Starbucks opening left, right and centre!!

Aard

ongarboy wrote: »

Is there really a need for yet another Starbucks so close to all the others in that area?

Starbucks must think so!

That corner has been a few different cafés over the years, none of which have succeeded. I bet that particular venue won't be particularly profitable for Starbucks, but still it's amazing advertising.

haro124

I just think that we're near saturation point for coffee shops in Dublin! Caffe nero are opening on Merrion Row and plan to open 12 stores in the city centre. Unfortunately the ones who are going to be squeezed are the small independent stores

* The thing is, it doesn't really matter if it makes a big profit. It stops a rival opening up and increases their market share. You really cant miss one of their stores in the city centre now. 7 stores between o'connell st and the bottom of grafton

haro124

Supposedly a store opening in Talbot street aswell

Vincent Vega

I count 33 stores in Dublin county alone?!? :eek:

This map doesn't even have the 2nd Dun Laoghaire store, so I wouldn't be surprised to learn it was closer to 40.

--LOS--

Westmoreland St is ridiculous, ones right across the road from eachother

bonerjams03

I'm not one to oppose new shops opening, but I really think there should be restrictions on chains - admittedly they're better than vacant lots on O'Connell Street/Westmoreland Street but they're just sapping any potential character from the area.

Aard

What do you mean by "sapping potential character"? It's a really woolly phrase that people bandy around a lot, but which I'm not sure really means anything other than a veiled opposition to multinational retailers.

bonerjams03

Aard wrote: »

What do you mean by "sapping potential character"? It's a really woolly phrase that people bandy around a lot, but which I'm not sure really means anything other than a veiled opposition to multinational retailers.

It's not thinly veiled.

It's not an outrageous statement either - people have wanted the likes of Burger King and McDonald's off O'Connell Street for years along with the temporary signage that's there to try and improve it over all.

I know that an independent was probably capable of opening up a shop in the exact location if it was viable enough for Starbucks to do so - but I still think that there should be some provision to stop one franchiser sucking up all the streetscape.

I don't know how that would best be done, without interfering too much, just a preference I'd have.

Aard

Where would you have McDonalds and Starbucks go if not O'Connell St?

bonerjams03

Aard wrote: »

Where would you have McDonalds and Starbucks go if not O'Connell St?

Nowhere. I mean there could just be provision to not have two McDonald's beside each other. Or 4 Starbucks within 50 yards of each other.

There are laws allowing councils to veto the likes of pool halls in locations they might deem unsavoury. Similarly, I think that there should be some holding back when it comes to granting planning permission for these chains. Temple Bar's McDonalds is an example of this, as is, in my opinion, all of O'Connell street being dominated by fast food chains and now this extending to Westmoreland street.

Aard

Firstly, Ive never heard of such laws for pool halls. What defines unsavoury?

Secondly, the council have already started issuing temporary planning permissions for takeaway (in part) restaurants. So the perceived problem is being addressed.

bonerjams03

Aard wrote: »

Firstly, Ive never heard of such laws for pool halls. What defines unsavoury?

Secondly, the council have already started issuing temporary planning permissions for takeaway (in part) restaurants. So the perceived problem is being addressed.

It's discretionary - that's partly my point.

Well then that's good.

I don't think there's anything really contentious about wanting a bit more refinement in the way planning permission is allocated. It's a self perpetuating problem of arcades like Funland and chain take aways opening up on every spot that make O'Connell Street a pretty dull or undesirable place to be, or at least stay on. I think this can be extended now to the way loads of Starbucks are opening up beside each other. I just don't think it's sustainable. What is the issue with what I'm saying?

Frank Lee Midere

IRcolm wrote: »

It's discretionary - that's partly my point.

Well then that's good.

I don't think there's anything really contentious about wanting a bit more refinement in the way planning permission is allocated. It's a self perpetuating problem of arcades like Funland and chain take aways opening up on every spot that make O'Connell Street a pretty dull or undesirable place to be, or at least stay on. I think this can be extended now to the way loads of Starbucks are opening up beside each other. I just don't think it's sustainable. What is the issue with what I'm saying?

The issue is that the Starbucks decor isn't low rent. It's no different from an independent. In one case you are opposing all fast food, in this case one brand of cafe. So not equivalent.

I get free coffee at work so it's been a while since I frequented a coffee shop. I used to mix it up.

The only beef I have with Starbucks is the tax issue. Everything else is hipsterism. The coffee is fine.

Aard

I suppose the issue is that competition isn't regulated by planning laws, so you'd have a hard time refusing planning permission just because there's another branch of the shop up the road.

I understand where you're coming from, but I suppose I'm not convinced that such regulation would be of great benefit.

bonerjams03

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

The issue is that the Starbucks decor isn't low rent. It's no different from an independent. In one case you are opposing all fast food, in this case one brand of cafe. So not equivalent.

I get free coffee at work so it's been a while since I frequented a coffee shop. I used to mix it up.

The only beef I have with Starbucks is the tax issue. Everything else is hipsterism. The coffee is fine.

I never made any difference. My issue from the start was the amount of them, as in chains, within close proximity of each other. Two McDonald's etc.

It wasn't an unreasonable extension to bring in the fast food outlets - it's the same issue.

(I also make no bones about the quality of the coffee)

hfallada

Our licencing laws stop independent coffee shops like you have in France and Italy. In France most coffee shops sell small glasses of beer, wine and coffee meaning they are open late. They are for socialising and not getting drunk like in a bar.

The government wanted to introduce the same in Irish a few years ago. But the "reason" they were allowed was because it would be used by mainland Europeans. But I imagine the vinters association was the real reason

ongarboy

There was an interesting article in the Irish TImes earlier this week about inconsistent planning in the South Great Georges Street. Anyone familiar with Dublin will notice how that street and surrounding streets have become a kind of restaurant quarter that is buzzing at lunchtimes/evenings. However, planners have recently turned down an applications to convert a unit that have been vacant for years into a restaurant as the planners say they want to prevent a dominance of one retail/service offering over others but they then contradicted themselves by granting an identical planning application for another restaurant to proceed a couple of doors down. Go figure!

The argument by some is that as the area has established itself as a culinary destination (of sorts), so such applications should be granted rather than let buildings remain vacant. I agree with this logic. The charm and character alluded to by the poster above is present in this area as it is not dominated by chains but individual and unique restaurant and eating options. I've nothing againts chains opening up in locations (as they provide choice and employment) but over concentration (ie where you can stand and see 3-4 different Starbucks cafes from the same vantage point as is practically the case on O'Connell Bridge) is a sapping of character and uniqueness. 1 cafe fine on a thoroughfare - 2, 3 or more - that is over concentration.

bonerjams03

That area has become really, really nice.

And that happens organically, without interference so I know there is no point in trying to manufacture 'character' it just comes about like around South William Street and now beginning to creep into the Clanbrasil Street area, which is great.

I just think there's a huge wasted potential along Westmoreland Street - it is architecturally beautiful if you look above the garish signs of Carroll's and that casino. I think the Luas going down there will make a world of good, making it a bit more pedestrianised in parts and reduce traffic in a couple of lanes.

Fiyero

There's a new Starbucks on Leeson Street too.

Been a few complaints that they cut down all the trees in front of whatever was there before Starbucks.

Mr.Saturn

dudara wrote: »

It's a good economic sign if Starbucks are expanding again following all the stores they closed down a few years ago. Pity that they don't seem to be expanding outside Dublin though.

Personally, I kinda like Starbucks. Their coffee is OK, but more importantly, it's consistent. I'm tired of trying latest Indy coffee shop, only to get an over-roasted, over-extracted brew.

Dublin is demonstrating right now that there's plenty of room for both models, which is a good thing

Starbucks have always expanded and contracted. Their model is based on 'clustering' in that they open up at an excessive amount, being able to take the loss and then once market has been cornered, the loss-making outlets get dropped.

Louis CK, of all people, did an excellent riff about it on Opie and Anthony.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCQG-4FmhWc

Speedsie

Fiyero wrote: »

There's a new Starbucks on Leeson Street too.

Been a few complaints that they cut down all the trees in front of whatever was there before Starbucks.

Before Starbucks, it was a restaurant called I think 'The Leeson Street Cafe'. Didn't do very well. It had been lying idle for a good few years - but before that it was the extremely popular Coopers restaurant.

The trees weren't there that long, about 10 or so years, and they never sat well imho. An odd looking building I've always felt.

haro124

Saw them putting up the sign for the new starbucks at the side of clerys. Possibly at most 30 seconds from another store

KTRIC

haro124 wrote: »

Saw them putting up the sign for the new starbucks at the side of clerys. Possibly at most 30 seconds from another store

Isn't there one two doors down near the corner of North Earl Street ??

Aard

Yep and this one is on North Earl St itself. Very odd location, considering it also fronts onto a dingy side street (Earl Place?).

strandroad

Aard wrote: »

Yep and this one is on North Earl St itself. Very odd location, considering it also fronts onto a dingy side street (Earl Place?).

A second entrance perhaps?

KTRIC

Aard wrote: »

Yep and this one is on North Earl St itself. Very odd location, considering it also fronts onto a dingy side street (Earl Place?).

Now that is really extracting the urine right there :rolleyes:

Aard

mhge wrote: »

A second entrance perhaps?

Couldn't be - there's a street separating the two shops!

Pepe LeFrits

Insomnia are just as bad. They've got clusters of stores all over the place.

But yeah, the increasing prevalence of Starbucks in Dublin is worrying.

Aard

Worrying how? Their most recent locations are not really in direct competition with other cafes.

Pepe LeFrits

Aard wrote: »

Worrying how? Their most recent locations are not really in direct competition with other cafes.

And they never will be.