TOO MANY TOURISTS? 400-year-old coffee shop set to shut its doors because tourists brew big name chains
It will soon be serving its last drop.
A 400-year-old tea and coffee shop is slated to shut its doors this month.
The spot in Amsterdam, called 't Zonnetje, which means 'little sun' in Dutch, said rising rents and gentrification caused by overtourism were prompting the closure — even though the owner hopes to save the business.
Advertisement
Amsterdam, which is about to celebrate its 750th anniversary, has been grappling with preserving the country's history while welcoming an influx of tourists.
But the tourists frequent chain coffeehouses, ones they've seen on TikTok or others that specialize in marijuana, not independently owned shops like 't Zonnetje.
The shop stands in a building dating back to 1642 on the Haarlemmerdijk, a popular shopping street located in the city center filled with more than 230 independent stores.
Advertisement
A four century-old tea and coffee shop in Amsterdam, called 't Zonnetje, is closing due to the rising rents and gentrification caused by overtourism.
Google Maps
Its owner, Marie-Louise Velder, who has been at the helm since 1999, said she's received an outpouring of support after the closure was announced in a Dutch newspaper in mid-April.
The 76-year-old shopkeeper hopes to spread the story to avoid the demise of her beloved business.
'I had a lot of phone calls, and so I think perhaps help is coming from above,' Velder told CNN Travel. 'That's what I hope.
Advertisement
The shop grew from its humble beginnings of 'a bucket of coal, and a bucket of water and herbs,' Velder continued. 'And then later on, the tea came … And then later the coffee.'
The shop stands in a building dating back to 1642 on the Haarlemmerdijk, a popular shopping street located in Amsterdam's city center.
Google Maps
The ambience at 't Zonnetje makes guests feel as though they have stepped into the past.
Its wooden floors are original and its shelves are filled with old tins of loose-leaf tea and spices.
Advertisement
The store offers 15 types of coffee, with beans are sourced from around the world and weighed on a vintage Berkel scale.
Longtime customers are crushed by the news.
'It is a heritage site, the building itself, the history behind it, the street,' Kate Carlisle told the outlet.
'So I'm really hoping that something can happen to start to protect this. Otherwise, it's just going to be like strip malls. And that's not what Amsterdam is about. That's not why people come here.'
Its employees are equally saddened to see it go.
'It is more than a shop — it also has a very important social role,' Nathalie Teton, who has worked at 't Zonnetje on and off since 2021, told the outlet.
'There were a lot of people also living alone coming here, having a cup of tea and coffee, talking with Marie-Louise. You will hear all the gossip, who is sleeping with who, and also old stories, because there were also a lot of senior people coming in … Of course, there are other tea and coffee shops in Amsterdam. But they are more mainstream. This one is really unique.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Analysis-Tariffs could be the spur Europe's single market needs
By Philip Blenkinsop BRUSSELS (Reuters) -To bring electronic scrap and other waste from across the European Union to its Belgian recycling plant, materials group Umicore can spend at least a month tackling a complex array of national shipment rules. The problem is not just Umicore's as businesses across Europe grapple with internal obstacles that can be as damaging as tariffs. Analysts, however, say U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs have provided the necessary push to make the bloc the single market it aspires to be. Umicore's difficulties are particularly significant in that the company recycles 17 of the 34 minerals identified by the EU as critical for its green and digital transition. Chief Executive Bart Sap says a shipment may need to go by rail in one country, then transfer to a boat in another with a wealth of diverse documentation along the route. "With that ununified waste market, the internal hurdles are so high that actually 73% of waste is being exported," he told Reuters in an interview. Diverging waste shipment regulation is one of the many internal barriers that add cost and complexity to doing business within the EU. The International Monetary Fund has estimated EU internal barriers are the equivalent of tariffs of 44% for goods and 110% for services, well above the U.S. tariffs of 25% on steel and cars and 10% on many other goods. A similar study in 2021 concluded barriers for goods flow within the United States amounted to a 13% tariff. For goods, EU barriers include restrictions on retailers' ability to source products or sell them in other EU countries and a jumble of rules on labelling. AkzoNobel, Europe's largest paint maker, complains it cannot just sell the same tub across the 27-nation bloc, placing the blame not on different languages but varying rules. These include separate recycling logos in France and Spain and some EU countries requiring air quality information. The Dutch company says it cannot fit all the necessary information on smaller tubs, and that frequent rule changes force it to keep investing on packaging updates. QR codes could be a solution, it says, something the European Union will start requiring from 2027. For services, the single market is even less developed. Laws on setting up foreign subsidiaries diverge, declarations for posting workers abroad vary and 5,700 professions are regulated across the bloc, meaning doctors, nurses, engineers or accountants in one EU country cannot easily work in another. SIZE DEFICIT The barriers do not just add cost and complexity. They stifle growth. Former Italian Prime Minister Enrico Letta, who produced an influential report on the EU single market last year, said EU companies suffered a "stunning size deficit" relative to rivals and that market divisions prevented them building scale. A core problem is vested interest in sectors protecting regulated professions from competition, and as national supervisors prove resistant to an EU-wide capital market that could rival U.S. investments in newer companies and infrastructure. "These are low-hanging fruit economically, because basically they're free. It's essentially changing regulation. But that doesn't mean they're necessarily politically easy," said Niclas Poitiers, research fellow at think tank Bruegel. Debate on a unified capital market has dragged on for more than a decade as EU members have squabbled over issues such as supervision and insolvency rules. However, a deeper single market has gone from a nice to have to a must have as the impact of Trump's tariffs on exports has highlighted the need to remove obstacles to compete with global rivals. The Commission says it is prioritising removing what it calls the "terrible ten" most harmful single market barriers, including recognition of professional qualifications and fragmented rules on labelling and waste. Letta, dean of IE university in Spain and president of the Jacques Delors Institute think tank, said he was encouraged by Commission initiatives to tackle the most critical unfulfilled parts of the single market - services and capital. They include promotion of a savings and investment union and removing barriers to business in services, Multiple legislative proposals are due in 2025 and 2026. Aslak Berg, research fellow at the Centre for European Reform think tank, said the Commission seemed to be serious about reforms that made a difference, but needed to get EU members on board. Letta said there were though two grounds for optimism. Firstly, EU capitals were aware of the need for change. "The other key point that makes me optimistic is the fact that we have a fantastic friend on the other side of the of ocean, because the acceleration that is taking place is all because of Trump," he said. Letta said the EU needed to push through EU-wide laws called regulations, rather than directives that allow EU members to set their own course on common goals. He also urged the EU to be energised not paralysed by Trump. The EU took a pause after driving through movement of goods and people and its new currency in the late 1980s and 1990s, but then got sidelined by a series of crises, from the sovereign debt crisis, Brexit, COVID-19 and the energy crisis. "The European Union usually is able to focus to one crisis at a time, and today we are all focused on tariffs. That is a problem. Because in reality, my guess is the completion of the single market is more important than all the rest." ($1 = 0.8777 euros) Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Meta and TikTok challenge tech fees in second highest EU court
By Foo Yun Chee LUXEMBOURG (Reuters) -Meta Platforms and TikTok said a European Union supervisory fee levied on them was disproportionate and based on a flawed methodology as they took their fight with tech regulators to Europe's second highest court on Wednesday. Under the Digital Services Act that became law in 2022, the two companies and 16 others are subject to a supervisory fee amounting to 0.05% of their annual worldwide net income aimed at covering the European Commission's cost of monitoring their compliance with the law. The size of the annual fee is based on the number of average monthly active users for each company and whether the company posts a profit or loss in the preceding financial year. Meta told judges at the General Court it was not trying to avoid paying its fair share of the fee, but it questioned how the Commission had calculated the levy, saying it had been based on the revenue of the group rather than of the subsidiary. Meta's lawyer Assimakis Komninos told the panel of five judges the company still did not know how the fee was calculated. He said the provisions in the Digital Services Act, or DSA, "go against the letter and the spirit of the law, are totally untransparent with black boxes and have led to completely implausible and absurd results". ByteDance-owned Chinese online social media platform TikTok was equally critical. "What has happened here is anything but fair or proportionate. The fee has used inaccurate figures and discriminatory methods," TikTok lawyer Bill Batchelor told the court. "It inflates TikTok's fees, requires it to pay, not just for itself, but for other platforms and disregards the excessive fee cap," he said. He accused the Commission of double counting the companies' users, saying this was discriminatory because users switching between their mobile phones and laptops would then be counted twice. He also said regulators had exceeded their legal power by setting the fee cap at the level of group profits. Commission lawyer Lorna Armati rejected both companies' arguments and defended the Commission's use of group profit as a reference value to calculate the supervisory fee. "When a group has consolidated accounts, it is the financial resources of the group as a whole that are available to that provider in order to bear the burden of the fee," she told the court. "The providers had sufficient information to understand why and how the Commission used the numbers that it did and there is no question of any breach of their right to be heard now, unequal treatment," she said. The Court is expected to issue its ruling next year. The cases are T-55/24 Meta Platforms Ireland v Commission and T-58/24 TikTok Technology v Commission.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Meta and TikTok challenge tech fees in second highest EU court
By Foo Yun Chee LUXEMBOURG (Reuters) -Meta Platforms and TikTok said a European Union supervisory fee levied on them was disproportionate and based on a flawed methodology as they took their fight with tech regulators to Europe's second highest court on Wednesday. Under the Digital Services Act that became law in 2022, the two companies and 16 others are subject to a supervisory fee amounting to 0.05% of their annual worldwide net income aimed at covering the European Commission's cost of monitoring their compliance with the law. The size of the annual fee is based on the number of average monthly active users for each company and whether the company posts a profit or loss in the preceding financial year. Meta told judges at the General Court it was not trying to avoid paying its fair share of the fee, but it questioned how the Commission had calculated the levy, saying it had been based on the revenue of the group rather than of the subsidiary. Meta's lawyer Assimakis Komninos told the panel of five judges the company still did not know how the fee was calculated. He said the provisions in the Digital Services Act, or DSA, "go against the letter and the spirit of the law, are totally untransparent with black boxes and have led to completely implausible and absurd results". ByteDance-owned Chinese online social media platform TikTok was equally critical. "What has happened here is anything but fair or proportionate. The fee has used inaccurate figures and discriminatory methods," TikTok lawyer Bill Batchelor told the court. "It inflates TikTok's fees, requires it to pay, not just for itself, but for other platforms and disregards the excessive fee cap," he said. He accused the Commission of double counting the companies' users, saying this was discriminatory because users switching between their mobile phones and laptops would then be counted twice. He also said regulators had exceeded their legal power by setting the fee cap at the level of group profits. Commission lawyer Lorna Armati rejected both companies' arguments and defended the Commission's use of group profit as a reference value to calculate the supervisory fee. "When a group has consolidated accounts, it is the financial resources of the group as a whole that are available to that provider in order to bear the burden of the fee," she told the court. "The providers had sufficient information to understand why and how the Commission used the numbers that it did and there is no question of any breach of their right to be heard now, unequal treatment," she said. The Court is expected to issue its ruling next year. The cases are T-55/24 Meta Platforms Ireland v Commission and T-58/24 TikTok Technology v Commission. Sign in to access your portfolio
