Everywhere

By atl_daniel
March 18th, 2006 @ 4:49 PM Around town

So here’s a discovery –
The Edgewood shopping center has many stores. Three, in particular, share a parking lot – Kroger, Barnes & Noble, and Target. All three of them have a Starbucks. Clearly, Seatlle has won the culture war.

14 Comments so far

  1. Will (unregistered) on March 18th, 2006 @ 6:37 pm

    The way that happens is: licensing. None of those Starbuckses are actual Starbuckses, I’ll bet. Back in the day, I know the B&N stores were just licensing materials (like the logo), but the employees were paid and trained by B&N. For example, my old Starbucks ID# wouldn’t get me the discount at those stores.

    I imagine it’s the same at Target and Kroger.

    Under Ru San’s, there’s a Caribou, too.


  2. Lori (unregistered) on March 18th, 2006 @ 6:50 pm

    The one in Target is a real Starbucks.

    That said, I’m not sure if they’re “winning”. My stock clearly isn’t doing well :/


  3. Greg Mohler (unregistered) on March 18th, 2006 @ 10:41 pm

    Caffeine overdose + insane parking lot layout = fun!!


  4. Brian (unregistered) on March 19th, 2006 @ 2:40 am

    A friend told me years ago about a Barnes & Noble store that had a Starbucks store inside. And, she added, inside that Starbucks store was a tiny Barnes & Noble store. Is that at Edgewood?


  5. Andisheh Nouraee (unregistered) on March 19th, 2006 @ 4:06 pm

    What exactly is a “fake” Starbucks? If people in green aprons are selling coffee in Starbucks cups, that’s a Starbucks*.

    I wonder if it occurred to anyone at Sembler (the property’s developer) to try to lure a local-owned coffee shop, such as Aurora or Joe’s?** The entrepreneurs who started and run those shops are a huge part of why that 3-mile stretch of Moreland has turned into a “hot” address over the past decade. When no national chain store would have ever considered setting up shop on Moreland, Joes and Aurora gave people a neighborhood hangout. It would be a shame Starbucksibou, Inc. put one or both of those locals out of business.

    *(I’m not anti-Starbucks. Just “anti-Starbucks where good neighborhood coffee shops already exist.”).

    **(That’s a trick question. I asked one of the owners of Joe’s/Perk and she said that Sembler never asked).


  6. sabrina (unregistered) on March 19th, 2006 @ 5:15 pm

    Do you think that Starbucks could really put one of those local shops out of business? I would imagine that there are enough corporate coffee haters in the area to prevent that from happening, don’t you think?

    On another Seattle coffee note, I noticed that the Borders on Ponce has gutted its cafe. It will be replaced by a Seattle’s Best. Interesting.


  7. Andisheh Nouraee (unregistered) on March 19th, 2006 @ 6:48 pm

    It’s certainly possible. Even with less competition, the locally-owned coffee shops weren’t exactly raking in the gazillions.

    With Starbucks x4 (three at Edgewood, one in L5P) and Caribou and e2 (further down Moreland) there’s a lot of new coffee supply. People are moving into the area, but are enough people moving in to support 8 coffee shops on a 3 mile stretch of road that used to have just four (Aurora, Joes, Starbucks L5P and the small one in L5P).


  8. Margaret (unregistered) on March 19th, 2006 @ 8:33 pm

    Having just returned from Northern Oregon, I’ll add my two cents. In the week I was there, I saw maybe three starbucks, and two were in larger chains. I don’t think I’d say that they’ve won anything yet


  9. David Ortiz (unregistered) on March 20th, 2006 @ 9:19 am

    To paraphrase Samantha Bee, let me tell you how we did it in Boston: Plazas like this tend to be much more compact, and are supplied with parking decks. Makes much more sense — you could walk from Kroger to Target instead of having to get in your car, drive 100 feet, and park again. It’s as though Edgewood was laid out by engineers with degrees in inefficiency.

    Oh, as for the coffee, since I don’t drink the stuff, I have no opinion.


  10. Daniel (unregistered) on March 20th, 2006 @ 9:24 am

    Everytime I’ve had to walk from, say, B&N to Target on opposite sides of the parking lot, I just walk. Perhaps the driving 100 feet is a personal choice and not an engineering flaw…


  11. Maigh (unregistered) on March 20th, 2006 @ 1:05 pm

    Reminds me of a scene from LA Story…anyone? Anyone?


  12. Andisheh Nouraee (unregistered) on March 20th, 2006 @ 3:59 pm

    Problem. If you park at B&N, then walk to Kroger to shop, you might have to push your cart across the the four-lane road that runs right between the two stores. People drive pretty fast on that little stretch, in large part because there are no signs or visual cues (ex. sidewalks) to tell drivers to be careful.

    Even Camp Creek Marketplace in East Point, a “power center”-type strip mall complex with no “new urban” pretensions, is better for pedestrians.

    The Sembler strip mall at Edgewood is annoying in part because its design mocks new urban design instead of embracing it. They put some of the boxes along Moreland so that, when you drive-by, it doesn’t look like a typical strip mall. But beyond that, they didn’t nothing to make it pedestrian friendly or visually appealing.

    For example, who’s the genius who decided that the main stairway to the facility’s most popular restaurant (RuSan’s) would take you right by a giant dumpster?

    I like having Target, Kroger, Lowe’s and RuSan’s, but that that shopping center is clumsy and fugly.


  13. David Ortiz (unregistered) on March 21st, 2006 @ 1:22 pm

    Hey Daniel, if I could mod up Andisheh’s comment, I would. I have no problem with walking. I just don’t like getting run over.


  14. Daniel (unregistered) on March 21st, 2006 @ 1:59 pm

    Good point, D.O. Well taken.



Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.