Gothamist: City Cuts the Amount of Time the Falls Will Fall in Half

Gothamist_Cynic

Sun, 31 Aug 2008 16:18:14 -0500

Tourists aren't exactly the brightest.

Spiritof76

Sun, 31 Aug 2008 13:10:07 -0500

Anecdotal and arguable. Okay, they wanted to see them. But did they come specifically for the waterfalls or were they coming to NYC anyway regardless of whether the Public Art Fund threw $15 million down that hole? Are you saying they would have gone elsewhere if NYC didn't have waterfalls?

dr zippy

Sun, 31 Aug 2008 12:05:56 -0500

I overheard several tourists the past few months talking about the waterfalls and how they wanted to go see them. If you go down to the East River this afternoon you'll see scores of people taking photographs of the falls.

moonbeam

Sun, 31 Aug 2008 12:00:37 -0500

It's ridiculous to even suggest that tourists came to NYC specifically to see this stupid piece of "art." Other than the people involved in erecting it, I've never even heard a positive comment. Mostly, people are baffled as to why anyone ever thought it was a good idea in the first place.

Gothamist_Cynic

Sun, 31 Aug 2008 10:26:56 -0500

Just turn them off already and dismantle them.

NannyState

Sun, 31 Aug 2008 00:20:55 -0500

I could have saved them the $15 million by just peeing on a tree.

Toby von Meistersinger

Sat, 30 Aug 2008 22:36:10 -0500

This was always a stupid idea and more engineering than art.

moocowtoo

Sat, 30 Aug 2008 21:41:37 -0500

They need to crank up the water, it just looks like scaffolding during a rain storm.

mouse6805

Sat, 30 Aug 2008 20:42:34 -0500

It was a stupid idea from the start. They're interesting maybe for someone who has never seen them before, but plain annoying for those that already have.

Spiritof76

Sat, 30 Aug 2008 20:24:49 -0500

Waste of everything. Is there any evidence that these waterfalls attracted more tourists to NYC as the Public Art Fund and the artist claimed they would?

angry_pickle

Sat, 30 Aug 2008 19:37:58 -0500

Waste of money.