Starbucks—The Darwinistic “Third Place”

Had I been visiting my local Starbucks lately, I might’ve had the scoop on the fact that it is the first Starbucks to provide home delivery service. Instead, I read about it under theTimes headline, “A Marriage of New York Obsessions: Starbucks and ‘Do You Deliver?’”

My local Starbucks is on 85th St. at 1st Ave. Its delivery range is three blocks, which includes our co-op apartment. Dianne and are planning to have some friends over later this month, and we’ve decided to try out the delivery service then.

I’m a coffee drinker. I like Starbucks coffee but don’t usually head to Starbucks for hanging out. I do enjoy the patio at our local Starbucks from time to time, but indoors it feels too corporate to me. For hanging out in Yorkville, I prefer the cozier atmospheres at Tal Bagels (86th at 1st), Rors Coffee and Tea House (85th at 2nd), or DTUT (2nd at 84th).

For the Times article, the general manager was not allowed to comment on the delivery service. The reporter was referred to a marketing manger, who was “unable to provide information.” Like I said, Starbucks has a real corporate feeling.

Earlier this week, Starbucksgossip (“somebody has to monitor America’s favorite drug dealer”) featured the home delivery story. It also featured other links under the heading, “Marketers refer to Starbucks and other coffee shops as the ‘third place’". This caught my eye, because the term “third place” has been in the lexicon of urban planners for some time. It seems that the marketers have adopted the concept to explain certain community-oriented functions that have actually been around for centuries.

The term “third place” was coined by Ray Oldenburg in “The Great Good Place,” published in the pre-Starbucks era of 1991. Oldenburg wrote: “Third places are nothing more than informal public gathering places. The phrase ‘third places’ derives from considering our homes to be the ‘first’ places in our lives, and our work places the ‘second.’ . . .The character of a third place is determined most of all by its regular clientele and is marked by a playful mood, which contrasts with people's more serious involvement in other spheres. Though a radically different kind of setting for a home, the third place is remarkably similar to a good home in the psychological comfort and support that it extends.” (My emphasis.)

Coffeehouses have a grand tradition dating back to Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries as relaxed, informal places for communities of people to hang out. (Online, I found this brief, fact-filled history). They were also favorite hangouts for many so-called counterculture types during their revival in the 1960’s; back then, my high school friends and I hung out at one named with ironic flair, “The Establishment.”

While Starbucks now markets itself as the “third place” for a new generation, it employed some undermining tactics to get to its present position. A lot of great coffeehouses went under due to the Starbucks phenomena, mere road kill in Starbucks’ aim to achieve market domination. That’s quite a shift in the paradigm of the community-based coffeehouse.

Back in the mid-nineties when Starbucks boom began, one coffeehouse owner who was feeling the pinch told me he understood that Starbuck’s m.o. was to locate the first outlet in a town or city as closely as possible to the most successful existing coffeehouse, usually on the same block. I also remember a neighborhood weekly in the early 90s claimed Starbucks was known to be leasing out and subletting other storefronts to assure no new competition appeared, but that might have been just a rumor of the times. Nevertheless, one by one, countless wonderful “third place” type coffeehouses disappeared in the shadow of the new kid on the block. A victory for Darwinist economics, I suppose, if that’s any “psychological comfort.”

Now, having achieved market dominance with some 8,500 outlets, last fall Starbucks announced its goal for 30,000 stores worldwide. Perhaps not coincidently, when McDonald’s achieved 30,000 outlets several years ago it began experiencing new economic difficulties. It’s possible that 30,000 is the saturation point for world domination of a mega food service.

Using Oldenburg’s definition, does Starbucks qualify as a “third place”? I think clearly it does. However, while Starbucks coffee may be strong, its third place atmosphere is weaker than the flavorful atmospheres of many independently owned coffeehouses.

The great coffeehouses that I recall often had push-pin bulletin board, piles of newspapers, and quirky music, among other particulars. Of course, that model of coffeehouse still thrives, tucked away in many neighborhoods. But will they be able to withstand the pressure of Starbucks’ elevated Darwinistic goals?

While I think Starbucks qualifies as one of Oldenburg's third place, somehow the phrase “psychological comfort and support,” aren’t words I would choose to describe it. The walls of a Starbucks are bare of any announcements of upcoming community events. The music is selected to brand certain highwater American artists with the Starbucks name. (The late Ray Charles is the current Starbucks favorite.) Of course, no freebie newspapers are to be found, nor am I likely to even find a daily paper for sale, except the New York Times. Come to think of it, every Starbucks, in or out of the New York, seems to sell the Times exclusively. It appears to be a corporate arrangement. Say—wasn’t it in the Times that I read the article about "New York’s obsession with Starbucks" in the first place?