Seen & Heard: Edible Arrangements

••• Cheryl Cohen of Trend Setter Realty informs me that Edible Arrangements is taking the space at 143 Duane (between Takahachi and Rosanjin, it had been an office).

••• I went to last night’s meeting of Community Board 1’s Battery Park Committee in the hope of learning something about the status of Asphalt Green. I started out hopeful, as the committee chair announced that CB1’s new goal was to keep meetings under an hour, 90 minutes tops. LOL! At 75 minutes—including more discussion about the Pier A plaza than I bear to think about, and no sign of Asphalt Green on the horizon—I pulled the ripcord, hard. I later heard that once the Pier A discussion was over, the committee tried to adjourn, only agreeing to talk about Asphalt Green when the audience objected. Here’s a report from someone who stayed: “Two representatives from the Battery Park City Authority said they couldn’t answer the rumors because that would give them weight. When asked directly about the rumors, they just kind of shrugged and fizzled. They could give no timeline, and when Tom Goodkind said that these sorts of jobs always have supervisors/contractors and timelines, and who in the BPCA was the general contractor liaison and why couldn’t they give a timeline, they shrugged and fizzled. Now they say it’s all paperwork, and while they still can’t commit to anything they feel they are more on track. They did repeat several times that Asphalt Green is their partner and we had to be content with that.” As if it’s Asphalt Green’s behavior that any of us are concerned with at this point. Another attendee, meanwhile, had a similar report, adding that the BPCA came off as “insulting and dismissive,” not least of all because there’s no way that this is about permitting.

••• The new tenants at the 2Spaghi/Franklin Caffe Buon Gusto/Franklin Station space—there was one more but I can’t remember it—have painted the stoop. I’ve heard a rumor what it might be but I need to get some more confirmation first.

••• More than one reader has expressed disappointment privately that the new Manhattan Proper bar and restaurant on Murray is running all-you-can-drink specials (which I’m pretty sure aren’t legal) to coincide with football games.

••• I occasionally get LinkedIn requests from folks who I assume must be readers, but if you want to connect that way, please also send me a note, because the odds are decent I’ll assume you’re spam.

••• Someone recently commented that the Warren Street dog run was moving to a paid-membership model, which was news to me because if I take Howard to the dog run he wants to spend the whole  time in my lap. In any event, here are the signs posted on the door….



  1. Disappointing to hear about Manhattan Proper. I was hoping we’d get a good responsible neighbor we could support. This is more like frat-house nonsense if it is true. Does anyone know if it is indeed illegal?

  2. @BobR: Here you go ( “The ABC Law prohibits from selling, serving, delivering or offering to patrons an unlimited number of drinks during any set period of time for a fixed price. The law also requires that licensees prohibit party organizers, promoters, etc., from engaging in this conduct in the licensees’ establishment. The statute also prohibits licensees from creating drink specials which, in the judgment of the Authority, are attempts to circumvent the law. This includes offerings of free drinks, or multiple drinks for free or for the price of a single drink, or for a low initial price followed by a price increment per hour or other period of time. The SLA does allow 2 for 1, half price and other such specials where the price of a drink is not lower than one-half of the premise’s normal or regular price for the same drink. Section 117-a does not apply to private functions not opened to the public, such as weddings, banquets, or receptions, or other similar functions or to a package of food and beverages where the service of alcoholic beverages is incidental to the event or function. If you have questions about whether a particular drink special would be a violation of Section 117-a, or whether a particular event is exempt from the statute, please contact the Authority’s Office of Counsel.”

  3. Well, that seems pretty clear. That game will go until after 11pm tonight and they are right below several residences. They are sending a strong signal to the nighborhood, I guess,. But flaunting the law in your first month? WTF.

    Just curious, how did they respond?

  4. Glad to hear that Warren dog run is trying to find way to get more care and attention.

  5. @BobR: I haven’t mentioned it to them, and I don’t plan to—I already feel too much like Gladys Kravitz. (Besides, this is why every local business should read Tribeca Citizen! Or at least have a Google Alert on its name!)

  6. Gladys Kravitz — I like that!