Catherine - it isn't journalistic practice to include an entire interview in a reported piece, nor is it an obligation to include an entire email correspondence. Carolyn Twetsen responded to my questions in paragraph form, very clearly and articulately, with the understanding that I would parse it into quotes to fit the article. Instead, I decided to use the meat of the email that emphasized the angle the story took. If you would like to email me, I can in turn ask Ms. Twetsen if I can share her entire email with you. Weaver Street Market did not make a public statement such as the one Durham Co-op made (which is linked in this story and partly included in yesterday's story).
I believe the response that would cater to "affluent consumer demand" would be to only stock local or non-Driscoll berries which would be crazy expensive! Just vote with your dollars, people! It's not the store's job to dictate what people should or shouldnt buy.
Victoria, Why didn't you post the whole letter carolyn wrote? You are not reporting the story fairly or unbiastly. Catherine Manone
People who are boycotting Driscoll need to see the bigger issue here. The fact that there are labor laws in the US that allow this kind of thing to happen in the first place. If you think the issue begins and ends with Sakuma brothers, whom Driscoll buys a small portion of their berries from, then you are sadly mistaken. If you eat avocados, bananas, or really anything that didn't come from a Fair Trade Certified farm, then it was likely as cheap as it was because of unfair labor practices. When in stores I regularly hear customer complain about the high prices of produce. Terms like "Whole Paycheck" come to mind. Well if you want food grown responsibly, by workers who are treated fairly, then be willing to pay the price for it. Unfortunately we have a very broken system, where underpaid people need cheap food to survive on, which is made cheap because they were produced or harvested by underpaid people. So stop focusing on the small issue, and start doing something about the larger problem!
Sorry I missed this. I worked 13 years part-time in pastry production at NSB and knew Jacqueline then (1985-1998). I see her once a year when I get hot cross buns for my choir and neighbors on Good Friday. She is such a special soul!
Any time a business owner (who decides to close up shop that quickly) first blames the former business and customers for their lack of business...and any time a restaurant/bar owner sees it as a "concept" rather than something they love and want to share with others--you know there's a problem. Hadleys has failed because the owners are after a concept and after fast money on the backs of the "new hipster-foodie crowd" rather than loyal locals and others. It also appears as if they screwed over the former server staff and crew for no apparent reason.
As a former server and as one who watched my dad build extremely successful restaurants on high quality, fantastic food (at reasonable prices that weren't jacked up) and developing relationships with the locals, I find it really disingenuous (or maybe just ignorant) of the owners of Hadleys to say they failed because the locals were mad they lost the former place. Get over yourselves - stop CONCEPTUALIZING and start developing good food (reasonably priced) and drinks, as well as building relationships. Then maybe you won't have to move on quite as fast.
When the new place opened up it went from fun local gay friendly hangout (with beer) to yuppie/hipster cocktail bar (with no beer and overpriced sandwiches), which had zero appeal. It wasn't a loyalty thing (as the new owner suggests), it just wasn't the same, or anywhere close to being the same. Seriously, did they really think after changing everything about the bar/restaurant that they would automatically keep all of the patrons based on the location? If you closed down a steakhouse and replaced it with a vegetarian restaurant, would you expect the same clientele?
I'm surprised they didn't just tweak the first concept more and listen to customer feedback. Also, we all knew that the regular staff of the Borough were interested and then not contacted to work there. Which was lame. This is kind of a bummer. But maybe it will have a happier ending.
They spelled lease wrong in the listing.
I have to agree with nematome above. I am very disappointed to see Hadley's fail, but there were major problems that alienated the regular Borough crowd from day one. First, if it is not broken then don't fix it. The conversion to Hadley's was too much of a change - all beer taps taken out, no hot side dishes, no basic light beer option even in a can or bottle, sandwiches were more expensive than the Borough, etc. Second, Hadley's announced that they would be retaining some of the Borough staff, but us regulars knew that many of them interviewed to work there but none of the wait staff was hired. These people had become close friends to the regulars, and this put many of us off from day one. Still, most of the regular crowd gave it a chance. When they changed concept again to a martini bar, that was even less attractive. Without food, there is nothing to differentiate them from the bar next door. It always felt like they were trying concepts that appealed to themselves without taking into account any feedback from the Borough regulars. I talked to the owners each of the times I went to Hadley's. They were friendly and nice. It is not that we hated them or their establishment, but their changes were too drastic and drove the regular crowd away. At the end of the day, the Borough never had the best food, but it was always a place where I could go where I would see friends. It was, for many of us, our local "Cheers" experience. Hadley's drastic changes drove that regular crowd away. We miss our regular watering hole, and hope that the next owner can take input from the old Borough regulars. You will have a gold mine on your hands if you take it back to something that is closer to the Borough concept.
They can't even own the problem. Blame it on the customer: “The fact that Kevin and I bought The Borough and shut it down made a lot of people mad,” Hadley’s co-owner Drew Schenck says. “People loved The Borough. They loved Liz. And they hated us.”
How about, "We just didn't provide an atmosphere that they were looking for."
Just clicked the Craigslist ad out of curiosity. Interesting headline:
"Want to open a Bottle Shop? Sandwich - $120000"
A sales pitch for a takeover in Raleigh doesn't get much more attractive than that. So who is going to pony up and open what would be bottle shop #8 (i think) within a 2 mile radius of downtown? Sandwich.
Just bring your own bucket....
And don't forget the politically-correct, genderless, LGBTQ-friendly port-a-potties!
Adam Pyburn, why must you be so antagonistic? You come down very hard on those who disagree with you. You instigate anger. Let people have their opinion and respect that right. In an extreme way you demand to have your opinion but bash those with an opposite thinking.
Congratulations Chef, and those of us in the neighborhood are so grateful that you will still be feeding us.
Did we forget our HB2 boycott? And so close to ground zero of hate and discrimination, the General Assembly. Oh dear...(hands slap to face)...maybe we never really meant it. :-(
(but I am sure that my opinion will be removed. I will be pleasantly surprised if it is not. :-) )
Sounds fun as long as the LGBTs mind their Ps and Qs (Pervs and Queers).
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation