Bucharest Grill forced out of downtown Detroit location

**warsaw7** · December-30-15, 03:45 PM

A sign of things to come?

http://www.freep.com/story/news/loca...move/78080288/

**Bham1982** · December-30-15, 04:05 PM

Headline is inaccuarate. Business was not forced out. The owner chose not to renew the lease.

**Shai_Hulud** · December-30-15, 05:02 PM

There must be someone with deeper pockets waiting.

**innercitydoc** · December-30-15, 05:10 PM

The new location at the old Lucky's will be more spacious and have more available parking. Still pretty close to downtown. Not a loss in my opinion.

**Khorasaurus** · December-30-15, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by innercitydoc

The new location at the old Lucky's will be more spacious and have more available parking. Still pretty close to downtown. Not a loss in my opinion.

Agree, definitely not a loss. The business is growing [[hiring 20 new people), staying in Detroit, and occupying a vacant space.

I also agree that the headline is misleading - it sounds like there was racism or something involved. Instead, it just sounds like they outgrew the space. Which isn't exactly shocking given that they have two other locations and aren't in the "selling stuff in the back of a bar" phase in their business anymore.

It would be nice if they could figure out a way to have a downtown location - maybe a food truck or something if rent is too high? But overall, this is a positive development for them and for the city.

**313WX** · December-30-15, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by Khorasaurus

I also agree that the headline is misleading - it sounds like there was racism or something involved. Instead, it just sounds like they outgrew the space.

Try re-reading the article. It was the landlord who chose not to renew their lease and evict them.

Thus, the title is accurate. I know the owners of the Bucharest Grill are going to hate losing the customers from the sports games and concerts. Many of them, who hop right on I-94, I-75 or the Lodge after leaving these events, are not going to go off the beaten path to Jefferson and Chene for a Shawarma.

**401don** · December-30-15, 07:14 PM

Downtown will truly be revived when closure of a fast food rest. like this or Bagger Dave's isn't a headline article on the papers' websites. I'm trying to imagine these stories on the front of the Chicago Tribune, Toronto Star, etc.

**Lowell** · December-30-15, 08:01 PM

Let's not forget Bucharest just opened their new location in the old Dave's Restaurant at Piquette and John R. They are the first new site it the heating up Milwaukee Junction district. It's getting reminiscent of 20's - Downtown is getting too hot and pricey and the move is on to New Center.

If the owner ran them off so much the worse for him. Bucharest was a big plus to the Park Bar, the main reason why I and many I knew went there vs. all the other bars around there.

And 401don it might qualify as fast food but it was healthy and tasty fast food.

**Zacha341** · December-30-15, 08:02 PM

The next good Shawarma is 14 and Woodward, Falafil King!! Just Joking!

Or hang 94 west to swing on over to E. Dearborn for the best of all that kind of food!

Originally Posted by 313WX

...customers from the sports games and concerts. Many of them, who hop right on I-94, I-75 or the Lodge after leaving these events, are not going to go off the beaten path to Jefferson and Chene for a Shawarma.

**Zacha341** · December-30-15, 08:04 PM

Great news! Congestion and lack of parking kept me from the downtown location!

Originally Posted by Lowell

Let's not forget Bucharest is either days away, or may already have opened, their new location in the old Dave's Restaurant at Piquette and John R. They are the first new site it the heating up Milwaukee Junction district.

**p69rrh51** · December-30-15, 08:34 PM

Closer to me! I am very happy.

**Gistok** · December-30-15, 08:50 PM

Before you continue the argument about force out or lease too expensive.... I could have sworn that the Freep article changed from this morning... and that was what changed....

**Honky Tonk** · December-30-15, 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by p69rrh51

Closer to me! I am very happy.

I totally agree. "LUCKY" for me!

**Honky Tonk** · December-30-15, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by Zacha341

The next good Shawarma is 14 and Woodward, Falafil King!! Just Joking!

Or hang 94 west to swing on over to E. Dearborn for the best of all that kind of food!

I wish Supergreenland would open a location near Bucharest. Bucharest, sounds like a Syrian mattress company.

**corktownyuppie** · December-31-15, 02:08 AM

Originally Posted by 313WX

Try re-reading the article. It was the landlord who chose not to renew their lease and evict them.

I haven't said much in a long time, but I had to nitpick a little on the use of "evict". A tenant is "evicted" when they fail to meet the terms of the lease...perhaps they are behind on rent, perhaps they aren't following the rules agreed to for use of the rented space, but whatever it is, there is a breach of contract on the part of the tenant. The eviction is the Landlord asking the courts to remedy contract breach by forcing the tenant to exit the premises.

Choosing not to renew a lease is a two-way street. A 5-year lease binds the landlord to the tenant as well as the tenant to the landlord.

After 5 years, all bets are off. The two parties can renew for another 5 years. Another 3 years. Another 1 year. The Tenant can demand that rent be cut in half. The Landlord can demand that rent be doubled. They either come to an agreement or not come to an agreement.

Being a tenant and hearing the news that the landlord will not renew is disappointing.
Being a landlord and hearing the news that the tenant will also not renew is disappointing.

Having been on both sides of it, it sucks either way.

I'm a fan of Bucharest. I'm sorry they are moving. But they were not evicted. They were not "forced out". Their lease was up, and the two parties could not reach an agreement to renew.

**Cincinnati_Kid** · December-31-15, 05:31 AM

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

I haven't said much in a long time, but I had to nitpick a little on the use of "evict". A tenant is "evicted" when they fail to meet the terms of the lease...perhaps they are behind on rent, perhaps they aren't following the rules agreed to for use of the rented space, but whatever it is, there is a breach of contract on the part of the tenant. The eviction is the Landlord asking the courts to remedy contract breach by forcing the tenant to exit the premises.

Choosing not to renew a lease is a two-way street. A 5-year lease binds the landlord to the tenant as well as the tenant to the landlord.

After 5 years, all bets are off. The two parties can renew for another 5 years. Another 3 years. Another 1 year. The Tenant can demand that rent be cut in half. The Landlord can demand that rent be doubled. They either come to an agreement or not come to an agreement.

Being a tenant and hearing the news that the landlord will not renew is disappointing.
Being a landlord and hearing the news that the tenant will also not renew is disappointing.

Having been on both sides of it, it sucks either way.

I'm a fan of Bucharest. I'm sorry they are moving. But they were not evicted. They were not "forced out". Their lease was up, and the two parties could not reach an agreement to renew.

Thanks for the clear and concise answer. Still not stopping me from going there either way, they serve great Shawarma's .

**belleislerunner** · December-31-15, 07:56 AM

I agree they may miss the summer crowds of Tiger fans - but over half the year there is no activity at Comerica Park. Having free parking on E. Jefferson will be a huge draw because you don't have to worry about parking ticket/meters and it will actually be faster to get to [[it's easy off 375/Jefferson). This will pick up volume from the East Side Jefferson traffic [[Grosse Pointers heading home from the Ren Cen, Indian Village) and all visitors to Belle Isle.

I would anticipate a steap drop in volume at Park Bar. I can't think of one good reason to go there anymore - you went there solely because Bucharest didn't have beer and you could do two with one. The same Dirty Blond on tap is at 50 other places downtown.

**markd** · December-31-15, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by 401don

Downtown will truly be revived when closure of a fast food rest. like this or Bagger Dave's isn't a headline article on the papers' websites. I'm trying to imagine these stories on the front of the Chicago Tribune, Toronto Star, etc.

Yes, REAL cities are too busy for headlines on restaurant closures, they focus on ......?

I'm trying to imagine if other cities have annoying people like you. You can't even back up your condescension with a 5 second Google search.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/dining...029-story.html

**Eber Brock Ward** · December-31-15, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

I haven't said much in a long time, but I had to nitpick a little on the use of "evict". A tenant is "evicted" when they fail to meet the terms of the lease...perhaps they are behind on rent, perhaps they aren't following the rules agreed to for use of the rented space, but whatever it is, there is a breach of contract on the part of the tenant. The eviction is the Landlord asking the courts to remedy contract breach by forcing the tenant to exit the premises.

Choosing not to renew a lease is a two-way street. A 5-year lease binds the landlord to the tenant as well as the tenant to the landlord.

After 5 years, all bets are off. The two parties can renew for another 5 years. Another 3 years. Another 1 year. The Tenant can demand that rent be cut in half. The Landlord can demand that rent be doubled. They either come to an agreement or not come to an agreement.

Being a tenant and hearing the news that the landlord will not renew is disappointing.
Being a landlord and hearing the news that the tenant will also not renew is disappointing.

Having been on both sides of it, it sucks either way.

I'm a fan of Bucharest. I'm sorry they are moving. But they were not evicted. They were not "forced out". Their lease was up, and the two parties could not reach an agreement to renew.

I've worked a lot with small businesses in Detroit and one of the biggest mistakes they make is working of off short term or month to month leases and expecting to stay beyond the term of the lease. And worse, they oftern say they were "evicted" or "kicked out" or something similar, rather than "aww crap, guess I should have had a longer lease."

In providing guidance to many businesses that have been around since before the recent growth and that are struggling to adapt to "New Detroit," I'm often frustrated at the guidance/training they need on remedial things like staying open during posted open/close hours, having an internet/Facebook page [[the latter is free!), and accepting credit/debit cards.

Far and away, though, the one I see that causes the most pain is when businesses feel they have some right to just sort of stick around their location after their lease ends.

**EastsideAl** · December-31-15, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

I wish Supergreenland would open a location near Bucharest. Bucharest, sounds like a Syrian mattress company.

Very funny. But I'm sure you're aware that Bucharest is actually the capitol and largest city of Romania, native country of owner Bogdan Tarasov.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucharest

**313WX** · December-31-15, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

I haven't said much in a long time, but I had to nitpick a little on the use of "evict". A tenant is "evicted" when they fail to meet the terms of the lease...perhaps they are behind on rent, perhaps they aren't following the rules agreed to for use of the rented space, but whatever it is, there is a breach of contract on the part of the tenant. The eviction is the Landlord asking the courts to remedy contract breach by forcing the tenant to exit the premises.

Choosing not to renew a lease is a two-way street. A 5-year lease binds the landlord to the tenant as well as the tenant to the landlord.

After 5 years, all bets are off. The two parties can renew for another 5 years. Another 3 years. Another 1 year. The Tenant can demand that rent be cut in half. The Landlord can demand that rent be doubled. They either come to an agreement or not come to an agreement.

Being a tenant and hearing the news that the landlord will not renew is disappointing.
Being a landlord and hearing the news that the tenant will also not renew is disappointing.

Having been on both sides of it, it sucks either way.

I'm a fan of Bucharest. I'm sorry they are moving. But they were not evicted. They were not "forced out". Their lease was up, and the two parties could not reach an agreement to renew.

Evict has several definition according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evict

I'm not sure how you define things in your circle, and maybe it's different, but one of the definitions for "Evict" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary is "to be forced out," which is exactly what happened per the Detroit Free Press article. Merriam-Webster doesn't mention anything about a tenant failing to pay rent.

What's amazing is how some people are trying their damndest to put lipstick on this pig. I'm just calling a spade a spade.

Yes, it's nice that the Bucharest grill was ultimately able to find another location. But it doesn't change the fact that they [[a loyal and faithful tenant who, for several years, probably kept their landlord's property in the black alone) were given a raw deal beyond their control by a landlord who obviously didn't have them in their vision as an ideal tenant. That's a problem, at least morally, and the landlord deserves to know about it and feel ashamed about it.

**SDCC** · December-31-15, 10:44 AM

http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/loca...66830284-story

**Gannon** · December-31-15, 11:16 AM

This is such bullshit.

I've been around Jerry, the owner of the Park Bar [[and the building that Cliff Bell's is in next door) for a long while. He is one of the most ethical, honest, and solid people that I know. There are few I'd go as far to help if they needed it, since I've seen him help others in extraordinary times.

Every business owner has to make choices. Perhaps he wants to have his own kitchen. Perhaps the crowds that don't drink when they eat finally got to him. Maybe the parking crisis broke it all.

Who really knows?

Every land owner goes for the gold when a lease is up, especially with a business which has grown exponentially.

Nobody knows if there was some sweetheart deal at first that Jerry just couldn't justify this time around. Demonizing him is actually evil to the extreme.

I've had about all I can stand over the bias and attendant chatter going around over this.

There are PLENTY of reasons to go to the Park Bar, the cheap shwarma was merely a nice bonus. Now, I won't have to battle folks to get a seat.

Can't wait to see what Jerry puts in that space now.

Bucharest ain't suffering...they will survive, with all of their other locations.

**Bobl** · December-31-15, 12:40 PM

Good news for me, and other Eastsiders.
Personally, any location away from downtown, or more recently, "Midtown", is fine with me. No pricey parking lot fees or state of the art parking meters to bother with.

**Honky Tonk** · December-31-15, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by EastsideAl

Very funny. But I'm sure you're aware that Bucharest is actually the capitol and largest city of Romania, native country of owner Bogdan Tarasov.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucharest

No I wasn't, Al. Thanx for the Geography lesson. I lived in a heavy Romanian neighborhood before I decided to move on up to the East side. The Romanian busha's used to send their kids over every now and then with homemade dishes, [[probably felt sorry for the old guy) but I can't say I ever had Romanian Shawarma, though. 3 blocks over was Arab Town, now they had good warma Shawama aplenty. I'm going to drive over to Riverside Furniture and see if they carry Bucharest.