Today Sat Sun
It is forcast to be Overcast at 10:00 PM EST on February 10, 2012
Overcast
4°/-13°		 It is forcast to be Chance of Snow at 10:00 PM EST on February 11, 2012
Chance of Snow
-6°/-5°		 It is forcast to be Chance of Snow at 10:00 PM EST on February 12, 2012
Chance of Snow
1°/-3°

24 Comments

news

Where Goes The Neighbourhood?

By Cal MacLean

Drake_You_Ho.jpg
The urban sprawl in Toronto is a continual point of debate on Torontoist (see, for instance, our interview with Brad Lamb), but tomorrow you will get a chance to share your opinions on the matter outside of our sullied comment threads. On Monday, 7pm to 9pm at the Parkdale branch of the Toronto Public Library, fourth year students from Ryerson University will present their study of gentrification in Parkdale, followed by a moderated panel discussion and then an audience Q&A.
Sitting on the panel are Matthew Blackett (Spacing), Misha Glouberman (Trampoline Hall), Craig Peskett (Parkdale Residents Association), Victor Willis (Parkdale Activity – Recreation Centre), Margaret Zeidler (Urbanspace Property Group). Moderating will be Carl Wilson (The Globe and Mail, Zoilus).
No word on if Starbucks representatives will be present.
**Please note the change in location: the event has been moved to the Parkdale branch of the Toronto Public Library at 1303 Queen St. W.**
Photo by Fauxreel.

Comments

  • http://joeclark.org/weblogs/ Joe Clark

    Why does this posting act as though “urban sprawl,” “gentrification,” and Starbucks are exactly the same thing?
    If there is “no word” from or about Starbucks, does that mean you did the journalistically sound thing and *asked* for a comment, which was never given?

  • http://www.newmindspace.com kevin bracken

    Hey Joe,
    I know you have had positive experiences in the east end because of Starbucks moving in. We have always said, “Queen East is like Queen West on one fifth the budget” and that may be changing now in Leslieville or South Riverdale or what have you, perhaps thanks, in part, to the Seattle coffeemaker.
    Personally, I think the Queen Subway Overpass (sometimes called “the bridge”) is a huge psychological barrier on Queen West, and I think it will, for a while at least, preserve Parkdale’s character while West Queen West finally clears out the last used appliance store and empty storefront.
    My neighbourhood, West Queen West (Gladstone and east to Bathurst), is erroneously referred to as Parkdale (Dufferin and southwest), and the businesses who are most named (Drake, Gladstone, Starbucks) as “gentrifying Parkdale” are all situated in West Queen West.
    Personally I hope one of the results of this panel will be a very clear differentiation between the increasingly different ‘hoods.

  • Dave

    Yeah, I also thought the Gladstone was the western border of Queen West and Parkdale started after the bridge. And what does urban sprawl have to do with Parkdale?
    The whole gentrification debate is kind of annoying. I wish someone would explain what exactly the anti-development people want to have happen in Parkdale. Do they not want it to change at all? Like some charming run down economically depressed terrarium? Or do they just want to control who’s in and who’s not? Do I have to pass some cool test before I buy a house there?
    And why is Starbucks considered so evil?
    I don’t understand.

  • rek

    I thought Parkdale began on the west side of Dufferin.

  • scott

    When the Gladstone was built it was opposite “Parkdale Station” on the railway. One of the two stations (the more industrial one) lasted there until the late 1980′s and most people considered that little triangle around the Gladstone/48 Abell to be Parkdale or at least the gateway to Parkdale.
    The previous owners of the Gladstone told me that originally many people used Parkdale station, especially during the CNE where many exhibters stayed at the hotel. They also in conversations considered themselves part of Parkdale.
    The funny part is that until a few years ago nobody wanted to be called Parkdale so you had Sunnyside, Brockton, South Parkdale, Liberty Village etc; and now everybody wants to be Parkdale again.
    I have never liked the word gentrification as I am not sure what it means although I think it has a mostly negative connotation. One of the things that keeps citys vibrant is change and Spadina for example has experienced many waves of change and is about to undergo another. Parkdale went through a long period of decline that had a lot to do with changes in mental outpatient care that were exploited (in some cases by doctor/landlords) as the area became the catchment zone for patients from all over the province. This concentration lead to further DOGS concentration in terms of halfway houses and on and on. In a lot of ways Parkdale is going through a rebalance of sorts but still retains a very very high number of renters, be they long time residents or necomers. Parkdale remains diverse and wonderfully oddball.

  • http://thehellitcant.blogspot.com Steve

    The reason I (we) don’t like Starbucks:
    It’s not that it’s an “evil” company, it’s just that it’s gone a little overboard. If there’s no other coffeeshop around, I’ll go into a Starbucks, but do I need to see one on EVERY other corner? It’s simply an example of a large chain squeezing out “mom and pop” or independent coffeshops that can, in no way, compete with Starbucks. Now, there is an argument for Starbucks, and I can see those points of view. I’m not completely anti-Starbucks, or anti-growth. But how many do we need? They just announced in London that they’re going to build a new a new Starbucks every two weeks for two years. I just think that’s excessive.
    being from America and a country that seems to pride itself so much in “freedom” and “individualism”, yet every town looks the same and everyone shops and buys the same stuff.

  • http://www.bone.ca Dog Bone

    I’m not sure if this Starbucks pushed out any mom and pop coffee places. There was no place in this entire part of town to get a good coffee, and Starbucks filled that void. Mom and Pop had years and years to open one when the rents were cheap and artists and whoever roamed free, but didn’t. Parkdale west of the bridge until recently was still a bit of a coffee-less land (Coffee Time doesn’t count, neither do bars/restaurants as it’s awkward to get takeout at such places). There are a few more now, that came along with Drake/Gladstone/Starbucks opening.
    So yes, it’s complicated to talk about gentrification and Starbucks here.

  • rek

    In this case maybe they jumped the gun to get their foot in the door before the neighbourhood “turned around”, but that just means they’re expanding in a different way. It doesn’t change their anti-competitive replication elsewhere in the city and the world. As a corporation Starbucks is willing to lose money at individual franchises by competing with itself as the cost of getting a Starbucks on every corner (and sometimes more than one).
    Take a look at Queen East for another example. There are a number of coffee shops (and places that have coffee on a larger menu) and Starbucks has moved in. How long will Mercury Café (a bit west of Carlaw) last? I don’t drink coffee, but my coworkers say the place is a ghosttown now. The neighbourhood has been changing visibly over the last 2 years, and condos are going up. How long until Starbucks targets the newly-opened Dark Horse (just west of Broadview)?
    Starbucks doesn’t cause gentrification but it’s usually an undeniable symbol/symptom of it, so the anti-gentrification set understandably shake their fists in its direction (and then go buy $7 frappamoccajibbajabbas).

  • Marc Lostracco

    Had it been a Tim Hortons, nobody would have complained. At least, the pre-Wendy’s, fresher donut Tim Hortons, that is.

  • john

    Please be aware that it is Starbucks competitive corporate strategy to saturate markets to the point where they are cannibalizing their own stores’ sales.
    Perhaps there may not have been a decent place to buy coffee before. But now that the first of the megacorps is in, you can bet your ass the rest will take notice, rents will rise when they all try and get in, and some of the unique places that made the area so great in the first place are forced out. Next thing you know the whole area is a giant skyscraper filled park like CityPlace with the exact same stores giving us shoddy quality products and services as everywhere else. Ok, maybe not quite like that but you get the point.
    Finally Starbucks is SHIT, and is ridiculously expensive. It’s like buying a Lincoln, it’s still the same shitty Ford underneath.

  • Jonathan

    I’m shocked that a Starbucks still has yet to open in Cabbagetown, despite the prime leasing locations opening up recently (like the north-west corner of Parliament and Carlton, which became a new Ginger franchise).
    It seems like Parliament street would be such a prime target for more gentrification, but it is happening so slowly, even though the more wealthier residents moved in over a decade ago now.

  • dave

    If people in a neighbourhood suddenly flock to the Starbucks when it opens, then
    1) Mom and Pop’s coffee blows
    or
    2) Mom and Pop cofee is good, but neighbourhood people don’t give a shit about supporting the little guy.
    My question remains unanswered: what exactly do people want to have happen to Parkdale? And who gets to decide the storefront fate of the neighbourhood?

  • Erin Armstrong

    As a board member of the Parkdale Liberty Economic Development Corporation (PLEDC), the organization that hosted the Ryerson study and who are organizing/hosting this evening’s event (albeit uncredited by Torontoist, who also chose their own unrelated display photo), and as a resident of Parkdale myself, perhaps I can shed some light on what exactly we will be discussing tonight.
    As an organization, one of our main goals is to find creative ways to manage gentrification as it inexorably heads into our neighbourhoods. We want to reap the benefits of gentrification, while remaining a comforatable, welcoming and desirable home for its wonderfully diverse population (new Canadians, students, artists, mental health survivors, families, etc.). ie. Starbucks or other chains are welcome, but not at the cost of closing down every family-run joint on the strip. Things like condo or other business developments are welcome as long as they incorporate serious community consultation.
    We’re working very hard to build a community that is no longer willing to just be told by the powers that be what is going to happen to our streets in the next ten years. We want to be active proponents for these future developoments.
    It’s a much bigger issue, and much more exciting, than just saying yes or no to Starbucks. Come see for yourselves!

  • rek

    Tim Hortons, even post-Wendy’s, doesn’t have a reputation for driving out the competition, or oversaturating areas in order to accomplish that.

  • http://taylor.typepad.com Chris Taylor

    I think Dave’s point was that people still have to shop there, rek. Voluntarily. If Starbucks wants to buy every single available storefront along Bloor Street from Spadina to Islington, they are free to do so within zoning regulations. If Starbucks management feels that is a wise investment of the company’s money, great.
    Somebody still has to buy coffee at these locations to make them worthwhile in the long run.
    A company can support the odd money-losing franchise for a while, but not indefinitely. Even if you succeed in driving out every single other coffee franchise in the city, sooner or later, some executive at home office gunning for promotion is going to find a way to save a few pennies and say “why are we wasting money on these unprofitable franchises?” Then they will disappear. Storefronts will become available. And someone will open up a non-Starbucks coffee shop, if they think the market will support it.
    How many deliberately unprofitable locations do you think the manager of a corporate store is willing to endure on his resume? Can you imagine how great that looks on his work experience? “Did not boost sales by 10%”. “Revenues declined by 40% but managed to keep competitor from opening a location nearby”. “COLA raises for staff paid for by head office, not site revenue.” “Staff turnover 60% per annum for this location.” How many people do you figure are willing to directly sabotage their own careers for the good of the company?
    You are treating consumers (and employees) as if they have absolutely no choice in the matter, rek. Let me give you a counter-example. I hate Tim Hortons coffee. There is a Tim Hortons franchise in every single tower in my office complex and every tower that surrounds it. The mere presence of an overwhelming number of Tim Hortons franchises does not ensure that I buy coffee there. I never do. I don’t like it.
    For that matter, I like certain Starbucks coffees. But I also refuse to buy them, because I consider them too expensive; not a very good value proposition. There are also Starbucks franchises in almost every tower in the complex and definitely franchises in every surrounding tower. I still don’t buy their coffee; the value proposition doesn’t get any better no matter how many franchises are present.
    The point is, even if Starbucks engages in some anti-competitive behaviour, it cannot sustain it forever. Especially if 1) people are about their careers and 2) the locals don’t like Starbucks coffee.

  • Chris Dart

    How was this?
    I wanted to go, but I suck.
    Seriously, gentrification is a loaded ass word, but I live at Queen and Landsdowne and I don’t want a million Starbucks and a Lululemon and all types of expensive stores in my neighbourhood.
    I won’t lie though. A Timmy Ho’s would be super dope.

  • GH

    Starbucks is not the price leader when it comes to coffee, not by far. So how is it that a couple of money losing operations are anti-competitive? Its not anti-competitive to overbuild capacity. It is to engage in predatory pricing, which Starbucks is not accused of. If one decides to go into Starbucks over a Mom-and-Pop that sells for less, one is making a decision based on perceived value – for the coffee, the experience etc. Starbucks has been extremely successful at this, but this is the essence of competition, not the antithesis of it. Someone please explain the anti-competitive behaviour that is injuring the small guy – I suspect it will in fact be competitive behaviour, which when done well by a large corporation is transformed into something nefarious by many.

  • rek

    Coffee price is not how Starbucks competes. Starbucks also doesn’t compete with places like Second Cup (its nearest competitor in the world, from what I’ve read) or the Mom’s & Pop’s by targetting consumers.
    Starbucks’ known tactics:
    •Exclusive lease agreements; if property management wants a Starbucks, they may be required to agree that no other coffee/espresso vendors will be allowed to lease space in the same building or complex; Starbucks sweetens the deal by offering above-market prices for the space,
    •Buying out the competition and below-market price, and threatening to open Starbucks shops adjacent to the target if they don’t sell (which creates a scenario wherein the target can either take a ‘sure thing’ or risk losing their business and being left with nothing),
    •Buying up specialty coffee providers in order to cut off the competition at the supplier level,
    •Cluster bombing and cannibalization; which isn’t about drawing consumers in as it is about drawing them away. With the brand recognition that Starbucks has, non-locals who don’t want to experiment with the local offerings will flock to the known brand. This is something all fast food franchises capitalize on.
    To clarify that last point, which is what I think you misunderstood Chris Taylor: Starbucks doesn’t open locations expecting them to hemmorhage cash. Starbucks will open locations that compete with existing Starbucks shops however, causing individual shops to lose revenue, as I said, but the total revenue of the area will increase. Once the competition is gone and the shops can only compete with themselves, shops are eventually closed or the franchise rights bought back (or however that works).

  • rek

    As for how I’m “treating” customers, I’m not entirely convinced people have much choice in the matter.
    Starbucks doesn’t sell coffee, it sells a lifestyle. There is a huge part of the population that that speaks to, above and beyond the prices or worries of monoculture or unfair businesses practice or anything like that. People buy stuff they know is bad for themselves or bad for the environment or their neighbourhood when it’s sold to them the right way. For a lot of things it’s price and convenience, for other things it’s brand associations and lifetyle images.
    And the perceived lack of choice can go quite the distance too: If I look up the street I can recognize Starbucks, McDonald’s, Futureshop, etc, but the other coffee shop, burger joint, or appliance store don’t even register as the same types of places unless I’m already aware of them or predisposed against Starbucks and McDonald’s and Futureshop.

  • GH

    I fail to see how these are anti-competitive.
    1. Exclusive lease arrangements – landlords are free to enter into any contract they see fit. Many businesses obtain exclusivity for their type of business, not just Starbucks. Many businesses get exclusivity to sell a product, use a trademark, operate in a location etc. If landlords want to limit who they can lease to, so be it. These arrangements have not prevented proliferating locations of Second Cup, Tim Horton’s, Coffee Time etc. And if they can afford to pay more, it is because they have a business that can absorb higher costs (i.e., a successful business).
    2. Buying out the competition/below market offers – this is competition. If you are afraid of Starbucks opening, it is a reflection of your business’ ability to compete. If you feel that you are better off to sell, then unless there is some sort of fraud or undue duress (not the threat of competing with another business, which is encouraged under the law) the price you accept is market price.
    3. Buying coffee providers – classic vertical integration. There are laws against concentration/monopoly in markets, so assuming that these have been complied with (if you have evidence otherwise…) what is the issue. A competitive tactic again. Is there a case for keeping all parts of a value chain separately owned?
    4. Again, this is competition. Unfortunately, consumers go where they perceive value, and branding is a way to communicate this. Should a business with a strong brand be restricted from expanding?

  • rek

    Buying out the competition, blocking competition from co-existing in the same building, and cutting off their suppliers may not be illegal (may being the word to be tested in a California court) but it is anticompetitive. Starbucks accounts for ~80% of the coffee shop market in some places, which casts its behaviour in a certain monopolistic light.

  • x_the_x

    Interesting comment, rek. Would you have an address where one could review these California allegations in more detail?
    To clarify, at least under Canadian law, “cutting off their suppliers” is prohibited. Exclusivity provisions in leases are common in a number of industries – a shopping mall, for instance, has some of the most detailed – so I don’t know why Starbucks is being unfairly targeted for this. Targeting and buying out the competition, as I have commented on at length on the shoppers drug mart post on this page, is completely innocuous and an example of opponents of Starbucks using pernicious terms to demonize competitive behaviour. Offhand, I can’t think of one local, independent coffee shop in the city who has been bought out (conceding that Starbucks tried and failed with Dooney’s in the late 90s). In fact, I can think of a number that exist and thrive in proximity to large chain coffee retailers.
    As some earlier posts have alluded to, Starbucks success depends entirely on the willingness of people to purchase their products. There is a tendency to blame the big bad corp (especially the American big bad corp, which is just sloppy) where any transaction requires both a seller and a buyer. What the critique amounts to, then, is that the soft leftish artiste crowd (who have risibly dubbed themselves “hipsters”) are upset that the masses do not have the same preferences and tastes as they do for quirky, local, independent coffee shops. The added punch here is the claim that such practices “drive them out of the neighborhood”, which means, if true (and I doubt it is), their preferences have even less purchasing power. The leftish artiste crowd is content to ride the wave of gentrification while it generates cool, quirky independent businesses in a cheap neighborhood, but cry foul when the masses flock to take advantage of such development. In short, it is status anxiety.
    Like any status or niche good, you can expect that the result of departing from mass preferences is you have to pay more for what you want. When a Starbucks raises the rent for other local businesses (also entirely debatable), that local, cool, quirky cafe can stlll survive, it just needs to generate more revenue. Whats missing here is that Starbucks, in setting the market for $4 coffees, actually creates room for businesses to do this and still remain competitive. And for those who would defend their right to cheap coffee, any of the solutions that have been canvassed – from government subsidization of artist residences to restrictions on the businesses which are able to access the market – have exactly the same effect – you are still paying “more” to preserve your preferences, in the form of increased regulation or less economic activity. The difference is that the government is spending your money on what it thinks your preferences are. As a regular at a number of local coffee spots, I’d rather spend my money myself.

  • Don Quixote

    The public forum announcement issued by Parkdale Liberty Economic Development Corporation (PLEDC). “WHERE Goes the Neighbourhood? Managing Gentrification in Parkdale” on Monday January 22, 2007 – 7 pm-9 pm. Was misleading. “In the past several years Parkdale neighbourhood has undergone a considerable amount of change. Is that a good thing? Is that a bad thing? And what happens next?” the forum announcement asks.
    The forum was suppose to bring together residents, local business owners, community service organizations, and political and media types, to discuss, debate, and brainstorm how we can achieve a socially sustainable neighbourhood, but didn’t.
    Toronto Parkdale has two City Wards 14 and 13. This forum had more to do with South Parkdale Ward 14, for that reason I found it lame and badly organized. The event on Monday night (January 22nd, 2007) was all about marginalized tenants in ward 14 and nothing about homeowners, other than a show of hands and no developers or city planners.
    Paneliest appeared out to scare monger residents. Many times the forum panelists went completely off topic and talked about their own community agenda’s, wasting our time with mundane hot air.
    You can read the rest of my comments about forum over at queer west village toronto blog. I heard today that PLEDC office staff pan my story and said it was full of errors, what are they really afraid of?

  • James

    Many years ago when Starbucks crept north of the border into Vancouver there was a nervous outcry by local coffee and restaurants. They fought tooth and nail but legally had nothing to say.
    Starbucks moved in and with them came a flood of new customers to the area. They also attracted people who never bought coffee on the run (people used to make it at home way back when!!!) They did not destroy the market, they increased it 5 fold for everyone.
    The article interviewed local businesses a year later and said if they knew this, they would have asked them to set up shop next to them sooner.
    Starbucks prices (stupidly high) also allowed ‘cheaper’ places to raise their prices and still appear as the reasonable alternative.
    There is a reason why McDonalds wants to be next to a Wendy’s – to create a market where hungry people know to go – when they get there the real competition begins.
    Exclusive contracts in a building are standard practice everywhere for all types of tenants. Paying more to get it is called reality.
    Why do no people rant and rave over the Starbucks lids sticking together when you have one hand free?
    James