While I appreciate your understanding of Capitalism 101, to suggest that "all that matters" in this discussion is that Starbucks is profitable (okay?) is ridiculous. We are having a discussion about neighbourhood retail, the shifting and organic nature of neighbourhood retail, and what that means for the existing players. Let the discussion unfold and reflective the various views. Starbucks will be just fine, as you've pointed out, even with our concern, criticism, or open arms.
I agree with you in that I don't think that all that matters is whether they can turn a profit. Any number of retailers could turn a profit here, and the only reason Starbucks gets these kinds of spaces over a retailer that could turn an even higher profit is because Starbucks can pay some of the highest rents in combination with having a very strong covenant. So even speaking merely economically, profit is not the only relevant factor here.
What I want to draw attention to, and what often doesn't seem to be fully appreciated in these discussions (as these forums can often be somewhat of an echo chamber), is that Starbucks is as prolific as it is precisely because it is popular. This, too, is a seemingly obvious fact, but the degree to which forum members often bemoan the entry of chains like Starbucks into new retail spaces because of an abhorrence to a perceived monoculture perpetuates the idea that these chains are inherently bad, and that our "urban-enthusiast" conception of what creates a charming neighbourhood is more valuable and worthwhile than the actual needs and wants of the people living and working in the neighbourhood who are actively supporting those chains with their business.
So I don't blame anyone for not wanting to see a Starbucks here, but if you do, I think it's only fair that you must also lament the 500,000 square feet of new office space which naturally brought the Starbucks with it.