A decade or more ago, when I first visited Baltimore, the Cordish strategy seemed like something positive. Give them huge sums of cash, and they ensure tenants for ready-made entertainment districts.
Trouble is, the tenants are cookie-cutter chains, and there's nothing unique or local about any of it.
At some point I realized that locally owned businesses could achieve precisely the same desired end if they were awarded a like sum of money, with none of the money flowing through a pipeline to corporate headquarters elsewhere. Given the conceptual sterility of the typical Cordish project (Fourth Street Live springs to mind in this context), keeping the money local makes sense from aesthetic as well as fiscal rationales.
Thus, I'm delighted to read Rick at The 'Ville Voice blog tear into Mayor Jer with respect to Cordish's latest outrage. And congrats to the C-J for sticking to the story.
Jerry Needs to Get Away
... But the bigger blow came Saturday, when the C-J led with news that Cordish has kind of told city officials that, well, no, they’re not going to explain what they did with all that taxpayer money they took to re-design a bowling alley on Fourth Street.
Pressured by the newspaper to explain how it spent the extra $950,000 that Abramson championed giving them to remodel the failed Lucky Strike, Cordish said it had given all the detail it was required to do, and then the Mayor said the explanation was good enough for him.
Now we can confirm what we’ve known all along. Cordish might have, maybe, possibly, spent half that money on remodeling the space, but most of it went in the Cordish profit center. They sure aren’t producing any drywall receipts, and no one’s willing to admit what the facility paid to get Paris Hilton to show up for a few minutes Derby Eve.
Everyone’s outraged, and Abramson’s growing list of detractors has a bunch of new ammunition. The Mayor’s race is looking a lot more do-able for potential candidates like Jim King, David Tandy and Greg Fischer. And there’s bound to be a Republican out there ready to step up.
Abramson has promised a decision on his future soon. But right now he’s just hit one in the lake and is scrambling to make par.
Additional Reading: C.D. Kaplan recounts some of the Mayor’s history of love for Cordish. And Eric Crawford explains why Cordish’s track record in places like St. Louis spells more trouble for us.
52 comments:
Amen.
Hopefully, that newfound C-J spunk can be parlayed into other areas.
Just think of what the metro and Southern Indiana could do for local businesses with the extra $2 billion we don't need to spend on the Bridges Project.
At the risk of a firestorm, I'll stick my toe in the water...
Granted, the Cordish guys appear to have gotten a sweetheart deal from the City, and clearly have turned a nice profit. But, you cannot deny that they turned a completely DEAD downtown in Louisville on its ear, and have revitalized the downtown district - both during the day and into the evenings.
Many people reading this board probably do not necessarily see that as a good thing, as its a different concept than the Bardstown Road/Frankfort Avenue environment. But, taking a wider view, its undeniable that with the success of the 4th Street development, other growth has followed, including the Z Fusion Restaurant, among many others.
The question, as I see it, is whether this town can finally modify or "overcome" its historically abhorrent feelings about "chain" businesses and realize that, heaven forbid, one or two of such places in the downtown NA district will not change the local landscape, and might actually attract a few more patrons into our community.
It depends on whether "we" want to limit ourselves to locally owned & eclectic concepts (which seem to survive less than 25% of the time) or whether we might want to consider other forms of development as signs of growth.
Dont get me wrong - I LOVE the Bank Street concept and have invited several Louisville friends to join us there for dinner. The difference is, at least in my uninformed opinion, that few, if any of the other other "local" start-ups have the capital to invest in establishing a truly first class operation.
Unfortunately, yet another "new" business in a quaint worn out 1950's facade which is simply repainted and given a new name isnt real growth, as it wont draw any new interest other than the local crowd who already frequents the downtown NA district.
I hate to break the news, but NA is not - and never will be - a tourist destination in and of itself. Heck, even Madison, which is ahead of NA in terms of its historic downtown redevelopment, isn't much of a tourist "destination", unless one wants to buy ice cream and overpriced candles. [And yes, I can dish on Madison because I lived there for 15 years]. The economy in Madison is worse than here, as the large manufacturing plants are slowly closing, one at a time, and the "1950's USA downtown" isnt doing anything for the town, other than a little summertime tourism.
My point is this - without a combined effort to preserve that which needs to be preserved, while welcoming new ideas (and again, even a few national chains), the trend in downtown NA will not change, at least in my opinion. No matter how much I enjoy the croque madame and pommes frites, or a sandwich outside at Studio's or the Windsor, I need other
options for lunch (and for dinner) which dont require a car.
Fire away.
lawguy: As a survivor, I disagree with your analysis.
The wrong-headedness displayed by Abramson on the Cordish connection is bad for Louisville, not because it allows chainrestaurants but because it more or less demands chainrestaurants. It is anything but a level playing field in downtown Louisville.
The fruits of that mindset have led to other disappointments from a man who once seemed forward thinking and innovative.
His hellbent push for the arena, his dismissal of light rail as even an option, and his lapdog stance on the two bridges project come to mind.
As one who supports local versus chain stores or restaurants, I do not see the absence of a chain outlet in downtown N.A.as successful resistance as much as lack of imagination on the part of chains. The Spaghetti Factory in the old Levy's building is a successful part of downtown Louisville, it is a chain. It may have received some help from Louisville back when, but nothing like the fawning Jerry lavishes on his suitees.
By the way,I think the Little Chef is a chain, just awaiting rejuvenation plans from the home office in Batavia.
I don't think Fourth Street Live attracts tourists in the sense that they come to Louisville just to go to Fourth Street Live. It needs the convention center and the other attractions in close proximity to survive. One could argue that the convention center needs 4th St., too, but that doesn't necessitate chains.
Local food and drink purveyors have proven that they can create and sustain entertainment districts when they cluster, even in locations where there is nowhere near the default foot traffic nor the major cash incentives from the city as at 4th. St. Live.
Cordish hasn't proven they can do it with those advantages.
I'd point out that the survival rate for chain businesses within 4th St. Live hasn't been great. As is pointed out in the article, there would be empty store fronts aplenty if the city was not subsidizing the effort.
Cordish keeps having problems and Jerry keeps giving them more money while doing little to nothing to help those businesses who've proven their worth.
Nothing is preventing a chain from opening up in the downtown historic district. Done right, one could easily fit in and raise all ships, so to speak.
The issue is whether we cater to, recruit, and subsidize cookie-cutter outfits. I'm looking out my window at 4th St. Live, and I know it draws big crowds on a consistent basis, but I agree with Bluegill that it probably isn't drawing people as a destination.
I don't think making New Albany a tourist destination is the point of preservation and unique businesses, although it does stimulate some tourism (and heritage tourists spend a lot of money). The point is making the city and its surrounds a place one would choose to live.
Madison suffers from its distance to a major city. Louisville and Cinci are just out of comfortable reach. If one could live in Madison and be 10 mins from Louisville...things would be different.
Don't miss the links at the end of Roger's post. C. D. Kaplan and Eric Crawford. I almost did miss them and glad that I didn't, especially Crawford's.
When you’re a national chain and you already have 50 locations, risking a 51st location isn’t nearly as big a deal as when you’re a local establishment betting everything. Plus, developers don’t put their own money in deals; they use bank money. Banks who lend on these deals want to see strong tenants with deep pockets and proven track records before they lend to the landlord/developer. I bet Cordish would have preferred that the best of Bardstown Rd. go into 4th St. But that would have been impossible. Neither the banks would have financed it nor would the Bardstown Rd. business have risked being in the next incarnation of the moribund Galleria.
While I would much prefer a Heine Bros, a chain coffee place could blend in. Here’s an examine from Columbus.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nateut/2502438085/
I'm not suggesting that 4th Street Live is a "tourist destination" in and of itself which draws people, but, with a major chain bookstore, a number of eateries (both fast food and higher end), as well as entertainment options, it draws folks from the local area to come downtown, as well as entertaining those already downtown, which is good for all downtown businesses.
Its easy to throw stones at Cordish, but honestly, what percentage of folks in the tower in which Brandon's firm sits visit 4th Street on a daily basis? I would guess a lot, with food options at varying prices - which is important for the development of businesses, as not everyone can afford (nor do they want) a $12 lunch several times a week, myself included. I love lunch on the patio at the Windsor, but who has the money for a $14 lunch after adding tax & a tip more than once or twice a week? Most folks in the lower end of the wage scale, (as well as those in the higher end) need other options - be it "chain" restaurants or otherwise. Even the buffets at Tommy Lancaster's & South Side Inn cost $10. The fact that you cannot get lunch in downtown NA for under $10 is a true hindrance for my staff, and the addition of chain restaurants helps address one problem business face when figuring out the pros and cons of locating in downtown NA
The point is that without such development and transition, there will be no law firms moving their offices to downtown NA, or other new and prosperous businesses that attract professionals to the downtown area, which in turn would help foster the development of other related retail businesses, residential living options and other things.
Sadly, Floyd County voters shot down the golden goose a decade ago when the casino was an option on our riverfront. Again, maybe most folks are glad not to have it (and the traffic & high rise hotel) in NA's downtown, but from an economic development standpoint - it was the best chance this town had to really move from a sleepy river town, to something much more vibrant. But that's a dead horse for another day.
As to the comments about Louisville's Mayor, there is little question that he cannot please all of the people, all of the time. Half want new bridges, half don't (I realize the numbers might vary somewhat, but roll with my point). Some hate the idea of a new arena, some want it. Some wanted "merger", some still resent it. But say what you will, there is little question that Louisville is further ahead regionally than they were 5 and 10 years ago.
Perhaps its like sausage, and the process is better left unexamined, but in the end, I think Louisville is a hell of town for its size. I sure miss living there at times.
Think about it - there isn't one retail store downtown that anyone from Louisville would think to come here for, and really, only two restaurants that anyone in our biggest market - Louisville - has heard of. I simply think its going to take new and modern development to move forward, and again, I know I'm in the minority here. But damn folks...there isnt even one place for me to meet a fellow lawyer to get a cup of coffee downtown that doesn't also sell gas...doesnt that mean its time to try to lure the (gasp) Starbucks folks to town to integrate a store into our downtown?
And since everyone wonders why I seem to be bashing NA, I'm really not trying to be ugly - I'm here in Floyd County by choice, having left Louisville for the quality of life Floyd County offers my family, as well as for the fact that I enjoy having my business here. I truly think Floyd County is one of the best kept secrets in the greater Louisville area and encourage friends and family to come here often. And honestly, there isnt anywhere else I would care to live, either locally or otherwise (within reason).
Anyhow, debate on, but its back to work I go, making sure Brandon's firm has plenty to do. :)
Heine Bros. and Wick's Pizza are local chains with regional name recognition. The presence of either downtown would bring more than the "usual" New Albany enthusiasts.
That said, I have a hard time believing NABC and La Rosita don't draw a wider crowd that probably results in some exploration and spin-off business to the other locals.
The point is that without such development and transition, there will be no law firms moving their offices to downtown NA...
Don't tell John Waggoner. He has two Louisville law firms as tenants in the White House Center. They went there for high end finishes at less-than-downtown Louisville cost.
Wrote the above before seeing your post.
I bring my lunch most days, but yes, the folks in the Aegon tower frequent 4th Street Live a lot because it is within walking distance. No question about it. And we thank you and your clients for generating the legal business. lol.
You and your staff have obviously not been to the Downtown Diner on W. Main. I've seen local attorneys and judges there. (full disclosure, my extended family runs the place). Might be too far to walk, but it's close.
What you are saying is similar to what most of us are saying - a good selection of restaurants, bars, etc. is a draw for people and their businesses to locate into New Albany. The bigger point, which I think you agree with, is to do that in a way that does not erode our "uniqueness of locality." Too many chains and loss of historic character will do that, but that doesn't mean responsible chains are unwelcome. Nothing is stopping them.
A small collection of 2-3 lawyers leasing an existing office suite in the White House, while good for john, is hardly the sort of growth I was referencing. I was alluding to drawing businesses here which will buy property and build or renovate that property while adding larger numbers to the local base.
On a side note, I did happen to walk through the White House a few weeks ago and thought the renovations looked fabulous.
Oh, and isn't there a Rally's, Whitecastle, Subway, 2 Dairy Queens, and an entire strip on State Street with cheap food? I mean, it will kill you, but if you're looking for lunch under $10 and aren't figuring in the increased health costs, you can eat in fast-food bliss cheap a short drive from the office.
Couldn't one argue that "uniqueness of locality" exists with Bardstown Road, which has both locally owned businesses & historic property, along with new & modern development?
No one is against new and modern development.
Absolutely yes, and I think most of the people on this blog would agree with that statement.
New and modern development is not contrary to historic preservation and uniqueness of locality. In fact, the local historic design guidelines encourage new forms of architecture and specifically state that replicating older forms is inappropriate.
Am I missing something? What, exactly, is the disagreement here?
Ah, just remembered. Attorneys.
I think the debate was reflected in the title of the thread - "down with chain restaurants". I could have been more concise (and less lawyerly) by stating simply that some of us do not mind Panera for lunch, or even a Miller Lite, from time to time. Whether that signals the end of NA's unique existence is yet to be resolved.
BTW, will that admission (that I have Miller Lite in my 'fridge) get me banned? LOL...
Only if you are washing down the Panera with ML!!
Actually it was "Down with Cordish chain welfare..." but nobody's under oath.(grin)
Sigh...I guess I'm the first one to stray slightly from topic on this site, eh?
:)
Well, it's better than that irresponsible journalist that was here last week. vbg
Mark
How is local and chain defined? We frequent Buckheads which is locally owned, but the folk that own these bistros also own other well named franchises; but, the owners are NA owned and operated. So define. Kingfish, locally owned and operated, but also a chain. Value Market,locally owned and operated, but also a chain. The same is said of Rainbow Blossum and others, where do we draw the line. Whole Foods who do us all a favor by providing us a healthy alternative to say Cincy based Kroger or Meijer from Michigan. Our family will choose a business who operates from a local base, even if it is a chain, at least the money is being placed back into the local(Louisville included) economy.
Nice piece guys!
Well Mark, it's time for the irresponsible journalist to throw in a comment.
When people talk about historic character on here, I have to say it confuses me. It seems like most people have blasted new albany for having a shoddy past and basically a pretty scary looking downtown. It seems to me that if you wanted to "develop new albany", you'd want to get as far away from this history as possible. New buildings to compliment the refurbished ones would be a start.
Louisville's downtown is somewhat interesting really only because of 4th Street. i was on the middle of main Friday night about 1 in the morning and you could hear a pin drop. As I spent multiple nights downtown in Nashville, I can tell you Louisville is far, far away from having an exciting downtown, or really anything mirroring it. Bardstown Road is great, but they have some chains too. Oh how I love La Bamba. Nashville's downtown has plenty of chains such as Hard Rock where out of town visitors feel safe. The city also has scores of new buildings. Plus, most of your successful chains started like your mom and pop's — as a small store that grew and grew with more customers. Chains aren't the devil...Mark is!
I’m somewhat confused by elements of this discussion.
Lawguy, Daniel S., are either of you advocating a policy change and/or a change in the local laws? If so, what do you want to change?
Nothing in the historic preservation ordinance prevents new construction. Nothing in the historic preservation ordinance prevents a chain restaurant. Nothing in the historic preservation ordinance says a new building has to cost a lot of money. The ordinance does limit the ability of people to tear down historic buildings or put up new buildings that don’t blend well. As noted yesterday, chains can fit into both existing buildings and new construction that fit in and meet the requirements of the preservation ordinance. I don’t hear anyone crying to put up a new building that is non-compliant with the preservation ordinance. The YMCA didn’t have any problem with the preservation ordinance. Is this a hypothetical or are we talking about something else?
Since “Develop New Albany” has referenced, DNA has done what Daniel S. is advocating. DNA purchased the White House Center which prevented its demolition and allowed its recent renovation. DNA would do more if it could, but our funds are limited and restoring buildings can quickly run up a large tab.
What is “worth saving” various widely. For example, I don’t think anyone would have thought that a day old bread store worthy of saving. Nor would the Conner’s Place building (before it was Conner’s Place) have solicited many compliments on its beauty. Both buildings now contribute to the visual landscape of downtown NA.
If someone here is arguing for a policy shift, please discuss the specifics. I don’t think anyone expects NA to be a living history museum, a colonial Williamsburg or another Madison. I think our model is closer to Newport KY, a city that has respected historic preservation while attracting tremendous new investment and new construction. It’s not a huge tourist destination, but a heck of a lot of people from across the Cincy area go there to dine, shop and be entertained. By blending new and old, Newport offers something the suburbs cannot offer.
As a side note, I saw one study that looked at 15 Indiana historic districts. Property value appreciation in those districts outpaced the appreciation of similar properties immediately outside the district by an average of 2-3% per annum. That’s real money.
Newport is successful in large part because downtown Cincy is boring and dead and pretty much dangerous.
I'm not advocating any policy change, nor was I referring to DNA, only the thought of developing New Albany. I guess my point is either New Albany's history is worth saving or it isn't. Since I've been here, I've mainly heard that it isn't. Not talking about tearing down the Culbertson mansion, but nothing brings about new connotations like new infrastructure.
My point about chains is a general philosophy one. You'd be hard pressed to find many places that succeed without a noticeable presence of chains. They are anchors, that's why there are so many of them!
Seeing as chains really only developed during the past hundred or so years, it's a wonder civilization didn't die out back when local people had to rely on other local people to perform services.
I guess my point is either New Albany's history is worth saving or it isn't. Since I've been here, I've mainly heard that it isn't. Not talking about tearing down the Culbertson mansion, but nothing brings about new connotations like new infrastructure.
Well, actually the Culbertson Mansion almost was torn down to build a gas station a couple decades ago. No one could imagine anyone ever using the White Elephant. No doubt many would have seen a gas station at 10th and E. Main as an improvement. The Old post office was torn down. I’m sure everyone agrees that was a great move. The empty lot looks great! Point is, perceptions of what is worth savings changes.
But again, I’m confused. Who has said the historic buildings are not worth saving? Yes, there are Philistines in the city, but there’s also an active preservation community here.
When you write that New Albany’s history isn’t worth saving, are you referring to something other than old buildings?
"it's a wonder civilization didn't die out back when local people had to rely on other local people to perform services."
True, but there's nothing wrong with making things easier. They didn't have pizzerias back in 1822, but I'm glad yours is within walking distance of me. Coming from I guess a borderline socialist, I don't understand the anti-chain thing. Isn't that money basically all going to the same pot...as with how things are going, it will be used to pay for health care, the car industry and other bailouts as they come.
Danny C
To me, the Culbertson Mansion is historic. Should be saved. Some might consider the City-County Building historic, but a nice new building in it's stead I think would look better. It wouldn't match much of the other older, mainly outdated buildings surrounding it, but it would be nice and might encourage some others to rise up in its wake.
Don't get me wrong, I never said NA's history should be discarded. Even when you restore an older building you're only replicating. Some I've talked to though wouldn't mind if you just bulldozed 90 percent of downtown and started over. I guess it's more about the frame of mind than the tangible.
For example the brewhouse that was mentioned, sure it looks great what was done to the building, very well done. But I guess my post modern side tells me it would look just as great if it was a brand new facility and would likely be just as successful.
The first thing I noticed when driving through New Albany the first time was how hold everything looked, same as in many older, midwestern cities.
I spent the afternoon doing New Albany place name research. Anybody know where Bog Hollow, Keelyburg, Limmerick Hill, Irish Town, or Springer's Cut used to be in the city?
You probably do know about Providence. The religious reference in the name is obvious but I didn't know until today that the man that named it thought American Indian populations were the lost tribe of Israel.
Breweries, glass works, tanneries, lumber mills, furniture factories, steel mills, stock yards, slaughter houses, clothing factories, pottery plants, huge greenhouses in the neighborhoods, and on and on.
I even found a WPA interview with a Bog Hollow resident, who as a 75-year-old during the Depression, recalled that he put the first steam to the engine that sent publicly accessible electricity surging through New Albany for the first time on Easter Sunday, 1891.
No mention of corporate chains at all, though the Moser Tannery did have a second location for a while.
Maybe a vote would clear things up here.
A. Chains are bad. Avoid if at all possible. Profits go out of town. Predatory on locally owned business.
B. Prefer to patronize locally owned businesses but will also go to chains.
C. Chains offer low price and consistency. Profits may go out of town but the chains draw people.
I know that is really dumbed down, but hope that it offers a choice to see who is standing on which basic position.
Anybody surprised that I am a "B"?
I'm somewhere between b and c.
A, except for Skyline Chili
DS,
Don't you mean AC-DC?
Strong "B" vote here.
What’s important to you? There’s more than one difference between a local restaurant and a chain restaurant.
What if my sole objection to a chain is that the profits go out of town? I also might object that control is out of town, management/owners are less likely to serve on local non-profit boards or give to local charities.
Then again, what if it’s a franchise? Just because it’s a corporate logo on the storefront doesn’t mean that much of the control doesn’t come from the guy down the street. All Cracker Barrels are corporate owned. Alternatively, many local McDonalds have a local franchisee. Does that matter?
What if my sole objection to chains is that I want to buy local, either to support local farms or to reduce my carbon footprint? Say I go to a local, family owner hamburger joint. Do I know if the bun was made from local wheat? Do I know that the beef didn’t come from a hormone injected cow on an unregulated Argentine ranch? Who’s to say that the local restaurant buys local itself? Maybe a chain’s economies of distribution scale have a decreased carbon footprint over driving the same stuff to bunch of mom and pop’s. What if it’s a national chain like Whole Foods that does buy at least a small portion of its product locally?
Point is, to judge a restaurant from the corporateness of the logo is to judge the book by its cover.
I prefer a little uniqueness when I dine, but that’s more an aesthetic preference than a moral, environmental or economic motive. If you’ve seen ten McDonalds, you’ve seen then all; I’m just ready to see something else. But not just anything else. Clean, attractive, and good food help too. Yes, I prefer local over chains, but you’re more likely to find me at Qdoba than at Lancasters. The preference therefore cannot be absolute.
If in doubt, just dine at Bank St.
Yeah, I pretty much agree. I like good food, service and AC-DC no matter where I go. I don't care if it's local or a chain, just treat me right and don't eff up my order.
Also, just because something is local doesn't mean all of its products come from local farms and producers. Also, as far as tax revenue, much of that isn't staying local either regardless of who owns the place. BTW, Skyline is awesome.
Already admitted to be a dumbed down vote, Dan C, you just couldn't resist your attorney genes and still write 6 paragraphs, could you? LOL
Gee, if Brandon sees this, he'll have to write 7 paragraphs!!
Which proves my point: Mark's an enabler.
In many cases, national and international corporate chains kill local culture. Local culture is the foundation of community, money or not.
Shop/eat/drink where you like. Just understand what you're doing.
I'm not saying I completely disagree with you Blue, but could you explain what you mean? I take it that you're saying people lose contact with their neighbors, but couldn't you still eat with your neighbors at a chain?
I almost threw this out the other day and decided that I didn't have the time to "handle" the flak. Still don't have the time but here goes.
If Gary McCartin's attitude toward downtown NA is considered arrogant, is not the total condemnation of chains just as arrogant?
I understand that we've become such mindless sheep that chains probably are necessary, or else we wouldn't be able to feed and clothe ourselves.
Thus, I take the extreme position and pragmatically concede here and there when choices are limited. Otherwise, I don't see any need in respecting institutions that I hold in contempt.
Go ahead. Have fun with that.
Uhoh Mark...you're going to be locked down in the chain gang. I can hear angry strokes on the keyboard from here...
Just trying to "enable" you, Roger.(like you need any help)
I vote “D,” none of the above.
A few years ago, I read that the car wit the most American “value added” was the Honda Civic, if you include the local assembly and the many American made parts. Sure, the profits go to Japan, but then again, my 401K contains an International Index fund which no doubt includes some Honda stock on the Nikkei. One could argue that the American big three auto makes are somewhat owned by creditors in China and Dubai. If you have a “buy American” bumpster sticker, and your purpose for the sticker is to support American jobs, wouldn’t you want me to buy the most American value added car, Honda civic? But I don’t see too many of those stickers on Hondas.
FedEx/Kinkos started out as a lone copy kiosk in Berkley. The owner then partnered with a couple other people to have a second store a few miles away. The second store was independent of the first; it was not a subsidiary. Then came more partners at a third site, and so on. They eventually had several hundred other stores, the original owner being a minority owner in each. Majority ownership and most decision making was local to the site. All stores benefited from bulk purchasing power and internal consulting. It was only after they had around 500 stores (if memory serves me correctly) that they decided to adopt uniform colors and a common logo. It all looks so corporate now (and it truly is since they’ve been purchased by FedEx), but for a long time it was mainly locally owned. What changed when they adopted uniform colors, store design and colors? They helped their own businesses since travelling customers could more easily find the store. But nothing else changed. If I lived in Berkley can always made copies at that first store, why would I stop going there when they changed the carpet and the logo to match the other stores?
I vote “D,” since I’m going to look at the social and environmental impact of the business. When the good guy lives down the street, the choice is easy. But I’m not going to buy from the jerk down the street instead of the thoughtful, socially conscious out-of-town person, if that’s the only choice I’m given.
I think when we say “chain,” we’re talking about the worse of the worse. The Wendy’s logo store, not built to blend with the surroundings, built with a 20 useful life in mind, a building that will be boarded up and abandoned when the corporate parent is done, a place that serves unhealthy food and markets overeating to increasingly obese and diabetic children. Yes, I’m against that, but I would be against that no matter who did it, chain or not.
Your welcome, Dan.
If I owned a national chain of 100 restaurants, where each location went into an existing building in an existing neighborhood, each location purchased at least 50% of its food and materials within a 75 mile radius of that location, and employees were encouraged (incentivized) to participate in local civic activities, who would object, even if all locations shared a common logo, common financing, some centralized management and accounting and national marketing? If the economies of scale allowed this chain to serve higher quality food and to better absorb the sometimes higher cost of local and/or organic ingredients, would the “chain” negatives outweigh the positives of bringing more affordable and higher quality food to more people?
But if we're going to be critical of eateries for serving food that is bad for you, that would include most any locally owned restaurant as well.
There are burgers that are bad for you and then there are burgers that are really bad for you.
But the worst are served by people who lobby congress to obfuscate the nutritional labels, to increase the allowable tolerances for pesticides, and then hire legions of marketing folks and psychologist to try and convince you it’s all good.
That's a good point, unlike the ones Mark usually makes...
Post a Comment