Real Chumley’s is long gone
To The Editor:
The headline on Karen Butler’s letter in your Jan. 15 issue said it all: “No to faux Chumley’s.”
From across the street, where I’ve lived for the better part of 30 years, it’s clear that, except for the facade, 86 Bedford St., the former Chumley’s, has been completely torn down and rebuilt. The building is less than 10 years old from subbasement to roof. As a result (Butler’s letter said it well), 86 Bedford is nothing more than “the site where Chumley’s once stood.” So much for historic authenticity.
And another point: “No to faux nostalgia about Chumley’s.”
In some alternative universe, talented writers “with good hands and good hearts” might, as Clare Gailey claimed in her letter in the same issue (“Writers need Chumley’s”), gather at a new bar at 86 Bedford St. to find “moments of sustenance” for their lonely literary work. But in the universe where we actually live, the people who used to flock to Chumley’s — like the people who will pour in if the bar at 86 Bedford reopens — are a somewhat different crowd.
As New York magazine put it, years ago: “[During prime drinking time…the crowd is more J. Crew than T.S. Eliot, making the place feel like a fraternity reunion.”
One Yelp posting from 2007, before Chumley’s closed, confirmed: “Yeah, some great writers used to gather here, but not anymore.”
Another highlighted Chumley’s as a “justification for true drunken debauchery.”
My only quarrel with drunken debauchery is when it staggers out onto Bedford St. — late at night and early in the morning, in a noisy group whose members stand around saying stupid things to each other in very loud voices, arguing and occasionally fighting, until they finally get tired and move on. Before Chumley’s closed, that kind of disturbance was routine. It will be the same if Chumley’s make-believe successor opens at the same address.
Bottom line: If the world really needs a DisneyChumley’s, put it in Times Square, where the tourists can get to it more easily, and the Bedford St. neighborhood will be spared yet another midnight choir of drunks.
Bryan Dunlap
Part of waterfront’s rebirth
To The Editor:
Re “Praise and excitement versus fear and loathing at Pier55 public hearing” (news article, Jan. 15):
I am writing to voice my full support for the Pier55 project. As a resident of Greenwich Village, a theater director in the Downtown community and father of two children, I think it would be an amazing addition to the neighborhood.
I have lived in New York City for more than 20 years and have seen up close the transformation of Hudson River Park. I feel the addition of performance venues and more green space that Pier55 offers could only be seen as a welcome addition.
It is clear that more families are remaining in the city — rather than moving out, as they did in the past — so the culture and green space is needed now more than ever.
Bob McGrath
McGrath is director, Ridge Theater
Philanthropy and air rights
To The Editor:
Re “Praise and excitement versus fear and loathing at Pier55 public hearing” (news article, Jan. 15):
Whether Diller’s pier is a gift horse or a Trojan horse, it still begs the question why similar philanthropy has not emerged to salvage the best and biggest pier in the park. One wonders if Madelyn Wils even broached the subject of using Diller’s bequest to rebuild Pier 40, which could easily support and accommodate a lot of performance spaces, as well as young athletes and us car parkers.
Manhattan is chock-full of Dillers and von Furstenburgs who could enjoy seeing their name on the pier and the admiration and gratitude of all who want to save it. Where are they? Is it possible the Hudson River Park Trust is doggedly determined that Pier 40 must only become a commercialized profit center?
As for the air-rights transfer legislation, the main problem is it’s 20 years too late. Most of the development sites along the river are already sprouting luxury buildings or just about to. It’s criminal that everyone of authority or influence dillydallied for two decades before doing the obvious.
The best hope for Pier 40 and the best remaining site for its unused development rights is the St. John’s Center building, and I say, get on with it! Now. Sell them some air rights — but also get a permanent cash flow for the park from the commercial and luxury leases that the larger building there will create.
The two structures are such a poetically matched pair. An old rail terminal and an old ship terminal. Let a large-scale private development of one support the preservation of the other as a large-scale public amenity.
The riverfront is already being developed by the global influx of wealth into Manhattan, and that cannot be stopped any more than you can stop the tides of a Superstorm Sandy. Better to absorb some of that energy for good uses. Otherwise, I think Diller Island will provide a terrific viewing spot to watch Pier 40 and my car get washed away.
Chris Gaylord
Art pier is great for kids
To The Editor:
Re “Praise and excitement versus fear and loathing at Pier55 public hearing” (news article, Jan. 15):
As a father with a child in public school and an officer of the P.T.A. at P.S. 3, I am acutely aware of how much time and work is involved with giving children the most basic exposure to the arts. While we live in one of the great cultural capitals of the world, my wife and I are also struck by how few of those cultural opportunities are affordable. Sadly, we no longer live in a world where exposure to the arts is a given. The vision for Pier55 is very inspirational and encourages me that we can at least make a small dent in this problem.
Additionally, as a parent, the lack of green space in New York is always a huge concern. As my son gets older and the playground holds less allure, I wonder how we’ll find ways and reasons to enjoy the outdoors in the neighborhood.
This is an amazing gift and opportunity for us to combine two real needs; an opportunity that we would be foolish to turn down, especially when the alternative is an abandoned, decrepit pier.
Robert Osborne
Excited about Pier55!
To The Editor:
Re “Praise and excitement versus fear and loathing at Pier55 public hearing” (news article, Jan. 15):
I am writing to support the opportunity to develop Pier55 at W. 13th St. as a public park and performance space!
As a resident of the Downtown community and as an advocate of the arts, I adore the idea of designating this pier to be developed into a park — and, more important, into a park with a performance space for the arts.
My children attended P.S. 234 and we have enjoyed the benefits of waterfront parks from Rockefeller to Wagner as our preferred destination year-round. Each summer, we make special occasions to attend the offerings of musical and dance performances in these parks.
The development of Pier55 will provide urban dwellers a much-needed destination of respite in a natural environment. Open green space has long been heralded as having a positive impact on health, and combining that with the arts is a win-win for people of all ages.
Hudson River Park Trust, I applaud the work you have done on the waterfront and am grateful for the existence of this park! I know that when given the opportunity, you will create something spectacular! Please continue the superb work that has been done in this direction and move forward with the plans to turn Pier55 into a public green space and a performance opportunity!
Heather Church
Real B&B’s versus airbnb
To The Editor:
Re “Illegal hotel law inhospitable to B&B’s, their operators say” (news article, Jan. 22):
Most cities and towns have legal allowance and regulation for real B&B’s, which are not hotels, nor are they fly-by-night-rent-my-apartment situations. They have specific zoning and regulations tailored to their size and kind of business.
New York’s short-term rental law was a blunt instrument that damaged and made an endangered species of a well-respected and well-used product in the city. One element of the city said they have all along been O.K. with B&B’s — they happily collected lodging taxes from them — while another element of the city said they were out of bounds.
An amendment to the law should be put into effect that supports the existence of B&B’s — which utilize the entirety of a small building, thus avoiding disturbing any residential tenants — while separately regulating the airbnb’s.
B&B’s are a preferred experience all over the world. Historic homes and buildings have been preserved and opened to the public through these legitimate, small businesses.
This isn’t the sharing economy. This isn’t Uber or airbnb. This is a decades-old industry with 17,000-plus properties around the United States alone.
Think of food trucks. They are legitimate, have specific laws and have boundaries within which to play. B&B’s are like them. Legit. Lawful. Appreciated by the public.
Imagine if anyone could sell hot dogs out of the back of their Honda. That’s the equivalent of the short-term rental problem the law was trying to quash. Fix the law!
Jay Karen
E-mail letters, not longer than 250 words in length, to news@thevillager.com or fax to 212-229-2790 or mail to The Villager, Letters to the Editor, 1 Metrotech North, 10th floor, Brooklyn, NY, NY 11201. Please include phone number for confirmation purposes. The Villager reserves the right to edit letters for space, grammar, clarity and libel. The Villager does not publish anonymous letters.
