In some ways, it already seems like longer...
The brown paper covering the front windows has been falling down, offering a view inside... which looks surprisingly intact... the Starbucks signage from outside is also lying across the floor... 
The retail listing for the space has yet to show up online anywhere. (Let us know if you see it!)
--Updated: Thanks to the commenter for this PDF listing. The commenter says the rent ask is $2 million a year.--
This location, the 11th SB in the city, opened in March 1995.
According to store management, "the landlords jacked up the rent so astronomically high that even corporate Starbucks couldn't pay it." According to landlord ASG Equities, they offered Starbucks a lease extension at the same rent, but SB declined. According to some commenters and observers, Starbucks shut it down because this outpost voted to unionize in 2022.
Meanwhile, there might be a big Starbucks dumpster party here one of these days.
19 comments:
Listing Flyer: https://ahprd1cdn.csgpimgs.com/d2/olKwMsLfgV_J3FtEDinkAUvnVHxFplOv0eh2xxMEkGw/document.pdf. Rent is $2M/year
thank you!
I'm usually ready to "blame it on the landlord" but this time I'm willing to bet it was SB not wanting to deal with unionized workers.
The commercial rents are way too high in this City which is why there are so many vacant store fronts. It is simply not sustainable for small businesses to pay these rents and survive especially if a corporate chain like Starbucks cannot afford to.
Starbucks made $35 Billion in revenue in 2023. That they wouldn't be able to afford shelling out $2MM annually for rent to keep up a loss-leader in one of the most high-profile locations in the country is an absurdity. This was union-busting, nothing more, nothing less.
This was THE STARBUCKS in the 90s. Great location, huge store, classic NY archeiecture. And a cup of coffee was like $1.50. You could rest your bones, warm up, go to the bathroom, then back to the rat race that was NYC.
They should put all those plants outside for folks who may want them
I'm another who thinks this location was chosen for union-busting purposes.
I agree. Obviously we can't see the term sheet, but SB hasn't actually said the landlord was lying.
Of course it was the unionization of this location. The annual revenue for SB last year was almost 36 billion dollars, which is a modest estimate. They certainly could afford the rent on Astor. Their newly appointed CEO, formerly of Chipotle ( another unmitigated disaster) was just afforded an annual salary of $113 million dollars, a very generous sign on bonus, in addition to generous annual bonuses, stocks, in addition to unlimited access to the company jet where he will commute from his beach house in Newport Beach to headquarters in Seattle. What exactly warrants this type of salary where mediocrity and greed are the ultimate goals for this business? I was a SB barista during the late 90's while attending college in Boston. It was a decent gig for a 22 year old kid. I was treated well, made around $400 a week, was given endless coffee and pastries, time off when needed. Now, things have greatly shifted. If employers pay their staff well, take care of them, ensuring unionization, increasing benefits, they will take more pride in their work, thus taking better care of customers. It is a shame this location closed. An utter shame. I am over corporate America.
I don't know much about commercial rents, but $2M was what my employer was paying for 2 floors of office space in Murray Hill. Seemed high to me considering we were not a giant international chain.
If it was about union busting how come we haven't heard a peep from Workers United? The listing highlights a 2000 sf basement- was that used to stockpile thousands of bags of pumpkin latte come the revolution? Seems like a waste of space for a coffee shop. The listing also highlights "dense residential population." Fine, that's bougie well dressed people with laptops, but it also comes with the colorful EV street life- beggars, junkies, homeless, and mentally
ill who use the place as their private clubhouse. Along with the space, rent, and profitability sounds like the latter component was a big consideration in leaving as well.
Forgot to mention but noteworthy that SB broke their lease with eight months remaining (April 2025).
I know a family that rented a shoebox sized store in Rockefeller Center, selling T-shirts and souvenirs and the rent was $1 million a year. And over about 20 years, they made a fortune. You could probably fit 10 of those stores inside this Starbucks. It’s not the rent, it’s the business model of the operator. Starbucks ain’t got it anymore. It was time for them to go.
"Starbucks ain’t got it anymore. It was time for them to go."
Rockefeller is still a prime location. Astor, just the opposite. It turned into a crusty, skanky, shithole. Starbucks still got it. Their new locational at 444 Broadway is described as "sleek, beautiful, and inviting." See the difference?
Curbed quoted the landlord ASG group saying ... “We are sad they chose to leave, even as we offered a lease extension that would have allowed them to remain in their existing space at the exact same rent.” This was union busting. https://www.curbed.com/article/astor-place-starbucks-closed-east-village.html
Business climate is not the best in NYC
In today’s world unions can be very corrupt. I was a member at one and Some nightmare coworkers that should have been fired long ago were able to stay for way too long.
I’ve posted this before, but my prediction is they open a smaller footprint store nearby by the end of the year. Broadway - lots of retail options available by Astor Plce.
Post a Comment