A Modest Proposal--Restaurant Landmarking

• holy crap! this post is extremely old and i hadn't noticed.!

• I think there should be some kind of tax incentive for these businesses, and maybe some kind of rent stabilization equivalent for an institution that has been deemed historic, if they don't own the building. But there would then need to be some kind of quality audit for them to keep their status... after a cursory look at your list, numbers 8 and 9: Veniero's and Court Pastry Shop are turning out nothing but nostalgic nearly inedible product. @breadchick, I dont know where you get your 75% of these businesses don't own their building stat., you are incorrect, Just from what I happen to know about the subject, at least 9 out of 13 of these own the buildings they are housed in. @seitsema, You left off Russ and Daughters, Barney Greengrass, Orwashers, Juniors, & papaya king.

• Khazer makes some good points. Here's another point no one has addressed. There may be cases where chefs/owners of old restaurants just want to retire? While a more profitable use might push out an old locally-popular restaurant, there are other reasons for closings also. I found this thread because I'm a big fan of La Taza d'Oro in Chelsea, and have been looking for other places like it (I'm not from NYC, just visit frequently). I'm very much into preservation of heritage (and discovering new old things), but like Khazer, would rather not distort the creativity of the free market with political leverage. Unintended negative consequences often result. thanks.

• Sucelt is sadly closed, about six months ago...

• Mei Li Wah Bakery (formerly Mei Lei Wah Coffee Shop), for sure. Also, what about the Sucelt, on 14th? Is that still around? Strong second for Margie's Red Rose, one of the homiest, warmest and most soulful joints I've ever had the pleasure to eat in. The staff there radiates a warm glow that just lights up the place. I've dug the fried chicken, yeah, but I had one of the best breakfasts of my life a few weeks ago: a fluffy, golden brown stack, a scrambled egg puffed to perfection, fat and juicy sage sausage and a biscuit slathered in soft butter and jelly. With fresh squeezed OJ and coffee, this breakfast will cost you all of 8 bucks and change (which is still probably less pricey than your average hash house, and ten times as good). Afterward, I walked down Adam Clayton Powell, hung a right on 125th, noticed several storefronts boarded up on Frederick Douglas. It's not a given that these great old mom and pop joints will be around forever. Now, that M&G is gone, I'd gladly fight and stand in the cold for Margie's. P.

• We've also been writing about this issue on my blog Uptownflavor for the past 3 years. We have slowly watched, one by one, the old fashioned restaurants disappear and be replaced with fast food restaurants over the past 10 years. While I can't wrap my brain around the landmarking of a restaurant that doesn't own the property (as is the case with all of the places in Harlem) I would like to see some sort of emergency fund that these places can apply for through the City in order to keep their restaurants afloat. Low interest loans or subsidies approved by a committee that reviews the upgrades, etc. proposed by the owners. Better than just letting these places turn into yet another Popeye's Chicken. As far as the history of the old M&G, ask any native Harlemite. My friend Sharon says that the original M&G was in another location and moved to the current (defunct) location which formerly housed a chicken place (hence the signage). Dig a little deeper and it will turn up on the Internet.

• It appears that my comment has been deleted. Was there something wrong with what I said or did you just disagree with it?

• nevermind!

• Gasto, Why do you think the trade-offs will always be so easy? What if someone wants to tear down Katz's to build a job training center or an opera house. My point is not to defend "eyesores" but merely to point out that leaving all of the economy in the hands of politicians (central planning) is not always the answer. Sietsema, I'm a democrat. As I've said before, tourists (and anyone else) enjoy Katz by PAYING MONEY to eat there, not just to stare and look at the place. Thus, landmarking is not needed. I'm not against landmarking in theory, just against using it as a means to control parts of the economy that don't need to be controlled. Breadchick, Someone made a similar response on the Eater board, I'll repost my response: A landlord is only able to raise the rent because someone else is willing to pay the higher rent. Someone else can pay this higher rent because their use for the space is more profitable.* This means that they can afford to give their customers more for their money and/or pay their employees/owners more. If you don't like owners making money, the solution is higher taxes, not eliminating the incentive to create wealth to begin with. A restaurant that has locked-in a cheap lease will be at an advantage in a rising rent environment, but will also be at a disadvantage in a falling rent environment. The ability to lock-in prices in this way is ubiquitous to the purchase of many goods and services and does not justify landmarking. * Perhaps there is story you can tell that tenants with market power in other markets can divert these high profits to purchase rich leases to drive out competition, but this sort of thing would potentially violate antitrust laws, and should be addressed by competition authorities and not by landmarking authorities. -Khazer (formerly anonymous)

• Breadchick is totally right. I did a story last year about the old fashioned French restaurants that are still holding on in and around Hell's Kitchen, which used to be a thriving French neighborhood in the 1940s and 50s. The only places that have been able to survive are restaurants that are proprietor-owned, like Tout Va Bien, which happens to have bought its building half a century ago.

• Anonymous, you miss the point. More than 3/4's of the restaurants and bars that both Lost City's Brooks of Sheffield and Robert point out as worthy of restaurant landmarking are not in buildings the proprietor of the establishment owns. Rather their leases and rents are at the whims of greedy landlords who raise the rents sky-high or sell the building outright to a condo developer forcing the restaurant/lounge to go out of business thus destroying the fabric that has made NYCs neighborhood food scene so vibrant and different.

• Hey, you must have worked for the Bush administration, judging from your admiration of the free market. I don't give a fuck if someone can make more money by turning Katz's into a K-Mart -- I want my grandchildren to be able to enjoy a Katz's pastrami sandwich, and understand its historic significance in the context of the city. In the long run, having Katz's there is more valuable for tourism, too, since it gives the city "character."

• Landmarking is designed, at least in theory, to provide a public good - architectural beauty. The "free market" will not naturally produce nice looking buildings because all the people that walk by a nice looking building aren't willing to pay for that privilege. This concept makes absolutely no sense for a restaurant, where you can't enjoy the food unless you pay for it. If a "historic" restaurant goes out of business it's because people are willing to pay more for whatever will exist in its place.

• Robert, I have been crying out for this for two years on my blog, Lost City! We should get together and brainstorm on this. My initial thoughts have been along these lines: get the City to give classic restaurant property tax breaks, or buy the buildings from the landlords and have the City become their landlord, charging the restaurants a dollar a year. This will encourage the restaurants to stay put, as long as the people in charge want to do business, that is.

TotalComments: 14