Last Rites for The Spalding Building
From Atlantic Yards Report comes the sad news that the Spalding Building at 24 6th Avenue is being prepped to meet its maker. Another clear example of an architectural eyesore that needed to be purged from the blighted neighborhood. Not. Ratner purchased the building for $2,200,000 in August 2009. As far as we can figure…
From Atlantic Yards Report comes the sad news that the Spalding Building at 24 6th Avenue is being prepped to meet its maker. Another clear example of an architectural eyesore that needed to be purged from the blighted neighborhood. Not. Ratner purchased the building for $2,200,000 in August 2009. As far as we can figure out, there’s still that last-minute lawsuit out there involving the building’s air rights too.
The Spalding Building Is Prepared For Its Fate [AYR] GMAP
Photo by Raul Rothblatt
I know it may seem like a silly distinction, but our society does seem to think that there is value in promoting “high art” while leaving the Lady Gagas of the world to fend for themselves. We provide public support for art museums that house the art deemed of high quality, not every single art gallery around. I didn’t invent that distinction. So yes, I guess there’s a public benefit to Lincoln Center, and yes, I think it’s non-profit nature and root goals matter – remember, it was arguably built in a time and place that was in real need of revitalization, unlike Prospect Heights in 2010.
But I do think any form of arts/entertainment is getting very close to the line of what should qualify for eminent domain, which should primarily apply for things like infrastructure, schools, and so on. Moreover though, there has to be a line somewhere, doesn’t there?
fsrq — You’re (again) inventing and putting words in my mouth. If you actually read, I said i have a problem with subsidies. And I employed a CLEAR example of the Yankees where there was absolutely no need to subsidize anything, but we did anyway.
BTW — there’s is nothing “revenue neutral” about a tax exempt bond. It is exempt from taxes… meaning tax revenue on earnings are lost. That is the opposite of neutral.
bkre – I’d acknowledge that IF the term “blight” was what you or I would refer to in casual conversation – but the legal definition of blight is a far more technical term, and for which large portions of the site WERE blighted (under LEGAL definition) and legally that justified the ED taking of the whole site. Because while it no doubt sucked for the 30-50 odd RS tenants who lived there many years and for the condo owners who lived there for 1/2 dozen years (at most), the societal benefit FAR exceeded the cost, especially when you consider the incredible windfall compensation the VAST majority of those effected received.
fsrq has a point. a ton of us dont give an F about the arts, etc so fair is fair – ie cant poo poo this and rejoice on the big art subidies.
what’s done is done. collateral damage, intended damage,… if this cant be reversed, just build it already or are we arguing about the hole is better for the hood?
I am actually okay with FSRQ’s argument that an arena is a public amenity, even if it is privately owned/run by a or-profit entity. It is still an important part of a a city’s infrastructure to have a number of large indoor facilities where large numbers of people can gather, for a variety of reasons/events. But I still take issue with the notion that the area was blighted in 2002. Many of old formerly vacant warehouses had been converted to luxury condos already, and it was only a matter of time before the same thing would’ve happened the remaining warehouses and vacant lots. Any argument that this area was blighted in 2002 has to rely an a complete misrepresentation of the facts. Period. ANd this is coming from someone who, in general is not anti-AY. But still the blight premise is a farce. FSRQ, you’d have more credibility if you acknowledged that but just argued that the project’s merits outweigh the costs.
9-3-6 So I assume you are saying that there is no public need/benefit for Lincoln Center as well?? or does it depend on the type of music being played at a venue??
Why is a tax exempt bonds (which are ultimately revenue neutral) a horrible subsidy but direct taxpayer monies for things like AveryFisher Hall ok in your book?
BTW there are $5 bleacher seats at EVERY Yankee Game – again what is the cheapest seat at Avery Fisher, BAM, Carnigie etc…..
If you oppose tax subsidies for Arts and Entertainment – fine I get it but once you try to pick and choose you lose all credibility.
“So again 9-3-6 IF the Arena was built and owned by NYC/NYS and then leased to a private operator then its ok to use ED????”
No, because it doesn’t serve any really necessary public need. I already answered this.
“you just hate AY and you are trying to find solid moral ground to oppose it while not sounding like a hypocrite”
No, you’re way off. As I said at the very beginning I will be glad to have the arena there. I’m more likely to go to a concert there or at MSG than Lincoln Center (which I’ve been to all of once) or Carnegie Hall (never been). But I’m uncomfortable with how it’s getting built. I’m not thoroughly comfortable with how Lincoln Center got built either, especially as you point out those facts. I guess I’m glad there both there, but legally taking someone’s private property is bound to be a sticky and contentious issue in a country where we value property rights, and I think there definitely needs to be a clear public benefit defined whenever ED is used. It’s not clear that there is one at AY, nor was the area really in need of this, so that’s my ground for disputing the decision.
Yeah… the Yankees own the stadium on the backs of HUGE tax exempt bonds that were floated on their behalf.
But you’re right, the $5 tickets the Yankees sell for a dozen or so games a season…. that makes up for the lost tax revenue.