In today’s NY Times, Marlene Krauss talks about the future plans for the Chelsea Hotel which include "…cleaning it up and bringing it back to its former glory." We hope that we’re not part of the trash that gets swept out by Marlene Krauss’ planned spring cleaning binge. As for the former glory, it never left, Marlene. You just missed it! Anyway how would you know since you’ve only been here a couple of times in your life.
What era could Marlene be referring to anyway. It’s doubtful that she would have found the era of Warhol and Dylan all that glorious.
In the same story, Ira Drukier reports that "it’s not the intent to turn this into a boutique-y hotel." Well, ok, then why did your hire Andre Balazs?
Living with Legends
Hotel Chelsea Blog
Posted in Hotel Chelsea
36 responses to “Marlene Krauss Plans to Bring Back Mark Twain & William Dean Howell”
-
You’re quite right, bloggers! I wondered too. Back to its former glory ? When would that be, Ms. Krauss? The 50s, the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s? Or does it predate the Bards, in your view? Stanley Bard is the main reason that hotel is a legend. It’s his glory, not yours. Don’t even dare to try to steal it, you interlopers. The Chelsea Hotel remained glorious until you and Elder started messing with it. If you truly want to restore it to its former glory, give management back to the Bards and let them run it their way. You just sit back and thank your lucky stars you were born into a stake that you didn’t have to earn.
This is what Rubenstein PR gets paid for, the vague language combined with a few appealing words, “glory,” “pleased.” Drukier says, “People will be pleased with the changes.” Which people? The residents? The perennial guests? Page Six? How would Drukier know, being an outsider? What gives him the right to make such an arrogant prediction about this complicated and unique community and building? They talk about cleaning up and infrastructure improvements, renovations. But no specifics, allowing them to plug whatever they want into that framework. And Stanley, who has given his life to the place, has no say.
Sorry, Rubenstein can sweeten their words till kingdom come, it won’t change the fact that they have nothing but a very superficial understanding of the hotel and its spirit, it won’t change the fact that they took management away from the Bards, which they earned by being their day in, day out, while these two “partners” were giving the place a wide berth.
Watch them like hawks.LikeLike
-
The Chelsea’s original “former glory” stemmed from its architect’s socialist-inspired, utopian vision of a city in which residents had the space, time, and freedom in which to discover and tell the truth about this society. Its ongoing glory stemmed from its occupants’steady, determined resistance to the commericalized, corporate-dectated culture being developed all around it.
Will the new management team turn this back into a venue for free social interaction and unfettered creativity now, when New York needs it most? If so, how exciting. But it seems unlikely.LikeLike
-
It’s not their intention to turn it into a boutique-y hotel NOW, thanks to a firestorm of bad publicity (and more to come, I promise). But if they hired Drukier and Balazs just to upgrade the infrastructure, I fear they overpaid a lot. And that’s not good for the bottom line. (Hey, maybe Stanledy can sue them for that and get the hotel back.)
LikeLike
-
Restoring the hotel to its former glory was something that Stanley had said his kids wanted to do themselves! That’s a fact. It was in a short video someone did here not all that long ago.
What their version of “former glory” is and what the new management’s version is, well…that might just be two different things. But the Bards wanted to do the same thing as well. There’s no disagreeing that the hotel needs repair to the infrastructure. What OTHER changes are intended is another story. I think new management is still sizing up the place and figuring out what they’re going to do on a grander scale. They’re starting to make statements that sound reasonable, but now they have to live up to this. Ultimately, it’s what they DO that they’ll have to be responsible for in the end. You can’t hide behind PR when the public can see something with their own eyes. I hope they remember this in their choices.LikeLike
-
Everything they say comes off as either a direct or backhanded insult of Stanley’s Chelsea Hotel. Let me see now, Stanley’s Chelsea helped hundreds of legendary people bring great art in various forms to the world. So what could they possibly mean by “back to its former glory?”
LikeLike
-
Former Glory is the partners’ thing, not Stanley’s. In the little video you mention Stanley says his kids are trying to restore its “former glory,” and he’s trying to impress upon them the need to keep the hotel’s spirit in tact. I understand that his kids were trying to restore its “former glory,” a phrase impressed upon them by the partners who failed to see the ongoing glory, under pressure from the partners. Apparently, the Bard’s efforts were not enough for the partners, hence the shameless coup. Clearly, whatever is meant by “former glory,” the Bards and the new management have very different ideas. Stanley was well aware of the glory, past and present, of the Chelsea Hotel. The partners have demomnstrated nothing to that effect. The burden of proof is on them.
The Bards have every right to do what they want with the hotel. They are a known quantity, with a demonstrated dedication to the residents and the history and the arts. They have a majority stake. They’ve run the hotel for over fifty years. The partners? The management? If they turn the place into the Taj Mahal, it won’t matter, it’ll still be a shadow of its former self if the Bards aren’t running it. They want to restore it to its former glory? Leave and let the Bards run it again,LikeLike
-
Actually, “guest”, Stanley says, “My children want to restore this to its original excellence, and they are working with designers and decorators, but whatever they’re doing, they’re keeping the architectural beauty of the building intact. And I’m trying to instill in them how important that this hotel is, it’s the last vestige of… I don’t want to say decency, I don’t want to say anything else, but I’m trying very hard to keep this hotel going in exactly the same way and tradition as it has been for a hundred years.”
Well said, Stanley.LikeLike
-
I hope ABC Australia come back to show everyone here what they are doing now to the Chelsea it,s a crime.
LikeLike
-
Well, first, nothing can stay the same as it was 100 years ago and still be accepted. If the hotel didn’t have tv (only recently have they added Showtime and HBO) or internet access- things that people want and actually NEED (internet access) these days (without having to go to Kinkos or another public internet station) then there would be a lot less people willing to stay here for more than one night, and some wouldn’t even want to do that. Not all, but a good amount. I know this isn’t quite what he meant, but it’s a valid point. “Tradition” is another thing. You CAN keep the “tradition” of something alive, but it’s still never going to be quite the same as things DO change over the decades.
I believe that “excellence” and “glory” are pretty close to the same thing in that context. What I was trying to point out was that they both said pretty much the same thing about wanting to “restore” the hotel to its “former” excellence/glory and that I was taking a guess that what that The Bard’s vision of this and new management’s version of this are possibly, maybe even probably, different two different things. That’s important to remember too as it’s not just what someone SAYS, it’s what they end up DOING that is going to matter most.
We’re all going on hearsay and statements at the moment rather than what actually has been DONE. Any PR or claims of what new management plans on doing or wants to do can end up being what they say, but what their vision of this actually is….we’ll only know once it starts being done. Unfortunately.
Not everyone thinks the change in color of the lobby was for the better. I actually do, but I’ve heard people say that it’s atrocious. That’s true, it is…TO THEM. I think it enhances the artwork. People didn’t think that so much as it was being painted, but once the work was back in place on the walls, I think it was smart choice. My opinion.
And THAT is what I mean by restoring something easily meaning two differing visions. But thank you for the direct quote. It is a good one and I do hope that new management realizes that too much change to the hotel will make it just another hotel with history, which New York has plenty of as it is. It’s unique in its own way and that’s often what brings people back time and time again because anyone who lives or stays here knows it certainly isn’t for the room service. 🙂LikeLike
-
Excellence and glory are two very different words with different meanings.
Yes, things change. But only the Bard family has earned the right to change them, and only they are qualified by virtue of their long experience and hard work with this hotel and its many residents.LikeLike
-
Ready to be shocked and wonder anew what the hell this new management is really up to?
Here, below, are the legendary Chelsea Hotel’s brand-new room rates, making it officially the CHEAPEST joint in NYC. For a management team that was supposed to increase revenues, this seems odd at best.
Shared Bath Studio: $99.00
Full Bath Studio: $129.00
Junior SUITE: $149.
One Bedroom Suite: $169.
TWO Bedroom Suite: Just $179.
Now nobody can dispute that Stanley was renting big suites for hundreds and hundreds a night. I’m now paying more than I might have paid at their per night rate for my apartment. So what the hell is going on? These prices come directly from anonymous staff who told me they were not even supposed to be looking at the memo….
Very SCARY.LikeLike
-
I think they’ve been reading the blog and the news reports. My guess is it’s some kind of introductory rate to fill up the hotel to offset the criticism and take the steam out of the talk about greed, etcetera.
LikeLike
-
This could be an encouraging thing. I’m all for an affordable hotel in New York for bohemians and others. This could mean that
a) protest works – again
b) the two partners and the new management firm are actually humans who can respond positively to criticism
c) they have a gained a slightly better understanding of the hotel now thank to all the news articles and personal opinions
But to truly restore it to its former glory, I agree with the other posters — they have to hand the reins of power back to the Bards and let them run it their way. It’s a magical combination, the Bards, the Chelsea Hotel, and the kinds of residents Stanley lets in. And no more unncessary rent hikes for residents.LikeLike
-
421-323:
Let’s not bother with the “excellence” and “glory” debate because if I heard someone say both those sentences, I’d still put them in the type of CONTEXT. Yes, they are two different words with different meaning if you go by the dictionary.
What you said about The Bards earning the right to make changes…technically, new management has the right to make changes, but my point was exactly what you were saying. It makes me wonder if you’re trying to spin everything I say into something the opposite of what I mean or if you’re just taking everything defensively?
Stanley and David have changed things over the years, which was my point about everything changes. It wasn’t to say, “everything changes, I hope new management comes in and really does a number on the place,” because I point out about how I hope they respect what The Bards have created.
No matter what, things are going to change and what those changes are, we just have to wait and see.
Hotel Chelsea Strangler:
“Here, below, are the legendary Chelsea Hotel’s brand-new room rates, making it officially the CHEAPEST joint in NYC. ”
Are you saying that there are no other hotels with rooms CHEAPER than this hotel? Because if you are, that’s utter nonsense. OF COURSE there ARE other hotels with cheaper rooms! I think I see a pattern in your posts when it comes to facts. I hate to tell you this, but your thoughts or opinions are not necessarily FACTS just because you think them. What is a fact is that the rates are definitely the lowest they’ve been at the Chelsea for quite a long while! I’ll agree that it’s probably one of lowest for the higher end rooms in the city at the moment.
It’s silly to think that they’re going to keep the rates this low. It’s a pretty safe bet that they’ll shoot up soon enough. Maybe even higher than Stanley had them.LikeLike
-
A number of Manhattan hotels, such as the Tudor, are offering a summer discount rate of $169 per night right now. I received such an offer in my e-mail today.
LikeLike
-
“GUEST” –
Pattern in our posts? This must be David Elder or some other soon-to-be elsewhere interloper — but typical…in that you have no idea what you’re talking about. If theres a pattern in our posts the pattern is this: WE WANT YOU OUT.
So when you stop running your gums, try Hotel 17 on Stuyvesant Park for rates. Thats were all us retired clubland people lived before the Chelsea–because the Chelsea was too EXPENSIVE. Or try the SoHotel downtown. And thats just two that are completely modern, air condition, cable-ready and all the rest. Oh, and live-able. So by the standards of the rooms that you get at the Chelsea now for the same price –THE CHELSEA IS THE CHEAPEST JOINT IN NYC. Are you aware of any other hotel were you can get a Two-Bedroom Party Suite for a buck seventy nine? I wish you’d let us all in on it.
Know what the hell you’re talking about before you open your hole, “GUEST”.
Someone should confiscate your keyboard.LikeLike
-
GUEST, we just detected and analyzed a pattern in your posts, as well. It tells us beyond all scientifically measurable doubt that, well, you’re a TOOL.
LikeLike
-
Oh, we get it…”Guest” is a little upset that BD’s supposedly “secret” new flophouse rates got blasted onto the blog. It leaves management wondering exactly who they can trust to keep their b.s. confidences. Seems like they have their answer.
LikeLike
-
I’m not trying to spin everything you say, guest. Rather, that’s what you are doing. I’m deconstructing, de-spinning if you will. You try to look like you’re fair to the Bards and the Tenants as well as new management, but you keep slipping in things like this, “What you said about The Bards earning the right to make changes…technically, new management has the right to make changes, but my point blah blah blah.”
It’s a slithery way of trying to get a point across without anyone addressing it.
And when you get called on it, you get defensive.
So fucking what if new management has the “right” to make changes because of a legal decision. Lovers of the hotel don’t recognize that as a right. They recognize it as an unfortunate legality, something on paper. That you keep stumping for this idea shows what side you are on, Mr. Rubenstein PR. Only Stanley and his kids have earned the right to make significant changes to the hotel, by virtue of their long service and hard work and great understanding of the hotel. Earned. Get it? Try to spin this you asshole.LikeLike
-
I clicked the link to make a reservation [well – you know what I mean!] but did not see the “new” prices? If we could get a room at the Chelsea for $99.00 I suggest the Chelsea Bloggers&BlogReaders book rooms for sometime early in September and have a Town Hall meeting in the lobby and maybe a march [a funeral procession – is there not a casket somewhere in the basement?] to the Mayor’s office?? I have friends who will book a room for me in their name – just in case new management wouldn’t like my name!
LikeLike
-
421 to 423, REAL guest and Mr./Ms. Strangler:
Well well…now you’re true colors have emerged with name-calling. Who’s the real asshole here? “TOOL?” Are you all children who can’t control your anger in proper, adult ways and have discussions rather than arguments?
So fucking what if new management has the “right” to make changes because of a legal decision?!?! Are you kidding me?!?! So WHAT? They have the RIGHT to make changes and any claims that they DON’T is ridiculous and plain old WRONG!
This also means that they have the RIGHT to make changes that the people who live and stay here may NOT welcome!!!! That’s NOT GOOD! But you can’t say they don’t have the “right” to do it. They DO, and THAT is what makes this situation so scary!!! Do you not see what I’m saying? Just because someone has the RIGHT to do something doesn’t mean it’s what people necessarily want, but if your argument is that “they have no right” well, you’re WRONG, they DO! Come up with a better argument than that, PLEASE. I welcome it.
I’ve said to you before that I agree about the Bards EARNING the right, but that doesn’t change the FACTS. Do you follow me a little better?
Riiight, “I’M” spinning facts? YOU are “deconstructing and de-spinning?”
I’m stating FACTS and saying that I’m not sure of all the details behind them and that I DON’T know what reasoning new management and the shareholders had…just stating the FACTS. If this same thing happened at another building or if YOU were one of the other shareholders in a building like this, you would want some sort of say and you’d have t he right to it. Does that mean I AGREE with what’s been done? NO, and I SAID THAT. OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Do you just not want to admit to that?
You keep spinning things the way you want…there’s nothing I can do since you seem to know all the facts behind the facts and so on. Or at least you seem to think you do. YOU keep spinning it the same way and STUPIDLY are trying to make someone who wants the Bards back into an enemy.
I’M ON THE TENANTS SIDE MOST OF ALL!!!! Stop trying to make me the opposition just because I’m trying to be fair and accurate when it comes to the FACTS. Take those FACTS and then present the results of what these changes SEEM to be doing, etc… and you’re on better grounds. THEN you have a REAL statement there that can’t be refuted by proving what you say to either be untrue or your personal opinion. DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I’M SAYING? It’s more powerful to admit certain FACTS and then present what those facts means and how they affect people.
I don’t see how what I said was a “slithery way” of trying to get whatever point you want to spin my point into being. It was fair, justified statement. What point wasn’t addressed that you think I’ve tried to get across without people addressing? You’re starting to sound really irrational.
And let’s not resort to childish name-calling, okay? It really makes the people who are on The Bards’ side look bad, which in turn, gives new management the “right” to say, “See what the people who live and stay here under Stanley’s management are like? They twist facts, call names, threaten to strangle people….tsk tsk.” And believe me, I don’t doubt that they would use this tactic if need be. No more fuel for the fire…if you REALLY care about Stanley at least.
Witness:
Thank you! Yes, these are NOT rates that make this officially the CHEAPEST in New York. That’s a ridiculous claim to make as I’ve seen $60 dollar rates.
YOU, 421-323, are the one who is “running their gums” not knowing what you’re talking about. You cannot say that the prices at the Chelsea are now the cheapest in NYC when that is NOT accurate! You never said anything about comparing the STANDARDS of the CHELSEA ROOM, you simply said THE CHEAPEST. That DOES make a big difference. Besides, SOME of the rooms standards are a lot higher than other rooms’ standards. That’s why the Bards were trying to renovate them. Have you seen room 512 for instance? Sorry, but that room is WAY overpriced for its “standard” and I don’t know if many would disagree.
Like I said, you have to be accurate when stating facts! Otherwise, YOU are spinning things that can be proven wrong. Do you want that for Stanley? Don’t you want strong arguments for him? I understand that your passions run high, mine do too, but perhaps you need to take a deep breath and realize that the facts can work for or against you. I’d rather them work FOR you, to be honest.
I’m glad other people realize that a lot of the rates for The Chelsea were way overpriced, but now some of the rates are way underpriced…like the two-bedroom. And I’ve never denied that this either. You made a blanket statement 421, and in doing so, you proved yourself wrong. If you had mentioned the two-bedroom rate, I’d have totally agreed. It probably IS the cheapest rate for that type of room in the city. But not the rooms as a whole. You can get a shared bathroom room cheaper elsewhere, believe me. Or don’t, look it up yourself.
And a room with a shared bathroom for $99 is still too high by some people’s standards, but it’s a hell of a lot more fair than what they used to be. The reason people took those is because they didn’t have much else by way of choice at that moment. That’s usually how it went down.
Also, Hotel Strangler, if you look back at my posts, you’ll see that I think I was the first one to say, CHECK THE PRICES OF THE HOTEL RATES NOW. I knew they lowered them a lot!!! I am perfectly fine with the rates being posted on the blog….I hinted that something was going on with them early on. Another statement of yours and other people on here either proven inaccurate or downright wrong. If I didn’t want it outed on the blog, I certainly wouldn’t have suggested looking into the prices so you could see for yourself what I already knew.
As far as confiscating keyboards, you would want to take away people’s freedom of speech if they don’t agree with you or prove you inaccurate, wouldn’t you? This whole thing is so ridiculous. Why not just get the facts straight and go from there? The feelings behind what you guys are saying is spot on about tradition and the character, that’s a given, but when other facts behind it aren’t correct, it doesn’t bode well for your side. If I didn’t truly feel more along your lines, I wouldn’t bother. I’m sure you’ll spin that as well but I’m being honest.
And just for the record, I’ve noticed sunflowers missing from the staircase over the years and it’s always made me wonder if they just wore out or were damaged accidentally or if people actually removed them as a souvenir. The former, well…that does happen. The latter, not cool.LikeLike
-
p.s.- Miss H, great post. I’m not sure I believe the theory about new management quite yet, but maybe. MAYBE they’re seeing things a little differently after reading the press, seeing residents, etc… I hope.
REAL guest: that’s no way for a guest to behave in other people’s HOMES. ;P
421-323- SIGNIFICANT changes are actually NEEDED here regarding certain aspects of the infrastructure, and the Bards were working on renovations themselves. I think you’re talking about what you believe to be NEGATIVE changes, to which, I agree with you. What’s negative to some people may be positive to others. Is it negative to make some of the same changes that the Bards were making? I assume they’ll be making those changes a little faster, but it’s not all negative or positive you know…there are good and bad to both sides. No spinning, just trying to be accurate and fair.
Personally, I think they should have kept Suites and the 2 bedroom prices at a competitive rate and lowered the other rates and shared-bath rooms as a lot of them needed to be lowered anyway. It is true that a lot of the more expensive rooms went empty. But so did the shared-bath rooms. Whatever new management is doing, unless they state their thinking behind it, we can only make assumptions, and I don’t think anyone doesn’t welcome people’s thoughts on this.LikeLike
-
One last thing…
REAL guest: I’m a REAL guest too… I’m not a registered member, owner, moderator of this site, just a guest of it. THAT is why I use “guest” as a screen name. I was not talking in terms of being a guest or a resident or anything regarding the hotel. I think you thought that’s what I meant, and it’s not. If you’re actually a REAL guest of the hotel and are staying here, I hope you’re enjoying the new room rates. You’re doing just what new management wants…occupying rooms. But I welcome you nonetheless.LikeLike
-
“They have the RIGHT to make changes and any claims that they DON’T is ridiculous and plain old WRONG!”
Thanks for clarifying what you really think, Mr. Guest
We’ve discussed this quite a lot here.
They have a legal right because they got a sympathetic judge and won a bs lawsuit against Stanley on the basis of “legal corporate issues: according to David Elder.
They have no moral right. NONE.
At the Chelsea, the latter is a lot more important than the former. It’s one of the few places in the world, sadly, where this is true. If you truly knew the Chelsea, you would know this.
Stanley has the moral right as the engine behind the hotel’s legend. Stanley is the guy who was there, day in and out, and long days at that, for over fifty years. Stanley is the majority shareholder. Stanley knows all the residents names and life stories. Stanley knows their work. Stanley knows the regular guests at the hotel (most if not all of whom will not stay there again.)
These people are absentee (minority) landlords who seem to understand little of the place, and of the worldwide love for it.
Stanley made the Chelsea a special place.
It became significantly less special after the other partners overthrew him in a coup.
So they better have a very very light touch with any changes, because those walls have eyes and ears. The best thing they could do is to quietly turn the hotel back over to Stanley and get out of his way.LikeLike
-
Miss H… 🙂 I think it’s interesting how you don’t even know me or who I am yet you’re making statement about me that are actually VERY inaccurate. If you think I truly don’t know the Chelsea, well…I’m sorry, you’re not right about that. Perhaps YOU don’t truly know the Chelsea.
You are also taking statements OUT OF CONTEXT and trying to make it appear as if I’m against Stanley. Then, in the same breath, you make pretty much say the same thoughts about Stanley that I’ve made. This is the kind of thing I am talking about. A lot of talk about things and assumptions made about people when the truth isn’t quite as people think or want to believe. And a lot of out of context twisting of words and meanings.
I think that’s probably apparent to most of the people who read this though.
I do agree (and said) that I think The Bards have EARNED the right (morally) to make changes. I think the other shareholders should have frequented the hotel a lot more than they have over the years. I know the place a million times better than they do. But they are coming from a business side, and we are coming from a more personal side. I do think that the personal side is more important than money, as do a LOT of people, and I do think that if they change the character of the place too much, they’ll probably lose a LOT of business. Sure they’ll get OTHER business, but it will definitely fade and whatever “former glory” they intend on bringing back to the hotel won’t quite work.
Unless you know all the details or facts behind the lawsuit and other business aspects, you can’t really make accurate statements about why the other shareholders won their case…you can just give your opinions on why.
I’m sure there’s some truth to your opinions as well. I can’t claim to know anything I don’t know, and that’s what I’ve pointed out. Whatever you want to spin that into me believing or whose side you want to claim I’m on, it doesn’t matter. What does matter is what happens from NOW ON. What’s done is done and how or why etc, when we don’t have all the real business facts on paper for us…doesn’t matter. New management has control and now we all are worrying about what they are going to do with the place. And there’s good reason for that.
I’ve seen a pretty good number of regular guests staying here since new management took over. I’m assuming there shall be less regular guests than normal down the road, and I’ve got no problem with that. I think that’s a great way to protest.
I don’t know if saying that the hotel became significantly less special after the other partners overthrew Stanley. Isn’t that taking away all that Stanley worked so hard to make this place what it is today? It’s still special! There’s less character in it currently, but I don’t believe that a few weeks without Stanley at the helm (he IS still there at the hotel most days!) cannot destroy what he’s worked so hard to create over the years. New management isn’t THAT good.LikeLike
-
Oops, I meant that I DON’T believe that a few weeks without Stanley at the Helm CAN destroy what he’s worked so hard to create over the years. It’s gonna take a LOT more than that to completely destroy all those layers of character and spirit, don’t you think?
LikeLike
-
Hello Guest,
I’m not taking your statements out of context. And we’re not saying the same things. Language is a subtle thing. You’re saying the shareholders have the right to make changes, and you’ve said this very clearly. I said they have a legal right only because of a sympathetic judge, that this is a right most if not all of us in the hotel will never recognize, on account of the Bards have the moral right, clearly. CLEARLY.
You’re the guy who thinks excellence and glory mean the same thing, right?
You’re the guy who says the arguments in favor of Stanley aren’t strong when in fact they are very strong, trying in your way to create a certain impression.
You’re not on the side of the Bards and you’re not on the side of the tenants. And every time you say you are while subverting your pro-Bard statements and even contradicting them outright in the next breath, you will be called on it here. This is a very media-savvy, pr-savvy bunch.LikeLike
-
Guest, I didn’t say the rooms were the cheapest in new york etcera. You must be talking to someone else. I’m the one who thinks youre an asshole. Or David Elder. or both. Because you say something like this: “A lot of talk about things and assumptions made about people when the truth isn’t quite as people think or want to believe.”
How do you know, unless you’re one of the partners. (Assholes.)
Count me as one of the people who believes that every moment Stanley isn’t running the hotel, something is being destroyed. They shouldn’t have pressured Stanley to radically increase revenue in the first place. (Assholes.) Almost everyone in this world seems to agree me with about this. If you and Ms. Krauss cared about the hotel, you might have spent some real time there. You didn’t but still have the gall to oust the majority shareholder who ran the place fior a half century.
You know what that makes you?
(Assholes.)LikeLike
-
Look, 421 to 323, I don’t believe I said that YOU were the one who said the prices were the cheapest, I think you just kept reading and assumed that I was STILL speaking about you. I apologize for any misunderstandings in that area.
I am only going to say this one last time; I am NOT one of the partners. I’m NOT David Elder, I’m NOT Ms. Krauss. The more you spout your INCORRECT claim, the more you look like you’ve got blinders on and that everything you say, the truth doesn’t really matter if it’s not what YOU think. Maybe you should believe what someone tells you when they tell you the same thing over and over? IF I were one of the shareholders, I’d probably have a LOT more DETAILS behind this to say.
You ask how do I know details? 🙂 How do YOU know details? Are you David or Stanley? Well, you only seem to know results rather than a lot of the details behind those results, nor does it seem as though you want to believe factual details. I KNOW a lot more than you think I do, but I never claimed to know ALL, in fact, I’ve STATED that I DON’T know all the details which is why I cannot make some of the type of statements you’ve made.
If you believe that people who want to be RATIONAL and ACCURATE about facts makes them an asshole, go right ahead. I think it says a lot more about YOU than it does ME or anyone else who wants to look at this thing from a factual standpoint.
Perhaps more people aren’t agreeing with you on this blog because THEY are assholes too? There are a handful of people voicing their thoughts on this blog! Why is that if the whole world seems to agree with you? Is the whole world a bunch of assholes and only you and the few others who speak up the ones who AREN’T? Get off your high, irrational horse and think about what saying a bunch of things that can be proven incorrect is actually going to do for the residents or the Bards.
I’d hope you’d be attempting to take the facts and see what you can do with the facts because, in cases like these, there are usually a lot of legal details WE DON’T KNOW, and help GET STANLEY BACK rather than calling names like you’re doing.
Why do I feel like I’m talking to a teenager?
This isn’t worth debating, I know your type all too well. Honestly, wouldn’t you rather waste time trying to be productive to Stanley’s cause? I’m not going to make any statements that can be proven untrue or are people’s feelings and opinions when it comes to things that I do not know for a fact.
Feelings and opinions on what happened and what Stanley’s done for the hotel over the years is another story. Nobody could dispute how he’s cultured the arts and made the hotel what it had become.
If you’re a resident and you’re behaving this way, calling names, etc…I cannot stress enough… that REALLY, REALLY, REALLY makes you look BAD, makes the residents look BAD, and makes Stanley look like he’s got a bunch of crazy people living at the hotel which is great fuel for new management to want to kick the residents out. (I wonder if this post will even make it to the blog).
“everyone in this world seems to agree me with about this.”
Um…okay. Sure. Go right ahead and think what you want. And this next part goes with the statement I just made, lest anyone try and take that out of context or spin it as well:
I DO agree that almost everyone in the world probably thinks Stanley and his family have helped a lot of artists over the years and has created a hotel with amazing culture and character. How anyone could even try and dispute that is beyond me.
Hello Miss H: I still think that previous post of yours was great. And YES, you really WERE taking my statement out of context. You included part of the statement but not the rest of what went with it to clarify. Sorry, we’ll just have to differ in opinion on that.
Again, I AGREE with you about the Bards having the MORAL right to make changes, and I’ve never disagreed with that! Unfortunately, LEGAL right often has the right of way in America. I don’t know if it was because of a “sympathetic judge” or not! Neither do YOU! Do you know all the details of the case that were presented? NO! Maybe the judge didn’t WANT to give new management the control but because of evidence and legal factors he HAD to! THAT is what I’m trying to convey. I’m simply saying that we don’t know the reason WHY the ruling was what it was, only that it WAS ruled that way.
I don’t care if you believe me or not at this point, but I AM on the residents’ side, the side of the Bards having their creative control and the moral right to make significant changes. Dispute it all you want, it’s simply your (incorrect) opinion on the way you’re spinning what I’m saying. I really wish you would stop doing this, but I don’t think you will so…whatever. I’m trying to state FACTS and admit that I do NOT know all the details of the case (though I know PLENTY of facts, but not ALL by any means!), and trying to express that I hope we can find a way to get the Bards back in control.
You’re correct; language IS a subtle thing. People can interpret one statement to mean one thing and someone else can interpret it to mean something different. “Little” to one person can be not so little or even “big” to another person, it’s all in our interpretation of the meaning of the word.
Who’s wrong? The one who the person who made the statement says is wrong because that’s not what they meant. If they try and clarify what they MEANT, give them the benefit of the doubt that that’s actually what they MEANT. There isn’t just one word used to describe a thought or feeling. If there were, our dictionary would be much thinner.
But context DOES matter. I’m not saying analyze every, single word that’s said, but when it comes to broad statements with facts that we THINK we know when we probably really DON’T know the real details (people tell their sides of things and even that can differ from what the facts are)…with something so important as this, I think passions run high and our words can trip us up.
It’s not that I’m on the shareholders side. I RECOGNIZE certain rights that they have legally, but I don’t think that they have the right, MORALLY to make any significant changes except to the infrastructure. And only if this doesn’t change the character of the place.
THAT is how I feel. If you want to spin that, I can’t stop you, but this is the TRUTH about MY opinions based on the facts I know.
All of expressing of feelings by people is great, new management cannot dispute those. But I get the feeling that when we make statements that we think or want to think but aren’t necessarily true and they can prove to incorrect, they’re sitting back, smiling away, thinking about how fun it’s going to be to try and get the residents out and turn this place into a “real” hotel.
You can try and put me on their side, but the fact is, I’m really NOT, and saying I am over and over when I know for a FACT that you’re wrong is a waste of time and is plain old stupid. I’m trying to “think” as they would because that’s a good way of trying to fight to figure out how to help the Bards.
This may be a very media-savvy, pr-savvy bunch, but then again, so am I, and I’m trying to point out some of the flaws in your statements.
Any good media person knows that taking the little inaccuracies to which the truth may NOT bode well for one side or the other will be used to that side’s advantage. I’m saying…if you stick to facts that cannot be really be disputed and cannot have the other side saying, “well, did you know THIS?” and have a fact that the public (since we’re talking media) doesn’t necessarily know tossed out can make the other side look really foolish and ignorant and change public opinion. That goes for EITHER side, and since we don’t know a lot of the legal, business details that effected this decision, I am merely suggesting we be careful in what we claim.
Just think about that before responding. I have the feeling that you’ve already decided that anything I say you’re going to be defensive about, but I’ve already stated my side (believe me, don’t believe me, I’m not going to repeat it over and over in this blog)and that’s all I can do.
And no, you’re aren’t correct. I haven’t said that the arguments in favor of Stanley weren’t strong, I was saying that the facts you claim to know can probably be proven inaccurate by the other side so you need a stronger argument than THAT. That’s different than what you’re implying. The things you say about what the Bards have done for the hotel, artists, etc… THAT is STRONG. The fact that the shareholders were pressuring him is accurate and a strong statement. Do you get what I’m trying to convey a little better now?
I think people need to let go of the accusing of sides- especially when you claim to know things for a fact that the other person knows for a fact isn’t true. and think, “okay, this person says they are on the side of the Bards, so what are they stating, and how can we use that to Stanley and the residents’ defense?”
What can the people do as a whole to actually MAKE A DIFFERENCE without being irrational or inaccurate about some important facts that we aren’t privy to?
What can we actually DO to make a difference?
1.) Don’t stay at the hotel. This doesn’t include current residents of course.
2.) Say you aren’t staying at the hotel because the Bards no longer manage it.
3.) Try and get OTHER people to not stay at the hotel until the Bards are put back in control, which will result in temporary income loss to the Bards as well but it’s reflecting NEW management’s decisions rather than the Bards and will pay off in the end.
4.) Voice the facts you are told directly by the owners of the retail shops on rent increases, etc.
5.) Write articles about the history of the Chelsea and how Stanley has cultured the arts for a generation. Post them on blogs, get them in papers and magazines, news reports, etc…
There are more things too, I’m sure.
Any other suggestions are MORE than welcome!LikeLike
-
Reading over your posts, Guest, you sound conflicted about what you really think, to say the least.
“I don’t know if saying that the hotel became significantly less special after the other partners overthrew Stanley. Isn’t that taking away all that Stanley worked so hard to make this place what it is today?”
Um, no, it’s emphasizing the results of Stanley’s hard work, and making the point that each day he and his family aren’t in charge, something is being lost, destroyed. Yes, that’s an opinion, and one shared by most of the people I’ve spoken to, most of the posters here, most of the blogs, virtually all the world’s news media. Many, many people love that place the way Stanley ran it, this is especially true of creative people, and you must know the long list of great genius artists among them without me repeating it. Can BD Hotels produce such a list? Can the partners? BD Hotels and the other shareholders are not Stanley, and never will be. How you can take my statement to mean something completely different is typical of your understanding/spin in this discussion. And really, do you honestly think the partners would be justified in turning out all the residents because of what people say in this blog? Or did I misunderstand you?
As for anyone interpreting this discussion to mean that the hotel is full of crazy people… it has certainly seen its share of mad geniuses, who were able to be comfortable enough to create thanks to the freedom and support Stanley gave them. You might call them crazy, but I call them brilliant, and they contributed a lot more to this world than seemingly sane people who run the government, e.g. Here’s a fact, the new partners made no effort to introduce themselves to the tenants before sending a terse letter demanding rent. How’s that for support and understanding? Are you the same poster who claimed this was the new management’s gentle way of inviting residents to find a solution to their arrears? Based on which facts? As I see it, and I know a lot of facts too, the facts strongly favor the pro-Bard side and their moral right to run the hotel. The Bards spent a lot of time in the hotel in the last fifty years? And the partners? The Bards know the residents inside and out. And the partners? The partners first press release emphasized the “street-front retail program” and was full of other corporatese. Stanley talks and acts like a human being.
However… your protest suggestions are all good — I hope you really mean them. They’ve all been posted here previously by other people.LikeLike
-
Miss H: You’re right about one thing; I am conflicted about CERTAIN ASPECTS.
Yes, I DO want the infrastructure to be upgraded, don’t you? I was in a friend’s apartment the other day and part of the bottom of the wall near the floor crumbled! This worries me.
I also worry about the problems with the elevators, and the problems with the electrical system, and the problem with the plumbing (some seem to notice problems or have them more than others)..I worry about the place because I CARE about it.
Would I rather have David and Stanley back taking care of these things at a faster pace than new management? Hell yeah!
I hear what you’re saying about every minute Stanley isn’t in charge that something is being destroyed. The spirit of the place, etc…the vibe…yes, and I don’t really disagree with you.
However,I was just trying to emphasize that all the work Stanley and his family have put into it cannot be destroyed as easily as new management may think. They can change certain aspects of it but even when Stanley isn’t in charge, his building and nurturing of the place will live on and it will take a lot to destroy it. New management may change things so much that the character disappears, but at the same time, I think new management THINKS they can easily replace what Stanley has created, and I do not believe this. I HOPE that, even if they try to do this, it doesn’t happen the way they want. I believe that what Stanley has nurtured, though it’s changed over the years in different ways, will remain to the dismay of new management. THAT is what I meant.LikeLike
-
Miss H: You’re right about one thing; I am conflicted about CERTAIN ASPECTS.
Yes, I DO want the infrastructure to be upgraded, don’t you? I was in a friend’s apartment the other day and part of the bottom of the wall near the floor crumbled! This worries me.
I also worry about the problems with the elevators, and the problems with the electrical system, and the problem with the plumbing (some seem to notice problems or have them more than others)..I worry about the place because I CARE about it. I know a lot of other tenants don’t disagree with this.
Would I rather have David and Stanley back taking care of these things at a faster pace than new management? Hell yeah!
I hear what you’re saying about every minute Stanley isn’t in charge that something is being destroyed. The spirit of the place, etc…the vibe…yes, and I don’t really disagree with you. And I actually DID understand what you were saying, but I had a different view on this as well, while still agreeing that things are being “destroyed” while Stanley isn’t in charge.
I was just trying to emphasize that all the work Stanley and his family have put into it cannot be destroyed as easily as new management may think. They can change certain aspects of it but even when Stanley isn’t in charge, his building and nurturing of the place will live on and it will take a lot to destroy it. I think that’s more along the lines of not understanding the line of this discussion than my not understanding what you meant. I DID get it, I just had another thought on that as well.
New management MAY change things so much that the character disappears, but at the same time, I think new management THINKS they can easily replace what Stanley has created, and I do not believe this. I HOPE that, even if they try to do this, it doesn’t happen the way they want. I believe that what Stanley has nurtured, though it’s changed over the years in different ways, will remain to the dismay of new management. THAT is what I meant. I think you just misinterpreted what I was saying and THINK that I didn’t get what you were saying because I had another line of thinking to add to it. I have a hard time thinking that all the years of hard work could be destroyed so easily. I think what Stanley created is stronger than that and that new management may be in for a surprise in that area. Do you see what I’m saying now? Dare I say that we are BOTH correct on this?
Do I think new management could get a list of names like Stanley did? I don’t know. The more recent “big names” who have stayed here in the past…I’m not so sure. If I had to take a guess, if they know about what’s happened, they’ll probably either stay elsewhere, or maybe call and ask Stanley what he would like.
No matter what, it’s just not quite the same with new management and I expect things to change even more in the not-too-distant future.
And yes, Miss H, you DID misunderstand me. NO, I do NOT think that new management would be “justified” in tossing out “ALL” the tenants because of this blog, that’s not what I said nor meant. I don’t think they are “JUSTIFIED” in throwing most tenants out. There probably are a handful who are most vulnerable because of owing a lot of back rent or other various issues (and even then there are still SOME rights that make eviction difficult), but I certainly do think that if new management can use posts from tenants that are filled with threats to strangle people, name-calling, etc..and it’s published, written proof mind you (even if it’s not necessarily said in TOTAL seriousness), they just might do so.
You’re taking my meaning of “crazy” in a different way than I meant it. “Brilliant” artists can be “crazy” and I think everyone is a little crazy in one way or another, but I’m talking about the “crazy” that gets people in trouble. Do I really need to explain what I mean any further? Crazy-BRILLIANT, artists who are “mad geniuses” are something completely different. That’s more eccentric, right? New York and the Chelsea is filled with eccentrics. They’re quite interesting and usually delightful if you ask me.
I NEVER said that new management was supportive and understanding!!! I don’t know how you could think I even suggested this.
Your fact about new management not introducing themselves is something I’ve mentioned before. I totally agree that they SHOULD have done this. Terse letters on paying up, well, it was brief, cordial at best, but even Stanley tried to collect what was owed, and in more unpleasant ways. Stanley does have his certain, unique charm. 😉 New management did not make themselves look good by not introducing themselves when they took over. I don’t know if it’s because of the outcry from residents or what, but they didn’t do it and people thought that a bit rude. No argument there.
NO, I am NOT the poster who suggested that this was new management’s “gentle” way of inviting residents to find a solution to their arrears. I HOPE they ALLOW those who owe time to pay up before attempting to evict, but I never said the letter was any gentle way of anything. That must be someone else.
Also, when did I EVER say the Bards DIDN’T have the “moral” right to run this hotel? I’ve always agreed with this. I was only saying LEGAL right, and whatever legal, business factors went into that decision, I don’t think they were just made up, but the MORAL right belongs to the Bards and NOT the other shareholders.
To be fair again, new management was hired by the shareholders and are probably only trying to do the job wanted by them. I don’t know if they’ll suggest anything in favor of the tenants to the shareholders, but they are a management company hired by the other owners. I’m not sure WHO to blame for any significant character changes to the hotel. I’d think the other shareholders would probably have final say, no? I’m sure new management isn’t going to be in favor of keeping the tenants though, they are businessmen.
I worry about the storefront retail property. I know El Quixote is staying put and not going ANYWHERE. The owner wouldn’t sell out and has a very long lease that spans past Stanley’s lifetime. So they’ll be here no matter what.
Nobody has denied that the other shareholders don’t know the residents. They’ve let the Bards run the hotel for a very long time without getting involved. This may have been a GOOD thing! If they had attempted to get involved long ago, this hotel may not have remained the way it has for this long.
Should they get to know the residents NOW? Um…I’m not sure. I would think it would be better if they did, new management as well, but on the other hand, they may not understand the “mad geniuses” (as you mentioned) who reside and stay here. They may just get to know the “crazy” ones I was talking about. It’s difficult to say what would affect new management and HOW it would effect the people who live here or/and the significant changes they make.
“Stanley talks and acts like a human being.”
Yes, haha, he sure does! And I think most people love the fact that you can yell back at him and still have no love lost. I’m going to guess that new management isn’t going to be the same in that respect.
Thank you about the protest suggestions. I do know that most (if not all) have been posted here before, though I had the same thoughts early on before they were posted. A lot of people did. They’re the most basic, obvious things that can be done. Anything more than this, at the moment, I can’t really think of other things to do that would make such an immediate impact.
That’s why I welcomed suggestions. And YES, Miss H, I absolutely DO really mean them or I wouldn’t have included it in my post. I wasn’t kidding when I said that what I say has been twisted. I believe in taking the FACTS of a situation without personal feelings and then going from there…by adding personal feelings. I hope that makes sense to you. I think it’s the best way to deal with this type of thing. But that’s just my opinion, as well as others.LikeLike
-
I want to believe you, Guest. But we’re just not on the same page yet.
//I don’t know if it’s because of the outcry from residents or what, but they didn’t do it and people thought that a bit rude. //
The outcry from residents is to blame in your view? Is that what you’re saying in a backhanded way? The outcry is all the more reason for them to introduce themselves. What did they expect when Stanley was fired? This is a good example of them not understanding the place.
Of course feelings come into it. The residents are human beings and artists, and it’s an extraordinary place that inspires a lot of passion. And the “facts” alone can’t explain the place, or Stanley, or the implications of this takeover. It’s a Chelsea Thing…LikeLike
-
Guest, I haven’t seen any of the crumbling infrastructure you mention. Yeah, the east elevator used to stop on the first floor always whether anyone pushed the button or not (Sid’s ghost, didntcha know?) but those elevators have run smoothly for the last few years. Stanley and his kids did a lot of work on the infrasstructure. I’ve never hd a problem getting a workmen up to my place when something needed fixing. Have you? Talk of the crumbling building is great;ly greatly overstated. That building will stand long after we’re gone. Anyone who says this coup happened just because the other two partners want to improve the plumbing and electricity is pretty naive IMHO or else is speaking for the new guys.
Regarding crazy people — those eccentric geniuses are also often crazy people in self-destructive ways and get themselves into trouble. How about Brendan Behan, Dee Dee Ramone, Dylan Thomas, Larry Rivers, Janis Joplin and onb and on and on.LikeLike
-
???? You really ARE twisting things, Miss H! Just because someone doesn’t word things in the same way you do doesn’t make what’s said BACKHANDED. Just because someone doesn’t completely agree with every word you say doesn’t make them on the side of new management! You still take everything I say and try to see opposition in it.
The outcry of residents could have put them on the defensive and figured that the residents were against them anyway so why bother? But that’s not the “fault” of the OUTCRY in the way YOU seem to think. You’re trying to make it seem like I’m blaming the public outcry for new management’s shameful behavior by lack of introduction.
Yes, they could have decided to go the OTHER WAY and made more of an effort to be friendly because of the outcry. Do YOU tend to be more friendly to someone who approaches you in harsh way or do you get defensive as well? The residents got defensive when they took over management and the Bards were fired, that’s justified to you (and to ME as well), but that doesn’t mean that the other side wouldn’t get just as defensive in response to angry behavior as well! This isn’t a BLAMING thought, it’s a possible explanation thought. I’m not condoning their lack of introduction because of the outcry.
It’s also to show how one act of defensiveness can lead to other acts of defensiveness.
I think new management should have been more professional and introduced themselves. NOT doing this was their choice. I don’t think it shows how they don’t understand the Chelsea as much as it shows that they don’t seem to care all that much WHAT the residents think of them, and PROBABLY that they don’t care about the residents as people either. I haven’t asked them why they chose not to introduce themselves, I am only stating my opinions on this. I don’t even know if there is just ONE reason!
Do I think that they would have introduced themselves if there WEREN’T a public outcry? Maybe. I’m guessing most likely not, though I don’t know.
I also don’t think they thought that by taking over they were going to get a warm welcome from the entire group of residents and staff. Did the outcry put them on the defensive? Maybe. Did the new management put the residents on the defensive? Definitely (the general population of residents, there are still those who are probably on new management’s side). Is this an excuse for them to have not introduced themselves? NO. They should have. Whatever the reason behind why they didn’t, it’s still THEIR choice and they chose not to make that official introduction.
Of course feelings come into it….EVERYONE involved are human beings! I never mentioned ANYTHING about being able to “explain” this place. I don’t think explaining the place was ever in question by anyone. Some people totally agree with you, some don’t! The ones who don’t stay elsewhere, the ones who do stay at the Chelsea. Freedom of choice and expression.LikeLike
-
Guest, that was my interpretation of the wording of that sentence, and it’s a reasonable interpretation in my opinion, so I asked about it. I’m sensitive to language. It’s my job. You only have to look at a few of the past presidential elections and a handful of wars to see how easy it is to manipulate people with language, with a particular emphasis or a subtle change of wording or sentence structure, with a carefully chosen symbol or or phrase that will provoke a visceral reaction. Your choice of words to emphasize is interesting. Maybe fewer words in caps would change the reading of your sentences and clarify things more.
You seem to have very mixed feelings about Stanley. I don’t think anyone here thinks Stanley is a saint, but compared to most businessmen — all things being relative — he comes close enough. As someone else pointed out, in his way he’s the hotel’s greatest artist, and the Chelsea is his work of art.
//I don’t think it shows how they don’t understand the Chelsea as much as it shows that they don’t seem to care all that much WHAT the residents think of them, and PROBABLY that they don’t care about the residents as people either.//
Good point, but not caring indicates a lack of understanding as well. If they really understood the place, they would care. To not care about the residents is to regard the place only in corporate and management terms, and possibly in architectural terms, and that isn’t what the Chelsea is about.LikeLike
Living with Legends 
Leave a comment