Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Third Places and Neighborhood Entrepreneurship: Evidence from Starbucks Cafés

nber.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 164 posts

Re: Third Places and Neighborhood Entrepreneurship: Evidence from Starbucks Cafés

#121

Post by TeaBrain »

winphone1974 wrote: post #45
kbos87 wrote: post #17

This is an aside, but my how far has Starbucks fallen at the hands of profit optimization. A Starbucks used to be a great place to spend time. Today the interior of almost every Starbucks is cold, beat up, and (intentionally?) uncomfortable. (In the stores where they even still have seating, which another commenter pointed out.) The quality of the product is barely a step above a gas station. On the other hand, my ar…

What seems weird is that with the massive number of Starbucks closures I've seen smaller indies and local chains open up in the exact same locations and somehow make a go of it- how does that work?

Starbucks reacted to the covid-19 lockdowns by closing many of their non-drive through locations, regardless of their potential profitability when no longer in a lockdown.

Re: Third Places and Neighborhood Entrepreneurship: Evidence from Starbucks Cafés

#122

Post by [deleted] »

Nasrudith wrote: post #119
Ekaros wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there good parts? Then again this forum is for those doing the gentrifying. So maybe it is wrong place to ask...

Depends on if you are a part of the crime rates that go down or not. More seriously: lower crime, more services, reduced infastructural and service strain, higher income, and an area made more desirable. The very hard part would be getting only the good, to bring in investment and raise incomes of individuals across all individuals at a neighborhood level instead of just importing richer people. The levels of sudden…

[deleted]

Re: Third Places and Neighborhood Entrepreneurship: Evidence from Starbucks Cafés

#123

Post by viridian »

peanut_worm wrote: post #110

“third place” is just starbucks marketing jargon. this article is an ad.

Maybe at some point it was, but we are well past sbux owning the term. You can see for yourself, do a google search for "third place -starbucks" and filter down to results in the last 24 hours. You will still find news articles, reddit threads, etc, using the very same definition we are using here.

I've seen articles in strong town use it, I've heard the term come up in meetings of my local pro-development citizen's organization, etc. Starbucks has no claim to the term third place, especially given that since covid, the majority of them don't even qualify as third places.

Re: Third Places and Neighborhood Entrepreneurship: Evidence from Starbucks Cafés

#124

Post by Gud »

d1sxeyes wrote: post #103
bobthepanda wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last thing is not legal in the US. Marriott got in trouble with the FCC over this. https://www.cnn.com/2014/10/03/travel/marriott-fcc-wi-fi-fin...

Actively. You can however consider it when choosing a location (although obviously, the mobile network providers can make changes outside your control which might change your 'USP').

can always cover the walls and make it a Faraday cage?

Re: Third Places and Neighborhood Entrepreneurship: Evidence from Starbucks Cafés

#125

Post by nine_k »

throwaway173738 wrote: post #111
kumarm wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Starbucks is optimizing for their profit. Are we shocked businesses are optimizing for their profit? Isn't that their purpose?

Corporations were originally for some public benefit. It’s only recently that profit has become their sole aim.

When were corporations for public benefit? Even medieval corporations were for the benefit of the participants, and only tangentially the public at large.

Re: Third Places and Neighborhood Entrepreneurship: Evidence from Starbucks Cafés

#126

Post by pixl97 »

shiroiushi wrote: post #64
nine_k wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone may be wanting cozy shops, large apartments, free ice cream, and a pony. Cozy shops bring in much less profit per $ invested. They cannot seriously compete with kiosks, when the majority of customers just want some competently brewed joe on the way to work (or even half-competently, since we mention Starbucks). Maybe a bagel with it. Next customer! A cozy shop with seating for customers who want to sit there…

If commercial real estate is cheap enough, an efficient business chain absolutely can do well with a cozy shop. A lot of people don't want a kiosk, and will simply skip it, but will go to a place if it's a cozy shop. Maybe this isn't so popular in modern America these days, but it is in many other places. Here in Tokyo where land prices are huge, all the Starbucks I've seen are still cozy shops, though they do tend t…

>If commercial real estate is cheap enough,

Yea, this is one of the primary problems. Commercial real estate prices are out of control, same with housing.

Re: Third Places and Neighborhood Entrepreneurship: Evidence from Starbucks Cafés

#127

Post by p_j_w »

nine_k wrote: post #125
throwaway173738 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporations were originally for some public benefit. It’s only recently that profit has become their sole aim.

When were corporations for public benefit? Even medieval corporations were for the benefit of the participants, and only tangentially the public at large.

If they're meant to serve no public benefit then perhaps they should be stripped of the legal protections they enjoy.

Re: Third Places and Neighborhood Entrepreneurship: Evidence from Starbucks Cafés

#128

Post by asdff »

kbos87 wrote: post #116
asdff wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For some of the locations that have been takeoutified, they used to have chairs and tables but these were purposely removed. The room is awkwardly empty so they stuff it with random chochkys like insulated mugs to fill the void.

I think there’s some truth to the notion that they’ve done this in markets and stores where they are more likely to have a problem with homelessness and non-paying customers. I’ve seen first hand how much time and energy some Starbucks employees have to put in to waking people up who are sleeping in the store, cleaning themselves in the bathrooms, or trying to bring in a cart full of their belongings. Goes without sa…

Most businesses just take care of that with a security guard. I'd think an $84 billion company can afford a $25/hr guard at some of these locations. McDonalds has figured out how to deal with the issue without ripping out their interiors.

Re: Third Places and Neighborhood Entrepreneurship: Evidence from Starbucks Cafés

#129

Post by nine_k »

p_j_w wrote: post #127
nine_k wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When were corporations for public benefit? Even medieval corporations were for the benefit of the participants, and only tangentially the public at large.

If they're meant to serve no public benefit then perhaps they should be stripped of the legal protections they enjoy.

What kind of legal protections do you think should go?

BTW, say, your bedroom serves no public benefit; its point is to provide you some highly private benefits. Is it bad?

I'd say that any activity is fine, as long as it does not result in or intended for public harm. Providing a public benefit should be strictly optional; paying taxes should be enough.

Re: Third Places and Neighborhood Entrepreneurship: Evidence from Starbucks Cafés

#130

Post by p_j_w »

nine_k wrote: post #129
p_j_w wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they're meant to serve no public benefit then perhaps they should be stripped of the legal protections they enjoy.

What kind of legal protections do you think should go? BTW, say, your bedroom serves no public benefit; its point is to provide you some highly private benefits. Is it bad? I'd say that any activity is fine, as long as it does not result in or intended for public harm. Providing a public benefit should be strictly optional; paying taxes should be enough.

>What kind of legal protections do you think should go?

Shielding people from liability is a good start.

>BTW, say, your bedroom serves no public benefit; its point is to provide you some highly private benefits. Is it bad?

I can't commit crimes in my bedroom and escape any and all responsibility for it.

Post reply on HN