Starbucks closing at Conseco Fieldhouse

May 3, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

StarbucksStarbucks plans to close its coffee shop in Conseco Fieldhouse later this month after it failed to come to terms on a lease renewal or a licensing agreement. The chain didn't want to sign a new 10-year deal with uncertainty swirling around the building, a store employee said. But a spokesman for Pacers Sports & Entertainment said it was simply a "business decision" for Starbucks and that the company was given every opportunity to renew. The Pacers organization is lobbying the city’s Capital Improvement Board for a $15 million subsidy to manage the Fieldhouse, claiming they have lost money for years despite keeping all revenues from events at the 18,165-seat venue, along with naming rights and sponsorship dollars. City officials have resisted merely writing a check and are seeking control over Fieldhouse operations. Makes you wonder whether the city would have let Starbucks walk.

ADVERTISEMENT
  • So?
    thundermuttMay 3, 2010 12:48 PM
    Besides Ratio employees and Harness Factory Lofts residents, who would even go to that Starbucks? It's really isolated and relatively invisible.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • I go there...
      LolaMay 3, 2010 1:19 PM
      My coworkers and I - all in the Majestic Building - go there almost daily. Plus, I imagine the tenants in the new Allen Plaza building go there as well. To our caffeine needs, it's a huge hit.
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • this is pathetic
      BigbenMay 3, 2010 1:37 PM
      It is extremely reasonable for Starbucks not wanting to sign a 10 year lease renewal. Why didn't the Simons settle for something less?
      This really creates a mighty big hole with no rent at all coming in.
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • go to Buzz
      CorrNDMay 3, 2010 1:37 PM
      Screw Starbucks, Lola, go to Buzz. It's exactly the same distance from the Majestic, it's local and it's awesome.
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • Events
      JoshMay 3, 2010 1:42 PM
      More than daily traffic, Starbucks gets a lot of business from Fieldhouse events like the Christian Women's Conference, concerts, etc.
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • I did.
      BenjaminMay 3, 2010 2:53 PM
      I'm not big starbucks supporter, but this was one of the few places I could walk my dog to and grab a cup of coffee due to the walk up window.
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • Starbucks vs. Buzz
      JoshMay 3, 2010 10:50 PM
      I work in the CBD and it would be great to grab my laptop and hit a good coffee shop for a few hours here and there, but none of them are really great for that, like say Henry's or someplace like that - local or chain.
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • BUZZ
      KyleMay 4, 2010 9:01 AM
      I switched to Buzz Coffee from Starbucks back in March. Super cute place and best of all it is local. Hope this helps Buzz Coffee and Cups both just North on Penn
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • IndymanMay 4, 2010 9:25 AM
      Knowing Simons business savy, this was not an accident. The pesimist in me is saying that they did this to make if more certain the City will take over the operations.

      The optimist in me is thinking Simon did this to clear out that space for a restaurant which was the original intent for that space. Think if that space were available when Scottys was scouting for a location.

      The City needs to take over operations of Conseco, if nothing else because if we do not, and the Pacers leave(doubtful), then we will still be taking it over. Put operations of all of the facilities, Conseco, LOS, CC etc... and bid them out to private firms to manage. I am thinking that synergy will make all of them successful.
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • Steak and Lube
      maddoxMay 7, 2010 10:00 AM
      It won't be vacant long....

      http://www.quakersteakandlube.com/Conseco_IN/
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment

    Post a comment to this blog

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    ADVANCED SEARCH
    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT

    1. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

    2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

    3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

    4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

    5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

    ADVERTISEMENT