Yeah too bad about all those suckers who just lost their jobs and their health insurance. That's what they get for working for a corporation, eh Albert?

Makes my heart dance too. As long as there is the ever so slight possibility that we might get more independent coffee shops I don't give a fuck about those employees that are getting laid off.

I bet they went to work for Starbucks just because they wanted to join a fortune 500 company. I'm sure none of them needed a paycheck or god-forbid, benefits or health insurance....

Yup, my heart continues to dance.....

I'm a big believer in supporting local coffeehouses including one of my favorites -- Stumptown Coffee -- since they only carry fair-trade coffee. However, I don't share your excitement that the six Starbucks closings "will make room for more local coffeeshops and perhaps tea/chai shops."

The evidence just doesn't support that Starbucks has stifled the creation of "Mom and Pop" coffeehouses. As indicated in the book "Starbucked" and reported by Willamette Week last November, Starbucks has helped create greater awareness of coffee and independent coffeehouses have grown tremendously during the last decade:

Even between 2000 and 2005, long after the ascendance of Starbucks, the number of independent coffeehouses in the United States increased more than 40 percent—from 9,800 to just under 14,000. The failure rate for new coffee houses is incredibly low—only 10 percent, according to the market research firm Mintel—which means a sizable majority of the independents stay in business regardless of where Starbucks drops its stores.

The article also notes one owner purposely opening coffeeshops right next to Starbucks because of the incredible halo effect: "They’ll do all of your marketing for you, and your sales will soar."

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate having local variety instead of international homogenization. But I now have several more local coffeehouses to frequent in Portland than I did a decade ago and I'm not sure the Starbucks closing will appreciably accelerate that trend.

There's things I definitely don't like about Starbuck's business model. This idea of growing and growing a company until it saturates the market, aggressively working to drive out the competition, large and small, diminishing quality in the process, is one of its least attractive attributes. So now, as many people have no doubt anticipated for some time, one of that business model's nasty quirks has started to reach around and bite Starbuck's in the ass. Wonder how deep the bite will ultimately be.

This Starbuck's location: Portland: 2045 SE Division... . Of course, some of you may remember it was that particular location at what's referred to as '7 Corners' in the Hosford-Abernethy neighborhood, whose approval was highly contested and protested by certain neighborhood residents. After construction, the store was firebombed. Apparently the store didn't do well enough to make the cut, so...'bye-bye'.

For my money, Starbuck's is to be respected for bringing people up to speed on the idea and importance of the 'third place'. Not that it didn't exist before Starbucks in other forms to some extent, but people forget. They have to be reminded from time to time. It's nice too, not having to resort to a bar to find that kind of place.

Great - Starbucks which helped with medical insurance closes and they are the evil corporation.

Small coffee shops which don't pay beenfits open up in their place. What an advance!

It is sad that we have a post like this. The above comments help demonstrate why. A good friend of mine selects their small coffee shop locations based on locations of Starbucks. Think of how Starbucks has been a strong contributor to neighborhoods in all the ways we can think of. What is the difference between a small "S Corp" that some small coffee shops employ or corporation Starbucks? So its number of employees?

Jake, if you knew the coffee business, you wouldn't claim that Stumptown roasts only fair trade coffee. The concept of Fair Trade has several aspects that are deceptive, not forthright to say the least. It is also a claim usually made by paying a fee without careful documentation; like the companies, organizations that issue "green certifications".

Albert Kaufman:

I'm excited about this - I think it will make room for more local coffeeshops and perhaps tea/chai shops.

Bob T:

My problem with Starbucks was that their regular coffee was lousy. Hard to screw that up, but they do.

But let me say this, Albert. A little-guy entrepreneur hoping to open up a coffee shop is more likely to be thwarted and foiled by many of the regulations and codes that exist under the guise of protecting the consumer, while a firm like Starbucks has an army of people to easily wade through that stuff and open yet another shop when they want to. There was a case of a man in Gresham about a decade ago who purchased one of those old pharmacy places and was working hard to turn it into a burger place, and he was getting real frustrated over the codes and regulations (not the good ones, but the stupid ones). I bet Starbucks supports these because they can outlast most people during the planning and building or renovation phase, and most people don't pay attention to this sort of thing. Most corporations support loads of business regulations for this reason, and have done so since the so-called Robber Baron days. In the end, they knew what they were doing but the little guy lost.

No, I'm not arguing for no regulations. Just arguing for making you all aware of the other side of this coin. And I really hate so-called "anarchist" twits who think it's great to smash Starbucks windows while wearing Che shirts.

Jake mention Stumptown - great place - great furniture.

And he also made a good point about Starbucks making the idea of coffee shops more popular, thus triggering potential competition. But Starbucks can still outlast such potential rivals. Still, this reminds me of the ways a free enterprise system can be dynamic and go in directions people can't predict. One example can be found in the greater LA area where one Cambodian immigrant learned all about the donut business and then started his own shop and then taught and trained fellow Cambodian immigrants how to do this which all led to a large number of donut shops owned by Cambodian immigrants. I think that's great. No bureaucrat was needed to start a program for this, either.

Bob Tiernan

My fiance (who lives in Canada in the province of Alberta) asked me if any Canada Starbucks stores were being axed. Apparently not. Up there, they fret over closures of Tim Horton's stores. In Red Deer, Alberta, there are only two Starbucks stores - both drive-throughs and surrounded by ten or more Tim Horton's stores.

Has Tim Horton's thought of expanding to Portland? They have in Cincinnati...

"What's that famous Hopper painting of the late night diner?"

Nighthawks.

A great symbol of a classic and bygone era, along with Lucky Strikes and Jack Benny. Now it's Blue Tooths and laptops.

The Hawthorne and Division closings are odd, because they are relatively close together. And both of them were really good neighborhood supporters. When Abernethy re-did its playground years ago, Starbucks employees from the Hawthorne store came to help work, and brought coffee with them. And just this last winter, the Division store hosted a fundraiser for Abernethy, as well. Good corporate citizens, who promote free trade coffee, relatively-good employee benefits, and high quality products are hard to come by.

And BTW, for those on here who carry the "anti-corporate" attitude, I suspect that every small shop that opens is some form of corporate entity. Because they're not stupid, and if their business fails, they don't want their creditors to come after the owners. Fortunately, I'll be Starbucks is paying every creditor and not breaching any lease.

I agree with ws that the issue is the way big corporations do business these days. They've got analysts and number crunchers of every stripe for whom "100 stores" either way is just an abstraction, and they all need to move deck chairs around because that's their job.

Whether Starbucks is a good company or a bad company, they are undoubtedly a large company, and shaving a tenth of a point from their costs is simply more central to their thinking than the lives they disrupt.

gave us coffee for PTSA gatherings and other such perks

In at least a dozen times that I've asked on behalf of various groups and events, Starbucks stores have always been very generous with coffee and food.

The latter had for years been the Kupie Cone (Kone?) bad architecture monument

That intersection may be one of the best examples of the loss of Old Portland and its replacement with yuppie fern-bar sameness. It will be a very sad day when this City eliminates every nonconforming use.

Here's the Kupie Cone sign: http://www.flickr.com/photos/vintageroadside/2221632857/in/set-72157601400033916/

Nighthawks.

Wasn't that the one with James Dean and Marilyn Monroe?

John

I was really pissed when Starbucks bought Torrefazione Italia. I thought TI's coffee was the best in Portland and I'm a big fan of the Deruta (sp) crockery.

What jeff (#3) said. Seriously Albert, this has to be one of the most poorly-considered and selfish posts in Blue Oregon history. I expect better.

In many small towns in America, Starbucks is the ONLY place to get a decent cup of coffee. Before Starbucks, there were none. What's the problem with that?

I don't see Starbucks buying out or undercutting the little guy. (oh, except for those poor mom-and-pop venues like Seattle's Best, Coffee People, and Torrefazione). Give me a break. You can get a better, cheaper cup of coffee at dozens of local shops all around town. You really think there is a dearth of non-Starbucks here, and that somehow this opens up a vast new market niche they can fill?

FYI, Stumptown is about to open a shop in New York City. I anxiously await your canned condemnation of this evil national corporation. Waiting...

Oh look, tumbleweed!

If thats the case, Albert, maybe I can get my Canadian friends to convince Tim Horton's to open a couple of stores down here in Portland. Take my word for it - Timmy's coffee is much better, fresher, and you can order a large, not a 'grande'.

Any one for a "double-double"?

Well, Albert, with the barista at Mojo's telling you that Starbucks' fair trade efforts are a sham, we've clearly received a cogent, knowledgable, unbiased final word on the issue. In reality, there is a decent amount of pressure on Starbucks to increase its purchase of fair trade coffee (from people complaining that Starbucks isn't doing enough), but it's a classic whiny view -- you're not doing good enough, as opposed to a realistic view -- Starbucks is doing far more that anyone else, but would ideally do more.

With regard to Starbucks being "antiseptic," some call that "clean." One relevant example of the contrary approach is the (thankfully) closed Red and Black Cafe, which was just almost across the street from the Division Starbucks. It was nasty dirty, although from the outside that was hard to tell, because it was so poorly ventilated that there was almost always moisture on the inside of the windows.

I think the main point Albert is addressing is that of large corporations (please note I used "large" for those of you sensitive to general corporate bashing) sucking money from the community and depositing it elsewhere. Local businesses circulate money wider and deeper into the local community. Their local net benefit is much greater.

"Local businesses circulate money wider and deeper into the local community. Their local net benefit is much greater."

You have some examples? Both Starbucks and the locals pay rent, buy coffee from overseas, hire locals.

I remember a posting a few weeks ago when I suggested that we should encourage Exxon/Mobil's research efforts into alternative energy

Paul, that was months ago, during the disgraceful period in which Obama supporters at Blue Oregon relentlessly trashed anything and everything about Hillary Clinton. You certainly can't expect anything said then to still be operative now, can you?

John

@Leo great comment, thanks for the candor.

I actually think great coffee shops could have emerged with a national chain leading the way, but they would all have to adhere to the rigorous quality standards in place at Starbucks... Easier said than done.

@Albert - 100% of Starbucks employees have health insurance; what's the percentage for indie coffee shop workers?

<hr/>