starbucks closing3

Until the letters were actually being removed from the facade, we weren’t sure the Starbucks on the corner of 67th street and Columbus Avenue would actually close.

So when it became clear Monday morning that this was really happening, that the 90s-era symbol of gentrification was being dismantled before our very eyes, we asked:

What’s next?

By the way, a new Starbucks is slated to open at at 141 Amsterdam Avenue between between 66th and 67th streets, so keep your caffeine-addicted head up.

new starbucks
The new Starbucks under construction at 141 Amsterdam Avenue. Photo by Nancy Ross.

Photo by Gary McElyea.

NEWS, OPEN/CLOSED | 44 comments | permalink
    1. David Collins says:

      I am not sure if this is true but I had heard that this was at one point (could have still been perhaps) the busiest Starbucks in NYC.

    2. rchjms says:

      Rent was jacked to $144,000 a month? Yes? Holy crap!

    3. Bob says:

      good riddence. prob some beauty store moving in.

      • Boopsie says:

        Yeah, betcha the next tenant is a Nail Salon…Now I want to see some of THOSE close.

    4. Nelson says:

      Help me remember clearly, neighbors: As I recall back in the mid 1980s, this site was a really fun, casual pub where one could grab a burger and a beer (and usually see a soap star or two, cause ALL MY CHILDREN, LOVING and ONE LIFE TO LIVE all shot in the vicinity). Does anyone remember that??

      • Catherine says:

        Yes it was called Chip’s Pub. Roger Grimsby who was then an anchor for the evening news shows – would go in there and have a few between the 6 & 11 broadcasts/

        • Stephanie says:

          Actually, right on the corner, the bar was called McGlades. Classic Irish bar opened until 4 AM. Watering Hole for ABC News and ABC local. Chips was right next door. If those walls could’ve talked …….

    5. m.pipik says:

      I hope they got a good deal at 141 Amsterdam. That’s a dead block with no foot traffic other than students at the High School(s) across the street who are not allowed to linger after school and can’t afford the coffee anyway, and the residents of the apartment buildings there.

      It’s a really dead block in the evening. If Starbucks can bring people there and create some street life, more power to them.

      • Anon says:

        Who doesn’t allow the students to linger?

        • Big Earl says:

          The police. Walk Amsterdam between 66th and 71st around 4pm. It started to get so out of hand there were cops on the sidewalks at intersections. It all funnels to McDonalds, where after walking 6 blocks while fighting, chasing, screaming profanities and purposely trying to cause a scene with no regard to the toddlers and small children exposed to the chaos. The worst I saw were a couple fights and one time in front of my two small children at 70th and Amsterdam a kid came running up, grabbed something shady out of his pocket to give to his friend and asked him to hide it as he goes back to get whoever. After that we avoided that walk on Amsterdam. Once the police presence arrived though it helped keep a cap on the craziness.

          • Sarah says:

            That basically sums up Fordham Road in the Bronx. Glad it doesn’t happen to that extreme anymore in our neighborhood!

            • Mark says:

              Wow an “our neighborhood” and a “won’t somebody think of the children” level of xenophobia. I’m sure those kids care a great deal about “our neighbors” after that attitude was leveled toward them.

          • ws says:

            Cool it pipik! Those kids may be a different color from you but they are just harmlessly, if noisily, letting off steam after a day of being trapped inside.

          • prosperine says:

            It’s been that way for over 10 years. The cops facilitate the kids getting out of the area. Remember lots of kids are on the voucher system and live elsewhere in the city and after school they used to sit on stoops and cause mischief. And when Riverside Park South wasn’t finished yet, they would smoke pot and menace the few that dared to go there. I remember kids dropped a bottle nearly hitting my head as I walked down into the 66th st subway stop.

    6. Eric says:

      Maybe McGlade’s will come back …

    7. Pedestrian says:

      When the rent is too damn high for Starbucks you know the real estate market has gone nuts!

    8. Paul on West 67th says:

      I walked by tonight and it looks like the new Starbucks will be opening soon. M Pipik is right, that block needs help. The bodega was recently closed (by the state, I think), the beauty salon and hardware store are gone.

    9. Paris Wyome says:

      It previously had been a great local pub for ABC folks and us locals.

    10. Liz says:

      WOW. I am shocked. Most of the Starbucks in NYC are crowded. Lots of them though are full of people who have made Starbucks, with the free WIFI, their “office”.

      This particular Starbucks actually had long lines of people waiting to order drinks.

      You could never get a seat there. Now when I go to the Post Office on 68th and Columbus where am I going to use the bathroom?

    11. LIS ANDERSON says:

      Nicely decorated shop. Sorry to see it go. Is the building coming down? Are the streets paved with platinum?

    12. wijmlet says:

      Plus ca change…

    13. John says:

      A Men’s club can afford the rent

    14. freckls says:

      Chip’s & McGlades are long gone. After working at ABC for nearly 38 years they are barely a memory. Thanks for reminding me about them.

      I can’t believe the rent is $144,000. Can anyone confirm this? I remember when “Lenge” (forgive my spelling) left and the cupcake place moved in. Lenge moved because the rent went to $33,000. That would be a bargain now I guess.

    15. Jason says:

      If you can’t compete in the market, get out of the market. That goes for starbucks or any “mom and pop”. Landlords are businessmen, just like any of the businesses that rent their space. They are no different, looking to turn a profit on their investment. Always amazes me how pro business people are on this site until you actually start identifying the business. Building owners (landlords) made a significant investment in our community, paid a great deal of money (and taxes), and are entitled to run their business as any other. They aren’t a social institution.

      • dannyboy says:

        “Building owners (landlords… are entitled to run their business as any other. They aren’t a social institution.”

        Not social? Then regulate them more.

        • jason says:

          Regulate them more? Remember the idea of a “free market”? This isn’t nursery school, you can’t make rules to ensure fairness because that completely defeats capitalism and competition. Landlords are business people, just like the overpriced independent drug store, just like the overpriced independent hardware store, etc. In fact more landlords constitute “small businesses” as that term is defined in New York than almost any other industry. Why should we be compelled to regulate those “small businesses” more than any other? The market bears what the market bears, that’s exactly how the system should work. Why should one small business take a paycut at the expense of another?

          • dannyboy says:

            You lost me at “free market”. Is your “free market” free of social constraints? Social impacts?

            “The market bears what the market bears, that’s exactly how the system should work.” – This isn’t nursery school, read some Adam Smith.

          • Chris Gault says:

            Obviously don’t realize you moved to the socialist state of the upper west side, where everyone has an assumed claim on everyone else’s property.

          • ws says:

            So you are against my idea that locals be required by law to patronize (and prefer) mom-n-pop stores?

            • dannyboy says:

              Yes, I am against my idea that locals be required by law to patronize (and prefer) mom-n-pop stores.

          • John says:

            If Clinton gets elected, we will become a more regulated socialist country so yes that land lord will be regulated and taxed into poverty. It is the utopian way.