Hey, there! Log in / Register
That's not the way the cookie Crumbls in Cambridge, board tells bakery chain that wants to block windows for fear of cookie spies
By adamg on Wed, 03/01/2023 - 9:14pm
Cambridge Day reports the city Planning Board told a chain called Crumbl to whip up a new batch of designs for a proposed Central Square cookie bakery, one that does not include completely covering some windows with a "pink wave" motif to block would be cookie espionage by cut-throat competitors.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Got some of the Crumbl
Got some of the Crumbl cookies at their store in Nashua. They're good cookies!
Good enough to steal the
Good enough to steal the recipe though?
Going by the picture,
the secret appears to be to undercook the bar cookies.
this is silly
This is an alleyway that connects mass ave to a parking lot. There's a street on the otherside of McDonald's. I really don't see the problem, it isn't street facing. I'd think otherwise if this was street facing.
OK maybe the pink isnt the best, but it sure beats windows with a fake half wall and bad art work from homegoods, which is the alternative (Imho, since that is considered inisde the space and sufficient gap between window and half wall would satisfy 'street appeal')
Maybe have a local artist design something instead of the pink and crumbl apply that to the window instead. (I assume this is similar to the film decals put on windows and buses)
Pure bureaucracy and anti-business
I take a different view
Ground level stores in commercial districts should have a view of the interior. This bakery can put up a display on the inside of the store to block view of the kitchen. (IMHO, Their fear is people seeing food prep violations, not IP infringement.) Better yet, they can display art by local artists as a micro gallery.
Them's the rule of these storefronts. There's plenty of other places were they can be in a windowless box if that's what they really want.
Maybe they're worried about
Maybe they're worried about theft of expensive equipment if it's on display via the windows
As someone who worked in a kitchen
Just no. No.
Save the 'food prep violations' for the folk who get paid to do this. The inspectors. They should be doing their job and inspecting regularly. It's not up the public to do this, and I fear that unless there's pictures of something obvious or someone gets sick, its unlikely an inspector will come outside of their normal yearly inspection. (of course this is the People's Republic of Cambridge so who knows)
Its also cookies. One product, I can't imagine what could be seen and documented that would be violation. Other than maybe someone not washing their hands or following serve safe directives. But I doubt much could be seen inside (i.e. temp gauges) without standing there with a wide angle zoom lens, and then it would be obvious wtf you are doing.
This window is also not street facing. Its an alley way. And if people really want to take a peek at the kitchen, they can go inside. You arguement works if its street facing. but its is a tiny alley that connects a parking lot. Give me a break.
This is what the company is afraid of happening
If they had windows into the kitchen, enviably someone is going to walk by when they are closed and see a mouse, bug, etc. They take a photo on their phone and is a corporate headache, to say the least.
The whole "Violations of IP" thing is a stupid cover. If a competitor was that interested they'd give a low-paid kitchen worker $500 cash to figuratively spill the beans.
Anyway, they can still block a kitchen views without plastering over the windows. They knew the stipulations when they rented the spot.
Here's a view of the alley in
Here's a view of the alley in question:
And for historical context, here's the building that was there before: https://goo.gl/maps/fSwGatFrHwg9DVgT8
Note that this only went before the Planning Board because Crumbl is a " 'formula' business – a chain with trademarked logos and a standardized color scheme – needing a special permit to open." I guess it's good that an independent business could just skip this bit of bureaucracy. But it still feels like unnecessary meddling.
Amazon famously was able to outwit the city by putting up a sign on their Central Square locker storefront that said "Amazon" instead of "amazon". Since they didn't use their standard lowercase logo, it didn't meet the city's definition of a formula business.
Except they later went back and put up an "amazon" sign anyway, so the city's quest against lowercase a's in CentrAl SquAre was All for nought: https://goo.gl/maps/4jpGkeqt4Hg9rLye7
Street View didn't catch the "Amazon" sign, but apparently it was "mazon" for a while: https://goo.gl/maps/vpFid6WH8iFGXJFT6 . Too bad it wasn't actually a Jewish food store.
This my friends is how you get free publicity.
"We need to hide our cookies from our devious competitors, because they are just that awesome." - It's enough to make PT Barnum blush.