PHILADELPHIA | 204 S. 12th Street | 398 FT | 32 FLOORS

[nemesisinphilly]

Originally Posted by City Wide

Who wrote this bill? 45 days, for what? But if this time allotment could run along side of the CDC and other issues it shouldn't hold anything up. I can't see L&I holding up/turning down a permit because of a recommendation from Mural Arts.

Katherine Gilmore Richardson with Gym, Bass, Squilla, Quiñones Sánchez and Thomas sponsoring.

https://phila.legistar.com/Legislati...1-0A1D2C6D080C

It would apply to ALL projects involving muraled buildings. Not just ones that have to go through CDR.

[Groundhog]

So I recently spoke to a muralist I know who's worked with and butted heads against the mural arts program.

To quote my source:

Legally, ownership (maintenance, decommissioning, intellectual rights etc.) of murals is sorted out ad nauseum in a Building Agreement between Mural Arts, the artist, and the building owner. Mural Arts' agreements are generally very generous to building owners, going as far as explicitly waiving the only intellectual protections artists have under law (called VARA rights). However, in exchange, their agreements typically require at least 30 days notice before taking down a mural, among other things. Mural Arts always does a ceremony and announcements before a mural is removed to manage community impact. My hunch here is that the developer started that conversation with Mural Arts, but never provided an accurate removal date. So it was a surprise that the mural was suddenly white washed. It was probably naive miscoordination on behalf of the developer.

So at the end of the day Midwood may have jumped the gun and removed the mural without proper notice that they were required to and it looks like the Mural Arts is jumping on that to get some political points. The head of the program loves media attention, looking like a champion for the community and is hoping they can get Midwood to fork over a bit more cash for a bigger tribute as an apology/unofficial fine for not properly giving enough notice.

There also may be something to people really loving that mural even though it hadn't been around for a long time, but...yeah.

Like all of you, I don't agree with the PR campaign being fought by mural arts over what looks like a miscommunication on timelines by the developer. It's likely Midwood's fault for not following the agreement, but that doesn't excuse the mural arts unprofessional tantrum here. If they end up getting a few more bucks for the replacement piece, good for them, but it definitely puts a bad taste in my mouth and, I'm sure, in the mouths of some LGTB allies and many potential future mural arts partners.

[Redddog]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

So I recently spoke to a muralist I know who's worked with and butted heads against the mural arts program.

To quote my source:



So at the end of the day Midwood may have jumped the gun and removed the mural without proper notice that they were required to and it looks like the Mural Arts is jumping on that to get some political points. The head of the program loves media attention, looking like a champion for the community and is hoping they can get Midwood to fork over a bit more cash for a bigger tribute as an apology/unofficial fine for not properly giving enough notice.

There also may be something to people really loving that mural even though it hadn't been around for a long time, but...yeah.

Like all of you, I don't agree with the PR campaign being fought by mural arts over what looks like a miscommunication on timelines by the developer. It's likely Midwood's fault for not following the agreement, but that doesn't excuse the mural arts unprofessional tantrum here. If they end up getting a few more bucks for the replacement piece, good for them, but it definitely puts a bad taste in my mouth and, I'm sure, in the mouths of some LGTB allies and many potential future mural arts partners.

Why would ANY building owner allow someone to put a mural on their property right now?

It's a shame. Philly has such an impressive mural arts program but for an owner, there is little reason, outside of altruism (not prevalent in that particular community), to allow someone to throw up a mural.

Cover up blight? Maybe draw some attention to increase value?

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Redddog

Why would ANY building owner allow someone to put a mural on their property right now?

It's a shame. Philly has such an impressive mural arts program but for an owner, there is little reason, outside of altruism (not prevalent in that particular community), to allow someone to throw up a mural.

Cover up blight? Maybe draw some attention to increase value?

If you've got a blank wall or want some positive public brownie points you might. It's not too far off from why do people spend on high quality construction materials? Aesthetics. They get most of the rights, none of the costs and just need to make sure they manage the asset in line with the agreement. They didn't stick to what they were supposed to do and people got mad. It's understandable.

Agreed though, it does highlight the worst case scenario of what can happen if you screw up and I can see if pushing some not wanting to bother with the mural arts program program.

[nemesisinphilly]

Mural Arts is pushing for a bill that imo would end their existence:

"The bill would require Mural Arts to review all construction plans that would affect its artistic creations. Anytime a building permit request is filed for an alteration to a muralized structure, the city’s Department of Licenses and Inspections would have to forward the application to Golden’s agency for review before issuing the permit.

Mural Arts’ review would be limited to a 45-day comment period by the end of which the agency would send recommendations to L&I. Gilmore Richardson said she expects to hold hearings about the bill in the spring."

https://whyy.org/articles/philly-has...-protect-them/

[Flyers2001]

Originally Posted by nemesisinphilly

Mural Arts is pushing for a bill that imo would end their existence:

"The bill would require Mural Arts to review all construction plans that would affect its artistic creations. Anytime a building permit request is filed for an alteration to a muralized structure, the city’s Department of Licenses and Inspections would have to forward the application to Golden’s agency for review before issuing the permit.

Mural Arts’ review would be limited to a 45-day comment period by the end of which the agency would send recommendations to L&I. Gilmore Richardson said she expects to hold hearings about the bill in the spring."

https://whyy.org/articles/philly-has...-protect-them/

Please deny this bill.

[Larry King]

What's not clear is if mural arts comments are purely advisory? What's the point, to get the builder to negotiate with mural arts over the 45 day period?

[iamrobk]

Originally Posted by Larry King

What's not clear is if mural arts comments are purely advisory? What's the point, to get the builder to negotiate with mural arts over the 45 day period?

As I read it, this doesn't give L&I any additional grounds to grant/deny a building permit. (I don't think this directly answers your question, but hopefully it helps.)

[Redddog]

Again, why the HAIL would anyone allow a mural on a building these days.

Talk about shooting a good thing to death.

[TonyTone]

This is what happens when you get to big for your pants.

Great program but this bill is dumb.

Simple both sides need to just make an agreement and stick to it no going behind the back or breaking the contract if that happens just pay up and move on.

[eixample]

Maybe I am missing something but this sounds kind of toothless to be honest. Basically saying you have to get a permit to obstruct a mural, but you already need a permit to build anything in front of the mural or to demolish a building anyway. Mural Arts' only power is to give non-binding advice to L&I. You will need to get a permit to paint over a mural but if the only thing Mural Arts gets out of this is the ability to prevent spite white washings of murals, that's not a big deal to me.

[Larry King]

Originally Posted by eixample

Maybe I am missing something but this sounds kind of toothless to be honest. Basically saying you have to get a permit to obstruct a mural, but you already need a permit to build anything in front of the mural or to demolish a building anyway. Mural Arts' only power is to give non-binding advice to L&I. You will need to get a permit to paint over a mural but if the only thing Mural Arts gets out of this is the ability to prevent spite white washings of murals, that's not a big deal to me.

It depends on how Mural Arts uses that 45 day delay. If they use it to get a pro bono attorney to sue the property owner to stop the project, it's a big problem and I don't think that is all that far fetched given what happened with 5 Pointz in NY.

[summersm343]

Demolition Underway At 204 South 12th Street





Read/view more here:
https://phillyyimby.com/2021/02/demo...nter-city.html

[Skintreesnail]

Yeah, I think this bill would kind of harm the ability for the program to foster neighborhood beautification and collaboration, especially in places where there's more blight. It almost seems like there should be some other program for murals that are meant to be more permanent. Or if not a program, just a class of murals.

[PHLtoNYC]

Maybe I missed something, but there was time and effort put into the bill from several members of City Council. Is this seriously what they are spending their time on...?

[Redddog]

The Philly city council has to be the most confounding group of people ever assembled in any common space in the United States of America. I'd rather have Bernie Madoff manage my money than these dolts.

[TK2001]

The building is currently going under demolition

[cardeza]

Originally Posted by TK2001

The building is currently going under demolition

good

[Human Scale]

Do flickr links not work anymore??

[TK2001]

https://phillyyimby.com/2021/02/demo...nter-city.html