Deadpool
Deadpool looming for This Ain't the Rosedale Library?
It appears that This Ain't the Rosedale Library will be the latest bookstore to enter the deadpool. Although not gone just yet, a notice of distress posted on the store's front door Saturday paints a pretty bleak picture. Alleging that the long-loved bookseller owes $40,000 plus costs, ownership has been given five days to pay their back-rent or the landlord will seize and ultimately sell the store's contents.
Although I've yet to hear back from an email sent to Charles Huisken, who owns and runs the store with his son Jesse, my visit to the store on Sunday confirmed that it is currently closed. The notice does, however, state that the Huiskens can enter the premises should they request to do so. That they haven't, I would have to think, is not a good sign (phone calls to the store today went unanswered).
Those passing by the store might not realize how dire the situation is that the Huiskens face. Someone has taped a NOW Magazine cover over-top the bailiff's notice in a show of protection of the store's reputation or perhaps as a sign of disbelief. As I was snapping photos, a number of Kensington-goers were milling about, presumably wondering why the store was closed on a Sunday when the posted business hours are 10:00 a.m. to 6 p.m.
It wasn't so long ago that I was chatting with Charles and his son about the fate of the book business and how they were managing to stay afloat. A move from their long-occupied Church Street location over two years ago seemed to reinvigorate the business, and Charles spoke fondly of the enthusiasm that Jesse had injected into the day-to-day operations of the store.
Should they be unable to settle up with their landlord, This Ain't the Rosedale Library will join a growing list of independent booksellers who have closed their doors in the last couple years. Along with the much publicized loss of Pages, Toronto has seen the demise of David Mirvish and Ballenford Books, not to mention the near-end of the Toronto Women's Bookstore.
The splash page of This Ain't the Rosedale Library's website features a clever, if prophetic, modification of a well-known Alexander Pope line: "Angels rush in where fools fear to tread" (as opposed to the original "fools rush in where angels fear to tread"). I can't help but read this as a statement about the risks and benefits of running an independent bookstore. And what's rather distressing is that the current situation at the store lends more credence to the original adage than its revision.
I'll provide an update when more information is available. See the full notice of distress below.
Update (June 23, 2010): As some readers have noted, Charles and Jesse Huisken have written an entry on the store's website that offers their perspective on the situation and the possibility of donating money to help keep the store afloat. See here.
Discussion
39 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
How is that fair for the landlord?
Just because you are not making enough money to pay rent gives you an excuse to not fulfill your signed contract terms (includes paying rent).
They're dying. Do not buy this business from the owner. Do not start your own bookstore. Don't start your own video rental store. Don't start your own video game store. Don't start your own recorded music store. You will not succeed financially.
You can mourn them a little bit, if you wish, but the change is inevitable.
As things stand, I only see a downward spiral. The move to Kensington Market strikes me as a classic false economy. The rent might have been lower, sure, but I visited it much less often after it moved to relatively distant Kensington Market as opposed to when it was just around the corner from Wellesley station.
I’m really, really sick of techno-evangelists condemning as hopeless nostalgists those of us who worry about what is being lost in the rush to replace old institutions. The future is exciting, but tearing down the past for business models and media of uncertain consequence (the web) should be something we do with care, not haste.
Some of us want to consume and swap culture with others, in shops, on the streets, in the flesh, not just by the light of our iPads and laptops.
Some will make it, most won't.
Still want someone to blame? You can blame Amazon ... but don't overlook the fact that the current wave of resto-coffee-MacBook-gastro-cupcake-bars is driving commercial rents into the stratosphere.
How much did you pay for "consum[ing] and swap[ping] culture with others, in shops, on the streets, in the flesh"? Was it, perchance, zero? If so, then it can't be sustained at any location where rent must be paid. Would you be willing to pay $10 to enter a bookstore and consume and swap culture? That's probably about the minimum door charge that would make for a sustainable business. No, you wouldn't pay $10 to browse a bookstore? I guess your business doesn't exist, then.
I'm not a techno-evangelist. I'm a realist. Certain businesses are dying. Period. Doesn't matter whether I like it or don't like it or hope for it to happen or hope for it not to happen.
Solar cells: on the way in!
Physical media stores: on the way out!
Doesn't matter whether I like these trends or not. Nor does it matter whether you like them or not.
My thoughts exactly. We bemoan chains taking over our commercial streets, but we're okay with swarms of identically trendy and overpriced lifestyle boutiques for the young and moneyed swallowing everything.
(Uh, that sounded kinda bitter. Sorry. It's just that stuff like Topshop gets more attention than this pisses me off.)
If there is a future for physical shops, it lies in becoming even more important as social hubs, and not just retailers. I think we both can agree on that. (And I'd be fine paying a few bucks a pop for those events, too, if it helped keep the place going.)
People who love that store want to keep it alive and keep it relevant for the future by taking advantage of what it can do that online retailers and e-books can't. That's not denial, that's wanting to direct the inevitable change that's coming in a positive way.
"If only our local media were as good at supporting our local bookshops as they are at eulogizing them."
Very, very well put!
@DyingBusinessModel: the Internet very efficient at many things, there's no question. But more efficient does not always equal better.
I've never been one to engage in sophomoric anti-corporate rhetoric, but anyone who is eager to abdicate all cultural dissemination to massive corporations like Amazon et al just as soon as the going gets tough are going to get the culture they deserve. (Spoiler alert: I hope everyone likes Thomas Kinkade!)
A vanishingly small number of people would be willing to pay $10 to enter & browse a bookstore, true. But I'd be willing to wager many would be willing to chip in a small sponsorship - say, $25 a year - to help keep a valuable local institution going. Some farmers & magazines are doing something similar, why not bookshops.
(p.s. there's no dearth of gathering points in this city: independent coffee shops are absolutely booming.)
Why is the best you offer is that "the business model is outdated." Should the free market determine everything that lives and dies? If you do, I guess you also believe we should eliminate subsidized housing for the poor, EI, subsidized daycare, etc. They have a hard time making market rent, so screw 'em, right?
And I didn't mean "of uncertain consequence" the way you think I did. I meant we don't know what effect the web will have on our culture--it's changing things so rapidly and completely that I think it's totally sensible to be cautious in our optimism. Not backwards-looking, not thinking like luddites, but heading off negative consquences at the pass to make the best of it. (You can admit there are downsides AND upsides to rapid technological change, right? Right?)
"Julie Wilson, a writer and book club organizer, said she would chain herself to the door."
Ha ha ha you do that, Julie.
“We must do something,” wrote poet and reviewer Natalie Zed on Twitter.
Do something? LIke, say shop there?
I always hated the name of this place.
I'm sure my tax dollars somehow subsidize something that you enjoy and I don't, and vice-versa.
Anyway, not much point arguing with such close-minded, self-regarding wankers. Thanks for sounding off.
I found the location sort of weird. It almost feels like a stretch to say it's in Kensington. It's like it's...near Kensington, and it seems like the only people who go to Kensington are crackheads, rastas, and urban-tourists from the suburbs. I guess they weren't the destination they thought they were.
It's a brave new world folks, only Miley Cyrus' crotch is a successful business model now
It's a brave new world folks, only Miley Cyrus' crotch is a successful business model now
http://thisaintblog.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/an-update-on-our-situtation/
- we began to fall behind with our rent.
- In this way we were able, albeit very gradually, to pay our back-rent
- Our landlord became impatient with the rate at which we were able to pay her and made demands for large repayments, without providing a precise accounting of what was owing
- Instead we responded to these unrealistic demands with an informal proposal which would not have been profitable to us, but to our landlord.
So you owed rent money and the landlord was the one being unreasonable?
This line really bothers me: "without providing a precise accounting of what was owing"
Shouldn't YOU know how much it is?
The whole blog post, paints the landlord as unreasonable. That has got to be one of the most ridiculous "reasons" I've read in a while. Maybe they need to take responsibility for their own mistakes and misfortunes and move on?
I run a small business as well and if I was even TWO months behind in rent, I would think hmmm maybe I'm not cut out for this. Time to close.
If you rent out a space in this city, expect to pay rent to the landlord.
That's how the real world operates.
That's how the real world works too.