Na, you're an artist? And you object to the banana wall art because the money could have been spent to feed kids? But the money spent on your own art couldn't be used to feed kids? It's a different kind of money, I guess?
I've read that article twice, trying to figure out why you would cite it, since it makes my point more strongly than it does yours: the diamond district is now on 47th, between 5th and 6th. I worked there, for diamond dealers. It used to be downtown, at both Canal/Bowery and Fulton/Nassau, but that was a long time ago: it moved up to 47th in the early 1940's. Those other areas may still have a few more jewelry stores than other neighborhoods, but they're hardly considered "diamond districts." And I didn't "insist that all Hasids work near 47th," so I'm not sure what straw you're grabbing at there. Obviously, Hasids work in industries other than the diamond trade, and not just in the diamond district.
And seriously, there's no such word as "hasidics." But I'm correcting a juvenile bigot (who also calls people who live in Manhattan "Manhannites") so the finer points of my arguments are probably lost.
@NiteWhite: I've lived in Manhattan myself: the diamond district is in midtown, around 47th St. That's at least 2 1/2 miles from SoHo, so the only way you could walk there in five minutes is if you could walk 30 MPH. And I don't think Pill was objecting to your "noticing" men wearing black coats in summer heat; I think she was more concerned with your juvenile and offensive descriptions. (Also, there's no such word as "Hasidics.")
@eli and Tim: He's not Israeli. And I would contend that his religion is germane to the story, only because it's interesting that he's made such progress while having so little commonality with the students.
Yes, two people were killed: but that was at the site of one exhibition, and it was seventeen years ago. The word "mounting" denotes a current and ongoing increase, which is inaccurate here.
I would be very surprised if they made him tear the house down. If he’s got building code violations (which I have to think he does, since he’s not a professional builder and he didn’t have any inspections) then they’ll probably make him pay for the permit he should have gotten originally, plus a hefty fine, and make him correct any deficiencies in the building – after they make him tear it open so they can inspect it. If it’s purely zoning violations, they could make him tear down the building, or at least the parts that are non-compliant. And there will likely be some civil actions. In any case, he’s probably going to regret the gambit. Like Sid, I do feel a bit of sympathy for the guy, because a ton of effort went into that house. But, he was stupid, and stupid generally trumps effort.
@Merkabrew Yes, I deal with planning and zoning departments, on a very regular basis. And yes, it can be frustrating, but that only gives me the right to complain and negotiate and do what I can to improve the system: it doesn’t give me the right to ignore the law. From there, I can’t really follow your argument: you think a landowner should be able to do whatever they want with their property, but that freedom stops short of painting one’s house pink…? But fake castles are okay? (Frankly, I’d be embarrassed to live next to that monstrosity: this is the 21st century, everyone, let’s stop building like we don’t know where we are. I can’t stand theme park architecture. But that’s an aside.)
@Sid Morrison I’m right there with you on this one, Sid. Getting variances isn’t always an easy process, but just suck it up and do what you have to do. The laws exist for very good reasons – but if you don’t agree with them, try to get them changed. Zoning offices are usually willing to allow variances, depending on the degree. The real key is this: you have to be a good neighbor. If you get your neighbors behind your project, and show the zoning office you’re looking beyond your own interests, you’ve got a chance.
@Kerozene If you don’t like the restrictions on a piece of property, don’t buy it – but I don’t know where you could possibly go where there isn’t some jurisdictional body telling you what you can and can’t build.
I guess my overall point is that if want to live in a community, we have to sometimes forego our own desires and make accommodations for that community. This guy preferred to turn his back on his neighbors and go it on his own, so he’s got to live with the repercussions.
@Sid: 1. Yes, “The Gates” was privately funded, but it still generated over $250,000,000 in economic activity on a $10,000,000 investment. Even if the installation had been funded by the city (I’m sure the city incurred some costs in any case) I don’t see how that’s picking anyone’s pockets; it’s in the city’s, and the public’s, best interest to develop economic activity. And Christo does not have a “mounting death toll,” but nice spin. 2. Again, you can debate the value of the pieces as art, I don’t really care. To each his own.
@Merkabrew: Zoning and planning laws exist for very good reasons. I don't understand why anyone would think these people should receive special treatment, particularly when they've engaged in intentional (and rather massive) deception in order to circumvent the law.
VonSkippy and Sid Morrison are the two biggest complainers I've ever heard. Sheesh.
This is a little silly, but having to carry a mouse IS annoying. I've got a small, light laptop, and I often just want to grab it and go, without taking chargers or any of the other stuff VonSkippy mentions (seriously, do you carry all that with your laptop?) If I could just tuck this into my laptop -- and if it worked reasonably well -- I'd consider it.
You can all groan about the cost of public art installations like this, but the fact of the matter is that they often generate economic activity that far exceeds their cost. The best recent example is probably Christo’s "The Gates," which was temporarily installed in Manhattan’s Central Park in 2005. That installation generated over $250 million in economic activity in New York City, compared to independent estimates of only $5-10 million in installation costs (which were privately funded in any case). Admittedly, this project isn’t at the scale of "The Gates," and it’s not in the heart of a major metropolitan center, but the area will likely see economic benefit (that’s why they did it, after all). Of course, you still may not like the pieces as art, which is fine – I’m not crazy about them myself – but the economics are reasonably sound.
In any case, I am very willing to see my tax dollars being spent on art; the governments of every great society in history have supported, and funded, the arts. Our continued cultural and artistic legacies depend on it.
What a beautiful flower Becca is.
I've read that article twice, trying to figure out why you would cite it, since it makes my point more strongly than it does yours: the diamond district is now on 47th, between 5th and 6th. I worked there, for diamond dealers. It used to be downtown, at both Canal/Bowery and Fulton/Nassau, but that was a long time ago: it moved up to 47th in the early 1940's. Those other areas may still have a few more jewelry stores than other neighborhoods, but they're hardly considered "diamond districts." And I didn't "insist that all Hasids work near 47th," so I'm not sure what straw you're grabbing at there. Obviously, Hasids work in industries other than the diamond trade, and not just in the diamond district.
And seriously, there's no such word as "hasidics." But I'm correcting a juvenile bigot (who also calls people who live in Manhattan "Manhannites") so the finer points of my arguments are probably lost.
I've lived in Manhattan myself: the diamond district is in midtown, around 47th St. That's at least 2 1/2 miles from SoHo, so the only way you could walk there in five minutes is if you could walk 30 MPH. And I don't think Pill was objecting to your "noticing" men wearing black coats in summer heat; I think she was more concerned with your juvenile and offensive descriptions. (Also, there's no such word as "Hasidics.")
@eli and Tim:
He's not Israeli. And I would contend that his religion is germane to the story, only because it's interesting that he's made such progress while having so little commonality with the students.
You know, just because you have hateful tendencies doesn't mean you have to share them.
Yes, I deal with planning and zoning departments, on a very regular basis. And yes, it can be frustrating, but that only gives me the right to complain and negotiate and do what I can to improve the system: it doesn’t give me the right to ignore the law. From there, I can’t really follow your argument: you think a landowner should be able to do whatever they want with their property, but that freedom stops short of painting one’s house pink…? But fake castles are okay? (Frankly, I’d be embarrassed to live next to that monstrosity: this is the 21st century, everyone, let’s stop building like we don’t know where we are. I can’t stand theme park architecture. But that’s an aside.)
@Sid Morrison
I’m right there with you on this one, Sid. Getting variances isn’t always an easy process, but just suck it up and do what you have to do. The laws exist for very good reasons – but if you don’t agree with them, try to get them changed. Zoning offices are usually willing to allow variances, depending on the degree. The real key is this: you have to be a good neighbor. If you get your neighbors behind your project, and show the zoning office you’re looking beyond your own interests, you’ve got a chance.
@Kerozene
If you don’t like the restrictions on a piece of property, don’t buy it – but I don’t know where you could possibly go where there isn’t some jurisdictional body telling you what you can and can’t build.
I guess my overall point is that if want to live in a community, we have to sometimes forego our own desires and make accommodations for that community. This guy preferred to turn his back on his neighbors and go it on his own, so he’s got to live with the repercussions.
1. Yes, “The Gates” was privately funded, but it still generated over $250,000,000 in economic activity on a $10,000,000 investment. Even if the installation had been funded by the city (I’m sure the city incurred some costs in any case) I don’t see how that’s picking anyone’s pockets; it’s in the city’s, and the public’s, best interest to develop economic activity. And Christo does not have a “mounting death toll,” but nice spin.
2. Again, you can debate the value of the pieces as art, I don’t really care. To each his own.
Zoning and planning laws exist for very good reasons. I don't understand why anyone would think these people should receive special treatment, particularly when they've engaged in intentional (and rather massive) deception in order to circumvent the law.
This is a little silly, but having to carry a mouse IS annoying. I've got a small, light laptop, and I often just want to grab it and go, without taking chargers or any of the other stuff VonSkippy mentions (seriously, do you carry all that with your laptop?) If I could just tuck this into my laptop -- and if it worked reasonably well -- I'd consider it.
You can all groan about the cost of public art installations like this, but the fact of the matter is that they often generate economic activity that far exceeds their cost. The best recent example is probably Christo’s "The Gates," which was temporarily installed in Manhattan’s Central Park in 2005. That installation generated over $250 million in economic activity in New York City, compared to independent estimates of only $5-10 million in installation costs (which were privately funded in any case). Admittedly, this project isn’t at the scale of "The Gates," and it’s not in the heart of a major metropolitan center, but the area will likely see economic benefit (that’s why they did it, after all). Of course, you still may not like the pieces as art, which is fine – I’m not crazy about them myself – but the economics are reasonably sound.
In any case, I am very willing to see my tax dollars being spent on art; the governments of every great society in history have supported, and funded, the arts. Our continued cultural and artistic legacies depend on it.