Topless Bar Full of Landmark Dreams

The owner of the downtown topless bar Pussycat Lounge is attempting to get the building that houses his business landmarked in order to prevent the club's destruction by an expansion-minded hotelier. The latter is Sam Chang, who currently has 20 different hotel development projects under way in Brooklyn and Manhattan. An article in The Observer reports that Chang has three hotels in the works in the neighborhood surrounding the Pussycat Lounge––a 300-room hotel on Greenwich St. next door, a 350-room hotel behind the club on Washington St., and a 186-room hotel at Trinity Place. Chang already owns the building that houses the Pussycat Lounge, after purchasing it in 2005.

Robert Kremer owns and runs the Pussycat Lounge, which is a topless bar and performance space that's been open for 34 years. His application to the Landmarks Preservation Commission has less to do with his club, than the fact that his building was originally the Augustus Hicks Lawrence House and built for a NY financier in 1799. Sam Chang wants to eventually tear the building down and use the space as a driveway for the planned adjacent hotel.

The Observer article points out that Kremer has a fairly uphill battle to fight, as there is very little documentation linking him to ownership of the building at any time. Kremer claims this was done to avoid creditors following a failed real estate development plan of his own that went under in the 1980s. Huh? We recommend reading the full article for more of the insanity.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Dave Hogarty in News on August 2, 2007 12:10 PM

Comments [rss]

petercow

Somehow that place, as close to the WTC site as the proposed Islamic Center/mosque, was not considered an insult or sacrilege.

guest

pcat lounge is a horrid place. i've been there once to perform, not worth saving.

besides, theres a million and one dives in nyc, we can afford to lose one.

kadeedy

I'm all for saving as many buildings as possible. Landmarking can save the structure, maybe even get it revitalized and looking closer to how it did years ago...if the current owner decided to do so. But not a parking lot!

PLUS, even though I'm not all gung-ho over topless bars, I AM gung-ho about keeping some of the seedy in that squeeky clean part of town. C'mon people, we need that shit to keep this City interesting.

guest

A quick look up on the DOB site ought to show all the work done on the building. it's too late to be landmarked, too much jizz and criminals had passed through those doors and the jizz owner isn't even the building owner. the owner sold it.

get rid of that cum stain.

guest

#5 I generally agree with you.

However, did you see the photo of the building in one of the links? A new facade was put on and who knows what subsequent renovations were made. After all these alterations, it doesn't even remotely resemble the original building.

matty

any building in manhattan built in 1799 is worth saving, imo.

guest

this place is great, the drinks are cheap, the girls are hottt

TK

I am against landmarking too but it seems to be the only way to protect your property in this city.

zodak

i'm against landmarking everything in sight, but a driveway? that's just stupid.

Reality Czech

ah, what better use of land than for a driveway for the rich when they visit NYC! History means nothing in this city. I can only hope that the Landmarks board makes the right decision here. We have too many hotels as it is.