All in All Just Beams in a Wall

It's the spirit of old "We're pioneering artists" SoHo versus new "I'm flipping this condo" SoHo: The owners of a building on the southwest corner of Houston and Broadway are fighting to take down a sculpture on the outside wall of the building. Known as "The Wall," and also a landmark, according to the city's Landmarks Commission, Forrest Myers' 1973 sculpture consists of aluminum beams sticking out of the wall; it hasn't been there the past two years because it went in for repair. This issue has been roiling for a while, and the condo at 599 Broadway says they either want the city to pay them for the lost advertising revenue for having the sculpture there (read: "We couldn't get sexy, possibly underage Calvin Klein underwear ads on this wall all these years!") or get rid of the sculpture. The SoHo Alliance says, "SoHo is not for sale. Public art is not temporary." But, the Post reports, a judge will decide whether or not the Landmark Preservation Commission has "taken away the condominium board's private property without just compensation."

This brings up an interesting issue: Will NYC public art have to be subsidized by corporations or government when the economy is doing well and real estate owners and developers are less willing to give up space? Say what you will about Mayor Bloomberg, but he has made strides to increase the importance of public arts projects. And, yes, Gothamist was humming off-key from Pink Floyd's The Wall as we wrote this.

Photo of the Wall from Downtown Express

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jen Chung in Arts & Entertainment on March 15, 2005 8:41 AM

Comments [rss]

janine

They'll probably do it anyway. NPR covered it this morning saying that the revenue they'd get from the advertising would likely cover any fines and still leave a tidy profit.

FYI Max, 2 Columbus Circle is not landmarked. It was rejected from the list when they tried to get it on back in the 90s. It's on an Endagered Buildings list, but that's slightly different. There aren't any rules against tearing it down. Landmarks list is run by NYC, the Endangered Buildings list is run by the National Historic Trust... all those guys can do is wring their hands.

Max

1. Corporations and Government are pretty much the ONLY ones who subsidize public art. They are required to do so by law (1% rule).

2. Fire escapes are no longer legal and cannot be used on any NEW building.

3. Umm, take a long look at Columbus Circle- the crazy building (landmarked) on the south side is going to change quite a bit in the next few months- precedent?- check.

Tim N.

If the board took over the building with the landmark designation in place, then it would seem that they have no case. People bought there knowing what they were getting into. And if a previous board gave their wall to the artist in '73, they're also out of luck, by the same reasoning. The only way they win, it would seem, is if they had some kind of expiration date. Either way, removing a Landmarks designation for the sake of commerce seems a very dangerous precedent. By that same logic, couldn't someone buy the Flatiron building and add 40 stories to it, in the name of commerce?

MT

They want the city to pay for thier lost advertising revenue because the landmarks commissioned forced them to leave the art in place? Does that mean buildings will be able to charge the city for lost advertising revenue because they forced them to put fire escapes up in place of valuable wall space? What a blantant attempt at blackmail.