As we noted earlier this week, the owner of 221 East Broadway has spent the last few years renovating the six-story residential and commercial building. Two years ago, a coffee shop (Dora – later renamed Pushcart Coffee) opened; just a few weeks ago a second upscale business, Malt & Mold, debuted in a neighboring storefront. And within the past several days, the operators of a bar on Avenue B signed a lease for a prime corner spot, where they plan to open a neighborhood watering hole.
Recently, we spoke with Sivan Harlap, who owns “B-Side” on Avenue B and 12th Street, about her plans for a “friendly, community-oriented” spot, with co-worker Andrew States, in the 1300 square foot space, much of which was once occupied by a 24-hour bodega. Harlap, who’s in the process of buying an apartment in the Hillman Cooperative just a few blocks away on Grand Street, said she’s fallen in love with the immediate neighborhood.
She believes that the area needs a new community-gathering place to augment Pushcart Coffee, as well as nearby restaurants Cafe Petisco and La Flaca. The bar is “not meant to be a high-concept place,” she said. There will be a limited food menu, including falafel and fish & chips. There will also be a pickup counter, opening around 11 a.m., offering lunch items as well as fresh fruit smoothies and juices. The main bar area will open at about 3 p.m. The liquor license application requests a 4 a.m. closing time. Harlap said she envisions an “open and airy” space with windows that open up to the street in warmer months. Paperwork filed with Community Board 3 indicates the business will request a sidewalk seating license next spring.
In the past few weeks, Harlap and States have met with a number of local residents, many of whom live in the Seward Park Cooperative, located across the street on East Broadway. The proposal has divided co-op residents; some welcome the new bar; others are alarmed at the prospect of late night noise.
One very vocal opponent of the proposal is Ed Green, a co-op resident who led a 2009 campaign to reduce truck noise on East Broadway. During an interview last week, he said, “I knew that there were many, many many people, especially in the building I live in, which immediately faces the bar, that just saw as impossible the idea of having a seven-day-a-week bar with a 4 a.m. cut-off time.” Saying the area is predominantly residential, Green asked, “how are people going to get uninterrupted sleep? How are people going to maintain their health, go to work? How is that good for your children who need their sleep, the elderly?”
Green has organized a petition drive, and has been working alongside a prominent community leader, Pastor Marc Rivera of Primitive Christian Church. The church is located at 209 East Broadway (223 feet from the proposed bar, according to Google Maps). “I am not in favor of such an establishment in our community for several reasons,” Rivera explained in an email message. “I suspect that the noise and disturbance levels will make this quiet street similar to what we are now experience on Rivington Street, which is teeming with late hour bars,” Pastor Rivera wrote.
He also referenced the “200 foot rule,” a section of the state’s Alcohol Beverage Control law which prohibits liquor licenses within 200 feet on the same street as a school or religious institution. Rivera pointed to the former Young Israel Synagogue at 225 East Broadway, next door to the bar. The synagogue was demolished in 2010, and a plan to rebuild it is entangled in a complicated legal dispute.
Linda Jones, another Seward Park resident (and a Community Board 3 member), supports the new bar. Like Green, her apartment faces East Broadway, but Jones said the area could use a bit more street life, especially late at night. She is confident Harlap and States will be running a responsible establishment, noting that B-Side has only had one noise complaint in two years.
The Seward Park Co-op Board has declined to weigh in on the matter, but the management office did send an email to residents encouraging them to express their views to the community board. Green said he believes the opinions of those living closest to the proposed bar should count the most, since they are the ones who would be most impacted by late night noise. Green encouraged Harlap and States to substantially revamp their concept. What the area really needs, he argued, is not another bar but a restaurant that closes at 11 p.m. The open windows are a big issue for Green, since he believes music and loud voices will waft out from Clinton Street, keeping neighbors awake.
The CB3 application details several steps Harlap and States plan on taking to alleviate concerns about noise. They intend to move the entrance to Clinton Street, away from the cooperative. Security would be hired on weekend evenings to check identification and to make sure people don’t congregate on the street. They also plan to install soundproofing.
The community board vote is only a recommendation; it’s up to the State Liquor Authority to approve or deny the license. CB3’s liquor licensing committee meets Monday, June 18, 6:30 p.m., at the JASA/Green building, 200 East 5th Street.
UPDATE 3:51 p.m. The community board requests that all letters and petitions be presented at the meeting, rather than at CB3’s office.
This article by Ed Litvak is very fair, and very informative–and I say this as a person quoted extensively in it. (I am Ed Green) Let me comment on some of the new information I learned from it—which only adds to my intense feeling that this bar is the wrong thing for our neighborhood.
First, it is laughable to think that the “security” this bar will hire will be able to prevent people from congregating on the street. Ask anyone who lives near bars elsewhere on the Lower East Side. On top of that, what about the people who are coming to the bar, but also smoke—and therefore have to go outside? Where are they to go? Blocks away? Or will they stand outside and talk–at 1, at 2, at 3 am? And noise hardly concerns “congregating” only. Again, as anyone who lives on those unfortunate streets on the Lower East Side where there are multiple late night bars, the loudest noise comes from people traveling to and from the bar. Often in crowds. Boisterous crowds, often. And if this bar were to come here, East Broadway then would have two such bars in our immediate neighborhood. (The other being 169 East Broadway.)
How will their “security” people keep everyone quiet as they are outside on our streets in the wee hours? They simply will not be able to.
So that statement by the bar owners hardly assuages anyone’s legitimate fears. It is a fig-leaf. They want the bar here to make money. Period.
If they really cared about the Quality-of-Life in our neighborhood, then why are they planning–as this article clearly shows–to have “open windows?” In a meeting with concerned persons from our neighborhood, they indicated the bar owners indicated they would–weather permitting–keep these windows open more or less until 11 pm. Now, if the bar opens at 3, that makes for eight hours of continual pumping of music into the neighborhood.
It happens I am a professional musician. So I am hardly against music. But it is one thing to make music, or play music, for people who want to hear it. It is another thing to impose it on people—as everyone knows when a car parks in one’s neighborhood, and blasts its music for as long as the driver chooses to remain parked. It is outrageously selfish.
And when, precisely, will they be starting the music? Maybe at 3, as the bar opens. But as the article indicates, the “pick up counter” will start at 11 am. So, on “good weather days” we’ll have a minimum of eight hours (3-11) and a possible twelve hours of unwanted sound.
Something, by the way, the bar owners did NOT mention at the meeting I mentioned earlier, was their plan also to have outdoor seating. Perhaps they felt there was already such opposition to their adding to the noise of the neighborhood that they felt it would be prudent not to mention this.
It is also very strange–ugly in fact–for the bar owners to say they plan to “alleviate” concerns about the noise by moving the entrance to Clinton Street. OK–maybe (just maybe) it’ll be a little less disruptive to those of us who live in Seward Park. (Though with the open windows–which presumably will be for both Clinton and East Broadway, just why that would be the case is hard to see). But even if they are right, what about all the people who live directly on Clinton Street between East Broadway and Henry? How would this move benefit them?
My point is, it’s just another fig leaf. These bar owners have a simple bottom-line: maximizing their profits. Now, as Ed Litvak accurately cited me in the article, no one is against businesses coming into our neighborhood–and thriving! And, of course, they will thrive if they meet the needs of our neighborhood. But this one does not.
A final comment: perhaps (and we shall see) this bar “squeaks by”–that is, it manages to be just over 200 feet from local religious establishments and schools. I am not sure. But, for the sake of argument, let’s say they are. OK–they squeezed past the law. But turn the corner on Clinton, and walk half a block to 220 Henry Street, and we have four NYC Public Schools. (All in one building). The reason the 200 foot law was enacted is because it was felt, very sensibly, that it wouldn’t be the best thing for a bar to be in such close proximity to school children. The Educational Alliance is also nearby on East Broadway. And there are several religious establishments within a block in either direction on East Broadway. The point is: we are a quiet, residential community–not a commercial district. This bar is utterly inappropriate, and it’s request for a 4 am liquor license must be denied.
Thank you Ed for your tenacity and dedication on opposing the opening of this bar. As a long time resident of the area few blocks away, i am behind you 100%. Please let me (and others who feel the same way) know if there’s a petition we can sign or anything we can do to help. It’s bad enough they’re selling a hunk of cheese for $20 next door, which is slap in the face to the long time residents around the corner. (Wonder how long they’ll last…) We have to preserve E. Broadway and not let the late night over-crowdedness north of Delancey spill into our side!!
Is a bar really more of a bad gathering place than a bodega?
get real
This presentation of Sivan Harlap as “community oriented” is a complete fake, and no one should be fooled for a minute. She’s buying a co-op at Hillman. Well, Hillman is more than a “few blocks” from the rock bar she plans to open. She won’t be bothered by raucous noise until 4:00 AM, night after night.
First and foremost, she’s a business woman. She wants to make money. She has to make enough money to pay the $8,000.00 a month rental on her “nice establishment.” Why do I think selling fish and chips and falafels and a few drinks won’t be enough to meet her expenses?? She has to sell alcohol, and in large amounts to meet expenses. And to bring in the crowd she hopes to allure, she needs to play music until the wee hours. I don’t want to judge a person harshly, but frankly, don’t believe for a minute that she cares about disturbing anyone. She’s moving the entrance to the bar Clinton Street. What about the people who live in the building, and close by? This is not only about Seward Park Co-op. This is a quality of life issue for the entire neighborhood. The owners signed a lease on this bar with very little advance notice to the neighborhood. What does this tell us? They are not on the level. Some people say they are for this bar. I say this is a mistake. This bar will ruin our beautiful neighborhood, turn it into a copy of streets throughout the LES. Please folks, write to CB3 Don’t let this happen!
Have we heard from any of the the building’s tenants? Especially the people who lives right above the space?
There is an important bit of misinformation in the article. Just how it happened, I do not know. It could have been an innocent mistake. But it needs to be addressed. I quote from the article:
“Linda Jones, another Seward Park resident (and a Community Board 3
member), supports the new bar. Like Green, her apartment faces East
Broadway.”
Actually, it doesn’t. Ms. Jones has an apartment that faces the BACK of the building, and therefore opens out towards the inner courtyard between two buildings in the Seward Park complex. She, therefore, does not have to deal directly with the noise from East Broadway. On top of that, she lives very high up—on the 20th floor—where street noise is mitigated in any case.
Obviously, she has a right to live wherever she does. But given her location, so very, very different from people who will face this bar immediately, and have to bear the resultant noise until 4 am every single night, it is unfortunate that the article in Lo-Down presented her situation as equivalent to those of us who do, indeed, face the bar. Myself, obviously, included.
The noise concerns being expressed here are, frankly, ludicrous. Let’s take a look at this satellite image of the area in question:
[img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7214/7163567871_8d02fcd315_b.jpg[/img]
Do you really expect people to believe that a bar sitting diagonally across the street from across a relatively vast expanse of land and trees will emit the kind of noise that will prevent people living in the Seward Park Co-Op from sleeping? That’s nonsense. It’s just a pathetic attempt by those resistant to change to keep this area of the LES from moving forward.
As a long-time resident of East River I welcome this bar without reservation.
That’s real easy for you to say Bluenatic when you live in an area where foot traffic is practically nil. Although my issues with the bar are not so much about the noise being that i don’t live in the Seward Park Co-ops, but however, the noise issue is absolutely valid. I live in one of the buildings on Montgomery Street on the 12th fl in the back facing towards the park between Henry Street and E. B’way, which i believe is about the same distance between this bar and Seward Park Co-ops, and during those warm nights when people decide to “stay” out longer, you’ll be amazed how far the sound of someone’s laughter can travel. Whenever someone happens to speak just one even 1 decibel higher, i can hear the whole conversation. Really, when my friends come over they can’t believe it either. So yeah, the noise concerns are definitely warranted.
Ed, you are clearly going overboard in your protestations here. I feel bad for you really. A stranglehold grip on reality is no way to live. Venture out, sit in a sidewalk seat and enjoy a glass of wine with your neighbors. Make a little noise. Enjoy life.
LaFlaca opened and the world did not end.
Dear David,
A strange phenomenon is “psychiatrist-at-a-distance.” Why you chose to make this a personal matter is, well, beyond me. I won’t dignify your comment by a point-by-point refutation, since the degree to which I enjoy life–and “venture out”–is hardly the issue. All I can say is that those who know me personally (as rather obviously you do not) would laugh hilariously at your portrait.
By the way, there have been HUNDREDS of signatures by local persons on a Petition asking CB3 to deny this bar this license. A very great number of letters and e-mails to CB3, as well, saying the same thing. Are you prepared to declare these hundreds of your neighbors as likewise emotionally crippled, and having a view of life inferior to yours?
Or–having already ventured into weird waters–are you going to say that they were all “hypnotized” by me, in some community-wide Svengali outbreak?
David–if you think a case can be made that the gain to this community from this bar far outweighs the legitimate concerns so many people have about it, then go ahead,in a sober fashion, and make the case.
As you can see from my posting, commenting on this article, and also in my willingness to be interviewed about this subject, I don’t hide behind anonymity, or semi-anonymity. Perhaps you have given your full name elsewhere. But if not, please realize that attacking the character of another person without having the decency to “take full responsibility” for your words would be seen by most normal persons as cowardice, or worse.
All the best,
Ed
Ed, I’m sure you are a nice person and all that and you just don’t want this place to open, I on the other hand do want it to open and while I share any valid concerns about noise and problems, I see potential for a positive addition to a rather lacking in options area. Please accept my apology if I made this personal. I think the place will open considering it has had a good history of non-complaints after many years of operation in the EV.
David has raised a point that I think, pretty much without exception, everyone in our immediate neighborhood agrees with–the fact that there are not enough “options” hereabouts Very much this includes restaurants. When my neighbors
and I heard that a new restaurant might open up on that location, we were thrilled. But our hearts sank when we learned the details! Including the fact that this is only marginally a provider of food, but will overwhelmingly function more like a saloon. Now, since the LES is the most saloon-bar-tavern heavy region of Manhattan, and that our immediate neighborhood already has several, it is not a very convincing point that it is precisely this kind of “option” we need more of.
I am glad, too, that David acknowledges our “valid concerns.” I won’t go over all these concerns and objections, since they are present first in the article, and then in some comments I’ve made since. But since David raises the “good record” of their present establishment (B-Side–on 12th and Ave. B), it is a new point, and should be considered.
First, just how good their record is as to noise complaints, and other problems I simply don’t know. Perhaps what was said is true, and they’ve been thoughtful neighbors and their patrons–in the wee hours (12-4 am)–have also been scrupulous in their concern for the rights of people nearby to sleep, and enjoy the quiet of their own homes. For the sake of argument, let’s grant all that.
Yet, if you’ve visited B-Side, you’ll see that–contrary to their plans for our neighborhood–that bar (and hardly a restaurant) does not have “open windows.” It has a very small front facing the street, and a very deep inner design. This is just the contrary, in every aspect, to the proposed bar for our neighborhood. Also, Ave. B is far wider than Clinton Street–and therefore the “amplifier effect” of surrounding buildings will be very significantly greater here. (As a musician, I am very alert to such matters. I have to be, professionally.)
All this would create a very different sound situation vis-a-vis our neighborhood. And if you, or any reader of Lo-Down, wants to see what “open windows” mean to a neighborhood in terms of constant noise, just walk a block or two from B-Side, and hear what’s what with the many other bars that do pour their sound out to the streets.
I am glad for the change of tone in this back-and-forth. And–again–I do ask everyone who is weighing in with their opinion to ask whether the feelings (and they are strong) of the overwhelming majority of those of us in the immediate residential neighborhood to this proposed bar might actually deserve to outweigh the “need” (?) for people who live further away for yet one more “watering hole” (to use the term Lo-Down did, at the top of its article).
A strictly restaurant option would be nice but it’s a riskier business venture in an area with low foot traffic I’d guess. Look if it does not open, I’d survive but I just get a bit annoyed at times by the extreme fears some people project. I don’t like noise either esp. when I should be sleeping. I have to listen to booming bass from the Mafia joint across the river some nights, but they tend to tune it down by 11. Clearly we don’t want what exists between Houston and Delancey to spread down hear if that were even possible.
It needn’t be “strictly” a restaurant, if, by that, you meant something without alcohol. (Probably you didn’t). After all, Cafe Petisco, just a block a way does great business, and serves wine and beer. But it fits the neighborhood perfectly. It is closed windows, and end every night (even weekends) at 11. Something parallel, even serving hard liquor, would be welcome. But that is not what they are proposing, and when concerned people in the community met with them, they were clear tha they wouldn’t change their basic plans. Plans which do involve not only the potential, but even the likelihood, of significantly higher levels of noise in the late evenings and early mornings. As David indicated, he, too, knows how disheartening it is to be forced to hear noise in the late hours. It really is a very unthoughtful intrusion of a profit-oriented group of two people (in this case) on an entire community of hundreds of people. And–yes!–I agree with David as he says “Clearly we don’t want what exists between Houston and Delancey to spread down here, if that were even possible.” Since we already have two bars within a minute’s walk (169 East Broadway and La Flaca just off Clinton on Grand), a third could be the signal to other possible bar-owners that our neighborhood would be the next one to populate with their establishments. Transforming it, in a way hardly anyone wants.
Most people don’t care if another bar opens on the Lower Eastside. But there are cases where it doesn’t fit in with the proposed location. The only reason this is an issue is because of how sounds echo up from the street on East Broadway. So whoever occupies that space will have hundreds of “upstairs” neighbors surrounding it.
Best case scenario, this bar opens and it has great food, good drinks and smart owners that have enough good taste and interest in the common good of the neighborhood to operate responsibly. Otherwise it could be just another bar or worst case scenario, a bad bar. I have lived above bars in NYC and there is nothing worse that living above a bad. So I think this is what the naysayers are trying to avoid. Also, has anyone actually been to B Side? The place is nothing special except clever one-liners on a sidewalk chalkboard. And they have drum and bass nights. I love drum and bass but am over living upstairs from drum and bass night. This is what makes me skeptical of the future of this bar. Bring back White Star! :(
So far, it looks like the only thing Sivan Harlap has created is disagreement (and invective…David) between people who, prior to her falling “…in love…” with “…your neighborhood…”, had few or no such disagreement(s).
As to the idea, expressed or implied, that there is no, or little, nightlife in the neighborhood and that “…your neighborhood…” needs more…well, it demonstrates a kind of ignorance of the neighborhood. That kind of ignorance can’t be good nor end well.
EG: on Division St., behind the post office: not one but two restaurants. One, with at least a pretense of being an upscale establishment and some new place not yet named, AFAIK. Around the corner, at Canal and Ludlow, Enfants Terrible (which has, on more than one occasion, noisily lived up to its name); a block down, and a short left gives one Fat Radish and a dive bar (usually quiet, AFAIK) across the street. Then there is Bar 169 (noisy, greasy food, dive) then Petisco’s. There is soon to open a restaurant on Jefferson; I think it will be Peruvian(?) across from Gouverneur. There is a new pizza joint, open until 11 (I think?). Unlike the previous pizza mongers at that address, Aaron and Sara won’t sell drugs. This new pizza joint is a good thing for the neighborhood; but is overshadowed by the all but inevitable market for drugs created by a bar. Anyone who says otherwise knows next to nothing about the history of the neighborhood in the area bounded by Clinton, E. B’way, Henry, and Jefferson…and probably beyond, toward the water, particularly.
Furthermore, Sivan and her partner have 0 experience with a restaurant…they only know bars. There is a solar-system sized difference between the two endeavors.
I live in the Seward Park apartments and have no reservations about this business. I used to frequent their other establishment in the East Village and they run an open, friendly, responsible establishment. Ed Green’s portrayal of the owners as simple profiteers is just fear-mongering. While I can understand some of his concerns about noise, the owners are genuine people looking to contribute a pleasant addition to the neighborhood, not a “hot spot” akin to some of the other bars in the LES. My wife and I moved away from Ludlow Street because of the noise and craziness there, but I think having responsible business owners who care about (and live in) the neighborhood will only help to ensure the pleasant quality of life we currently enjoy rather than be a threat to it.
I agree Ben, the lengths people will go to to try and restrict other people is clearly with-in fear mongering. If the bar opens they can call up 311 every night and make the owners life a living hell if they want.
Hmmm. I wonder where the horses will be tied up for the new “Saloon”?
Translation: “the people who live in the ghetto beneath Seward Park Co-ops, living within earshot of the bar, and significantly composed of immigrant families with school-aged children, can get stuffed as long as I have what I want.”
Never mind the idea that making life a living hell for others is no way for people to think, nor act.
Speaking as one of the ghetto dwellers regarding the suggestion that the burden of making other people miserable should be my sole option: that sort of behavior is beneath me. Sort of like the bar being beneath the Seward Park Co-ops.
Ben’s comments are interesting. And worthy, clearly, of some comment in return. I am glad to know he lives in Seward Park. He does not say, however, that he lives in an apartment which actually faces the proposed bar on East Broadway. This, of course, is a matter of some salience, since those of us who will be most immediately impacted by this bar have, perhaps, a keener sense of how it can be disruptive than someone living further away. Perhaps Ben, like me, and like so many others who oppose this bar, does live facing the bar’s site. But he doesn’t say so, and I have to assume–until he corrects me–that that is, indeed the case.
I don’t recall ever having called these owners “simple profiteers.” Or even language to that effect. Unless Ben means that I am critical of them for not apparently placing a higher value on maximizing their profits than on being considerate of their immediate neighbors. If that is what he means, then, yes, I do think–charming in person as both Sivan Harlap and Andrew States are–that they lack in a full desire to consider the very legitimate needs of those of use who live facing that proposed bar. In a meeting with them, at which I was just one of many concerned local people, they were asked–out of consideration for our need for sleep–to consider asking for a more thoughtful set of hours. No, they said; they couldn’t do that. They needed to stay open until 4, every night, or they couldn’t be sure of making a profit.
So, there you have it: the need of two people for profit outweighing (at least in their minds) the need of perhaps hundreds for restful and restorative sleep on a regular basis. Perhaps, Ben, you know of the medical facts: people who don’t get 6 hours of sleep a night on a regular basis are (roughly) three times as likely to have a stroke than those who do get such sleep.
Many people living near this bar (and not just at SPHC, but also in the apartments surrounding them on Clinton and East Broadway and Henry Street) need to wake up, on a regular basis at 5:50, or 6, or 6:30 am–simply to go to work. How does all that square with people on the street, on a regular basis, at 1, 2, 3, even 4 in the morning? As anyone knows, who has seen late-night bars elsewhere on the Lower East Side, people congregate outside (if only to smoke)–and talk. And, of course, people walk to and from the bar. Some semi-intoxicated; and some (especially in groups) prone to boisterous conversation.
Is it really right to overlook all this, and simply call these owners “genuine” people? Of course they are! But so are the hundreds of people like me—genuine. With genuine concerns, never adequately addressed by Sivan nor Andrew.
Twice Ben uses the word “pleasant.” In some ways, perhaps such a bar would be. But in the crucial matter I just wrote about, it would be anything but a “pleasant” addition to our neighborhood. And–no–Sirvan and Andrew will not be living in our neighborhood if, by the term, one means immediately facing their own bar.
One of the things most important in life, I think, is to think of where something which may be “pleasant” for us, could be deeply distressing to another. And to maybe hundreds of others. And to take their distress seriously. I do not see that Ben is doing that. Nor do I see Sirvan and Andrew doing it.
It is interesting that Pastor Marc Rivera of Primitive Christian Church is concerned about noise. I live in Seward Park directly across the street from the Church. The Church is an enormous source of noise… they host events on weekend nights, and large groups of event-goers hang out on the sidewalk in front of the church. They are mostly teenagers and they are VERY LOUD. But nobody complains about church noise. Also, the family who owns the 99-cent store next to the church bring all their kids to the store to hang out after school. Of course they also play on the sidewalk all evening, screeching, yelling and crying. Again, VERY LOUD. It is not just bars that generate noise. I would rather have a nice neighborhood bar, a place I can go with a friend to have a beer, then a noisy church that doesn’t respect its neighbors or a 99 cent store selling a bunch of crap that is used as a daycare facility in the evening. NYC is a noisy place.
But not at 3am is the rub. me thinks…
The people who live directly over the bar appear to be the very type of patrons that the old timers in the neighbood despise. They are young, “whoo-hoo” types who like to throw loud parties and hang out out of their windows smoking and chucking cigarette butts below. I think a loud rowdy bar beneath them would be right up their alley.