5 ms·

Or alternately, neighborhoods with no previous coffee shops where Starbucks start opening are gentrifying.

candiddevmike 2y ago
Is Starbucks good at predicting gentrification? Presumably there is some criteria someone is using to gauge the feasibility of a location vs others. If you can beat the rush, you can probably get better leasing terms etc.
- financltravsty 2y ago
  Look at demographic data & data that correlates with it. The Census and related organizations offer very fine-grained data (both in characteristics/factors & in level of specificity of location). In the past, I had built a data brokerage offering clean and centralized data in this area -- the equivalent of Netflix for data catalogs (back when you could say this with a straight face). It is not a hard problem. You can (and many did) throw entire datasets at a random forest as a first-pass, and then retrain with only the features that pass a significance threshold. Algorithmic identification of real estate investment opportunities for the purpose of corporate expansion is not a new thing. Most serious shops do it. The techniques are simple, but it's the prep and decision-making after that are difficult.
bensterne 2y ago
good point
sfink 2y ago
That was my first thought, too, but that's not totally ignored. It all hinges on this part: "...when compared to census tracts that were scheduled to receive a Starbucks but did not do so..." So the sampled population is the neighborhoods that were scheduled to receive a Starbucks, and lack prior other coffeeshops. Which means we're basically only looking a newly gentrifying neighborhoods (that Starbucks has calculated are worth opening something in, but that's probably mostly redundant with "newly gentrifying"). This severely limits the scope of applicability, but is fine in terms of the statistics. The big question is: why did some locations not receive the Starbucks they were "scheduled" to receive? Because that is a potentially huge confounding factor. If it's because Starbucks corporate said "hey, we only want to open up 2000 new locations this year, let's roll dice to see which ones get it", then it's all good. If (as seems more likely) it's more like "let's start the process for all candidates, but drop the ones that are slowest to get through the permitting process or hardest to get a loan/insurance/workers/supplies/building materials for", well then -- might those affect the ability to start up a company just a wee little bit? I'm torn. It's an interesting enough result that I'd almost like to go to the extreme measure of doing the "actually read the paper" thing that I've heard rumored some people do. And yet, my cynicism says my doubts are probably correct, so I don't want to bother with the effort to find out if they aren't.
- willsmith72 2y ago
  To me, the "compared to census tracts that were scheduled to receive a Starbucks but did not do so..." is a weak défense against the correlation argument. Like you said, without knowing the why of the change in plans, there is no way to judge causality confidently. Anecdotally, I love these types of cafes (not "Starbucks" but this model), hope we get more, and see huge benefit both for myself and the community.
knowaveragejoe 2y ago
How do we get the good parts of gentrification without the bad? Is avoiding the bad really worth freezing an area in amber?
- Ekaros 2y ago
  Is there good parts? Then again this forum is for those doing the gentrifying. So maybe it is wrong place to ask...
  - Nasrudith 2y ago
    Depends on if you are a part of the crime rates that go down or not. More seriously: lower crime, more services, reduced infastructural and service strain, higher income, and an area made more desirable. The very hard part would be getting only the good, to bring in investment and raise incomes of individuals across all individuals at a neighborhood level instead of just importing richer people. The levels of sudden life changes required frankly suggest mind control being involved.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - knowaveragejoe 2y ago
      "Importing richer people" is just one part of it, you're also freeing up housing elsewhere which allows greater upward mobility there. Their income also brings more opportunity with them.
  - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
    Gentrification is good for you if you own property there. If you are a renter, not so much.

Is Starbucks good at predicting gentrification? Presumably there is some criteria someone is using to gauge the feasibility of a location vs others. If you can beat the rush, you can probably get better leasing terms etc.

financltravsty 2y ago
Look at demographic data & data that correlates with it. The Census and related organizations offer very fine-grained data (both in characteristics/factors & in level of specificity of location). In the past, I had built a data brokerage offering clean and centralized data in this area -- the equivalent of Netflix for data catalogs (back when you could say this with a straight face). It is not a hard problem. You can (and many did) throw entire datasets at a random forest as a first-pass, and then retrain with only the features that pass a significance threshold. Algorithmic identification of real estate investment opportunities for the purpose of corporate expansion is not a new thing. Most serious shops do it. The techniques are simple, but it's the prep and decision-making after that are difficult.

bensterne 2y ago

good point

sfink 2y ago

That was my first thought, too, but that's not totally ignored. It all hinges on this part: "...when compared to census tracts that were scheduled to receive a Starbucks but did not do so..." So the sampled population is the neighborhoods that were scheduled to receive a Starbucks, and lack prior other coffeeshops. Which means we're basically only looking a newly gentrifying neighborhoods (that Starbucks has calculated are worth opening something in, but that's probably mostly redundant with "newly gentrifying"). This severely limits the scope of applicability, but is fine in terms of the statistics. The big question is: why did some locations not receive the Starbucks they were "scheduled" to receive? Because that is a potentially huge confounding factor. If it's because Starbucks corporate said "hey, we only want to open up 2000 new locations this year, let's roll dice to see which ones get it", then it's all good. If (as seems more likely) it's more like "let's start the process for all candidates, but drop the ones that are slowest to get through the permitting process or hardest to get a loan/insurance/workers/supplies/building materials for", well then -- might those affect the ability to start up a company just a wee little bit? I'm torn. It's an interesting enough result that I'd almost like to go to the extreme measure of doing the "actually read the paper" thing that I've heard rumored some people do. And yet, my cynicism says my doubts are probably correct, so I don't want to bother with the effort to find out if they aren't.

willsmith72 2y ago
To me, the "compared to census tracts that were scheduled to receive a Starbucks but did not do so..." is a weak défense against the correlation argument. Like you said, without knowing the why of the change in plans, there is no way to judge causality confidently. Anecdotally, I love these types of cafes (not "Starbucks" but this model), hope we get more, and see huge benefit both for myself and the community.

knowaveragejoe 2y ago

How do we get the good parts of gentrification without the bad? Is avoiding the bad really worth freezing an area in amber?

Ekaros 2y ago
Is there good parts? Then again this forum is for those doing the gentrifying. So maybe it is wrong place to ask...
- Nasrudith 2y ago
  Depends on if you are a part of the crime rates that go down or not. More seriously: lower crime, more services, reduced infastructural and service strain, higher income, and an area made more desirable. The very hard part would be getting only the good, to bring in investment and raise incomes of individuals across all individuals at a neighborhood level instead of just importing richer people. The levels of sudden life changes required frankly suggest mind control being involved.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - knowaveragejoe 2y ago
    "Importing richer people" is just one part of it, you're also freeing up housing elsewhere which allows greater upward mobility there. Their income also brings more opportunity with them.
- amanaplanacanal 2y ago
  Gentrification is good for you if you own property there. If you are a renter, not so much.