Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Categories

Archives

Meta

Starbucks Coffee, 480-6 Town Center Place: 1 January 2012   21 comments

Posted at 11:47 pm in restaurants

Well, this is an interesting closing, more for the implications than anything else. Starbucks is not in the business of closing stores that make money, and this is a foot-traffic location, so I would say that this section of Sandhill, at least, does not get as much foot traffic as expected, and that, in addition, they decided it wasn't worth it to move to one of the empty spots on the main drag either.

As for the store itself, I think I stopped there once or twice, and it was fine: A typical Starbucks with no apparent problems.

UPDATE 15 February 2012: Added a night-time picture.

(Hat tip to commenter Elizabeth)

UPDATE 10 April 2013 -- It's now a cupcake bakery:

p1000395_tn.jpg

p1000396_tn.jpg

Written by ted on February 1st, 2012

Tagged with , ,

21 Responses to 'Starbucks Coffee, 480-6 Town Center Place: 1 January 2012'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Starbucks Coffee, 480-6 Town Center Place: 1 January 2012'.

  1. There's 2 other Starbucks locations within Village at Sandhill. One I believe to be inside the Super BiLo. It doesn't make sense how Starbucks can do enough business to justify 3 Locations within a 100 acre complex.

    Sometime in the 2002-04 timeline, Jay Leno featured an announcement that Starbucks was planning to open up 2,000 locations and wondered if they are opening up in Starbucks...

    Andrew

    2 Feb 12 at 12:27 am

  2. Well, that's almost the premise of this classic story from The Onion.

    And as for whether it makes sense -- it makes sense unless it doesn't. Monterrey CA has a coffee shop on every corner and they all seem to do OK. In this case .. no.

    ted

    2 Feb 12 at 12:58 am

  3. Sandhills is yet another failed attempt by Columbia to try and be the up-scale area it AINT.. Columbia has never been more than it is, and will never be more than it was. It aint Atlanta, Charlotte or even Charleston. The only thing Columbia has going for it is the Zoo.. that's it! and being the Capitol of the State.. Sorry, but it's true.

    Del

    2 Feb 12 at 2:04 pm

  4. Del, I see it more as another failed example of the New Urbanism movement. CanalSide is another example, and Bull Street will be the most spectacular fail of all.

    tonkatoy

    3 Feb 12 at 8:20 am

  5. The only time I remember that Columbia was actually somewhat "hip" and with the times (For Columbia that is) is when Gov. McNair was in office. That's when you had the Carolina Queen that took you up and down main street, and the Revolving Restraunt (the top part) from Expo '67 that Columbia got lucky and got. After that, everything went backwards after Gov. West..THEN Mayor Boobaloo took over and that's when downtown got to be the way it is now. Columbia was never meant to be more than it is..and the new urban movement isnt meant to be either. Columbia is typical Columbia. And you see who's in charge in the Columbia City Counsil.. Need I say more?

    Del

    3 Feb 12 at 1:22 pm

  6. Yeah, Colatown was an All American City twice in the sixties, I believe.

    Was Carolina Queen that Greyhound Glide-a-Ride from the '64 World's Fair?

    tonkatoy

    3 Feb 12 at 2:13 pm

  7. I think it was actually. I think it lasted a whole year before it was gone. Downtonw should never have been "redone".. as the saying goes: " If it aint broke, dont fix it". BUT as usual, people think they can improve on something that cant be. I wonder how well the parking around in front of the State House would go now?

    Del

    3 Feb 12 at 4:43 pm

  8. I think Main Street went downhill rapidly after they went from four lanes to two. that was a really stupid move, IMO, and Main Street is probably past the point of recovery from that debacle.

    tonkatoy

    6 Feb 12 at 7:45 am

  9. It all started with the Football Stadium lights in the late 70's when they took up the two middle lanes of Main St. THEN, after taking them down, Mayor Booble-Head had all the old buildings torn down or redone to where you cant tell what they were, then the sidewalks were expanded and took up the rest of the lanes that were used to park originally. NOW they've planted trees up and down the area that blocks the view of everything along with the Tall Buildings that are out of place in Columbia. Charleston for the most part is the smarter City..they've kept 95% of their old buildings. Columbia is just typical Columbia..and doesnt know it's rear from a hole in the ground.

    Del

    6 Feb 12 at 12:06 pm

  10. New Urbanism yet again.

    The streets were great and businesses boomed well before 'walkable' communities came and ruined everything.

    tonkatoy

    6 Feb 12 at 1:43 pm

  11. Not to sound flaky (ok, this is going to sound really flaky!) but it almost makes you wonder sometimes if somebody put a curse on Columbia. For what, I'm not sure. Maybe something to do with exaggerated pride and slavery and the civil war? The city seems to try and try to move ahead, but constantly shoots itself in the foot. Things that work out in other places never seem to work out here.

    Just kidding, of course, about the curse - I think...

    Cary

    6 Feb 12 at 4:28 pm

  12. Love the curse comment Cary, especially as someone who's fought to get the Confederate flag off the state capitol grounds. Heck the NCAA has it for the whole state because of it.

    Sandhills is okay for what it is--a mid-range outdoor shopping mall. Why they even did apartments is far beyond me. I can't believe the Killian Crossing thing will even work ever.

    redneck down from cayce

    6 Feb 12 at 11:45 pm

  13. Columbia is JINXED..that's why nothing ever good seems to happen anymore to Columbia. It's the people that run this city now..and how people in general think anymore. Most people dont care nor do they care to know Columbia's history and those that founded Columbia. What works in other Cities, doesnt work here.. Look at Nikki Haley, Mark Sanford and others..then you tell me why Columbia is the way it is. Oh yeah, forgot about formor Mayor Booble Head and Mayor T-bone.

    Del

    7 Feb 12 at 11:51 am

  14. Meant to say "His Honorable Former Mayor Booble Head" and the current Honorable Mayor T-Bone. HA-HA! Just take a look at the Columbia City Council and see if you can figure out why Columbia is the way it is, and why things keep gettin' torn down that have been around for over 100 years.

    Del

    7 Feb 12 at 11:55 am

  15. Columbia's problem in my opinion is that: (1) there is no leadership, by design, and every member of council cares only about his/her own district; (2) the true powers that be don't want Columbia to progress, lest they lose their standing to newer citizens who create progress; (3) the attitude that it's more desirable to spend your money in another city even though the same products are available here for less; and (4) the attitude that anyone more successful is a threat even if they are not in the same business. It's a lot like high school. Immature cliques fighting for popularity and control while doing their best to keep anyone new from coming in to establish a foothold.

    larry

    7 Feb 12 at 4:01 pm

  16. Larry, that's really interesting. About 10 years ago, somebody who wasn't from Columbia, but who worked a lot in Columbia, told me basically the same thing you just wrote. It's sad, but it makes a lot of sense.

    Cary

    7 Feb 12 at 8:28 pm

  17. As far as I know, there is only one other Starbucks in Village at Sandhill. There definitely isn't one inside of the Super BiLo.

    Amanda

    22 Feb 12 at 1:14 pm

  18. The other Starbucks in that area that I'm aware of is in the Kroger store nearby.

    Miz T

    24 Feb 12 at 4:31 pm

  19. I could have sworn the Super Bi-Lo had a Starbucks at one point but apparently not...a friend of mine thought that at one point, the Village at Sandhill had 4 Starbucks (including this one) and I can't think of where the 4th one was...

    Andrew

    24 Feb 12 at 4:51 pm

  20. When Bi-Lo opened in 2005 it did have a Starbucks.

    Mike

    24 Feb 12 at 9:45 pm

  21. that's where I got it from then...still, it makes no sense to me now a 300 acre complex could support 3 Starbucks Coffee locations

    Andrew

    24 Feb 12 at 11:44 pm

Leave a Reply

Tags

Recently Updated Posts

Blogroll