will use other chains but not Starbucks unless im desparate. 

Im sure Tony Blair likes it. Hes a really cool guy.


----------



## Gramsci (May 17, 2010)

Ive found this picture of Vancouver


----------



## passivejoe (May 17, 2010)

I really don't see what the problem is.
It's right next to the tube to take advantage of the commuters that pile into Brixton every morning.
These commuters don't use Federation... it's too far into the market.
It will smarten up that depressing shuttered bit of TFL neglect and if you don't like the coffee, just don't buy any. 
I love federation... never had coffee quite as smooth... but also quite like a starbucks caramel latte at times. 
As far as CSR, Starbucks does a lot more than most high street chains.
I reckon the only people who will suffer will be Nero in Morleys.


----------



## Gromit (May 17, 2010)

When I was in Toronto I was told that Starbucks were for tourists and that Canadians went to REAL coffee shops. 

I'm saddened ismf Johnny is saying that's not the same case in Vancouver


----------



## flickerx (May 17, 2010)

I started work in Brixton recently and its a bit sad the amount of my workmates that eat the shit from McDonalds and KFC at lunchtime, depsite there being other places around with decent eat-in and take-away, and also our employer explicitly trying to encourage people to give business to local shops.

If Starbucks opens, I fear they'll do well, as other people mentioned they'll be in a prime location and get a lot of passing / academy / commuter trade which might not be people from the area (who might care a bit more about the impact of the cafe opening up and potentially boycott the place).


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 17, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> However other busineses did suffer.



Coffee businesses, or other businesses?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 17, 2010)

miss minnie said:


> You are just trolling here aren't you?.



No I'm not trolling here. The way you people go on about it, one would be mislead into thinking that something important is happeining.

Something important would be a proposal to tear down two blocks of Brixton adjacent to the tube station, in order to build an Ikea. That would be worth a fuss.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 17, 2010)

Kanda said:


> http://www.workforce.com/section/02/feature/23/52/96/
> 
> 
> 
> I know that's old but am pretty sure they won something similar last year in the UK when their branches had demo's outside them. Found that a bit odd.



Especially when wikipedia is telling us something different.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 17, 2010)

Choc said:


> am angry that so many people love to go there



Why in heaven's name do you care at all if others like to go there?

Bizarre.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 17, 2010)

Gramsci said:


> Starbucks is a multinational brand that has the resources to pay through the nose to get a foothold in an area. Its got nothing to do with them running a better business.
> 
> Its an unequal playing field between big brands and the little guy. Federation Coffee- could they afford the rental on the high street?



But the coffee tastes shit. Would you pay even a dollar for a cup of coffee that tastes like shit?

Also, according to an article cited by the Ed, starbucks isn't doing well in Scotland. So maybe like the scots, people in Brixton will be able to make up their own minds, even in the face of all that sophisticated advertising from Starbucks.


----------



## miss minnie (May 17, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> No I'm not trolling here. The way you people go on about it, one would be mislead into thinking that something important is happeining.
> 
> Something important would be a proposal to tear down two blocks of Brixton adjacent to the tube station, in order to build an Ikea. That would be worth a fuss.



You seem to be the only one misled.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 17, 2010)

Gramsci said:


> Starbucks is seen by a lot of Brits as a place they avoid as it represents the US.



Finally, someone with the stones to tell the truth. It's not about coffee, or service, or employees.


----------



## editor (May 17, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Finally, someone with the stones to tell the truth. It's not about coffee, or service, or employees.


No, it's the coffee. Its shit.



> *Starbucks is bottom of high street coffee test*
> 
> *Starbucks sells coffee that is poor quality and over-priced*, according to a survey of cafés.
> The biggest player in Britain's £900m-a-year coffee shop industry offers blander drinks than its competitors Costa Coffee and Caffè Nero and is costlier than most rivals, testers for the consumer group Which? reported.
> ...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 17, 2010)

editor said:


> No, it's the coffee. Its shit.



I totally agree that the coffee is shit. I'm also not too keen on Hyundais, but I wouldn't raise an eyebrow if another dealership opened up in my city, and people went in and bought them.


----------



## Sesquipedalian (May 17, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Why in heaven's name do you care at all if others like to go there?
> 
> Bizarre.



They (Urbanites),
Think they are being cool and radical,
In opposing Starfucks.


----------



## editor (May 17, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I totally agree that the coffee is shit. I'm also not too keen on Hyundais, but I wouldn't raise an eyebrow if another dealership opened up in my city, and people went in and bought them.


Perhaps you just don't care as much about what happens to your town as some of the people here, or have such strong feelings about what goes on in your High Street.

Some of us like having small, independent businesses, and will react when we see something that literally threatens their existence. 

I've already pointed you to links that shows how Starbucks have a track recoed of closing down rivals by unfair competition, so I'll do my bit to positively promote indie alternatives through urban75 and on these boards.


----------



## tarannau (May 17, 2010)

Sesquipedalian said:


> They (Urbanites),
> Think they are being cool and radical,
> In opposing Starfucks.



you think it's cool 
to write in bad verse and rhyme.
but it just makes you look like a tool
all the fucking time

Anyway I can't get too fussed about Starbucks. Anyway daft and demotivated enough to choose their duff coffee and overpriced pastries was arguably never likely to look that much further afield. I suspect that the existing businesses have strong enough loyalty to retain their share, as regrettable as it to have Starbucks in such a prime spot.


----------



## Sesquipedalian (May 17, 2010)

tarannau said:


> you think it's cool
> to write in bad verse and rhyme.
> but it just makes you look like a tool
> all the fucking time
> ...



Use the Ignore function,
You uptight,bullying,
Rancid cunt.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 17, 2010)

editor said:


> Perhaps you just don't care as much about what happens to your town as some of the people here,.



I care very much about what happens in my town. I just happen to believe that people should save their energy to fight things that really matter. One store amongst hundreds on your high street is a non issue being turned into something other as a result of hysteria, not due to any real threat to the complexion of Brixton.

As I said, if they were levelling a block to put up an Ikea, that would change the complexion. A coffee shop of one or two thousand square feet, is nothing.


----------



## miss minnie (May 17, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Finally, someone with the stones to tell the truth. It's not about coffee, or service, or employees.


Not my truth.  The service and employees are fine.  They even have a particularly nice muffin that I like.  I even like Americans.  But Starbucks coffee is shit and there are loads of other types of shop that we could use instead of another coffee shop.

You seem to be very keen to lump all of us into a small tidy pile that you can sneer at.  It may surprise you to know that we aren't all joined at the hip, opinions can vary between posters even those who live in Brixton.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 17, 2010)

editor said:


> Some of us like having small, independent businesses, and will react when we see something that literally threatens their existence.
> 
> I've already pointed you to links that shows how Starbucks have a track recoed of closing down rivals by unfair competition, so I'll do my bit to positively promote indie alternatives through urban75 and on these boards.



I like small independent businesses as well, which is why I patronize them here instead of Starbucks, all issue of coffee quality aside.

As for links, there are also links showing that the scottish weren't fooled, and anecdotal evidence of small shops surviving in spite of the existence of a starbucks.

I've given anecdotal evidence of the proliferation of starbucks here, with an accompanying growth in other coffee business for other establishments, caused when the starbucks causes a growth in the coffee customer base. 

All of that is ignored. People seem to prefer the boogeyman story to actual facts that indicate that small business can survive and even thrive with the advent of a starbucks in the neighborhood.

This preference for the boogeyman, is why I call what is happening there, hysteria.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 17, 2010)

miss minnie said:


> You seem to be very keen to lump all of us into a small tidy pile that you can sneer at.  It may surprise you to know that we aren't all joined at the hip, opinions can vary between posters even those who live in Brixton.



I'm just talking to the small group who are posting gloom and doom stories about what will happen when the starbucks invades the neighborhood.

The only sneering that seems to go on, is when various people in your area, see someone with a starbucks cup in hand.


----------



## miss minnie (May 17, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I care very much about what happens in my town. I just happen to believe that people should save their energy to fight things that really matter. One store amongst hundreds on your high street


Dozens.  Its quite a small high street.



Johnny Canuck3 said:


> is a non issue being turned into something other as a result of hysteria, not due to any real threat to the complexion of Brixton.


I'm not seeing anything I call hysteria.  I'm seeing opinions being aired.  Not all the same opinions either.


----------



## miss minnie (May 17, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I'm just talking to the small group who are posting gloom and doom stories about what will happen when the starbucks invades the neighborhood.
> 
> The only sneering that seems to go on, is when various people in your area, see someone with a starbucks cup in hand.


No you are not.  Stop lying.  You took things I said and twisted them for your own sneering purposes.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 17, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Coffee businesses, or other businesses?



Other cafes lost trade. But the main point is that they blatantly ignored planning rules which other busineses wouldn't and couldn't ignore. They broke the law and knew they could get away with it because they knew the local authority couldn't afford to keep fighting them. That's what they do, that's how they run their business.

S.bucks themselves hardly bother trying to justify what they do so why do you?


----------



## Sesquipedalian (May 17, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> *I'm just talking to the small group who are posting gloom and doom stories about what will happen when the starbucks invades the neighborhood.*
> 
> The only *sneering *that seems to go on, is when various people in your area, see someone with a starbucks cup in hand.



They think they are,
The voice of Brixton.

And they are sneering.
They always sneer.
Because they truly believe,
They are superior.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 17, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Other cafes lost trade. But the main point is that they blatantly ignored planning rules which other busineses wouldn't and couldn't ignore. They broke the law and knew they could get away with it because they knew the local authority couldn't afford to keep fighting them. That's what they do, that's how they run their business.



So, Starbucks broke the law and the local authority allowed it to happen?

That's the sort of accusation that neither Starbucks nor your local authority would take lightly.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 17, 2010)

miss minnie said:


> No you are not.  Stop lying.  You took things I said and twisted them for your own sneering purposes.





> An American working in our office made the mistake of going to Starbucks instead of the regular coffee place for the morning coffee order. *He was sooo shocked at the looks of disgust from nearly everyone in the office*



.............


----------



## miss minnie (May 17, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> .............





> He was sooo shocked at the looks of disgust from nearly everyone in the office.


You left out the smiley.  It was a humorous incident.  As you forced me to explain in a later post which you did not quote.


----------



## editor (May 17, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I like small independent businesses as well, which is why I patronize them here instead of Starbucks, all issue of coffee quality aside.
> 
> As for links, there are also links showing that the scottish weren't fooled, and anecdotal evidence of small shops surviving in spite of the existence of a starbucks.
> 
> ...


So are you saying that Starbucks _hasn't _engaged in saturation policies in the past and used their corporate clout to close down rival independent stores in areas?

That's not a "boogeyman story". It's hard evidenced *fact. *


----------



## editor (May 17, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> So, Starbucks broke the law and the local authority allowed it to happen?
> 
> That's the sort of accusation that neither Starbucks nor your local authority would take lightly.


Starbucks breaking the law is rather well documented actually. 

Perhaps you were too busy defending Starbucks to notice the link I'd provided earlier on this matter?



> *Opening  without planning permission*
> 
> Starbucks has been accused by local authorities of opening several  stores in the United Kingdom in retail premises, without the planning  permission for a change of use to a restaurant. Starbucks has argued  that "Under current planning law, there is no official classification  of coffee shops. Starbucks therefore encounters the difficult scenario  whereby local authorities interpret the guidance in different ways. In  some instances, coffee shops operate under A1 permission, some as mixed  use A1/A3 and some as A3".[118]
> In May 2008, a branch of Starbucks was completed on St. James's  Street in Kemptown, Brighton, England, despite having been  refused permission by the local planning authority, Brighton and Hove  City Council, who claimed there were too many coffee shops already  present on the street.[119][120]  Starbucks appealed the decision by claiming it was a retail store  selling bags of coffee, mugs and sandwiches, gaining a six month  extension,[121]  but the council ordered Starbucks to remove all tables and chairs from  the premises by 20 February 2009, to comply with planning regulations  for a retail shop.[122]  2500 residents have signed a petition against the store, and public  inquiry is due to be held on 10 June 2009.[123]
> A Starbucks in Hertford won its appeal in April 2009 after being open  for over a year without planning permission.[124]  Two stores in Edinburgh,[125]  one in Manchester,[126]  one in Cardiff,[127]  one in Pinner, Harrow,[118]  and one in Blackheath, Lewisham[128][129]  were also opened without planning permission.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 17, 2010)

editor said:


> Perhaps you were too busy defending Starbucks to notice the link I'd provided earlier on this matter?



I'm not defending starbucks at all. I don't like the place. The only 'word' post on my blog is a rant about starbucks cups.

If I'm defending anything, it's the right of people of various tastes, to have the thing they prefer. I won't drink the crap, but others seem to like it. 

And I maintain that the appearance of one starbucks in your community is not a harbinger of some sort of creeping doom, and to say that it is, is non-fact-based hysteria.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 17, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> So, Starbucks broke the law and the local authority allowed it to happen?
> 
> That's the sort of accusation that neither Starbucks nor your local authority would take lightly.



It's not an accusation it's what they do and there's no secret about it. Try doing the same thing as a small business and see how far you get.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 17, 2010)

editor said:


> Starbucks breaking the law is rather well documented actually.



I've read your quote carefully. I can't find the instances of lawbreaking that you're referring to.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 17, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> It's not an accusation it's what they do and there's no secret about it. .



It appears to be the popular but uninformed interpretation of what's going on, by people unfamiliar with the standard practices of businesses of all sorts, when it comes to zoning applications, variances etc.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 17, 2010)

We had a similar mini-controversy when Starbucks said it was going to open an outlet on Commercial Drive. Commercial Drive is a lot of things. It's ground zero for the italian coffee houses. It's the center for a lot of alternative lifestlye type things, eg, a pitched battle between the owner of Joes, a coffee place, and the lesbian community who liked to hang there. Joe booted out two women for making out - he's a conservative Portuguese guy. The lesbians camped outside the store and boycotted it for months. It was a cause celebre.

Eventually, everybody kissed and made up.   and lesbians can once again be seen drinking coffee in Joes.   They make good coffee there, too.


So into this milieu, Starbucks wanted to go. The reaction was sort of like you people's. Howls of outrage. To make a long story short, the Starbucks opened, some people go there, and many many more continue to go to the italian and portuguese places. Lesbians continue to go to Joes. Nothing changed much at all.


----------



## editor (May 17, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I've read your quote carefully. I can't find the instances of lawbreaking that you're referring to.


Can't you read?



> A coffee shop which opened in Brighton *without planning permission* has been ordered to stop operating as a cafe.
> 
> Brighton and Hove City Council said it had* served an enforcement notice* on the Starbucks store in St James's Street, which takes effect from 9 January.
> 
> ...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 17, 2010)

editor said:


> Can't you read?



Yes I can. I just don't read selectively, ignoring those parts that are at variance with what I think.



> Starbucks has argued that "Under current planning law, there is no official classification of coffee shops. Starbucks therefore encounters the difficult scenario whereby local authorities interpret the guidance in different ways. In some instances, coffee shops operate under A1 permission, some as mixed use A1/A3 and some as A3".[118]



Meaning that as a result, it's the position of starbucks that they don't need that particular permission. Resulting in...

St





> arbucks appealed the decision by claiming it was a retail store selling bags of coffee, mugs and sandwiches,



The matter obviously wasn't cut and dried because Starbucks gained...



> a six month extension



The local council still wasn't happy, but the matter wasn't conclusively decided at that point because a...



> public inquiry is due to be held on 10 June 2009


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 17, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> It appears to be the popular but uninformed interpretation of what's going on, by people unfamiliar with the standard practices of businesses of all sorts, when it comes to zoning applications, variances etc.



Wow, I admire your perseverance JC3, I can see how you achieved such a high post count!

Reaching the number of the beast suggests to me it's time for me to bow out. Good luck everyone....


----------



## Sesquipedalian (May 17, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Wow, I admire your perseverance JC3, I can see how you achieved such a high post count!
> 
> Reaching the number of the beast suggests to me it's time for me to bow out. *Good luck everyone....*



Good luck to you,
As well.


----------



## editor (May 17, 2010)

They broke planning laws, Johhny. That's why they were served  an enforcement notice. You don't get them unless you do something wrong.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 17, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Wow, I admire your perseverance JC3, I can see how you achieved such a high post count!
> 
> Reaching the number of the beast suggests to me it's time for me to bow out. Good luck everyone....



It is the number of the beast. I ain't messing with you anymore....


----------



## paolo (May 17, 2010)

Shitty coffee and the thin end of the wedge.

Generic Britain is a godawful place. Brixton is already half the way there, but there's still just enough independent (and in many cases, quite unique) stuff to hold back the tide.

No matter how 'small' this starbucks might be, it's a step in the wrong direction imho.

(But of course, if they took the M&S away, I'd be pissed off. So yep, it's subjective.)


----------



## miss minnie (May 17, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> We had a similar mini-controversy when Starbucks said it was going to open an outlet on Commercial Drive. Commercial Drive is a lot of things. It's ground zero for the italian coffee houses. It's the center for a lot of alternative lifestlye type things, eg, a pitched battle between the owner of Joes, a coffee place, and the lesbian community who liked to hang there. Joe booted out two women for making out - he's a conservative Portuguese guy. The lesbians camped outside the store and boycotted it for months. It was a cause celebre.
> 
> Eventually, everybody kissed and made up.   and lesbians can once again be seen drinking coffee in Joes.   They make good coffee there, too.
> 
> ...


"you people's"



I feel embarrassed for you.


----------



## teuchter (May 17, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> It appears to be the popular but uninformed interpretation of what's going on, by people unfamiliar with the standard practices of businesses of all sorts, when it comes to zoning applications, variances etc.



So what is your knowledge of British planning law?

I deal with planning applications and the local authorities that deal with them as part of my day-to-day work.

I know that companies and individuals sometimes knowingly do stuff which they do not have planning permission for.

I know that planning authorities often fail to enforce stuff and that people sometimes get away with it.

I know that there exist 'planning consultants' whose role is to know the minutea of the planning system and the legal aspects of it, and use this to help increase the chances of planning permission being granted including in cases where retrospective permission is being sought.

I know that planning consultants are expensive to employ and that well-funded companies have, well, more funds.

I know that many local authorities (including Lambeth) are not keen to get tied up in expensive disputes and appear to prefer quibbling with householders over the details of their rear extensions than taking meaningful action against, say, damage being done to buildings within a conservation area and on a main thoroughfare.

Those are some of the things I know, anyway.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 17, 2010)

miss minnie said:


> "you people's"
> 
> 
> 
> I feel embarrassed for you.



That's sweet.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 17, 2010)

teuchter said:


> So what is your knowledge of British planning law?
> 
> I deal with planning applications and the local authorities that deal with them as part of my day-to-day work.
> 
> ...




So what you know, is that planning is such big business that consulting companies exist to help organizations skate through the planning process with the eye on the main prize - establishment of a premises no matter what.

In other words, what Starbucks did, happens all the time, with consultant assistance, even. The only difference is that because of the 'Starbucks Stigma', they get lots of publicity when they do it, followed by the requisite howls of outrage and 'it just ain't right!'


----------



## teuchter (May 18, 2010)

As far as Starbucks and "people's" discomfort about it moving into Brixton is concerned:

I think to some extent it's regarded as a symptom rather than, or as well as, a cause - it's indicative of a certain market (that Starbucks have presumably indentified as existing) and demographic. It will attract the people who don't mind paying a bit more for the convenience of the tube station location. Maybe the extra cost is part of what attracts them to the brand in the first place. They aren't bothered about chain stores predominating and won't make any active effort to support independent and locally run businesses. People who live in and like Brixton because of all the opposite things to that stuff don't like to see signs of it becoming more predominant.

The troller will try the usual thing of depicting this as the middle-class do-gooders sneering at the common folk eating in KFC and shopping in Foot Locker and engaging in their other mass consumer pursuits, but it's a bit different with Starbucks.

If anything Starbucks is a marker on the front line of a quiet war between two different brands of yuppie; one who is in Brixton really just because they can afford it and it happens to be convenient for work, and one who is here because they actually enjoy Brixton and its individuality compared with many other parts of London. Well of course it's not as simple as that and I'm sort of just saying that to wind people up a bit but perhaps you see what I am getting at.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 18, 2010)

teuchter said:


> I think to some extent it's regarded as a symptom rather than, or as well as, a cause - it's indicative of a certain market (that Starbucks have presumably indentified as existing) and demographic. It will attract the people who don't mind paying a bit more for the convenience of the tube station location. Maybe the extra cost is part of what attracts them to the brand in the first place. They aren't bothered about chain stores predominating and won't make any active effort to support independent and locally run businesses. People who live in and like Brixton because of all the opposite things to that stuff don't like to see signs of it becoming more predominant..



A plurality lives in any city, meaning people of different tastes and likes. If the people you describe above live in Brixton, then they will go to the Starbucks.

Your particular tastes and predilections do not take precedence over theirs. You might look down your nose at them as yuppified wage slaves devoid of taste, but their rights are equal to yours nonetheless.

You are of course free to complain and predict doom as much as you'd like, but if those who don't mind or are in favour of change outnumber you, then the change will happen whether you like it or not. It's one of the perils of living in a democracy.


----------



## teuchter (May 18, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> So what you know, is that planning is such big business that consulting companies exist to help organizations skate through the planning process with the eye on the main prize - establishment of a premises no matter what.
> 
> In other words, what Starbucks did, happens all the time, with consultant assistance, even. The only difference is that because of the 'Starbucks Stigma', they get lots of publicity when they do it, followed by the requisite howls of outrage and 'it just ain't right!'



No, because Starbucks are a large company, and when they move into a new area, they are typically competing with small businesses who don't have the resources to compete on equal terms. What is so strange about people being unhappy with that? Who benefits from the opening of a Starbucks, other than Starbucks themselves?

The same objections are frequently raised when, for example, Tesco or one of the other big supermarkets move in.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 18, 2010)

If a vote had been put on U75 that carried the force of law, there'd likely be no Olympics happening there in 2012, but that's going to occur also.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 18, 2010)

teuchter said:


> No, because Starbucks are a large company, and when they move into a new area, they are typically competing with small businesses who don't have the resources to compete on equal terms.



To repeat. 


Their product is shit.



Scottish people are turning their backs on Starbucks.



Here, more starbucks meant more people liking and drinking coffee, which meant more business for other independent coffee houses.


----------



## teuchter (May 18, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> A plurality lives in any city, meaning people of different tastes and likes. If the people you describe above live in Brixton, then they will go to the Starbucks.
> 
> Your particular tastes and predilections do not take precedence over theirs. You might look down your nose at them as yuppified wage slaves devoid of taste, but their rights are equal to yours nonetheless.
> 
> You are of course free to complain and predict doom as much as you'd like, but if those who don't mind or are in favour of change outnumber you, then the change will happen whether you like it or not. It's one of the perils of living in a democracy.



You're a master of stating the obvious as if there is some kind of wisdom being imparted.

None of the above explains why you are making such a big deal about people (mainly people who live in Brixton) expressing their feelings about the arrival of Starbucks, and what it may or may not represent.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 18, 2010)

I've avoided this thread so far because the whole idea pisses me off 

Can anyone offer a summary please?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 18, 2010)

teuchter said:


> The same objections are frequently raised when, for example, Tesco or one of the other big supermarkets move in.



There are a lot of replies to be made to that.

One is: they're all capitalists, in business to make money. Sam Walton started out as a small businessman. Starbucks started out with one coffee shop.

They were talented and successful, and thrived. Many of your small businesspeople would be Sam Walton if they could, but things didn't work out that way.

Why so much grief when one capitalist bests another?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 18, 2010)

teuchter said:


> You're a master of stating the obvious as if there is some kind of wisdom being imparted.
> 
> None of the above explains why you are making such a big deal about people (mainly people who live in Brixton) expressing their feelings about the arrival of Starbucks, and what it may or may not represent.



This is a discussion forum. Of course people can state their opinions.

It's just my opinion that a lot of those opinions, are based on hysteria.


----------



## teuchter (May 18, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> To repeat.
> 
> 
> Their product is shit.
> ...



The west coast of N America in the 16th century or whenever Starbucks brought the marvels of coffee to that market is not the same as Brixton in 2010 and I don't see why you bother making the comparison.

Scottish people are of course known for their refined tastes and recognition of value for money. I will naturally be delighted if the residents of Brixton measure up to such high standards even in the slightest.


----------



## teuchter (May 18, 2010)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I've avoided this thread so far because the whole idea pisses me off
> 
> Can anyone offer a summary please?



Johnny Cannuck v2.1 is bored and looking for an argument - that is the main theme, I think.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 18, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Scottish people are of course known for their refined tastes and recognition of value for money. I will naturally be delighted if the residents of Brixton measure up to such high standards even in the slightest.



But you don't want to take the chance that they might make a mistake, so you want to scotch the idea from the outset. For safety's sake.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 18, 2010)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I've avoided this thread so far because the whole idea pisses me off
> 
> Can anyone offer a summary please?



Starbucks plans Brixton outlet: local crusties howl in fear horror and outrage.


----------



## teuchter (May 18, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> There are a lot of replies to be made to that.
> 
> One is: they're all capitalists, in business to make money. Sam Walton started out as a small businessman. Starbucks started out with one coffee shop.
> 
> ...



It's dead simple: one capitalist has a greater interest in making Brixton a better place than the other.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 18, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Starbucks plans Brixton outlet: local crusties howl in fear horror and outrage.




You calling me a crusty?


----------



## paolo (May 18, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Starbucks plans Brixton outlet: local crusties howl in fear horror and outrage.



Except it's not just crusties in Brixton though, is it? There's countless mainstream US media commentary on the same lines... from movies and TV to satirical publications like the Onion.

So it's not just a few fiesty urbanites being picky.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 18, 2010)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> You calling me a crusty?



You just joined the thread; I haven't heard you howl yet.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 18, 2010)

paolo999 said:


> Except it's not just crusties in Brixton though, is it? There's countless mainstream US media commentary on the same lines... from movies and TV to satirical publications like the Onion.
> 
> So it's not just a few fiesty urbanites being picky.



One thing starbucks does, is market research. That means they're pretty sure already that they're going to make money there.

So in spite of all the whinging, it seems that a healthy percentage of the population likes starbucks.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 18, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> You just joined the thread; I haven't heard you howl yet.





Howwwwwwwwwwwwwlllllllllllllllllllllllllll  

I do like their iced green tea though, but I'd rather not have a Starfucks in Brixton thank you very much


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 18, 2010)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Howwwwwwwwwwwwwlllllllllllllllllllllllllll
> 
> I do like their iced green tea though, but I'd rather not have a Starfucks in Brixton thank you very much



I honestly and really, don't understand that attitude. You even like one of their drinks.


----------



## paolo (May 18, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> One thing starbucks does, is market research. That means they're pretty sure already that they're going to make money there.
> 
> So in spite of all the whinging, it seems that a healthy percentage of the population likes starbucks.



But you do accept that the scepticism isn't a "Brixton Crustie" thing, yes?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 18, 2010)

paolo999 said:


> But you do accept that the scepticism isn't a "Brixton Crustie" thing, yes?



Of course. That was a windup comment aimed at teuchter for his 'troller' comment amongst a few others.


----------



## teuchter (May 18, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> One thing starbucks does, is market research. That means they're pretty sure already that they're going to make money there.



Hence my comment about it being as much symptom as cause.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 18, 2010)

One thing about starbucks. I drink soy lattes. The starbucks down the street uses a better brand of soy than the independent place, but I regulary go to the independent, even though it tastes a little better at starbucks. 

You see, this is the thing you don't understand. I hate starbucks too. I just don't believe in trying to force my choices and beliefs onto others who might disagree with me and who like starbucks.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 18, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Hence my comment about it being as much symptom as cause.



But if the market demographic is already in place, then the war is already lost.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 18, 2010)

It's not so much that I hate starbucks, as I hate the people who go there.

No, that isn't right either; it's too negative.

I hate the stupid sheeplike mentality that makes people drink crappy coffee that tastes burnt, because that's what everyone else does. The kind of people who won't try the good italian coffee, because they're too unimaginative and doctrinaire to stray that far from the herd.

But having said that, I don't hate starbucks for exploiting that weakness. They're just doing what business does.


----------



## paolo (May 18, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I just don't believe in trying to force my choices and beliefs onto others who might disagree with me and who like starbucks.



Noone on this thread is forcing anything?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 18, 2010)

paolo999 said:


> Noone on this thread is forcing anything?



Only because you lack sufficient power.


----------



## teuchter (May 18, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> It's not so much that I hate starbucks, as I hate the people who go there.
> 
> No, that isn't right either; it's too negative.
> 
> I hate the stupid sheeplike mentality that makes people drink crappy coffee that tastes burnt, because that's what everyone else does. The kind of people who won't try the good italian coffee, because they're too unimaginative and doctrinaire to stray that far from the herd.



So essentially you are broadly in line with the sentiments that lead to certain people in Brixton being unhappy to see the arrival of Starbucks but you are expressing your thoughts which are that these certain people of Brixton shouldn't be expressing their thoughts, because you don't like people expressing their thoughts.

It's a bit of a muddle, you have to admit.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 18, 2010)

teuchter said:


> So essentially you are broadly in line with the sentiments that lead to certain people in Brixton being unhappy to see the arrival of Starbucks but you are expressing your thoughts which are that these certain people of Brixton shouldn't be expressing their thoughts, because you don't like people expressing their thoughts..



No. It's a discussion forum. You express your thoughts, I express mine.

And if your sentiments are the same as mine, it's something about the customers that bothers you. Banning a starbucks from the high street won't change that aspect of human nature that takes them in there in the first place.

And I might not like whatever it is that makes them go there, but I won't stand in the way of their right to do it.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 18, 2010)

I read what I write this afternoon, and I realize I'm as susceptible to acting the pompous ass as the next person.

I think starbucks tastes burnt, but I'm ignoring the possibility that some people actually like the taste of the coffee, and seek it out.

There will always be change, and there will always be those who resist it. Sometimes resistance is right, sometimes it's futile, and sometimes it's merely reactionary.


----------



## ovaltina (May 18, 2010)

I went to the Starbucks on the highway leading out of Fresno, California, once. Exactly the same as in Southampton or Sheffield or Vauxhall - even the same non-invasive jazz pootling quietly on the stereo and expensive coffee in big cardboard cups. Bit like McDonalds in that every shop is the same.

The Brighton shop replaced a locally owned and operated book shop on St James's St, which is in the gay 'village'. It caused a lot of protest because Starbucks had been so cheeky opening without permission, and also because it was competing with local businesses that had been there since St James's St was a skanky hellhole.

When they moved into the road my bf was horrified and said it would lead to vile yuppie mums pushing three wheeler prams up and down the pavement, shouting into their blackberries, and forcing the gays to leap into the road to avoid being run over. He was right. It's like bloody Hampstead now.

*eta - local shops are still doing well, but that's probably because nobody wants to be seen going to starbucks.


----------



## ChrisSouth (May 18, 2010)

I'm scratching my head here. It's ok to have HMV but not Starbuck's? Surely both high street chains?


----------



## tarannau (May 18, 2010)

To be fair HMV doesn't have anywhere near the aggressive track record of Starbuck's, nor their anti competitive antics. Wilful breaches of planning, loss leaders to kill off local independents and clustering of outlets to cannibalise local spend aren't exactly HMV's style - they're more trying to tread water than be aggressive in recent years,


----------



## editor (May 18, 2010)

ChrisSouth said:


> I'm scratching my head here. It's ok to have HMV but not Starbuck's? Surely both high street chains?


I don't recall HMV indulging in market saturation tactics to force local indie record stores out of business, using dubious anti-competitive tactics.

But your comparison is flawed anyway: how many HMV's can you see on the High Streets of Britain?


----------



## ChrisSouth (May 18, 2010)

editor said:


> I don't recall HMV indulging in market saturation tactics to force local indie record stores out of business, using dubious anti-competitive tactics.
> 
> But your comparison is flawed anyway: how many HMV's can you see on the High Streets of Britain?



My error, this should read H & M. But the point is the same. And I wouldn't dig too deeply in to Henne's ethical business stance.


----------



## tarannau (May 18, 2010)

What point is the same? A large-site fashion retailer is hardly equivalent to Starbucks and its record of anti-competitive behaviour from what I can see.


----------



## editor (May 18, 2010)

ChrisSouth said:


> My error, this should read H & M. But the point is the same. And I wouldn't dig too deeply in to Henne's ethical business stance.


Well, show us some examples of the company indulging in dodgy anti-competitive practices, breaking the planning laws and using their corporate muscle to force out independents and we can have the argument.


----------



## ChrisSouth (May 18, 2010)

tarannau said:


> What point is the same? A large-site fashion retailer is hardly equivalent to Starbucks and its record of anti-competitive behaviour from what I can see.



What's the beef with Starbucks exactly?

Putting other companies out of business? 

Or planning infringements (check Starbucks and H and M), (the sourcing of cheap clothes from underpaid and exploited workforce (check H and M), the reluctance to accept a unionised workforce (check H and M and Starbucks - both forced so to do), destroying their rubbish so that the homeless can utilise unwanted trading good (check Starbucks and H & M). 

So the point is that there's been universal praise for the arrival of H & M in Brixton, but hatred of Starbucks.


----------



## ChrisSouth (May 18, 2010)

editor said:


> Well, show us some examples of the company indulging in dodgy anti-competitive practices, breaking the planning laws and using their corporate muscle to force out independents and we can have the argument.



For sure. Try Google. I find it a useful search tool.


----------



## editor (May 18, 2010)

ChrisSouth said:


> What's the beef with Starbucks exactly?


Here's some pointers. There's lots more to  be found.


> What's wrong with Starbucks?
> 
> Chris Carris, owner of the Willow Glen Coffee Roasting Company in Willow Glen, said he lost 40 percent of his business when Starbucks moved in across the street. "They're like a strip mining operation," he said. "My business is slow. I'm still making money, but it always could be better."
> Carris said that deep corporate pockets make it impossible for him to compete with Starbucks head-to-head. "They use predatory marketing techniques," he said. "You won't beat them on advertising. You won't beat them on placement. They can support and subsidize a store that can't do well. Now they've got three stores within a three-mile radius."





> Predatory Behavior
> 
> Dollars spent at Starbucks are not spent at a local business. Money given to such places does not stay in the local economy - profits go back to the corporate office. Does this sound like an attractive future for this community?
> 
> Predatory behavior in common with that of franchise corporations such as Starbucks, which move into a market built by local people, forcing a split in the revenue and the eventual collapse of the local business that cannot afford to share the market with the interloper's deep pockets.





> For the independent cafe, Starbucks spells doom...
> 
> Starbucks openings from coast to coast have sometimes signaled the death knell for the mom-and-pop shop. In cities as diverse as Milwaikee, New Orleans and Portland, Ore., a beloved gourmet coffee house disappeared soon after a Starbucks moved in close by.
> And when Starbucks eyed Saratoga Springs, N.Y., it offered to buy Madeline's Espresso Bar. After the two sides couldn't agree on a price, Starbucks opened across the street.





> A corporation bent on becoming a global powerhouse
> 
> Now, Starbucks is waking up to the grande challenges faced by any corporation bent on becoming a global powerhouse. The stores may be oases of tranquility, but management's expansion tactics are something else. Take what critics call its "predatory real estate" strategy--paying more than market-rate rents to keep competitors out of a location.



http://www.vizettes.com/perspectives/tc/korporate/starfux/starvebucks.htm


----------



## Badgers (May 18, 2010)

If they start selling mixed grills we are all fucked


----------



## ChrisSouth (May 18, 2010)

editor said:


> Here's some pointers. There's lots more to  be found.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## teuchter (May 18, 2010)

ChrisSouth said:


> So the point is that there's been universal praise for the arrival of H & M



Has there?

I'm not especially pleased about its arrival.


----------



## tarannau (May 18, 2010)

Remarkably I agree with Teuchter. I can't say I've said a word about H&M's arrival tbh, let alone greeted them with 'universal approval.'

I'm unsure to what point ChrisS is trying to argue here. There's seems little relevance, imo, between comparing a coffee shop and a whopping clothing store, particularly given the lack of an independent sector competing with H&M around here.  Nor does H&M really have the same track record of targeting and deliberately cannibalising local competitors. Yes, I have reservations about some of H&M's sourcing policies, but the same would be true of most clothing brands, independents included, outside of the niche or more expensive sectors. Reservations about Starbucks go deeper than that - if their anticompetitive record wasn't enought, the fuckers signed up Paul Dadrock McCartney for their shitty exclusive bland-o-label for example


----------



## ajdown (May 18, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Has there?
> 
> I'm not especially pleased about its arrival.



They don't do anything I like or in my size therefore its presence is as irrelevant to me as Starbucks, as I don't take drugs.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (May 18, 2010)

OMG


----------



## teuchter (May 18, 2010)

ajdown said:


> They don't do anything I like or in my size therefore its presence is as irrelevant to me as Starbucks, as I don't take drugs.



Thanks for sharing this interesting information.


----------



## gabi (May 18, 2010)

I use the Opus coffe branch on brighton terrace. theyv'e got a captive market there being in a design agency compound so hopefully this won't affect their trade.

federation coffee's the best in brix by a stretch tho just a lil outta the way.

starbucks will be useful as a backup tho.


----------



## OpalFruit (May 18, 2010)

I will continue to go to Opus, Rosie's or Lounge depending on what exactly I am after in terms of food and drink, comfort, meeting space, relaxing ambience or location. Starbucks doesn't compete for my needs on any of those bases.


----------



## editor (May 18, 2010)

I don't think I've been to the Opus on Brighton Terrace. When did it open up? 
Anyone fancy posting up a quick review?


----------



## gabi (May 18, 2010)

It's just a window really in that courtyard where all the design agencies are clustered, by the doc's. Been there about a year i think? 

Nice lattes, lovely staff. erm, thats it  (i shoulda been a journo)


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 18, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I honestly and really, don't understand that attitude. You even like one of their drinks.




Yeah, but I wouldn't pay silly money to buy one


----------



## richtea (May 18, 2010)

Not been to Opus yet either.

There's also the new(ish) Lori's coffee window stall in the shop next to McD's on the high road who does great (and relatively cheap) coffee - there's another thread about it somewhere I think - and of course the mighty San Marino's.


----------



## nagapie (May 18, 2010)

editor said:


> I don't think I've been to the Opus on Brighton Terrace. When did it open up?
> Anyone fancy posting up a quick review?



Very good toasties and delicious thick hot chocolate. Closes early in the afternoon, probably not so busy once lunch is over.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 18, 2010)

tarannau said:


> What point is the same? A large-site fashion retailer is hardly equivalent to Starbucks and its record of anti-competitive behaviour from what I can see.



No matter what is said to contradict it, that same tired mantra gets repeated.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 18, 2010)

editor said:


> Well, show us some examples of the company indulging in dodgy anti-competitive practices, breaking the planning laws and using their corporate muscle to force out independents and we can have the argument.



But it's been proven over and over that independent's don't get forced out.



The attitude here can be paraphrased thus: 'I don't like it; therefore, neither should you. And if I had my way, you wouldn't even be able to buy it anywhere close'.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 18, 2010)

ChrisSouth said:


> What's the beef with Starbucks exactly?.



It's an American company.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 18, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Has there?
> 
> I'm not especially pleased about its arrival.



The problem is, it can't remain 1952 forever.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 18, 2010)

tarannau said:


> Remarkably I agree with Teuchter. I can't say I've said a word about H&M's arrival tbh, let alone greeted them with 'universal approval.'
> 
> I'm unsure to what point ChrisS is trying to argue here. There's seems little relevance, imo, between comparing a coffee shop and a whopping clothing store, particularly given the lack of an independent sector competing with H&M around here.  Nor does H&M really have the same track record of targeting and deliberately cannibalising local competitors. :



The cannibalizing happens through the economic power allowing them to sell more cheaply than a small independent, plus offer greater variety. It's always that way with any large corporation. Small independents survive by creating and serving a niche market, and by providing exemplary service.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 18, 2010)

64 tedious posts about a coffee shop on the other side of the fucking world and increasing rapidly.

Jesus.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 18, 2010)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> 64 tedious posts about a coffee shop on the other side of the fucking world and increasing rapidly.
> 
> Jesus.



Have you heard the news: there's a Starbucks opening in your neighborhood, real soon!


----------



## teuchter (May 18, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> But it's been proven over and over that independent's don't get forced out



Link to relevant evidence please.


----------



## nagapie (May 18, 2010)

Of course independents get forced out by large corporations, you only have to look at any high street in Britain to see that. Maybe Canadia is different, although I doubt it. 

Johnny Canuck, you talk shit.


----------



## catriona (May 18, 2010)

*oh no*

I was pleased when H&M came to Brixton but am depressed & distressed about Starbucks - can't get over seeing it as American imperialism, even if the coffee is now finally fair trade - why couldn't we have an independent coffee shop next to the tube?  I suppose they can't afford the exorbitant rent.  I pledge not to go in there and keep using Funchal or Phoenix.
Thanks Urban for letting me know
PS Granville Arcade on a Thursday evening is great


----------



## Winot (May 19, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> It's an American company.



The man talk sense.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 19, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Link to relevant evidence please.



You can't prove a negative.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 19, 2010)

catriona said:


> PS Granville Arcade on a Thursday evening is great



Thanks for reminding me of that place. I need to go there and get some pictures.


----------



## OpalFruit (May 19, 2010)

Opus has brilliant cakes - not sure if they are made by Opus, but they are definitely independently produced, not mass packaged over sweet muffins like you get in Starbucks and Nero. The one on Brighton Terrace is geared to takeaways or those wearing warm coats - there is a nice little seating area made fom railway sleeper type wood. Very good coffee and hot choc.


----------



## Gramsci (May 24, 2010)

Sesquipedalian said:


> They (Urbanites),
> Think they are being cool and radical,
> In opposing Starfucks.



And your point is?


----------



## kyser_soze (May 24, 2010)

> I was pleased when H&M came to Brixton but am depressed & distressed about Starbucks - can't get over seeing it as American imperialism



As opposed to Swedish imperialism, I guess.

This thread is full of largely predictable replies, but it's good for the lulz. I don't recall the same panic when Nero's opened in Morleys, and that's as much of a chain as 'Bucks is (altho they do better coffee). 

Thread iz funnee.


----------



## Rushy (May 24, 2010)

I get the objection to Starbucks' business practices but I'm not sure I understand the argument about 'blandification' on the high street. 

From its junction with Atlantic Road to Coldhardbour Lane, Brixton High Street's offering is hardly quirky and unique. M&S, Bodyshop, Sainsbury's Local, 3 branded mobile phone shops, Iceland, Barclays, HSBC, JBSports, something or other sports, Boots, Superdrug, KFC, McDs, Subway, Poundland (a £200million chain), Natwest, WHSmiths, Haart, Specsavers, Claire's Accessories (or maybe that's gone?). Like them or not, they are hardly unique. Surely Starbucks cannot make the spread of shops any more bland. 

I would even argue that, given the huge concentration of high street shops, even a really quirky independent coffee shop would fail to make the high street any more interesting as a whole. It is what lies behind the High Street that gives Brixton its character. I don't love Starbucks and will be unlikely to ever buy a coffee from them in Brixton but I can't get excited either way about their arrival. I could be wrong but I doubt that we will see the decent local coffee business suffer.


----------



## Ms T (May 24, 2010)

Rushy said:


> I get the objection to Starbucks' business practices but I'm not sure I understand the argument about 'blandification' on the high street.
> 
> From its junction with Atlantic Road to Coldhardbour Lane, Brixton High Street's offering is hardly quirky and unique. M&S, Bodyshop, Sainsbury's Local, 3 branded mobile phone shops, Iceland, Barclays, HSBC, JBSports, something or other sports, Boots, Superdrug, KFC, McDs, Subway, Poundland (a £200million chain), Natwest, WHSmiths, Haart, Specsavers, Claire's Accessories (or maybe that's gone?). Like them or not, they are hardly unique. Surely Starbucks cannot make the spread of shops any more bland.
> 
> I would even argue that, given the huge concentration of high street shops, even a really quirky independent coffee shop would fail to make the high street any more interesting as a whole. It is what lies behind the High Street that gives Brixton its character. I don't love Starbucks and will be unlikely to ever buy a coffee from them in Brixton but I can't get excited either way about their arrival. I could be wrong but I doubt that we will see the decent local coffee business suffer.



My guess is that Starbucks will sell lots of Frappucinos etc to people who don't really like coffee and wouldn't frequent the likes of Federation Coffee anyway.


----------



## editor (May 24, 2010)

Rushy said:


> I get the objection to Starbucks' business practices but I'm not sure I understand the argument about 'blandification' on the high street.
> 
> From its junction with Atlantic Road to Coldhardbour Lane, Brixton High Street's offering is hardly quirky and unique. M&S, Bodyshop, Sainsbury's Local, 3 branded mobile phone shops, Iceland, Barclays, HSBC, JBSports, something or other sports, Boots, Superdrug, KFC, McDs, Subway, Poundland (a £200million chain), Natwest, WHSmiths, Haart, Specsavers, Claire's Accessories (or maybe that's gone?). Like them or not, they are hardly unique. Surely Starbucks cannot make the spread of shops any more bland.


All the more reason to be disappointed at yet another faceless corporate presence, no?


----------



## kyser_soze (May 24, 2010)

As opposed to another chicken outlet or nailbar. At least they might be 'independent'


----------



## Rushy (May 24, 2010)

editor said:


> All the more reason to be disappointed at yet another faceless corporate presence, no?



I don't think so. My point is that Brixton High Street is full of High Street shops like any other high street. It is not sexy but it serves the everyday shopping needs for quite a large catchment area for whom it is the main shopping area. Whatever its pros and cons, it is what it is because that's what the majority of the population use it for.

Brixton has a lot of things which make it unique. The High Street is not one of them. It is already a sea of faceless corporations and in truth has been for a long long time. The arrival of Starbucks won't change it. If we had a high street full of local butchers and bakers etc.., or if Starbucks was opening up in one of the arcades, I think it would be cause for concern, disappointment and protest. But I was never expecting some quirky little store to pop up next to the tube, and if it had I think it unlikely that it would have much impact on the bland corporate character of the High Street. So I am not disappointed. And even perhaps slightly pleased that there is one less empty unit.

I'm far more bothered by the fact that Sainsbury's and WH Smiths leave the units above their stores empty and dirty, making the high street feel more neglected than it needs to.


----------



## editor (May 24, 2010)

Rushy said:


> I'm far more bothered by the fact that Sainsbury's and WH Smiths leave the units above their stores empty and dirty, making the high street feel more neglected than it needs to.


But that's exactly the kind of practices you get with corporates whose sole motivation is making money. An independent concern would almost certainly have made use of that precious space.


----------



## kyser_soze (May 24, 2010)

Does anyone actually know _why_ the upstairs of the Sainsbury/WHS lets are unused? I thought Sainsbury were using it as cage storage space...and contrary to what ed seems to think, grasping evil capitalists, especially retailers, tend to want to utilise every square inch of the space they're paying for equally, if not more, than 'independent concerns'.


----------



## Rushy (May 24, 2010)

editor said:


> But that's exactly the kind of practices you get with corporates whose sole motivation is making money. An independent concern would almost certainly have made use of that precious space.



Hmm - I think you have a fairly romantic view of the independent retailer. 

Not all independent retailers are aesthetes or even particularly interested in or motivated by their local environment. Just look at how crap so many of the little independent convenience stores look. At the end of the day, even the few who are not in it specifically for the money have a bottom line and will decide where they can make savings.

You only have to look at the building upstairs from San Marinos - one of my favourite cafes and a business which I think seems pretty well run on the whole - for a local example of a beautiful building, which could be an asset to our area, not being properly utilised or looked after and giving an impression of dereliction.

As for Sainsbury's and WHS - I have been meaning to pen a letter to their management and the Town Centre team for some time now but usually get distracted by something more interesting (such as the pub). Must actually get on and do this some time.


----------



## Rushy (May 24, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Does anyone actually know _why_ the upstairs of the Sainsbury/WHS lets are unused? I thought Sainsbury were using it as cage storage space...and contrary to what ed seems to think, grasping evil capitalists, especially retailers, tend to want to utilise every square inch of the space they're paying for equally, if not more, than 'independent concerns'.



I am fairly sure the original plans passed by Lambeth had a large public stair at the front giving access to shopping on the first floor. Not clear why this never happened.


----------



## teuchter (May 24, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> But it's been *proven* over and over that independent's don't get forced out.





teuchter said:


> Link to relevant evidence please.





Johnny Canuck3 said:


> You can't prove a negative.


----------



## TopCat (May 24, 2010)

Just face it you Brixton residents. Brixton has changed so much that a market exists for Starbucks and it's ilk.


----------



## lang rabbie (May 24, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Does anyone actually know _why_ the upstairs of the Sainsbury/WHS lets are unused? I thought Sainsbury were using it as cage storage space...and contrary to what ed seems to think, grasping evil capitalists, especially retailers, tend to want to utilise every square inch of the space they're paying for equally, if not more, than 'independent concerns'.



Because when Lambeth used compulsory purchase powers and massively subsidised the developer Swan Hill Properties to build the Brixton Central Site phase 1", they thought they were going to be able to attract the sort of fashion stores that operate over several floors with internal staircase/escalator.   

There were no takers of the premises, and to avoid the embarrassment of having a completely empty building after throwing so much money at it, they accepted Sainsbury's as the prime tenant.


----------



## Pie 1 (May 24, 2010)

Rushy said:


> You only have to look at the building upstairs from San Marinos - one of my favourite cafes and a business which I think seems pretty well run on the whole - for a local example of a beautiful building, which could be an asset to our area, not being properly utilised or looked after and giving an impression of dereliction.



San Marino have moved into the corner shop of 409/411 Brix Rd on the corner of Station Rd.
Their lease ran out on the old building & apparently it's looking likely that it'll be done up now.


----------



## Sesquipedalian (May 24, 2010)

Gramsci said:


> And your point is?



What's yours ?


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 24, 2010)

> From its junction with Atlantic Road to Coldhardbour Lane, Brixton High Street's offering is hardly quirky and unique.


Agree with this. I can't really get all that worked up about starbucks - there's already subway, mcds, kfc etc.


----------



## Rushy (May 24, 2010)

Pie 1 said:


> San Marino have moved into the corner shop of 409/411 Brix Rd on the corner of Station Rd.
> Their lease ran out on the old building & apparently it's looking likely that it'll be done up now.



That's great news. Wonder who will replace them? Where's the nearest Burger King?


----------



## ska invita (May 25, 2010)

i will jsut add taht an american relative came to stay and we went around central london and he couldnt believe how many strabucks there were - theres a lot more in london than in the US, according to him (hes in chicago and from LA).

overpriced - definitely, tasteless - bit harsh, though always seems sweeter, even when you dont add sugar. the biggest problem is that there are too many of them. oh, and the fact they do their best to fire you if you try and unionise


----------



## PacificOcean (May 25, 2010)

Aren't Starbucks franchised and so are independent business?

Just someone paid for the branding?


----------



## editor (May 25, 2010)

PacificOcean said:


> Aren't Starbucks franchised and so are independent business?
> 
> Just someone paid for the branding?





> *Q.    Does Starbucks franchise?*
> 
> Starbucks does not franchise operations and has no plans to franchise in the foreseeable future.
> 
> In North America, the majority of our stores are Company-operated. As an exception, Starbucks may enter into licensing arrangements with companies who provide access to real estate which would otherwise be unavailable such as airport locations, national grocery chains, major food services corporations, college and university campuses and hospitals.


Not exactly my definition of 'independent.'

http://investor.starbucks.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=99518&p=irol-faq#26956


----------



## Crispy (May 25, 2010)

lang rabbie said:


> Because when Lambeth used compulsory purchase powers and massively subsidised the developer Swan Hill Properties to build the Brixton Central Site phase 1", they thought they were going to be able to attract the sort of fashion stores that operate over several floors with internal staircase/escalator.
> 
> There were no takers of the premises, and to avoid the embarrassment of having a completely empty building after throwing so much money at it, they accepted Sainsbury's as the prime tenant.



Ah, that makes sense. In which case, I expect the 1st floors have inadequate access and servicing to be viable as independent units, which is why they remain empty.


----------



## ajdown (May 25, 2010)

Good place to put access to a 'high level station'....


----------



## Crispy (May 25, 2010)

ajdown said:


> Good place to put access to a 'high level station'....


Hmmm. maybe

You'd need to build on top of Argos as well. Would complicate things a lot. You don't really want to be doing construction over the high street or the existing railway, for safety. Not enough room between the two. I still maintain that the best place is immediately East of the arcades (or even above them, demolishing one of the avenues)


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 25, 2010)

Rushy said:


> Hmm - I think you have a fairly romantic view of the independent retailer. .



As I said earlier, Sam Walton and the founder of Starbucks started out as small businessmen with one store. And most of the independent businessmen and shopowners you know would love to be as successful as Walton: they're just not able to reproduce that success, for one reason or another.


----------



## PacificOcean (May 25, 2010)

editor said:


> Not exactly my definition of 'independent.'
> 
> http://investor.starbucks.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=99518&p=irol-faq#26956



Fair enough.

It's just Subway, McDonalds, Burger King and KFC are franchised, I just assumed that Starbucks was as well.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 25, 2010)

teuchter said:


>



Look, it's simple: just don't patronize the store. But stop bellyaching when other people happen to like the place.


----------



## innit (May 25, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> they're just not able to reproduce that success, for one reason or another.



Maybe they're less willing to compromise their principles?

I don't really know why you're still on this thread - why should you care what shops we have on our high street?


----------



## PacificOcean (May 25, 2010)

innit said:


> Maybe they're less willing to compromise their principles?
> 
> I don't really know why you're still on this thread - why should you care what shops we have on our high street?



Principles? It's a coffee shop.

He has a point though.

Someone must like it if it's turned from one little coffee shop in Seattle into a global chain?


----------



## teuchter (May 25, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Look, it's simple: just don't patronize the store. But stop bellyaching when other people happen to like the place.



Do you retract your assertion that it has been proven that "independent's [sic] don't get forced out" when companies like Starbucks enter the market?


----------



## PacificOcean (May 25, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Do you retract your assertion that it has been proven that "independent's [sic] don't get forced out" when companies like Starbucks enter the market?



Starbucks was an independent once.

Are you telling me that any of the small coffee shops in Brixton wouldn't do the same?


----------



## editor (May 25, 2010)

PacificOcean said:


> Starbucks was an independent once.
> 
> Are you telling me that any of the small coffee shops in Brixton wouldn't do the same?


Unless you go around and interview them all, you'll never know, but you'd be foolish to assume that every businessman is after global domination.

I can think of several local businesses who are more than happy to keep their scale of operation local and independent.


----------



## PacificOcean (May 25, 2010)

editor said:


> I can think of several local businesses who are more than happy to keep their scale of operation local and independent.



Fair play to them then, but who doesn't want to be a millionaire?

(I know I sound like a Tory).


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 25, 2010)

If any of the independent coffee shops get to the level of being able to cross-subsidise outlets and conduct aggressive economic campaigns to shut down competitors... that could be addressed too. Seems unlikely right now.


----------



## Gramsci (May 25, 2010)

Sesquipedalian said:


> What's yours ?



Just wondering if u where trying to make some criticism of "Urbainites"?


----------



## innit (May 25, 2010)

PacificOcean said:


> Principles? It's a coffee shop.
> 
> He has a point though.
> 
> Someone must like it if it's turned from one little coffee shop in Seattle into a global chain?



Well exactly, it's a global chain not a coffee shop.  And it's renowned for sharp business practices and having little compassion for its competitors or employees.

I imagine lots of people who open coffee shops do it cos they like good coffee and meeting people, and have very little interest in running a large business


----------



## editor (May 25, 2010)

PacificOcean said:


> Fair play to them then, but who doesn't want to be a millionaire?


Not me. I could retire tomorrow if I stuck adverts all over this site, and I've turned down tens of thousands of pounds of advertising over the years.

See? Not everyone is prepared to sell their arses to chase the big bucks.


----------



## PacificOcean (May 25, 2010)

editor said:


> Not me. I could retire tomorrow if I stuck adverts all over this site, and I've turned down tens of thousands of pounds of advertising over the years.
> 
> See? Not everyone is prepared to sell their arses to chase the big bucks.



Fair play to you.

I guess we all want different things in life - makes things more interesting.

And this site work - you couldn't just have several pages of posts saying "Yes, I agree with the OP"


----------



## grit (May 25, 2010)

innit said:


> Well exactly, it's a global chain not a coffee shop.



Why do you think they are mutually exclusive things?


----------



## Paulie (May 25, 2010)

PacificOcean said:


> Principles? It's a coffee shop.



I'm pretty sure Principles is a clothes shop.


----------



## thriller (May 25, 2010)

starbucks at brixton? aint got a problem with that.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 25, 2010)

innit said:


> Maybe they're less willing to compromise their principles?
> 
> I don't really know why you're still on this thread - why should you care what shops we have on our high street?



Maybe they're just better people. Kinder, gentler capitalists, as it were. 

I don't really care. I'm just attracted to viewing places where unwarranted hysteria is being displayed. It's a character failing of mine.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 25, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Do you retract your assertion that it has been proven that "independent's [sic] don't get forced out" when companies like Starbucks enter the market?



I'm leaving all my assertions out there for the moment.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 25, 2010)

editor said:


> Unless you go around and interview them all, you'll never know, but you'd be foolish to assume that every businessman is after global domination.
> 
> I can think of several local businesses who are more than happy to keep their scale of operation local and independent.



Most businesses would like some diversification, maybe more than one outlet if it were feasible.

Businesses like such things because it allows them to retain profitablility, even in the face of adverse developments.

Developments like -  a Starbucks opening up across the street from your one and only coffee shop.


----------



## Rushy (May 25, 2010)

editor said:


> Unless you go around and interview them all, you'll never know, but you'd be foolish to assume that every businessman is after global domination.
> 
> I can think of several local businesses who are more than happy to keep their scale of operation local and independent.



I bet you this weeks earnings that the Federation Coffee boys will be expanding as soon as they have a chance. Great name becomes great brand.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 25, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> If any of the independent coffee shops get to the level of being able to cross-subsidise outlets and conduct aggressive economic campaigns to shut down competitors... that could be addressed too. Seems unlikely right now.



When I first bought something at Starbucks, it was a just stall in Pike's Place Market in Seattle. Seemed unlikely at the time that it would become the world leader in coffee sales.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 25, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> When I first bought something at Starbucks, it was a just stall in Pike's Place Market in Seattle. Seemed unlikely at the time that it would become the world leader in coffee sales.



...and...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 25, 2010)

editor said:


> Not me. I could retire tomorrow if I stuck adverts all over this site, and I've turned down tens of thousands of pounds of advertising over the years.
> 
> See? Not everyone is prepared to sell their arses to chase the big bucks.



I know zero about your business, but I have an inkling that you do alright.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 25, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> ...and...



... it's difficult to predict the future, based upon the appearance of the present.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 25, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> ... it's difficult to predict the future, based upon the appearance of the present.



It is not in the slightest difficult to predict the future of a company that has done X and continues to do X in the precise same circumstances. Oh, will they do X now? _I wonder, let's see._


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 25, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It is not in the slightest difficult to predict the future of a company that has done X and continues to do X in the precise same circumstances. Oh, will they do X now? _I wonder, let's see._



Go back and follow the discussion I was posting about.

Back in the seventies, when Starbucks occupied maybe 200 square feet in Pike's Place Market, it was difficult to predict that it would be the world leader twenty years later.

That same inability to predict applies to you walking into some small business today and trying to guess its future.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 25, 2010)

First Starbucks in the world.


----------



## editor (May 25, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> That same inability to predict applies to you walking into some small business today and trying to guess its future.


A brief chat with the owner and a look around the kind of coffee shop they're running often gives you a pretty good insight into their aims and ambitions. 

Some businesses prefer to keep things local, friendly, independent and on a scale that suits them.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 25, 2010)

I don't like the Starbucks coffee, but I like the Starbucks story. What Starbucks proves is that if one is so inclined, it's possible to take a good and creative idea, and become wildly successful. I'm sure it's an inspiration to small businesspeople everywhere.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 25, 2010)

editor said:


> A brief chat with the owner and a look around the kind of coffee shop they're running often gives you a pretty good insight into their aims and ambitions.
> 
> Some businesses prefer to keep things local, friendly, independent and on a scale that suits them.



No doubt. The unfortunate fact of life for them, is that by doing so, they leave themselves exposed to various potential setbacks, including the appearance of competition in the neighborhood, a change in the tastes or buying patterns of the people who live nearby, etc.

It's just good business to diversify and to take other steps to strengthen  ones position in the marketplace. Those who don't, or don't want to, risk failure.


----------



## editor (May 25, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> It's just good business to diversify and to take other steps to strengthen  ones position in the marketplace. Those who don't, or don't want to, risk failure.


Spoken like a true capitalist!

Thankfully, some people prefer to support local friendly businesses rather than switch to predatory, anti-competitive corporate chains as soon as they arrive in town.

And I'll continue to do my bit to support local, small scale Brixton businesses, both my choosing to drink and eat there, and promoting them on the website.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 25, 2010)

editor said:


> Spoken like a true capitalist!
> 
> Thankfully, some people prefer to support local friendly businesses rather than switch to predatory, anti-competitive corporate chains as soon as they arrive in town.
> 
> And I'll continue to do my bit to support local, small scale Brixton businesses, both my choosing to drink and eat there, and promoting them on the website.



I'm not particularly a capitalist - but the marketplace is capitalism's playground, and operates by capitalism's rules. If an individual starting a business in the marketplace ignores or dislikes those rules, they shouldn't be surprised when they end up taking a hiding.

Non-capitalists will probably  be better off getting a salaried job. But if they want their paycheque to be secure, they better make sure their boss is a capitalist who understands the rules.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 25, 2010)

editor said:


> Thankfully, some people prefer to support local friendly businesses rather than switch to predatory, anti-competitive corporate chains as soon as they arrive in town.
> 
> And I'll continue to do my bit to support local, small scale Brixton businesses, both my choosing to drink and eat there, and promoting them on the website.



And I'll continue to do the same in Vancouver, supporting small businesses as much as possible. But neither will I think it's the end of small business when a Starbucks opens up in some local neighborhood.


----------



## teuchter (May 25, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I'm leaving all my assertions out there for the moment.



Even those that directly contradict one another.


----------



## WarmharbourLane (May 25, 2010)

I don't drink coffee - can't stand the stuff - and have mixed reactions to this news.

On the positive side - this seems to signal that the works to the tube station building might finally, FINALLY be finished after - what - ten years ?! Madness. Also - whether we like it or not, Starbucks opening in Brixton will be viewed as a positive step for the area (if only in the eyes of the outside world), and a vote of confidence for Brixton. Gone are the days when Starbucks were so fringey that they were the coffee equivalent of a Waitrose opening, but it will result in the 'retail' offering in Brixton being more positively viewed by investors/shop-owners. Also - Brixton isn't a proper shopping destination. It's somewhere peope go to buy a single item, or a variety of rather mundane things (from Boots, Smiths etc). It's not somewhere the average person would go to spend a few hours looking at shops - either chains or local ones. Starbucks pitch themselves as a mini Living Room - somewhere to spend time in. If Brixton hopes to establish itself as a half-decent shopping area again (which would benefit locally-owned shops too) then  it will need places like that for people to chill/eat/drink in. It's not my thang, but it is for a lot of people - especially those with money to spend. 

On the downside, Starbucks are up there with McDonalds and Tescos in terms of signifying the homogenisation of high streets. 'Identikit towns' etc etc. As I don't drink coffee I have no idea what suitable local alternatives there are to them locally, but if there are any nearby they wil doubtless suffer. 

In balance I am uneasy about the idea, but I won't take the knee-jerk apocalyptic view of it that others seem to have instantly taken.


----------



## gabi (May 25, 2010)

editor said:


> Spoken like a true capitalist!
> 
> Thankfully, some people prefer to support local friendly businesses rather than switch to predatory, anti-competitive corporate chains as soon as they arrive in town.
> 
> And I'll continue to do my bit to support local, small scale Brixton businesses, both my choosing to drink and eat there, and promoting them on the website.



Aren't you a windows user? Scuse me if I'm mistaken. If you are then the above is a little rich, so to speak.


----------



## editor (May 25, 2010)

gabi said:


> Aren't you a windows user? Scuse me if I'm mistaken. If you are then the above is a little rich, so to speak.


Wow. Some bizarre leap there.

I use Windows because it runs the software I need for my job and this non-profit website. Should I pack all that in, then?


----------



## editor (May 25, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> But neither will I think it's the end of small business when a Starbucks opens up in some local neighborhood.


Has anyone suggested that would be the fate for Brixton, then?

All I've seen is posts from locals concerned about the impact of a corporate chain with a very dubious history of unfairly crushing competition rocking into town.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 25, 2010)

editor said:


> Has anyone suggested that would be the fate for Brixton, then?
> 
> All I've seen is posts from locals concerned about the impact of a corporate chain with a very dubious history of unfairly crushing competition rocking into town.



When I see posts talking about 'thin edge of the wedge', I assume it means something like that.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 25, 2010)

editor said:


> a corporate chain with a very dubious history of unfairly crushing competition rocking into town.



Starbucks can do all the unfair competition it likes - it won't somehow be able to force me to go in there and drink the coffee. Will they be able to force you in there?

Then why not have enough faith in the intelligence of your fellow citizens to assume that they will be able to resist, if that's what they want to do?


----------



## teuchter (May 26, 2010)

This is really really boring now


----------



## gabi (May 26, 2010)

editor said:


> Spoken like a true capitalist!
> 
> Thankfully, some people prefer to support local friendly businesses rather than switch to predatory, anti-competitive corporate chains as soon as they arrive in town.
> 
> And I'll continue to do my bit to support local, small scale Brixton businesses, both my choosing to drink and eat there, and promoting them on the website.





editor said:


> Wow. Some bizarre leap there.
> 
> I use Windows because it runs the software I need for my job and this non-profit website. Should I pack all that in, then?



oh right. I thought from your actual full post you were against mega-corps who operated anti-competitively. Seems I misread! Sorry.


----------



## editor (May 26, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Starbucks can do all the unfair competition it likes - it won't somehow be able to force me to go in there and drink the coffee. Will they be able to force you in there?
> 
> Then why not have enough faith in the intelligence of your fellow citizens to assume that they will be able to resist, if that's what they want to do?


Because they have a *track record* of forcing out competing coffee stores leaving people with no other option_ but_ to go to Starbucks.

There's a local independent coffee shop that recently opened near the town centre, but with Starbucks' vast billions, they've just bagged themselves the #1 prime slot right next to the tube station.

Even with the most 'intelligence' in the world, busy people will generally pick the closest coffee shop to where they're going.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 26, 2010)

editor said:


> I use Windows because it runs the software I need for my job and this non-profit website. Should I pack all that in, then?



From what I've read, things got to be that way because Microsoft either crushed or bought out most of the competition.

These feckin' Seattle megacompanies, eh?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 26, 2010)

editor said:


> Even with the most 'intelligence' in the world, busy people will generally pick the closest coffee shop to where they're going.



Will you go into it because it's convenient?


----------



## editor (May 26, 2010)

gabi said:


> oh right. I thought from your actual full post you were against mega-corps who operated anti-competitively. Seems I misread! Sorry.


Your already weak point has just collapsed in a sorry heap.

Or are you suggesting that I should go ahead and lose my job to sock it to  Microsoft or whatever?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 26, 2010)

editor said:


> Because they have a *track record* of forcing out competing coffee stores leaving people with no other option_ but_ to go to Starbucks..



That website you offered as proof, had about three anecdotal stories, and in at least one of them, the proprietor said he wasn't making as much money, but was still in business.

I'm not convinced that the appearance of starbucks means the end of all nearby coffee places. It's not the case here, and as I understand it, independent coffee places continue to exist in UK.


----------



## editor (May 26, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Will you go into it because it's convenient?


In case you didn't know, Brixton is one of the biggest transport exchange hubs in London, with thousands of people coming in/off the tube and catching connecting buses. 

I don't live next to the tube, I don't commute onwards from Brixton and there's nicer coffee shoos much closer to me.


----------



## editor (May 26, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> That website you offered as proof, had about three anecdotal stories, and in at least one of them, the proprietor said he wasn't making as much money, but was still in business.
> 
> I'm not convinced that the appearance of starbucks means the end of all nearby coffee places. It's not the case here, and as I understand it, independent coffee places continue to exist in UK.


It's well documented, whether you choose to believe it or not. 

I suggest you start with Klein, N. (2001). No Logo New York: Flamingo, if you're genuinely interested in learning more.



> Some of the methods Starbucks have used to expand and maintain their dominant market position, including buying out competitors' leases, intentionally operating at a loss, and clustering several locations in a small geographical area (i.e., saturating the market), have been labeled anti-competitive by critics.
> 
> For example, Starbucks fueled its initial expansion into the UK market with a buyout of Seattle Coffee Company, but then used its capital and influence to obtain prime locations, some of which operated at a financial loss. Critics claimed this was an unfair attempt to drive out small, independent competitors, who could not afford to pay inflated prices for premium real estate


----------



## gabi (May 26, 2010)

editor said:


> Your already weak point has just collapsed in a sorry heap.
> 
> Or are you suggesting that I should go ahead and lose my job to sock it to  Microsoft or whatever?



Nah, just acknowledging the hypocrisy of condemning starbucks as corporate anti-competitive sons of bitches while typing on a dell keyboard and posting via Microsoft windows would do


----------



## editor (May 26, 2010)

gabi said:


> Nah, just acknowledging the hypocrisy of condemning starbucks as corporate anti-competitive sons of bitches while typing on a dell keyboard and posting via Microsoft windows would do


Are you drunk?

Oh, and I've got a lovely Logitech keyboard, thanks. It's great.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 26, 2010)

editor said:


> It's well documented, whether you choose to believe it or not.
> 
> I suggest you start with Klein, N. (2001). No Logo New York: Flamingo, if you're genuinely interested in learning more.



Perhaps your independents should get together and take a junket over here, so that our independents can instruct them in how to continue to thrive with a starbucks in the neighborhood. Because many of them have continued to do so for many years.

My favourite italian coffee place has a starbucks right across the street.

http://www.cafecalabria.com/

http://www.yelp.ca/biz/starbucks-coffee-company-vancouver-78

Check out the addresses.


----------



## editor (May 26, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Perhaps your independents should get together and take a junket over here, so that our independents can instruct them in how to continue to thrive with a starbucks in the neighborhood. Because many of them have continued to do so for many years.
> 
> My favourite italian coffee place has a starbucks right across the street.
> 
> ...


This is pointless. Are you saying that Starbucks have never employed anti-competitive  practices?


----------



## gabi (May 26, 2010)

editor said:


> It's well documented, whether you choose to believe it or not.
> 
> I suggest you start with Klein, N. (2001). No Logo New York: Flamingo, if you're genuinely interested in learning more.



Naomi klein?  Words fail me here. Surely she was discredited even amongst the most foolish years ago? How much did ms Klein make from royalties on that title?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 26, 2010)

editor said:


> This is pointless. Are you saying that Starbucks have never employed anti-competitive  practices?



No. I'm saying that well regarded independents serving a good product can continue to thrive whether or not a starbucks comes into the neighborhood.


Seattle's Best Coffee was another chain, not a small independent business, btw. It continues to do business here, in any event.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 26, 2010)

editor said:


> This is pointless.



Btw, it isn't pointless. It's direct evidence of a good independent coffee shop thriving with a starbucks right across the street.


----------



## editor (May 26, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Btw, it isn't pointless. It's direct evidence of a good independent coffee shop thriving with a starbucks right across the street.


And what about the evidence of shops being forced out of business? Why are you ignoring that?


----------



## editor (May 26, 2010)

gabi said:


> Naomi klein?  Words fail me here. Surely she was discredited even amongst the most foolish years ago? How much did ms Klein make from royalties on that title?


I'm not interested in what's subsequently happened to Klein, but I don't recall Starbucks taking her to court for what she documented about their practices in her book, and that's all I'm interested in here.

If you have any evidence that her information about Starbuck's practices was  incorrect, feel free to post it here. 

So what have you got? Anything other than ad hominems?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 26, 2010)

editor said:


> And what about the evidence of shops being forced out of business? Why are you ignoring that?



I'm not ignoring it. Has the introduction of a Starbucks ever caused a similar business to fail? It would be surprising if it hadn't. Business and businesses are competitive, and businesses fail all the time.

But the fact remains that well run businesses serving a good product that have built up a loyal clientele, will often survive many situations that might cause setbacks or failure - including the introduction of a starbucks.

This is what you're ignoring, and the desire to set aside or ignore evidence that independent businesses can survive the introduction of a starbucks, is what leads me to say that there is an element of hysteria to the opposition. People there should take heart in hearing that good coffee shops have survived in the face of a new starbucks.

There is another possibility: namely, that the local coffee businesses aren't really up to scratch, either in terms of product or service or whatever, and that an efficient new operation in the neighborhood will put them out of business. 

Loyalty's a good thing. I tend to be loyal to businesses that deliver the goods. I think most people are like that. If your local coffee shop isn't delivering the goods, it had better make plans to shape up really soon.


----------



## Pie 1 (May 26, 2010)

teuchter said:


> This is really really boring now



The cold dead hand of JC2 strikes yet again.


----------



## Ms T (May 26, 2010)

The people in Federation Coffee seem pretty sanguine about the imminent arrival of Starbucks.  They know their customers won't desert them.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 26, 2010)

Pie 1 said:


> The cold dead hand of JC2 strikes yet again.



You know, you might even be right, so this is the last I'll say on this thread:

There are people here who wouldn't accept it if I said that the sun was shining, on a sunny day. That's fine: I'm speaking more to the more reasonable  people of good sense.

My message has been that the advent of a Starbucks in the neighborhood, needn't sound the death knell for the good local independent. I have firsthand evidence of that from the city I live in, which also has Starbucks locations by the hundreds, including franchise operations. The good local coffee places have not only survived, they have thrived and even multiplied, themselves.

This should be good news for Brixton residents, as there's no reason for your experience to be any different than ours, assuming that the local independents were good operations in the first place.

It may be that you are against Starbucks because it's a high profile American Company, or because you think it is the left hand of the Devil or something. If so, then there's not much to discuss. To the rest of you, take note:* the end is not near.*


----------



## editor (May 26, 2010)

Ms T said:


> The people in Federation Coffee seem pretty sanguine about the imminent arrival of Starbucks.  They know their customers won't desert them.


That's not surprising seeing as it's a fair distance away and has its own clientèle, but I'm not so sure cafes like San Marino will be so laid back


----------



## Rushy (May 26, 2010)

editor said:


> with Starbucks' vast billions, they've just bagged themselves the #1 prime slot right next to the tube station.
> 
> Even with the most 'intelligence' in the world, busy people will generally pick the closest coffee shop to where they're going.





editor said:


> In case you didn't know, Brixton is one of the biggest transport exchange hubs in London, with thousands of people coming in/off the tube and catching connecting buses. .



I think the new SB will tap into the commuters using transport exchange hub in a way that other local coffee shops do not. Commuters want to get home. They don't tend to head off the beaten track to get a coffee. There's not alot catering for them in the direct walk between BR, the tube and bus stops south of the railway bridge. I imagine that there is quite a lot of commuter demand that is not being met and that SB will pick this up with minimum detriment to other shops.

I also imagine that if Brixton residents heading to the tube in the morning are in the habit of buying coffee from a local store they will continue to do so. Unless they think SB has a better product or perhaps a shorter queue. In which case that is fair competition. I am fairly sure that SB will be more expensive than most local offerings so I doubt it will be a choice made on price.


----------



## editor (May 26, 2010)

Rushy said:


> I think the new SB will tap into the commuters using transport exchange hub in a way that other local coffee shops do not.


I would have thought that San Marino was hoping for a bit of that action, no? If only they could have afforded the rent...


----------



## grit (May 26, 2010)

editor said:


> And what about the evidence of shops being forced out of business? Why are you ignoring that?



I'm interested to hear how a franchise operation accomplishes this. I've always been of the view that SB is quite expensive for what it is. My understanding is that most anti competitive practices involved pushing prices down so far that your smaller competitor doesn't have the economies of scale and has to fold.

They are also closing 100's of stores in the states so I dont think its such a cut and dried deal.


----------



## Pie 1 (May 26, 2010)

editor said:


> I would have thought that San Marino was hoping for a bit of that action, no? If only they could have afforded the rent...



Hmm, actually I think San Marino's have always been reasonably relaxed about the action they get (I used to live next door to them & spoke with them about it on occasions).
A sort of north/south divide caused by the railway bridge & location of the tube means that SM have always relied on passing trade from tube & bus goers coming from the North side of Brix, they never really got those coming from south Brix  - this is backed up by many people I know who lived south Brix, some for many years, not even knowing SM existed.
I spoke to him last week, & he's quite happy about the rise in passing trade at the weekends & evenings now that they are open until 8 in the much more prominent shop. He also has a big customer base of Brixton based workers who use it every day. 
Also a regular double shot latte in SM is still only £1.80 - I don't know what SB charges but I bet it's double that & still tastes like shit.


----------



## editor (May 26, 2010)

Pie 1 said:


> Hmm, actually I think San Marino's have always been reasonably relaxed about the action they get (I used to live next door to them & spoke with them about it on occasions).


I'm also thinking of folks who arrive early before Academy gigs which San Marino were perfectly poised to serve. There's not much at all along the strip between the tube and the Academy and having a Starbucks right next to the station may cut off a fair bit of their potential custom (assuming that both shops stay open past 6pm, of course).


----------



## passivejoe (May 26, 2010)

grit said:


> I'm interested to hear how a franchise operation accomplishes this. I've always been of the view that SB is quite expensive for what it is. My understanding is that most anti competitive practices involved pushing prices down so far that your smaller competitor doesn't have the economies of scale and has to fold.
> 
> They are also closing 100's of stores in the states so I dont think its such a cut and dried deal.



Starbucks latest annual statement suggests that they intend to cut down on franchises and increase company owned stores for this latest expansion.
The thinning out is a direct result of crowding out local shops... saturate the market until per-store growth begins to reverse then thin back out again.


----------



## Rushy (May 26, 2010)

editor said:


> I would have thought that San Marino was hoping for a bit of that action, no? If only they could have afforded the rent...



I just popped in to see them in their new place - which is great!

Had a chat and they were not worried at all about SB. Actually laughed. They said their coffee is better and cheaper and they are confident that they have a regular loyal customer base. They also do proper good priced food rather than snacks.

I don't imagine they would have preferred the other location. They certainly would not have all the outdoor seating or massive street frontage. I don't know how much they are paying, or how much the tube outlet is letting for but San Marino will have made decisions to suit their business plan. Just because SB is probably paying an arm and a leg for the site (and helping subsidise the tube by doing so) doesn't mean that all the other 'poor old' traders wanted it. I think you are worrying unnecessarily on their behalf.

If Pizza Hut returned to the high street, would it cannibalise Franco Manca's customer base? Not a chance.


----------



## passivejoe (May 26, 2010)

Rushy said:


> If Pizza Hut returned to the high street, would it cannibalise Franco Manca's customer base? Not a chance.



I think you're overestimating how discerning most people are when it comes to coffee. Starbucks sells because most people either don't know good coffee from bad or just don't care.


----------



## kyser_soze (May 26, 2010)

passivejoe said:


> I think you're overestimating how discerning most people are when it comes to coffee. Starbucks sells because most people either don't know good coffee from bad or just don't care.



Yeah, but these are Brixtonites who are in many ways like Hampstead-ites when it comes to a lot of consumer issues - I reckon there's enough coffee drinkers in Brixton to suport a Bucks and San Marino and Federation. You'll see the white, m/c types going to SMs and Federation, and the rest of Brixton visiting the Bucks, much like the differing clientele in the restaurants.


----------



## tarannau (May 26, 2010)

Have you actually been to SM during lunch hours Kyser? It's a real old mix up of local office workers and residents, not some kind of home for white m/c types


----------



## Rushy (May 26, 2010)

passivejoe said:


> I think you're overestimating how discerning most people are when it comes to coffee. Starbucks sells because most people either don't know good coffee from bad or just don't care.



On that basis - what have San Marino got to worry about? Theirs is considerably cheaper.

As for convenience, as I previously posted I imagine that there is quite a lot of commuter demand that is not being met by the position of existing outlets and that SB will pick this up with minimum detriment to other shops.


----------



## innit (May 26, 2010)

tarannau said:


> Have you actually been to SM during lunch hours Kyser? It's a real old mix up of local office workers and residents, not some kind of home for white m/c types



It never looks particularly "white m/c" at the weekend either tbf.


----------



## kyser_soze (May 26, 2010)

Sadly no, I work up and Ladbroke Grove and usually loaf in the house for lunch if I have a day off.

My comment was half serious, half pisstake, partly owing to the general levels of preciousness sometimes displayed re: Brixton food sometimes...


----------



## tarannau (May 26, 2010)

Seems daft as a slur really. You'd have been on safer and more informed ground elsewhere.


I don't think that many have been 'precious' on this thread to be fair. There's some 'red rag' dismissive stuff from JC which ain't exactly helping too.


----------



## co-op (May 26, 2010)

gabi said:


> Naomi klein?  Words fail me here. Surely she was discredited even amongst the most foolish years ago? How much did ms Klein make from royalties on that title?





Maybe I'm a bit too foolish to get it but I think she's written some pretty intelligent stuff since No Logo (which I've never read).

How's she been "discredited"?


----------



## kyser_soze (May 26, 2010)

Well, I'd argue that on a high street with a JD Sports, M&S, KFC, McDs, Carphone Warehouse, Sainsbury, H&M, T-Mobile Store, Footlocker & Specsavers that the whole premise of this thread is precious.


----------



## co-op (May 26, 2010)

editor said:


> Anything other than ad hominems?




Or ad feminam in the case of Klein.


----------



## tbaldwin (May 26, 2010)

co-op said:


> Maybe I'm a bit too foolish to get it but I think she's written some pretty intelligent stuff since No Logo (which I've never read).
> 
> How's she been "discredited"?



The book was published by Harper Collins.


----------



## kabbes (May 26, 2010)

Starbucks financial muscle is surely somewhat irrelevant when it comes to what rent the store can afford?  Each store has to be able to make a profit by itself.  If an independent can't make sufficient profit to justify that rent level then I don't see how Starbucks will be able to either (and vice versa).


----------



## editor (May 26, 2010)

co-op said:


> Maybe I'm a bit too foolish to get it but I think she's written some pretty intelligent stuff since No Logo (which I've never read).
> 
> How's she been "discredited"?


I'm not familiar with any of her other work, so after gabi's damning comment I looked her up on t'internet.

I couldn't find any widespread condemnation of her "discredited" writings then or since, so hopefully gabi will show us some examples. There was some recent controversy about her criticism of Israeli policies, but all I could generally find was rather positive stuff like: 



> Klein ranked 11th in an internet poll of the top global intellectuals of 2005, a list of the world's top 100 public intellectuals compiled by the Prospect magazine in conjunction with Foreign Policy magazine...
> 
> The publication of The Shock Doctrine increased Klein's prominence, with the New Yorker judging her "the most visible and influential figure on the American left—what Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky were thirty years ago." On February 24, 2009, the book was awarded the inaugural Warwick Prize for Writing from the University of Warwick in England.


And as for gabi's dismissive comment on her earnings:


> In 2002 Klein published Fences and Windows, a collection of her articles and speeches written on behalf of the anti-globalization movement (all proceeds from the book go to benefit activist organizations through The Fences and Windows Fund).
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Klein


----------



## kyser_soze (May 26, 2010)

Starbucks are known to use loss leader tactics in some areas in order to drive out local competition, at which time the loss making shop is closed and moved to cheaper rents, having hoovered up all the local trade.


----------



## co-op (May 26, 2010)

tbaldwin said:


> The book was published by Harper Collins.






Tbh I think it's just about impossible to distribute globally without using corporate scum these days.


----------



## editor (May 26, 2010)

kabbes said:


> Starbucks financial muscle is surely somewhat irrelevant when it comes to what rent the store can afford?  Each store has to be able to make a profit by itself.  If an independent can't make sufficient profit to justify that rent level then I don't see how Starbucks will be able to either (and vice versa).


Big corporate chains can afford to run at a loss for as long as it takes to achive their objectives. It's rarely an option for small businesses.


----------



## kyser_soze (May 26, 2010)

She actually makes a point about that in No Logo IIRC. Can't remember what it was exactly, but she does address the basic issue of an anti-cap being published by Murdoch.


----------



## co-op (May 26, 2010)

editor said:


> I'm not familiar with any of her other work, so after gabi's damning comment I looked her up on t'internet.
> 
> I couldn't find any widespread condemnation of her "discredited" writings then or since, so hopefully gabi will show us some examples. There was some recent controversy about her criticism of Israeli policies, but all I could generally find was rather positive stuff like:



_The Shock Doctrine_ is a very smart book imo (whereas I mst admit I ducked _No Logo_ because I thought it looked a bit obvious). I'd really recommend it.


----------



## kabbes (May 26, 2010)

Right, so eventually moving to a place that's cheaper to rent is a critically important part of the corporate strategy?  Because otherwise, you're operating at a loss for ever, right?

So a genuine question -- has anybody noticed this for real?  I can think of a fuckton of Starbucks, like most people can, I should imagine, but they're all still exactly where they started.


----------



## editor (May 26, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> She actually makes a point about that in No Logo IIRC. Can't remember what it was exactly, but she does address the basic issue of an anti-cap being published by Murdoch.


Her family score max Leftie cred points too



> And Klein seems perfectly placed to offer answers, since the history of her family is like a history of the Left.
> 
> Philip Klein, her grandfather, was an animator at Disney, and organised the first strike there, as a result of which he was sacked and blacklisted. He taught her to 'always look for the dirt behind the shine'.
> 
> ...


----------



## grit (May 26, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Starbucks are known to use loss leader tactics in some areas in order to drive out local competition, at which time the loss making shop is closed and moved to cheaper rents, having hoovered up all the local trade.



How when in general they are more expensive then their competitors?


----------



## editor (May 26, 2010)

grit said:


> How when in general they are more expensive then their competitors?


Brand power, no? And maybe faster service with extra staff hired in at a loss?


----------



## grit (May 26, 2010)

editor said:


> Brand power, no? And maybe faster service with extra staff hired in at a loss?



Thats not loss leader, and considering each is treated as a separate business unit I've never come across them having too much staff. In fact anytime I'm in one I feel sorry for the poor fuckers serving me. There are also plenty of thriving cafe's in close proximity to any of the starbucks in my area. 

I'm not surprised the staff of San Marino laughed, its a different business model that doesnt attempt to unfairly compete with them.


----------



## kyser_soze (May 26, 2010)

kabbes said:


> Right, so eventually moving to a place that's cheaper to rent is a critically important part of the corporate strategy?  Because otherwise, you're operating at a loss for ever, right?
> 
> So a genuine question -- has anybody noticed this for real?  I can think of a fuckton of Starbucks, like most people can, I should imagine, but they're all still exactly where they started.



AFAIK they only really did it in the US where there were more shenanigans regarding things like business rates with local authorities involved. Plus as a tactic it only really works where there's either a very high or very low density of population - e.g. in a small town with one or two other cafés, or somewhere like Westminster or The City (both of which have successfully managed to maintain independent traders as well as 'bucks).


----------



## Pie 1 (May 26, 2010)

Rushy said:


> I just popped in to see them in their new place - which is great!
> 
> Had a chat and they were not worried at all about SB. Actually laughed. They said their coffee is better and cheaper and they are confident that they have a regular loyal customer base.


----------



## Sesquipedalian (May 27, 2010)

Rushy said:


> I think the new SB will tap into the commuters using transport exchange hub in a way that other local coffee shops do not. Commuters want to get home. They don't tend to head off the beaten track to get a coffee. There's not alot catering for them in the direct walk between BR, the tube and bus stops south of the railway bridge. I imagine that there is quite a lot of commuter demand that is not being met and that SB will pick this up with minimum detriment to other shops.
> 
> I also imagine that if Brixton residents heading to the tube in the morning are in the habit of buying coffee from a local store they will continue to do so. Unless they think SB has a better product or perhaps a shorter queue. In which case that is fair competition. *I am fairly sure that SB will be more expensive than most local offerings *so I doubt it will be a choice made on price.



Excellent post.

(Apart from the bit in bold.)


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 27, 2010)

editor said:


> Big corporate chains can afford to run at a loss for as long as it takes to achive their objectives. It's rarely an option for small businesses.





> Brand power, no? And maybe faster service with extra staff hired in at a loss?



One last thing. A large company probably could afford to run a location at a loss indefinitely, but it's unlikely to do so. Each location will have a business plan, forecasts etc, and it it doesn't come within the plan, it will be closed.  With over 200 locations in Greater London, penetration of the Brixton market probably isn't all that critical.

Wages at coffee shops usually hover at or just above minimum wage, so Starbucks will find it difficult to undercut the competition on wages.

It's also been mentioned that Starbucks can afford to undersell the product as a loss leader to build up a clientele.  I've never seen, nor am I aware of, a situation where a starbucks location new or old has sold outside of the prescribed pricing structure. Uniformity is one of the virtues of the multioutlet operation, and starbucks seems to follow it scrupulously.

As for buying power due to economies of scale, Starbucks has large buying power. Small independents defray that advantage by using large wholesaling companies to provide their food ingredients etc. In essence, it's like a buying cooperative made up of many independents, which allows the same economies of scale to operate. The biggest of these locally is called Sysco Corp., and I'd be very surprised if there weren't similar companies  operating in UK.

http://www.sysco.com/


----------



## playghirl (Jun 2, 2010)

miss minnie said:


> San Marino is looking resplendent this morning with its smart black and white branded canvas 'fence' surrounding the outdoor tables and chairs.  With its new location I think it will do very well this summer.



I make a point of travelling out of my way so I can get their coffee in Brixton. I like them.


----------



## Sesquipedalian (Jun 3, 2010)

playghirl said:


> I make a point of travelling out of my way so I can get their coffee in Brixton. I like them.



Do you not think the staff,
Are a bit............?

Even with the regulars ?


----------



## Greenfish (Aug 6, 2010)

*Starbucks in Brixton*

Anyone see that in The South London Press?

Apparently it is already being built and prepared to open next door to the Tube.

What do people think about a starbucks in Brixton?


----------



## Tolpuddle (Aug 6, 2010)

Makes one feel one has fucking arrived. One will increase mortgage for the privilage. Any chance it will bomb? are they franchises???


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Aug 7, 2010)

I really miss the caff by the side of the tube that used to be run by the people who run the flower stall. They got moved out but were promised they could move back after the TFL building work. They were lied to.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Aug 7, 2010)

^That makes me a bit sad as I like the flower stall people.
Another good reason not to go to starbucks then.


----------



## oryx (Aug 7, 2010)

Aren't Starbucks notorious for negotiating with property developers and landlords and forcing out small, independent coffee bars?

I'm not in Brixton all that often these days but when I am I certainly won't be frequenting Starbucks - (also because their coffee is vile IMHO).


----------



## Belushi (Aug 7, 2010)

oryx said:


> Aren't Starbucks notorious for negotiating with property developers and landlords and forcing out small, independent coffee bars?
> 
> I'm not in Brixton all that often these days but when I am I certainly won't be frequenting Starbucks - (also because their coffee is vile IMHO).



Yep, their mo is to flood an area with branches forcing independent coffee shops out of business and then shutting down most of the branches they've opened.

And their Coffee is rank.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Aug 7, 2010)

Indeed, starbucks is run by a bunch of crooks. They blatantly broke the law and muscled their way into the town where I live and tried to get other local busineses closed down. The council tried to take them on at first in the courts but it became too expensive and they're still open. The good news is that most people boycott them and they're struggling to keep it going.


----------



## thriller (Aug 7, 2010)

Brixton is hip and happening. It must therefore have a Starbucks. Gonna be full of trendy twenty something City boys and girls.


----------



## paolo (Aug 8, 2010)

I'm not even sure that crowd are particularly impressed by Starbucks. It's not exactly a lifestyle statement.


----------



## simonautomatic (Aug 8, 2010)

I saw the Starbucks site this evening (for the first time) and felt really really depressed that this is happening here. Brixton is full of excellent independent coffee houses, all well. But of course I bet none of them were offered that prime retail spot (right next to the tube entrance). I'd love to know what shady dealings went on between TFL and Starbucks. Anyone got the inside scoop? I'd gladly protest and write rude letters if I know who the culprit is here.

Just for the record, here is where everyone should be buying their coffee (in the immediate vicinity):

Opus 2 (In Piano Square, where the old Vox club was - opposite "Refill").
San Marino (now wonderfully relocated on the corner of Brixton Station Road)
Lori's Frothy Coffee (the guy who used to sell coffee at Brixton's Bazaar, now relocated in the newsagents by McDonalds)
Burning Bread (Coldharbour lane, was "Honest foods", now new management and much improved)
Wild Caper (Market Row)
Rosie's Deli (Market Row)
Federation Coffee (Brixton Village, right at the back)

(And I'm sure there are others)


----------



## Spark (Aug 9, 2010)

There's also a new place opened on Atlantic Rd, near Argos. I think it's called Azmarino. It's a perfect spot for the people walking between the overland station and tube. It's seemed quite busy in the mornings.

I haven't tried it so don't know if it's any good but it's in a good location to be an independent alternative for those commuters (who I expect are one of starbucks' target markets)


----------



## ericjarvis (Aug 9, 2010)

I suppose we could always arrange a picket when it opens. With placards like "Brixtonians won't drink crap" and "Say no to shit coffee".


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Aug 9, 2010)

"We won't drink your muck"


----------



## charcol (Aug 9, 2010)

simonautomatic said:


> I saw the Starbucks site this evening (for the first time) and felt really really depressed that this is happening here. Brixton is full of excellent independent coffee houses, all well. But of course I bet none of them were offered that prime retail spot (right next to the tube entrance). I'd love to know what shady dealings went on between TFL and Starbucks. Anyone got the inside scoop? I'd gladly protest and write rude letters if I know who the culprit is here.



As I understand, an independent start-up wanted a market pitch outside the tube station (directly in front of the proposed location) but it soon became clear to TfL that they could get a good return on leasing the unit. They went out to tender, Starbucks showed an interest and were never likely to lose out. Can't remember what rent is being charged, but it's a lot more than a market pitch and kiosk would cost - and the footfall on that spot is a goldmine.


----------



## ericjarvis (Aug 9, 2010)

"What do we want?"
"Coffee"
"Where do we want it?"
"Not from fucking Starbucks"


----------



## kyser_soze (Aug 9, 2010)

Yet I somehow think that this Starbucks will do a brisk trade, from a fairly wide demographic of Brixton's populace. Amazing!


----------



## pogofish (Aug 9, 2010)

Greenfish said:


> What do people think about a starbucks in Brixton?


 
You could surely try the long-running "Starbucks in Brixton" thread that is already here?

Here you go:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/threads/324834-Starbucks-coming-to-Brixton?


----------



## kyser_soze (Aug 9, 2010)

Or you could take a wild guess that it wouldn't be very popular. And that would be really throwing one out into the leftfield, that guess.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 9, 2010)

merged


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2010)

Seeing as urban75 comes number 1 in Google for "Brixton coffee" I'll do my little bit to divert people to local coffee shops selling great coffee instead of $tarbucks,.


----------



## kyser_soze (Aug 9, 2010)




----------



## Crispy (Aug 9, 2010)

editor said:


> $tarbucks


 
 Aw


----------



## Kanda (Aug 9, 2010)

Damn, more local job creation!


----------



## Crispy (Aug 9, 2010)

Kanda said:


> Damn, more local job creation!


 
although, tbf, less local _wealth_ creation - all profits from chains like this leave the area.


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Aw


 
That was for the old folks.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 9, 2010)

It'll be nice to sit in Windrush Square with a Starbucks, experiencing the well designed and well built environment.


----------



## Janh (Aug 9, 2010)

*Max's espresso gets my vote*



editor said:


> Seeing as urban75 comes number 1 in Google for "Brixton coffee" I'll do my little bit to divert people to local coffee shops selling great coffee instead of $tarbucks,.



My coffee vote goes to Max the Portuguese cafe at 18 Brixton Station Road. Excellent espresso.


----------



## PacificOcean (Aug 9, 2010)

Starbucks works on the franchise model.  It's not Starbucks opening in Brixton, but an individual that has bought into the "Starbucks Brand" at he or she's own expense - hiring local people.

You don't like Starbucks Coffee?  Then don't go there and after you have got off your high horse, maybe you can explain to the local people of Brixton, why they no longer have a job?


----------



## paolo (Aug 9, 2010)

Starbucks uses a franchise model? Rly?

10 seconds on google says it doesn't.

Maybe my googling was wrong. I await links.


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2010)

PacificOcean said:


> Then don't go there and after you have got off your high horse, maybe you can explain to the local people of Brixton, why they no longer have a job?


That makes no sense at all, I'm afraid.


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2010)

PacificOcean said:


> Starbucks works on the franchise model.


From the Starbucks website:



> *1.	Does Starbucks franchise?*
> *Starbucks does not franchise operations and has no plans to franchise in the foreseeable future.*
> 
> http://investor.starbucks.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=99518&p=irol-faq#26956


----------



## paolo (Aug 9, 2010)

editor said:


> From the Starbucks website:


 
Gah! You ruined the fun!


----------



## PacificOcean (Aug 9, 2010)

editor said:


> From the Starbucks website:


 
Hands up in this case, I was wrong.  (Who am I thinking of then, Burger King?).

But they still employ local people.


----------



## ericjarvis (Aug 9, 2010)

PacificOcean said:


> Hands up in this case, I was wrong.  (Who am I thinking of then, Burger King?).
> 
> But they still employ local people.


 
So does any cafe. There's no objection to anyone selling decent coffee, especially not if it's a local business. However I don't see that a multinational winning a bid against local competition is a good thing for the working people of Brixton.

So may I reiterate.

"Can't taste, won't taste"


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2010)

PacificOcean said:


> Hands up in this case, I was wrong.  (Who am I thinking of then, Burger King?).
> 
> But they still employ local people.


 Indeed they do, but they've also been known to make _other local people unemployed too_! And make things difficult for long standing cafes who have been employing local people for years on end who can't compete with their massive advertising budget or their ability to buy prime commercial locations.

There's lots you can read on the subject if you'd like to get a little bit, well, better informed.


----------



## pogofish (Aug 9, 2010)

editor said:


> Indeed they do, but they've also been known to make _other local people unemployed too_! And make things difficult for long standing cafes who have been employing local people for years on end who can't compete with their massive advertising budget or their ability to buy prime commercial locations.



Not just other people - I've recently been made aware that Starbucks have imposed quite significant cuts in staff hours across all but the busiest/most high profile cafes.

Managers have had very little choice but to either reduce hours, lay-off staff or not fill vacant posts in order to meet the cuts, which are OTOH somewhere around 20% of total hours.  Needless to say, this had made things hard for the poor sods who work there.

Yes, I do know two Starbucks managers - they are decent folk and both hate the company but in their line, even a manager's position at Starbucks, running their own shop is still valuable as a career stepping stone towards getting their own place to run as they want.


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2010)

Here's how shitty Starbucks treats their staff - this protest took place in the States recently:



> Omaha, NE- Baristas and community supporters shut down the 15th and Douglas Starbucks (SBUX) this morning demanding that management reverse all cuts to healthcare, staffing, and benefits that have been imposed during the recession. The baristas claim that executives have no justification to squeeze working families with Starbucks raking in profits of $977.2 million in the past four fiscal quarters.
> 
> “We are being squeezed, and we can’t take it any more. Since the recession began, Starbucks executives have ruthlessly gutted our standard of living. They doubled the cost of our health insurance, reduced staffing levels, cut our hours, all while demanding more work from us. Starbucks is now more than profitable again. It’s time for management to give back what they took from us,” said Sasha McCoy, a shift supervisor at the store.
> 
> ...


And  talking about people losing their jobs, let's not forget the thousands of workers dumped by Starbucks last year. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...as-coffee-retailer-Starbucks-shuts-shops.html


----------



## pogofish (Aug 9, 2010)

editor said:


> let's not forget the thousands of workers dumped by Starbucks last year.



The cuts I'm talking about have only been imposed in the last couple of months. So they will be on top of the ones you report.  

I suppose that says a lot about Starbucks UK's continuing attitude towards their staff.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 10, 2010)

I had no idea  . . . there are 155 of these within five miles of Charring Cross Station. 205 within ten miles.

http://www.starbucks.co.uk/en-GB/_Our+Stores/


----------



## kyser_soze (Aug 10, 2010)

The High Street BS:







The High Street AS:


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 10, 2010)

They should lay that with some nice stone and put in a water feature.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 10, 2010)

As long as it's value for money, I don't mind


----------



## editor (Aug 10, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> I had no idea  . . . there are 155 of these within five miles of Charring Cross Station. 205 within ten miles.
> 
> http://www.starbucks.co.uk/en-GB/_Our+Stores/


What's that got to do with the hundreds of people Starbucks laid off in the UK?

Still, at least the boss is doing OK, awarding himself a _base wage_ of $1.3m while his company is busy sacking workers or slashing their wages and health benefits in the US.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8471500.stm


----------



## teuchter (Aug 10, 2010)

Starbucks are hardly alone in closing stores, laying people off and trimming their business at the moment, though.

In any case, if we don't want a Starbucks in Brixton shouldn't we be pleased that they are shutting up shop elsewhere?


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 10, 2010)

editor said:


> What's that got to do with the hundreds of people Starbucks laid off in the UK?


 It wasn't intended as a related point. I just didn't know they had anywhere near that many outlets 

My guess is they don't just open one outlet in a local area, that the strategy is to swamp areas, trying to strangle the competition. That would also be consistent with a non-franchising MO.


----------



## passivejoe (Aug 10, 2010)

editor said:


> What's that got to do with the hundreds of people Starbucks laid off in the UK?
> 
> Still, at least the boss is doing OK, awarding himself a _base wage_ of $1.3m while his company is busy sacking workers or slashing their wages and health benefits in the US.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8471500.stm


 
Well... Schultz is the founder of the company... grew it from nothing to the monster it is today and has recently, in the face of stiffer competition from McCafe etc, cut costs and saved the company's share price from plummeting. They  had to lay off people to do it (as BA should be allowed to) in order to remain a competitive viable business that can continue to employ workers and continue to expand in Asia.  Its just a business cycle... find an unexplored market / develop a new market, grow, face competition from new rivals who want a piece of your market, cut costs to compete as industry matures etc etc.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 10, 2010)

Maybe I should go to Starbucks for lunch.  This thread has put me in the mood for a cinnamon swirl.


----------



## passivejoe (Aug 10, 2010)

passivejoe said:


> Well... Schultz is the founder of the company... grew it from nothing to the monster it is today and has recently, in the face of stiffer competition from McCafe etc, cut costs and saved the company's share price from plummeting. They  had to lay off people to do it (as BA should be allowed to) in order to remain a competitive viable business that can continue to employ workers and continue to expand in Asia.  Its just a business cycle... find an unexplored market / develop a new market, grow, face competition from new rivals who want a piece of your market, cut costs to compete as industry matures etc etc.


 
BTW, not saying its morally right, just that its almost inevitable. Schultz could take a smaller salary but at CEO level for a company that big that is doing so well, it's not outrageous.


----------



## ajdown (Aug 10, 2010)

Presumably enough people drink coffee to keep all these places in business.

Can't see why though.  Disgusting stuff.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 10, 2010)

ajdown - isn't the monitor 6" in front of you? The way you have it suggests a rather long neck.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 10, 2010)

Gosh, have I been travelling that long? I come back and I don`t know how to work the buttons. 

Main thing I want to say is about Belushi`s post number 330. Imo, paragraph two is bang on, but paragraph one is hooey.

When I try to type a question mark on this computer, what I get is a É.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 10, 2010)

p.s. I`ve now been in 9 out of 10 Canadian provinces. I didn`t make it to Newfoundland. But in the 9 I have visited, there are Starbucks and local independent coffee houses. In fact, in the Maritime provinces, Timmy Ho`s, another chain, but one started in Canada, has it way over Starbucks in the number of outlets. The thing about Timmy Ho, is the coffee tastes good, and the iced drink is only $2.50 instead of five bucks.

I think the reason Timmy Ho has done so well, is because the coffee tastes good.


----------



## editor (Aug 10, 2010)

passivejoe said:


> Well... Schultz is the founder of the company... grew it from nothing to the monster it is today and has recently, in the face of stiffer competition from McCafe etc, cut costs and saved the company's share price from plummeting.


How fortunate that while he was busy sacking thousands of workers and leaving others unable to afford health cover, he still managed to trouser himself vast amounts of cash throughout. 


> Howard Schultz's base salary raised to $1.3 million for Starbucks' fiscal 2010
> That's from about $10,000 in fiscal 2009, when the Starbucks CEO requested that it be reduced to the minimum necessary for him to continue receiving health-care and other benefits. Schultz's salary for the previous few years had been $1.2 million.
> 
> His total compensation in fiscal 2008 was $9.7 million. We're still waiting for a proxy filing to find out what it was in fiscal 2009, when he was not eligible for a standard bonus but did receive stock options, making his pay directly tied to Starbucks' stock performance. Shares rose 40 percent during Starbucks' fiscal 2009.
> ...


----------



## PacificOcean (Aug 10, 2010)

Ah, for some reason on these boards working for an indie coffee shops means you are to earn £££.

While the owner of said indie coffee shop, gives all his profits to help the campaign in Pakistan. 

While Starbucks pays less than the minimum wage (which I guarantee is what they are getting in San Marcos) and gives it all to blood diamond mines - no wait, they are listed company, which means their profits go to paying our pensions.


----------



## PacificOcean (Aug 10, 2010)

editor said:


> How fortunate that while he was busy sacking thousands of workers and leaving others unable to afford health cover, he still managed to trouser himself vast amounts of cash throughout.


 
Do any of the independent coffee shops in Brixton provide their low paid workers with private health insurance?


----------



## Crispy (Aug 10, 2010)

PacificOcean said:


> Do any of the independent coffee shops in Brixton provide their low paid workers with private health insurance?


 
No, because this isn't the USA and that's not how health provision works over here?


----------



## PacificOcean (Aug 10, 2010)

Crispy said:


> No, because this isn't the USA and that's not how health provision works over here?


 
Right.

So what is the problem of low paid workers in Brixton getting a job (albeit a shitty one - though not necessarily, my favourite ever job was working at Burger King at the old Megabowl in Streatham) with a big company?

What's the difference between earning the minimum wage at San Marcos or Starbucks?

In these times any job opportunities has to be a good thing?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 10, 2010)

Coffee shop chain workers don`t get health insurance provided by the company here either.


----------



## pogofish (Aug 10, 2010)

PacificOcean said:


> Do any of the independent coffee shops in Brixton provide their low paid workers with private health insurance?


 
However, my posts refer to recent changes at Starbucks in the UK, where already low-paid workers have had to deal with a 20% cut in overall hours, which means that individually, they have to work much harder and earn less for the pleasure.


----------



## PacificOcean (Aug 10, 2010)

pogofish said:


> However, my posts refer to recent changes at Starbucks in the UK, where already low-paid workers have had to deal with a 20% cut in overall hours, which means that individually, they have to work much harder and earn less for the pleasure.


 
I am not sure I follow.  Their hours have been cut, so they have to make coffee faster?


----------



## pogofish (Aug 11, 2010)

PacificOcean said:


> I am not sure I follow.  Their hours have been cut, so they have to make coffee faster?



In most cases, it means staff rotas are adjusted so all staff work less hours, usually with fewer on duty at any one time.  Which means less pay overall - Or vacancies are not filled, which means less folk to do the work.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 19, 2010)

So. They are having a grand opening tomorrow. Who will be attending?

By the way, maybe it is yet to appear, but they seem to have omitted to provide a modesty strip on the glass facing into the stairs down to the tube.


----------



## gaijingirl (Aug 19, 2010)

teuchter said:


> So. They are having a grand opening tomorrow. Who will be attending?
> 
> By the way, maybe it is yet to appear, but they seem to have omitted to provide a modesty strip on the glass facing into the stairs down to the tube.


 
took me a while to get this - but do you mean that you caught a flash of someone's knickers from the stairs?

Saw someone coming out this afternoon with one of those milkshakey looking things... quite stunned to see a Starbucks there somehow..


----------



## teuchter (Aug 19, 2010)

gaijingirl said:


> took me a while to get this - but do you mean that you caught a flash of someone's knickers from the stairs?


 
No, because there wasn't anyone in there, but yes that's what I mean. If you look at most places which have stools for people to sit at by the window, there is an opaque band running along the window for this reason. Particularly where the pavement level is lower than the interior of the cafe, and definitely necessary on that window onto the stairs!


----------



## Boudicca (Aug 20, 2010)

So now there's a Facebook group:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/BanBoycott-Brixton-Starbuck/141775142520189


----------



## Kanda (Aug 20, 2010)

Boudicca said:


> So now there's a Facebook group:
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/pages/BanBoycott-Brixton-Starbuck/141775142520189


 
Classy


----------



## Kanda (Aug 20, 2010)

The guy that stated it calls Brixton 'Bricky'


----------



## ajdown (Aug 20, 2010)

So who's going to start a "We are glad there's a Starbucks in Brixton" group and troll the hell out of that group?


----------



## miss minnie (Aug 20, 2010)

Kanda said:


> The guy that stated it calls Brixton 'Bricky'


A rather Antipodean mannerism


----------



## Kanda (Aug 20, 2010)

ajdown said:


> So who's going to start a "We are glad there's a Starbucks in Brixton" group and troll the hell out of that group?


 
I'm not glad, but am happy I can now get a coffee on the way to work. Nowhere else is open at that time.


----------



## paolo (Aug 20, 2010)

Kanda said:


> I'm not glad, but am happy I can now get a coffee on the way to work. Nowhere else is open at that time.


 
You'll have to stop wearing skirts though.


----------



## Kanda (Aug 20, 2010)

paolo999 said:


> You'll have to stop wearing skirts though.


 
Bugger!


----------



## teuchter (Aug 20, 2010)

Kanda said:


> I'm not glad, but am happy I can now get a coffee on the way to work. Nowhere else is open at that time.


 
What about McDonalds?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 20, 2010)

miss minnie said:


> A rather Antipodean mannerism


 
I'm going to start a facebook group called "Ban / Boycott Brixton Based Australian$"


----------



## Onket (Aug 20, 2010)

Or that little window next door (or two doors down) from McDonalds?


----------



## Kanda (Aug 20, 2010)

Don't they're open when I go through (McDonalds might be but nothx)


----------



## teuchter (Aug 20, 2010)

A lot of people say the coffee in McDonalds is better than in Starbucks. Personally I've never tried either.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 20, 2010)

Onket said:


> Or that little window next door (or two doors down) from McDonalds?


 
Yeah I was going to say that but I decided to trust Kanda to have done his research properly and that it is therefore not open early.


----------



## Onket (Aug 20, 2010)

I dunno, he seems to have given up on his last post halfway through.


----------



## Kanda (Aug 20, 2010)

I've seen it open when I'm on a late shift, never when on an early.


----------



## Onket (Aug 20, 2010)

Both places? I'm surprised at that.


----------



## Kanda (Aug 20, 2010)

Eh? I told you I'm not going to McD's. I'm sure the kiosk isn't when I go through either. Whatever pal...


----------



## Onket (Aug 20, 2010)

Kanda said:


> Eh? I told you I'm not going to McD's. I'm sure the kiosk isn't when I go through either. Whatever pal...


 
Simmer down. You're last post wasn't clear, that's all.
See-



Kanda said:


> Don't they're open when I go through (McDonalds might be but nothx)


----------



## Kanda (Aug 20, 2010)

Sorry, exhausted and grumpy.


----------



## Onket (Aug 20, 2010)

No probs.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Aug 21, 2010)

Very weird,  was using the tube early the day it opened.  Looked closed and a mess in the morning.  Came back in the evening and it's open with people sitting there
It's pretty unobtrusive, which is a good thing.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 1, 2010)

Starbucks haters will be pleased to know that they have had to close in Dorking due to a lack of custom.  It seems that people prefer the tea rooms in the antique shops instead.


----------



## editor (Nov 1, 2010)

kabbes said:


> Starbucks haters will be pleased to know that they have had to close in Dorking due to a lack of custom.  It seems that people prefer the tea rooms in the antique shops instead.


Respect to the discerning  folks of Dorking.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Nov 1, 2010)

Never got why people are so down on Starbucks. 

I dont know about the rest of the country but I dont remember to many of these mythical small coffee shops that they supposedly force to close down being in London. 

I think the addition of Starbucks and all the other coffee shops is a good thing for the City. Personally I dont go for all this 'decaff latte with a walnut whip' nonsense but I think they offer a nice place to sit down, read a paper and enjoy something non-alcholic without having to order food.


----------



## PacificOcean (Nov 1, 2010)

teuchter said:


> A lot of people say the coffee in McDonalds is better than in Starbucks. Personally I've never tried either.


 
Do you want a medal for this?

How do you know if either coffee is any good if you have not tried it?

I remember cafes in my youth, coffee was industrial sized tins of instant Nescafe served in a plastic type cup.

If you don't like Starbucks, don't go there - I don't get the argument?


----------



## jakejb79 (Nov 1, 2010)

And certainly the local coffee shops that people are so worried over possibly closing wont close unless their customers desert them for Starbucks. People won't go in Starbucks if they dont want too, they're not forced too.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 1, 2010)

PacificOcean said:


> How do you know if either coffee is any good if you have not tried it?


 
I don't.


----------



## editor (Nov 1, 2010)

jakejb79 said:


> And certainly the local coffee shops that people are so worried over possibly closing wont close unless their customers desert them for Starbucks. People won't go in Starbucks if they dont want too, they're not forced too.


Sure, but being able to afford the primest of locations smack bang  in the centre of town sure makes them a more tempting proposition.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 1, 2010)

editor said:


> Sure, but being able to afford the primest of locations smack bang  in the centre of town sure makes them a more tempting proposition.



Not in Dorking, it would seem.  Gawd bless the retired colonels and great-aunty Mavises.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Nov 1, 2010)

jakejb79 said:


> And certainly the local coffee shops that people are so worried over possibly closing wont close unless their customers desert them for Starbucks. People won't go in Starbucks if they dont want too, they're not forced too.



It's not just whether they serve better coffee or not (which apparently they don't) but it's the fact that starbucks don't operate on a level playing field. Their policy is to ignore planning rules such as 'change of use' for a unit in a prime location, knowing that a local authority will eventually back down because of legal costs. They break the law and know they can get away with it. Smaller businesses can't do that.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Nov 1, 2010)

Coffee at McDonalds is brilliant. They have a computerised 'bean-to-cup' machine. There's none of the unnecessary performance you get in other coffee shops, and it's always quick and always perfect. If you can get over the embarrassment of being a grown adult in a McDonalds, then it's fine. 

Also they have a buy-six-get-one-free offer.


----------



## oryx (Nov 1, 2010)

Stoat Boy said:


> Never got why people are so down on Starbucks.



Their coffee is shite, for starters.

ETA: Let's hear it for Dorking!


----------



## Winot (Nov 1, 2010)

Laughing Toad said:


> Coffee at McDonalds is brilliant. They have a computerised 'bean-to-cup' machine. There's none of the unnecessary performance you get in other coffee shops, and it's always quick and always perfect. If you can get over the embarrassment of being a grown adult in a McDonalds, then it's fine.
> 
> Also they have a buy-six-get-one-free offer.



Tis true that it takes a fucking long time to make a coffee proper barista-style.  Get a few people ahead of you in the queue and only one person serving (like in Goodbench on Friday) and you are looking at 10 mins before your caffeine hit.


----------



## twistedAM (Nov 2, 2010)

Laughing Toad said:


> Coffee at McDonalds is brilliant. They have a computerised 'bean-to-cup' machine. There's none of the unnecessary performance you get in other coffee shops, and it's always quick and always perfect. If you can get over the embarrassment of being a grown adult in a McDonalds, then it's fine.
> 
> Also they have a buy-six-get-one-free offer.



That reminds me of that bloody Costa Coffee ad that's on TV at the moment. The one that says that monkeys might be able to replicate the complete works of Shakespeare if given time but they could never be a barista. Oh fuck off and do me a favour.


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2010)

Laughing Toad said:


> Coffee at McDonalds is brilliant. They have a computerised 'bean-to-cup' machine. There's none of the unnecessary performance you get in other coffee shops, and it's always quick and always perfect.


0/10 for the stupid troll.


----------



## twistedAM (Nov 2, 2010)

editor said:


> 0/10 for the stupid troll.



It depends, if you want a straight black coffee (which is the only way I drink the stuff except for espresso) it might be OK. When i was driving up and down the interstates of the USA for a living I got a taste for Dunkin Donuts. 
I;d rather buy independent (ie Adams Bakery, Brixton Hill) but i don't like the vibe of Sunday Supplement places with baristas.


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2010)

twistedAM said:


> It depends, if you want a straight black coffee (which is the only way I drink the stuff except for espresso) it might be OK. When i was driving up and down the interstates of the USA for a living I got a taste for Dunkin Donuts.
> I;d rather buy independent (ie Adams Bakery, Brixton Hill) but i don't like the vibe of Sunday Supplement places with baristas.


Yes, it might be 'OK.' But _"brilliant"?_


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 2, 2010)

teuchter said:


> A lot of people say the coffee in McDonalds is better than in Starbucks. Personally I've never tried either.


 
You'll never know, then.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 2, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> It's not just whether they serve better coffee or not (which apparently they don't) but it's the fact that starbucks don't operate on a level playing field. Their policy is to ignore planning rules such as 'change of use' for a unit in a prime location, knowing that a local authority will eventually back down because of legal costs. They break the law and know they can get away with it. Smaller businesses can't do that.


 
Ignoring zoning laws won't somehow force people to drink their shit coffee, though.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 2, 2010)

At the end of the day, the anti starbucks crowd will just have to retain some hope and faith that the average citizens of London don't constitute a stupid herd of mindless zombies who will shuffle into a Starbucks, simply for the reason that it happens to be half a block closer, due to fiddled-with zoning laws.

You'll have to retain some hope and faith that people have minds of their own, and taste preferences of their own.

Because actually, to think otherwise is a bit on the condescending side.


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> At the end of the day, the anti starbucks crowd will just have to retain some hope and faith that the average citizens of London don't constitute a stupid herd of mindless zombies who will shuffle into a Starbucks, simply for the reason that it happens to be half a block closer, due to fiddled-with zoning laws.
> 
> You'll have to retain some hope and faith that people have minds of their own, and taste preferences of their own.
> 
> Because actually, to think otherwise is a bit on the condescending side.


Some local geography. Brixton is a major transport hub, being at the southern end of the Victoria line. Every day, thousands of commuters catch buses into Brixton and then walk a very short distance to the tube station to continue their journey into central London.

Starbucks - with its vast resources - has managed to bag the kind of location that independents could only dream of, with their coffee bar positioned right by the steps to the tube.

With that kind of super-convenient prime location, of course people will use them.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 2, 2010)

editor said:


> Starbucks - with its vast resources - has managed to bag the kind of location that independents could only dream of, with their coffee bar positioned right by the steps to the tube.
> 
> With that kind of super-convenient prime location, of course people will use them.



Very likely true. Were there other well-patronized coffee shops within a couple of blocks of that location?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 2, 2010)

I looked at a map: how is Caffe Nero doing, for instance?

Cafe El Inca?


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I looked at a map: how is Caffe Nero doing, for instance?


Good to see you doing some research!

Caffe Nero is another major corporate outlet and it's located inside a clothes department store on the first floor opposite the tube.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Nov 2, 2010)

editor said:


> Yes, it might be 'OK.' But _"brilliant"?_


 
I think OK and really fast _is_ brilliant.

Anyway, all cultural tourists exagerate.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 2, 2010)

editor said:


> Some local geography. Brixton is a major transport hub, being at the southern end of the Victoria line. Every day, thousands of commuters catch buses into Brixton and then walk a very short distance to the tube station to continue their journey into central London.
> 
> Starbucks - with its vast resources - has managed to bag the kind of location that independents could only dream of, with their coffee bar positioned right by the steps to the tube.
> 
> With that kind of super-convenient prime location, of course people will use them.



And, to my shame, I did use the station Starbucks this morning. The latte was unfinishably awful. I had not realised just how superior Federation and Goodbench were. A lesson learned.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Nov 2, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Ignoring zoning laws won't somehow force people to drink their shit coffee, though.



Sure, but if you anonymously nab a prime property in the middle of a town, on a market square for example, one that's already designated for retail usage and then ilegally covert it into a cafe, then you're going to have an unfair advantage over the other cafes in the area.


----------



## PacificOcean (Nov 2, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Sure, but if you anonymously nab a prime property in the middle of a town, on a market square for example, one that's already designated for retail usage and then ilegally covert it into a cafe, then you're going to have an unfair advantage over the other cafes in the area.


 
So walk to find coffee? Bah!

Maybe this is why Starbucks is so popular?

Shell out for decent premises for more trade?  (Don't forget they started out as a stall in Seattle). 

Anyone with a marking degree agree with this?


----------

