Saint sauna and ice bath to open at Chelsea luxury building
Four private suites feature Nordic saunas and Brazilian ice baths.
Amanda Hensen and Alex Feldman founded Saint, emphasizing personal wellness.
Saint, a private sauna and ice bath brand, will make its debut this fall in Manhattan at new luxury residential building Ruby Chelsea.
The approximately 1,000-square-foot space, located at 243 W. 28th St. in Chelsea, features four private suites that pair walnut-clad dressing areas with Nordic-cedar saunas, Brazilian-slate ice baths, rain showers and Italian-terrazzo floors.
GET TO KNOW YOUR CITY
Find Local Events Near You
Connect with a community of local professionals.
Explore All Events
At its core, Saint aims to 'serve as a purveyor of personal space,' according to a statement. Each of its private suites can accommodate up to three guests and reservations are for 60 minutes.
Information about founding memberships, which will be limited, and single-visit pricing will be announced in August.
The lease is long-term strategic partnership with the landlord, MAG Partners, which was represented by Cushman & Wakefield's Sean Moran and Catherine Merck.
Saint is the first retail tenant to occupy this retail space at the 25-story, 480-unit property. Pet services provider Pet Evolution is the only other retailer at the building.
Saint was represented by CBRE's Kristen Crossman Fox.
Amanda Hensen and Alex Feldman are behind Saint, which refers to the "inner, often spiritual potential of what can happen alone in a sauna and to the refined, ethereal nature of the experience," according to Feldman. The pair met while working at WeWork in 2015.
'New York has become the epicenter of communal wellness, yet people crave privacy,' Hensen said in an email statement. 'Saint delivers hotel-spa elegance and authentic bathhouse magic at the speed of Manhattan life — not a scene, not a chain, but a personal sanctuary between meetings.'
Sign up for the Business Journal's free daily newsletter to receive the latest business news impacting New York.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Microsoft in Brazilian antitrust regulator's crosshairs after Opera complaint
Microsoft in Brazilian antitrust regulator's crosshairs after Opera complaint By Foo Yun Chee BRUSSELS (Reuters) -Brazil's antitrust enforcer CADE has opened an investigation into Microsoft, days after Norwegian browser Opera complained about Microsoft's Edge, according to a CADE statement published late Thursday on its website. Opera, in its complaint filed on Tuesday, alleged that Microsoft pre-installs Edge as the default browser across Windows devices and computers, thereby preventing rivals from competing on the merits of the products. Opera had 6.78% of the Brazilian desktop browser market in June versus Edge's 11.52% and market leader Google Chrome's 75%. CADE said it had opened an administrative inquiry and set an August 15 deadline for Microsoft to respond to Opera's allegations about its Windows operating system licences, the Microsoft 365 software and its Jumpstart programme. The Jumpstart programme allows Microsoft clients to build autonomous artificial intelligence agents for routine tasks, a move which could help the company monetise its billion-dollar investments in AI. Other Big Tech companies have similar tools. Microsoft did not immediately respond to emailed requests for comment. Opera has been complaining about its competitor since December 2007 when it took its grievance about the latter's internet Explorer browser bundled with its Windows operating system to the European Commission, resulting in a 561-million-euro ($640 million) fine for the U.S. tech giant. ($1 = 0.8764 euros) Solve the daily Crossword
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Map Shows What Trump Tariff Rates Are For Each Country
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. President Donald Trump has signed an executive order reimposing the "reciprocal tariffs" announced on April 2. Dozens of nations that run trade surpluses with the U.S., including those able to strike a deal ahead of the deadline, now face rates ranging from 10 percent to 41 percent on their imports. Why It Matters The return of reciprocal tariffs after a 114-day-long reprieve is expected to hold significant implications for the future global commerce, while also advancing the administration's aim of narrowing trade deficits and boosting government revenues. For the U.S., these could translate to higher prices on imported goods, renewed inflationary pressures, as well as difficulties for customs officials now tasked with implementing the dozens of varying rates. What To Know The rates announced by the White House on Thursday are broadly in keeping with those set out by Trump on "Liberation Day." However, trade deals and geopolitical developments during the two pauses on reciprocal tariffs since April 2 have led to reduced rates for a number of countries. The minimum rate for most countries not included was set at 10 percent. China, Canada and Mexico were not subject to the reciprocal duties, and their tariff rates are covered under separate orders. The European Union, originally slapped with a 20 percent duty on its exports, had it lowered to a baseline rate of 15 percent thanks to last week's agreement between Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. While the handshake agreement has yet to be finalized, with many European leaders having voiced their opposition, von der Leyen said certain products would also be entirely exempt from duties, and that she was angling for "zero-for-zero" rates on a number of others. India, initially a promising candidate for a trade deal, will now see its goods charged a 25 percent tariff when entering the U.S. "While India is our friend, we have, over the years, done relatively little business with them because their Tariffs are far too high, among the highest in the World, and they have the most strenuous and obnoxious non-monetary Trade Barriers of any Country," Trump posted to Truth Social this week. For Brazil, the 50 percent tariff threatened by Trump in early July takes shape in two parts: A 10 percent baseline tariff, on top of which is a 40 percent "free speech" duty. In an announcement on Thursday, the U.S. Embassy in Brazil said the latter was due to the government's "unusual and extraordinary policies and actions harming U.S. companies, the free speech rights of U.S. persons, U.S. foreign policy, and the U.S. economy." It added that "the Government of Brazil's politically motivated persecution, intimidation, harassment, censorship, and prosecution of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro and thousands of his supporters are serious human rights abuses that have undermined the rule of law in Brazil." Cambodia and Thailand, two of the countries hit hardest by the original reciprocal tariff announcement, have both seen their duties lowered to 19 percent. Trump offered this reduction in an effort to broker a now-secured ceasefire between the two nations, after a century-long border dispute broke into a series of deadly clashes. What People Are Saying Peter Navarro, White House senior counselor for trade and manufacturing, told Fox Business on Thursday: "I'm thinking that since he's basically taught the world trade economics, he might be up for the Nobel on economics, because this is a fundamental restructuring of the international trade environment." Wendy Cutler, senior vice president of the Asia Society Policy Institute (ASPI) and former deputy U.S. trade representative, wrote: "Today's tariff EO applies to virtually all of our trading partners all over the world, providing different tariff rates for different individual and categories of countries. Our partners will closely scrutinize how they fared vis-a-vis their competitors and neighbors, as well as whether concluding deals were actually worth the effort." Chris Beauchamp, chief market analyst at IG, in comments shared with Newsweek, said: "The tariffs revive fears of renewed price increases for consumers, most obviously in the US, but potentially around the rest of the world too. Signs of reviving inflation have meant that a September rate cut looks less and less likely, and with most of the big events out the way the time looks ripe for a rerun of last August's swift outburst of volatility." What Happens Next? The revised duties are set to take effect seven days following Thursday's executive order at 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time. "U.S. customs officials will face challenges implementing the EO, particularly with the different tariff rates now applied across the world," wrote Wendy Cutler. "The seven-day breathing period before implementation will help, but importers should expect start up problems at a minimum."
Business of Fashion
5 hours ago
- Business of Fashion
Are Luxury Brands Responsible for What Happens in Their Supply Chains?
Until the end of 2023, Z Production, a leather goods factory located in an industrial suburb of Florence, made bags and backpacks for Richemont-owned luxury pen and leather goods maker Montblanc. The items were made by workers who earned as little as $3 an hour, working 12 hours a day, six days a week, according to local union Sudd Cobas, which led a months-long campaign of strikes that succeeded in securing better hours and wages at the factory for its members in early 2023. Within weeks of the agreement, Richemont's local manufacturing unit announced plans to terminate its contract with Z Production, pointing to consistent infractions against its code of conduct. Sudd Cobas alleges the move amounted to a form of union busting and ultimately led to the dismissal of six of its members in October last year. Now it is helping the workers take the Richemont unit to court, hoping to hold the luxury giant legally accountable for damages to workers in its supply chain. Montblanc contests the claims laid out in the case and is separately suing the union for defamation. The company said the manufacturing unit ended its relationship with Z Production after audits turned up persistent issues, including a case of unauthorised subcontracting. Any dismissals took place months after its contract with the supplier ended and its inspections uncovered no evidence of the kinds of labour abuses alleged by Sudd Cobas, it added. 'We categorically reject these unfounded and defamatory accusations,' Montblanc said in an emailed statement. 'The termination of the supply relationship with Z Production has, for months, been extensively exploited… based on numerous inaccuracies, falsehoods and conjectures.' The litigation is the latest move in a high-stakes debate over how much responsibility big brands should have for what happens in their supply chains. With the case, Sudd Cobas is aiming to set a new legal precedent in Italy, where roughly half of the world's luxury goods are made. If successful, 'the ruling could represent a turning point for thousands of exploited workers across the 'Made in Italy' supply chains,' Sudd Cobas said in a press release it jointly issued with Abiti Puliti, the Italian branch of labour rights campaign group Clean Clothes Campaign, earlier this month. 'It would be the first time a fashion brand is held directly responsible for working conditions within its supply chain.' Limited Liability Business Models Most fashion companies — even high-end, luxury labels — don't make their own products. Instead they outsource production to a complex and often opaque network of third-party suppliers. That means they don't have direct control, or even real visibility, over working conditions. Critics argue it also allows them to sidestep legal liability when things go wrong. Labour rights advocates have pushed against this framing for decades, campaigning to bring more accountability to a system that they argue is deeply flawed and ultimately exists to boost the profits of big, multinational corporations. It's the constant pressure big brands place on manufacturers with much tighter margins to provide cheaper, faster, more flexible production that ultimately leads to cut corners and labour exploitation, they say. Brands use 'these subcontracting companies to save money on production,' said Francesca Ciuffi, an organiser with the Sudd Cobas union. 'They externalise everything.' Regulators have flip flopped on the issue. Over the last decade governments around the world have introduced a number of policies that require companies to get a better handle on where and how their products are made, often in response to scandals like the Rana Plaza disaster in Bangladesh and an alleged government-backed scheme of forced labour in China's cotton-producing region of Xinjiang. But often these measures have lacked teeth or been weakly enforced. Shifting political winds mean some of the most progressive rules on the table now look likely to get drastically pushed back. Litigation is seen by labour and human rights advocates as one tool to help shift the paradigm, moving the pressure on brands from one of moral accountability that impacts their reputations to one of concrete, legal consequence. Climate and human rights cases against big companies have increased alongside regulatory changes and growing investor engagement with environmental, social and governance issues. Often such cases take years and may not result in a straight win for either party. But the attention they bring to the issues and even incremental changes to the way the law is applied can make a significant difference, advocates say. 'These cases are very robustly fought by brands. Very rarely do they resolve quickly, they're always heavily contested,' said Oliver Holland, a partner at UK-based law firm Leigh Day who specialises in corporate accountability litigation. 'As cases become more common won't take as long and won't be as difficult.' Luxury Exceptionalism The case supported by Sudd Cobas comes as luxury's supply chains are facing unprecedented scrutiny. For decades, the sector has tried to pass off reports of labour abuses in apparel and leather goods factories as a fast-fashion problem, isolated to far-flung manufacturing hubs with weak worker protections. Steep prices and 'Made in Italy' labels are wielded as tools in this narrative, designed to signal to consumers that luxury products were made in tightly regulated labour markets by well-paid and highly skilled artisans. And previous scandals largely came and went, without damaging brands. But over the last 18 months, an ongoing investigation into labour exploitation in fashion workshops near Milan has exposed major issues at many of luxury's most established brands. Regional prosecutors have linked companies including Dior, Armani, Valentino and Loro Piana to local sweatshops. (The brands say that they are committed to upholding high ethical standards and the incidents don't reflect the way they operate). The scandal has proved reputationally bruising. And it's landed at a particularly unhelpful moment, when luxury's biggest players are already grappling with a downturn in consumer spending, linked in part to growing criticism of declining quality and rising prices playing out in viral posts on social media platforms. Still, the material impact has thus far been limited, While the court in Milan has been critical, arguing that luxury's links to sweatshops are the result of an entrenched operating model that ignores labour risks in order to maximise profits, sanctions against brands have focused on alleged failings in their monitoring systems and have not held them legally responsible for the way workers were treated at suppliers and subcontractors. Political efforts to address the issues have focused on developing certification programmes companies can use to prevent exposure to illicit actors. A new scheme in Milan aims to establish a database of 'good' suppliers, based on voluntary disclosures and participation. Last week, Italy's Ministry of Enterprise and Made in Italy announced plans to introduce a new law that would ensure the sustainability and legality of companies operating in the sector. Its aim is 'to combat the illicit labour practices of a few, which can compromise the reputation of the entire sector,' the ministry said in a statement, adding that the law would protect brands that have carried out preventative checks on their suppliers from liability. Critics argue such measures fail to address the underlying business practices that they say ultimately lead to exploitation. 'Brand reputations are safeguarded — not workers' rights — by the ethical codes published on corporate websites and the so-called system of 'audits,'' Sudd Cobas and Abiti Puliti said in their statement earlier this month. 'The conflict of interest is clear, and it offers no real accountability to those employed along the production chains.' Who Pays? With the case in Tuscany, Sudd Cobas is seeking to shift this paradigm. According to the argument put forward by the workers' lawyers, Richemont's local subsidiary was Z Production's only client and had active involvement in its day-to-day operations. The factory was in effect an 'empty vessel' for Richemont's Montblanc manufacturing business, making the luxury giant the ultimate responsible employer, the case claims. It alleges the Richemont unit cancelled its contract with Z Production because output dropped after working hours were regularised for union members. The lawsuit seeks to restore jobs and secure at least five months' salary as compensation for the six plaintiffs, who it claims ultimately lost their jobs as a result of the luxury company's actions. Montblanc said the case mischaracterises its manufacturing division's relationship with Z Production and that the six workers involved in the case were dismissed 18 months after the unit announced plans to terminate its contract, and 10 months after it stopped working with the supplier. Its decision to end the relationship was made after audits turned up 'persistent incidents of non-compliance' with the company's code of conduct, including unauthorised subcontracting, Montblanc said, adding that neither its own inspections, nor a third-party forensic audit conducted in early 2023 found evidence of working conditions like those alleged by Sudd Cobas. A judge in Florence's labour court consented to hear arguments in July. The next court date is set for December. Simone Stern Carbone contributed to this story.
