<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Gothamist: Beautiful, Lost Storefronts of New York</title>
<link>http://www.gothamist.com/2007/01/17/beautiful_lost.php</link>
<description>All comments for Beautiful, Lost Storefronts of New York</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>2007 arts_jen</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Jun 2007 17:33:04 -0500</lastBuildDate>
<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
<managingEditor>jencarlson@gothamist.com</managingEditor>
<webMaster>jencarlson@gothamist.com</webMaster>
<ttl>60</ttl>
<item>
<title>bill</title>
<link>http://www.gothamist.com/2007/01/17/beautiful_lost.php#comment-968750</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.gothamist.com/2007/01/17/beautiful_lost.php#comment-968750</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:54:14 -0500</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;I dont think &quot;lost&quot; refers to the photographed storefronts, but to the past age they represent.  There is something timeless and beautiful in their degrading status, much like the architecture of gaudi or the art of dali. i wont elevate street art to that level, but will say it provides a continuity for me.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item><item>
<title>Rodney P. Sweetchops</title>
<link>http://www.gothamist.com/2007/01/17/beautiful_lost.php#comment-968185</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.gothamist.com/2007/01/17/beautiful_lost.php#comment-968185</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:12:04 -0500</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;Can someone please explain why Dobkin had to mention graffiti vandals in this article?  Anyone? &lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item><item>
<title>john's bargain store</title>
<link>http://www.gothamist.com/2007/01/17/beautiful_lost.php#comment-968046</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.gothamist.com/2007/01/17/beautiful_lost.php#comment-968046</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jan 2007 13:21:12 -0500</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;That&apos;s true, all these are still there.
How bout doing a thing on the stores seen in the opening of The Odd couple?
&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item><item>
<title>Vanessa</title>
<link>http://www.gothamist.com/2007/01/17/beautiful_lost.php#comment-968042</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.gothamist.com/2007/01/17/beautiful_lost.php#comment-968042</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jan 2007 13:19:37 -0500</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;Peter,

I thought the same thing and then I immediately thought, well, how long do these businesses have with rising rents and large chain stores moving in?  Anyway, you&apos;re right, it seems to be a tribute to small, family owned businesses (that are currently in existence or not).&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item><item>
<title>Peter</title>
<link>http://www.gothamist.com/2007/01/17/beautiful_lost.php#comment-967973</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.gothamist.com/2007/01/17/beautiful_lost.php#comment-967973</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jan 2007 13:01:22 -0500</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;Just a minor nitpick ... most of the storefronts are for businesses still in operation, so technically speaking they aren&apos;t &quot;lost&quot; storefronts.

Kevin Walsh has a number of similar pictures on his forgotten-ny site.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item><item>
<title>dude</title>
<link>http://www.gothamist.com/2007/01/17/beautiful_lost.php#comment-967888</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.gothamist.com/2007/01/17/beautiful_lost.php#comment-967888</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:53:02 -0500</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;For about 5 seconds, I thought you might actually be posting something interesting without any references to graffiti vandalism....&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>