Coffee Shop Management

System
.
 ABSTRACT
This study explored the characteristics that encourage gathering behavior and contribute to

place attachment in selected coffee shops in the context of literature suggesting social

gathering places contribute to social capital. These gathering places, with the potential to

enhance community in this manner, have been called third places. The study was qualitative

in nature and included the research techniques of visual documentation, observation and

behavioral mapping, interview, and survey. A transactional approach to this study was chosen

to better understand the meaning of the person-environment relationship. Each coffee shop

was observed for twenty-five hours for a total of seventy-five hours. Eighteen interviews were

conducted and surveys were collected from 94 patrons to reveal patron attitudes toward the

physical and social aspects of the coffee shop as well as their feelings regarding the

community in which they live.

The key findings regarding the physical characteristics showed the top five design

considerations included: cleanliness, appealing aroma, adequate lighting, comfortable furniture,

and a view to the outside. A number of themes emerged related to people, their activities, and

their feelings and attitudes regarding the coffee shop. Each coffee shop was found to have a

unique social climate and culture related to sense of belonging, territoriality and ownership,

productivity and personal growth, opportunity for socialization, support and networking, and

sense of community. Regarding feelings of community, survey findings from coffee shops

patrons showed a positive correlation between length of patronage and their sense of

attachment to their community.

 INTRODUCTION
Researchers Unger and Wandersman (1985) discussed the importance of the
community to the human social, emotional, and cognitive experiences. Rivlin
(1987) explained that the connections to community create a bond between
people and place in which people and place are molded into a whole.
Although the value of place and community seems clear, there has been much
social commentary regarding the decreasing ability of people to connect with
their communities and the peo- ple who live among them (Fleming and Von
Tscharner, 1987; Lippard, 1997; Putnam, 2000: Stumpf, 1998). In Bowling
Alone, which addressed the collapse and re- vival of American community,
Putnam (2000) discussed the increasing disconnect from family, friends, neigh-
bors, and social structure. He reviewed the concept of social capital, which he
defined as “the connections among individuals—social networks and the
norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them”

(p. 19). Putnam expressed concern that the decrease in community activity
and community sharing results in the shrinking of social capital which
threatens our civic and personal health.

In The Great Good Place, author Ray Oldenburg (1999) emphasized the
importance of neighborhood gathering places in enhancing the lives of
people. Oldenburg de- fined these gathering places as third places, and
further explained that these places are not home or work, but the places
that help get people through the day. Olden- burg describes the third place
as “a generic designation for a great variety of public places that host the
regu- lar, voluntary, informal, and happily anticipated gath- erings of
individuals beyond the realms of home and work” (p. 16). Third places
provide a place to connect with the people in communities as well as a
place to ex- change ideas and news. However, Oldenburg expressed
concern that many third places are disappearing, and
that in the United States, the third place has become a distant third. He
raised the question of how this de- crease in the availability of community
gathering places impacts the lives of people. What are the consequences
when communities lack places to gather with neigh- bors, friends, and to
mingle with the familiar strangers who hold the potential for new
friendships, relation- ships, and ultimately the growth of the social capital
in a community?

Oldenburg (1999) explained that most third places draw their identity
from the beverages they serve. His- torically, coffee houses have provided
places for social intercourse and conversation, as well as political debate
(Pendergrast, 1999). They have also served as places where people could
gather, speak freely, and mingle with others from their communities
(Oldenburg, 1999). For many people, the coffee shop serves as a third
place, a place to regularly interact with fellow community mem- bers. In
the United States, from 2000 to 2004, fast food chains grew at a rate of 2%
per year, while coffee shop chains grew more than 10% annually (Holmes,
2004). In 2004, forty-two percent of adults in the United States aged 18-34
purchased their coffee at a coffee shop with 48% consuming the beverage
on the premises. These numbers seem to indicate that the coffee shop is
about more than just coffee; perhaps the place in which it is consumed has
significance in itself.

Scholars studying place attachment report that attach- ment to place

comes about through a set of related phe- nomenon rather than a singular
phenomenon (Low & Altman, 1992). In addition, a number of scholars have
viewed the concept of place attachment in a transaction- al framework
involving psychological, social, and tem- poral experiences (Stokols &
Shumaker, 1981; Brown and Perkins, 1992; Altman & Rogoff, 1987). A
defini- tion by Brown and Perkins (1992) states, “Place attach- ment
involves positively experienced bonds, sometimes occurring without
awareness, that are developed over time from the behavioral, affective,
and cognitive ties between individuals and/or groups and their sociophys-
ical environment” (p. 284). This research on place and place attachment
points to the value of place in the lives of people. This paper will expand on
this research by exploring the variables that contribute to gathering
behavior and place attachment in third places, specifically coffee shops.
The sites cho- sen for study included three selected coffee shops in a mid-
size city in the southeastern United States. The pur- pose of this study was
to see what qualities, both physi- cal and social, encourage people to
gather in those cof- fee shops and develop an attachment to those places.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Due to the availability of literature on the social/psy- chological studies of
place, and a lack of literature on the design of social gathering places, this
review of liter- ature will focus primarily on studies of place and place
attachment.

The experience of place is unique to each individual and is directly related to

his or her lived experiences. Attach- ment to place is a set of feelings that
emotionally binds people to a particular place. “Places root us—to the earth,
to our own history and memories, to our families and larger community”
(Cooper-Marcus & Frances, 1998, p. xi). Understanding the concept of place
pro- vides an important framework for understanding the way people form
relationships with places.

When relationships develop between people and places, the result is often a
feeling of place attachment. Low (1992) stated, “Place attachment is the
symbolic re-lationship formed by people giving culturally shared
emotional/affective meanings to a particular space or piece of land that
provides the basis for the individual’s and group’s understanding of and
relation to the envi- ronment” (p. 165). Proshansky, Fabian, and Kaminoff
(1983) described place attachment as involving the in- terplay of emotions,
knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors in reference to a place.

Place attachment refers to the idea that people develop special bonds with
certain settings that hold deep mean- ing to the individual (Low & Altman,
1992). The word
 “attachment” refers to affect while the word “place” re- fers to the
“environmental settings to which people are emotionally and culturally
attached” (Low & Altman, 1992, p. 5). Affect, emotion, and feeling are
central to the concept of place attachment and appear consistently in studies on
this topic. Relph (1976) believed that to be inside a place is to belong and
identify with it. Tuan (1980) suggested the existence of a state of rootedness
in which one’s personality merges with one’s place. He wrote that the primary
function of place is to engender a sense of belonging and attachment.

Traditional definitions of place attachment view it as an outcome, as feeling

of being attached (Tuan, 1974). However, Harris, Brown, and Werner (1996)
empha- sized place attachment as both the feeling of being at- tached and the
process of becoming attached, which in- clude reasons for the attachment.
Attachment to place involves the assessment of the current setting, as well as
the assessment of the relative quality of alternative set- tings (Stokols &
Shumaker, 1981). Higher quality envi- ronmental settings are those that
support the goals and activities of the person (Stokols and Shumaker, (1982).
Stokols and Shumaker’s (1982) model of place attach- ment lists
neighborhood, physical amenities, individual and household characteristics,
and social networks as important components of place attachment. They ex-
plain that these components may relate to place attach- ment by influencing
need, or how the environments meets needs, such as neighborhood
networks that fulfill a need for social support.

Place attachment can be looked at in a transactional perspective where place

attachment is not composed of separate or independent parts, components,
dimen- sions, or factors. The people and place interact together to form the
experience. It is important to remember that groups, families, community
members, and even entire cultures often collectively share attachment to
various places (Lawrence, 1992; Hummin, 1992). Rubinstein and Parmelee
(1992) suggested that life experiences have an emotional quality that produce
a bond with the places in which these experiences occur. Shumaker and Taylor
(1983) propose a person-environment congru- ence model of place attachment.
This model suggests that place attachment involves “expectations of stabil- ity,
feelings of positive affect, greater knowledge of the locale, and behaviors that
serve to maintain or enhance the location” (p. 237). This model includes the
person’s social networks as a contributor to place attachment.

The importance of social relationships that occur in places must not be

overlooked and may enhance the activity of people-place bonding (Chawla,
1992). The social involvement of family, friends, community, and culture may
be equally, or more important, than the place alone (Cooper-Marcus, 1992).
Altman and Low (1992) emphasized the importance of people in inter-
personal, community, cultural, and social relationships that are essential to
place experiences. Crumpacker (1993) studied an elementary school that, after
having served several generations, was to be torn down and replaced. The
purpose of her research was to better un- derstand what made the school
successful for so long. She found that the school provided much more than an
education to students. It provided a place to share folklore, establish
relationships, provide support, and served as a repository of memories for the
community. Students and teachers reported a sense of belonging, of being
known to others, and of ownership.
Place attachment serves a number of functions for peo- ple and their culture.
Place attachment has the potential to offer predictability in a daily routine, a
place to relax from the more formal roles of life, and the opportu- nity for
control in various areas of life (Low & Altman, 1992). It also provides the
opportunity to link with friends and community in a visible and concrete way.
The connection to history and to culture may occur through place or through
symbols that are associated with places. Place then becomes part of the lived
experi- ence, an interwoven component of life experiences, and is inseparable
from them. Low & Altman, 1992).

To successfully design spaces that serve as third places and community

gathering places, designers should understand the social and physical
characteristics of place that enhance the patron’s experience. By better under-
standing those components that contribute to positive place experiences,
designers can create spaces that pro- mote comfort, a sense of belonging, and a
bond between people and place nomenon of additional interest (Rivas, 2004;
Holmes, 2004)). The characteristics of the three coffee shops var- ied and
included a large national chain, a locally owned shop frequented by a variety of
community members, and another locally owned coffee shop located near a
university campus.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to explore the physical and social qualities that
encouraged people to gather in third places, specifically coffee shops, and
develop an attachment to those places. Several supporting research questions
were asked including:

1. What characteristics and design features attract people and cause

them to feel attach- ment to the coffee shops?
2. What social interactions or human con- tacts attract people and
cause them to feel attachment to the coffee shops?
3. Is there a relationship between coffee shop patronage and feelings of
attachment to community?
 OVERVIEW OF THE METHODOLOGY
The mixed-design methodology selected for this re- search included the
techniques of visual documenta- tion, observation, interview, and survey. The
focus on the transactional nature of the person-environmental connection
required descriptions of the flow and dy- namics of events. It was important
to note what people were doing, thinking, behaving, and feeling as well as
the static and fixed conditions (Dewey and Bentley (1949). The goal was to
discover the meaning of the space to the participants (Eisner, 1998; Altman
& Rog- off, 1987). The study took place in three coffee shops located in the
Southeastern United States. Coffee shops were chosen for two reasons. First
the coffee shops met many of the criteria of third places as defined by Old-
enburg (1999), thereby allowing gathering and linger- ing behavior to be
studied. In addition, the increase in the number of coffee shops opening in
communities in the United States in the last ten years made this phe-
VISUAL INSTRUMENTATION

The study began with the collection of information on the physical

characteristics of the coffee shops including the location of the coffee shop, and
the architectural and design attributes of each coffee shop. The Archi- tectural
Features Checklist served as the instrument to frame the collection of these
details. This checklist was modeled after the Physical and Architectural Features
Checklist developed by Moos and Lemke (1984). The architectural features of
the coffee shop exterior were noted, as well as the location relative to major
roads, the ability to walk from surrounding neighborhoods, access to nearby
shops, parking availability, along with any other exterior or site considerations
that were nota- ble. The interior architecture, ceiling height, colors, fin- ish
materials, furniture type, access to natural lighting, type of artificial lighting,
location of electrical outlets, views to the outside, views of spaces inside,
availability of outside seating, ability to move furniture, availability of speakers
for music or announcements, and any other notable characteristics were
recorded as well. Photo- graphs of the exterior and the interior of each space
were also taken and used as visual documentation.

OBSERVATION SESSIONS
Observation sessions assisted in the understanding of how the coffee shops
were used and how the design re- lated to the activities that took place in the
space. Prior to the observation sessions, floor plans were drawn and copied for
each coffee shop denoting walls, windows, doors, furniture placement, service
areas, and any other important permanent or semi-permanent design features
for use in accurately recording the people and activities that took place in the
space. Each of the three coffee shops was observed for 25 hours each, for a
total for 75 hours with care taken to observe on a variety of

days and times. The researcher conducted all of the ob- servation sessions,
therefore inter-rater reliability was not an issue. The behavior of the patrons
was docu- mented with 862 patrons observed during the sessions. During each
observation session, a copy of a floor plan was used to denote occupied seats.
Detailed field notes outlining the activities of the patrons were also record- ed.
Each patron was assigned a letter on the floor plan which corresponded with
the same letter noted in the field notes. This allowed the floor plans and field
notes to be further studied at a later date and the activities in the coffee shop
reconstructed. All observation notes were typed for use in coding the data with
the corre- sponding floor plans attached for later use.

SURVEY
To better understand the preferences of the patrons, sur- veys were distributed
in each of the coffee shops. Nine- ty-four surveys were completed, 31 in two
coffee shops and 32 in another. The sample of survey respondents can be
considered a nonrandom purposive sample. Care was taken to gather data at a
variety of times during the day. In each of the three coffee shops,
approximately 10 survey participants were chosen in the morning, 10 dur- ing
the middle of the day, and 10 in the evening. It was considered important to
survey patrons from various times of day due to the varied social climate in the
cof- fee shops during these different timeframes. Every per- son who entered
the coffee shop during the designated time frame was asked to participate in
the survey. The researcher had the full cooperation of the management of
each coffee shop. Of the 96 people asked to partici- pate in the survey, only
 two declined to participate.

The survey had two parts and included both close-ended and open-ended
questions. The first part of the survey asked each patron to evaluate the
characteristics of the coffee shop they patronized while the second part asked
what characteristics they would like to see in their ideal coffee shop. Questions
were asked about characteris- tics of their ideal coffee shop, so the researcher
could identify those attributes that were highly valued, and may even be
missing from the coffee shop they frequent.

The survey included questions regarding the location of the coffee shop, how they got
to the coffee shop, their preferred seat location, various acoustic, lighting, and
ambient conditions, their socialization habits in the cof- fee shop, as well as questions
on the design and décor found in the coffee shops. Finally, there were several open-
ended questions addressing participants’ feelings about the coffee shop and level of
satisfaction with the community in which they live.
INTERVIEW SESSIONS
To further understand the coffee shop environment and the meaning these
coffee shops held for patrons, inter- views were conducted. To get a variety of
perspectives, 18 interviews took place including 12 patron interviews, three
employee interviews, and three interviews with the owner or manager of each
coffee shop. These interviews were divided evenly among the three coffee
shops. The interviews took place in the coffee shops, lasted approxi- mately 45
minutes and were recorded with notes tran- scribed for later use in the coding
of the data.

ANALYSIS
The data derived from the observations and interviews was analyzed
qualitatively using coding techniques outlined by Strauss and Corbin (1998).
Microanalysis, open coding, axial coding, selective coding methods were used
to examine the data. The coding began with microanalysis, sometimes referred
to as line-by line analysis with lines, phrases, sentences, and paragraphs
analyzed. All of the field notes from the observation ses- sions, open-ended
survey questions, and interview tran- scripts were examined line by line in
search of unique events involving the physical and social use of the cof- fee
shops. This phase was followed by open coding, in which the data were broken
down into discrete parts and compared for similarities and differences (Strauss
and Corbin, 1998). Physical and social events found to be similar in nature or
related in meaning were grouped were grouped in categories. Many entries re-
ceived more than one label because they fell into several categories. For
example, the group of older men, who arrived at the coffee shop every
morning, and pulled chairs together to talk would fall into coding catego- ries
related to their age, the way they modify the physi- cal space, the fact that
they socialized at length while drinking coffee, and were regular patrons. Notes
from the interviews would also reveal that these men were retired and still
enjoyed getting up early and “having to be somewhere.” While categories were
assembled in the open coding process, axial coding also took place (Strauss and
Corbin, 1998). Open and axial coding are not sequential events, but proceed
naturally together. This phase allows the researcher to look for answers to
questions such as why, where, when, how, and with what results (Strauss &
Corbin, 1998). The last stage of coding is referred to as selective coding. This
stage is the process of integrating and refining categories to form a larger
theoretical scheme that eventually results in theory. From this process, four
categories of findings emerged. These included findings related to the physical
characteristics of the spaces, the social characteristics of the spaces, the people
 who patronized the spaces, and the feelings and attitudes of the patrons
regarding the coffee shop and their community.

FINDINGS
The findings will be broken down into the following categories: Characteristics
of the coffee shops, charac- teristics of the patrons, and then each of the four
re- search questions will be addressed and discussed.

Characteristics of the Coffee Shops: Coffee Shop 1 Coffee Shop 1 is a

locally owned coffee shop near a major university and frequented primarily
by students. This coffee shop is housed in what was once an old auto repair
garage. The original brick walls and garage door contribute to the character of
the space. Half of the cof- fee shop is at ground level while the other half is
raised
up three feet. Seating is located on both levels and in- cludes tall tables with bar
stools, smaller round tables with wooden chairs, one square table that seats
four to six. The coffee shop also has one old upholstered chair that is very
popular with patrons and is moved about as needed. The flooring is concrete,
the walls are brick, and the lighting is primarily old refurbished chande- liers and
track lighting. A long study bench that seats 10 people runs along the top level.
Natural light comes in through three windows and two doors and primar- ily
located on the north, northeast, and northwest ends of the building. The
dominant colors are those of the brick walls, wooden furniture, and acid
washed con- crete flooring. The view outside includes a parking lot and major
highway.
Layout and Seat Selection

The layout of any coffee shop is influenced by a number of things, including

the original purpose of the building, size and shape of the space,
architectural features, level changes, availability and location of windows,
avail- ability of views, the available seating, and the location of the coffee
bar and service areas. The first layout issue to be discussed is how the
interior space and the ar- rangement of furniture related to the seating
preferenc- es of the patrons. During observation sessions, the seat- ing
preferences of patrons were noted and the seats that filled first and those
that were repeatedly occupied were considered the most desirable. In
Coffee Shop 1, the fa- vorite seats were sheltered somewhat due to their
place- ment along walls, or next to the edge of the second floor level, which
essentially created a partial wall (see Figure 7). The only preferred seat not
sheltered by some archi- tectural feature was the lone upholstered chair,
reported to be the only comfortable chair in the coffee shop. This
upholstered chair was moved frequently by patrons to accommodate their
preferences. In Coffee Shop 2, all the favorite seats except one were also
sheltered against walls or the counter (see Figure 8). In Coffee Shop 3, the
seats along the walls were chosen first, with corner seats being the most
preferred (see Figure 9).

The data showed that seats near windows, walls, and partial walls were
most frequently selected. Patrons were clearly drawn to sheltered seats,
those with archi- tectural elements that offered a physical structure on at
The layout of any coffee shop is influenced by a number of things, including
the original purpose of the building, size and shape of the space,
architectural features, level changes, availability and location of windows,
avail- ability of views, the available seating, and the location of the coffee
bar and service areas. The first layout issue to be discussed is how the
interior space and the ar- rangement of furniture related to the seating
preferenc- es of the patrons. During observation sessions, the seat- ing
preferences of patrons were noted and the seats that filled first and those
that were repeatedly occupied were considered the most desirable. In
Coffee Shop 1, the fa- vorite seats were sheltered somewhat due to their
place- ment along walls, or next to the edge of the second floor level, which
essentially created a partial wall (see Figure 7). The only preferred seat not
sheltered by some archi- tectural feature was the lone upholstered chair,
reported to be the only comfortable chair in the coffee shop. This
upholstered chair was moved frequently by patrons to accommodate their
preferences. In Coffee Shop 2, all the favorite seats except one were also
sheltered against walls or the counter (see Figure 8). In Coffee Shop 3, the
seats along the walls were chosen first, with corner seats being the most
preferred (see Figure 9).

The data showed that seats near windows, walls, and partial walls were
most frequently selected. Patrons were clearly drawn to sheltered seats,
those with archi- tectural elements that offered a physical structure on at
ASPECTS OF SOCIAL INTERACTION
Results from the coding and analysis of the interviews, survey data, and
observations resulted in the emergence of six categories regarding the
social aspect of the coffee shop. These themes include the opportunity to
linger; ownership and territoriality; trust, respect and anonym- ity;
productivity and personal growth; social beings and familiar strangers; and
support. These themes are dis- cussed in detail below.

Opportunity to Linger. One obvious, but key element in the social

atmosphere of the coffee shop is the op- portunity to linger. Unlike a
restaurant where a bill is presented at the end of a meal, once a beverage has
been purchased in a coffee shop, the patrons are typically welcome to stay
as long as they like. The regulars who come in daily, and linger, influence
much of the social climate of the coffee shop. Oldenburg (1999) said, “It is
the regulars who give the place its character and who assume that on any
given visit some of the gang will be there” (p. 33).
Although much of the impetus for lingering may be in- fluenced by the
attitude of the management, friendliness of the staff and patrons, and
other social characteris- tics, there are physical characteristics that
contribute to lingering behavior. Comfortable seating, seating that can
easily be moved to accommodate conversations or groups, adequate
lighting to read and communicate with others, and pleasant ambient
conditions including acoustics, music, aroma, and views all contribute to
lin- gering and length of time spent in the coffee shop.

Ownership and Territoriality. Patrons who participated in this study felt a

sense of ownership, sometimes even to the point of entitlement, in the
coffee shops they fre- quented. They had strong preferences for their
chosen shop, opinions on how the shop should be run, and some even
walked behind the counter to serve them- selves. Patrons were
sometimes vocal regarding the per- ceived superiority of their coffee shop
over others.

In addition to the pride and sense of ownership, patrons also exhibited

territorial feelings toward various areas within the coffee shop, such as a
favorite seat or place at the bar. One definition of territoriality is “the
relation- ship between an individual or group and a particular setting, that
is characterized by a feeling of possessive- ness, and by attempts to
control the appearance and use of space” (Bower, 1980, p. 180). During
interviews, patrons were asked if they had a favorite seat or area of the
coffee shop and over 90% responded positively. To secure these favorite
seats, territorial behavior was exhibited in all of the coffee shop through
the use of
A MODEL OF PLACE ATTACHMENT IN THE
COFFEE SHOP
Based on the findings of this research, a model illustrating factors involved
in place attachment in the coffee shop can be developed. This model
includes both physical and social factors that this study indicates contribute
to place attachment in the coffee shop (see Figure 10). The social factors
listed in the model in- clude the opportunity to linger, feelings of
ownership, ability to territorialize, trust and respect, anonymity,
productivity, opportunity to socialize, and support. The physical factors
included cleanliness, pleasant aroma, adequate lighting, comfortable
furniture, access to a view, pleasant acoustics and music conducive to con-
versation or reading, access to natural light, and appeal- ing décor.
SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Although this study sheds light on three coffee shops as potential third
places or community gathering places, it raises new questions as well. For
example, it would be interesting to better understand the differences be-
tween people who come to the coffee shop to interact and those who
come to quietly sit and watch. What dif- ferent needs do they have in the
space and how can their needs be accommodated. Another unanswered
ques- tion surrounds the finan- cial aspects of running a coffee shop. This
study did not set out to understand what it takes to keep a cof- fee shop
running. How- ever, further studies could shed light on what it takes to
make a coffee shop fi- nancially solvent. How fast do the tables need to
turn over? Is there an ideal square footage or number of tables, depending
on the traffic and volume? What are the implications when campers sit and
stay for hours and other patrons
Many patrons mentioned their desire for cozy spaces. However, more study is
needed on color and texture preferences in this type of setting.

Further study could also investigate more fully Olden- burg’s (1999) criteria for
third places to see how well they hold up in different situations. One of the
fascinat- ing aspects of this study included the number of people who were
and its integral connection of community building and social capital.
 Coding

#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
//Develop a billing statement for a store/restaurant
// Define variables
double donut, bagel, burrito, sandwhich, omelet, coffee, cappachino, smootie,
water, spirit, total, tax;
char answerType;
bagel = 2.50;
burrito = 3.50;
donut = 1.00;
sandwhich = 3.50;
omelet = 1.25;
coffee = 1.50;
cappachino = 2.00;
smootie = 3.25;
water = 0.99;
spirit = 1.00;
total = 0.00;
tax = 6.25;
cout << "Welcome to Junelle's Cafe" << endl;
// Introduction to my cafe

//Customer knows the options before hand

//Customer enters yes (y) or no (n)
cout << "Enter a y (yes) or no (n) for every question asked." << endl;

//Ask user if they want a bagel

cout << "Would you like to buy a bagel for $2.50?:";
cin >> answerType;

if (answerType == 'y')

cout << "A bagel has been added to your order. Your total is " << total + bagel
<< endl;
 }

else if (answerType == 'n')

{
cout << "Your total is " << total << endl;

}
//item2
cout << "Would you like to buy a donut for $1.00?:";
cin >> answerType;

if (answerType == 'y')

cout << "A donut has been added to your order. Your total is " << total +
donut+bagel << endl;

else if (answerType == 'n')

{
cout << "Your total is " << total << endl;

}
//item3
cout << "Would you like to buy a omelet for $1.25?:";
cin >> answerType;

if (answerType == 'y')

cout << "A omelet has been added to your order. Your total is " << total +
donut + bagel+ omelet << endl;

else if (answerType == 'n')

{
cout << "Your total is " << total << endl;
 }
//item 4
cout << "Would you like to buy a burrito for $2.50?:";
cin >> answerType;

if (answerType == 'y')

cout << "A burrito has been added to your order. Your total is " << total +
donut + bagel
+ omelet + burrito << endl;

else if (answerType == 'n')

{
cout << "Your total is " << total << endl;

//item 5
cout << "Would you like to buy a sandwhich for $2.50?:";
cin >> answerType;

if (answerType == 'y')

cout << "A sandwhich has been added to your order. Your total is " << total +
donut + bagel
+ omelet+ burrito+sandwhich << endl;

else if (answerType == 'n')

{
cout << "Your total is " << total << endl;

}
//item 6
cout << "Would you like to buy a coffee for $1.50?:";
cin >> answerType;
 if (answerType == 'y')

cout << "A coffee has been added to your order. Your total is " << total + donut
+ bagel
+ omelet+ burrito + sandwhich + coffee<< endl;

else if (answerType == 'n')

{
cout << "Your total is " << total << endl;

//item 7
cout << "Would you like to buy a cappachino for $2.00?:";
cin >> answerType;

if (answerType == 'y')

cout << "A cappachino has been added to your order. Your total is " << total +
donut + bagel
+ omelet + burrito + sandwhich + coffee+ cappachino << endl;

else if (answerType == 'n')

{
cout << "Your total is " << total << endl;

}
//item 8
cout << "Would you like to buy a water for $0.99?:";
cin >> answerType;

if (answerType == 'y')

{
 cout << "A water has been added to your order. Your total is " << total + donut
+ bagel
+ omelet + burrito + sandwhich + coffee + cappachino + water << endl;

else if (answerType == 'n')

{
cout << "Your total is " << total << endl;

}
//item 9
cout << "Would you like to buy a spirit for $1.00?:";
cin >> answerType;

if (answerType == 'y')

cout << "A spirit has been added to your order. Your total is " << total + donut
+ bagel
+ omelet + burrito + sandwhich + coffee + cappachino + water + spirit<<
endl;

else if (answerType == 'n')

{
cout << "Your total is " << total << endl;

}
//item 10
cout << "Would you like to buy a smootie for $1.25?:";
cin >> answerType;

if (answerType == 'y')

cout << "A smootie has been added to your order. Your total is " << total +
donut + bagel
+ omelet + burrito + sandwhich + coffee + cappachino + water + spirit +
smootie << endl;
 }

else if (answerType == 'n')

{
cout << "Your total is " << total << endl;

cout << "Thank you for visiting Junelle's Cafe" << endl;
while (1);
return 0;
}
 output

HARDWARE REQUIREMENTS

PROCESSOR : Intel Pentium 4 or more

RAM : 1 GB or more
MONITOR : 15” COLOR
HARD DISK : 40 GB hard disk recommended
KEYBOARD : STANDARD 102 KEYS

SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS

OPERATING SYSTEM : Windows 7 Ultimate

FRONT-END : C++
LANGUAGE : C++
BACKEND : SQL Server 2008
CONCLUSION
Lippard (1997) said, “The search for homeplace is the mythical search for
the axis mundi, for a center, for someplace to stand, for something to hang
on to.” This quote emphasizes the importance of place and the value of
place in the lives of people. The coffee shops repre- sented in this study
provided different things to different patrons. Patrons were attached to their
particular coffee shops for a variety of reasons, with each being unique to
the person and reflecting his or her lived experiences, current life situation,
and motivation for visiting the place. Survey results reveal the top five
characteris- tics in the ideal coffee shop are cleanliness, appealing aroma,
adequate lighting, comfortable furniture, and a view to the outside. All of
these characteristics can be directly influence by good careful design
planning. The layout of the coffee shop was also important with pa- trons
preferring seats that sheltered them on at least one side. Preferred seats
were next to a wall or fixed partition, ideally with a view to the outside.
Outside seating was popular with smoker, patrons with pets, and those wishing
to enjoy the out of doors.

Through surveys, interviews, and observation sessions, the study revealed a

number of social benefits to pa- trons. Some of the social benefits included the
oppor- tunity for people to linger, to feel a sense of ownership and establish a
territoriality. Feelings of trust, respect, and anonymity, the opportunity for
productivity and personal growth, the choice to be social or to enjoy familiar
strangers, and enjoy a support systems of pa- trons and staff were also
important social aspects. For some patrons, it was just nice to know that the
coffee shop was there and they could stop in if they wanted to. For this group,
the coffee shop was just one small part of their social life, and the absence of
the coffee shop would only create a small void. However, for others,
particularly those with limited ties to the community, the coffee shop served as
a very important part of their social life. These people might be new to the
community, students without long-established social ties, or others, who for
one reason or another did not have a strong social network. For this group, the
ability to come into the coffee shops alone and linger was a huge benefit.

Overall, regular coffee shops patrons felt a strong at-

REFERENCES
Altman, I. & Low, S. (Eds.) (1992). Place attachment. New York: Plenum Press.

Altman, I. & Rogoff, B. (1987) World views in psychology: Trait, interactionist, organismic,
and transactional approaches. In D. Stokols & I. Altman, (Eds.), Handbook of
Environmental Psy- chology (Vol. 1), New York: John Wiley.

Bower, S. (1980). Territory in urban settings. In I. Altman, A. Rapoport, & J. Wohlwill

(Eds.) Human behavior and environ- ment. New York: Plenum.

Brown, B. & Perkins, D. (1992). Disruptions in place attach- ment. In I. Altman & S.
Low, (Eds.), Place attachment. New York: Plenum Press.

Chawla, L. (1992). Childhood place attachments. In I. Altman & S. Low (Eds.), Place
attachment. New York: Plenum Press.

Cooper-Marcus, C. (1992). Environmental memories. In I. Alt- man & S. Low (Eds.),

Place attachment. New York: Plenum Press.

Cooper-Marcus, C. & Francis, C. (1998). People places. New York: Wiley & Sons.

Crumpacker, S. (1992). The experience of school as place. (Doctoral dissertation,

University of Virginia, 1992). Disserta- tion Abstracts International, DIA-A 53/08, 2610.

Dale, F. D. (1982). Patterns of preference in the indoor envi- ronment. Unpublished

honors thesis. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Dewey, J. & Bentley, A (1949) Knowing and the known. Bos- ton: Beacon.

Eisner, E. (1998). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of
educational practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Fleming, R. L. & Von Tscharner, R. (1987). Placemakers. Or- lando, FL: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich.

Harris, P., Brown, B. & Werner, C, (1996). Privacy regulation and place attachment:
Predicting attachments to a student family housing facility. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 16, 287-301.

Holmes, H. (2004, November, 30). Coffee Shop. SBDCNET San Antonio, Retrieved
February 11, 2006, from http://sb- dcnet.utsa.edu.