January 19, 2004
(Updated) Starbucks Moving Into 'Seven Corners' Location
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
Before we get into this, credit where credit is due goes to Portland Independent Media Center which reported on January 12 that this was going to happen. I haven't done anything on it until now because it cited only anonymous sources, and no one I tried to contact over the past several days has bothered to get back to me.
For reference's sake there are also Portland IMC items on this here and here.
First of all, the so-called Seven Corners area is the intersection of various streets around SE 20th and Division.
Residents and passersby know that the old Ladd's Meat building has been in the process of demolition to be replaced by some multi-store retail space at that location. The space is being handled by Urban Works Real Estate, which as reported by Portland IMC is the exclusive representative for Starbucks in Oregon and Southwest Washington.
Barring any response from those I contacted to confirm this, I decided today to do a little digging via the Bureau of Development Services.
Indeed, as this permit/case report (most recent activity upon which was December 18, 2003) shows quite plainly in its "Work/Case Description" field, there is a Starbucks slated for Seven Corners.
If such a Starbucks moves in, it would of course be within spitting distance of the worker-owned (and home to many activitst meetings) Red & Black Cafe at the corner of SW 22nd and Division.
Update
Today's Willamette Week covers this, and reiterates that the neighborhood had been given assurances by the property's owner that a Starbucks was not on the agenda.
It also mentions that Red & Black may now have to rethink its intentions to expand. Something I'd like my pro-Starbucks commenter to get into, if they would. To wit: Is competition more important than strong local business?
Comments (7)
Gary Marschke on 20 Jan 2004
I hope that your reference to Starbuck's locating within "spitting distance" of the Red & Black isn't not-so-subtley suggesting that restraining competition is a function of urban planning much less the responsibility of neighborhood activists. Many neighborhood businesses, even coffee and pastry shops, coexist within "spitting distance" and often even cooperate. Offering choices doesn't automatically result in immediate market saturation and eventual strangulation. I hope that the parties involved begin by looking at ways to work together rather than ways to isolate and insulate themselves from what some might see as growth and progress not to mention inevitable.
The One True b!X on 20 Jan 2004
Actually, it's more that it will be an interesting experience having a corporate behemoth like Starbucks just down the street from a worker-owned shop some of whose customers are the precise antithesis to everything Starbucks represents.
The One True b!X on 20 Jan 2004
As for "restraining competition" being the business of "urban planning much less the responsibility of neighborhood activists" -- what city do you live in, exactly? Certainly not the Portland I do, where such questions of livability and neighborhood character are perpetually on the agenda.
Jack Bog on 21 Jan 2004
When the New Seasons Market opens on one of the other seven corners, any R&B customers lost to Starbucks will soon be replaced.
The real issue at that intersection is going to be traffic. It's o.k. now, but with all sorts of newbies flocking to that location, regulars may be waiting for an extra while at the long red lights there.
At least with the Starbucks in place, the locals won't have to drive downtown to throw a garbage can through a window during future WTO riots. 8c)
Gary Marschke on 21 Jan 2004
I do live in Portland and have since 1985. While I agree those issues are and should always be on the agenda, I've seen far too many examples of anti-behemoth sentiment go much further than 'being on the agenda' long before the whole story is heard. My hope is that we can avoid the all-too-common rush-to-judgement.
As for the patrons being the antithesis, isn't it great that they'll still have their own place to go?
o gg on 24 Jan 2004
I don't understand how the city, and the Hosford Abernathy neighborhood, could allow such a potential firebomb situation. It seems unduly and ignorantly dangerous. Why let such a potentially damaging situation even germinate? During the WTO riots a couple years ago, I was in downtown Seattle coming back from a Thai dinner, when 27 1/2 feet away from me, a riot of 40 people converged on a corner and someone threw a trashcan through the Starbuck window. That image is burned into my mind and I cannot imagine competant, aware citizens to stand by and let a similar situation germinate. It's like putting a Red Sox fan in the middle of Yankee territory and vice versa. Just not smart that's all. And if there is a choice, it might be a good idea to find another solution without the risks inherent in this Seven Corners proposal.
Steve Hanrahan on 27 Jan 2004
In response to Gary Marshcke's comments I'd like to say that local businesess are much better for the local economy than chain businesses. Why? Because local businesses tend to use other local businesses for their accounting, contracting, etc. Also, the profits, since by definition go to the local business owners, tend to be re-spent in the area. Starbucks reported their last quarter earnings last week in the Oregonian: $5000 per store per month PROFIT. This money is leaving the area (and of course doesn't include all the expenses that could be, but mostly aren't spent locally).
In fact, two recent studies back this up. One, in done in Austin, found that $100 spent locally generated $45 of local economic activity whereas $100 spent at a chain store generated only $13 of local economic activity. The other, done in Main, found that 44.6% of the revenue generated by local business was spent locally where only 14.1% of the revenue generated by big box store was spent locally. (The results of these studies can be seen at http://www.newrules.org/hta/hta0203.htm and http://www.newrules.org/hta/hta0903.htm )
What this means is that local business is essential for a thriving local economy and that non-local business actual harms the local economy. It is a choice we all (still) have and it is a choice that has a direct impact on YOU.