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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
http://www.lmlt.org/ we need to reread our NYC history and get active… “Defacto Multiple Dwelling” is the phrase that saves.
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.
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.
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.
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!
“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 :-)]