The changes along East Broadway appear to be picking up speed. Just a day after Malt & Mold, an artisanal beer and grocery opened at 221 East Broadway, word comes that another business could be coming to the same building. Inside Pushcart Coffee, there’s a somewhat coffee stained notice from the owners of B-Side, an Avenue B bar:
In case you can’t see the small type, the note is from “Andrew and Sivan.” It says they have “fallen in love” with the neighborhood and “want to be part of what makes it so great.” They plan to open a “friendly neighborhood bar and take-out restaurant” and are hoping for community support. They’re holding a get-together to explain their concept tomorrow night at 7:30 at Pushcart Coffee.
I’m tired of seeing so many bars in the neighborhood. Some nights I can’t sleep with the people just hanging around the block making fools of themselves. Now a bar is going to make it even worse.
i’d like to hear what they have to say. If it’s a better version of roots and vines (that wanted to be a bar/restaurant/coffee shop), or even la flaca, i’m for it. these are not loud, late night disturbances.
Where is the petition to block them from openin like the petition for 7-11????
Nope. The dude purchased the building, tossed the deli (the one that didn’t deal drugs) out, dumped a ton of cash into renovation, and it turns out no one wants to rent it…except a bar. The new owner will say crap like “But I’m from the neighborhood! My relative’s name is on the building across the street!” and that’s just too bad. He should look at some sort of green, light manufacturing; or a multi-outlet for local artists and designers and such (like pop shop, but longer term) maybe even an art gallery or common space…or something.
But not a bar. It’s his fault that he made a bad choice and is losing; he shouldn’t be allowed to turn that ongoing loss into the neighborhood’s loss and his profit.
Say NO to the discotheque! Damn kids.
As someone who is often up late at night I can attest to the fact that there are already loud, late night disturbances on clinton and East Broadway. They are just random and scream-y and crazy loud. Sometimes it’s a fight, sometimes just a nut who is walking along the street screaming at the top of his lungs (it is always a he). I would welcome some type of restaurant there, something maybe like Petisco or Brown when they were open for dinner.
In fact, the owner of the building has always stated that he wanted to attract a restaurant. Additionally, he did not toss the deli (non-drug dealing) out. He moved it around the corner, mere yards away.
Seems like potentially a good thing for the neighborhood, yes? Of course it might be helpful to get some insight from someone who’s familiar with their bar on Avenue B.
I’m all for a place to grab a burger and a beer, not sure what type of “Bar” this is supposed to be. If one takes a gander at B-Side on yelp one will see general good reviews for the owners. Lots of Rabbi’s on that block, don’t know how that figures into the approval or not. That strip of Clinton is CRYING out for some life and interesting shops/food/ and maybe a “oh my!” a Bar!
Yes, I see the fear mongers are starting to chime in again. Waiting to hear about the Chinese knife fights.
disco? LOL no, they offer taxi dancing, you go in and pay a girl and you can dance by the hour, it was big back in the day…
I’m looking forward to a little bit of night life in the neighborhood. I hope (*hint*hint*) they offer a nice vegan selection!
Our neighborhood could use another fine restaurant like Cafe Petisco–which closes at the reasonable hour of 11. (Often, even, at 10:30). But these bar owners are asking for a 7-day-a-week, 4 am license! And unlike Petisco (which is wine and beer), this license would be for hard liquor.
It has to be opposed.
The main reason is the noise. The precious comment mentioned the fact that there is already “random” noise. True enough. But this would be a quantum leap upwards. No smoking is allowed in bars, so smokers who are drinking (a frequent combination) will have to go out on the street to do so. It doesn’t take too much imagination to see what that will mean. Intoxicated conversations tend to be louder than non-intoxicated ones. Also, many (if not most) people who go to bars leave in pairs or groups. Are we really to think they won’t continue their conversation along the street? At 2 am, or 3, or 4?
There are other factors which make this bar not such a good idea. At a recent meeting of community activists interested in this issue, a representative of the precinct was present as a “Community Affairs” liason, and he was asked for his professional opinion: given the neighborhood (and surrounding neighborhoods), and the location, could we expect some increase in crime if the bar was to be located there.
He said, yes. Increases in rowdiness, and likely increases in larceny.
This, again, was a professional opinion.
It is a tremendous pity that what this neighborhood truly needs–another good restaurant, closing at reasonable, neighborhood friendly hours–can’t be established in that spot. It would do GREAT business. I would encourage the people involved in this bar to withdraw their current plans, and think this through again.
Oh–just as a bit of info for the community: the LAW in New York is that no bar serving hard liquor can open up within 200 feet of a religious institution. These bar owners give their address as 221 East Broadway. Plainly, they originally planned to have their doors open at that address. Ah–but then they found that it would be just within 200 feet from the church down the block. So, cleverly, they now plan to gain the extra few feet to “go legal,” by having the opening on Clinton Street.
Does this give you an idea of how little concern they have with the neighborhood? No–their concern is personal profit, and if our neighborhood suffers in the process, well, too bad.
Our neighborhood could use another fine restaurant like Cafe
Petisco–which closes at the reasonable hour of 11. (Often, even, at
10:30). But these bar owners are asking for a 7-day-a-week, 4 am
license! And unlike Petisco (which is wine and beer), this license
would be for hard liquor.
It has to be opposed.
The main
reason is the noise. The previous comment mentioned the fact that there
is already “random” noise. True enough. But this would be a quantum
leap upwards. No smoking is allowed in bars, so smokers who are
drinking (a frequent combination) will have to go out on the street to
do so. It doesn’t take too much imagination to see what that will
mean. Intoxicated conversations tend to be louder than non-intoxicated
ones. Also, many (if not most) people who go to bars leave in pairs or
groups. Are we really to think they won’t continue their conversation
along the street? At 2 am, or 3, or 4?
There are other factors
which make this bar not such a good idea. At a recent meeting of
community activists interested in this issue, a representative of the
precinct was present as a “Community Affairs” liason, and he was asked
for his professional opinion: given the neighborhood (and surrounding
neighborhoods), and the location, could we expect some increase in crime
if the bar was to be located there.
He said, yes. Increases in rowdiness, and likely increases in larceny.
This, again, was a professional opinion.
It
is a tremendous pity that what this neighborhood truly needs–another
good restaurant, closing at reasonable, neighborhood friendly
hours–can’t be established in that spot. It would do GREAT business. I
would encourage the people involved in this bar to withdraw their
current plans, and think this through again.
Oh–just as a bit of
info for the community: the LAW in New York is that no bar serving
hard liquor can open up within 200 feet of a religious institution.
These bar owners give their address as 221 East Broadway. Plainly, they
originally planned to have their doors open at that address. Ah–but
then they found that it would be just within 200 feet from the church
down the block. So, cleverly, they now plan to gain the extra few feet
to “go legal,” by having the opening on Clinton Street.
Does
this give you an idea of how little concern they have with the
neighborhood? No–their concern is personal profit, and if our
neighborhood suffers in the process, well, too bad.
I’m for it opening, but I don’t live across the street either.
David, who just posted about this bar, very thoughtfully indicated that he was aware that the people (hundreds of us, actually) who live in the immediate vicinity of this bar might well have a different feeling about it from people who live at a distance. True! This bar has signed a 10-year lease, and is asking for a license to be open 13 hours a day, every day—from 3 pm to 4 am. Again: every day! And they plan to keep their windows open (and therefore their music blasting out) for many of those hours.
Add to that the noise of people coming and going to the bar, entering in and out of it, smoking outside—and all the “lively” conversations that go with such establishments, let alone the likelihood of some degree of public rowdy behavior—and think 1 am, 2 am, 3 am, 4 am, and remember this is an every night, 365 day a year situation–and, Yes, the immediate neighborhood is alarmed.
Wouldn’t you be if you were in our shoes?
There are remedies for too much noise, and most bars are not that busy on sun, mon, tue nights.. I don’t see where they are going to have windows open blasting music. I think one has to accept some degree of potential bad to get what I see as mostly a positive.
Unlike David, I had the opportunity to speak at length with the owners of this proposed bar–at a meeting at which about 20 representatives of the community were present, and able to voice their concerns. When the owners spoke about their “open window” policy, nearly everyone present was aghast. We suggested doing what Cafe Petisco does and La Flaca–being entirely glassed in. It did seem a much more thoughtful approach. They did not agree to implement this change to their plans.
Since the immediate neighborhood already has two bars (169 Broadway, and La Flaca), and there are several more within 5 minutes walking distance, it is unclear to many people how–in this case–there is a “net positive” to this bar, as David suggests. Also, with all respect to David, it is underplaying the situation by suggesting there is only “some degree of potential bad.” To the contrary, there is a very substantial degree of something very significantly bad happening to the peace and quiet of this family-friendly neighborhood. We need another true restaurant, not a 13-hour a day, 7-day a week rock bar.
(By the way, don’t think I am against rock! I perform it myself. And I love hearing it in restaurants, etc. But I don’t think it serves the cause either of music, or of a peaceful neighborhood, to impose loud music on it–as I indicated before–for so many hours every single afternoon, evening, and night).
Well, I agree the potential of open windows could be an issue. One has only need walk by Spitzer’s corner when they are full to hear the noise. That problem could be addressed I would think. I refuse to believe we have to live in such a narrow minded world. Look at the world, Italy, France, Spain, people out on the streets enjoying life. I don’t personally buy into the gloom and doom mantra many seem to associate with a bar / restaurant opening. I do respect you right to disagree. I feel there def. needs to be more options down here. I like Clandestino but 169 is not my cup of tea, it would be nice to have more options. Let the games begin!
I am glad David understands the “potential’ of open windows to be an issue. It’s more than the bar owners themselves do! And his parallel to Spitzer’s is well-taken. He’s right: the problem could be addressed. But the bar owners were not forthcoming on the issue when it was raised—and, as you know, once a liquor license is granted, it is very hard to take it back! And the community also loses any real bargaining power. The bar owners are, basically, free to do whatever they think is in the interest of maximizing their profits. They may–if they choose–also consider the impact they are having on the neighborhood, in terms of unwanted and continuous noise. But they are not obliged to do so. And that’s precisely the problem! I mean, what if they decide–for economic reasons—that they’d do better (open windows and all) to pump up the volume? Or even to have live, amplified music? This is OK in those parts of town which are not primarily residential, but ours is.
Where one lives, and the quality-of-life in one’s neighborhood is, despite David’s breezy final sentence, NOT a game!
And there is little time to get this right, since the Community Board meeting which will vote on the license is June 18th. The best option, it seems to me, to stop this less-than-thoughtful rush, is to do what we can to deny the bar owners the license under current conditions (their request for 13 hours a day until 4 am every morning, 7 days a week, and open windows for a large portion of that time). Once it is denied, then we can all–neighborhood and bar owners–sit down and work out something that truly benefits the neighborhood.
There is a petition to block this. If you send me your apartment # or your email, I will send you a petition. We live at 268 East Broadway, Apartment A1005. Carol