« 110 Livingston Rental Ads Go Underground 10 Jay Street to Get Another Five Stories »
January 24, 2008
Your Friends and Neighbors, 475 Kent Edition
It’s still unclear when or if the hundreds of tenants evacuated from 475 Kent Avenue on Sunday night will be able to move back into the building. Betsy Kelleher, who told the Times she has been fighting for years to get the building legally converted into apartments, left a post on a 475 Kent message board saying that judges are likely to allow the residents to move back in after the hazardous materials are removed: “as a result of the fact that this is a multiple dwelling and there are already laws in place protecting this many tenants in ‘defacto multiple dwellings’ our lawyers can go to the court to ask for an order from a judge that says we can return to our homes.” (Another conspiracy theory making the rounds: That the shut-down was payback from the Fire Department against owner Nachman Brach.) The AP, meanwhile, had a story about the many well-known photographers and artists who lived in the building, including: David Alan Harvey and Robert Clark, National Geographic photographers; Paolo Pellegrin and Alex Majoli, noted war photographers and members of Magnum Photos; Stanley Greene, who has covered the devastation in Chechnya; Kadir van Lohuizen, who has covered conflicts in Africa; Simon Lee, a visual artist; and Eve Sussman, whose exhibit at the 2004 Whitney Biennial was one of that year’s favorites.
Renowned Photojournalists Forced Out of NYC Building [AP/SI Live]
‘Commune of Creative Types’ in the Burg is Emptied Out [Brownstoner]
475 Kent: Confusion, Anger & Calls to Allow Residents Back [GL]
475 Kent Message Board [475kent.com]
Photo by D-Trubble.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/3635
Comments
I wonder how the idiots who wrote bs like his feel now?
"Just because you have declared yourself a "creative type" doesn't really account for much, in fact most times just means your a lazy scumbag."
Actually, I doubt that they have the decency to even feel ashamed of themselves.
Posted by: Bob Marvin at January 24, 2008 10:49 AM
What does this have to do with $3 million brownstones?
Posted by: guest at January 24, 2008 10:55 AM
Great, artsy fartsy types can break the law cuz they're so especially special! Maybe this incident will finally put to rest the long held myth that artists some how help magically transform neighborhoods in safer, and cleaner communities and therefore we should all look the other way at their indiscretions. There are lots of people (nurse, teachers, firefighters, EMT, police etc) whose services are critical to NYC and need affordable housing, yet artists are held to a different standard in terms of dwelling units.
Posted by: guest at January 24, 2008 11:08 AM
10:49 and 11:08 buncha provincial bourgies. yeah, be glad you reap the labor of our sweat equity after transforming your community so you can have a safe haven with property values going up. It used to be a dump and you prefer dump, I guess. Peon mentality.
Posted by: guest at January 24, 2008 11:18 AM
Is this building on the R7A lot or the E-91 lot?
Posted by: guest at January 24, 2008 11:25 AM
11:18, did you even read 11:08's post? Nurses, teachers, firefighters, EMTs, police officers, etc. would have been glad to put in "sweat equity" and been pioneers in the neighborhood if they got the same housing subsidies you did. Not to mention the indirect subsidies they provide you and everyone else by providing essential services. OK, so they don't have the time to devote to "transforming the community" because they're actually working day jobs and not hanging around the neighborhood all day.
Posted by: guest at January 24, 2008 11:27 AM
Absolutely have to agree with 11:08 and 11:27, while still being sympathetic to anyone losing their homes.
Posted by: guest at January 24, 2008 11:30 AM
Prominent photographers should be able to pay market rent like the rest of us unglorified non-artists. I agree with 11:08.
Posted by: guest at January 24, 2008 11:38 AM
@11:18 ; What housing subsidies did tenants at 475 get? None.
There are plenty of programs for firefighters, police officers and the like to get housing.
There are also plenty of empty industrial spaces for them to occupy, if they want to.
This is the thing... living in these buildings isn't any kind of luxury. You do it because your passions drive you to.
So, no matter your occupation, if you want to put up with a drafty building, vermin, loud obnoxious neighbors, industrial machinery, fumes... etc. then there's plenty of spaces for you to use, whether you're a firefighter or police officer.
Go do it!
I would gladly live in a 'regular' building, if I could make my noise there. Unfortunately this is seen as being un-neighborly... so I go elsewhere to follow my passion. You are welcome to do the same.
Posted by: guest at January 24, 2008 11:41 AM
is every single resident of that building a "creative type"? just wondering.
uh, prominent photographers like those mentioned don't necessarily make a lot of money.
Posted by: guest at January 24, 2008 11:51 AM
there shouldn't be a double standard. if they don't allow this type of illegal conversions they shouldn't allow it now. immigrants get kick out of illegal places all the time by the government. yet they won't get this special type of treatment that artist/yuppies/hipsters aka well to do white people get.
Posted by: armchairwarrior at January 24, 2008 11:56 AM
the "special type of treatment" is being chucked out of their homes on the coldest night of the year.
keep your divisive racist claptrap to yourself.
Posted by: guest at January 24, 2008 12:00 PM
11:38 is right. I love great art, too, but artists should have to face the same realities that we all do, whether they are highly paid or not. People who are flirting the law, for whatever reason, don't have much of a case when they're finally called on it, even if it is the coldest night of the year.
Posted by: guest at January 24, 2008 12:04 PM
So....what? No one has anything to say about the landlord and HIS 'illegal activity' and gaming of the system?
Nothing will really happen to him and you'd rather bitch and moan about artists?
Posted by: guest at January 24, 2008 12:31 PM
Armchair warrior is right--and that's not racist. This is getting media attention and sympathy because the people getting kicked out are articulate artists. It's classist, not racist. It's all about class.
Posted by: guest at January 24, 2008 12:54 PM
wow. i didn't realize there were so many artist-haters out there. most artist live in these types of buildings because they cannot afford the same amount of space in a "regular" building. i guess they should all move to the sticks and leave new york to the lawyers and stock brokers.
Posted by: guest at January 24, 2008 12:58 PM
11:25, the building is in an R6 zone. E-designations have to do with potential hazardous materials, which is different from the zoning.
Posted by: g man at January 24, 2008 1:02 PM
"Prominent photographers should be able to pay market rent like the rest of us unglorified non-artists"
Indeed they should AND AFAIK there is no reason at all to assume that they were not doing so.
It was the landlord, rather than the tenants, who broke the law. I strongly suspect that his intention was to profit from this lawbreaking--NOT to subsidise "poor" artists. If his intention was actually to be charitable, I'll be happy to apologise [but I think such apology will be needed some time between the moon being blue and pigs flying :-)]
Posted by: Bob Marvin at January 24, 2008 1:09 PM
i hope they let the tenants back into their homes. if the city wants them out because of the c of o issue, let them do it properly, with sufficient notice, etc. the tenants are getting caught in the middle of a city-landlord fight (over the matzo factory, ostensibly) and they were made to pay the price.
and just because this case is getting a lot of press doesn't mean it's not newsworthy. i wish every such case got so much attention.
and folks, stop trying to use these tenants to some kind of vague, metaphorical end; you can pontificate all you want about 'creative types' (could there BE a more watered-down, meaningless phrase?) but to ingore their humanity so you can project your bizarre neuroses only demonstrates how little you're bothering to understand what's happening.
god, please send us some nurses and firemen to speak for themselves!
Posted by: Jimmy Legs at January 24, 2008 1:41 PM
What's the big deal? These tenants lived in an illegal building, and they enjoyed the benefit of paying lower rent than they would for comparable legal space. The downside was that there was always the potential of something like this happening.
It was good while it lasted, but now the building got busted and it's time to move on.
Posted by: Flatbushwhacker at January 24, 2008 2:15 PM
The big deal is poeple were thrown out on the street with no notice. Usually with illegal conversions there is an inspection, a notice is served, court date set and fines and plans of action put in place. This is a residential zone so its not innapropriate to have apartments there. They need to get a proper CoO but you normally don't throw people on the street to do it.
Posted by: guest at January 24, 2008 3:07 PM
What's the big deal? This landlord rented out illegal space , and enjoyed the benefit of collecting more rent than he would have received for legal occupancy. The downside was that there was always the potential of something like this happening.
It was good while it lasted, but now the building got busted and it's time to move on.
Posted by: Bob Marvin at January 24, 2008 3:09 PM
http://www.lmlt.org/ we need to reread our NYC history and get active... "Defacto Multiple Dwelling" is the phrase that saves.
Posted by: guest at January 24, 2008 4:18 PM
While these spaces might have been cheaper than comparable legal space (or than having to pay for separate studio and living space), I don't think there were any deals here. From the rents quoted in the papers, these tenants were paying a lot for their space.
The artists mentioned above (and many others not cited by name) are working artists, making a living from their craft. Or at least they were until their places of employment were shut down.
On the other hand, BOTH landlord and tenants knew what they were doing. This is a commercial building, and it was being used as for live/work purposes. If anyone - landlord, tenant, or general public - is shocked by this, they are *very* new to NYC. Which is not to say that once the critical issues are addressed, tenants should not be allowed to move back in. The city has tolerated this type of housing for decades, and has summarily evicted tenants on only very rare occasions. This case does not warrant de facto eviction once the life-safety issues are addressed.
Posted by: WBer at January 24, 2008 5:57 PM
Well said, 5:57. It's not as simple as some people want to make it out to be. And it's not a new story in the annals of NYC housing. I hope to see a CofO for this building and its current occupants, but both sides were aware of the game here.
Posted by: guest at January 24, 2008 6:11 PM
It is scumbag landlords who happily look the other way for years and then panic when a building is about to go legit, who are to blame here.
Having said that, as a semi-successful artist who is fortunate enough to own a home and rent a separate work space, I wouldn't risk sinking a lot of money into a space I might lose as some people have apparently done here.
Posted by: guest at January 24, 2008 11:19 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.