‘Swimming Cities of Switchback Sea’ in LIC by way of Swoon
Swoon’s ‘Swimming Cities of Switchback Sea’ at Deitch studios, LIC — photo credit
Don’t let it be said that development is depriving LIC of its artist community… ok, well someday that might happen, but for now LIC still has some un-condofied industrial spaces currently left to the whims of local artists.
In a dramatic presentation, a long loved NYC street artist of almost a decade, the artist known as SWOON is currently hosting an exhibition called “Swimming Cities of Switchback Sea” at Deitch Studios, Anable Basin, featuring 7 sculptured boats which were propelled around Manhattan by various forms of alternative energy.
Swoon’s ‘Swimming Cities of Switchback Sea’ at Deitch studios, LIC — photo credit
The boats have returned from their journey with only a little trouble, which featured performances by other artists during stops along the way, and are currently housed in Deitch Studios along with other Swoon works. Two performances are scheduled for this Thursday and Friday (Sept 11 & 12), 8pm at the Deitch Studios - don’t miss it.
Swimming Cities of Switchback Sea [website]
Swoon goes massive at Deitch Long Island City [The World's Best Ever]
Swoon takes it back to the streets [Gothamist]
Swoon on navigating the Hudson [Art Info]
Street Artist Swoon Deemed Pirate by NYC Cops [Village Voice]
Deitch Studios - Exhibition Info [website]
There are hippies in New York? No, it can’t be.
development is depriving ALL of NYC of it’s artist community. it sucks, but that’s just the way it is.
It’s actually lack of development that forcing artists out. All neighborhoods in NYC, including LIC, fight increased density so it causes the supply of living space and work space to remain low. While supply increases slowly, population and demand increases at a higher rate, driving prices up so high that artists can no longer afford to live here.
So if you want the artist community to remain able to afford space in NYC, you should support development. Or at least maybe support development that includes affordable housing aimed towards artists?
Looks like we can turn LIQCity’s posts on any topic into a debate on development.
So tired of this development talk. The opening was fun! And I bet the Riverhead was packed afterward with a pretty motley crew….
Amen to that, #5 — enough talk about development — (though the concept of designated artists housing or workspace for LIC is appealing).
What’s wrong with talking about development? What else is there to talk about in LIC?
On topic, I saw this show this weekend when the boats landed. A-M-A-Z-I-N-G. Swoon is truly a gifted artist. liQcity is right - do not miss the last shows. Or at least see the boats and the work in the Deitch. We are lucky lucky to have art like this happening here. Sometimes at something like this or at PS1, I enjoy the very unique feeling of being proud of LIC. Someday after they destroy all the artspace I won’t have that feeling, so I’m enjoying it now. That, and my semi-affordable apartment.
There is video of strangeness here –
http://gammablog.com/2008/09/08/swimming-cities-of-the-switchback-sea/
7, I always had fantasies that MoMa would have taken over the Schwartz Chemical building and moved an expanded PS 1 there. Instead, we’re going to be stuck with a hideous condo building that destroyed the integrity of that amazing historic resource. (In my opinion, this was the biggest travesty of everything that has occurred in LIC during its development boom.)
Tate Modern relocated to a similar structure (the old Battersea powerplant) in London, an example of a city where new development doesn’t preclude art but embraces it and builds new opportunities to showcase it. Maybe LIC will follow in their footsteps.
Well at least we HAVE PS1. I think we’re lucky to have it here.
#5, art and gentrification/development are intricately linked… it’s been going on since SoHo.
http://www.amazon.com/Loft-Living-Culture-Capital-Change/dp/0813513898
One problem regarding affordable artist’s housing/studios is that under various State, Federal, and Local law the City cannot have artists as a sub-category. Affordable housing must be by income only without prejudice to any one sector. When developers provide affordable housing they can offset the cost by way of the extra bulk or height they are allowed. If they cannot get this benefit for affordable artists space, where does the ‘affordable’ come from.
I’ve also heard various responses to the effect that how do you determine who’s an artist, what happens when they are successful - do they keep their subsidized space, what happens when they just don’t make it, what about someone whose career goes up and down, etc.
I think these are valid issues but they are certainly ones where intelligent people can find workable solutions. If this community could rally around the idea I think there are people in government and in fact local developers who would very much support it.
My own approach is that there are no major development failures in this area that I am aware of. Many sustain years of empty commercial space. A unique artist’s enclave would be a destination that would likely stimulate growth. It would also likely encourage a diversity of small businesses.
Many progressive towns and cities across the country have artist enclaves, typically disused commercial buildings that have been take rehabilitated and transformed into studios for individual artists and craftspeople, where they host open houses and sell their creations. I’m not aware of anything like this in NYC. In many ways, the city is far behind many other parts of the country in its support for working artists.
#14, the places of which you speak are often places using arts/artists as an economic development tool (following, again, the success of SoHo as the prime initial example of a cultural presence having a major effect on real estate). Places like Paducah, Kentucky, and Jackson, Michigan, for instance, have consciously worked to attract artists to depressed districts with incentives… with mixed results.
NYC has little in the way of disused buildings, especially in central neighborhoods like LIC. NYC, as a key global art market (and high land value city and generally exuberant economy generally) is quite a different environment.
I will get behind subsidized space for artists when there is subsidized space for bankers.
16, I was waiting for the Republicans to weigh in on this thread, and you haven’t disappointed me. Of course, the entire city is subsidized space for bankers.
Brandon, that’s why artists need to be subsidized here–there are no more cheap places for them to live/work. We don’t need artists as an economic devlopment tool, we need them to keep LIC a culturally interesting place.
So how can an artist’s enclave be created?
I disagree about there being no vacant commercial space in LIC… there is quite a bit actually. Maybe not at the waterfront, but LIC is a lot bigger than Hunters Point. I see a lot of buildings with not that much going on them when I bike around here…
Brandon, I also think NYC has used artists as an economic development tool to further its own interests. For many years, artists in NY have always been the people who brought new life into decaying, dangerous, or cheap industrial neighborhoods. They make these places viable for the next wave of gentrifiers — first young apartment dwellers then older, richer condo owners. That’s the story of LIC. I don’t think LIC, with all the money it’s generating for the city, would be the same as it is today if it weren’t for artists choosing to live here starting in the 1970s.
I’m not sure whether I am expressing myself correctly, but I lived in Manhattan during the years of the gentrification of Soho. In those days artists were able to use commercial buildings both as living and working lofts - thus began the great conversion of commercial buildings for both living and working. It was not an easy transition - in many instances, they had to fight for their rights.
As I understand it, for many years artists in LIC could use commercial spaces only for working and not for living and there was no huge outcry here as there was in Soho to gain rights to both live and work in their space. Perhaps there is someone out there who can explain this more succinctly than I have,
In SoHo, I believe it was illegal to live and work in same place but the tenants who were doing it managed to convince the authorities to make it legal. I think property owners here are a little more watchful in making sure artists don’t live in workspaces, but those that do could try to make it legal here too.
The entire city is subsidized for bankers? Really?
#19, it seems to me that most of the buildings in the neighborhood are in some type of active industrial/commercial use… sure it’s desolate at night and on weekends, but during working hours things seem to be pretty buzzing everywhere. Maybe there are some vacant ones, but not many… #19, it’s hard to “create” an artists enclave, especially with land values what they are in NYC, without a major financial commitment to such a strategy from the State or Philanthropic sectors… right now such a “colony” that #14 talked about above is thriving in East Williamsburg/Bushwick, with open studios, endless events/parties/openings, and all. It wasn’t created by government, however, as much as it was necessitated by the gentrification of Williamsburg, LIC, DUMBO, etc. in the previous round.
#20, totally. The difference here is that the City hasn’t had to attract them via some sort of incentives; the artists want to be in NYC (in spite of the costs for space) due to NYC’s preeminence as an art market/scene/hub. You’re darned right that’s what happened with LIC (and the museums/galleries will stay long after the remaining artist-residents/workspaces are gone)… to this day, economic interests use the “vibrant” “arts” and “cultural” “life” of LIC as a key selling point of the neighborhood. Right now, you know the developers, investors, and government are loving what is happening in Bushwick (and not for their own cultural edification).
#21/22, yeah SoHo was orginally for manufacturing only, and the coalition of artist residents (and, notably, their uptown friends/patrons, in whose financial interest it was to not only have NYC continue as the hottest art scene in the world but also, often, to take back Manhattan from manufacturers for the expansion of office/residential zones) convinced gov’t to gradually legalize it. Unfortunately, this accelerated middle class and upper middle class folks moving into lofts, and then eventually the creation of a loft apartment market that the professional developer types moved in-on hardcore. This era conincided with the democratization of art to a larger audience outside the traditional patrician class, including a growing fascination with the artist loft as a lifestyle, not to mention the middle class’ embracing of historic preservation and an appreciation of the industrial aesthetic (gears and machines becomes picturesque when no longer active, right?). End result was the demise of SoHo as an artists community, in any case…
While scattered, certainly still several illegal artist loft collectives in the neighborhood, though some may be legal? Not sure what the zoning/building regulations in LIC say, in this case…
#23 I guess 421a could be seen as subsidy but I think it was needed to encourage development in the city.
brandon - Even though the artists enclave eventually led to the conversion of Soho to “luxury loft living” it was because of the artists that many historic commercial buildings in Soho were preserved rather than destroyed. The fight for preservation began with the artists. It is sad that the same could not have been accomplished for some of our buildings - 1063 being a case in point!
BTW = That is me - #21 responding as #26
True #26… I think we’d all rather see adaptive reuse into luxury housing rather than replacement with bland modernist glassy towers… that is a big difference between LIC and SoHo.
(although admittedly many of the buildings in LIC are later-era 1-2 story garages/warehouses/bakeries that aren’t particularly architecturally significant nor suitable for conversion to residential, as much as I like the bleak aesthetic of some of those blocks at night and on weekends… for that matter, they are viable businesses serving the local market… and it’d be short-sighted to zone all of them away, in my opinion)
#16 is clearly living in a hole somewhere. Perhaps he missed the major government bailouts of big business that have characterized the past couple of years.
#30 elaborate and specifically explain how white collar workers housing were subsidized as part of these alleged bailouts.
I’d heard that Plaxell project on the Anable Basin was to have artist affordable housing. Anyone know what came of that?
31, please don’t be so dense. The entire city economy has been structured to enable the financial industry to do business in NYC and to keep workers making hefty salaries so that they can purchase the tax-subsidized properties developed for them. City administrations make it easy for banks and other financial services to develop properties, they give them tax breaks every time they threaten to move to Jersey, they pump money into the BIDs where they do business, they keep infrastructure in those areas in the best possible condition, and they continually get bailed out by taxpayers every time they fail. Business schools get tons of money in their endowments and are looked on favorably by the politicians. No other profession in NYC is as pampered as they are. It’s high time they actually lived by the free market they pretend to adore so much.
Does anyone think that we are rapidly approaching a time when there is no such thing as a working artist (in the traditional sense, i.e., the struggling kind) in NYC? What would the effects of that be on life in NYC? It’s something I never thought would ever happen here, but with the economic trends such as they are, it seems like something that could happen.
#34… not really… they will just be commuting ever-further (East New York? Far Rockaway? Staten Island? Jamaica?) … the market/culture here seems to be enough to keep a big chunk of the Pratt grads in town, in spite of the cost.
#32, the city is apparently not in favor of including artist affordable housing in the properties around Anabel.
#33, I’m still waiting to hear of the details of these bailouts and how that translates into subsidized housing… or for you to admit that you were you throwing that out there to bolster your case.
33, thank you for saving me the trouble of explaining to 37. 37 in general likes to snipe at everything and force us to defend everything to him/her as if she/he is some big deal. 37, I don’t care if you don’t get it. Everyone else does.
Artists are an important small manufacturing sector. Artists also are at the forefront of pioneering neighborhoods that become goldmines for development. The City pours tons of money in terms of tax abatements, special wavers, and promotion toward development. But artists are politically weak and end up disenfranchised and displaced. So morally it’s a good idea to find ways to support the arts. But additionally from a business and economic standpoint the arts are an important stimulus to economic growth. The small amount of either private or public investment that would go toward helping live and work space to be a bit more affordable, is nothing compared to the campaign money that gets poured into luxury projects.
I don’t know why the city would be against artist affordable housing. The rezonings around here have mainly involved old industrial buildings, which are frequently used by artists. So because they are the ones that are being displaced, it would be justifiable to require some affordable housing aimed towards artists in new developments. If they meet the income limitations, I don’t know what issue the City should have with this.
I think that by anti discriminatory laws in most states & municipalities, housing has to be aimed at income levels, not at occupation. What’s to say that when “affordable” housing is aimed specifically for artists, that home health attendants, or writers, or cashiers, or musicians, or kitchen workers, won’t demand the same?
In NYC, I think that where housing is concerned (as well as other things), occupation is in the same category as race, nationality, religion, and one’s origin.
Charlie.
Charlie, I am sure you are right. But in my opinion, occupation should not be in same category as race, sex, etc. And if a given action will effect one occupation group more than others, it should be acceptable to do something that benefits that group more than others. But I can see it is not a simple issue.
We do senior housing often, isn’t that a form of age discrimination against the young?
I believe that the way special housing can be legal for artists is when it is a “live/work” arrangement. I know that such housing exists - someone help me out here with more succinct info. BTW - are artists allowed to reside in the “artists studios” at ARRIS?
You have a very good point # 42, and it definitely is not a simple issue.
Now, my train of thought would be, in the case of seniors, that what the various levels of government are trying to do, is to prevent a potential disaster. In cases where seniors are retired, and/or disabled and unable to work, virtually all these seniors live (or try to live) on incomes which are vastly reduced (in most cases) from what they lived on during their working years. Other than the 10% discount some businesses give to seniors, their living expenses do not become reduced to match their new reduced income levels. Many seniors now have little in the way of disposable income, and many have to struggle just to get by. Some are forced to take more drastic steps by cutting back on neccessities, like medicines, and even food. Some are even forced into homelessnes. Without senior assisted or provided for housing, many would not live for very long after retirement or onset of income producing disability.
I think that this arguable discrepency in the discrimination laws, is one that most have no problem with, as it probably will eventually apply to them, should they live long enough. I also think that it has to do with certain societal basics, like respecting and honoring and caring for our elders.
Okay, lets move to the situation which we and others are referring to, concerning affordable housing for artists. If we replace the artists in this situation with, let’s say, a home health attendant community occupying these particular spaces, or even perhaps supermarket workers, or waiters and bartenders; would all of this interest in their plight, and would these discussions even be happening?
It is, all interesting stuff to ponder.
Charlie.
charlie - You have not “pondered” my question. I am #43. As I stated, I know that there are “live/work” spaces devoted to artists all across the country. I believe it is because the “work” is their primary source of income unlike the bartender, teacher, dishwasher etc. whose main source of income is outside their home. Many times these artists form a collective and turn an unlivable property into a “live/work” situation through a DIY effort.
My post # 44, was solely discussing what # 42 posted.
# 43/45, I remember the controversy (here in NYC, in the 70’s) concerning factory building space being converted into “lofts” for artists use. The space was to be used for work and storage only. Artists started living there on the sly. It was against Dept of Buildings regulations for anyone to live in those divided factory floors. No C of O would ever be issued for residential, because the whole building itself could never meet the requirements of the time, and some probably still don’t. There was the stipulation that landlords had to provide ample heat (no matter who paid for it), and most factory buildings were lousy at being able to meet those codes. It mostly however, had to do with meeting the DOB/NYFD requirements for proper ventilation due to the use of the materials of their trade, and fire/emergency prevention, spread and escape from. Artists often work with volitile and toxic materials, along with equipment easily capable of producing fire, and with materials capable of rapidly spreading a fire, and even exploding. The city didn’t believe that people and hazardous/dangerous materials shouldn’t co-habitate. It made the news on several occasions, when someone had to be evicted. It all eventually died down (mostly), and most turned a blind eye to the controversy.
You’re saying that the situation is different in the case of artists, because their income is mostly derived from work produced at home. They should be given special consideration? Is this correct?
Charlie.
Sorry about the double negative in the previous “co-habitate” statement near the end of the 2nd paragraph.
Charlie.
I’m not part of this thread but I’ll chime in. It’s not really about live/work and in fact not all artists want that. It’s really about the combined effect of affordable living space for people from all walks of life and affordable work space for small producers whether that is painting, jewelry, film, music, furniture, food, etc. This is one way to encourage an interesting community to grow.
My feeling is that plenty of public money goes toward monster projects like a baseball stadium, attracting the Olympics, tax abatements for residential towers, etc. Plenty of money goes toward ideas like creating a financial zone or a high tech zone. Plenty of special zoning allowances go toward hotels. Plenty of large scale manufacturers get benefits from the public. So it’s maybe time to try a bit of economic stimulation from micro business on up.
It’s interesting to question the rights of bankers to create money from nothing, by selling debt, and it’s interesting to ponder the nature of the wealth bankers have amassed. Oh, and I like to look at what the money amassed by banks and bankers gets reinvested in. Things kinda like Queens West.
[Oh, am I speaking of ALL bankers? Geez, let's not go there, okay, it's just that bankers did, after all, loan all the money for all those mortgages that are going bad all over the place (okay, you say they only empowered others to approve those mortgages-BFD).]
So, we’re contemplating petitioning these same cats to give a little financial leeway to something cultural, to benefit the artists and the other creative types who have lo these many years made LIC so attractive to developers? Whoa, I think not.
They can’t be bothered to help the hapless artists now because they got where they are by squeezing the crap out of them, if you’ll freaking excuse me. And you, gentle public, may discover if you haven’t already that you no longer have any disposable income to buy any freaking art because you’ve been overcharged for real estate since you entered the (Free) market, and pretty soon you’ll be required to bail out the banks that are now lining up behind Fannie and Freddie, and all I have to say about that is I wish the bankers, rather than the artists, would get real jobs and, AND, my father made enough money to support a family and his wife did not have to work. Something has happened in the intervening years, no one may deny, and perhaps something evil this way slouches, etc., blah, blah, blah, but at least we have each other, ha ha.
I’ll use just three sentences to describe the origins of our current economic, and so many other woes.
Sentence One: The two political party monopoly.
Sentence Two: Big business billions used to bribe the members of the two party monopoly.
Sentence Three: The big business billions in bribes, mostly fund the two political party monopoly.
It’s probably more correct to use the term duopoly, but not everyone is as familiar with the term, like they are with monopoly.
Charlie.
Should not forget to say Swoon’s enormous installation at Deitch Studios is remarkable if not unforgettable. Check it out.
Oh dear 49, it seems you are all over the place on this one. As 48, my post was about reversing the trend from trickle down to building up. If one really believes in free market there should be no discriminate in favor of big business. My post points out that all public benefit in the way of tax write offs, special privilege, special funding, and promotion go toward the largest projects - many of which are boondoggles. I’m simply saying proportionately extend and spread the same benefit to smaller industries - among them the arts.
I headed over to Deitch Saturday night… yeah, it was pretty amazing.
Gee 48, 52–wasn’t responding to you. Just get a load of #16 if you want to see the twisted core of all this “development.”
54, eesh! Doesn’t 16 realize that the entire trend of the past few years was to create a tax supported haven for yuppie bankers who’ve now all screwed us with their ADD?
Yo, 55, maybe it’s a little clearer after the events of the last 2 weeks. Then again, one can never tell…
44th Drive is getting more interesting these days (and it would be better if the city would ever fix the public pier at the end). Walking down 44th Drive to the water, it’s funny to watch the strangely dressed artists and hippies go left to the Deitch space and the nicely dressed wedding party people heading right to Water’s Edge.