Born and Drukier (the new Chelsea overlords) are keeping busy bringing George Jetson and postmodernism to the West Village. They have chosen web designer Hani Rashi and Lise Anne Couture, 
known for creating “elaborate visual worlds” –which are probably really cool when you’re stoned—to design an eight-story, 24-unit condominium building at 166 Perry St. in the West Village. No doubt, all the real designers were busy. In a phone interview with the NY Sun, Born said, “We have exclusivity on them because they have never done a residential project, or any kid of project, in New York. Anyone living there can be pretty much guaranteed there isn’t another chance to live in an Asymptote building”
Wow aren’t they lucky! And Born says they’ll even be able to stand naked before the windows of this highly original glass tower. (After all, there’s only been about two dozen such monstrosities erected in the past five years.) I’ll hazard a wild guess and say that some people past their undergrad years would prefer their building be designed by someone with a little more experience. Please keep them out of the Chelsea, Mr. Born.
Actually, on second thought, maybe there is some work for Rashi and Couture around here. The hotel’s official website could use a little upgrading! The could design a virtual lobby to look like the bridge of the Starship Enterprise. And then once you’ve thrown us out into the streets we could hang out there in our imaginations. — Ed Hamilton
(Photo: Gothamist) (Too late, some students in Australia have already designed a virtual Chelsea Hotel.)
Living with Legends
Hotel Chelsea Blog
8 responses to “Peek-a-boo Living Room: The Jetsons Stand Naked”
-
I’m sure there are plenty of people who think that the glass building looks pretty cool (there are tons of Trekkies and Star Wars fans out there drooling at sci-fi conventions). If you don’t, don’t move there. They aren’t talking about changing ALL the buildings in New York to look this way you know.
As far as the Hotel Chelsea goes, it’s Landmarked, there’s NO POSSIBLE WAY they could ever change the outside of the building to look like this. The way the hotel looks is the way they have to keep it. They can repair, but they can’t change the look. You know this, Ed.
If they changed the INSIDE to look like this, it would be ridiculous and I’m sure they know this too…or at least I hope they do.
And, IF they attempted to throw the residents out WITHOUT A VALID REASON (and NOT paying your rent, like it or not, IS a valid reason) it would be pretty sad if you chose to spend your time virtually hanging out in the lobby…unless you WERE stoned.LikeLike
-
Um, Guest, people pay rent at the Chelsea. Why are you repeating the PR party line?
There are people who think those ugly glass buildings look cool? Hard to believe.LikeLike
-
Previous Tenant:
You obviously do NOT know the real situation of a number of tenants who live here. There are people who do owe a lot of money and haven’t paid rent in quite a while. THOSE people need to be given a fair chance to pay back rent, which is what the notice they received in their box was for (see an earlier post on this site for details).
You are sounding more and more ridiculous. You’re so one-sided it’s immature.
I’m sticking up for the tenants while also trying to be fair to the other side, which I believe we should be, and I think the other side should be FAIR to the tenants! It works both ways.
And YES, I DO think and KNOW (and I believe that YOU know this too) that there ARE people who think those GLASS BUILDINGS (YOU labeled them “ugly” and that’s fine as it’s YOUR opinion) look cool. There are PLENTY of people in the world who like that type of design. If nobody ever moved into those types of buildings, they would cease to be built.
You’re complaining about it because of the connection to the Chelsea, which, as I’ve said, is pretty immature. People DO have differing tastes, you know. And people whose tastes differ from YOURS doesn’t mean that those people are idiots or anything else negative about them…they just have different tastes!
AND along those lines…thinking about the variations of style and form in the art world, I’m sure the ARTISTS who live at the Chelsea APPRECIATE differing tastes.
There is NO WAY that new management could EVER do ANYTHING even REMOTELY like this to the outside of the building because it’s landmarked! I believe everyone knows this by now.
I don’t need to repeat ANY PR on new management’s side as they’ve hired a very good PR firm all on their own. PR or not, what they SAY and what they DO may be two different things. If they DO something that attempts to send the residents out on the street or if they change the interior in such a way that there’s a tremendous uproar (LEGIT REASONS, not just to complain about things done because it’s new management who has done them, after all, Stanley has been changing the interior and refurbishing rooms for YEARS. That lobby wasn’t always painted yellow)…the world will know and no PR can change DESERVED bad press when the public observes changes for the themselves.
How about some statements and feedback that’s less personal insults and immature opinions and more feedback that’s actually helpful to the residents and constructive opinions for, say….new management? I’m not saying they’ll listen, but IF they do read this blog, they’re probably just laughing at you calling their glass buildings “ugly” as they get millions from people lining up to live or work there. Ugly to you or not, there are people who pay a LOT of money to be there. That’s just a fact, just as there are a lot of people who pay a lot of money to live at places like the Chelsea Hotel. Personal tastes, Previous Tenant…personal tastes. It’s like art work.LikeLike
-
Come now, it’s all about context! These would be fine-looking towers in, for example, Lagos, Nigeria, or 1970s Dallas.
LikeLike
-
Guest, you sound like you’re doing PR for them while attempting to appear fair and balanced towards the tenants. So… liking those buildings is a mature opinion? Thinking they’re ugly, as I do, is immature? Condemning the unfairness of Stanley’s ouster, that’s immature? Rolling over and playing nice for these people, after what they did, that’s mature? Going along to get along… no thanks. People did that after 9/11 and look where it got us. The largely rebellious Chelsea residents are not known for giving in to people like this. If you think they can be won over by reason and human warmth, that’s been tried and it failed, leading to the current fiasco.
Yes, sending that curtly-worded letter on day one, before any introduction, was merely a gentle attempt to help the tenants in arrears find a solution. Sure. And I have this swampland in Lousiana I wanna sell ya. One might be tempted to look at that as a naive (read: immature) view of New York real estate.
Oh, and because people pay a lot of money for those glass houses, that somehow should make them appear less ugly? Too often money is the highest value, or only value, that counts in this world. If they’re laughing at me for that then they need better sources of humor. Those buildings would look right at home in a Toledo industrial park. That Emperor’s got no clothes.LikeLike
-
p.s. Yes, I know they can’t change the exterior of the hotel because it’s landmarked. It’s a metaphor! You literal-minded, linear-thinking people need to put down the stacks of money you’re counting and read some fiction and see some good nonrepresentational art!
LikeLike
-
Previous Tenant:
ACTUALLY, I’m trying to be (not APPEAR) fair towards new management. I’m not playing nice either, I’m just trying to be fair. I’m on the tenants’ side for a very good reason. And I’m going to be very upset if they start making boutique-y, generic, commercialized changes to the Chelsea and take away the character that the Bards have worked so hard to nurture. Some people just like to twist things into meaning something different just because they say something fair about the opposition. It feels like you’re always doing this with what I write.
RE: Immature Opinions. Come on! Once again, you took nearly everything I said and twisted it into meaning what you wanted to think I meant….and I hate to say it, but you’re wrong about what I think AGAIN! But I see how your mind works from that post pretty well.
“Guest, you sound like you’re doing PR for them while attempting to appear fair and balanced towards the tenants. So… liking those buildings is a mature opinion? Thinking they’re ugly, as I do, is immature? Condemning the unfairness of Stanley’s ouster, that’s immature? Rolling over and playing nice for these people, after what they did, that’s mature? Going along to get along… no thanks.”
I said NONE of those things. You spun each one.
You make blanket statements about things and give opinions that insult other people’s taste just to take a barb at new management. THAT is what I feel is immature…that sort of thing. You have every right to give your opinion, and I welcome people’s honest thoughts on what they feel about things and to say it the way you have been, but what often gets to me is that you make statements without some of the necessary facts behind them.
Condemning Stanley’s ouster immature? Never said that either. I want the Bards back. I said that you don’t know all the details of the ouster which made the judge rule the way he or she did. Neither do I. You have the right to condemn his ouster, nor did I say this. David’s ouster was truly unfair in my opinion.
Making all these dramatic (and sometimes ignorant of facts) statements is what is immature, not having these opinions themselves. Sheesh. Giving in…I’m afraid to ask how people “did that after 9/11…”
I’ve also stated that I believe it was rude to not send the residents an introductory hello from new management before the arrears. I think I’ve even said that SEVERAL TIMES! The fact though is that they do have the right to collect money owed and, introductory letter first or not, if you owe you owe and are expected to pay up. Period. That’s just a fact that can’t be denied. HOW the money is collected is another story.
“Oh, and because people ay a lot of money for those glass houses, that somehow should make them appear less ugly?”
For goodness sake…stop twisting everything I say! I never said that paying a lot of money for something makes it less ugly! People pay a lot of money for ugly things. I was saying that the buildings being ugly or not is merely a personal OPINION! I wouldn’t pay a lot of money to live in something I thought ugly if I had other choices. That’s all!
I KNOW that the photo was what you call a “metaphor” and what I would call more of a “joke” or “spoof” on what new management supposedly plans on doing. I actually had some people say (or email)that they saw the photo of the future plans and had to correct them and inform them of the Landmark status. If you think I’m linear-minded or have stacks of money (and I know you said “people” meaning more than just what I wrote), you’re wrong. I’m actually one of the artists. Grew up on fiction. That has nothing to do with clarifications though. And yes, it IS about context, thank you, Badar. And in the context of changes, that’s what I meant.
I think the glass buildings would look right at home down by Wall Street, Times Square (they could do something more neon-y with it) and so on. In the middle of a cobblestone street (don’t know if it’s actually cobblestoned but…)a little out of place. Okay, a LOT. Maybe “out of place” is more accurate than “ugly” in that context. If you think they’re ugly, then they are…to you. Money means less to me than it seems to to most people. So you’re preaching to the converted there.
I try to be specific so what I write is taken in the correct way but you’re twisting it all anyway so…oh well. I guess I should just be glad that you’re a “former tenant” than a current one.
Believe it or not, we really are on the same side. Nothing wrong with trying to be fair though and yet still hold onto your strong opinions and feelings.LikeLike
-
this is a terrifying prospect. i guess it’s time to add the chelsea to my ongoing list of vanishing new yorkology.
LikeLike
Living with Legends 
Leave a comment