D-Day for Little Britain
By
The proposal to rename a part of Greenwich Village “Little Britain” goes before Community Board 2 tonight. I’ve said before that I hope the idea is rejected. And I still stand by that opinion. If the area was truly British, then maybe. But it’s not.
The marketing company behind the Campaign for Little Britain claims it “was conceived to help a small, quirky, local business survive the onslaught of homogeneous global brands who are causing three to four fold increases in rent in the area, that inevitably only they can afford.”
Isn’t it a little ironic then, that the main sponsor of the campaign is none other than Virgin Atlantic, a homogeneous global brand that recently pissed off a swathe of New Yorkers with a tacky citywide advertising campaign that pretended the company knew and cared about the nuances of New York’s various neighborhoods? As one Lower East Side resident told the New York Times ”Wow, that makes me feel dirty — what a way to whore out my neighborhood.”
The sentiment could just as easily be applied to the Campaign for Little Britain, which whores out a few square blocks of Greenwich Village for the sake of a faux British tea room.
15 Comments
July 10th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Oh please no!
Send them all home
July 10th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Surely there has to be some other way from preventing the Village from becoming dominated by chain stores.
Little Italy is an artificial place and a complete tourist trap, and not an authentic ethnic neighborhood by any means, but the tourists love it.
I can see Little Britain becoming a big hit in the same way…but enough of the city has been Disneyfied for tourists, and we don’t need more fake places in a city which is rapidly losing the places which really are unique and interesting.
July 10th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
get over yourself mate.
You know that Virgin marketing campaign was not done by their usual (very good) agency (so did not properly represent them) but why let that get in the way of a tenuously made point eh?
As for the faux British tea room comment, where else have you been in NY where you can get a proper yorkshire pudding? An irish pub? Tastes like a burnt scone.
Granted you can’t beat good old northen fish and chips fried in dripping but a salt n battery at least beats london chippys with their fake versions.
July 10th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Skim Jim, do you have a point?
Is CB2 supposed to rename Greenwich Village just because a cafe makes a mean Yorkshire pudding?
July 11th, 2007 at 12:13 am
My point is that you have not made a strong case for your argument.
I don’t give a toss whether a tiny section of GV – not the whole GV as you imply in your comment – gets renamed or not. I just think you are reaching.
July 11th, 2007 at 12:23 am
I have already written a fuller argument here:
http://pdberger.com/show-us-your-brits/
July 11th, 2007 at 1:21 am
“You know that Virgin marketing campaign was not done by their usual (very good) agency (so did not properly represent them) but why let that get in the way of a tenuously made point eh?”
err, slim jim care to explain that? sounds very conspiracy theorist. whats the dilly-o on that?
July 11th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Re: NYT and neighborhoods
Not a little ironic that the NYT wrote an article in November 1902 that called the neighborhood in question the “British Quarter” A copy is at the campaign web site if you’re interested, also at NYT archives online.
Re: Virgin.
In every market they compete in they are the underdog and have built a company that is the anti-thesis of a cookie cutter corporation, wether its music, airlines, wine, cell phones, wedding dresses [?] or whatever, hardly homogeneous… They recognized the underdog in our case and came on board to help. Do we really need another Starbucks or Ralph Lauren? Frankly it’s no different in principle from how all lobbying campaigns are funded with the important exception that you actually know who is supporting it. And, before you ask, we raised a lot less than Obama!
As of today 6,012 people have voted for Little Britain in the Big Apple, 57% of them are NY residents.
Ultimately it is about preserving things as they are, it feels to us like you are criticizing a small business for punching above its weight, all we are asking for is two words on one sign post.
Cheers!
CFLB
July 11th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Hold on a minute, who you calling a whore, Berger? As a journalist you spend your life writing the stuff that goes on the back of newspaper ads or on web sites supported by crap banners. Don’t kid yourself, you’re in no position to criticise.
July 12th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Lordy, the handbags have certainly been drawn haven’t they? Paul I have a feeling if u visit a certain NY tearoom you may only receive one of the goods on offer, and if memory serves u were never that keen on Tea.
July 13th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
CFLB, surely Ralph Lauren has every right to open stores in New York, considering he was born in the Bronx.
Let’s face it, this isn’t about preserving the West Village. It’s about getting more bums on seats at Tea & Sympathy. Which is fine. I just don’t see why you have to start renaming sections of New York in order to do it.
I heard the co-owner of Tea & Sympathy being interviewed on BBC Radio 4 when this campaign launched. She didn’t say one word about preserving the character of the neighborhood. But she did say that she wanted to rename the street because tourists often confuse the address and go to Greenwich Street instead of Greenwich Avenue, which is many blocks away downtown.
I don’t wish Tea & Sympathy any ill. I just don’t see why a street–or a few square blocks of a neighborhood–should be renamed because of one business.
I also don’t appreciate the fact that over the past few months multiple people have posted comments in support of the campaign on this blog from the same IP addresses. Most recently we have “Susie” who has exactly the same IP address as…you.
I’m all for giving you the right of reply. But if you and your colleagues continue to abuse this site, you may become only the second person ever to be banned.
Handbags have been drawn…
July 17th, 2007 at 11:47 am
- sure anyone has a right to open a store, the point is do we need another street of chain stores
- we have one pc in the office and nearly 40 employees all of whom are allowed to use it and many of whom have been posting for the campaign, sorry if that constitutes “abuse”.
- sure, there are many reasons why we started this campaign, the greenwich ave/greenwich st reason was actually originally suggested about 2 years ago by our nypd friends at the 6th precinct, as a good reason for little britain, if memory serves it was mike singer the community liason officer at the time.
- fair enough you might not see the reason for the co-name, but, leroy st is literally co-named after one business, while we are not even asking for that much, and, what we are proposing is no different from how little brazil or koreatown came about…e.g. “The Koreatown area of Manhattan is primarily a Korean business district, as few people actually live in the area.” and “Initiated by a bookstore and a handful of restaurants, Koreatown sprang into being. With their success, more and more Korean-owned businesses took root in the neighborhood”…[source: wikipedia]
cheers
cflb
cheers
cflb
July 17th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
You know what, Paul, I say good luck to them – anyone who can get away with charging $10 for cheese on toast is doing something right. This used to bother me, because I didn’t come to New York to eat Yorkshire Puds, but it’s pretty easy to avoid that block, I’ve found. Creating a faux tradition founded on commercial motives is itself a tradition that goes back hundreds of years (see: Catholics eating fish on Fridays).
July 18th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
I don’t see what the big deal is. It seems like a cool idea. It would probably bring some tourism to the area as well. Plus Tea and Sympathy is awesome. I don’t work there either. I just happen to like the place, and love to buy tea there. I think small businesses need support.
November 22nd, 2007 at 2:04 am
Um, first off, you don’t fight for freedom and land only to later give bits or pieces back for dedication! The first thing that I thought about while reading about this campaign was how declaring anything English, would be going against the American Revolution.
I know this may sound overly dramatic, but still, it’s apart of early American/English history, as Italians, Irish, Chinese, and others where apart of the New York immigration process. If ex-pat’s declared a spot in London “America II” or “Little America”, the British would have to say “didn’t you guy’s originally leave!” Our historical history together (speaking only about the A.R.) just don’t work to name things after one another. We didn’t fight a freedom war against Italy or China. So in the historical sense, come on, you have to admit that would be odd and wrong at the same time.
RE: “Little Italy” as a tourist trap. That wasn’t the original plan when labeled. These people had a similar thought but with less money. So thankfully NYC vito’d that thought. If your British with Irish blood, maybe claiming a “Little Ireland” would historically work more in your favor.
P.S. I don’t hate the English, did time there, have a longtime friend there, love the Cornish pasties, and the whole brown sauce bit. Just pointing out what others have overlooked. History, history, history folks!