602pacifcstreet42011.JPG
Last night the proprietors of Midtown restaurant Social Eatz came before CB6 to apply for two liquor licenses at 604 Pacific Street, across the street from the forthcoming Barclays Center, and many at the meeting weren’t thrilled by the proposed establishment. What’s planned: A gastropub occupying 3,500 square feet that seats 150 people, with two bars, some live music and no outdoor space. Meanwhile, Italian and Middle Eastern restaurants are slated for a smaller section of the space. Neighbors voiced a great deal of concern about the proposal in a fashion that was reminiscent of the outcry surrounding plans for Prime Six. One speaker said, “You’re going to be opening a restaurant for the arena, and the neighborhood surrounding you doesn’t want this arena.” Other residents of Pacific Street said they didn’t want the street to return to the way it was 30 years ago. One resident stood up and read a selection of newspaper headlines that associated sports bars with violence. In the end, the community board’s consideration of the proposal was pushed back to next month. A community meeting with the restaurant owners will be set up in the interim. (The photo above shows 602 Pacific in the foreground, which the owners say will be used to house some of the business, though the bulk of the space for the bars and restaurants will be in the furniture store pictured to its left.) Atlantic Yards Report has a detailed post on the plans and the crowd’s reaction at last night’s meeting. GMAP


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

  1. quote:
    Not that you would care, but the big community garden on Pacific? The community hired a shade expert and he basically told them that the arena’s shadow will basically kill off all the flowers that require sun (which is all of them). Good-bye garden.

    omfg caring about a stupid garden versus 5000 plus new jobs!!!!?!??! jeeeeez. grow some hydroponics in your closet and call it day.

    *rob*

  2. I agree that the few “locals” who protest this will win. Isn’t CB approval purely advisory? Where’s Dan Goldstein on this topic? Funny how he declared upon taking Ratner’s money that he would not be silenced, but we’ve heard nary a word from him since.

  3. “Again and for the last time, that’s YOUR interpretation.”

    Actually, that is the interpretation that would be derived from what you said. I’m sure you know what you meant, but it’s not what your words implied.

  4. “I am not arguing over it.”

    You’re giving a pretty good impression. You may have not meant what you said, but what you SAID means “everyone.” I’m not fighting, just pointing out the facts.