[ADRM]

This is not a helpful contribution, especially from a mod.

Nobody questions the popularity or profitability of the chain; we're merely discussing the reality of another location in the neighbourhood and what it means for neighbouring coffee shops.

I'll second the exception-taking to that comment. It's possible to understand how profit/loss works and to also be less than thrilled that an independent retailer isn't going in here (or anywhere, for that matter). It might be an oft-repeated sentiment across the forums, but that doesn't make it wrong to express it.

 

[Waterloo_Guy]

This is not a helpful contribution, especially from a mod.

Nobody questions the popularity or profitability of the chain; we're merely discussing the reality of another location in the neighbourhood and what it means for neighbouring coffee shops.

I disagree. I think his comment was the perfect response given the context of the discussion. If the new Starbucks turns a profit, that means that people support it. That's all that matters. Consumers support the businesses they like. We all vote with our wallets. The market knows best.

 

[rdaner]

I assume that the new Starbucks is going in along the King frontage.

 

[slicecom]

I assume that the new Starbucks is going in along the King frontage.View attachment 95991

No, it's on the Front St frontage, near the southeast corner of the property.

 

[rdaner]

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Ramako]

This is not a helpful contribution, especially from a mod.

Nobody questions the popularity or profitability of the chain; we're merely discussing the reality of another location in the neighbourhood and what it means for neighbouring coffee shops.

I'll second the exception-taking to that comment. It's possible to understand how profit/loss works and to also be less than thrilled that an independent retailer isn't going in here (or anywhere, for that matter). It might be an oft-repeated sentiment across the forums, but that doesn't make it wrong to express it.

Nor is the constant moaning and hand wringing, literally every time a Starbucks opens up, a helpful contribution, but that's just my opinion. People that don't share your opinion also have the right to express one.

 

[torontologist]

A whole ton of new office workers will come with the opening of the new building, and my hope is that the new source of customers for Rooster will offset any competition from Starbucks.

People recognize the importance of supporting local independent businesses, and they'll continue to get their coffee at Rooster.

 

[ADRM]

Nor is the constant moaning and hand wringing, literally every time a Starbucks opens up, a helpful contribution, but that's just my opinion. People that don't share your opinion also have the right to express one.

I think moderators should be held to a somewhat higher standard; you should be able to express your opinion (whatever it is and with whomever you're disagreeing) without resorting to sarcasm at the slightest bit of something that perturbs you.

And, frankly, you're on a roll, as I really don't take kindly to the insinuation that I'm the type that doesn't believe that dissenting opinions are welcome or useful.

I didn't make this personal, but you did. Be better.

 

[Ramako]

I think moderators should be held to a somewhat higher standard; you should be able to express your opinion (whatever it is and with whomever you're disagreeing) without resorting to sarcasm at the slightest bit of something that perturbs you.

And, frankly, you're on a roll, as I really don't take kindly to the insinuation that I'm the type that doesn't believe that dissenting opinions are welcome or useful.

I didn't make this personal, but you did. Be better.

Frankly I don't see why moderators should be held to a different standard than any other member. We're not politicians or Sunday school teachers. We're forum members just like anyone else, who happen to also volunteer our time to enforce the forum rules. There's no magic to it.

And I find it rather ironic that you apparently welcome dissenting opinions, but nevertheless "took exception" to mine because I - god forbid - used sarcasm. The last time I checked, sarcasm is not against the forum rules, and I'll gladly use it with gusto if I want to.

 

[Waterloo_Guy]

People recognize the importance of supporting local independent businesses, and they'll continue to get their coffee at Rooster.

I hope you're not speaking for all of us, because I'm not one of those people. I don't care about local independent businesses and the ideology behind supporting them. I am a consumer: I care about my wallet and the quality of the goods I buy. My loyalty is to my wallet.

 

[ADRM]

Frankly I don't see why moderators should be held to a different standard than any other member. We're not politicians or Sunday school teachers. We're forum members just like anyone else, who happen to also volunteer our time to enforce the forum rules. There's no magic to it.

And I find it rather ironic that you apparently welcome dissenting opinions, but nevertheless "took exception" to mine because I - god forbid - used sarcasm. The last time I checked, sarcasm is not against the forum rules, and I'll gladly use it with gusto if I want to.

A moderator advocating for lower standards for moderators...that's a first.

Though I suppose it should come as no surprise coming from yourself, given that you again resorted to a personal attack in response to my post pointing out your personal attack.

Oh, and for the record, I'm not particularly plussed by a Starbucks opening up here.

But it sure was fun to get a rise out of you.

 

[modernizt]

I disagree. I think his comment was the perfect response given the context of the discussion. If the new Starbucks turns a profit, that means that people support it. That's all that matters.

While I appreciate your understanding of Capitalism 101, to suggest that "all that matters" in this discussion is that Starbucks is profitable (okay?) is ridiculous. We are having a discussion about neighbourhood retail, the shifting and organic nature of neighbourhood retail, and what that means for the existing players. Let the discussion unfold and reflective the various views. Starbucks will be just fine, as you've pointed out, even with our concern, criticism, or open arms.

 

[Ramako]

A moderator advocating for lower standards for moderators...that's a first.

Though I suppose it should come as no surprise coming from yourself, given that you again resorted to a personal attack in response to my post pointing out your personal attack.

You keep making this claim that I've personally attacked you. I frankly don't see what attacks you're referring to. On the other hand, you chastised me for using sarcasm, which I could easily construe as a personal attack upon myself according to your apparently loose definition of personal attack.

But it sure was fun to get a rise out of you.

Oh yeah, you've really rustled my jimmies. Now self-admitted trolling; that is indeed a violation of the forum rules.

 

[Ramako]

While I appreciate your understanding of Capitalism 101, to suggest that "all that matters" in this discussion is that Starbucks is profitable (okay?) is ridiculous. We are having a discussion about neighbourhood retail, the shifting and organic nature of neighbourhood retail, and what that means for the existing players. Let the discussion unfold and reflective the various views. Starbucks will be just fine, as you've pointed out, even with our concern, criticism, or open arms.

I agree with you in that I don't think that all that matters is whether they can turn a profit. Any number of retailers could turn a profit here, and the only reason Starbucks gets these kinds of spaces over a retailer that could turn an even higher profit is because Starbucks can pay some of the highest rents in combination with having a very strong covenant. So even speaking merely economically, profit is not the only relevant factor here.

What I want to draw attention to, and what often doesn't seem to be fully appreciated in these discussions (as these forums can often be somewhat of an echo chamber), is that Starbucks is as prolific as it is precisely because it is popular. This, too, is a seemingly obvious fact, but the degree to which forum members often bemoan the entry of chains like Starbucks into new retail spaces because of an abhorrence to a perceived monoculture perpetuates the idea that these chains are inherently bad, and that our "urban-enthusiast" conception of what creates a charming neighbourhood is more valuable and worthwhile than the actual needs and wants of the people living and working in the neighbourhood who are actively supporting those chains with their business.

So I don't blame anyone for not wanting to see a Starbucks here, but if you do, I think it's only fair that you must also lament the 500,000 square feet of new office space which naturally brought the Starbucks with it.

 

[Waterloo_Guy]

This, too, is a seemingly obvious fact, but the degree to which forum members often bemoan the entry of chains like Starbucks into new retail spaces because of an abhorrence to a perceived monoculture perpetuates the idea that these chains are inherently bad, and that our "urban-enthusiast" conception of what creates a charming neighbourhood is more valuable and worthwhile than the actual needs and wants of the people living and working in the neighbourhood who are actively supporting those chains with their business.

Perfectly said.