Jump to content

Here Are The Giant Luxury Towers That Will Replace New York's Most Iconic Graffiti Wall


R188 7857

Recommended Posts

The whitewashing of graffiti mecca 5Pointz last fall has been a hard, slow-burning pill to swallow for street artists and New Yorkers alike. Here to drive the loss home are new renderings of the colossal apartments set to replace the beloved Queens building.

New York Yimby has the scoop on the redevelopment designs from HTO Architect, which feature two towers that will be topped off by "glass crowns" that encase penthouse suites.

Owner-developer Jerry Wolkoff has defended his decision to knock down the iconic 5Pointz building, where for years he let graffiti artists from across the world install and share their work. A judge sided with Wolkoff last November, declaring that he could not issue an injunction to stop demolition, but admitting that, as a 5pointz admirer, it was going "to tear my heart out to see it torn down."

On a positive note, the 22-24 Jackson Avenue redevelopment in Long Island City will include affordable housing without a "poor door" -- the awful separate entrance that several luxury buildings in New York City have recently installed for low-income residents.

 

See the pictures: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/31/5pointz_n_5638565.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites


On a positive note, the 22-24 Jackson Avenue redevelopment in Long Island City will include affordable housing without a "poor door" -- the awful separate entrance that several luxury buildings in New York City have recently installed for low-income residents.

That's a surprise. I never knew developers would have the chutzpah to design something with an "unprivileged" entrance. However, the comments in the article make sense.

 

Comment by Richard Greco:

 

If I am paying $5000 a month in rent and someone is paying $500 in rent for the same apartment in the same building, maybe I should get some extra perks. I am sorry, but low income housing does NOT entitle someone to a sauna or hot tub. The point is to ensure adequate housing and to allow those the opportunity to NOT be forced to live in a ghetto. What is the motivation to do work hard and do well for oneself if those seeking low income housing are given every single perk? I am all for public housing but I do not think limiting accessibility to the "extras" is such a bad thing.

Subcomment by Richard Greco:

 

Ultimately, housing should be a right; amenities afforded to those paying "full price" are a privilege. Public Housing should not get involved in this. Instead of a "poor door" we could offer a "VIP entrance." We do this with air travel, at amusement parks, and even at some retail store checkouts. The problem is the verbiage. The media has termed these entrances "poor doors."

 

Comment by Edward Nemil:

 

Are they arguing over equal access to entrances, amenities, or both?

Separate but equal isn't intrinsically discriminatory. Just in practice it has been used historically as a dodge to sidestep Constitutionally protected civil liberties. I'm curious about what is the Constitutionally protected right that is violated by dual entrances, social repugnance aside?

And isn't this issue more about class versus race? Even if most of the poor residents were minorities, they aren't being treated differently than poor white residents, and the same goes for rich white and minority residents.

As far as the amenities, I understand my tax dollars going to subsidize shelter for low income people, but I wouldn't want to pay for luxuries.

 

Comment by Barry Wolk:

 

Airlines have had 'Poor Doors' forever (1st class & Business Class have their own lines and they get on the plane first). So, will NY attack these airline 'poor lines' also?!?

In lower Manhattan, the great passenger cruise lines had separate doors to enter the building and these doors are marked "1st Class Entrance' to this day!

Also, perhaps someone who has paid $4 million dollars for their apartment can expect more services from their building staff than someone in the same building who pays just $2,000 a month in rent.

Just sayin'.

 

Comment by Jon Scap:

 

People aren't going to pay millions of dollars for an apartment only to share the same amenities with the lower class. So if NYC does enact this legislation than guess what? no more developers building luxury condos with affordable rent units.

The liberal argument here is all about "how it should be". Do any of you really think your idealistic scenarios where the poor and rich share a luxury building equally is ever possible? If you were rich, would you pay millions for a place like this? The building wouldn't sell units.

Lets be real. If i was poor and had a family, i would be thrilled to live in a luxury building even if i had to climb through the window. We are making mountains out of mole-hills.

 

My conclusion… this "poor door" term is total bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the old 5pointz better.....

 

 

.....My conclusion… this "poor door" term is total bullshit.

Here's another "poor door" mention by this one uptight bitch I wish someone would put out of her misery already - Rachel Figueroa-Levin, amNY columnist: Poor Doors have no place in NYC

 

I read that in the paper earlier this week & facepalmed on the train on the way to work..... The so-called concept of a "poor door" isn't the problem..... If I don't want rats in my house, I don't leave my quarters in a pigsty-like setting..... That was an analogy, but realistically to the point, gated communities exist for this reason.... If I don't want "poor" people in my establishment, I don't create ways to invite them in....

 

Either they're in or they're out....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.