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

The caffeine curse: why coffee shops have always signalled urban change

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 178 posts

Re: The caffeine curse: why coffee shops have always signalled urban change

#71

Post by briandear »

narag wrote: post #67
coldtea wrote: post #62

Because they are not essential (like a bodega or gas station would be), and most are tied to a more laid-back, more bohemian lifestyle -- which means enough non-poor people are coming in the neighborhood to make them viable. Of course talking about "coffee shops" proper -- the poor just make do with Dunkin Doughnuts and the like...

What's a "bodega"? I'm surprised to see this word in English, also considered as a basic service (not a wine cellar then?). In Spanish it's one of the two evolutions of Greek "apotheke", the other one being "botica" (farmacy).

It's New Yorker slang for 'small convenience store usually owner operated.'

Re: The caffeine curse: why coffee shops have always signalled urban change

#72

Post by briandear »

golergka wrote: post #10

Why is the author so quick to assume that everyone sees gentrification as something bad? There's been vocal opposition to it, but it doesn't mean that everybody feels that way.

It's the Guardian. That's their thing. That paper employs an admitted KGB spy (after his spying was revealed.) Same paper that supported Stalin. The Guardian has a deep rooted history in the 'class' struggle. Not a condemnation, just context. It's the American Left equivalent of MSNBC or analogous to the right wing Washington Times.

Re: The caffeine curse: why coffee shops have always signalled urban change

#73

Post by zappo2938 »

mysterypie wrote: post #11
Xcelerate wrote: post #2

> I love looking in through the outside window and seeing everyone on MacBooks, it’s busy, it’s exciting and yet you’ll get someone walking passed saying ‘Oh my god, look in there, everyone is on a laptop! What’s wrong with them! Why don’t they talk to each other!?’ This is funny, because it perfectly describes the difference in attitude between me and my father. He gets annoyed when he walks into a coffee shop and s…

> I think the atmosphere is quite cozy, and love taking my own stuff to work on I can remember a time (1980's and earlier) when the modern version of the coffee shop didn't exist. The nearest equivalent was a bar: Dimly lit, filled with smoke, loud annoying music, aggressive people, and a waiter coming around every 10 minutes to ask/demand if you want another drink. If you dared bring in some papers or a book to read…

Depends where you live. I grew up in scientific communities and there were always cafes. They were very much like coffee shops but the only choice was regular or decaf coffee.

Re: The caffeine curse: why coffee shops have always signalled urban change

#74

Post by elcapitan »

ido wrote: post #34
mysterypie wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the atmosphere is quite cozy, and love taking my own stuff to work on I can remember a time (1980's and earlier) when the modern version of the coffee shop didn't exist. The nearest equivalent was a bar: Dimly lit, filled with smoke, loud annoying music, aggressive people, and a waiter coming around every 10 minutes to ask/demand if you want another drink. If you dared bring in some papers or a book to read…

Might be geographical? Many of Vienna's most popular cafés were established in the 1800s.

There's actually even a term for this, "Kaffeehauskultur", see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viennese_coffee_house.

Re: The caffeine curse: why coffee shops have always signalled urban change

#75

Post by xzi »

TorKlingberg wrote: post #66
xzi wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember those days. And I couldn't go into the bars, being in my teens in the mid-to-late 80s. The best option was the all night places like IHOP. As long as you tipped well and weren't loud, they'd let you hold down a booth with nothing but coffee for most of the night. And then moved to a college town which already had 3-4 competing coffee shops in 1989. Felt like heaven. Doing homework on my old Powerbook. Sitt…

The first Powerbook was released in 1991, and started at $4000 converted to current dollars.

Sorry if I implied the powerbook was being used in 1989. Didn't get that until my senior year. My brief reminiscence was more of a broad sweep of those years in that town.

In 1989 I was still using (at home) an Atari 800 with matching disc wheel printer. Though I spent far more time in the computer lab with its Macs until I got my early graduation present. Kinda miss the lab days. I made more friends there in the sleep-deprived craziness of the overnights than I did in the coffee shops.

Re: The caffeine curse: why coffee shops have always signalled urban change

#76

Post by ehnto »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #18
omonra wrote: post #14

"what everyone hates about urban change and gentrification – first come the creatives and their coffee shops, then the young professionals, then the luxury high-rises and corporate chains that push out original residents" I personally have no problem with it. And if we're talking about crappy and dangerous neighborhoods that are becoming upscale - I love it. If anything I think it's the sort of process that benefits…

Fun related fact: when an area is gentrifying, more development is actually correlated with LESS displacement for the existing residents, not more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/12/the-p... "...the California Legislative Analyst’s Office recently released some positive data backing up this point: Particularly in the Bay Area since 2000, the researchers found, low-income neighborhoods with a lot…

My uneducated guess might be that the new developments add more density and thus lower land/rent prices overall. I am not sure about that though.

In my city as well, new development often come with affordability requirements for the exact reason of not displacing the existing community.

Adelaide, Australia has a really cool process for careful urban development. The city makes sure many existing buildings stay put and that new developments accommodate them in various ways. It specifically limits high rises, with the term mid-rise mixed use zoning being able to describe most of the dense areas.

The quip about coffee shops, creatives then professionals still rings true. But it stops short of high rises, and intentionally tries to mix all residents and wealth brackets.

Re: The caffeine curse: why coffee shops have always signalled urban change

#78

Post by narag »

coldtea wrote: post #68
narag wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's a "bodega"? I'm surprised to see this word in English, also considered as a basic service (not a wine cellar then?). In Spanish it's one of the two evolutions of Greek "apotheke", the other one being "botica" (farmacy).

I know it with these meanings, but used it in the third form (here's from Wiktionary): (1) A storehouse for maturing wine, a winery. (2) A store specializing in Hispanic groceries. (3) (slang, New York) Any convenience store.

OK, "el chino" then.

Re: The caffeine curse: why coffee shops have always signalled urban change

#79

Post by aninhumer »

golergka wrote: post #58
austinjp wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's a binary either-or. People obviously want safety and opportunity. They also tend to want to preserve the micro-culture of their neighbourhood. "Globalisation" (whatever that is) feels homogenous and corporate. Some people don't want that, they don't want to live in a place that could be anywhere else. They want to own the land and property, not be priced out. I'm quite surprised at people here sugg…

About "displacing" people, honest question: why people who already live somewhere (but rent and don't own) should be privileged compared to people who have the same financial ability, but didn't live at said place before? Why is being "priced out" of same place you already live at perceived as something worse than not being able to afford to move into some neighborhood to begin with? BTW, apartment that I live in rig…

>Why is being "priced out" of same place you already live at perceived as something worse than not being able to afford to move into some neighborhood to begin with?

Because there are costs involved with relocating, which the former aren't being given any choice about. Finding a new place to live and moving there involves a lot of time, effort and stress. Not to mention any friends and family they're now less able to keep in touch with.

Re: The caffeine curse: why coffee shops have always signalled urban change

#80

Post by mseebach »

nefitty wrote: post #20
omonra wrote: post #14

"what everyone hates about urban change and gentrification – first come the creatives and their coffee shops, then the young professionals, then the luxury high-rises and corporate chains that push out original residents" I personally have no problem with it. And if we're talking about crappy and dangerous neighborhoods that are becoming upscale - I love it. If anything I think it's the sort of process that benefits…

I can't help interpreting your opinion as, "it's ok to kick the poor people out, as long as the upper classes, government and businesses prosper." People aren't numbers to throw into a mean function. That "net positive" argument is what has been used to excuse globalization's "there have to be some losers" philosophy, which disproportionately affects those already in poverty. A sense of community is one of the few th…

The problem with the opposite position, that even the greatest net positive is invalidated if even a single person is inconvenienced[1] (which, reductio ad absurdum is what you seem to suggest), will obviously lead to practically no change ever. Indeed, it will most likely lead to decline, as any active attempt to change things will probably inconvenience at least a few people, while you can't pin such a charge against passive apathy, even if it long term inconveniences a much greater number of people.

Even the creatives with their coffee shops (generally considered the acceptable level of gentrification, a fact that is obviously totally unrelated to the fact that a substantial subset of people fretting over gentrification are creatives in coffee shops) probably displaces some local activity, perhaps a "brown cafe" loses some customers to the new coffee shop etc.

I recently went on a street-art themed walking tour of Shoreditch in east London, and the guide started the tour by explaining how in the late 80s the area was a total write-off with poverty, violence and prostitution left, right and center, and how entire houses changed hands for as little as £1 -- and ended it by railing against the building of new apartments. The irony of he, himself, being a recent transplant to the area (he alluded to his small-town upbringing, and he was much too young to have moved there pre-1990) did not seem to trouble him much.

Bottom line: clearly there is SOME level of positive development that justifies SOME level of inconveniences. Perhaps we should be a little better at articulating the positive benefits instead of knee-jerk defending those inconvenienced by progress and idealising the gritty urban semi-slums being displaced.

PS: I'm very happy the WaPo link is making you reconsider your position.

1: This article describes the plight of "the poor" being pestered with offer to buy their flats for cash, offers they are perfectly in their right to decline. That's being inconvenienced, not kicked out. http://www.wnyc.org/story/de-blasios-affordable-housing-figh...

Post reply on HN