What type of building do you prefer?

[Slinky Bender]

Buildings come in all shapes, sizes, etc. so obviously so do incall locations. Personally, I never liked going to an incall house in a Doorman Building. They obviously know what's going on and it always made me just slightly uncomfortable. OTOH, there is some added security, so I guess that's a benefit.

The way I figure it, the less people in the building, the less neighbors there are to complian. To me, the ideal would be some second floor unit over a store in a two unit building ( anyone remember the AMP over the Donut Shop on 14th Street and 8th Avenue next to Nell's ? ).

 

[Ozzy]

who needs buildings?.......when there's drive thru's.

 

[fletch]

white castle has the taste some people won't live without

[Edited by fletch on 05-10-2001 at 11:36 PM]

 

[Ozzy]

but is there a WC near by?

 

[robnotbob]

I have had surreal experiences with some of the massage indies in NY Mag. It was very weird walking in asking for so and so and either doorman calling upstairs to let you in or me having to ASK if so and so was in.

I used to wonder how often they got asked that question.

 

[Slinky Bender]

rnb,
Also think about this: either they have to use their "real name" or they have to explain to the doormen why they have people asking for them under a different name. Both of those have potential consequences.

I can see it now: You walk in and ask the doorman "Is Asian Baywatch Babe in ?".

I remember having a discussion with a buddy who had just come from a session where, riding up in the elevator, he had to hear two people behind him say "the girls must be busy tonite".

 

[robnotbob]

I think in a couple of cases I was told to ask for a room number and then the doorman would ask me "Your name?"

 

[frog]

I remember going to a long gone incall place at Sixth Avenue and 41st. Such an incredibly busy block!! Same with PIT at 86th and Jane's on 16th. I guess the traffic helps disguises the *traffic*.

 

[jmcurry]

I am not so much concerned about the building, as I am about the neighborhood and the site lines leading to the front door. For instance, I always worried about visiting Jane's Place, when it was located on 17th Street off 5th. I had the suspicion that it was staked out, and always watched carefully before entering. This has even happend at JB's new digs. You can never be too careful. What seems to work best is a large, non-doorman building, where you hit the buzzer and enter. It is much more difficult to be detected in that scenario, because you could be headed anywhere in the vast confines of the building. On the other hand, there are private places that do not advertise, where a brownstone entrance is perfectly safe, because they always know their clients and run little risk of being compromised.

 

[Slinky Bender]

jmc,
I have to disagree on the large building. Lately, it seems the largest source of busts has come from complaints of neighbors. It's just too likely ( in my book ) that before too long you will get such complaints in a large building. Of course, this argument is certainly contradicted by certain buildings in the "lower East 50's" where there is "activity" in several studio apartments run by one "group". However, in general, I would opt for a path from the front door of the building to the front door of the establishemnt with the least likelihood of running inot anyone who didn't have anything to do with the establishment. In larger buildings ( doorman or not ), I just think there is too high a chance of interaction with other building residents, which will almost always ultimately lead to problems.

I don't think there is much argument that "no one" wants to live in a building where this is going on. Therefore, the surest way to cut down on problems is to cut down on the number of people who share the building. Of course, my entire opinion is from the point of view that you care that the place stays open and that you don't get caught in there if/when they get busted. I agree that there are diminshed risks of having someone "finger you" simply by you entering the building. Obviously, in my "most preferrred scenario" of being the only tenant to use an entrance, you personally are at the highest risk of someone figuring out what you are doing if they know what's going on inside and if they see you enter. I guess my preferrence is to take the risk of being caught under a scenario where I can look around and see "what's up", but where I have a higher degree of confidence that the opperation is less likely to get busted.

PS Oh, and welcome to the board and thanks for sharing your views !!!!

[Edited by slinkybender on 01-05-2001 at 06:00 PM]

 

[jmcurry]

I completely understand the problem of neighbors in a large building. Nonetheless, when Jane's was on 71st off Broadway, in a small brownstone, it was most easy to be watched. I often felt uncomfortable walking in the door, because I suspected someone was watching. Moreover, I feared that they would follow soon after, knowing that they might catch someone. All in all, I guess each venue has its positives and negatives. The best, of course, is an entirely owned brownstone, which recalls the old leisure spas of the 1970s, such as Spartacus. I often wish those days would return.

Thanks for welcoming me to the board. I intend to return frequently.

 

[Slinky Bender]

I think we agree. In the 80's there were a bunch of Asian Spas in Queens which were large enough to take up the whole building, and I never fealt uncomfortable going in. At one time, there was also an Asian Spa on Third Ave over what is now Kheils ( 13th Street ), which occupied the whole top 3 floors. The Avenue was busy, so you didn't feel that the whole world was focussed on you as you approached. inside, they had plenty of room ( and rooms ). I miss that place.

With Jane's, I think if it were a similar building, but on a busier street, some of the problems would have been aleviated.

[Edited by slinkybender on 01-05-2001 at 06:56 PM]