What is Starbucks? And don’t say a coffeehouse.

Coffee, roasted ground up beans that we soak in water, doesn’t really sound that appetizing does it? But we know better; coffee can taste great, give you a pleasant boost in energy, possibly give you an “out” because much like a cigarette, coffee is a happy little excuse to step away from your hectic work life. A cup of coffee is an excellent reason to sit and read the newspaper, or a book, or play with the laptop (or in the case of so many San Franciscans, to sigh angrily and hold up your copy of Dostoevsky so everyone in the coffee shop knows how hopelessly misunderstood, angry, bitter and deep you really are).

So coffee tastes good and, as I pointed out above, can actually be a semi-social act. After all, in America do people gather to drink tea? Coke? Hot cocoa! Not really, nor are there a significant number of Coke snobs that demand that their organic Coke ingredients come from a single estate in Guatemala. Coffee is both an affordable luxury and in a way a status symbol. Walk through any financial area in any major city and you will see suited types walking around with their grande latte whatever. Which brings me to my point: Starbucks has according to popular belief accomplished two things since its inception, one potentially terrible and one wonderful:

1) Starbucks has killed the locally owned coffee shop (arguably, more on this below)

2) Starbucks has caused an explosion in the overall consumption of coffee, more to the point good coffee, worldwide

The death of the locally owned coffee shop

Retailers like Starbucks, Barnes & Noble, Wal-Mart drive mom and pop stores out of business, right?

Has the neighborhood coffee shop actually died? Living in North Beach in San Francisco, I am surrounded by at least a dozen excellent mom and pop coffee shops that sell fantastic organic coffee from Graffeo Brothers coffee roasters and Blue Bottle coffee roasters, both local companies. There is nary a Starbucks in sight; in fact they are (thankfully) scarce in this city outside of the financial district (or FiDi as we trendy, in-the-know types call it).

Let’s break down the facts of Starbucks and see where it can and cannot compete, in my opinion:

Coffee: Starbucks has no business calling itself a “Coffee House,” their coffee is terrible and few people get it, Starbucks sells liquid deserts which are essentially caffeinated, sugary, calorie-laden glop. Local shops, especially ones that care, will spend the few extra cents per cup to buy from local coffee roasters, the existence of which is a glorious side effect of the coffee drinking boom.

Food: No contest, the mom and pop stores, the ones who care at least, can easily surpass Starbucks in food quality.

Atmosphere: There is something unpleasant and plastic’y about Starbucks. Maybe it’s the thought that when I walk into one I could be walking into any Starbucks, anywhere. A total and absolute disconnect from its location. A Starbucks on the moon would look like a Starbucks in Boston.

Does this than mean that Starbucks is different from Barnes and Noble, Target, Wal-Mart and a variety of other massive “retailers” who drive local stores out of business? I think that it really depends on the location and just how sustainable a coffee shop really is. Essentially if a location can easily sustain at least one coffee shop, then I doubt that a Starbucks opening would have the effect of sucking all of the business to it.

Case in point: Jackson Café, here in San Francisco and across the street from me, is a wonderful little café on a side street (technically it is in what they call the Jackson Alley, a narrow brick paved street with gas lights, large windows looking into advertising agencies and tech businesses) with seating right outside. It is staffed by Giovanni and Gabriella, two Italians that get to know their customers. Giovanni makes the absolute best espressos and lattes that I have had in my life. Period. A lowfat latte, with nothing, is a perfect treat for me. They also have good paninis, salads, soups, it’s fantastic. Gabriella is more concerned with speed, so when she is running it (they trade off days, tell me, do you ever pay attention to your Starbucks barista?) I usually get a cup of Blue Bottle drip coffee; they make single cup drip coffee and its perfect black.

Here's the rub: there is a Starbucks less than a minute away! How does Jackson survive? Not just survive, there are always people there, and there is usually a wait as everything is made by hand so it takes longer (another point, you pour coffee into the filter, tamp it down, put it in the espresso maker, at Starbucks you just push a button and out pours espresso, its bitter and unpleasant and impersonal). I admit it, some morning at around 7:30 when I stop by Jackson before work to get my latte, and there are six or seven people there, I walk over to Starbucks (gasp!) and get my fancy schmancy latte beverage (triple short, non fat, no whip, peppermint mocha with only one pump peppermint and one pump mocha, bite me, its delicious) because I know that even if there are twice as many people in line I’ll get my drink in half the time.

Coffee! Can’t get enough of that black mud? Neither can the rest of the world!

London coffee houses were a fine and venerated institution, where men gathered to talk business (as opposed to pubs, where men gathered to talk about everything else). Of course a coffee house was more conducive to good business practices than a pub. Imagine a drunk businessman negotiating with an over caffeinated businessman, certainly the lack of vomit on his clothes probably makes the sober one more confident, aggressive and competent? One such coffee house was Lloyd’s Coffee House in London. Lloyd’s eventually became Lloyd’s of London, one of the world’s foremost insurance/underwriting houses, which it still is today.

Coffee culture exploded during the mid to late 90’s thanks to Seattle. Seattle is to blame for two reasons: the dot com bubble and Starbucks. The dot com bubble is responsible in that it created a work environment where all of a sudden non businessmen (i.e. techies) were businessmen but without any inclination to wear suits and ties. These new businessmen wore khakis, polos, had ping pong tables in the break room and, wouldn’t you know it, did business over coffee (rather than martinis).

Starbucks jumped onto the coffee scene with sugary, upscale sounding drinks. Just buying a starbucks beverage is a proclamation that “I am too good for ‘coffee, crème and sugar’ and I demand a Venti Low Fat half caf, mochachino, because I am a motivated go getter that knows what he wants and knows how to order get it!”

Every Starbucks (and Peets, Coffee Connection, Seattle’s Best, etc) was founded on the idea that people wanted to relax in a casual environment with a hot tasty beverage (or snack) that kept the energy levels up and Starbucks did it better than the competition.

However, eventually that very Starbucks-y nature has been lost. No longer can one go into an S bucks and sit down in a comfortable chair with a delicious beverage and relax; the experience feels more like an assembly line. I will concede that businessmen can still go and sit and order a beverage they are comfortable with and talk shop. Now however it’s more of a matter of an alternate location to work for everyone, not just the in-the-know hipsters.

What do I think will happen in the next five years? Exactly what is already happening: people are sick of Starbucks, and want local friendly independent coffee shops, with high quality beverages and food, in which to hang out. I think the applicable expression is the oxymoronic “no one goes there anymore, it’s too crowded.”

What I wouldn’t do for a Dunkin Donuts Medium Regular (lots of cream, lots of sugar).