Hundreds Rally To Save 5 Pointz From Wrecking Ball (photos included)

[B35 via Church]

They just built luxury condos and what not right by the waterfront, what the hell they talking about.

5Pointz is (or rather was) one of the last untouched places that gave the city its individuality. You see what they did to Downtown Brooklyn already...

What they're saying is, they want to luxurize yuppify LIC, from the waterfront, to all the way up there by Court Sq (where 5pointz is at)....

 

Their aim/goal isn't to just stop at the waterfront....

Much like the revamping of downtown brooklyn didn't stop at downtown (instead, panned up to DUMBO & Vinegar Hill)....

[rosskin92]

And the city continues the process of whitewashing itself.

 

Also gentrifying...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 5c using Tapatalk

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

I hope they like having buses pull in and pull out during the late AM and early PM hours blocking their driveways, and the bustling noises of AMTRAK/ NJ Transit/ LIRR.

 

Then they're gonna bitch about that too...

 

I hope a train with a loud horn (unable to shut off because of a technical probelm) brakes down there.

[realizm]

Also gentrifying...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 5c using Tapatalk

 

What they're saying is, they want to luxurize yuppify LIC, from the waterfront, to all the way up there by Court Sq (where 5pointz is at)....

 

Their aim/goal isn't to just stop at the waterfront....

Much like the revamping of downtown brooklyn didn't stop at downtown (instead, panned up to DUMBO & Vinegar Hill)....

 

Thats how I see it. Absolute all out gentrification of the LIC area and real estate broker firm greed at its finest. What next? Mandated evictions of Queensbridge Houses residents and build more luxury condos? They tried to do this with the Fort Greene projects in Downtown Brooklyn but it failed. They actually had the nerve to try with total disregard for the issue with elimiating affordable housing and displacing native 2nd and 3rd generation NY'ers in the process.

 

Well the mayor elect is promising housing reforms in the city as a part of his plan to quell the affordability crisis in NYC so we don't see a situation similar to Tokyo or iong Kong where the costs of housing is insane with many low income residents displaced. He better keep his word instead of just talk and no action. I'll be watching.

[4P3607]

I've said this before... Why not incorporate the artwork into the new condo? Have some artwork on the outside / in the lobby, which can be changed every once in a while like with 5ptz. A 60 foot wall is minimal compared to what they had before. That seems like the most logical idea since it looks like there's no way we're going to stop these condos from rising. 

 

Ironically, I find the white paint being slapped onto the artwork vandalism. Putting the white paint without warning was "the biggest f**k-you ever" as someone said. 

 

IMO, putting the condos there seems to be one of the worst places to put it. Why would anyone want to sleep next to a place where the train passes every 5 minutes and a noisy highway in the background? They really should have revised this, perhaps buying some other property in a better place to put the condos. I can see some people are really devastated about 5ptz going. To some, its like the home tree falling in the movie "Avatar". 

[Grand Concourse]

Well, it hasn't stopped some tall buildings from being built like the ones next to the Manhattan Bridge. I'm sure they'd build the windows to block as much sound as possible. Because it probably costs less because it's an old abandoned property. No one to evict or displace. There will be 'panels' to tag up on the new property.

 

As for the white walling, yeah it seems botched, but it probably gets the wrecking ball in sooner since there's not much 'art' left to defend. 

[realizm]

I've said this before... Why not incorporate the artwork into the new condo? Have some artwork on the outside / in the lobby, which can be changed every once in a while like with 5ptz. A 60 foot wall is minimal compared to what they had before. That seems like the most logical idea since it looks like there's no way we're going to stop these condos from rising.

Doubt they would do that. Good proposal however the young urban professionals may not take a liking to urban art as a exibition on a luxery condo. The real estate firms would'nt want that I'm sure.

 

What the organization that started five pointz needs to do is somehow find a new location away from the areas target for gentrification. They considered moving to a new location as a measure of 'disaster planning' with money allocated by fundraising, which may be a feat to perform.

 

 

Ironically, I find the white paint being slapped onto the artwork vandalism. Putting the white paint without warning was "the biggest f**k-you ever" as someone said.

Better believe it, its a deliberate slap in the face and unnecesary for those wanting to get the last historical pics in while its still there, the a**holes they are. Many brokers and landloards can be vicious. I'm ready to write a letter not in kind terms and even publish it it pissed me off so much. +1 to that.

[Kamen Rider]

You have to remember that one man's art is another man's garbage. I do not recognize graffiti as art. Then again I don't recoginze anything in MOMA as "art" ether...

 

to paraphrase a qoute often atrbitubed to Vladimr Putin:

 

Anyone who doesn't miss old New York has no heart. Anyone who wants it back has no brain.

 

Graffiti, for many (up to and inculding the heads of the MTA, just ask the people at MTH), is a key part of a very negative memory. what do you do to something that brings up a negative memory? you avoid it or, if possible, get rid of it.

[Tokkemon]

You have to remember that one man's art is another man's garbage. I do not recognize graffiti as art. Then again I don't recoginze anything in MOMA as "art" ether...

 

to paraphrase a qoute often atrbitubed to Vladimr Putin:

 

Anyone who doesn't miss old New York has no heart. Anyone who wants it back has no brain.

 

Graffiti, for many (up to and inculding the heads of the MTA, just ask the people at MTH), is a key part of a very negative memory. what do you do to something that brings up a negative memory? you avoid it or, if possible, get rid of it.

 

That's probably the most sensible post on this thread so far.

[Turbo19]

You have to remember that one man's art is another man's garbage. I do not recognize graffiti as art. Then again I don't recoginze anything in MOMA as "art" ether...

 

to paraphrase a qoute often atrbitubed to Vladimr Putin:

 

Anyone who doesn't miss old New York has no heart. Anyone who wants it back has no brain.

 

Graffiti, for many (up to and inculding the heads of the MTA, just ask the people at MTH), is a key part of a very negative memory. what do you do to something that brings up a negative memory? you avoid it or, if possible, get rid of it.

That is the most illogical rationale I've seen in regard to the issue.

 

I see that your thoughts have been whitewashed as well. Get back when your brain cells regenerate to a functional state where there is meaningful output of self thought.

[Kamen Rider]

Here we go again. Someone disagrees with you and you start lacing into them. We have as much right to our opinions as you do. Stop being so stubborn and closed minded.

 

The two of your try to sell "acceptance", but only when it suits you.

 

Graffiti is not art. It's a crime, figuratively and literally.

 

Let's see how you feel when someone tags your property. Screws with the side of your house...

 

Ever had that happen?

 

I have, and it's a b*tch to clean off.

[peacemak3r]

First of all, I know I'm extremely late on this.

 

I literally do not care what happens there.

 

For someone that doesn't care, posting in this thread five times seems otherwise. 

 

Oh hell, its just graffiti... life goes on. (yawn)

 

Yet people would say the same for old trains being scrapped..difference? No.

 

----

 

Graffiti is bad, graffiti is good, street art is bad, street art is good.  I bet half of the people saying this building should go down would not being saying this if the building had a street mural mourning 9/11 on it.

 

First and last post on this thread. 

[ttcsubwayfan]

My first and last post in this thread will involve me pointing out, to those who make the comparison to old trains, if you complain about or rally against old trains being scrapped, you will be called every name in the book, including "foamer" and "nerd with no life".

 

Curiously, however, these standards don't apply to this situation, which they should, if there is "no difference". While I don't necessary believe such to be the case, I'm just pointing out the clear differences in the situation.

[peacemak3r]

My first and last post in this thread will involve me pointing out, to those who make the comparison to old trains, if you complain about or rally against old trains being scrapped, you will be called every name in the book, including "foamer" and "nerd with no life".

 

Curiously, however, these standards don't apply to this situation, which they should, if there is "no difference". While I don't necessary believe such to be the case, I'm just pointing out the clear differences in the situation.

 

Okay I know I made the statement of making one post and not responding, but for those who didn't understand my post, let me clarify.

 

I wasn't making a comparison as a whole, I was making a comparison of the statement that user brought up.

 

Let's break it down:

 

"Oh hell, it's just graffiti... life goes on. (yawn)"

 

Now let's switch some words up.

 

"Oh hell, it's just old trains... life goes on. (yawn)"

 

Difference? There is no difference in the statement when switching the words around. No was that so hard to understand? Apparently so with "those" people.   

 

Unless I've mistaken his post for a different meaning, then disregard the blatant sarcasm on my last line. 

[Turbo19]

Here we go again. Someone disagrees with you and you start lacing into them. We have as much right to our opinions as you do. Stop being so stubborn and closed minded.

 

The two of your try to sell "acceptance", but only when it suits you.

 

Graffiti is not art. It's a crime, figuratively and literally.

 

Let's see how you feel when someone tags your property. Screws with the side of your house...

 

Ever had that happen?

 

I have, and it's a b*tch to clean off.

For the last f**king time, the building was leased for the purpose of serving as a canvas. Graffiti in itself is not a crime, vandalism to others property is, but that did not occur here. Do not confuse the two.

 

 

My first and last post in this thread will involve me pointing out, to those who make the comparison to old trains, if you complain about or rally against old trains being scrapped, you will be called every name in the book, including "foamer" and "nerd with no life".

 

Curiously, however, these standards don't apply to this situation, which they should, if there is "no difference". While I don't necessary believe such to be the case, I'm just pointing out the clear differences in the situation.

Stop playing victim. As with everything there is criticism by others who will try to bring you down. Best thing to do is stand your ground, just like you would offline irl. Either way I'm ending it here, this is not up for further discussion.

 

Okay I know I made the statement of making one post and not responding, but for those who didn't understand my post, let me clarify.

 

I wasn't making a comparison as a whole, I was making a comparison of the statement that user brought up.

 

Let's break it down:

 

"Oh hell, it's just graffiti... life goes on. (yawn)"

 

Now let's switch some words up.

 

"Oh hell, it's just old trains... life goes on. (yawn)"

 

Difference? There is no difference in the statement when switching the words around. No was that so hard to understand? Apparently so with "those" people.   

 

Unless I've mistaken his post for a different meaning, then disregard the blatant sarcasm on my last line. 

LMFAO!

[Kamen Rider]

All graffiti is illegal.

 

Graffiti is, by definition, made illicetly.

 

that means anything made with permission isn't actually graffiti...

[Turbo19]

All graffiti is illegal.

 

Graffiti is, by definition, made illicetly.

 

that means anything made with permission isn't actually graffiti...

Keep interpreting at face value. It's doing you just fine I see.

[Kamen Rider]

Graffiti

"writing or drawings that have been scribbled, scratched, or sprayed illicitly on a wall or other surface in a public place."

 

illicitly

"forbidden by law, rules, or custom"

 

Would you like to take you case to the people who make the Oxford English Dictionary?

[MHV9218]

Graffiti

"writing or drawings that have been scribbled, scratched, or sprayed illicitly on a wall or other surface in a public place."

 

illicitly

"forbidden by law, rules, or custom"

 

Would you like to take you case to the people who make the Oxford English Dictionary?

 

An a**hole is defined as a part of the body, but you seem to be acting like one right now. Seems contrary to the definition, really. 

[realizm]

Graffiti

"writing or drawings that have been scribbled, scratched, or sprayed illicitly on a wall or other surface in a public place."

 

illicitly

"forbidden by law, rules, or custom"

 

Would you like to take you case to the people who make the Oxford English Dictionary?

All graffiti is illegal.

 

Graffiti is, by definition, made illicetly.

 

that means anything made with permission isn't actually graffiti...

 

Let me clarify some things here:

 

Source - pbs.org , NewsHour : http://www.pbs.org/newshour/art/blog/2011/03/the-history-of-american-graffiti-from-subway-car-to-gallery.html

 

To quote:

 

"Since its explosion onto city walls and subway cars in the 1970s, the increasing popularity of graffiti as an art form has won commercial success for its artists and a regular presence in pop culture and the contemporary art world.

 

Young people were the key players in shaping the contemporary graffiti movement, says Neelon. The first modern graffiti writer is widely considered to be Cornbread, a high school student from Philadelphia, who in 1967 started tagging city walls to get the attention of a girl. But it was only in the 1980s that galleries began to showcase graffiti as artwork.

 

Today, auctioneers and collectors shell out thousands of dollars for graffiti-style pieces. British street artist Banksy's documentary, 'Exit Through the Gift Shop,' (on which Gastman was a consulting producer) was nominated for an Oscar this year. And before Marc Ecko and Shepard Fairey were household names designing clothes or Obama campaign posters, they were (and still are sometime) street artists."

 

Graffiti is a form of art. I can understand if you do not have a artistic preference for graffiti art, but you cannot confuse the expressive form of the artform itself lumping all together with all forms of criminalistic vandalism and trespassing which actually comes in many forms and has nothing to do with graffiti. Graffiti is a form of art stemming from a controversial era of NYC history into mainstream pop culture today around the world as I were saying. Vandalism is just that, vandalism a misdemeanor or felony offense depending on the scope of damage inflicted. 

 

Many of the graffiti murals that you see out there in NYC? They are legal paintings in a prominent style of hip hop classical art. Graffiti artists gained legal permission from landlords to paint murals on the sides of city streets and painted it in public view. 

 

Terribly written scratichi on the side of a subway car, that's a different story that's illegal and therefore vandalism. On that one I don't even like it.

 

If someone tags your house in the middle of the night, of course you have the right as a law abiding citizen to call the NYPD thats criminal vandalism and trespassing. Obviously.

 

But that doesn't change the fact that graffiti is an art because it is shown at exhibition and sold at auctions for thousands of dollars as artwork, which is a powerful form of contemporary pop culture recognized and appreciated around the world, from here to Asia and Europe. (According to your argument since your put it that way.)

[Kamen Rider]

lets see,

 

the three of you, or the people who basicly the ones who get to decided what words mean and what are actually words. I'm gonna go with the latter.

 

I have the very definition of the word to back me up. Something is only "Art" becuase someone says it is and that degrades the value of the word if it can be assigned to anything. Oh, look, I turned an empty soup can on it's end and called it art, therefor it must be art! Maybe we need someone like Oxford, who gets to decided what is and isn't art.

 

this "graffiti culture" is noithing more than the glorifcation of the destruction of property. the Landmarks commison is under no requirement to landmark anything that celibrates a illiect concept. It is a symbol of the blighted days of this city and the less anyone has to look at it, the better.

 

When I worked at the transit museum, I had several people ask me why there were no cars covered in graffiti. I explained that it was offical policy, The MTA being so opposied to it, they canceled MTH's contract to make thier O gauge subway cars using the MTA marks after they produced a set with graffiti on them, after they were EXPLICTLY told not to, and that is was a key reminded of an era the MTA wishes to do nothing but forget.

[Turbo19]

lets see,

 

the three of you, or the people who basicly the ones who get to decided what words mean and what are actually words. I'm gonna go with the latter.

 

I have the very definition of the word to back me up. Something is only "Art" becuase someone says it is and that degrades the value of the word if it can be assigned to anything. Oh, look, I turned an empty soup can on it's end and called it art, therefor it must be art! Maybe we need someone like Oxford, who gets to decided what is and isn't art.

 

this "graffiti culture" is noithing more than the glorifcation of the destruction of property. the Landmarks commison is under no requirement to landmark anything that celibrates a illiect concept. It is a symbol of the blighted days of this city and the less anyone has to look at it, the better.

 

When I worked at the transit museum, I had several people ask me why there were no cars covered in graffiti. I explained that it was offical policy, The MTA being so opposied to it, they canceled MTH's contract to make thier O gauge subway cars using the MTA marks after they produced a set with graffiti on them, after they were EXPLICTLY told not to, and that is was a key reminded of an era the MTA wishes to do nothing but forget.

We get it, you don't appreciate urban art, point taken. I ask however that you do not bring down an entire era of NYC over some blight which was nothing more than a symbol of a corrupted society at the time.

[Tokkemon]

Its been about a week and all the outrage is gone. Looks like Mr. Wolkoff was right. They'll get over it.

[Kamen Rider]

I ask however that you do not bring down an entire era of NYC over some blight which was nothing more than a symbol of a corrupted society at the time.

UM...?

 

No.

 

I have to live here.

 

You don't.

 

I don't show up in Jurpra and tell you what to do, do I?

[realizm]

lets see,

 

the three of you, or the people who basicly the ones who get to decided what words mean and what are actually words. I'm gonna go with the latter.

 

I have the very definition of the word to back me up. Something is only "Art" becuase someone says it is and that degrades the value of the word if it can be assigned to anything. Oh, look, I turned an empty soup can on it's end and called it art, therefor it must be art! Maybe we need someone like Oxford, who gets to decided what is and isn't art.

 

this "graffiti culture" is noithing more than the glorifcation of the destruction of property. the Landmarks commison is under no requirement to landmark anything that celibrates a illiect concept. It is a symbol of the blighted days of this city and the less anyone has to look at it, the better.

 

When I worked at the transit museum, I had several people ask me why there were no cars covered in graffiti. I explained that it was offical policy, The MTA being so opposied to it, they canceled MTH's contract to make thier O gauge subway cars using the MTA marks after they produced a set with graffiti on them, after they were EXPLICTLY told not to, and that is was a key reminded of an era the MTA wishes to do nothing but forget.

 

Ok fine now you are just uttering to us an opinion. You hate graffiti even though it is an form of urban art that ha its history and is a part of global pop culture for decades. I already said bombing (tagging) cars is illegal, it is a felony offense. But hey Koch made his decision as mayor to clean up the subway cars because of a 'graffiti epidemic'. That's history. Now live with it, graffiti is a form of art.

Its been about a week and all the outrage is gone. Looks like Mr. Wolkoff was right. They'll get over it.

 

Well obviously because he doesn't give a shit, he's in it for the money strictly.