Tuesday, February 07, 2006

2006 list of New York bars that legally allow smoking

There has been some debate as of late about what bars one can smoke in legally via the "seats less than" argument. Well, here's the official count from Newyorkology.com

2006 list of New York bars that legally allow smoking

Despite what you may read elsewhere, according to the health department, there are still only eight bars or restaurants in New York City that can legally allow smoking.

The new hookah bars that are opening up? "Based on definitions stated in the law, hookah cafés are not tobacco bars and do not qualify for exception," a spokesperson for the health department told NewYorkology.
Consulates and military sites are not under city jurisdiction, so they could allow smoking if they wanted. The United Nations could, but it doesn't, as the U.N. banned smoking a couple years ago as well.

Smoking was banned in New York City bars and restaurants as of March 30, 2003.

The eight bars -- unchanged from the last time NewYorkology checked with the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene a year ago -- are all in Manhattan. One is a private invite-only club, at least one has a dress code and some charge a fee if you don't buy your tobacco there.

Club Macanudo - mahogany and leather furniture, serves dinner, and drinks cover the full martini spectrum. Dress code, for men: "business casual – jeans and sneakers are strictly prohibited;" for women: "chic casual – sneakers are strictly prohibited. Jeans are discouraged."
26 East 63rd Street, map

Karma Restaurant & Bar - Indian cuisine and two floors of music. "Happy Hour from 10am-8pm."
51 1st Ave., map

The Carnegie Club - (formerly Carnegie Bar & Books) located at the City Spire Centre behind Carnegie Hall features an 11-piece orchestra in a Gothic room with a 25-foot ceiling, filled with 18th century hand-carved bookcases and cozy couches.
156 West 56th St., map

Lexington Bar and Books - classic cocktails, light fare, low light and suits. "New York's first dedicated cigar bars, est. 1990"
1020 Lexington Ave., map

Hudson Bar and Books - sister club to Lexington Bar and Books, same concept
636 Hudson St., map

Circa Tabac - Art Deco-inspired decor, serves food and cocktails with names like "Femme Dangereuse"
32 Watts St., map

Kush - Moroccan-themed downtown bar with DJs, allows hookah smoking only, no cigars or cigarettes
191 Chrystie St., map

Grand Havana Room - 17,000 square foot club with a dining room, lounge and floor-to-ceiling windows looking out on Midtown from the 39th floor. "Membership to the club is by invitation only and is limited."
666 Fifth Ave., 39th Floor, map

Update: Gothamist has built a map to the eight bars.

Update II: In response to a reader tip, the entry on Kush has been updated to state that Kush only permits hookah smoking, but not cigars or cigarettes. "We're allowed to allow it, we just don't," Kush manager Manu Nathan told NewYorkology when asked about the cigars and cigarettes.

Earlier: The eight bars that legally allow smoking in NYC



At 2/08/2006 1:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sure beats doing any work yourself, huh, jackass?

At 2/08/2006 5:00 PM, Blogger RabbitGirl said...

^^ What a schmuck.
In case anyone was wondering, this is the person who is so offended, she clearly has lost her reading comprehension: http://amylangfield.com/2006/02/so-plagiarism-is-funny-cool.html
What an idiot.

And good point, Jason, about the "anonymous" bit.

At 2/09/2006 9:58 AM, Blogger Amy said...

It is OK to republish material in part, not its entirety, with attribution. Please correct what you’ve done here.

If you are indeed just looking to save material you find useful, I suggest you try del.icio.us so that you’re not actually republishing the source material in full.

And I assure you it wasn’t me who left the anonymous comment.

At 2/09/2006 10:32 AM, Blogger Brian said...


with all due respect since I do read your blog on a very regular basis. There is and has been no malice in my part of taking these articles in full text.

If you have issue with this, you have issue with it. I assume then you'll be taking it up with Google.com, Yahoo, Internet Archive, and other sites that aggregate whole pages of other people's websites. They too are publishing your site in it's entirety without your express consent.

I didn't consent them to republish my personal family website, but they do. In order for me to "opt out" it REQUIRES me to modify my website and learn coding to do so, so your average person NEEDS to know this information to "opt-out" versus an "opt in" system where I volunteer which Yahoo.com used to be in it's inception.

I don't like to use del.icio.us since it is just a bookmark and not a way to keep this information like any newsclipping that I do for any of the various newspapers and magazines that I read, clip articles and snail mail friends around the world. Why codify it into an only feature when I have Favorites right at the top of my web browser just so that I can access it from any computer I'm logged into???

If you remove the page or modify it for accuracy or inaccuracy, del.icio.us does not keep that original in any way or form. So if you decide to one day take down your wonderful resource I would be left with a bunch of dead links, just like I did in previous incarnations of information that I've had from gopherspace, BBS, and other electronic resources that have evaporated into the cyberspace ether.

I will abide by the site owners desires and request, but that will not stop me from using other sites including my own from continuing to aggregate my own personal archive of things that interest me and my friends in it's entirety. If it's fair for a multibillion dollar corporation to do it AND collect $$$ from it, then I'm willing to go the distance to say that it's fair for a person to do so that is not collecting a single penny.

At 2/12/2006 6:46 PM, Blogger pimpdaddygangsta111 said...

Why don't u right ur own stories hater

At 2/13/2006 10:23 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


My name is Paul Johnson and I run a http://www.aluxurytravelblog.com

Whilst I can understand your frustration at having an entire article published, it does at least appear to have been acknowledged that you are the source. In an ideal world, and in hindsight, perhaps full permission should have been sought at the onset.

I do feel compelled, however, to point out that there are some double standards here. You copied and pasted half of the content from a page on my blog ( http://www.aluxurytravelblog.com/want-to-be-featured/ ) to a February 08, 2006 entry on your blog at amylangfield.com. You did mention A Luxury Travel Blog in so doing, but you neither provided a link nor sought my permission and, I'm at present, puzzled as to what point you are trying to make anyway.



Post a Comment

<< Home