Thursday, February 12, 2015

PARVA SPACE FOR LEASE; RESTAURANT STILL OPEN

Parva Cocina & Tequila Bar's building is up for lease by the Papadopoulos Group. The 4278 SF, two-level space at 7904 Woodmont Avenue is available as one building, or as two separate floors. Parva is still operating, and my understanding is that they have a lease that runs until 2016. So it seems somewhat premature to be listing the space. On the other hand, it suggests it is less likely that the lease will be renewed next year, in any case.

That would be a shame, as downtown Bethesda can ill-afford to lose yet another nightspot. Already, we've lost BlackFinn, Relic, Ri-Ra and Roof, after the County's failed "Nighttime Economy" initiative bombed. And Parva is one spot that has put life into nightlife. It is also a rare hub of diversity, bringing Latin sounds and events to Bethesda after hours. I know some nearby residents have complained of noise or nighttime disturbances, but one would hope that these issues could be worked out. After all, the next tenant could be noisier, and the next business owners might not be as attentive to the property as Parva's have been. 

Photo via Papadopoulos Group

30 comments:

Anonymous said...

It sounds like from the police reports and complaints not many will miss this place. Such a cursed spot. What was Parva before they rebranded it? And Rarely Legal before that? And South Beach before that?

Hopefully someone can stick here. Maybe after the big JBG apartment building across the street activates the area a bit more.

Btw all those other places failed before the nightime economy so it's kinda silly to blame this failure specifically on that....

Anonymous said...

Hey Dyer, why don't you - for once - explain what the "Nighttime Economy" initiative actually did to hurt nightlife? Which of the changes we've seen in liquor laws are you against?

Every single change gave more leeway to restaurant/bar owners, e.g. longer hours allowed, reduced and removed restrictions on food/alcohol ratios, beer festivals are now legal, serving alcohol at salons is now legal, MD breweries no longer need full restaurant licenses (directly gave rise to Denizens Brewing Co.), etc. etc. etc.

There isn't a single law passed that's more restrictive in any way. Every single law passed was clamored for by the restaurant/bar industry. So please, Dyer, from your perspective of knowing nothing and not even being marginally involved in the industry - what did the "Nighttime Economy" initiative do to hurt businesses?

Anonymous said...

I agree. It would be helpful to understand your comments better if you explained this a bit further.

Additionally, none of the changes are more restrictive, meaning any business has the same baseline as before. So any failures would apply under the same rules as well since nothing changed negatively and if they didn't take advantage of the new rules then the status quo was maintained.

Anonymous said...

Gonna jump on the bandwagon, Robert.

THe "Nighttime Economy" task force may have been a farce, but claiming it has made things worse? You need to back that up.

Anonymous said...

9:12 PM - The Parva has actually been one of the longer-lived businesses at that site. Since the Negril closed way back in 1996, it's been a steady parade of restaurants or clubs that have lasted typically two years or less.

Anonymous said...

One more recent failed business there - Angeethi Indian Restaurant.

Robert Dyer said...

I said the Nighttime Economy initiative was a failure, "fizzled," "bombed." I didn't say it placed new strictures. It was given great fanfare, but utterly failed to stimulate the nighttime economy. At the same time, its proponents sustained and expanded other taxes and regulations that indeed hurt businesses in the county, including the many nightspots that closed.

Anonymous said...

LOL, keep shifting those goalposts.

Robert Dyer said...

"LOL" You're the one shifting, not me.

Anonymous said...

Dyer, you clearly keep saying the "Nighttime Economy" initiative is to be blamed for recent closings. Yes, I agree with you that your claim makes no sense, but you realize we can all plainly see that is in fact what you've said a dozen+ times, yes?

Anonymous said...

Sure, I get that, but read your statement here and repeated as nauseum in other posts:

"Already, we've lost BlackFinn, Relic, Ri-Ra and Roof, after the County's failed "Nighttime Economy" initiative bombed."

You are either explicitly blaming these restaurant failures on the "bombed" nighttime economy task force recommendations or you are phrasing it in a way that is misleading and not accurate.

Robert Dyer said...

4:30: Yes, it is to be blamed for its failure to stimulate the nighttime economy. The closures prove that beyond dispute.

Anonymous said...

How about adjust your statement. The nighttime economy taskforce's recommendations did not help any existing or new business

Anonymous said...

I agree with Anon 7:05. Sure, that statement would still be blatantly false, but at least it's clearly an opinion as opposed to Dyer continuously and nonsensically saying the Nighttime Economy initiative caused closings, as if it has some sort of factual basis.

Anonymous said...

Ever since governor Hogan was elected a couple bars in Bethesda have closed. I see clear causation between the two events.

Robert Dyer said...

4:19: Just one problem - Hogan never operated a Nighttime Economy Task Force, never put that on his resume as an accomplishment, and never went on a PR blitz to claim he was the hip savior of nightlife in Montgomery County. Hans Riemer did. That's why he has to take the blame when it failed.

Robert Dyer said...

Guys, trying to ignore the facts is just making people think you're dense. A) They said MoCo wasn't hip and the nighttime economy was weak. B) They formed the Nighttime Economy Task Force, which they claimed would stimulate the nighttime economy, and make us hip. C) The task force failed to stimulate the nighttime economy. D) With the NE initiative leaving the poor nighttime economy in place, several nightspots ultimately closed their doors. E) Return to Point "A" and repeat until the reality sinks in that, yes, Hans Riemer was to blame.

Anonymous said...

A and B are true.
C is true too, but it's early and many of the suggestions take time or are opt-in (such as later opening times)
D is true. But these places closed regardless of the NE initiative. That's the part you don't get. The imitative was designed to help. Even if it didn't help, it doesn't mean the place closed because of it.
E is hardly a logic loop. I am a programmer and your logic flow is flawed in this direct connection. The businesses closed in spite of the NE initiative. Not because of it. That would be proper logic flow and conditioning. Your statement is just flawed.

Anonymous said...

If a savior fails to save offers a hand and the victim doesn't take it, is it the savior's fault?

And certainly Riemer is no savior.

I think the nighttime economy taskforce's goal was to TRY to suggest ideas to help stimulate the nightime economy.

Robert Dyer said...

6:09: My point is that, had the effort succeeded in improving conditions for businesses in the nightlife segment, they might not have gone out of business. Therefore, the failure did play a role in their closure. I probably would have been more effective to address the broader anti-business climate, which would have made the failure of the nighttime economy initiative a moot point. So many laws passed by the Council and state just since 2010 have made it more costly for the independent restaurant or bar owner to operate.

Anonymous said...

"So many laws passed by the Council and state just since 2010 have made it more costly for the independent restaurant or bar owner to operate."

Such as?

Anonymous said...

9:33: I'm not a restaurant owner, but I can think of a few: bag tax (applies to restaurants also -- lots of admin paperwork for so little $$ collected); styrofoam container ban; "block the box" (can't ask if applicants are ex-convicts.. nice liability there).

Anonymous said...

1) There is no tax if paper bags are used.

2) OMG! No styrofoam! Whatever will we do?

3) Trusting an ex-con to tell the truth on a yes-no question regarding his/her criminal record is dumb. Not doing a more thorough background check on prospective employees is dumber.

Robert Dyer said...

9:33: Do you live in Montgomery County, Maryland, and are the expert on current affairs you're claiming to be, and yet you're not aware of taxes, regulations and laws imposed since 2010? If so, what are grounds for questioning my report?

Anonymous said...

In other words, "I'm right until you can prove me wrong!"

"And even then, I'm still right!"

Anonymous said...

I don't think he was questioning your reporting moreso asking what the specific things are that you generalized so that we can understand your point.

Anonymous said...

@1:15 Do you not live in MoCo. Go to Giant and tell the cashier you want paper bags. You'll be charge 5 cents just like for plastic bags.

The reason? When MoCo was planning the bag tax, the original idea was to put it only plastic bags, since paper bags are easily recyclable and this was supposedly about keeping plastic bags out of our waterways (apparently we are in the habit of tossing plastic bags here). However, retailers didn't like this since then customers would just ask for paper bags to avoid the tax, and paper bags cost retailers more per unit than plastic bags. So MoCo placed the tax on all bags, even paper bags, which have a relatively low impact on the environment.

Anonymous said...

Giant /= "restaurant".

Anonymous said...

I like the general idea, but the implementation was weird. Like the styrofoam ban. People do want the effects but the way they went about it is weird. A tax and a ban. Not popular words and actions. I think some marketing and verbiage adjustment might help if anything. Call it a discount instead for not using or something.

By the way, is there validity in saying paper bags have a relatively low impact on the environment? Curious about this (not argumentative, just wondering if it is true).

Anonymous said...

"Is there validity in saying paper bags have a relatively low impact on the environment? Curious about this (not argumentative, just wondering if it is true)."

Paper is biodegradable. Plastic is not. And paper is much easier to recycle.

"People do want the effects but the way they went about it is weird. A tax and a ban. Not popular words and actions."

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

"Call it a discount instead for not using or something."

I don't understand your point. Avoiding the bag tax by not using bags means more money in your pocket. Most people can understand this basic arithmetic.