Gothamist: Flatiron Gets Wrapped

jackmcinroy

Sat, 29 Oct 2005 17:50:00 -0500

what idiots have done this?

Flatiron Building

Thu, 07 Apr 2005 23:32:09 -0500

Egg it.

the joseph

Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:10:59 -0500

the madison square flatiron building is just blocks from where i was born and raised. glad there is a large retail store in it as it will now gain more visibility and love by many new yorkers.

Andrew Willett

Sat, 26 Mar 2005 13:51:08 -0500

I saw the billboard yesterday while in the neighborhood, and that thing is dag-nasty. According to this article the building's landmark status means it'll only be up for a month, and must come down as soon as the construction scaffolding does, but still. That thing is a crime against architecture. And yes, I agree with Marion that the way that we are surrounded by more and more advertising for more and more of the time is not a good trend.

smitty

Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:32:03 -0500

boo boo, shame on you!

Tim N.

Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:50:44 -0500

I think Bob's got the right idea. If this ticks you off, boycott H&M. I mean, you can really do without that poly-blend sports jacket, you know.

Marilyn

Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:44:46 -0500

I think that is tacky as hell.

marcus

Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:33:14 -0500

Advertising? On a building? In New York?! The shock!!

ken

Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:23:03 -0500

i don't know how much bloomberg had in this considering (if i'm correct) that the flatiron building is not a city-owned building, but i agree that this just represents yet another example of the comodification of public space, the public commons, and culture. licensing new york to snapple, the copyright of the bean in chicago whereby no one is allowed to take pictures of it, the pending attempt to copyright yoga, etc...these are just other examples. it's really an interesting dilemma: you have the profit driven goal vs. the goal to share information and public spaces. which should win? where should the line be drawn? with the flatiron building, i'm sure the property owners have been paying progressively higher property taxes over the years (again, if i'm correct that it is not city-property), and advertisements is just another revenue stream to cover those higher costs. is the image of the flatiron building more important than this kind of revenue stream? my answer: i don't know. i just dont want 42nd street to filter down to 23rd st.

ace

Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:15:04 -0500

Well, they'll stone you when you walk all alone. They'll stone you when you are walking home... ...But I would not feel so all alone, Everybody must get stoned.

bob denver

Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:22:36 -0500

"H&M ad manager Steve Lubomski said the ad was the most expensive they had ever purchased and that "It's great to take a landmark building and make it our own." What's wrong with this statement. I don't know what H&M is, but don't think I'll be buying any soon.

Gregory

Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:55:01 -0500

I too think that wrapping an ad on the flatiron building is truly obsene. But what the article above does not mention is if it is a temporary ad during construction, or a permanent billboard. I was under teh impression that the city passed an ordinance prohibiting NEW oversized billboards in certain parts of the city. Isn't the flatiron a NYC landmark? And while we are suggesting *appropriate* advertising on buildings, perhpas trumps world tower could be wrapped with an ad for levitra ;)

D

Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:50:08 -0500

I think the Statue of Liberty should be wearing Teva sandals, be carrying a copy of "The Purpose Driven Life" and raising a venti mochachino from Starbucks. This is ridiculous.

Marion

Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:43:57 -0500

Maybe I'm overly self-righteous, but I think it is horrible that every public space here is plastered with ads...and the Flatiron now as well? Is there any way to keep the advertisers from doing whatever they want, given that Mayor Bloomberg is a rapacious businessman who even wanted to sell NYC's image to Snapple?