I am surprised that you don't get that I was not talking about an exact, down to the last nail replica. I am referring to a design style or aesthetic.
Again there used to be a standard no matter how long something is around, if it’s an eyesore it wouldn’t even have been considered. There are plenty of other places to get coffee at Epcot. But hey, at least you’ll get your caffeine fix ...
Because that’s part of the story...
So then story and design doesn’t matter? Even then, the facade was not redone to match Starbuck’s brand design guidelines.
Not the same issue. The aesthetic of Starbucks on Main Street does not match Starbucks’ brand identity. Even if they are somehow the same, prior bad decisions should not be used justify new ones.
If I can order ahead, I’ll complain less.
Not at all. You guys a freaking out that an architectural style that was used outside of the parks is now being used inside the parks. Why is it OK for some parts but not others?
Those styles are chosen due to the story, not a vendor’s brand guidelines. Do you really not see the difference?
I see the difference, the point that you seem to be missing is there is no story to tell along the rose walk. We are not taking a magical journey through turn of the century America or into the wilds of Africa. It is a concrete path between a grassy noll.
Actually, I tend to compare Starbucks coffee to a roasty stout or porter. But I get your drift. IPAs and stouts don't play well with Lite beer fans, Starbucks isn't for Maxwell House drinkers. Live and let live.
And if the location becomes permanent, I can understand some folks' consternation if it remains "Starbucks Corporate" design. But it's temporary. And if it becomes permanent, it's a freaking box. A box that can be easily rethemed to match whatever magical story grows up around it.
Starbucks has nothing to do with the in park stores. Starbucks does not franchise/own these, they license the rights to use their products and such to Disney. This design choice was clearly Disneys.
