A new midtown shop is putting pizza on a flattened bagel—and we're into it
Step aside, pizza bagels. There's a new carb hybrid in town, and it's taking things to the next schmear.
Bagizza, opening May 15 on the corner of Madison Avenue and East 49th Strett, is billing itself as NYC's first-ever "pizza flagel" shop. That's right: pizza on a flattened, hand-rolled bagel, made from cold-fermented dough and finished in a wood-fired stone oven. Call it a culinary identity crisis, but with garlic béchamel and bacon kimchi jam involved, we're not mad about it.
The brainchild of restaurateur Michael Park, bagel savant Alex Baka and Chef Steven Cho (of Kappo Masa and Chefs Club pedigree), Bagizza brings together Montreal-New York hybrid bagel dough with globally inspired pizza toppings. These aren't your dorm-room pizza bagels—they're sheeted dough flagels made from a triple-cooked, kettle-baked base and layered with premium ingredients like Calabro mozzarella, house-cured ham and broccolini pesto.
The toppings list reads like a trip around the world: try shrimp toast with curry mayo and chives, caponata with eggplant and honeyed chili or an artichoke number with Yukon golds and anchovy. Fancy a custom creation? Spread on one of their chef-y schmears, from dill-and-smoked salmon to cinnamon-honey butter.
Bagizza's dough whisperer, Alex Baka, is a second-generation bagel roller who has hand-rolled more than 25 million bagel rounds over his career (yes, million). His bagels aren't just food—they're works of fermentation art. And the shop's broader menu is a serious upgrade from your usual corner deli, with braised short ribs, house-smoked meats and a coffee-and-juice bar slinging Colombian drip and açai bowls.
The 3,400-square-foot space is built for midtown's hustle—there's grab-and-go options, open-kitchen bagel watching and sleek seating if you're lingering. It's also open 24/7, because nothing says New York like craving a pizza flagel at 3am on a weekday.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Focus: US importers turn to brokers to navigate Trump-era tariffs, at a cost
NEW YORK, June 11 (Reuters) - U.S. importers are increasingly relying on customs brokers to keep up with President Donald Trump's ever-changing trade policies. But booming demand for help in processing foreign goods has made these services more expensive, adding another cost to the tariff burden, industry players told Reuters. Customs brokerages, until recently an anonymous branch of the import ecosystem, handle the paperwork needed to process shipments and calculate tariff bills. Mom-and-pop brokers interviewed by Reuters say they are raising fees, while major logistics firms like Memphis, Tennessee-based FedEx (FDX.N), opens new tab and Germany-based DHL ( opens new tab are also adding staff to their customs compliance teams. Market research firms ballpark customs brokering as a roughly $5 billion industry in the United States. Hiring a broker is optional, but the increasing complexities of U.S. tariffs and customs regulations are leading more importers to shell out the cash. Independent brokers like Laredo, Texas-based JD Gonzalez are fielding dozens of questions daily from concerned clients struggling to understand what they may owe to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and whether to go ahead with shipments or hold off. Brokers are also spending more time and labor on customs forms than ever, and have in some cases implemented new IT systems. 'With all the new information we have to process, some of the automation we've used has been thrown out, so there's more work to do,' said JD Gonzalez, who is also president of custom brokerage trade group NCBFAA. The trend is part of a broader wave of corporate efforts to bolster trade compliance operations. Major companies, from Nike (NKE.N), opens new tab to Amazon (AMZN.O), opens new tab to Lowe's (LOW.N), opens new tab, had published job postings as of Wednesday for trade and customs professionals. Nike was seeking a 'lead' for trade and customs, who would 'play a pivotal role in shaping the future of our trade compliance framework,' according to the post on Nike's careers website. Amazon, meanwhile, had at least 10 U.S. customs brokerage jobs listed on its careers website. Lowe's had three. Nike, Amazon and Lowe's did not respond to requests for comment. Independent brokers often base their fees on the number of codes they must enter to classify the contents of a given shipment. Known as harmonized tariff schedule codes, these line items help border officials distinguish car parts from children's toys, and determine proper tariff rates. Prior to Trump's frenetic tariff policies, fees ranged from around $4 to $7 per code. But Gonzalez said the extra costs brokers have incurred as they ramp up systems to handle the tariff changes have led some to increase fees by $1 to $5 per code. Gonzalez said he has raised fees 'nominally,' while Steve Bozicevic, CEO of A&A Customs Brokers headquartered in Seattle and Vancouver, said his company added $3 per product type being imported into the U.S. because of merchandise facing "tariff stacking," a phrase used when an item faces multiple tariffs. "We raised the rates for the U.S. because of the new and added complexity," Bozicevic said. The company has not raised rates for imports into Canada because there's "no new complexity," he said. United Parcel Service (UPS.N), opens new tab raised brokerage rates in December between $3.75 and $50 per import entry, depending on the country of origin. The move was part of general rate increases and unrelated to changes in tariffs, a UPS spokesperson told Reuters. FedEx's logistics arm increased its base customs brokerage rates by 4% in January, according to a company spokesperson. These bigger logistics companies, which include brokerage services in their broader shipping offerings, are also beefing up staff. DHL has upped headcount on its U.S. customs entry team by 30% since February, according to a spokesperson for the company's DHL Express shipping unit. FedEx had more than 40 open job postings on its customs and trade teams as of Tuesday, mainly based in the U.S., according to its LinkedIn jobs page. UPS had 10 similar U.S. positions open, according to its jobs website. FedEx is "adjusting our network to meet demand" in an evolving tariff landscape, which "includes hiring additional customs brokerage roles," the spokesperson said. UPS declined to comment on the job postings. Historically, tariff changes have been less frequent, say brokers, trade lawyers and other trade professionals, and they have come with weeks of lead time, allowing brokers to prepare for the change and provide logistical feedback to CBP. Compare that to last week's doubling of steel and aluminum tariffs to 50%, which Trump announced abruptly, forcing the U.S. customs department to quickly publish official guidance just hours ahead of a midnight change. "Many brokers clear shipments ahead of time, so then you have to come back and retroactively redo it and fix it," said Miami-based customs broker Ralph De La Rosa, whose company, Imperial Freight Brokers, was founded by his father 54 years ago. Even brokers who have not raised fees said their services have become inherently more expensive as the number of HTS codes has spiked. Importers slowed shipments into the United States after Trump's massive tariff announcement on April 2, after having frontloaded purchases earlier in the year to get ahead of an expected rise in duties. Imports of consumer goods, which include cell phones and other household items, decreased $68.9 billion to $277.9 billion in April from a month before, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Trump announced additional tariffs on steel and aluminum in June and in May threatened to impose 50% tariffs on the European Union. Adding to the uncertainty, a federal appellate court on Tuesday ruled that sweeping tariffs may remain in effect while appeals proceed, after a trade court ruled that the U.S. president overstepped his executive powers and blocked the duties. The appellate scheduled arguments for July 31.
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
When it comes to a U.S. debt default, never say never
NEW YORK, June 11 - 'The United States of America is never going to default, that is never going to happen,' said U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on June 1. History suggests that, when it comes to defaults, politicians should never say never. Bessent's comment was intended to reassure market participants following a sharp run-up in long-term Treasury yields and a Moody's downgrade of U.S. federal government debt. But the very fact that Bessent thought it necessary to reassure prospective Treasury bond buyers on this point probably gave them pause. It is certainly not unheard of for a Treasury Secretary to raise the topic of default. For example, in 2023 Janet Yellen said that the U.S. should never default on its debt. The consequence of such an event, she warned, would be 'an economic and financial catastrophe.' A default by the U.S. government would also shatter precedent, according to the former Treasury Secretary. As she put it, 'Since 1789, the United States has paid all our bills on time.' Or so she claimed. But in reality, the country's record on meeting its financial commitments is not quite so immaculate. Here are a few instances over the past two and a half centuries when the U.S. government did not quite deliver what it promised. In 1814, the financial burden of the war with Great Britain prevented the Treasury from scrounging up enough cash to service its debts. 'The dividend on the funded debt has not been punctually paid,' Alexander J. Dallas, the sixth U.S. Treasury Secretary, acknowledged. 'A large amount of Treasury notes has already been dishonored.' In 1862, the costs of fighting a war once again strained the U.S. Treasury. In response, the government paid its bills by printing pure paper money, so-called 'greenbacks,' at a time when the dollar was still legally pegged to gold. During the Civil War, the greenback depreciated sharply versus gold whenever the Union army suffered a setback. And then there was the abrogation of the gold clause. Up until Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency, Treasury bonds were sold with a contractual clause stating that holders could demand payment in gold. However, a joint resolution of Congress revoked that clause on June 5, 1933, and the Supreme Court upheld the Congressional action on dubious legal grounds. There have been a few other instances, including the government's refusal to redeem 'silver certificates' for the precious metal beginning in 1963 and a computer glitch in 1979 that caused promised payment to be delayed. The mistaken belief in a spotless U.S. credit record is unsurprising given widespread misconceptions about sovereign debt. For example, Modern Monetary Theory, a school of thought that gained many adherents in the years leading up to the pandemic, posited that a country never had to default on debt denominated in its own currency because it could simply print more money to meet its obligations. While this might be true in theory, it certainly isn't in practice. To cite one comparatively recent counterexample, Russia defaulted on its ruble-denominated bonds in 1998. What is more accurate to say is that no bankruptcy process exists for sovereign nations comparable to bankruptcy codes for corporations, but sovereign defaults remain a risk. So where does this leave the U.S. debt situation today? On the positive side, the U.S. is nowhere near the brink of default. However, with U.S. debt to GDP above 120% and rising, the notion of a default can no longer be dismissed with a derisive laugh. Whether that calamity can be avoided over the long term will depend on Congress finding the political will to stop the government's outlays from galloping ever further ahead of its income. Investor concern about the increasing danger of default over time is suggested by the recent behavior of Treasury bonds of various maturities. The yield on 30-year Treasury bonds soared from a low of 4.43% on April 4 to a peak of 5.09% on May 21, as anxiety about the U.S. deficit grew with the emergence of more details about the Trump Administration's tax and spending bill. Over that interval, the 30-year Treasury returned -9.39%. Treasury performance improved as maturities shortened, culminating in a positive return of 0.50% for 90-day Treasury bills. A similar correlation between maturity and performance can reasonably be expected if the recent Treasury market rebound reverses. And speaking of what to expect, if fiscal matters ever do get to the point where the U.S. actually does default on its debt, you can be sure that whoever is Treasury Secretary will insist, right up to the end, 'That has never happened before, and it will not happen now.' (The views expressed here are those of Marty Fridson, the founder of FridsonVision High Yield Strategy. He is a past governor of the CFA Institute, consultant to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, and Special Assistant to the Director for Deferred Compensation, Office of Management and the Budget, The City of New York). Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI), opens new tab, opens new tab, your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis of everything from swap rates to soybeans. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI, opens new tab, opens new tab can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn, opens new tab, opens new tab and X., opens new tab
The Independent
4 hours ago
- The Independent
Trump's hush money case is back in court. These judges could decide what happens next
The appeals process begins in earnest on Wednesday, after a New York City jury last year convicted Donald Trump on 34 counts of falsifying business records in connection with a scheme to silence an adult film star, whose story about having sex with Trump threatened to derail his 2016 presidential campaign. That unanimous conviction on May 30 — and a judge's sentencing on January 10 that preserved the historic verdict — ensured that Trump would return to the White House as the first-ever criminally convicted president. The conviction carried no consequences for the president. Still, it left an indelible stain he has so far failed to remove despite successfully fighting off federal indictments that consumed his 2024 campaign. But his legal battle isn't over. On Wednesday, a federal appeals court in Manhattan will hear oral arguments as his attorneys attempt to transfer the case from New York criminal court to federal jurisdiction, a process known as 'removal.' The office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg opposes the move, arguing such a case cannot be removed to federal court after a conviction. But attorneys for the president claim that his 'unprecedented prosecution 'belongs there. If the case is moved to federal court, Justice Department lawyers could theoretically dismiss it. In the weeks leading up to the 2016 election, Trump's then-attorney, Michael Cohen, paid Stormy Daniels $130,000 for the rights to her story, one of several so-called hush money schemes the president arranged with tabloid publishers to prevent embarrassing stories from being published anywhere. Trump then reimbursed Cohen in a series of checks, some of which were cut from the White House. Those reimbursements were falsely recorded in accounting records as 'legal expenses,' fulfilling what prosecutors called a conspiracy to influence the 2016 election unlawfully. A weeks-long trial in Manhattan criminal court last year included blockbuster testimony from Cohen, Daniels, White House aides, and Trump's allies. At the same time, emails, phone records, text messages, invoices, checks with Trump's Sharpie-inked signature, and other documents — including a handwritten note from his accountants that outlined the math for Cohen's checks — gave jurors the paper trail. Days before Trump's inauguration, and more than seven months after the jury's decision, New York Justice Juan Merchan handed Trump a sentence that preserved the verdict without any criminal consequences. Manhattan prosecutors and Judge Merchan agreed that the only remaining option for the conclusion of the case — navigating a landmark Supreme Court decision on 'immunity' and the potential interference with his second term — meant abandoning a typical sentence of jail, fines or probation. 'The only lawful sentence' that remained for Trump's crimes is that of an 'unconditional discharge,' Merchan told Trump during his sentencing hearing on January 10. Trump continues to deny any wrongdoing. His attorneys, whom the president has appointed to top roles at the Department of Justice, argued that certain evidence used at trial should have been withheld from jurors under the Supreme Court's 'immunity' decision, which shields the president from criminal prosecution for 'official' acts in office. However, those arguments were rejected by Judge Merchan, the New York appeals court, and the Supreme Court, which stated that Trump's challenges to 'alleged evidentiary violations' could be addressed through the normal course of appeal. Meanwhile, Trump's long-simmering fight to move the case entirely out of the hands of state courts will be heard before a panel of federal appeals court judges. The president has hired the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell to support his federal appeal. Last month, Justice Department lawyers filed a supporting brief in the case, arguing that the judges should throw it out entirely. Trump is simultaneously appealing an $83 million verdict in a defamation case from E. Jean Carroll as well as a massive judgment against him in a sprawling civil fraud case, with interest growing to more than half a billion dollars owed to the state of New York after the president and his top associates defrauded banks and investors to benefit his real-estate empire.
