Bocca di Bacco, a chain of Italian restaurants in New York, has pulled out of a lease to open a new restaurant at 74th street and Columbus Avenue in the former home of Footlights Shoes. The reason: red tape, according to the New York Post.
“Co-owner Bob Malta says the Landmarks Preservation Commission tied construction up in knots at 294 Columbus Ave., while Dept. of Buildings rules required them to install sprinklers throughout the whole building, even though the café would only take up 800 square feet on the ground floor.”
While the LPC gave Malta the go-ahead, he complained about the long process and conflicting rules about handicapped access. In the end, he says he forfeited four months of rent at $26,000 a month. The space is now empty again with a for rent sign on the window.
Bocca di Bacco was one of the 16 new and soon-to-open restaurants we profiled last fall.
GOOD! WE DO NOT NEED ANY MORE CHAIN RESTAURANTS UP HERE!
Excuse me, Lita… We don’t have chain restaurants up here (maybe 1 or maybe 2, but I don’t think so.) And it’s a good thing we don’t. But it’s not because we have too many, it’s because it’s not conducive to the area.
Better stay out of Arte Cafe, too, then. Same owners.
Bocca di Bacco has three other locations in Manhattan and none elsewhere. By definition, this might constitute as a chain, but it’s not like they’re Applebee’s. Of all the new supposed openings, I was most looking forward to having BdB nearby – other than Parm.
This is so typical of the UWS, rather than trying to promote business, and create jobs and tax revenue, we make it so difficult that the business owner would rather throw up his hands and forfeit rent than open shop. Who cares if it’s a chain? Chains create jobs and tax revenue too you know. UWS residents are so arrogant in their opposition to “chains” so that they can “preserve their community” that they fail to realize that in the end, they are actually hurting commerce, stopping businesses from creating jobs, continuing unemployment, and leaving storefronts empty. Well done, I hope you’re proud of yourself.
In this case, “chain” should not be contemptible. This is a New York restauranteur who, like any other businessman of his ilk needs multiple locations to ensure a profitable business. This is the equation of our times. I have patronized their 9th Avenue location many times and it’s an attractive space with reasonably priced food and wine, served by an attentive and pleasant staff. It is, bottom line, a nice experience. Im sure the cautionary tale here is mounting a restaurant in a residential building which previously held none. Early 20th century era building with no fire supression? Mr Malta, I hope you find another location, I think you would be well suited for our neighborhood….maybe just a bit further uptown?
Compliance with new building code becomes the burden of the new tenant. Most landlords rent the space on an as is basis and leave it up to the commercial tenant to bring it to code. In many cases, upgrading non compliant gas and electrical as well as other safety features wind up having to be paid by the new business. The business can’t open until all is deemed compliant. This can create exorbitant startup costs and may lead to eventual failure of the business. The landlord gets the upgrade for free if the business closes.
What would be great here is a concierge service that attends to all your needs!
the other locations are great. affordable and nice atmosphere with good food.
hardly a chain in the Red Lobster sense of the word – Just New Yorkers who have had some success and want to expand. Nothing wrong with that.
What is wrong is the red tape and bureaucracy the city creates witch retards growth, business and jobs.
This is what happened at the Metro theater with the Ale House. Where are the politicians to actually help instead of harm ?
Re: “…The reason: red tape,….”
Ahh, “Red Tape” … the anti-regulation/libertarian crowd’s favorite buzzword, nowadays often preceded by the oh-so-trendy (and deceitful) prefix “job-killing”!!
If Landmark Preservation is objecting, it’s because the building IS protected from any developer with deep-pockets changing a historically-significant site and erasing its history. Considering how difficult it is to get LPC’s attention, the building must be worthy of protection.
If DoB is demanding sprinklers throughout a building it is with good reason — like preventing a deadly fire such as the one that recently caused havoc on W. 76th…or the fire in Boston that killed two veteran fire-fighters.
And if there are “conflicting rules about handicapped access” it’s because SOME city agency is probably trying to do the right thing for the hundreds of mobility-impaired people who are regularly denied access to establishments that their able-bodied counterparts enjoy as a matter of course.
Contrary to Ronald Reagan’s infamous “Government is the problem” canard, government is here to prevent everyplace from becoming Bangladesh, where a thousand were killed in a deadly sweatshop fire.
Or Texas, where the governor ranted about government regulation even after that factory explosion wiped out not just the factory but the entire town!
I don’t know how G Gomez KNOWS that “the storefront will stand empty for years.” I guess that depends on the rent charged, eh?
I doubt that the Department of Buildings determined who had to pay for the installation of sprinklers. The regulation — an educated guess here — is most likely that buildings with fire (i.e. kitchens) have to have sprinklers throughout. So the landlord was probably demanding that the restaurant pay for the entire installation.
And once again, Bruce dodges the actual question I posed, which didn’t have anything to do with the Department of Buildings. Here it is again. Why should the owners demand that someone renting a tiny portion of their buildings have to put in sprinklers throughout the building? Especially as they might only be there for a year or two, if the restaurant isn’t a success. Why don’t the OWNERS put in the sprinklers in the rest of the building? It’s THEIR building.
And are you seriously going to deny that many storefronts have sat empty for years before getting a new store? Really? I hope it doesn’t happen at this location, but if the landlords demand the same thing of any prospective tenant, they’re certainly increasing the odds of it happening.
i think we’re talking past one another. I was responding to the claim, by Webot among others, that the CITY GOVERNMENT was creating the obstacles here. Obviously if there is a restaurant in the building, it is perefectly sensible for the building code to demand sprinklers, even throughout the building. It is the LANDLORD — that brave Knight of the Free Market — who is demanding that the tenant pay for the building-wide installation. So if G. gomez is complaining about the landlord, then we are on the same wavelength here.
Landmarks Preservation laws were not written for preventing developers with deep pockets from changing a historic site. They were written to preserve unique or significant historic architectural context. It has become fashionable to use preservation as a way to stop development. Not all old buildings need to be preserved. There are many options available to a developer such as moving the building or artifact to another location. This has been done successfully in many locations in NYC and development continues.
So the storefront will stand empty for years. Bravo!
I think it’s past ridiculous that they should have to pay to install sprinklers throughout a building when they are only renting a small part of it. (Fine to demand that they install sprinklers in the part they’re renting it.)
If they prefer to forfeit $100K rather than install the sprinklers, it must be fearsomely expensive to do so. The restaurant could fail in a year (as most do), and yet they would have paid a fortune to make a permanent improvement in the building that they don’t own. In what world does that make sense?
I have an idea. Why doesn’t the landlord who OWNS the building put in the sprinklers in the rest of the building?
hurrah! nicely said Scooter Stan.
You know what’s worse than chain stores on the UWS? The chain of empty storefronts so prevalent in our neighborhood. I’m happy to have a Starbucks on the corner these days. At least it creates some life on our otherwise dreary streets.
I completely agree, better the store be filled and not an empty wasteland. Starbucks, 7-11s, etc. all employ new yorkers, why would we not want that? It should be easier, not harder, to open and operate a business in this city. It’s better for everyone.
The sprinkler requirement has nothing to do with the fact that the occupant is a restaurant, it has to do with the new building codes from 2008. Restaurant kitchens already have to have their own advanced fire suppression systems. When a major reno is done in a building that meets the requirements (which as many and varied and can even hinge on how wide the street is) the NYFD and the DOB require a new sprinkler system in the entire building.
You don’t even need to understand much about the process to think about what it costs solely in the apartments themselves and the nightmare it will be especially if the tenants are rent stabilized. Walls have to be broken to get the piping into the apartments, new ugly piping has to be run along the ceiling (which tenants may not want), and so on. Imagine how long this could take if one tenant resists and the owner has to go to court to get access.
Then, there is the question of pressurizing the sprinklers. Many small buildings do not have a inlet water pipe from the main large enough to supply the sprinklers. So, the NYFD/DOB will require you to rip up the street and tap directly into the water main to get another water source for the sprinkler, using cast iron, not copper pipe. It is also possible that the NYFD/DOB will require a back-up pumping system, that use special NYC-certified fireproof pumps and motors.
Naturally, all this work must be filed, and can only be done by a NYC master plumber with additional certificates. There are exceptions and exemptions, but both the NYFD and DOB have to agree, and they don’t always. There is an appeals process, but in this case the guy just wants to open his restaurant, and time is money. He could be going thru this for a year.
And of course the sprinkler must be inspected and pressure-tested every year. To those who scream ‘safety first’ I’ll be the first to grant that there is almost never a death in a sprinklered building where the sprinkler works. I’ll also point out that when a kid knocks the sprinkler head off the pipe while he was throwing a ball around the room, and the sprinkler dumps 30 gallons of water a minute into the room until it is shut off, you don’t read about it in the paper.
Anyone who thinks the DOB is a benevolent agency who understands that their main job is to protect the poor homeowner against unscrupulous tradesmen, has never been involved in a major project.
After having said all this, the real villain in this scenario is the architect/engineer/expeditor hired by the restaurant owner who should have foreseen this and advised the owner accordingly.
Another thought for this space: How about a distributor for nice uniforms for our nannies? I mean come on, making them wear your cast off Uggs and North Face is so wrong. The Birkin Bag I’m ok with.
There is no fire problem in NYC – hasn’t been for decades, just a powerful fire department and construction union lobby. Spineless politicians need to pretend to be doing something, and city agency employees need to justify their existence. Poof, a new law that further drives up building, and thus housing costs in the least affordable city in the US.
so true WS!
thank you.
as if a there is more of a fire danger now then when it was a shoe store. and while I love landmarking, I do not like the lack of respect for time which is money – these guys spent tens of thousands and every month of delays costs more .. and clearly the storefront – see pic – is not landmark worthy. go see their other restaurants for a really nice street presence.
and Bruce, bruce bruce bruce. are you ever on the right side of anything? fyi, I am a liberal too, but my g-d you extremists just killl everything. have you ever tried to do anything with your life besides pick on others who strive, take risks and invest in our community?
you’re no liberal. just someone who hides behind anonymity to take false potshots at people.
and saying “fire danger is not a problem in NYC”? seriously? sad…
pot calling the kettle black?
You are the known bully on this website who belittles everyone who is not lockstep with your extremist views.
You can’t even have an adult conversation.
fyi, everyone here is anonymous, its a blog. How do I know you are Bruce Bernstein, or Sid Shapiro, of Natelie Cohen….for all we know..
also, you if you are going to “quote” me , do it correctly , its right above …. I said “as if a there is more of a fire danger now then when it was a shoe store. and while I love landmarking”
Also, I am absolutely a liberal.
I am also a capitalist.
Not a communist…..