22 June 2009

Armando's to Open in August; Sign's Fate Still in Limbo

The last report about Armando's—the "We're closing for good," but "We've had second thoughts, so we're reopening," landmark Brooklyn Heights eatery—was that it would be reopening in three months time. That was in the Daily News in March. So, it's three months. Where is it?

Not open. So I checked in. Activity is brisk on Montague Street. Construction is nascent, but very much going on. The owner, Peter Byros, was on premises, wearing a mouth mask. Armando's will reopen in early August, he told me. What about the iconic sign? Is it coming back, or is the Landmarks Commission continuing to give him unwarranted grief about hanging it back up. "We're working on it," is all he would say.


exvelveteen said...

Brooks. Again, the sign doesn't meet current zoning rules. If they can get an exception from DOB, then it would be up to the LPC.

Attacking the LPC when they make (not possibly might make, in this case) a bad decision would be warranted.

Continuing to attack the LPC about an issue on which you have your facts wrong, getting a comment to set you straight, then ignoring such comments to continue snide, if not quite vituperous, comments against the LPC, is unwarranted.

Brooks of Sheffield said...

Exvelveteen, sweetheart, the sign was up there for 70 years, long before LPC zoning rules. It was down for only a year. It should be grandfathered in. It's a no brainer Anyone can see that.

Mr. Excitement said...


I've read your previous posting and comments on this, and your willful ignorance and stubbornness on this issue remind me of my three-year-old nephew when he's gone without his afternoon nap.

You can say "it should be grandfathered in" all you like. But that's not the way the law works. LPC is *required* to review this, and their Commissioners may or may not rule in favor of the sign's re-installation based on the evidence presented at a public hearing. This is not a matter of LPC picking on somebody for no good reason. This is the way they're required, by law, to handle this. Sorry you don't like that, but them's the breaks.

I've got a great idea: LPC can follow the law 99% of the time, except when Brooks of Sheffield wants something his way and starts insanely bitching on his blog about it. Then they should automatically do whatever you like.

If you're going to write about these issues, get a clue. If you can't, then write about something else. Exvelveteen knows what he's talking about here, and you don't. Case closed.

P.S.: Don't call people you don't know "Sweetheart." It's insulting.

Brooks of Sheffield said...

Mr. Excitement: You just called me ignorant, stubborn and clueless. And you're upset about my "Sweetheart" remark?

I know what you and exvelveteen are saying. You win on the technicals. But you're both missing the forest for the trees. That's how the war is being lost, with people like you guys siding with the wrong side, out of reasonableness. The time for being reasonable is over. It's time to fight and yell.

Mr. Excitement said...


Thanks--so we win on technicalities.

You know what the law consists of?


The fact that you paint a government agency operating to the letter of its very successful landmarks law--maybe the most successful landmarks law in the country--as "the wrong side" says much more about you than it does me.

I'd like to see the old neon sign come back, too, but honestly, I think your anarchist's approach would be better suited to an issue that was just a wee bit more important than Armando's neon lobster.

Have a pleasant evening.