La Colombe Bans Smoking

[Holly Moore]

Today's Philadelhia Inquirer reports that La Colombe, considered one of the best if not the best coffee roasters in the country, has banned smoking from the cafe it operates off Philadelphia's Rittenhouse Square. Not because of the health hazzards of smoking, but because so much smoke in the small cafe makes it impossible for them to put out quality coffee drinks.

Here's the entire story from the Inquirer: La Colombe Bans Smoking

[Rich Pawlak]

Well, it's about time. Bohemian vibe or not, I could never bear the smoke level in either la Colombe location , Rittenhouse or MAnayunk, and it made enjoying their coffe brutally difficult.

When I worked in Center City, I used to enjoy MY La Colombe at the Bellevue's food court (well, I worked in the building as their PR guy....), at Everything On A Bagel, the little bagel stand there. Bucka cup. Best steal in town for good coffee. They used to serve a few of the La Colombe blends there, dont know how many theyre serving now. I miss that place.

[menton1]

A big round of applause for La Colombe D'or!!! Why is Pennsylvania so far behind NY and California when it comes to smoking in restaurants? Starbucks, the superdaddy of all coffee bars, bans smoking in all 10,000 of its places, (or however many it has).

N.B. When in Philly, I have found Metropolitan Bakery's coffee, bread, pastry and ambience to be all superior to La Colombe, but it doesn't get the hype.

[Bux]

I don't get to Philadelphia very often-once every thirty years or so. The last time I was there, I had great coffee at la Colombe. I understand how my tastebuds are affected by second hand smoke. I'm wondering how they guage the efffect of smoke on the product and why it took them so long.

[herbacidal]

i gotta disagree.

i don't think they shoulda banned smoking.

from a business standpoint, and from a philosophical standpoint.

biz view, the coffeeshop as a moneymaker was a comparatively small part of their revenue and profits, i believe.

most of their $$ were coming from roasting for restaurants and other coffee shops.

but the coffee shop did serve a purpose for the company as far as identifying la colombe as "cool", which extends to their coffee.

the smokers are overwhelming stylish asian and european immigrants, artists, and hipsters, the "cool" crowd. The possibility of their not being there or being there in significantly reduced capacities could hurt the business more as a whole.

philosophical view, those who mind the smoke should not be there. waiters, and everyone else makes a choice with regards to smoking. tolerate it, as a patron/waiter/etc. or don't and go somewhere else.

i'm a non smoker myself. all my clothes smell like smoke quite often, b/c i hang out with enough smokers in bars, coffee shops, plus people in the restaurant biz. it's something i accept, but i choose to continue to have these friends, and patronize these places.

back to business view, i think they should have opened another place around the corner or something and made it non smoking. they would have probably easily been able to fill both up by gaining back their customers that they lost to other places, plus vacancies have been cropping up, and will probably increase.

[Nick]

I agree with herblau. Maine now has some of the strictest anti-smoking laws in the nation. It's been banned in just about everyplace except bars (and from what I hear that may be banned as well.)

My own view (along with herblau's) is that if you don't want, can't handle, the smoke - don't go there. Don't work there. You have a choice. I personally don't like and won't go to a place where tobacco smoke fills the air so much that it's unpleasant. That's my choice and it should be the same for everyone else - smoker or non-smoker.

While we're on this, the Bush administration is now rolling back the clean air laws that we finally got on the books twenty and thirty years ago. It seems an interesting contradiction. Laws mandating "clean air" in places where you have a choice of going or not going. Dirty air for all outside of those places. Hail to the Chief.

[menton1]

Do the folks in Philly live in a vacuum? In New York, smoking in all restaurants has been banned for 8 years-- and they just passed an even tougher law banning smoking in all bars as well. The entire vast state of California bans smoking in restaurants-- All 10,000 Starbucks ban smoking-- Business at La Colombe should actually get better-- check back in 1 year--

Get with it Philly!!

N.B. Anybody been to Metropolitan Bakery?

[Bux]

Holly said they banned smoking because so much smoke in the small cafe makes it impossible for them to put out quality coffee drinks. Is that so hard a concept to understand in a discussion group supposedly dedicated to good food. They're not as proud of the product they produce in a smoke filled environment as they are of one they can produce in a smoke free environment.

My philosophical view is that in America, one has the right to make the best product one can and one does not have to cater to the cool, trendy and hip. Why is it that the same people who can argue that it's an owner's right to maintain an unhealthy environment for his workers if it's one he feels comfortably in and one that's profitable, don't stand up and defend the owner's right to present the best product he knows how to make?

[Holly Moore]

No vacuum. But as the birthplace of liberty, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, we staid Philadelphian's move a tad slower than the latterday upstarts of New York and California when it comes to a person's inalienable right to inflict their ill-manerly tobacco-smoke-spewing-ways upon others.

I have mixed feelings about La Colombe's smoking ban. I avoided the place because of the overwhelming clouds of smoke. But I also think that smoke is an essentail contributor to La Colombe's ambience. I like that Philadelphia has a quirky, artist crammed, smoke filled coffee house like La Colombe. As someone else said, there are plenty of smoke free alternatives nearby. However I respect the owner's quest for the best possible cup of coffee and it is his decision to make. And with fewer coffee smoking artists about, it'll be easier for me to get a seat.

Pesonally, I'm against smoking in restaurants and for it being optional in bars, dives, and joints. Let the will of the people decide by their patronage.

[Rich Pawlak]

Do the folks in Philly live in a vacuum?  In New York, smoking in all restaurants has been banned for 8 years--  and they just passed an even tougher law banning smoking in all bars as well.  The entire vast state of California bans smoking in restaurants--  All 10,000 Starbucks ban smoking--  Business at La Colombe should actually get better-- check back in 1 year-- 

Get with it Philly!!

N.B. Anybody been to Metropolitan Bakery?

I agree, Philly has been WAY behind the curve with regards to smoking bans in restaurants and bars.

I happened to be in Los Angeles in April of '97, during the very week when the California smoking ban took effect. Oh, the cries of restaurateurs! The bar owners!

Within a WEEK, not a word was uttered on the subject, and people went to their fave restaurants and bars.. They've adjusted quite nicely, almost seamlessly, by observation, every time I've returned to California. I only wish we were as enlightened.

My lungs, nostrils, taste buds and clothes would all be grateful.

RP

[rozrapp]

In New York, smoking in all restaurants has been banned for 8 years--  and they just passed an even tougher law banning smoking in all bars as well. 

Not exactly correct. The original smoking ban did not cover restaurants with fewer than 35 seats. Plus, there were also rules governing whether smoking was permissible in restaurant bar areas having to do with the percentage of food served there.

As I understand it, the new law that will go into effect at the end of March bans smoking in all restaurants -- no matter the number of seats -- in restaurant bar areas, and in bars unless they are owner-operated; that is to say, the owner himself/herself runs the bar and has no employees.

[Steve Klc]

It seems to me La Colombe was exercising their freedom of choice in the very same way some on this thread argued for individual patrons exercising theirs? As Holly said "I respect the owner's quest for the best possible cup of coffee and it is his decision to make." Same as any patron--free to go elsewhere.

And yes, I have been to the wonderful Metropolitan Bakery. I could have gone there or walked a little farther to La Colombe--and chose Metropolitan. It was so good I went back to Metropolitan each morning. I can't speak to the hype--as a visitor and foodie I only knew of La Colombe because of a few French chefs and restaurateurs, like Boulud in NYC, used their coffee and I tried their coffee in my espresso machine. I heard about Metropolitan because I had eaten at a few Philly restaurants who used their fantastic bread. I knew of no hype associated with the La Colombe location/bar.

All I know is I came back to DC with a big bag of Metropolitan loaves to freeze and a bag or two of La Colombe (from the Whole Foods Market store.) Both were at least as good if not better than what I can get in DC--a few of our Breadline varieties rival Metropolitan but not the full range and La Colombe is just a little bit better than our Quartermaine. (The three DC restaurants I'm associated with--Cafe Atlantico, Jaleo and Zaytinya--all use La Colombe at present, both for coffee and espresso. But that can always change.)

I have a question for you all--how many realized La Colombe was now producing espresso pods to compete with Illy? I just found out last week.

[herbacidal]

Do the folks in Philly live in a vacuum?  In New York, smoking in all restaurants has been banned for 8 years--  and they just passed an even tougher law banning smoking in all bars as well.  The entire vast state of California bans smoking in restaurants--  All 10,000 Starbucks ban smoking--  Business at La Colombe should actually get better-- check back in 1 year-- 

Get with it Philly!!

N.B. Anybody been to Metropolitan Bakery?

i doubt business can get much better.

at least not double. it's already filled open to close.

my point was that with additional capital invested in an additional store

(key point here), they could have 2 stores, one for the smokers, one for the nonsmokers.

to be frank, i don't think starbucks patrons are their target audience.

i personally will go to almost any length to avoid a starbucks. i very much prefer the independents wherever possible.

the fact that CA and NYC have banned smoking in restaurants does not necessarily mean everyone should. that just means that legislators in CA and NYC have been influenced (fairly or not) by their constituents to pass such a law.

metropolitan makes what most consider the best widely available bread around. baker street bread is also very well thought of, and miel has such a reputation that i can't imagine them not making good bread. it'll just take time before bennett and boys get around to enough places.

[herbacidal]

Holly said they banned smoking because so much smoke in the small cafe makes it impossible for them to put out quality coffee drinks. Is that so hard a concept to understand in a discussion group supposedly dedicated to good food. They're not as proud of the product they produce in a smoke filled environment as they are of one they can produce in a smoke free environment.

My philosophical view is that in America, one has the right to make the best product one can and one does not have to cater to the cool, trendy and hip. Why is it that the same people who can argue that it's an owner's right to maintain an unhealthy environment for his workers if it's one he feels comfortably in and one that's profitable, don't stand up and defend the owner's right to present the best product he knows how to make?

i understand the stated reason for their ban. i disagree with it on a business level. i agree with it on a connoisseur level. they have every right to protect the experience people have with their product. when did i ever say otherwise?

not saying they have to cater to the trendy, hip, etc. just that for that given situation i would have. it's a comparatively small portion of revenues/profits.

sure, way more money would have been required to open another shop than to ban smoking there. i just think that would have been a smarter biz move. maybe i'm wrong. suppose we'll see.

[Steve Klc]

Yes, 75,000 pounds of beans a month is a lot. But by the way, how do we know that selling $4 cups of coffee and espresso is a comparatively small portion of their overall revenue and profits? Might that be making an errant assumption? Has any of this been covered in the business pages in Philly? I'd suspect money is rolling in if the location is as crowded as some say--and though the bulk roasting and selling of beans to the restaurant side would do higher volume--that category also has tighter margins and much greater competition.

Despite what was said "officially," I bet there was a solid business decision behind this move--my last visit saw vast areas of Philly becoming more gentrified, more commercial, more touristy, more expensive. There's development and revitalization all over, is it really so surprising that the quirky chess-playing lounging smoking artist crowd is getting pushed out?

[menton1]

[

i understand the stated reason for their ban.  i disagree with it on a business level.  i agree with it on a connoisseur level.  they have every right to protect the experience people have with their product.  when did i ever say otherwise?

Herblau, you have not been paying attention for the last decade. Whenever a municipality has banned smoking, the restaurant business goes UP. In New Jersey, where there is no law, hundreds and hundreds of restaurants have banned smoking voluntarily to INCREASE business. It may be politically correct to say that the coffee will be better (probably true), but the real essence is that smoking bans are GOOD for business!!

[herbacidal]

Yes, 75,000 pounds of beans a month is a lot. But by the way, how do we know that selling $4 cups of coffee and espresso is a comparatively small portion of their overall revenue and profits? Might that be making an errant assumption? Has any of this been covered in the business pages in Philly? I'd suspect money is rolling in if the location is as crowded as some say--and though the bulk roasting and selling of beans to the restaurant side would do higher volume--that category also has tighter margins and much greater competition.

Despite what was said "officially," I bet there was a solid business decision behind this move--my last visit saw vast areas of Philly becoming more gentrified, more commercial, more touristy, more expensive. There's development and revitalization all over, is it really so surprising that the quirky chess-playing lounging smoking artist crowd is getting pushed out?

they only charge a dollar a cup of coffee. they could easily charge more, but have chosen not to. just keeping it at that level limits their $$$s there.

most of their money is made selling to regional (Philly, NJ, NYC) restaurants, coffee shops, caterers.

yes the margins are tighter, but for the high end/stylish places in Philly (Perrier's places, Stein's, probably Starr's) and caterers (Peachtree and Ward definitely, probably RA, Culinary, Frog, Feast) and many coffee shops use La Colombe. Daniel and most of the top Frenchies in NYC also use La Colombe if I'm not mistaken.

chowblah's boards and other sources mention that.

a few years ago, they also bought another local roaster called New Harmony and probably use them as a complementary line, although i would have to investigate further.

i'm willing to accept that logic you've defined, i just don't agree that that is the case. i could be wrong. we shall see.

[Jaymes]

i repeat, i believe la colombe's 19th st. location will lose business, and lose some of the coolness cache they've acquired.  maybe i'm wrong, we'll see.

When you say, "we'll see," it might require more than just sticking your head in the door to determine whether or not the move is a success.

Something similar happened a few years back at a coffee shop I am familiar with.

It, too, had the artsy, smokey set. The place was always packed. It almost appeared that one could not even patronize the joint unless one was wearing black and had a cigarette dangling carelessly and cooly from one's tres chic lips.

The shop owners, however, had done a little bit of analyzing. They determined that maintenance costs were much higher (they talked at some length about having to wipe the nicotine from the picture windows and mirrors every other day) than projected to be without smoking. But most of all, they discovered that although the cafe LOOKED full, and indeed WAS full, most of the "artsy trendy smokey" set was lingering for hours, chatting about artsy, trendy, cool stuff, over ONE CUP OF COFFEE. And perhaps a biscotti. And so, although the restaurant was full, their per-customer check total averages were horrible.

So, they banned smoking. Now, the cafe does not look so full and is not so full. People come and order and pay for it and consume and leave. Their per-customer tabs are up, their maintenance costs are down, and their profits are much improved.

Now, I'm not saying that I know this is going to happen at la colombe, because obviously I don't.

What I AM saying is that when you say, "we'll see," it might require a little investigation on your part to reach the correct conclusion as to whether or not the ban has been good or bad for business.

[herbacidal]

So, they banned smoking.  Now, the cafe does not look so full and is not so full.  People come and order and pay for it and consume and leave.  Their per-customer tabs are up, their maintenance costs are down, and their profits are much improved.

Now, I'm not saying that I know this is going to happen at la colombe, because obviously I don't.

What I AM saying is that when you say, "we'll see," it might require a little investigation on your part to reach the correct conclusion as to whether or not the ban has been good or bad for business.

i allow that as being possible. i understand that is the reason most coffee shops are not particularly profitable, despite selling something that costs a dime to fifteen cents (cup, water, beans, sugar, cream) for $1 plus (sure, i haven't included everything else, just talking raw product costs).

yes, you're right it would require more investigation on my part. i may just do that if convenient. i imagine as much as anything i will also hear from others about its success/failure.

[Jaymes]

So, they banned smoking.  Now, the cafe does not look so full and is not so full.  People come and order and pay for it and consume and leave.  Their per-customer tabs are up, their maintenance costs are down, and their profits are much improved.

Now, I'm not saying that I know this is going to happen at la colombe, because obviously I don't.

What I AM saying is that when you say, "we'll see," it might require a little investigation on your part to reach the correct conclusion as to whether or not the ban has been good or bad for business.

yes, you're right it would require more investigation on my part. i may just do that if convenient. i imagine as much as anything i will also hear from others about its success/failure.

Of course, if they have to close their doors about this time next year, that'll pretty much settle it...

[joiei]

More than one person has commented on the fact that Starbucks bans smoking. The line is still out the door. The owners made a policy decision, it is still your choice whether to go or not to go.

[rozrapp]

i repeat, i believe la colombe's 19th st. location will lose business, and lose some of the coolness cache they've acquired.  maybe i'm wrong, we'll see.

When you say, "we'll see," it might require more than just sticking your head in the door to determine whether or not the move is a success.

Something similar happened a few years back at a coffee shop I am familiar with.

It, too, had the artsy, smokey set. The place was always packed. It almost appeared that one could not even patronize the joint unless one was wearing black and had a cigarette dangling carelessly and cooly from one's tres chic lips.

The shop owners, however, had done a little bit of analyzing. They determined that maintenance costs were much higher (they talked at some length about having to wipe the nicotine from the picture windows and mirrors every other day) than projected to be without smoking. But most of all, they discovered that although the cafe LOOKED full, and indeed WAS full, most of the "artsy trendy smokey" set was lingering for hours, chatting about artsy, trendy, cool stuff, over ONE CUP OF COFFEE. And perhaps a biscotti. And so, although the restaurant was full, their per-customer check total averages were horrible.

So, they banned smoking. Now, the cafe does not look so full and is not so full. People come and order and pay for it and consume and leave. Their per-customer tabs are up, their maintenance costs are down, and their profits are much improved.

Now, I'm not saying that I know this is going to happen at la colombe, because obviously I don't.

What I AM saying is that when you say, "we'll see," it might require a little investigation on your part to reach the correct conclusion as to whether or not the ban has been good or bad for business.

To back up what Jaymes has said, here's some info from the NJ GASP (Group Against Smoking Polution) site. While it refers to dining in restaurants, I think it applies in this case as well.

Smokefree dining is good for business. Thousands of proprietors have discovered the business benefits. And there's proof:

Nonsmokers increased their dining in New York City because of its smokefree law and more than made up for any business lost among smokers - nonsmokers spend 2.5 times more than smokers. (Cornell University study)

A study of every community in the United States with smokefree restaurant ordinances concluded that they "do not adversely affect restaurant sales." (American Journal of Public Health)

Cut costs. No more cigarette burns. Less cleaning and repainting. Cut air cooling, heating, and ventilation costs. Negotiate lower fire and property insurance.

Reduce problems. Eliminate disputes among customers about smoking. Reservations and seating are simpler. Tables turn over faster when there's no lingering to smoke cigarettes.

[Felice]

I agree wholeheartedly with Jaymes. Obviously La Columbe realizes that they might loose part of their "hipster" crowd, but isn't it possible that they just don't care? Many of the "regulars" at La Columbe spend their entire day there, lounging around, without spending any money. I think many people avoided La Colombe because it was so smoky. Now they won't.

Also, why is it that all other professions are allowed to work in a smoke-free environment, but waiters should just deal? Smoking was first banned in offices to protect workers. Why shouldn't waiters be allowed the same protection?

[rozrapp]

Also, why is it that all other professions are allowed to work in a smoke-free environment, but waiters should just deal? Smoking was first banned in offices to protect workers.  Why shouldn't waiters be allowed the same protection?

When Mayor Bloomberg proposed the latest smoking ban in NYC restaurants and bars, he said that he wanted to extend protection from second-hand smoke to all workers, regardless of where they work. And that, indeed, is what the new law does.

[Holly Moore]

I am very much an entrepreneur, own a retail business, have owned a restaurant and believe that a decision on smoking should be left directly to the business owner and indirectly to potential customers and employees.

Customers who want to avoid smoke (and I am one of them) have a right to not patronize establishments that permit smoking. Restaurants are desperate for good employees. If an employee objects to any working condition, from the presence of smoke to a psychotic owner) that employee can work at a different restaurant.

And so it would come to pass that the will of the public, on an individual establishment by establishment basis, and not the legislature or regulators, would persuade a place to adapt a non-smoking policy.