+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Land Development and Real Estate (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Urban Areas (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Thread: One Victoria | 63 m | 19 fl | Complete (/showthread.php?tid=11)
RE: One Victoria | 63 m | 19 fl | U/C - panamaniac - 03-27-2015
(03-27-2015, 09:45 AM)modernizt Wrote:(03-23-2015, 08:32 PM)Drake Wrote: I am thinking there will inevitably be a Starbucks at the train station/mall across the street as well. I look forward to getting all dolled up for my morning trip to the big smoke and being able to sit back and drink my sophisticated coffee while waiting to catch my train.. (which in my fantasy will deliver me in under 45 minutes).
Starbucks = sophisticated...?
In K-W, we try to keep it real.
RE: One Victoria | 63 m | 19 fl | U/C - YKF - 03-27-2015
Forget Starbucks. I say we petition Matter of Taste to open up shop near King/Vic. Who's with me?
RE: One Victoria | 63 m | 19 fl | U/C - Rainrider22 - 03-27-2015
(03-27-2015, 10:03 AM)YKF Wrote: Forget Starbucks. I say we petition Matter of Taste to open up shop near King/Vic. Who's with me?
Count me in !!
RE: One Victoria | 63 m | 19 fl | U/C - panamaniac - 03-27-2015
(03-27-2015, 10:03 AM)YKF Wrote: Forget Starbucks. I say we petition Matter of Taste to open up shop near King/Vic. Who's with me?
I could certainly go for that!
RE: One Victoria | 63 m | 19 fl | U/C - Viewfromthe42 - 03-27-2015
Do McDonald's, Timmy's, or any other chain even have retail locations 600m apart, aside from in very different forms (e.g. a Timmy's for drive through on main road close to a Timmy's inside a mall or arena)?
RE: One Victoria | 63 m | 19 fl | U/C - BuildingScout - 03-27-2015
(03-27-2015, 02:21 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: Do McDonald's, Timmy's, or any other chain even have retail locations 600m apart, aside from in very different forms (e.g. a Timmy's for drive through on main road close to a Timmy's inside a mall or arena)?
Starbucks has definitely no minimum separation rules. In large cities in America I've seen blocks with more than four starbucks in total, that is to say, more than one outlet per side, and single stretch of street with three Starbucks: two in one side, one in the other.
Neither McDonalds nor Timmy's make any promises about exclusive territories, though in practice they do tend to space their franchises out a bit more.
RE: One Victoria | 63 m | 19 fl | U/C - tomh009 - 03-27-2015
(03-27-2015, 07:54 PM)BuildingScout Wrote: Starbucks has definitely no minimum separation rules. In large cities in America I've seen blocks with more than four starbucks in total, that is to say, more than one outlet per side, and single stretch of street with three Starbucks: two in one side, one in the other.
When I was in Tokyo recently, walking to the Gotanda station, I counted four (!) Family Mart variety stores within the distance of maybe 300m. Variety stores do huge business in Japan, but four stores so close together was still a shock.
Most franchisers will try to keep the locations somewhat separate to ensure the health of the individual franchises. Two locations too close together are not good for anyone's business -- the question is just what constitutes "too close".
RE: One Victoria | 63 m | 19 fl | U/C - plam - 03-27-2015
(03-27-2015, 08:40 PM)tomh009 Wrote:(03-27-2015, 07:54 PM)BuildingScout Wrote: Starbucks has definitely no minimum separation rules. In large cities in America I've seen blocks with more than four starbucks in total, that is to say, more than one outlet per side, and single stretch of street with three Starbucks: two in one side, one in the other.
When I was in Tokyo recently, walking to the Gotanda station, I counted four (!) Family Mart variety stores within the distance of maybe 300m. Variety stores do huge business in Japan, but four stores so close together was still a shock.
Most franchisers will try to keep the locations somewhat separate to ensure the health of the individual franchises. Two locations too close together are not good for anyone's business -- the question is just what constitutes "too close".
I heard that Starbucks sometimes aims for a saturation strategy where they put lots and lots of locations close by. This is of course bad for the individual franchises but helps the brand as a whole.
RE: One Victoria | 63 m | 19 fl | U/C - taylortbb - 03-28-2015
(03-27-2015, 09:36 PM)plam Wrote:(03-27-2015, 08:40 PM)tomh009 Wrote: When I was in Tokyo recently, walking to the Gotanda station, I counted four (!) Family Mart variety stores within the distance of maybe 300m. Variety stores do huge business in Japan, but four stores so close together was still a shock.
Most franchisers will try to keep the locations somewhat separate to ensure the health of the individual franchises. Two locations too close together are not good for anyone's business -- the question is just what constitutes "too close".
I heard that Starbucks sometimes aims for a saturation strategy where they put lots and lots of locations close by. This is of course bad for the individual franchises but helps the brand as a whole.
Starbucks doesn't franchise, possibly except for a few special situations like airports. That's part of how they're able to do saturation.
RE: One Victoria | 63 m | 19 fl | U/C - tomh009 - 03-28-2015
(03-28-2015, 12:53 AM)taylortbb Wrote:(03-27-2015, 09:36 PM)plam Wrote: I heard that Starbucks sometimes aims for a saturation strategy where they put lots and lots of locations close by. This is of course bad for the individual franchises but helps the brand as a whole.
Starbucks doesn't franchise, possibly except for a few special situations like airports. That's part of how they're able to do saturation.
Right. Saturation strategy can make sense for corporate stores in some situations, but rarely for individual franchisees.
RE: One Victoria | 63 m | 19 fl | U/C - ookpik - 03-28-2015
In large city downtown cores every office tower has its own coffee/sandwich shop. Presumably there are enough workers in each building to keep each shop viable. Does it matter from a business point of view if each shop is independent or if they all belong to one or a small number of corporations like Starbucks, Timmies, Second Cup, etc.? (I appreciate that patrons of such shops might prefer more independent shops for greater variety, higher quality, a personal touch, etc.)
RE: One Victoria | 63 m | 19 fl | U/C - tomh009 - 03-28-2015
(03-28-2015, 09:49 AM)ookpik Wrote: In large city downtown cores every office tower has its own coffee/sandwich shop. Presumably there are enough workers in each building to keep each shop viable. Does it matter from a business point of view if each shop is independent or if they all belong to one or a small number of corporations like Starbucks, Timmies, Second Cup, etc.? (I appreciate that patrons of such shops might prefer more independent shops for greater variety, higher quality, a personal touch, etc.)
From a business point of view, the franchisees normally want to have a reasonable territory that doesn't have other stores of the same brand, whether Starbucks, McDonalds or Toyota. This avoids having the franchisees try to take customers from each other, rather than from the competing chains or stores.
It's the normal scenario, but certainly not the case 100% of the time.
RE: One Victoria | 63 m | 19 fl | U/C - ookpik - 03-28-2015
(03-28-2015, 10:34 AM)tomh009 Wrote: From a business point of view, the franchisees normally want to have a reasonable territory...Agreed.
My point is that in high density areas a single office building can constitute "a reasonable territory."
1. There could be more people working in a single tower than the entire population that lives in a good sized town out in the 'burbs. If the latter can support a Timmies, then why can't the former?
2. If two nearby office buildings each have a Starbucks it's unlikely that someone who works in one tower would prefer to patronize the Starbucks in the other. Yet if one tower houses a Timmies and the one next door has a Starbucks there's still ample opportunities entice customers from the other building. The former doesn't preclude the latter.
RE: One Victoria | 63 m | 19 fl | U/C - tomh009 - 03-28-2015
(03-28-2015, 10:59 AM)ookpik Wrote:(03-28-2015, 10:34 AM)tomh009 Wrote: From a business point of view, the franchisees normally want to have a reasonable territory...Agreed.
My point is that in high density areas a single office building can constitute "a reasonable territory."
I agree on this, too. But I think K-W buildings are not quite "high density" yet!
RE: One Victoria | 63 m | 19 fl | U/C - Drake - 03-29-2015
(03-27-2015, 09:45 AM)modernizt Wrote:(03-23-2015, 08:32 PM)Drake Wrote: I am thinking there will inevitably be a Starbucks at the train station/mall across the street as well. I look forward to getting all dolled up for my morning trip to the big smoke and being able to sit back and drink my sophisticated coffee while waiting to catch my train.. (which in my fantasy will deliver me in under 45 minutes).
Starbucks = sophisticated...?
I was serious about the starbucks inevitably being there. Everything after was hyperbole.