So Starbucks copied unoriginal ideas from very unoriginal hipster coffee shops and made it accessible without the rampant snottery? Good job.

my general take is that it's unlikely to become my personal local cafe, but if the corporate rebranding is for stores with nicer furniture, more pleasant lighting, better espresso, locally-produced foods, and fewer sugary blended concoctions, then my level of outrage is low.

@3 you're so balanced and reasonable, how can we disagree with you? In a word, you my friend, are perfect <3

@1 that's what I was gonna say...

@3 You are perfect, I concur.

The big question. Is Linda still having kittens?

I mostly agree with everyone else. I'm having a really difficult time getting upset about it. Starbucks is being pretty transparent about the cafe opening so I don't think it's some corporate ploy to trick people into drinking starbucks who would otherwise go somewhere else.

Personally, the "upscale" coffee shop look is what is offensive to me. Indie or not, the whole "repurposed ship parts" and "rustic" decor thing is really fucking stupid. Here in Bellingham we have a "local and independent" chain called The Woods (all the stores look like ski lodges, I swear to god) and it's more annoying than Starbucks to me.

I'd rather go somewhere with ratty thrift store furniture and laid back staff who make good coffee. If you can pull a decent shot, you don't need gimmicks.

Oh! I do have a question about this place: Is it going to be one of those "we like pets, but don't bother bringing them inside you jackass" coffeeshops?

@ 3, big box stores and chain restaurants are incapable of originality. That's why people can't tell Office Depot from Office Max, TGI Fridays from Chili's, or even Starbucks from Tulley's. But that's fine; that's how large businesses operate, catering to the lowest common denominator in order to pull in the most customers.

So it's ironic, if not a little offensive, when they decide that they aren't pulling in enough people and have the audacity to simply copy the locals in an area where people tend to prefer independent businesses.

This isn't about "trying to fit in with the neighborhood;" it's obvious that this is a major project for Starbucks, based on the reports of corporate types hanging around nearby businesses taking notes. This is a pilot for them; if successful, I expect to see other Starbucks in hip neighborhoods nationwide adopt this plan.

It sucks because Starbucks already commands the nation's coffee shop market and affects every indie coffee shop in America. Why do they have to take even more market share and attempt to further homogenize the few places where unique, local businesses can actually thrive?

Starbucks has the right to do what they want, 3; we have the right to complain about it for whatever reason we want, although I think in this case it's a damn good one.

Starbucks as a company puts so much money into the pockets of our fellow residents. Ironically, they are one of the companies that makes it possible for people to afford to blow money on coffee (and the prostitutes in the back of your printed publication). Along with Microsoft and other companies YOU.JUST.BLINDLY.HATE.

I understand that local loyalty should not be total, and it is ok to raise questions and stuff, but the shit you guys flip these places is so grossly disproportionate to the harm that they incur that I really wonder why you are so butt hurt.

If Starbucks incorporates stuff from Seattle's indie coffee scene and then exports it around the country, that's cool. It is a little odd to put the fabrication one block from the sources of its inspiration. But whatever. It's just their beta test before taking the whole thing to scale. They need something to hold onto their market share/ rebrand themselves. They're quite anxious about McCafe, and this might help them stay ahead of the curve.

It looks exactly like I thought it would be, like a big giant corporate organization said "What do hipsters like?" and tried to replicate it. Actually, it looks a little bit like something you'd see at Disneyland.

So, has anybody tried to piggyback on the free wi-fi from Smith next door?

'cuz that would be about as close to going into this place as I want to get.

I guess if this didn't smell like such a blatantly obvious, not to mention desperate ploy on the part of $tarbux to run away from their own 800-lb. gorilla corporate branding strategy, I might feel a little more sympathy for them. But, really that's all it is - scratch the surface of this "independent neighborhood coffee bar" and all you'll find underneath is the same soulless, rapacious behemoth they've been for the past 20 years or so.

I believe the traditional term is "putting lipstick on a pig"...

By the way I'm glad there's no taxidermy.

My reaction to those photos: they're trying too hard, and it looks like it. Linda's styles work because the styling is appropriate for the type of business: a bar/tavern/pub/whatever. Whether it's old-timey like Smith or swanky like the (formerly owned) Rob Roy, bars/taverns/pubs have looked that way in the past and still do. But of all the ghost towns I've wandered through in Washington, Idaho, Montana, Utah, and California, I don't recall seeing any coffeeshops.

Of course people will go. I thought the only reason it's still there is that they were going to close it and people caused a shitstorm in protest? Obviously many people wanted it there.

I walked by this morning and it looked like some sort of protest was happening. Peeps in green aprons with wacky signs. It did look busy though. Looked like a lot of GHC employees.

Waaaa. Don't like it, don't buy it.

@8 Well said, I think you hit it right on the head.

@3: The issue is that the "indie-washing" is on some level an attempt to confuse people who want to buy and shop locally. It's not simply "people like this aesthetic" as much as it is "let's blur the issues so it's more difficult to distinguish indie from multinational."

Starbucks can do whatever they want. I'm not going to protest the 15th st shop, but I'm not going to patronize it either.

Yes, 22 - just like the difference between the other places I mentioned are on their bags and signs.

Maybe you're trying to be funny. If not, you're a dip.

@8: All kinds of companies offer different brands for different markets. Is Starbucks, because they have lots of shops that look similar (which you criticize) somehow prevented from making shops that look different (which you criticize)?

The stores that are the same are not geared toward the "lowest common denominator." They are the same so that a consumer who likes Starbucks knows that when she is in an airport in Cincinnati or trying to grab breakfast with her kids on the road in Medford, she can get a consistent product delivered with predictability. The rest rooms will be clean, at least some of the food will be healthful.

Also, Starbucks virtually created the market for indie coffee shops, not necessarily in Seattle or San Francisco, where there always were a couple, but in much of the rest of America, where prior to the spread of Starbucks you could only get 10 cents a cup see to the bottom of the cup light brown "coffee" flavored beverage product.

(This article regarding the ability of Starbucks to help indies by finding good real estate is also worth a read.)

Don't like Starbucks? Don't buy it.

go starbucks union!
http://www.starbucksunion.org/

@24 I think that's the one argument against this that I can sort of get behind. But then I also think consumers need to educate themselves about the choices they are making and, in this case, all they need to do is read the door.

@26: Like Matt said -- even though Starbucks is from here and based here, it's still a multinational. Seattle might be their roots, but they've grown way beyond "local" at this point.

good lord, who cares if they are local? How many of you are using Windows right now? And a Dell? Or even a Mac? All of these are produced by big EEEVIL corporations.

A really great book about this debate is Unmarketable: Brandalism, Copyfighting, … by Anne Elizabeth Moore. The author doesn't attack the corporations as much as she does bemoan the steady erosion of any barrier between "authentic" and "indie-washing."

@31: My point is: You can choose to buy from a corporation or not. It is hard not to for many items and services. The problem is when corporations try to make themselves look local, organic, whatever when they're not. I find it distasteful even if it's not illegal or "morally wrong." It obfuscates the truth in order to sway people, instead of gaining customers through their own merits.

I drank a latte Wednesday from a Starbucks-branded Starbucks. I'm not some kind of radical. I just want to be able to make an informed choice about my purchases without having to do extensive research about "greenwashed" or "indie-washed" brands.

um, in other words, you want the corporate stores to stick out like a sore thumb to signal to you not to shop there?

Look, sorry you don't want to do the research, but it looks like it's been done for you.

I assume that everyone's using a non-corporate built computer to post on Slog right? And your cell phones you made in your garage?

I'd have a whole new level of respect for Starbucks if they had hired the protesters just to drum up more press and thus more potential business.

@34: it's funny because Starbucks sue people whose stores or logos look to close to theirs, but now they're trying to obfuscate the brand they've litigated so hard to build. Ironic.

@35: Like I said -- it's impossible to avoid corporations, but we can attempt to limit our support of and reliance upon them.

I just can't bring myself to give a shit about companies interior design and marketing choices.

I like the drip coffee at Starbucks, so I will always go there, no matter what it looks like.

AR and Cato, don't make apples-to-bricks comparisons. Computers, like cars, are the sort of industrial product that can only produced on an industrial scale. Coffee, being agricultural, is nothing of the sort.to swipe even more market share at their expense.

This is about the store, not the product.

When the XFL debuted in Las Vegas, the first Outlaws game drew a big crowd. By week 6 the Outlaws were playing in front of a bunch of empty seats.

They could have a line out the door all the way down to Republican this weekend. That doesn't mean they'll be successful in the long run. Do any of those people come back as regulars?

How is this different from what the Anthropologie chain does? Do you boycott them, too? Probabluy not 'cause their dresses are so cute.

Nice of Seattle Metblogs to pick up The Stranger's slack. It looks like there's a big long table there, an interesting experiment in Seattle, as it naturally will result in strangers sitting together. (You find that setup a lot in cafes in Copenhagen - a great way to meet people. Maybe if this shoip sold weed we could get a Stranger review?)

Are they employing local architects and interior designers to create this? Slog? Hello???