StreetLevel: Baby Biz Out, Barber In on Fifth Ave.
The pace of retail turnover on Fifth Avenue shows no signs of slowing. However, at 143 Fifth off Douglass, the gentrification tide appears to be reversing: A good old-fashioned barber is going to replace the out-of-business perfume/body potion/candle shop. And right next door, the baby-toy and clothing store Romp is calling it quits after three…
The pace of retail turnover on Fifth Avenue shows no signs of slowing. However, at 143 Fifth off Douglass, the gentrification tide appears to be reversing: A good old-fashioned barber is going to replace the out-of-business perfume/body potion/candle shop. And right next door, the baby-toy and clothing store Romp is calling it quits after three years. (Romp fans will still be able to get their fix on the Web; the bricks-and-mortar location is shuttering because the store’s owner is moving away.) No word yet on what’s going to replace Romp. GMAP
Someone said:
“the only reason people berade others for their choice of strollers is jealousy. no one complains if someone decides to spend 50k on a bmw, volvo or audi…those aren’t condisered status conscious to most, but people are so insanely jealous of people who have 1000 bucks to drop on a stroller, that their only response is to denounce them.”
Ah yes, the old “you’re just jealous” response. Nobody is jealous here. Ever heard of differences in personal values? Why isn’t there room for even a conversation about it?
Some people don’t believe spending $1,000 on a stroller because it’s wasteful. Plain and simple. It has nothing to do with how much money anybody has. Old money never spends like new money, that’s for sure. The richest kid in our high school drove an old station wagon and the nouveau riche kids drove the BMW’s. My father had twice the money the BMW kids families had, and he bought me a beat up 70’s muscle car. I loved it. My friends thought it was cool. Because they were cool. I’d have hated to be one of the barbie doll girls (now grown into barbie doll mommies) who are terrified of what everyone thinks of them all the time. If that’s the way you want to live, that’s fine. Just don’t project it on me, thanks. I am not jealous of bugaboo strollers. If we wanted one we could easily afford it. I’d just rather put the money in a college savings account. Imagine that.
We are now at 151 posts and when you get past all the unsolicited insults directed at me (Crazy, drug addict/slut daughter, nazi etc….) and ill-informed critiques (ex. CHILD support – is not for the financial security of a SPOUSE and penalizing divorce IMHO should be for the benefit of the CHILD not to hold free-thinking adults together) – the fact remains you still cannot offer any basis to my original premise –
why would 2 (presumably) equal partners who are allegedly committed to each other need to LEGALLY/FINANCIALLY bond themselves to each other if they have no intention of having a family?
“it provides additional financial security to the spouse that chooses to sacrifice (any) portion of their career for child rearing”
unnecesary. this can be legally accomplished through child support rather than marriage.
“it can provide financial benefits for the child related to insurance and inheritance”
again marriage of the parents has nothing to do with insurance or inheritance.
“It imposes a penalty on ‘leaving’ the union thereby helping maintain the family unit.”
To what end? This is just as desirable to the childless married couples you accuse of being irrational.
It formally (and socially) bonds the paternal and maternal sides of the family and Societal expectations are such that failing to get married may leave a child feeling less secure and ‘different’ related to his/her peers.
Worst yet of your arguments given the failure rates of marriage that you yourself have cited. To the extent that such familial and societal expectations and support do exist and are beneficial, they would lend support to the marriages without children as well.
So 3:39 still cant answer the question!
But I’ll answer you – some reasons why I think it makes sense to form a legal/financial bond (i.e. Marriage) when having children is-
it provides additional financial security to the spouse that chooses to sacrifice (any) portion of their career for child rearing; it can provide financial benefits for the child related to insurance and inheritance. It imposes a penalty on ‘leaving’ the union thereby helping maintain the family unit. It formally (and socially) bonds the paternal and maternal sides of the family and Societal expectations are such that failing to get married may leave a child feeling less secure and ‘different’ related to his/her peers.
Those are my reasons – accept or reject them as you wish but again I must ask why do 2 (presumably) equal partners who are allegedly committed to each other need to LEGALLY/FINANCIALLY bond themselves to each other if they have no intention of having a family?
Crazy Male Husband Father Lady,
You keep writing that nobody is giving any good reason for being married if they don’t have kids. For the answer to that, I suggest you speak with your accountant, estate attorney, oh and maybe your wife’s lover/your daughters’ future stepdad.
Now, why don’t you explain why someone needs to be married if they do have kids. You seem to be arguing the kids make it necessary, but that is in no way true.
i like to make my bstoner comments from my ibook and iphone simultaneously.
– douglas elliman broker
1:15 – Wait so are you saying that all these stroller brand/anti-PS/anti-mom posts are actually the pointless hypocritical rantings of a bunch jealous people who are actually themselves consumed with all things material and status conscious???
You don’t say……I wonder if they are writing those posts on an iphone or ibook?
Don’t need this thread anymore. The new one about the bar on Vanderbilt has all the makings of a classic Brownstoner neighborhood war!
I’d say 7th grade is a more appropriate comparison, 1:17. Jr. high is the cruellest.