They were filming Ray Donovan on Reade St just west of W. Broadway on Friday — Preserve on Seen & Heard: Four Shoots This Week

You know what other streets that are unpassable because of the vendors hawking fake bags and the tourists buying them? Broadway in Soho, 6th Avenue and other surrounding side streets by midtown and Times Sq. But is anyone making a noise about it as much as the ones about Canal St., or is anyone making an excuse about how they need to be cleaned-up? This "cleaning-up" of Canal St. is just yet another ruse to push out the immigrants and turn that area for only the riches can enjoy. NYTimes and the real estate developers just want NYC to be a white Dubai. Enjoy the homogeneous city you guys want. — JOR on What’s Really Happening to Canal Street

Again, certain problems for whom? Problems to those who want Canal St to be upscale and luxurious , who want s to turn Canal St. into Short Hills, much like what Amanda Burden had done to other "problematic" neighborhoods. How much more J Crew or Brooks Brothers or Frenchettete type of restaurants or more luxury condos from Bloomberg;s godsend [dirty] [Russian] billionaires do you folks want? — JOR on What’s Really Happening to Canal Street

Sonia is amazing. Photographic memory? How does she do it?!? — Will Meyerhofer on Where in Tribeca…?

Billions wrapped their season and doesn't start back up for a few months. Possible Productions is now Ray Donovan. (Both on Showtime so maybe it's the same Location Manager) Yes, Ray Donovan takes place in LA- but Liev has had them move the entire production to NYC to be closer to his kids. — JulieW on Seen & Heard: Four Shoots This Week

Cookie butter and pretzels on opening day? Come on, demo team! — Donnie Diamonds on First Impressions: Trader Joe’s

Not necessary to equate cleaning up certain problems of the street (noise, traffic, litter, graffiti, counterfeit vendors) with going "upscale" and "luxurious". Those can be desirable improvements for a neighborhood anywhere along the economic spectrum. — Marcus on What’s Really Happening to Canal Street

The Appellate Court was essentially bound here by its prior decision in Kuzmuch v 50 Murray. We'll see how it goes at the Court of Appeals: William T. West, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents-Appellants, v B.C.R.E - 90 West Street, LLC, Defendant-Appellant-Respondent, Lee Rosen, Defendant. Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman, LLP, New York (Magda L. Cruz of counsel), for appellant-respondent. Himmelstein, McConnell, Gribben, Donoghue & Joseph LLP, New York (Serge Joseph of counsel), for respondents-appellants. Amended order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert R. Reed, J.), entered on or about February 1, 2018, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant B.C.R.E. 90 West Street, LLC's motion for summary judgment declaring that plaintiffs' apartments are deregulated and not subject to rent stabilization, and granted plaintiffs' cross motion for summary judgment declaring that plaintiffs' leases are subject to rent stabilization, and so declared, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and it is declared that plaintiffs' apartments were properly deregulated. For the reasons stated in Kuzmich v 50 Murray St. Acquisition LLC (157 AD3d 556 [1st Dept 2018]), buildings receiving tax benefits pursuant to Real Property Tax Law § 421-g are subject to the luxury vacancy decontrol provisions of the Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 (Administrative Code of City of NY) § 26-504.2(a). The fact that the subject building additionally received low-interest mortgage financing from the New York City Housing Development Corporation (HDC) does not bar application of this luxury decontrol scheme. Defendant owner's regulatory agreement with HDC merely requires that all units in the building be "subject to Rent Stabilization . . . to the extent Rent Stabilization applies to such Units" (emphasis added). The language of Private Housing Finance Law § 654-d(18) is substantially similar to that of Real Property Take Law § 421-g and should be interpreted consistently therewith. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: MAY 17, 2018 CLERK — James on In the News: Setback for Rent-Regulated Tenants

I think it's fun, exciting! Art, events, activations, experience and more. Join the party, don't be late to it!!!!!!! — Martin on What’s Really Happening to Canal Street

Get off my lawn! (this was great btw). — Jeff on TCQ&A: Peter Carey

How I wish we could swap Target and TJ. My little feet would tire from walking to Spring instead of Murray. And who needs discount detergent and basement shopping for candy when there is Amazon. — Pinky JJ on First Impressions: Trader Joe’s

Re: "Anon May 21, 2018 • 3:45 am 57 and 59 were bought by NY dolls. They probably sold the air rights to pay for the buildings. Originally they we’re going to knock those buildings down too" No one knows that they genuinely intended to knock those buildings down too. At the very least, the developer could not get the other tenants out from the other buildings without *saying* that they were going to knock down the NY Dolls' buildings. I understand the demolition clause to evict the commercial tenants in each of the buildings required the eviction of all the commercial tenants including NY Dolls. Given the restrictive zoning on adult uses in NYC, that existing location was probably worth more to NY Dolls than those 3 floors (the existing occupied FAR, excluding the air rights) were worth to the developer. One cannot confirm there were talks or even an understanding of some kind between the developer and NY Dolls' owner prior to the exercise of all those demolition clauses in all those buildings. — James on New Design for W. Broadway Condominium

This is so exciting! — Jo on First Impressions: Trader Joe’s

57 and 59 were bought by NY dolls. They probably sold the air rights to pay for the buildings. Originally they we’re going to knock those buildings down too — Anon on New Design for W. Broadway Condominium

That new bar in the old Haus location better not bring trouble and bad elements to the area like Haus. If it does, a bunch of us are prepared to shut it down. We will not be patient like we were with Haus. The gauntlet has been thrown down. — Petros on Seen & Heard: Taco Belle

Definitely a great addition. — Petros on First Impressions: Trader Joe’s

Update re potato: It still wasn’t open yesterday (Saturday). — Hudson River on Seen & Heard: The Pier 17 Concert Lineup

Well lots of residential in soho and we don’t have anything else apart from gourmet garage . So a 10 walk verses a 20 minute one to Whole Foods is good news ! — Lesley snell on First Impressions: Trader Joe’s

How does delivery work? — Mary on First Impressions: Trader Joe’s

Yasssssssss — Jason on First Impressions: Trader Joe’s

I'm in Northern Tribeca. This is the first time since I moved here in 1974 that there has been a sizable grocery store less then ten minutes away. Hallelujah! — Heide Fasnacht on First Impressions: Trader Joe’s

CitiBike! — Robert Ripps on First Impressions: Trader Joe’s

The Destruction of Lower Manhattan is a great book, a historical document of pre-Tribeca lower Manhattan, and a reminder of what NYC looked like in the mid century before lofts & urban living became chic. Copies of the original edition used to sell for hundreds of dollars (and likely still do), although it was reissued in 2005 with additional images, but that one too I believe has gone out of print. Luckily years ago I was able to score an original copy decommissioned from a library somewhere. Definitely worth getting one if you can find/afford one. — Robert Ripps on In the News: “The Destruction of Lower Manhattan”

I saw employees serve coffee at a corner stand while I was there at 10;30 AM today. — BC on First Impressions: Trader Joe’s

with the spring street subway stop routside their entrance many folks will happily make the trek or hit it up before hopping on train to head home — jenny on First Impressions: Trader Joe’s