Gothamist: Nat Sherman Gets Kicked Out!

Ron

Wed, 20 Sep 2006 14:57:18 -0500

It's a "New York institution" that's already relocated more than once in its history. The fact that they might move less than half a block down the street isn't exactly choking me up. The loss of the humidor lounge on the second floor, on the other hand, now that's a damn tragedy.

Lily

Tue, 19 Sep 2006 12:56:54 -0500

It IS sad. I work across the street from that building, and I've always called it 'the Nat Sherman's building' because it's got no name. I don't know what the article's talking about when it says it can hardly imagine it even being in the neighborhood. It's been here for awhile and they're great neighbors. The new building management has actually been very discouraging in its treatment to old tenants in an effort to get more expensive tenants to move in.

irony lost

Tue, 19 Sep 2006 12:35:39 -0500

oh the irony... is always lost on this crowd...

proofreader 'r dumb

Tue, 19 Sep 2006 12:19:00 -0500

Hey, proofreading 'r us: Ever heard of capital letters? I suspect Random House uses them. Maybe you should figure them out before you offer your services.

by the way

Tue, 19 Sep 2006 11:32:39 -0500

Nat Sherman has been in NYC since the 1930s. Read: it's New York institution. Read its history. It's fine to have a different opinion, but an informed opinion is probably a better way to go. Sorry for the personal attack, but NY'ers get on my nerves sometimes. My apologies.

NY'er

Tue, 19 Sep 2006 11:24:33 -0500

I was simply implying that it seems silly to me to morn the loss of a 16 year old retail establishment. Even silly to imply that it is some sort of NY institution, it is a store for crissakes. There is certainly no reason for personal attacks, simply because I have a different opinion....someone needs to get out in the real world every once and a while instead of trolling on blogs.

by the way

Tue, 19 Sep 2006 11:11:34 -0500

NY'er... have you considered neutering?

NY'er

Tue, 19 Sep 2006 10:39:19 -0500

"by the way"....have you considered decaf?

by the way

Tue, 19 Sep 2006 10:11:52 -0500

Hey NY'er... you totally miss my point. It's ok... cause you're from NY. It doesn't matter if the store has been there since the 1990s. It' a great spot for a NY institution... but I guess that doesn't really matter to you, eh, NY'er?

NY'er

Tue, 19 Sep 2006 09:46:21 -0500

No reason to get all sentimental about "pieces of NY" dissappearing, Nat Sherman's has only been there since the early 90's.

by the way...

Mon, 18 Sep 2006 23:24:19 -0500

that's horrible about Nat Sherman. I hate when little pieces of NY disappear. Sad.

proofreading 'r us

Mon, 18 Sep 2006 23:15:26 -0500

let me know if you ever need stuff proofed. i do it freelance for random house.

bklynd

Mon, 18 Sep 2006 20:21:03 -0500

Well, yeah, it is kind of mysterious why Jen can't send each article to some other person (Jake?) who reads it, edits it, then posts it. That's how I would set it up.

a concerned reader

Mon, 18 Sep 2006 19:34:53 -0500

lol @ the above commenter's name - I agree, some actual double checking of the story for spelling and grammar before it's posted would work really well for this site.

please copy edit!

Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:48:54 -0500

"The owners of 500 Fifth Avenue is 'forcing out?'" They is, is they? "Anyway, we almost can't imagine Nat Sherman at that corner?" You don't have to imagine it. They're still there. Sigh. At least this time I get the gist of the story.

Jen

Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:28:31 -0500

Yeah, that's a good deal at 500 Fifth Avenue, then.

MrWynn

Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:17:10 -0500

"Luxury" retail rents in the 50's on 5th are more in the $1000 psf range.