NEW YORK | 5Pointz (22-44 Jackson Ave ) | 498 & 440 FT | 47 & 41 FLOORS

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Submariner

"the Wolkoffs’ act was equivalent to “murder” and “genocide.” "

I hope this entitled, spoiled s**t runs into an actual survivor of murder or genocide so he realizes what an absolute twat he is.

It's outrageous that these people think they are entitled to someone else's property. They should invite each other to each other's homes to continue their work. Spread the love.

I also think it outrageous that the Wolkoffs intend to invite these artist back to the site with another space for graffiti art. That only strengthens the idea that they are "entitled" to it. God forbid Wolkoff will one day want to replace that.

[nygirl1]

But.....how would he run into a survivor of murder??? Murder victims are usually dead

I don't feel entitled to this property but it really is a travesty what happened to such an iconic queens location. Glad I got to photograph it when I did....greed won.

[Perklol]

This warehouse had to go. It was a blight in a developing neighborhood.

[INTENSS]

Originally Posted by nygirl1

I don't feel entitled to this property but it really is a travesty what happened to such an iconic queens location. Glad I got to photograph it when I did....greed won.

Greed won? He owned the property, was nice enough to allow these thankless moochers to use the space for 20 or so years, decided to make a return on his property (investment), and he's the greedy one? Get a clue - these warehouses were in bad shape and neeeded to come down eventually anyway.

[ThatOneGuy]

What a crime. In 20 years (not even that long) people will look back and wonder how such a unique landmark could have been destroyed. Especially considering the horrible architecture of these condo towers. Mismatched cladding, awkward form, ugly setbacks... They're like something out of 90s Shenyang.

Yeah, who needs cool places like these? Let's all just let some guy who happened to own that land tear down a unique piece of NYC culture for some bland condos! Commercialism FTW!

[Submariner]

Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy

What a crime. In 20 years (not even that long) people will look back and wonder how such a unique landmark could have been destroyed. Especially considering the horrible architecture of these condo towers. Mismatched cladding, awkward form, ugly setbacks... They're like something out of 90s Shenyang.

Yeah, who needs cool places like these? Let's all just let some guy who happened to own that land tear down a unique piece of NYC culture for some bland condos! Commercialism FTW!

LOL

So what is he supposed to do with his multi-million dollar investment? Let it sit fallow for years more while these artists continued to use it at no cost to them? Never once did I see a plan where the artists would come together and purchase the property, or even try and give him some fraction of what he paid. Screw him, right? How dare he try to make a profit after 20 years of inactivity.

Which brings me to my second point; he let the artists use his property for free for the better part of two decades. Everyone who utilized 5Pointz knew that the building was to eventually be torn down. If they had a problem with that, they could have done their work elsewhere. By the way, what is your address? I'd like to come over and use your house as a graffiti wall. After all, it seems that you have no problem using other people's private property for your activities, right?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy

Yeah, who needs cool places like these? Let's all just let some guy who happened to own that land tear down a unique piece of NYC culture for some bland condos! Commercialism FTW!

You know, if you value walls of graffiti over actual homes for people, you can go right ahead and buy the site and keep it a dump.

We have these crazy thing called property rights, where people actually get to do what they want with their land under the law.

The ironic thing is that the owners are being demonized, when they are the ones who allowed people to paint up the site for 30 years, for free! This increased their insurance costs, it created all kinds of issues, but they did it because they thought they were being good neighbors. Now they actually want to utilize the land and people are calling them Nazis. Oh, the irony...

[nygirl1]

Why do any of you care what this guy does to make a profit?? What does his condo have to do with you? I'm pro development but this was a unique and iconic location. These weren't just scrafitti artists and taggers. They were artists. They made statements and evoked emotion through stunning works of graffiti art. It wasn't even just graffiti artists frm queens or even New York. It was artists from around the world, collectively creating a masterpiece out of what would otherwise be just your typical, dilapidated, old warehouse.

It served a greater purpose as a canvas then your next run-of-the-mill ode to banality. I assure you a growing neighborhood could have grown around this.

Now maybe I don't have a clue...and maybe u are a son of astoria...but this was the destruction of something great that was shared to make way for something ordinary for some temporary property owner to make some green.

I don't think it is I that doesn't have a clue...greed won.

[nygirl1]

And all of you can criticize my opinion and tear it down. You can tell me who are we to say what millionaires that are ripping the soul out of new york can do and not do. So odd to care so much for people that would step all over you so you can have something to "chat" about on a web forum. The same way my reasoning baffles you, your reasoning baffles me.

[Submariner]

Originally Posted by nygirl1

Why do any of you care what this guy does to make a profit?? What does his condo have to do with you? I'm pro development but this was a unique and iconic location. These weren't just scrafitti artists and taggers. They were artists. They made statements and evoked emotion through stunning works of graffiti art. It wasn't even just graffiti artists frm queens or even New York. It was artists from around the world, collectively creating a masterpiece out of what would otherwise be just your typical, dilapidated, old warehouse.

It served a greater purpose as a canvas then your next run-of-the-mill ode to banality. I assure you a growing neighborhood could have grown around this.

Now maybe I don't have a clue...and maybe u are a son of astoria...but this was the destruction of something great that was shared to make way for something ordinary for some temporary property owner to make some green.

I don't think it is I that doesn't have a clue...greed won.

Jesus almighty...I'll tell you why I care...because it's his property, his building, his liability, his time and effort and his money. I care because a group of entitled jokes are trashing a man who let them use his property, free of charge, for 20 years. They never sought to compensate him for two decades and when he said was finally going to develop it (something everyone knew was the fate for that site) the artists acted like spoiled children demanding that he continue to provide them with a free blank canvas. Forget about the money he stood to loose by not developing this property, but can you imagine how much he was paying in taxes and insurance on this building? Can you imagine, in our sue happy culture, if someone got injured on his property? Guess what, he may be found liable! Can you imagine a world where someone is justly compensated for their land, especially when the owner has gone far above what is fair and equitable and let them use it, for free, for 20 years?

I care because it's his building, not theirs. I am sick and f***ing tired of people running around with this free lunch mentality thinking they are owed something they are not. How about the owners of this building decide to utilize these artists houses for their own personal pleasure? The artists tone would change in about two seconds.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by nygirl1

I don't think it is I that doesn't have a clue...greed won.

You're defining "greed" as selflessly giving away an asset, for nothing, for decades, for love of art. That's what the developer did.

If he were a normal property owner, he would have never let artists have free reign over his building. He would have never been consequently demonized.

It's basically if I turned my apartment into a free place to stay, just for the heck of it, for decades, and then, at some point, decided to end the practice. Is that "greedy", while if I never gave away my apartment, I wouldn't be "greedy"?

[nygirl1]

I'm not going back and forth with you. Lets just both sit and watch this city turn into a soul-less array of condos. Fantastic isn't it?

[Submariner]

Originally Posted by nygirl1

I'm not going back and forth with you. Lets just both sit and watch this city turn into a soul-less array of condos. Fantastic isn't it?

By all means, help him cover his insurance and tax bill. Should he be spending tens of thousands of dollars a year to subsidize the artists blank space? Should he loose a tremendous amount of time, energy and money because they don't like that they have to leave even though they knew that time would come?

And yet again, the man has gone far above the call of duty by offering both subsidized studio space and a 10,000 sq. ft wall for these people to do their work on. You know what most people would have done? Told these children to go to hell. No one should have to endure what he has yet he still tried to compromise with them when they had zero right to anything at all. Unbelievable.

How about this - the artists band together and buy another property that they can call their own.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by nygirl1

I'm not going back and forth with you. Lets just both sit and watch this city turn into a soul-less array of condos. Fantastic isn't it?

I would say it's pretty great. The alternative would be hundreds of fewer places to live in a city with a huge housing shortage. The new apartments will also generate millions in city property taxes, and their residents will pay millions in city income taxes.

If the artists wanted the site permanently, they could have done so. They could have negotiated the purchase of the site, or, at a minimum, the transfer of existing art to an alternate site. They chose to do neither.

[Astorian]

It's his property. He let these so called "artists" use it for free for 20 years, all the while paying for insurance and property taxes without receiving a penny in return. Now that the market is right, he wants to cash in on his investment. And he has all the right in the world to do so. If anyone wants to create a permanent space for graffiti "art," they can go ahead and buy their own property to do so. But don't try to steal someone else's property just because they were kind enough to let you use it for free for decades. This condo development didn't happen overnight, it's been in the works for years. In all those years, not once did any of these deadbeats ever put together a serious offer to buy building, they just expected to continue free loading in the name of "art."

[nygirl1]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I would say it's pretty great. The alternative would be hundreds of fewer places to live in a city with a huge housing shortage. The new apartments will also generate millions in city property taxes, and their residents will pay millions in city income taxes.

If the artists wanted the site permanently, they could have done so. They could have negotiated the purchase of the site, or, at a minimum, the transfer of existing art to an alternate site. They chose to do neither.

Lol...I am so unconvinced and I'm sure you're "shocked"...listen...I'll enjoy knowing I at the very least got to enjoy it while I last and you enjoy crusading for these multi millionaire developers. Goodnight to you.

As for Astoria...I was going to read your post but as soon as I read the first line I knew it was going to be the same rhetoric...and looks like its pretty long winded at that. I hope someone that cares reads it.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by nygirl1

Lol...I am so unconvinced and I'm sure you're "shocked"...listen...I'll enjoy knowing I at the very least got to enjoy it while I last and you enjoy crusading for these multi millionaire developers.

No, but I enjoy "crusading" for New Yorkers who will benefit from this new housing. I'm sure the new tenants will benefit, as will the city's budget, of which the largest expense is the Department of Education.

Basically the choice is between a few entitled d-bags who want to take this guy's property, and all the New Yorkers who will benefit from new housing and tax revenue. I'll go with the New Yorkers.

As for the artists, I hope they're willing to let others permanently displace them from their homes, for free, of course. If these artists only give up their houses for a few decades, they will of course be labeled as "greedy".

[Astorian]

No good deed should go unpunished according to NYgirl. If she ever finds herself homeless I hope her friends have enough sense not to let her crash at their place for free, for she would think its her right to take ownership of the place.

I wish the owners would have just bulldozed the building and stop trying to appease these deadbeats. Nothing would satisfy them besides getting the building for free and having someone else continue to pay for all of the expenses.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy

What a crime. In 20 years (not even that long) people will look back and wonder how such a unique landmark could have been destroyed.

Only in the sense that people look back and remember the Times Square of the 80's. As in "remember when it was this bad?" But also likely, in 20 years people will look back and wonder why people who didn't own the property were allowed to tag it in the first place.

Originally Posted by nygirl1

Why do any of you care what this guy does to make a profit?? What does his condo have to do with you? I'm pro development but this was a unique and iconic location.

I don't care what he does to make a profit, so long as he has a right to do it. The developer owns the site, it's as simple as that. He doesn't owe any explanation, he doesn't owe any alternative space.

Let these ingrates find another landlord willing to let them mark up the place. Or better yet, let them find another abandoned location and find sponsors to pay for it. It doesn't matter, in time there will be a new use for the site, wherever or whatever it is. It's the nature of New York.

I don't know at what point you will decide to draw the line, but it's a safe bet that if someone came to take your property and told you that someone else thinks they are entitled to it (even someone you might have taken in out of generosity), you might think about it.

Originally Posted by nygirl1

It served a greater purpose as a canvas then your next run-of-the-mill ode to banality.

The problem with that is, it was not a canvas. The use of the site, and the graffiti on it was all temporary. As it always is. Not all people find graffiti attractive, and many don't want it in their neighborhoods. But a simple ride on the 7 train reveals that graffiti is alive and well.

[Perklol]

Is 5 Points getting razed? They said sometime during the end of the year (2013).