Does Starbuck's have an agenda?

Found this on a blog ( http://stribs.blogspot.com/2006/02/chock-full-o-nuts.html --I edited some of the opinion out):

quote:

Chock Full O' Nuts

Apparently, last year, Baylor University banned a Starbucks cup from its campus, saying the quotation it featured promoted gayness. Not to be outdone, and due to the same quote, Bob Jones University recently banned Starbucks from the campus all together.

The offending quote? Armistead Maupin:
"My only regret about being gay is that I repressed it for so long. I surrendered my youth to the people I feared when I could have been out there loving someone. Don't make that mistake yourself. Life's too damn short."
A BJU student blogging about the quote details how the University's President Dr. Stephen Jones contacted Starbucks to complain about it and didn't get much of a response. So Jones announced the ban in chapel on January 31st. The student concludes, "Does Starbucks have an agenda? I don't know, but this makes them suspect."

{{SNIP}}

Elsewhere we learn that Starbucks also included quotes (on its cups) from evangelical Christian Rick Warren and conservative pundit Jonah Goldberg:
Everywhere, unthinking mobs of “independent thinkers” wield tired clichés like cudgels, pummeling those who dare question “enlightened” dogma. If “violence never solved anything,” cops wouldn’t have guns and slaves may never have been freed. If it’s better that 10 guilty men go free to spare one innocent, why not free 100 or 1,000,000? Clichés begin arguments, they don’t settle them.

{{SNIP}}

If so, what is it??

I would say no to "agenda" and maybe yes to a corporate "point of view."

Lewis Black has a great set about two starbucks across the street from each other.
Hilarious.

I would say that Starbucks agenda is to transform a world that once paid 50 cents for a small cup of joe to a world that will pay $2.50 for a grande soy latte. The agenda is the bottom line.

quote:

Originally posted by marberthenad

I would say that Starbucks agenda is to transform a world that once paid 50 cents for a small cup of joe to a world that will pay $2.50 for a grande soy latte. The agenda is the bottom line.

My personal view is that that is pretty close to the truth, however I also think that their corporate view is that we San Franciscans and other "blue staters" are more likely to happily fork over the $2.50 for that elitist little cup and so they are not above catering to our prejudices on their cups. It's all very calculated--to make money--but I do suspect their cupside quotes probably tend to the left end of the political spectrum 'cause I don't think they realistically expect to be selling as many soy lattes in serious mid-American roadfood country as on the coasts.

Starbuck's, like Nike, wants to portray itself as a rogue corporation, a bit of an outlaw. The agenda is profitability and hipness, an air of discernment, all to make an essentially utilitarian object a measure of cool and hipness.

For a recent visit mom and sister flew into Orlando, because the round trip ticket was $100.00 cheaper. ( They didn't consider the 150mile, 2.5hr one way trip/600miles,10hrs driving double round trip) The plane got in around 730pm, when leaving I wanted coffee for the trip home and went to stop at a local conveniance store, in the strip mall was Starbucks which of course was where my sister wanted to go. All I wanted was a large black w/sugar... Sis says "Oh no, you HAVE to have a rappa dappa squemy sumthin sumthin sumthin.." I still don't know what I got.. it WAS sweet with foam on top but not something I'd pay $4.00 for..

I'm in agreement with Mr. Chips. It's not cofee that Starbuck's sells, it's the hip, cool cafe environment. The proof is in the upstart of some new diners in DC that are hip and cool and all of the sudden the combination bar/diner is the place "to be" on a Friday night. A diner? the place to be?

Obviously, coffee is the product that is sold in the the Starbucks environment, and certainly there is a connection between coffee and sitting in a cafe. If you take your coffee to go, then you're just paying $4 for a fluffy coffee, but if you sit in the cafe for an hour or more with your $4 drink and some good friends, sitting in a sofa or at a chic table with a clear view of a window for people watching, and good conversation to boot, then that $4 is actually well spent. And that is really what Starbucks is selling. In major cities, there really aren't many places where you can order just a cup of coffee and occupy a table with your friends, or even by yourself, for an hour or more.

quote:

Originally posted by Scorereader

I'm in agreement with Mr. Chips. It's not cofee that Starbuck's sells, it's the hip, cool cafe environment. The proof is in the upstart of some new diners in DC that are hip and cool and all of the sudden the combination bar/diner is the place "to be" on a Friday night. A diner? the place to be?

Obviously, coffee is the product that is sold in the the Starbucks environment, and certainly there is a connection between coffee and sitting in a cafe. If you take your coffee to go, then you're just paying $4 for a fluffy coffee, but if you sit in the cafe for an hour or more with your $4 drink and some good friends, sitting in a sofa or at a chic table with a clear view of a window for people watching, and good conversation to boot, then that $4 is actually well spent. And that is really what Starbucks is selling. In major cities, there really aren't many places where you can order just a cup of coffee and occupy a table with your friends, or even by yourself, for an hour or more.

Interesting. Starbucks actually has a very "uncool" image in San Francisco, in spite of their efforts. They are seen as a corporate interloper, muscling in on both the local chain Peet's and the >100 (personally, I call that "many") locally owned and run coffee shops and cafes in the City. Cafe Trieste claims to have started the coffee house phenomenon locally in the 1950's (when it was a hangout for "beatnik's" like local boy Lawrence Ferlinghetti). Nowadays they range from the traditional like Trieste to flamboyant "see and be seen" spots like Cafe Flore in the gay Castro neighborhood to quiet neighborhood places like Sacred Grounds Cafe in the Haight. All of these places are probably cheaper than Starbuck's (fluffy coffee maybe $2.50 or $3) and not only allow but encourage folks to sit and do homework, read the the paper or surf the web (many now have wireless broadband). Most of them have Starbuck's competition across the street or down the block, but Starbuck's tends to do best in SF at downtown Financial and business district locations where the rent would be too high for locals to compete or near transit hubs where people can grab a quick grande fru-fru non-fat whatever on the way to work or during a work break. They also dominate near tourist magnet's (i.e. Fisherman's Wharf etc) because the mom/pop coffee shops can look scary to out-of-towners (with their threadbare furniture, multi-pierced/tatooed baristas and poly-wierd customer base).

As for the uber-hip diner trend, I'm going to guess that SF's own Fog City Diner may have started that one too with the notion of gourmet dinerfood more than a decade ago .

The anti-Starbucks feeling is actually pretty strong here in Portland, Oregon. A Starbucks was fire-bombed by persons unknown when it opened a couple of years ago in inner South East Portland. There are a large number of independents where the artist types hang out. A lot of Starbuck's snob appeal cachet disappeared when a fairly large number of Starbucks moved into Safeways

quote:

Originally posted by mr chips

The anti-Starbucks feeling is actually pretty strong here in Portland, Oregon. A Starbucks was fire-bombed by persons unknown when it opened a couple of years ago in inner South East Portland. There are a large number of independents where the artist types hang out. A lot of Starbuck's snob appeal cachet disappeared when a fairly large number of Starbucks moved into Safeways

Yeah, the only Starbuck's here in Green Valley, AZ are inside the 2 Safeways. Since they have little or no "atmosphere", I've often wondered how much business they do. I glance over there each time I grocery shop. They don't look real busy but there's usually a few folks sitting around (but I don't think you have to be a Starbuck's customer to sit at one of their tables).

quote:

Originally posted by BT

quote:

Originally posted by Scorereader

I'm in agreement with Mr. Chips. It's not cofee that Starbuck's sells, it's the hip, cool cafe environment. The proof is in the upstart of some new diners in DC that are hip and cool and all of the sudden the combination bar/diner is the place "to be" on a Friday night. A diner? the place to be?

Obviously, coffee is the product that is sold in the the Starbucks environment, and certainly there is a connection between coffee and sitting in a cafe. If you take your coffee to go, then you're just paying $4 for a fluffy coffee, but if you sit in the cafe for an hour or more with your $4 drink and some good friends, sitting in a sofa or at a chic table with a clear view of a window for people watching, and good conversation to boot, then that $4 is actually well spent. And that is really what Starbucks is selling. In major cities, there really aren't many places where you can order just a cup of coffee and occupy a table with your friends, or even by yourself, for an hour or more.

Interesting. Starbucks actually has a very "uncool" image in San Francisco, in spite of their efforts. They are seen as a corporate interloper, muscling in on both the local chain Peet's and the >100 (personally, I call that "many") locally owned and run coffee shops and cafes in the City. Cafe Trieste claims to have started the coffee house phenomenon locally in the 1950's (when it was a hangout for "beatnik's" like local boy Lawrence Ferlinghetti). Nowadays they range from the traditional like Trieste to flamboyant "see and be seen" spots like Cafe Flore in the gay Castro neighborhood to quiet neighborhood places like Sacred Grounds Cafe in the Haight. All of these places are probably cheaper than Starbuck's (fluffy coffee maybe $2.50 or $3) and not only allow but encourage folks to sit and do homework, read the the paper or surf the web (many now have wireless broadband). Most of them have Starbuck's competition across the street or down the block, but Starbuck's tends to do best in SF at downtown Financial and business district locations where the rent would be too high for locals to compete or near transit hubs where people can grab a quick grande fru-fru non-fat whatever on the way to work or during a work break. They also dominate near tourist magnet's (i.e. Fisherman's Wharf etc) because the mom/pop coffee shops can look scary to out-of-towners (with their threadbare furniture, multi-pierced/tatooed baristas and poly-wierd customer base).

As for the uber-hip diner trend, I'm going to guess that SF's own Fog City Diner may have started that one too with the notion of gourmet dinerfood more than a decade ago .

In DC, more places are opening up like Cosi's (another chain) and other neighborhood coffee shops, book stores with a cafe and poetry readings, music groups and open mics. But I think Starbuck's helped to spur it on. Perhaps in a place like SF which already had places like that, Starbuck's wasn't so necessary.

Sure, in the East, we had coffee shops before Starbuck's, but it wasn't the popular thing to do necessarily. Going to a bar was surely a place to hang out with friends with one drink, of course, it also meant the involvement of alcohol.

Also, the new bar/diners that are opening are not the first. They're the first in a new wave of bar/diners to hit DC. Over a decade ago Cafe Deluxe opened in the Cathedral Heights neighborhood of DC and has been popular and "cool" since it opened. Along with the Zebra lounge across the street which is a coffee house and bar all wrapped into one. And "Au Pied De Cochon" has been selling diner food along with an open bar since the 60's. The place hasn't changed since the 60's as the booths are dilapitated, and the food is no longer fit for human consumption before 2am, but the wall is littered with the pictures of the famous visitors to Au Pied De Cochon since the 60's. Although, I think the last celeb to visit and give them a signed picture was some time in the 80's. But no matter, it's a relic that also shows that all the new hip diner-bars are really a throwback to an earlier time.

So, no, coffee shops and deluxe diners aren't new to DC either, many cafes and diners can trace it's roots back to the 50's (like Bob and Edith's Diner in Arlington,VA) and 60's too. But, the opening of these new places is showing the return of an old trend.

And while Starbuck's may not be "cool" in your town, threadbare furniture, multi-pierced/tatooed baristas and poly-wierd customers aren't the main hip trend here. "Cool" is different in different places.

In Boston, Starbucks bought all the viable competition before they moved into town. Simply made 'em an offer they couldn't refuse.

As for an agenda, I hope some people enjoy The Onion. http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28657

Todays Boston Herald Business section they just inked a deal with Stop And Shop grocery stores. This is the first volly to oust Dunkin Donuts from the many stores in the chain. Chow Jim

quote:

Originally posted by Scorereader



Sure, in the East, we had coffee shops before Starbuck's, but it wasn't the popular thing to do necessarily. Going to a bar was surely a place to hang out with friends with one drink, of course, it also meant the involvement of alcohol.

The difference, perhaps, is that in SF these places aren't just fun or popular, they are essential. First of all you must know that San Francisco has a lower percentage of kids in its population than any other major metropolitan area--and the Chronicle keeps reminding us that the population of the City school system drops by about 1000 kids every year. But what it has a high proportion of is young single adults; 20-somethings. And what's driving the families with kids out of town is also forcing the young adults to pair up as roomates: the amazingly high cost of housing (2 bedroom apartment $1800 - $2500/month). But when you are forced to share a flat with someone you barely know and whose tastes in many things from music to boyfriends (and attitude toward drugs and booze) you may not share, having a place to get out of the apartment--an alternative living room if you will--is darned near essential. And that is what the SF cafe or coffee shop really is: an alternative living room. And this has apparently been true here since the Beat Generation brought many of the nation's youth to town in 1950's (and some say it goes back to the Gold Rush which similarly inundated the place with singles and caused high prices for nearly everything).

Like I said, Starbuck's is not only uncool here, it is viewed by many as a hated outsider (from the other Pacific Coast town viewed as the Bay Area's true rival in so many things--Seattle). And if you want super-expensive chain coffee concoctions, we have our own source, Peet's, which has quite a few very loyal local fans: http://www.peets.com/stores/stores.asp

All I know is, after I drink a Starbucks' Caramel Macchiato, I feel the uncontrollable urge to sing show tunes and endlessly watch La Cage Aux Folles!

quote:

Originally posted by Kenny da Fat Man

All I know is, after I drink a Starbucks' Caramel Macchiato, I feel the uncontrollable urge to sing show tunes and endlessly watch La Cage Aux Folles!

Please explain.

I think their agenda is to sell a lot of coffee by confusing people...small/tall whats that all about? Grande??? Give me a break....

I avoid them at all costs but in a life or death situation you have to go to Starbucks, Order a "short"; it is $1.30. If you say small you get a large so remember "short", and watch out they might still try to give a large!.
Better yet flash a c-note and you get whatever drink you order for free because they have strict orders from headquarters to take nothing over $20 and they ask if you can pay next time and of course you can and by the time you do come back there will be a whole new crew.

Starbuck's Warning;

If you go to a Seattle's Best Coffee chain shop thinking you are rebeling the joke is on you. They're owned by Starbuck's
There are others I can't remember which ones so beware!

quote:

Originally posted by stevencarry

Starbuck's Warning;

If you go to a Seattle's Best Coffee chain shop thinking you are rebeling the joke is on you. They're owned by Starbuck's
There are others I can't remember which ones so beware!

As you may recall, there was once another chain running the coffee concession at Yerba Buena Gardens (up over top of the Martin Luther King memorial). Always seemed to me like it did a good business. Then Starbuck's bought it--and then it died. Disappeared. Poof! Even though I used to stop in there fairly often for coffee and a pastry, can't recall the name, though.

In SF, if you just hate Starbuck's but don't mind patronizing a chain (and don't have a Peet's nearby), there a growing number of Tully's and, so far as I know, Starbuck's doesn't own them.

Starbuck's bought all the small chains in SF except Spinelli's which was bought by Tully's
Your spot overlooking the park at Metreon would have been pre 1999, and I can't remember.
I am not anti chain just against a chain who's goal is to be the ONLY place you can buy the product they sell.
I have worked in several locations in DT SF where there was 5 FIVE 5 (five) starbuck's in view....... and nothing else (even in Safeway and Border's)
That's out of control.

Best spot.....Java Beach at the end of Judah..Ocean Beach

quote:

Originally posted by stevencarry


I have worked in several locations in DT SF where there was 5 FIVE 5 (five) starbuck's in view....... and nothing else (even in Safeway and Border's)
That's out of control.

Hah! We used to measure distance in SF in "Yet Wah's" In case that's mysterious, Yet Wah was a Chinese mini-chain that had so many branches in certain parts of town (the Richmond) that you could see one from the other (I don't know if it still exists). Maybe now it'll have to be "Starbuck units".

Ocean Beach? Kind of damp and foggy out there ain't it? Of course that's probably good for coffee sales but not so good for al fresco pastry/coffee/newspaper.

Hey, now you are getting personal.
The best chinese on my downtown main street is....yeah
www.yetwahsanrafael.com ...plus
The location in Crocket is now "The Dead Fish" a nice.. well you know..place owned by The Stinking Rose..Calzone's, and those places at Fishmns Wharf
The Richmond yeah, still there.
The reason you are getting personal is I worked at the Strawberry Village location (Town & Country Village) washing dishes for one night in 1972 which later moved to Larkspur Landing where I go to the gym and then to downtown and it taught me a lot.

To be on the other side of the swinging door!!!!!!!!!!

You worked at Yet Wah?? OMG. I think the first potsticker I ever had (a revelatory experience to say the least) came from there c. 1976.

quote:

Originally posted by BT

quote:

Originally posted by Scorereader



Sure, in the East, we had coffee shops before Starbuck's, but it wasn't the popular thing to do necessarily. Going to a bar was surely a place to hang out with friends with one drink, of course, it also meant the involvement of alcohol.

The difference, perhaps, is that in SF these places aren't just fun or popular, they are essential. First of all you must know that San Francisco has a lower percentage of kids in its population than any other major metropolitan area--and the Chronicle keeps reminding us that the population of the City school system drops by about 1000 kids every year. But what it has a high proportion of is young single adults; 20-somethings. And what's driving the families with kids out of town is also forcing the young adults to pair up as roomates: the amazingly high cost of housing (2 bedroom apartment $1800 - $2500/month). But when you are forced to share a flat with someone you barely know and whose tastes in many things from music to boyfriends (and attitude toward drugs and booze) you may not share, having a place to get out of the apartment--an alternative living room if you will--is darned near essential. And that is what the SF cafe or coffee shop really is: an alternative living room. And this has apparently been true here since the Beat Generation brought many of the nation's youth to town in 1950's (and some say it goes back to the Gold Rush which similarly inundated the place with singles and caused high prices for nearly everything).

Like I said, Starbuck's is not only uncool here, it is viewed by many as a hated outsider (from the other Pacific Coast town viewed as the Bay Area's true rival in so many things--Seattle). And if you want super-expensive chain coffee concoctions, we have our own source, Peet's, which has quite a few very loyal local fans: http://www.peets.com/stores/stores.asp

we have the same rent problem here. We have the same need for an "extra living room." We have our own local places too. It's not so different, except for the fact that you (as a city, not personally) obviously have a problem with one particular Seattle based company. And that's fine. You all can run them out of your town. It doesn't mean that it's a fact that Starbuck's sucks. It just mean's you all have a nice rivalry going.
I doubt a Dallas based cafe would succeed in this town, since the Cowboys are truely hated as is everything "Dallas." (and lately Texas as well)

But my point, is that Starbucks doesn't sell coffee, it sells the experience of going to a cafe. An "extra living room" as you put it. For towns that don't have a plethora of places already like that, and if your town does not hate Seattle, then Starbucks fits the need for a place outside your home, to sit and relax with a beverage for an hour or more with a $4 drink. I don't think that point was refuted.

Starbucks, in it's ever glorious marketing scheme, has managed to sell the public their beans in the grocery store, so that you can bring that experience home. Which seems ridiculous to me, since the reason I would even go to Starbucks in the first place, is to get out and NOT be sitting home. So, needless-to-say,I don't buy Starbuck's coffee beans, which are very expensive compared to other coffee beans that I can buy and are better anyways.

Oh great, now I have to start checking my fast food cups for political agenda.

I just thought their agenda was selling prohibitively expensive, foul tasting coffee to rich soccer moms and trendy teeny-boppers.

I make my own coffee and carry it with or drink it at home with my husband and a good book.

quote:

Originally posted by Catracks



I just thought their agenda was selling prohibitively expensive, foul tasting coffee to rich soccer moms and trendy teeny-boppers.

There's no question that's the product sold at Starbucks. But you can't package a restaurant or coffee shop using that slogan!

and the slogan "warm beer, loudy food" is already taken...plus Starbucks doesn't sell beer.

Tonight PBS's "Nightly Business Report" says next week Starbucks is going to roll out a new "premium" house coffee for which they plan to charge MORE THAN THEY NOW CHARGE for a house coffee. What do you all think? Is there a market for a higher-priced Starbuck's coffee?

Absolutely, It's called Peet's. Best enjoyed at the original location on Vine in Berkeley

quote:

Originally posted by stevencarry

Absolutely, It's called Peet's. Best enjoyed at the original location on Vine in Berkeley

Well, that's a long trip when one of the newest locations (under construction when I headed to AZ for the winter) is on the ground floor of my SF building (where Firenze used to be).

HOWEVER, to rephrase the question, "Can Starbucks sell their coffee for more than ever?"

quote:

Originally posted by stevencarry


As for your Max's location the problem is they are all so cookie cutter now you get a feeling you could be anywhere even Starbuck's.
Some locations of Peet's like the original and my hometown of Mill Valley,Ca
You really feel like it's the only location not a corporate one.Again I have nothing against chains in fact I spend a lot of money in them, they just need to have personality.
You want personality........ Go to the place by the Hastings(?)Law school near you. It's called Wild Awakenings or something like that maybe on McCallister. It's got old couchs and coffee tables (did i say coffee) and people studying and sleeping and oh just take me back to Greenwich Village circa 1964 will ya.

Not Max's (I have disliked Max's for 24 years). When I left town, they were building out a Peet's at the corner of Turk and Van Ness in my building.

As for Wild Awakenings, for the last 10 years I have worked part time at 7th and Market and I used to take my breaks and sometimes my lunch hours there. Know it well. And I must say, you get around for a member of the "bridge and tunnel" crowd.

PS: For an off-topic digression (actually, the whole post may be off topic so I'll just say STARBUCK's), let me add that most of my lunch's were from George's Deli near 6th and Market. It was fascinating watching George whip up a really good Polish sausage in such a small space. Think "Snap!", then a rush of delicious juiciness.

quote:

Originally posted by stevencarry

I think that anyone who goes there needs to pay whatever asked of them because they do not take advantage of their God given talent for original thought.

that is just about the most condescending and rudest thing I've ever read on this site.

quote:

Originally posted by stevencarry

I meant Peet's in the Max's building...I haven't been there but I don't need to as they have a cookie cutter design that is the same everywhere, it's Starbuck's done is brown instead of green.
I wonder, does Greenwich Village still have coffee houses like I am thinking of.
I'll call Dave Van Ronk or Tom Rush or John Sebastian and they will know.

From what I have been able to observe, no they don't. There are a lot of Starbuck's in New York these days and I'm sure there are plenty of them in Greenwich Villiage which is pretty upscale now. In my recent trip to NYC, I don't recall seeing anything like the independent coffee shops (complete with old, overstuffed furniture and the rest) all over SF. There are plenty of independent places, but they are also fairly modern, shiny and expensive and don't look like they would welcome anyone to sit and read for the afternoon.

Come to think of it, the only city where I did see anything like the SF phenomenon lately was New Orleans (before Katrina). Although there were a number of them, one convenient one (and I hope it survived) was Community Coffee on Royal St. This was actually part of a local chain, but walking in you'd never know it. It looked somewhat like Wild Awakenings. New Orleans always did get the time-worn but friendly look right.

Scorereader;
Does that qualify me for an immediate upgrade to "double cheeseburger" ?

Actually, Starbuck's makes their money on those "frou frou" drinks.
Where there are four on a corner downtown they are below offices that all supply beans and coffee makers.

So Starbuck's is today's soda fountain.

On CNN today:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/04/starbucks.breakfast.ap/index.html

Happy fast microwaved breakfast.

Paul E. Smith
Knoxville, TN

quote:

Originally posted by Sundancer7

On CNN today:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/04/starbucks.breakfast.ap/index.html

Happy fast microwaved breakfast.

Paul E. Smith
Knoxville, TN

This could be a big mistake. Not only does it diverge from their "corps" business, but it's hard to imagine how this won't make the already long lines much longer as people wait while the microwave does its magic. And somehow I don't think the grande soy latte crowd is the same demographic for an egg McMuffin or whatever they plan to call them.

But, of course, so far they have made few business mistakes so maybe this will work.

quote:

Originally posted by BT

quote:

Originally posted by stevencarry

I meant Peet's in the Max's building...I haven't been there but I don't need to as they have a cookie cutter design that is the same everywhere, it's Starbuck's done is brown instead of green.
I wonder, does Greenwich Village still have coffee houses like I am thinking of.
I'll call Dave Van Ronk or Tom Rush or John Sebastian and they will know.

From what I have been able to observe, no they don't. There are a lot of Starbuck's in New York these days and I'm sure there are plenty of them in Greenwich Villiage which is pretty upscale now. In my recent trip to NYC, I don't recall seeing anything like the independent coffee shops (complete with old, overstuffed furniture and the rest) all over SF. There are plenty of independent places, but they are also fairly modern, shiny and expensive and don't look like they would welcome anyone to sit and read for the afternoon.

Come to think of it, the only city where I did see anything like the SF phenomenon lately was New Orleans (before Katrina). Although there were a number of them, one convenient one (and I hope it survived) was Community Coffee on Royal St. This was actually part of a local chain, but walking in you'd never know it. It looked somewhat like Wild Awakenings. New Orleans always did get the time-worn but friendly look right.

BT:
There are PLENTY of independent coffee places like this all over the five boroughs, although it is anyone's guess how long they might last given the real estate boom (yet they have survived this in the past). There are still at least two or three in Chelsea, they are still prevalent in Manhattan's Little Italy, there are even a few on the Upper East Side, not to mention those in ethnic enclaves in the Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn.

Some of them were not too far away from where you were staying; you just needed someone to show them to you.

With a large immigrant community of Italians and Greeks, these places have always been important parts of the fabric of the city.

Sorry:
Also, I meant to add that these places in New York are far from being shiny or modern...and they have comfortable furniture, and people are not going to rush you out.

Hey tacchino, I am going to New York and was born in Staten Island a long time ago. Anyplace cool in that borough you could send me ?