Oh, for Peet's sake

Wicked Local Brookline reports selectmen put off a vote on letting a Peet's replace the Starbucks on Rte. 9 in Chestnut Hill after neighbors complained Starbucks customers were slobby bad drivers and selectmen decided they wanted the landlord to explain how he will keep the Peet's from replicating the mistakes of the Starbucks.



Free tagging: 



By on

Really? Blaming the starbucks for bad drivers? That is crazy. How can a coffee shop be responsible for bad drivers? Maybe, I know this is a crazy thought, but ticket the drivers that are driving badly (and presumably unlawfully)?


Per the story

This parking lot is in the middle of a bunch of houses. One of the homeowners had her porch and home crashed into by a car. I would assume that driver was issued a citation.

Not sure, but I think one or two other retail/office outlets also use the parking lot. So I do agree that it's tough to have the coffee place singled out for the drivers, though the litter and the loud HVAC can definitely be attributed to them.


The lot and driveway are

By on

The lot and driveway are badly set up for a business that has that volume of traffic (I've occasionally gone there, but often didn't because it was so difficult to get in and out safely).


have you been to the starbucks off grove street

By on

in south brookline?

true story - I was waiting in line after getting something at cheryl anns:

some women comes in "can someone move their lexus? it's blocking my mercedes!" No one said anything - I went outside - and sure enough - an idling Lexus SUV was blocking a Mercedes SUV, a Porsche, and a Jaguar - no driver.



By on

One doesn't just simply open a coffee shop in Chestnut Hill, dear.


They should write three letters

By on


These are the people who hand out licenses like candycanes at Christmas. They are the ones who lack procedures for getting bad drivers off of the roads (and then massively overreact over any treatable seizure issue - ignorance!). They are accountable for bad drivers.


Blaming the drivers?

By on

It's really weird that the neighbors are blaming bad motorists, because the problems at this site really were the fault of the parking lot design. The old Starbucks parking lot is less than a hundred yards past a major intersection on 9E, and street parking means there are often cars parked right up against the edge of the driveway, so cars entering have to slow down to <5MPH to avoid clipping bumpers, and cars leaving have to inch their noses all the way out into traffic before they can see past the monstrous SUVs that block the view to the left. Net result: traffic in the right lane backs up into the intersection, and everyone coming through the intersection very quickly learns to expect random cars to veer into their path in the left lane. It was a goddamn disaster, and I was glad to see the place close.



By on

I don't think it is that unusual to run across coffee chains (Most often Starbucks, but also Peet's and even DD) in areas with more car than foot traffic on lots will limited parking. Often these parcels are shared use.

Right off the top of my head there's the Mt. Auburn St Starbucks in Watertown as well as the one on Rt. 16 in Newton, just west of 128 (which shares minuscule parking with some kind of office).

Peet's in downtown Wellesley has a tiny lot with maybe 5 spaces, but at least there's plentiful parking in walking distance.

The Duncan's on Rt. 9 in Framingham (just past 126) has a small lot as well as a drive through line that tends to tail back into this perennially busy stretch of divided highway.

Could this be a side effect of the business of ubiquitous coffee delivery? Vendors will put their business on the lowest rent property that meets their needs; and there's a substantial band of territory around Boston where this will mean a small lot that is not especially walkable.

On the other hand, what would these spaces be used for otherwise? As I recall the Peet's location in Wellesley used to be a gas station/garage.