Page 6 of 68 FirstFirst ... 23456789101656 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 1016

Thread: High Line Area Development

  1. #76
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjahedge View Post

    I would hate to see them build a nice park and just have it get run down (if there is a market crash) and turn into low-life central...
    Aside from perhaps Gramercy Park (a private park, after all), can you name one park in NYC where, over the course of its history, what you fear has NOT happened?

  2. #77
    http://tinyurl.com/2ag28z Front_Porch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Manhattan 90210
    Posts
    1,413

    Default

    Carl Schurz?

  3. #78
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Don't know if it was overrun by homeless folks but even Carl Schurz Park didn't survive unscathed by NYC's fiscal problems of the past:

    http://www.carlschurzparknyc.org/history.html

    As is noted there: "Anyone who remembers the fiscal crisis of the 70's will recall that our parks suffered first."

    Now that, for a large part, parks have been taken over by private entities we may be able to avoid this in the future ... but if a fiscal crisis hits NYC again as it has so many times in the past (history does repeat itself) then it wouldn't be surprising if any number of newly-restored / newly-created parks will fall into decripitude -- and have to await the entrepeneurs of the future to rescue them once again.

  4. #79
    http://tinyurl.com/2ag28z Front_Porch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Manhattan 90210
    Posts
    1,413

    Default

    Just a shot in the dark -- I wasn't here in the '70s, but I don't think it became "needle park" like some others.

    anybody else guess?

  5. #80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lofter1 View Post
    Moderators: It seems that this thread and the one entitled The High Line: elevated railroad in Chelsea are now covering the same territory.

    Should they be combined into one thread?
    This thread should contain real estate development in the vicinity of the High Line.

    Any items concerning the High Line should go here

  6. #81

    Default One Small Lot, One Big Mess

    Utopia developer embroiled in lawsuits over troubled New York City condo projectBy Paul Choiniere
    http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=28c...5-fed2c42be59d

    Published on 10/31/2006

    Joseph Gentile, the developer with plans to transform the former Norwich Hospital property into the $1.6 billion entertainment Utopia, is mired in a bitter legal fight over a stalled New York City condominium project and faces accusations of fraud, conspiracy and misuse of funds. Gentile and his partner, Stanley Perelman, got off the first punch when, four months after the development ground to a halt in August 2004, they sued the two partners with minority shares in the deal, blaming the project's troubles on their alleged failure to provide promised, ready-to-build architectural plans.
    Those two minority partners — a novice real estate developer and an auto mechanic who hoped to develop a small plot of land his family owned in the city — say Gentile and Perelman joined with them only to take advantage of their inexperience and gain control of the real estate.
    In separate lawsuits, they say that Gentile and Perelman, as the managing partners, siphoned off construction money, mismanaged the development and, through complicated real estate maneuvers, sought to strip the minority members of their interests in the project and walk away with the property.
    In its lawsuit, however, the Gentile-Perelman partnership contends it was the victim. They say the other partners, by providing deficient environmental and architectural plans, caused the project to fall behind schedule and go over budget, and then did not cooperate with efforts to get it back on track.
    The project at the heart of four lawsuits, mechanic's liens and building-code violations was to be marketed as “The Gallery at Chelsea.” The 13-story condominium complex was envisioned on a small lot at 559 West 23rd St. in the Chelsea section of Manhattan. The financial backing was to come, in part, from a $7.8 million construction loan from a California bank.
    In a filing with the state of Connecticut in July 2004, Perelman — hoping to win state approval for the Utopia development in Preston — boasted of the Chelsea project as an example of the work he and Gentile do. By that time, however, the project was millions of dollars over budget and plagued with construction problems.
    Two years later, the property, which is on a wide, two-way avenue not far from Chelsea Piers on the Hudson River, is a vacant dirt lot, about 25 feet across and 100 feet deep. A chain link fence separates it from the sidewalk. Though no construction is visible, banking documents show at least $3 million in project money was spent.
    The most recent lawsuit, filed Oct. 18 by The Sedona Group, a limited liability company representing one of the minority partners, spells out in elaborate detail an alleged scheme by Gentile and Perelman to rip off the other investors.
    Sedona's lawyer, Manhattan attorney David S. Frydman, writes that the managing partners wanted to “secretly ... obtain control of The Gallery project, use their control to drain millions of dollars from the project, benefit themselves and other business ventures at The Gallery's expense and then strip (the minority partners) of their ownership interest in the project through a sham foreclosure proceeding.”
    The lawsuit further alleges, “The defendants engaged in bank fraud using dummy accounts and bad checks, money laundering by structuring cash transactions to avoid reporting requirements, the use of fraudulent construction loan draw requests and plain theft.”
    Gentile called the allegations baseless. In a prepared statement for The Day, he dismissed the lawsuit as a “far-fetched, soap opera-fashioned, Grand Conspiracy theory.”
    The architectural drawings that a minority partner was supposed to deliver “were inadequate,” Gentile said. “You couldn't build those plans. They had risers going through windows. They had no skin (façade) on the property.”
    The plans by architect Gene Kaufman, however, had received city approval. Gentile said in an interview with The Day that he could not explain why “deficient” plans were authorized.
    For their part, the minority partners say there was a “grand conspiracy” but it was concocted by Gentile and Perelman. They point to checks for thousands of dollars from the construction loan written to cash, or to Gentile's attorney. They also cite draw-down requests for construction work that lack the proper signatures and have signatures with inconsistent handwriting.
    And they question where all the money went.
    The Gentile-Perelmanmajority partnership was dealt a legal blow in June when a New York State judge dismissed all but one count of its seven-count lawsuit. He dismissed allegations of fraud and misrepresentation, leaving only a breach-of-contract complaint against the minority partners. The partnership has filed a legal request to reconsider.
    It is a nasty and complicated New York business dispute, one that would normally have no relevance for southeastern Connecticut, except that Gentile, chief financial officer of Utopia, could within a few weeks control what is considered by many to be one of the most valuable pieces of property in the region. He also has plans for a major project in Norwich.
    On Nov. 20, if Gentile and his Utopia Studios Ltd. company demonstrate to Preston officials that they are ready to go, they will be positioned to take ownership of the 400-acre Norwich Hospital campus, perched above the Thames River and across from the Mohegan Sun casino.
    •••••
    Today, the promissory notes and a mortgage on the Chelsea project are held by a limited liability company called 559 West 23rd Funding.
    The company was registered with the state of New York on May 23, 2005, the same day it obtained the $7.8 million mortgage from Fremont.
    The identities of the company officers are not a public record.
    The minority partners, however, contend the LLC is tied in some way to Gentile and is in a position to foreclose on the property, dispose of the liens and leave them with nothing but debts from the Gallery at Chelsea, LLC.
    Gentile, in an interview with The Day, said he has no association with the new investors.
    Records filed in the Sedona court case, however, show Gentile does have a relationship with at least two people who were interested in the Fremont mortgage.
    In an April 7, 2005, letter that is now a lawsuit document, Michael A. Covino, president of Luxmac Covino & Company Inc. of Tarrytown, N.Y., describes how Richard Swartz “seeks to purchase the note and mortgage on 559 West 23rd Street from Fremont Savings Bank in California,” which issued the original construction loan.
    Luxmac Covino is the same mortgage banker that has committed to providing approximately $70 million in start-up money for the initial planning and development of the Utopia project.
    Swartz, of Coraopolis, Pa., has a former business relationship with Gentile as well. He is one of the principal partners of TMC Partners. In July 2004, Gentile announced that a partnership he formed, “Gallery Studios Development Corp.,” had purchased a controlling interest in the 328-acre Waterford airport property, then owned by TMC Partners.
    At the time, Gentile said he wanted to build 25 studios for film, animation and television production to lease to Hollywood stars and to complement the Utopia project. He called it: “The Gallery Studio Campus at Waterford.”
    The deal apparently fell apart when a TMC lender foreclosed on the airport property in November 2005. (About three months before, Thompson, Gentile's lawyer, appeared in U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Arizona, and identified himself as working with TMC. The hearing was an attempt by TMC to block the foreclosure.)
    The Luxmac letter outlines that it would cost $2.9 million to purchase the original $7.8 million Fremont line of credit. But, in the same letter, Luxmac suggests providing Swartz with a $4.3 million bridge loan to close the deal with Fremont, saying the extra $1.4 million could be used to settle with partners, dissolve liens and cover closing costs.
    The condo project could eventually generate $24.6 million in revenues, the letter states.
    The letter also says there are only “two remaining partners” to deal with, but it does not name those partners, nor is it clear what kind of partnerships it refers to.
    “Subsequent to purchasing the note he (Swartz) will do a friendly foreclosure with the two remaining partners and then foreclose out the remaining lien holders,” the Luxmac letter reads.
    Swartz did not return two calls seeking a comment.
    Gentile said he considers the minority partners to be out of the Chelsea at Gallery partnership.
    “Their shares are cancelled for their material breach,” he said.
    The two minority partners dispute that and say a foreclosure has only been forestalled by the lawsuits they filed.
    •••••
    Thirty years ago, in the mid-1970s, Russell Arezzo's family operated a small service station at 559 West 23rd St. The neighborhood was a lot different then. Gentrification was still a couple of decades away. Crime was a big problem, and blue-collar workers and elderly occupied the aging apartments that sat alongside bodegas, parking garages and shops.
    By the 1990s, things were changing. Chelsea was headed toward trendy. Buildings were renovated into pricey apartments and condominiums for the white-collar elite.
    In May 1997, Arezzo incorporated the family business as JMA Auto Tech Corp. He became its president.
    Four years later, he teamed up with a couple living nearby, on West 22nd Street — Stephen E. McArdle and his wife, Toni Coburn. They decided they could make a lot of money by building a condo project at the site.
    McArdle, now 39, said in a recent interview that he is a friend of the Arezzo family and that, back in 2001, he was starting out in the real estate business after working as a tax consultant.
    “It was their only family asset,” he said of the Arezzo property. “All they had and all I had went into this.”
    McArdle envisioned a towering condominium, a “sliver development” in Manhattan parlance, rising from the small, 2,500-square-foot lot. He and his wife had the ideas, Arezzo the property.
    In August 2002, Coburn agreed to pay architect Gene Kaufman $125,000 for the architectural design job.
    But, McArdle said, “After 9/11 it was tough for first-time developers.”
    The plan needed money they did not have, he said, and they could not get financing.
    In 2003, the would-be developers, acting through a real estate broker, were introduced to Gentile and Perelman, said McArdle. Today, a lawsuit filed by JMA Auto Tech says, “Perelman and Gentile represented ... that they had the financial resources, development experience and marketing experience to complete the project.”
    McArdle said the other investors were also told that Cathy Gentile-Moriarty, a Hollywood actress and Gentile's wife, would provide star power.
    “Gentile stated that Moriarty, an Academy Award nominee actress, would bring to the project cache [sic] and Hollywood contacts. Gentile promised that Moriarty would use her extensive contacts ... to attract celebrity condominium purchases,” states McArdle's lawsuit, filed separately from the JMA civil case.
    Recounting the negotiations in 2003, Gentile said he was reluctant at first to get involved because he wanted to focus on southeastern Connecticut. But, he added, the project was enticing. Real estate was booming in the Chelsea section.
    The primary reason for going ahead with the project, he said, was to keep family members in the construction business busy, among them a cousin, Peter Romano.
    “I have a whole bunch of family members who rely on each other through the years,” Gentile said. “We don't go bidding out. ... We call the three cousins in the business. I had to keep the men working, not just for myself, but other people who thought they were coming to Connecticut on a fast-paced basis.
    “I saw that (Chelsea) project and thought: 'This is a nice project, because it won't take more than six or seven months to throw it up.' ”
    •••••
    On Aug. 5, 2003, three partners signed an operating agreement, coming together as The Gallery at Chelsea, LLC. The plan was to build a condominium complex with Kaufman's architectural drawings.
    Arezzo signed for JMA Auto Tech, as a minority partner with 24.5 shares.
    Coburn signed for the Sedona Group, an equal partner to JMA.
    And Gentile's attorney, Christopher Thompson, put his signature down for the Gentile and Perelman limited liability company, The Gallery Development Group. It was given 51 shares, a controlling interest.
    The agreement outlines a projected budget of $10.1 million.
    Gentile and Perelman were to contribute $2 million to meet “on-going costs and expenses ... and the development of the property.”
    JMA contributed the deed to the property, valued at $2.2 million at the time.
    Sedona contributed the architectural plans, environmental reports and building permits, with its total investment put at $525,000.
    The construction costs were estimated to be $5.4 million.
    As managing members, Gentile and Perelman guaranteed they could build the project for that much “pursuant to the plans and specifications prepared by Gene Kaufman (the architect).” If the cost went higher, the managing members would pay the difference. If the cost dropped, they would realize the savings.
    Thompson, now named among the defendants in the Sedona lawsuit, would play a prominent role in the project. He not only represented Gentile and Perelman, but also The Gallery at Chelsea partnership as a whole. And he received payments from the general contractor, while also signing draw-down requests on the Fremont construction loan, court documents show.
    Gallery Development, the controlling partner, itself consisted of a partnership of two other limited liability companies – JN Gallery, managed by Perelman, and CJA Gallery, represented by Gentile. Gentile said he has recently taken full control of the Gallery Development partnership, though there is no public record of the change.
    Today, both the minority partners and the majority partner say deceptions date back to the very start of The Gallery at Chelsea affiliation.
    Sedona, in its lawsuit, contends that minority partners were not told at the time Gallery at Chelsea was being formed that Cathy Gentile-Moriarty was legally the managing member of CJA Gallery. Documents that McArdle has since obtained show Gentile-Moriarty signing incorporation papers as the LLC's managing member.
    Gentile, in turn, claims McArdle failed to divulge his involvement in a 2001 FBI sting targeting bribery in the city's tax assessor's office. McArdle, a tax consultant, wore a wire to try to record a bribe. Gentile said the majority partners would have questioned McArdle on that if they had known.
    Yet Perelman, at an Oct. 19, 2006 deposition, testified that about a week before the deal was closed “Mr. McArdle informed us that he had been an FBI informant and we elected not to be partners with him ...” Perelman explained, for that reason, McArdle's wife, Coburn, ended up signing the development agreement for Sedona.
    McArdle said he told the other partners that he was involved in the FBI operation.
    During the summer of 2003, Kaufman was still owed money for his work with the minority investors. The Gallery at Chelsea agreement states the newly-formed partnership “agreed to resolve and settle ... the architect's disputed fees.”
    Four months later, in December 2003, Gentile and Perelman arranged a roughly $7.8 million construction loan with Fremont Investment & Loan, a California bank. Fremont, said Gentile, had agreed to a quick closing, and timing was important.
    “How much will it cost us if we don't get this thing out of the ground before the weather?” Gentile said. “That's (what was) driving this entire thing.”
    •••••
    One indication things were not going as laid out in the partnership agreement came in late December 2003, shortly after the construction loan had been approved, when Perelman dismissed Kaufman as the architect.
    Kaufman had designed the condominium complex and obtained various permits from the New York City Department of Buildings. Citing a high ground water level, he designed no cellar and put the heating and electrical systems on the first floor.
    Gentile said he and Perelman concluded only after Gallery at Chelsea was formed that Kaufman's plans were “deficient.” That problem, he said, led to cost overruns and delays.
    Neither Kaufman nor his attorney, who is his wife, would comment for this story.
    But, according to a business document provided by McArdle, he had forwarded Gentile the plans on June 18, 2003, almost two months before the agreement was signed. If the plans were incomplete or deficient, he said, Gentile could have raised the issue before signing.
    Gentile contends that the plans came in dribs and drabs and that he was months into the project before he realized they could not be used.
    “Why did I sign a contract with these people?” he said. “Because you are relying on the representation of a professional.”
    McArdle contends the plans remained valuable, because portions could be used in replacement designs.
    At the time he and the developers parted ways, Kaufman was owed $74,156. A termination agreement, dated January 2004, called for Gallery Development to pay Kaufman $62,078 and for Sedona to pay the $12,078 difference “at a later date.” In return, Kaufman would provide all project records and permission to use his plans.
    On Feb. 11, 2004, when Kaufman had the $62,078 bank check in hand, he sent Perelman the project files, according to the architect's lawsuit.
    “Several days later Kaufman received a letter from Citibank dated Feb. 12, 2004, informing him that a stop payment order had been placed on the check,” states the lawsuit by Kaufman against The Gallery at Chelsea and all other parties involved in the project.
    In a notarized affidavit from M&T Bank of western New York state, signed by Perelman, he checked off the box indicating he wanted payment stopped because the check was lost. Bank checks can only be stopped if they are lost, destroyed or stolen.
    “It is thus apparent that Perelman or an agent of Perelman knowingly and falsely represented ... that the bank check payable to Kaufman had been lost or stolen,” states the architect's lawsuit.
    While Perelman would not comment, Thompson defended the decision to stop payment, saying the architectural plans had not been provided in a timely fashion.
    “That's what resulted in the stop payment,” said the attorney for Perelman and Gentile. He called the action “absolutely proper.”
    Kaufman also filed a lawsuit against M&T Bank for stopping payment.
    The JMA lawsuit, meanwhile, contends the decision to abandon the Kaufman design was a mistake. The managing partners adopted instead a “a new plan and a new design which included the addition of a cellar,” causing flooding when foundation work was done, and “substantial cost overruns and delays to the project.”
    •••••
    No sooner was the ink dry on the project's $7.8 million construction loan in December 2003 than Gentile and Perelman began receiving checks from the Gallery at Chelsea construction account.
    A check to Gentile for $50,751.50 and signed by Perelman is dated Dec. 16, 2003. A copy of the check was provided by McArdle.
    A $40,200 check, written to and signed by Perelman, is dated the same day.
    The memo lines indicate the money in both cases was reimbursement for capital contributions.
    The Sedona lawsuit says the Gallery at Chelsea agreement did not allow return of capital contributions at that point in the development.
    “Instead of contributing $2 million into the project, the developer defendants took money out on the very day that construction financing was made available,” states the lawsuit.
    Gentile said that money was not misappropriated and that all conditions of the deal were met.
    Ultra Construction Associates Inc., managed by the since-deceased Peter Romano, then a 44-year-old Queens resident and Gentile's cousin, was put in charge of the project.
    Ultra was registered as a New York corporation in October 2003, two months after the Gallery at Chelsea partnership was formed. Gentile said he saw no need to seek bids because he was confident his cousin and any subcontractors he selected could get the project built quickly and economically.
    “There's one thing we're pretty good at is concrete. It's what we do,” Gentile said. “And we can do it cheaper because we do it ourselves.”
    In its lawsuit, Sedona contends that “Ultra ... was never a legitimate company” but “a front controlled by Gentile” and his associates “to funnel money from the Fremont construction loan to line the pockets of the developer defendants.”
    The lawsuit points to a series of checks written on the Ultra account to “cash” between late November 2004 and mid-February 2005, each between $7,000 and $9,900, totaling $71,500. It also refers to three other checks, totaling $62,804, paid to Thompson.
    Draw-down requests, authorizing the construction money to be used to pay for work, were also not being properly signed by the general contractor or an architect, the lawsuit alleges.
    Though money was spent, some contractors claim they were not paid. Mechanic's liens totaling nearly $6 million were filed on the property between late June 2004 and mid-November 2004.
    The biggest lien holder by far is Ultra Construction, which, on Nov. 17, 2004, placed a $4.5 million lien on the property for unpaid work.
    Gentile dismissed the significance of most of the liens, saying they would not stand up to scrutiny.
    “That's not money spent,” he said. “It's just a fictitious lien placed against the property. You make up a number and put up a lien against the property.”
    If any of the liens is legitimate, he said, it is the one placed by his cousin's company, Ultra.
    “That was for the work performed and for the amount incurred, because he was contractually obligated to subcontractors” when the project stalled, Gentile said.
    But the minority partners contend the Ultra lien was filed in “furtherance of the scheme,” giving Gentile, Perelman or their associates a legal toehold and setting the stage for them to foreclose.
    •••••
    Among the various court documents is an Oct. 25, 2004, e-mail from Perelman to Fremont Bank in California.
    That communication, according to the minority partners, holds evidence that Gallery Development planned almost from the start to completely overhaul the architectural plans and increase the budget, despite the contractual commitment to build it for $5.4 million.
    “To bring you up to date, when we closed with Fremont on Dec. 12, 2003, we advised you that we would be redesigning the plans and specifications to add a new stainless steel skin, constructing a basement and changing the structural system to steel and plank,” writes Perelman.
    In the same e-mail he states that the project, at that point, was approximately $3 million over budget.
    An earlier, internal Fremont e-mail, written on Sept. 27, 2004, describes a project with significant problems. It describes foundation work at the site on 23rd Street:
    “In May 2004, VJB replaced Abcon Builders as the 'construction manager' due to their failure of having foundation concrete samples tested. The work performed by Ultra Construction had to be removed and concrete for the underpinning and piles had to be repeated. In addition, the borrower was ordered by FEMA to raise 3 of the column foundations 18 inches.”
    Gentile said the problems stemmed largely from the deficient Kaufman plans. Also, he said, contractors had to deal with unexpected pollution not described in the environmental reports McArdle had provided.
    “This thing was a mess, all for things not caused by us,” he said.
    Attorney George Tzimopulos, who represents JMA, said, “At the end of the day, it's all about who had control of the money. What did they do with it? And what got built? Nothing,” he said. “It doesn't matter what I say. It doesn't matter what they say. The facts are that those gentlemen were in charge.”
    Today there is a stop-work order on the project, according to the New York City Department of Buildings. The order is based on 13 complaints and 39 code violations, including undermining of adjacent buildings, demolishing the supports of a fire escape next door, and leaving the foundation open and flooded for long periods.
    The foundation has since been filled with sand.
    Problems were compounded, Gentile said, by the death of his cousin, Romano, who had been directing Ultra. He was struck and killed by a drunken driver on July 2004. Construction ceased soon after.
    In an attempt to recoup losses, Gentile said, he and Perelman discussed upgrading the project for more lucrative condo sales, but the minority partners refused to cooperate.
    “I can't go back and take another loan ... for an increase in the budget without the partners' signatures,” said Gentile, recounting his position at that time. “So they're holding me hostage.”
    McArdle said Sedona did agree to boost the budget.
    JMA, however, did not. It objected because Gallery Development had not made its required $2 million contribution, said Tzimopulos, and instead had squandered the loan money.
    “I wanted this to succeed really badly. I had devoted tremendous amounts of time and money. I did not get in the way of this project,” McArdle said. “But they were the guys with the experience. They were the guys who were supposed to know what they were doing.”
    Gentile said the lawsuits will prove him right, and once that happens, he will do what he always does: Finish the job.
    “The ironic part of this whole thing is, I became a huge winner,” he said. “West 23rd Street is the hottest block in New York City. I'm in a good place, and I have a lot of options.”
    Those options, he said, include selling the property at a significant profit or going ahead with a condo complex.
    “Am I wrong because I'm smart and it worked out for me?” he said. “Maybe God was looking down on me for doing the right thing.”

  7. #82

    Default

    That article answers my question.

    Quote Originally Posted by Derek2k3 View Post
    I wonder what happened to this....

    The Avant
    559 West 23rd Street
    13 stories 145 feet
    Garrett Gourlay Architect PLLC
    Stanley Perelman (The Gallery at Chelsea, LLC)
    Residential Condominium
    8 units 21,791 Sq. Ft.
    Proposed



    Garrett Gourlay Architect PLLC

    The Avant
    559 West 23rd Street – New York City
    13-story - 22,000 square feet - Unbuilt
    8 residential units - 1 community facility unit



    Permit

    PShark Listing

    Finding Utopia: Much Remains Unknown About Group Proposing A Massive Theme Park At Former State Hospital
    By PAUL CHOINIERE

    Norwich Bureau Chief
    Published on 8/15/2004



    (old design)
    Gene Kaufman Architects
    559 West 23rd Street
    New thirteen story building with a mix of simple, duplex, and triplex units.
    Completion: 2004
    Budget: $5,000,000
    Here's another one that's been postponed...

    547-557 West 21st Street
    142-152 11th Avenue
    22 stories 280 feet
    Christian de Portzamparc
    551 West Chelsea Partners LLC (Alf Naman)
    Mixed-Use 159,000 Sq. Ft.
    Commercial Office: 21,500 Sq. Ft.
    Proposed/Postponed


    Christian de Portzamparc
    http://www.chdeportzamparc.com/

  8. #83

    Default Knox Martin Venus Mural

    The Knox Martin Mural VENUS seen in the picture below will soon be gone from view---Cape Advisors Inc. is building a 20 story condo tower ("100 Eleventh Avenue") designed by the French architect Jean Nouvel on the corner of 19th Street and 11th Avenue, next to Venus (on the south side of Bayview Women's Correctional Facility), completely obscuring Venus from view. Venus was painted in 1971, commissioned by CityWalls (now the Public Art Fund), and refreshed in 1998 with a weather resistant acrylic paint specially formulated by Golden Artist Paints and donated by them, guaranteed to last at least 75 years.

    Of course the condo tower will be built on the site, but it could be built so as not to obscure the mural.

    Please send letters to Mayor Bloomberg and/or to the developer to protest this destruction of a New York City Art Landmark.
    The developer is Cape Advisors Inc. (212) 343-1700,*150*Lafayette Street, 9th Floor, New York, NY 10013.*Website:*www.capeadvisors.com. Contact: David Comfort, Cape Advisors Inc.*email: dcomfort@capeadvisors.com.

    Quote Originally Posted by lofter1 View Post
    Info on the mural on the south wall of Bayview Correctional Facility, seen in the attached photo from HERE :

    VENUS
    Outdoor painting 12 stories tall on
    the west side of Manhattan, New York

    In the work of Knox Martin -

    "... the images have gotten richer and the philosophy of painting deeper, and the experience of constituting the works through close visual reading is as rewarding as contemporary art provides. The process of seeking to rationalize forms with one another, as well as with surface, space, image, color and pattern, is what I mean by adventures in pictorial reason."

    -Arthur C. Danto (1998)


    Copyright (c) 2005 Knox Martin

    ***

    "Venus" by Knox Martin in Chelsea


    © Copyright 2006 Jack Szwergold.

    A shot of " VENUS " by artist Knox Martin in Chelsea.

    Photo taken on September 17, 2005
    Last edited by saposapo; November 7th, 2006 at 11:34 AM.

  9. #84

    Default KNOX MARTIN VENUS MURAL 19th Street & 11th Avenue

    Knox Martin Venus Mural
    The Knox Martin Mural VENUS seen in the picture below will soon be gone from view---Cape Advisors Inc. is building a 20 story condo tower ("100 Eleventh Avenue") designed by the French architect Jean Nouvel on the corner of 19th Street and 11th Avenue, next to Venus (on the south side of Bayview Women's Correctional Facility), completely obscuring Venus from view. Venus was painted in 1971, commissioned by CityWalls (now the Public Art Fund), and refreshed in 1998 with a weather resistant acrylic paint specially formulated by Golden Artist Paints and donated by them, guaranteed to last at least 75 years.

    Of course the condo tower will be built on the site, but it could be built so as not to obscure the mural.

    Please send letters to Mayor Bloomberg and/or to the developer to protest this destruction of a New York City Art Landmark.
    The developer is Cape Advisors Inc. (212) 343-1700,*150*Lafayette Street, 9th Floor, New York, NY 10013.*Website:*www.capeadvisors.com. Contact: David Comfort, Cape Advisors Inc.*email: dcomfort@capeadvisors.com.
    Last edited by saposapo; November 7th, 2006 at 11:33 AM.

  10. #85
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    When you paint on the side of a building that is also a sidewall to another property that can potentially host a new building, you cannot reasonably expect that open space to stay open forever.

    Furthermore, that painting is not that extraordinary to warrant the kind of protection that you are asking for.

    Personally, I've always thought it was some kind of ad and not a very interesting one at that.

  11. #86
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lofter1 View Post
    The CALEDONIA

    450 w. 17th St.

    Foundation work on this HUGE building is moving forward.

    Some pics from today ...

    ***
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Caled_02.jpg 
Views:	312 
Size:	22.1 KB 
ID:	2902   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Caled_03.jpg 
Views:	336 
Size:	30.8 KB 
ID:	2903   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Caled_05.jpg 
Views:	325 
Size:	24.5 KB 
ID:	2904   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Caled_06.jpg 
Views:	350 
Size:	28.1 KB 
ID:	2905  

  12. #87
    Crabby airline hostess - stache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Nairobi Hilton
    Posts
    8,511

    Default

    Looks kind of like a hospital -

  13. #88

    Default

    You are technically correct about painting on the side of a building.... HOWEVER, you might be interested to know that there is a law protecting artworks called MORAL RIGHTS LAW.

    Of course the condo tower will be built on the site, but it could be built so as not to obscure the mural.

    Also, in the past there were always security issues about that site: building a residential condo tower next to a prison is an interesting development.

    Too bad that you could not distinguish between an ad and art.




    Quote Originally Posted by antinimby View Post
    When you paint on the side of a building that is also a sidewall to another property that can potentially host a new building, you cannot reasonably expect that open space to stay open forever.

    Furthermore, that painting is not that extraordinary to warrant the kind of protection that you are asking for.

    Personally, I've always thought it was some kind of ad and not a very interesting one at that.
    Last edited by saposapo; November 6th, 2006 at 10:53 PM.

  14. #89
    Crabby airline hostess - stache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Nairobi Hilton
    Posts
    8,511

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by saposapo View Post

    Too bad that you could not distinguish between an ad and art.
    Snap!

  15. #90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by saposapo View Post
    Too bad that you could not distinguish between an ad and art.
    It's actually graphics.

    Putting it on the kind of wall where people are used to seeing commercial messages makes it seem like advertising when casually observed.

    No great shakes. Maybe a little derivative of Fernand Leger.

Page 6 of 68 FirstFirst ... 23456789101656 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Greenways and Waterfront Development
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 198
    Last Post: July 21st, 2015, 01:30 AM
  2. The High Bridge aka Aqueduct Bridge
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: June 10th, 2015, 12:37 PM
  3. The High Line: elevated railroad in Chelsea
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 837
    Last Post: January 19th, 2015, 01:16 AM
  4. A Prickly Mason-Dixon Line in the Village
    By Kris in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 22nd, 2008, 07:08 PM
  5. High *Line Walk May 3 - View the line from street
    By CMANDALA in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 21st, 2003, 01:04 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software