Living with Legends

Hotel Chelsea Blog

about

A Bank in Capitol Fishing Tackle?

July 5, 2007

BD management has been moving slowly, however they have made a few opening salvos — no doubt hoping that no one notices. (Oh yes, we do notice.) One of the most obvious salvos of the new management, BD Hotels, is that they have painted the façade of the old Capitol Fishing Tackle, erasing the final traces of that august establishment (63 years in the same location before being forced out by a board ordered increase of the rent). This is a sure sign that BD management intends to show the space. We’ve heard credible rumors that BD is trying to interest a bank in renting the space. Can you imagine? Tell all the bankers: count your money somewhere else! (Photos taken June 23 & June 30) Can this bode well for Dan’s Chelsea Guitars?

Posted in Hotel Chelsea

18 responses to “A Bank in Capitol Fishing Tackle?”

Previous Tenant :-(

July 6, 2007

Sad. It was the quirkiest stretch of retail in Manhattan, with Capitol Fishing, Dan’s guitars, Balabanis Tailor, El Quijote, the comic book shop… who will be next to go? I fear chain stores and overpriced boutiques and… gasp… a bank…

LikeLike

Reply
guest

July 6, 2007

23rd street has been changing over the years. Krispy Kreme is gone (good), The Cupcakes and Burgers place with it’s lit up giant cupcake moved on the street, Utrecht, Ricky’s is there (and another is opening on 23rd closer to Madison as well), Pizza 33 (two of them!), Breadsticks (or is it “Breadstix?), Duane Reade, the Cream Puff place, and so on. 8th Ave. has changed as well. Kitchen Market and Bright Food Shop have closed and I was told by the owners that it wasn’t because of the lease. They had renewed their lease, business just hasn’t been the same. It’s not just the stores located under the Chelsea. As far as El Quixote goes, I don’t think they’re going anywhere for quite a while.
The rents for stores in the Chelsea neighborhood have been going up and, sadly, not all the quirky places are able to stay. The Chelsea fishing tackle store closed when Stanley was still in control of management. It’s been closed for a year now, hasn’t it?
There’s already a band on this street just a few doors down, and plenty others on 8th, further down 23rd and 7th. Another bank isn’t needed, unless it’s a bank that YOU use, then you’ll be glad for the convenience. And “YOU” means anyone. They’d be smarter to put in a more unique store (and that doesn’t mean another Arcadia!) that people will go to because it’s interesting and can’t be found on every other corner or so in the city.
Personally, I think a coffee place would be pretty cool, but NOT a Starbucks and NOT some place that charged 3.00 for a cup of REGULAR coffee! I wish that Espresso Thyself on 7th and 22nd never closed but that entire building has been empty for years so my guess it that it has more to do with whoever owns that building than anything else.
You can’t blame all the stores closing on the new management team, that’s ridiculous. They haven’t even been in charge for a month yet! Let’s just hope they make decisions that benefit the community rather than only THEM. Communities have a way of rebelling and if they open a store that you do not approve of, DON’T GO THERE. The best way of letting someone know what you think is by boycotting their choice and NOT giving them business.
It would be interesting if new management chose to have a suggestion box regarding new stores. Fat chance, but it would be smart.

LikeLike

Reply
Daily Intelligencer – New York Magazine

July 6, 2007

Hookers Don’t Bow To Brooklyn Gentrification

Boerum Hill: OMG, there are still hookers here hood? It seems so, but new euphemisms from the yups include “sex care workers.” We love that. [Gowanus L…

LikeLike

Reply
Previous Tenant :-(

July 6, 2007

The partners have been pressuring Stanley to raise retail (and hotel) rents for some time, and it’s unlikely Stanley was behind Capitol’s departure. He was just the unwilling front man.

LikeLike

Reply
guest

July 7, 2007

The partners have been pressuring Stanley to do a number of things, this is true and if you have more inside information than what you read online or in papers, do share, because this isn’t anything we all haven’t heard before.
Stanley has always done things in his own, shall we say, “unique” way, good AND BAD. However, do you actually think that Stanley has disagreed with EVERYTHING the other partners want to do? I mean, they are PARTNERS and should have SOME say in what happens regarding the building. If you were one of the partners, you’d want some say, wouldn’t you? I’m not saying what that say is (since we don’t really know all the actual details no matter what you’ve read or heard) but you don’t know how willing or unwilling Stanley was regarding the retail shops.
I too am guessing that Stanley didn’t necessarily want Capitol Fishing to depart, but I do think he wanted more rent from them. I mean, it is only fair that rent goes up after a while when the value of the neighborhood (property value, that is) goes up. It’s LEGAL to raise rent…how MUCH it’s raised is another story and there are legalities to that as well. This goes for rent-stabilized apartments too. That’s just a fact. This is true of rents all throughout Manhattan, not just the Chelsea Hotel and storefront property.
I know one thing that this neighborhood didn’t need, ARCADIA. My opinion of course, but I’d much rather have Big Cup back than a overly expensive store that has to give away “FREE STUFF” with purchases just to get people to buy things. Again, my opinion on this, but they’re always having specials and sales and giveaways that I’m guessing they wouldn’t have if the business was good on its own.
I hope that whatever ends up moving into Capitol Fishing’s spot is something more unique or at least USEFUL to the neighborhood, but I have the feeling that even if a Starbucks moved in (PLEASE DON’T!) people would give it good business, and plenty of those people would be Chelsea residents. We tend to patronize those business that are conveniently located IF we are going to patronize that type of business. I go out of my way to go to the more independent places, but I’m guilty of going places out of convenient locations at times as well.
IF Chelsea Guitars is forced to leave, that will be a VERY sad day. It’s such a PERFECT shop for its location…it’s special even to a lot of people who DON’T go in or play instruments.

LikeLike

Reply
guest

July 8, 2007

One other thing… maybe new management has never dealt with this specific situation before (resident hotel, historic value, etc) and if it hasn’t, maybe it’s a good time to prove that they can run a place like this while keeping the artistic environment alive and what its reputation has been built on? It pays to be versatile in your management and the way you restore historic places. If you change it too much, you’ve failed at your job. However, if you fail to upkeep the infrastructure, you’ve failed too and I do believe there’s a way to upgrade AND keep the heart and soul and general creative environment alive. People have to get off their ego trips and do what’s best for the building itself, its reputation, and all those who know and love it.

LikeLike

Reply
Previous Tenant :-(

July 8, 2007

I do have a certain amount of inside information “guest.” For a guest, you seem to consider yourself quite an expert on the place, but no matter — sure, Stanley may have agreed with the partners/investors on many things, but clearly, not enough for them. Stanley was not a charity worker. He always tried to balance business with concern for the residents and appreciation for their work. Sure, he raised rents when he needed to. But he never lost respect for the spirit and the rhythm of the place. For some years, going back to when I resided chez Stanley, I’ve heard from very well-placed sources about how the investors were pressuring Stanley to squeeze more money out of the place, and I’d seen their desired yuppification. Most of us have. in fact, some people heard about the investors around the hotel so much they grew a little skeptical of the story. They thought the investors were invented to justify the rent rises, which was believable because the partners RARELY SET FOOT IN THE JOINT. Well, everyone knows now they weren’t invented, and most of us have a lot more sympathy for Stanley, David and Michelle. Now we all realize just what he was up against.

LikeLike

Reply
guest

July 13, 2007

When I said “inside information” I was talking not about the gossip you hear and things people tell you (even if it’s what Stanley told you). I was talking about all the real business facts and things brought up in court regarding Stanley and the other shareholders. I don’t have access to those papers and files and I’m going to guess that you don’t either.
I think almost everyone knew that the other shareholders were pressuring Stanley to make more money in certain areas. The problem lies in how he went about it. But the specifics of that aren’t something we should bother with here. There’s a lot people don’t know (including me) and I don’t feel it’s appropriate to argue about it being right or wrong or any of that at the moment…especially on a blog. He still ran the hotel pretty much the way he wanted to run it. I know that’s a broad statement but…
I never doubted that the other shareholders were pressuring him. I think a lot of people were surprised that this place even HAD other shareholders until word of their pressure got out. I think most people assumed that the Bards owned the place completely.
I know I did for a long time. The other shareholders let Stanley do his thing for years and years and I’m not sure what made them start to look into things more, but they did and now we all know about the ownership of the hotel. I AM glad that the Bards are still the MAJORITY shareholders and that new management does not have control of this place from now on…there is a time limit in which they have control.
I completely agree that Stanley never lost respect for the spirit and rhythm of the place. I’ve never not agreed and I don’t think anyone even COULD disagree with that statement. That’s one of the largest concerns regarding new management.

LikeLike

Reply
BM

July 14, 2007

//there is a time limit in which they have control.//
And what is that time limit?
I, too, think you’re on the side of the shareholders. That’s fine, but quit pretending to be on the side of we residents, or on Stanley’s side.

LikeLike

Reply
guest

July 14, 2007

BM: I don’t see HOW on EARTH you can insist that I’m on the side of the shareholders over the residents or Stanley when you don’t even KNOW ME! I’m stating facts that are known and trying not to spin them because I think spinning facts can be to our disadvantage (and I do mean OUR). BUT, you’re going to continue thinking whatever you want, which is unfortunate, because not only are you absolutely WRONG, but you seem to want to try to make enemies of people who are actually on the same side, they’re just trying to be more rational about the facts of the situation…and go from there. This too is fine, though, I think a bit stupid and probably what the new management wants.
If people CLAIM things that they can PROVE to be untrue or have substantial backing in their favor on their side…not smart. I really am trying to be fair and rational and go on facts because we don’t know what those deciding details actually are.
You asked about the time limit. The time limit given by the courts, I’ve heard from VERY good sources, has been different, but the general span seems to be 3-5 years. I was told 4 1/2 originally, but I’ve heard a few different numbers, so…but I believe it’s 4 1/2 years.
If the Bards can find a legal way of regaining control before then, GREAT! If not, then we have to deal with what we’re presented with, and that happens to be NEW MANAGEMENT. If Stanley will be able to run this place exactly as he had before when he gets back in control of management, that too I believe is probably not the case. MORE like he wanted, but I think he’s going to have to uphold at least some of the changes that new management implements. The pressure from them BEFORE was there and AFTER…I’m sure it will be even greater.
Now that you have an idea of the time limit of new management control can do to the hotel in that amount of time, I don’t know. I know they’re certainly going to TRY and make some changes. How big or how small and if their thoughts have changed due to backlash remains to be seen.
I’m not “pretending” anything, BM. However, YOU should stop “pretending” that you know me or anything about me, and you should stop pretending that you know details and facts that you DON’T know. That can only hurt you in the end. Claiming things that are not true can be to new management’s advantage. Just think about that for a while. I know I have given thought to that.
While I don’t see anything so horrible that new management has done YET (new management didn’t get the Bards out of management, the other shareholders did), I don’t expect that to last long. The FACTS of how the other shareholders (and details of those facts) are not things I can claim to knowing. I can’t point that out enough. It really is important to remember.
There will be good improvements, and I’m SURE there will be BAD changes. If people keep spouting out things about them that they can prove to be untrue, how does that help anyone but them?
Why not focus on the facts at hand and go from there?
HOW, if there IS a way, can the people help get the Bards back in charge?
What can we do to affect new management’s decisions, if there is anything?

LikeLike

Reply
BM

July 15, 2007

Guest, how do you know the things I’m saying are untrue? You have all the inside information because you are one of them, or you aren’t dealing the facts either. You are spinning! Didn’t you post earlier as Current resident or somthing like that.
you think we should give the new guys and the sharehodlers a chance in spite of everything we know to entrench themselves and change the place irrevocably?
Right. Not a chance.

LikeLike

Reply
421to323

July 15, 2007

What will they be able to prove untrue? I think this is a load of shit you’re dishing out here. I think you are one of them. If the new partners wish to clue everyone in to the “facts” let them. Let them refute it all. let them prove it. They overthrew the Bards and barged in here weith little knowledge of the place, the burden of proof is on them. they have been putting the screws to stanley to make the place more profitable for years, their very first actions were to issue a letter demanding rent. They’ve backed down because of the outry. You want to kiss their butts for some reason? Fine. I want the Bards back and this injustice rectified.

LikeLike

Reply
guest

July 15, 2007

I’m speaking about the facts that WE DON’T HAVE INFO ON, which are the details behind the obvious things that have happened. I have a LOT of knowledge as to how this place has been managed for YEARS, but I DON’T have all the facts about the paperwork and legalities, etc. I’ve never claimed to and have been pointing that out over and over. Why do you keep spinning this and twisting it into something that I never said nor meant? YOU are saying that I think I have all the inside information, I keep saying that I DON’T. Why do you keep missing those statements of mine?
And I’m sorry, but the things you say strongly indicate (I don’t want to say “prove”) that you do not know this info either! I’m dealing with the FACTS. The ACTUAL facts. One of the facts of this situation that I continue to say is that there are things we DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE. This, AGAIN, includes me!
The only one “spinning” anything here seems to be you.
NO, I did NOT post earlier as Current resident or “something like that.” current resident. I’ve responded to Current resident though.
Your words sound like other people’s as well. I don’t actually care that much if you DID post under a different name, there aren’t THAT many people posting to this blog and the world is filled with billions of people.
You keep accusing me of being “one of them” and I keep telling you that I’m not. Do you know how silly this makes you look? IF I were one of the shareholders, do you REALLY think I would be wasting my time responding to your repeated accusations with denial? Maybe I would, I don’t know…I’M NOT ONE OF THE OTHER SHAREHOLDERS!
Wouldn’t it be great if one of the other shareholders actually DID take questions and concerns of the residents and other fans of the hotel? I think they should, but I’m sure they have their own reasons for not doing so…yet. Just the press. And that’s their PR firm I assume.
AND finally…
“you think we should give the new guys and the sharehodlers a chance in spite of everything we know to entrench themselves and change the place irrevocably?
Right. Not a chance.”
Spinning again. I NEVER said that statement!!! Do I think we should give the new guys a chance? Well, yes, because WE DON’T HAVE ANY OTHER CHOICE! THEY are now in control and we have to deal with this fact.
Do I think we should sit back and let them entrench themselves and change the place irrevocably? NO! And I NEVER said that we SHOULD! Jeez!
I’ve stated before that the Bards have the MORAL right to make significant changes, not new management.
I’ve stated before that I hope they don’t try and make changes that destroy the character and spirit of the place, and if they tried, they’d be in for a fight.
How can you keep overlooking these statements unless you are simply determined on spinning everything you misinterpret into something NOT meant and NOT said?
All the business and legal factors that went into this judicial decision are things that, unless we read the court documents, we simply cannot know, no matter what people SAY, we just don’t know the FACTS, only people’s versions and opinions of them. THAT is the attempt at being FAIR. I am NOT saying to be fair and allowing new management to destroy what the Bards have created.
Also, I say that new management hasn’t made any significant changes YET. Until they do (aside from collecting back rent and raising storefront retail rent, which Stanley had done as well, pressure from shareholders perhaps, perhaps part of his own wishes as well).
Significant changes are changing the decor of the hotel into something less creative, arty, historic, etc. Also, attempting to kick residents out for no justifiable reason. Just because they want to make this a more profitable hotel doesn’t mean that’s a good enough, justifiable reason to kick long term residents out. I never said that nor WOULD I ever.
Why continually twist what I’ve said unless you just WANT to argue? I understand being upset at the situation and wanting to vent this, but continually spinning what I directly state as being opposite isn’t helping any.
To continually accuse me of being “one of them” makes you sound a little…”off.” I am NOT one of the shareholders. I’m sorry. I wish I were! If I were one of them, I’d probably be making changes to this hotel as far as infrastructure and upkeep, but the character would remain the same and I’d be more involved in it MYSELF. It’s also doubtful that I would have hired the current new management firm as well. I’m sorry, BM, but I’m NOT one of “THEM.”

LikeLike

Reply
guest

July 15, 2007

421to323:
I have no intention of kissing new management’s butts, nor have I made statements that show that. I’m trying to go on facts that we know rather than simply opinions or details of information about the legal business aspects that we aren’t privy to.
Has new management backed down because of the outcry? I don’t know. I hope so, but they HAVEN’T REALLY DONE ANYTHING SIGNIFICANT to CHANGE this place yet!
I’ve commented over and over about the lack of introduction and how I felt about that. We’re in agreement. Never weren’t.
What else is it you seem to have a problem with? Because I am not going to go spouting off things that I have no real proof of or intimate knowledge of? What can they disprove? Well, the blog isn’t the place to talk about this. Stanley as a public persona and Stanley as a businessman are two different things. I love the guy dearly, but I have not seen all the paperwork on the hotel, haven’t seen what the shareholders were being given, haven’t seen what was in the court records. All I know is that a judge ruled in favor of the other shareholders and they can’t do that on favoritism alone. There has to be a REASON and I, and I’m sure YOU, while we can say what we THINK the details and reasons are, simply do NOT know those intimate facts. If it was an unfair decision, I certainly hope the Bards will be appealing if they can.
What’s a load of shit? Tell me, what were the facts that were presented to the judge by the shareholders? What did they claim Stanley was or wasn’t doing from a legal and business standpoint that gave them control? That they weren’t making as much of a profit as they wanted? Stanley was making a profit for sure. Not good enough for the other shareholders? So? THAT is not good enough reason to have management overturned! At least, I’m pretty sure that legally it isn’t.
So…the chances of there being issues and details we don’t know is more than likely. I really don’t want to continue this discussion, it’s not a good one.
A lot of people would say that Stanley wasn’t the most fair with everyone or honest, but Stanley and his family made this hotel what it is today and he’s given a lot of people chances that most landlords wouldn’t have given. Sometimes to the advantage, sometimes to the disadvantage, but you stayed because you wanted to stay and the character and spirit of the place was a large part of that. Who built this character and spirit? The Bards.
I am NOT one of the other shareholders or “one of them” as you continue to claim. The fact that I KNOW this and you keep insisting that I am no matter what I say proves my point about you. Whatever you WANT to believe is a FACT to you, no matter what anyone says or promises. I PROMISE that I am NOT one of them. I also promise that I prefer the Bards in charge.
I don’t particularly care anymore who you think I am since I KNOW FOR A FACT you’re WRONG! I could say that a million times and you’d still believe your own inaccuracies simply because you want to, but unfortunately for you, that doesn’t make you RIGHT. You’re actually dishing out the shit here.
do you not have better things to say than to continually insist someone is someone they aren’t when they TELL you they are not over and over? Aren’t there more VALID arguments to be had on here? You’re wrong and you can’t accept that, fine. I know who I am and you obviously don’t. What does that tell me about the other things you’re claiming and insisting on? Well, it says you take your beliefs and say they’re facts. I don’t now how much of what you say I’d actually want to bet on at this point.

LikeLike

Reply
BM

July 16, 2007

Best defense is a good offense, ain’t that right Guest?
The shareholders have sure indicated they want to change the place. They’ve retreated now, but there is no mistaking their original intentions.

LikeLike

Reply
Chelsea

July 16, 2007

Corporate legal issues does not sound like anything too serious in the real world.

LikeLike

Reply
guest

July 17, 2007

Chelsea:
It might not SOUND like anything too serious in the “real” world, but I assure you, it is. There is a chance that people could lose the homes they’ve been living in- some for YEARS and YEARS and YEARS. I think that’s pretty serious.
I’m not going to comment any further on the shareholders and the Bards legal issues (and it seems as though my last response wasn’t posted, perhaps “yet” or perhaps it was not approved by the bloggers). The Bards are no longer in control, new management is, and right now, the little changes seen are signs of several different things, some indicating reason for great concern, some aren’t. Either way you look at it, these corporate legal issues ARE serious whether they sound it or not.

LikeLike

Reply
Fishing Tackle Online

August 3, 2007

Fishing Tackle Online

Fishing tackle, fishing supplies, fishing gear, saltwater rods, fishin

LikeLike

Reply