Jump to content


Photo

Hooters


  • Please log in to reply
545 replies to this topic

#31 splinky

splinky

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 20,333 posts

Posted 03 May 2012 - 09:19 PM

Maybe you'll get a nice steakhouse or a Danny Meyers restaurant

“One thing kids like is to be tricked. For instance, I was going to take my little nephew to Disneyland, but instead I drove him to an old burned-out warehouse. 'Oh, no!', I said, 'Disneyland burned down.' He cried and cried, but I think that deep down he thought it was a pretty good joke. I started to drive over to the real Disneyland, but it was getting pretty late.”
~Jack Handey

*proud descendant of cheese eating surrender monkeys*

 


#32 splinky

splinky

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 20,333 posts

Posted 03 May 2012 - 09:20 PM

Should be interesting to see how things devolve. Oh, and you thought parking was bad before.

“One thing kids like is to be tricked. For instance, I was going to take my little nephew to Disneyland, but instead I drove him to an old burned-out warehouse. 'Oh, no!', I said, 'Disneyland burned down.' He cried and cried, but I think that deep down he thought it was a pretty good joke. I started to drive over to the real Disneyland, but it was getting pretty late.”
~Jack Handey

*proud descendant of cheese eating surrender monkeys*

 


#33 Sneakeater

Sneakeater

    Advanced Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 42,133 posts

Posted 04 May 2012 - 04:49 AM

Also, +1 to Wilfrid's point: Hooters hasn't ruined W. 56th Street.


I think Wilfrid was joking.

West 56th St. doesn't remotely resemble Brownstone Brooklyn.

West 56th St. is what people move to Brownstone Brooklyn to get away from.
Bar Loser

MF Old

#34 Sneakeater

Sneakeater

    Advanced Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 42,133 posts

Posted 04 May 2012 - 04:51 AM

So, more rich folks will be moving into the area. That seems like a good thing for creating more restaurants, art facilities, Starbucks, etc. Raises property values, etc. Batali and Bastianich will be looking for space, etc


I think you misunderstand what Brooklyn is like if you think we're lacking in restaurants, art facilities, coffee places, etc. The effect on property values will be interesting, in that this development will turn the surrounding neighborhoods into exactly what the people who traditionally moved there were trying to get away from. The same goes for Batali and Bastianich: people who have moved to Brooklyn don't WANT that.
Bar Loser

MF Old

#35 Sneakeater

Sneakeater

    Advanced Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 42,133 posts

Posted 04 May 2012 - 04:54 AM

I'll repeat: people who don't live there have this idea that Brooklyn is nothing more than a place people move because they can't afford Manhattan; that it has no culture of its own.* But of course it does. Brooklyn isn't just Cheap Manhattan. It's Brooklyn.

That's why the Brooklyn restaurant scene was different from the Manhattan restaurant scene -- at least until the Manhattan restaurant scene started imitating it.
_____________________________________________________________________
* To clarify because Oakapple apparently misunderstood what I meant by this the first time, I don't mean "culture" in the sense of "high culture" or "cultural facilities". I mean culture in the sense of an ethos and identity.
Bar Loser

MF Old

#36 Sneakeater

Sneakeater

    Advanced Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 42,133 posts

Posted 04 May 2012 - 05:11 AM

The effect on property values will be interesting, in that this development will turn the surrounding neighborhoods into exactly what the people who traditionally moved there were trying to get away from.


I'd like to talk about this a little more.

I don't assume you increase values in a low-rise neighborhood by putting a line of skyscrapers into it. I don't think my apartment will become more desirable after it's lost its Manhattan skyline view -- and, on top of that, most of the sky you see from the windows. I don't think a quiet, low-density neighborhood necessarily becomes more desirable when it becomes a crowded high-density neighborhood. But we'll see.
Bar Loser

MF Old

#37 Suzanne F

Suzanne F

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 16,895 posts

Posted 04 May 2012 - 12:29 PM

I'm asking the following as a person and part of an entity that sued Ratner, his company, the mayor, and other parties to prevent a project from ruining my home (read: dropping my apartment's resale price to zero, or close) and to force said project to give something back to the community:*

What exactly is the considered, measured, supportable opposition to a Hooters in Park Slope? Not the "we fought the stadium and lost, so we have to fight everything else related to it" BS, but the real moral, cultural, business, etc. reasons that residents of Park Slope and environs see Hooters as a potential blight on the neighborhood?

Can anybody take a deep breath and answer that? I want to understand.



*What we got was an elementary school (which means I have screaming children under my windows for several hours, five days a week, not a good thing after all) and a landscaped plaza (that still has not been opened for anyone to enjoy, I presume to prevent it from being Occupied, a good/bad/good situation). Note that we did not try to stop the building itself, an edifice totally out of scale with the neighborhood and filled with transients who don't give a shit about the neighborhood. That would have been futile and a total waste of our limited resources.

the people who flock to dine at the restaurant on account of its reputation/stars are getting their money's worth because what they are after is a piece of the reputation/stars and nothing else. their money is not wasted. -- mongo jones, 11/5/2014

 

notorious stickler -- NY Times
deeply annoying and nitpicking -- Molly O'Neill, One Big Table


#38 Rail Paul

Rail Paul

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 19,329 posts

Posted 04 May 2012 - 01:05 PM

I'm asking the following as a person and part of an entity that sued Ratner, his company, the mayor, and other parties to prevent a project from ruining my home (read: dropping my apartment's resale price to zero, or close) and to force said project to give something back to the community:*

What exactly is the considered, measured, supportable opposition to a Hooters in Park Slope? Not the "we fought the stadium and lost, so we have to fight everything else related to it" BS, but the real moral, cultural, business, etc. reasons that residents of Park Slope and environs see Hooters as a potential blight on the neighborhood?

Can anybody take a deep breath and answer that? I want to understand.



*What we got was an elementary school (which means I have screaming children under my windows for several hours, five days a week, not a good thing after all) and a landscaped plaza (that still has not been opened for anyone to enjoy, I presume to prevent it from being Occupied, a good/bad/good situation). Note that we did not try to stop the building itself, an edifice totally out of scale with the neighborhood and filled with transients who don't give a shit about the neighborhood. That would have been futile and a total waste of our limited resources.


I suspect the "out of scale with the neighborhood" is the crux of the argument. That's often the dividing point between people who want to change things and people who think things are pretty good as they are.

For example, the area of 42nd street west of 10th avenue is increasingly 40 story residential towers on what used to be three story warehouse building sites. That was a classic steam roller job, not a lot different than Ratner and the Brooklyn project imposed on Sneak and his neighbors.

In contrast, the Hudson Yards project seems to have been stopped by one large interest being blocked by another large interest.

“Jazz musicians just get better and better as the years go by. I think chefs are the same way. You know who you are.”

 

...Jonathan Waxman


#39 Adrian

Adrian

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,686 posts

Posted 04 May 2012 - 01:17 PM

The effect on property values will be interesting, in that this development will turn the surrounding neighborhoods into exactly what the people who traditionally moved there were trying to get away from.


I'd like to talk about this a little more.

I don't assume you increase values in a low-rise neighborhood by putting a line of skyscrapers into it. I don't think my apartment will become more desirable after it's lost its Manhattan skyline view -- and, on top of that, most of the sky you see from the windows. I don't think a quiet, low-density neighborhood necessarily becomes more desirable when it becomes a crowded high-density neighborhood. But we'll see.


Increasing the supply of units will decrease property values if it doesn't spur an increase in demand for the area. The arena project is supposed to do that. While sometimes arena have done that - the Verizon Center in DC revitalized Chinatown - I'm not sure that this is the sort of area that would benefit from the presence of an arena. The kind of development that you see in DC with its large chains and big box stores, probably isn't what the already fairly affluent residents of the area want. Not that I have a strong opinion one way or the other - I like the idea of the Brooklyn Nets and I'm kind of sad it's not a Gehry project anymore.

I think you need to interpret what I'm saying in a reasonable way.


#40 oakapple

oakapple

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,774 posts

Posted 04 May 2012 - 01:19 PM


I'm asking the following as a person and part of an entity that sued Ratner, his company, the mayor, and other parties to prevent a project from ruining my home (read: dropping my apartment's resale price to zero, or close) and to force said project to give something back to the community:*

What exactly is the considered, measured, supportable opposition to a Hooters in Park Slope? Not the "we fought the stadium and lost, so we have to fight everything else related to it" BS, but the real moral, cultural, business, etc. reasons that residents of Park Slope and environs see Hooters as a potential blight on the neighborhood?


I suspect the "out of scale with the neighborhood" is the crux of the argument.

Right, but that argument was lost the day the arena was approved. That train has left the station.
Marc Shepherd
Editor, New York Journal

#41 Adrian

Adrian

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,686 posts

Posted 04 May 2012 - 01:28 PM



I'm asking the following as a person and part of an entity that sued Ratner, his company, the mayor, and other parties to prevent a project from ruining my home (read: dropping my apartment's resale price to zero, or close) and to force said project to give something back to the community:*

What exactly is the considered, measured, supportable opposition to a Hooters in Park Slope? Not the "we fought the stadium and lost, so we have to fight everything else related to it" BS, but the real moral, cultural, business, etc. reasons that residents of Park Slope and environs see Hooters as a potential blight on the neighborhood?


I suspect the "out of scale with the neighborhood" is the crux of the argument.

Right, but that argument was lost the day the arena was approved. That train has left the station.


Right, but I don't begrudge the neighbourhood for trying to exert some control over the kinds of businesses that are going to operate in the new development. I'm sure there would be less opposition to Blue Smoke (or even Brother Jimmy's) than Hooters.

I think you need to interpret what I'm saying in a reasonable way.


#42 oakapple

oakapple

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,774 posts

Posted 04 May 2012 - 01:49 PM

I'm sure there would be less opposition to Blue Smoke (or even Brother Jimmy's) than Hooters.

I'm sure of that too. Blue Smoke is better, not a national chain, and doesn't have scantily (but legally) clad servers.

I just don't see any legal objection on those grounds. You could say, "I don't like Hooters." But this begins to resemble the farce of community boards examining the minutiae of restaurant menus to decide whether they will endorse a liquor license.
Marc Shepherd
Editor, New York Journal

#43 Adrian

Adrian

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,686 posts

Posted 04 May 2012 - 01:57 PM


I'm sure there would be less opposition to Blue Smoke (or even Brother Jimmy's) than Hooters.

I'm sure of that too. Blue Smoke is better, not a national chain, and doesn't have scantily (but legally) clad servers.

I just don't see any legal objection on those grounds. You could say, "I don't like Hooters." But this begins to resemble the farce of community boards examining the minutiae of restaurant menus to decide whether they will endorse a liquor license.


Sure. I didn't think we're talking legal objections (and I don't think that community boards necessarily need a legal reason not to approve a license).

I think you need to interpret what I'm saying in a reasonable way.


#44 Anthony Bonner

Anthony Bonner

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,023 posts

Posted 04 May 2012 - 02:09 PM

Because its Brooklynnnnn. I only want my kind of gentrificationnnnnnn
Why not mayo?

#45 Adrian

Adrian

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,686 posts

Posted 04 May 2012 - 02:18 PM

Because its Brooklynnnnn. I only want my kind of gentrificationnnnnnn


Once you're in the gentrification sweet spot - indie cafes, good restaurants, low crime, low(ish) rents, neighbourhood "character" - you've got to fight the condo kids tooth and nail.

I think you need to interpret what I'm saying in a reasonable way.