Info requested on Gratiot and Mitchell property

[etxray]

Good Morning,

I am sure with all the outstanding knowledge on this forum, someone can help me out. What is the history behind this building on the corner of Gratiot and Mitchell and is their any redevelopment plans in the works?

[Zacha341]

That mural on the side of the building is beautiful. Several of them have been popping up on various buildings. Looks like the same artist.

[MikeM]

Charles Wohlfeil Furniture. Some info here:

http://www.detroitmi.gov/Portals/0/d...-11-173635-123

[etxray]

Charles Wohlfeil Furniture. Some info here:

http://www.detroitmi.gov/Portals/0/d...-11-173635-123

Thanks Mike,

Great information, I wonder if they have received final approval for this. Seems like the structure is not in that bad of shape and would make an interesting conversion project.

[Maof]

That mural on the side of the building is beautiful. Several of them have been popping up on various buildings. Looks like the same artist.

..I argree!

[Gsgeorge]

The mural is by local artist Pat Perry, who also did the DAPL-themed mural on the Wilkins Street Bridge in Eastern Market.

I own and am renovating the pair of buildings on the next block, and we are very excited to get both of these projects off the ground. Keep an eye in the coming months for a lot of activity at these locations. The folks next door have an absolutely gorgeous building with tons of architectural details and unique elements.

[EastsideAl]

Here is an ad for Wohlfeil's furniture store from Jan. 26, 1919, showing a small photo of the building.


https://www.newspapers.com/clip/6630556/chas_wohlfeil/

[Richard]

It says.. out of the high rent district.

They were there for 35 years in 1919,so what would have been considered the high rent district at that time?

Was the basement considered the 5th floor?
What year was that building constructed?

Cool add.

[Richard]

That mural on the side of the building is beautiful. Several of them have been popping up on various buildings. Looks like the same artist.

There is a big fight going on in NYC with murals like that on buildings,the artists feel that once painted,it as in the mural,becomes the property of the artist and the building owner cannot alter or change the building if it effects the mural.

That can be a game changer if that case is won by the artist.

[etxray]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/jud...gZC?li=BBnbfcL

Richard,

Is this the case you are referring too? My question is if the building owner did not grant approval or commission the artist to paint the mural on the building above, how can the artist claim rights to his work? While I agree the mural painted on the building pictured is beautiful, if you cannot alter that side of the building in any way it will significantly devalue this property.

[Kathleen]

We had a similar case here in Detroit where an artist sued to make sure her mural was not destroyed.

https://www.citylab.com/design/2016/...-mural/422523/

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...building-under

[Gsgeorge]

The artist was granted permission from the owners to paint on this building. It was part of the Murals in the Market festival in 2017.

[archfan]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/jud...gZC?li=BBnbfcL

Richard,

Is this the case you are referring too? My question is if the building owner did not grant approval or commission the artist to paint the mural on the building above, how can the artist claim rights to his work? While I agree the mural painted on the building pictured is beautiful, if you cannot alter that side of the building in any way it will significantly devalue this property.

The owner of the building allowed the artists to paint his building, and it became a well-known attraction. The artists hoped to buy the building, but then real estate prices soared. The owner began the process to remove the building so he could sell the property. He then painted the building months before the building was razed and, more importantly, before he had the proper permits to remove the building. If he had waited for the permits, the artists would have had no standing to sue.

[1953]

When someone puts paint on a building, it is paint, and should have no legal rights separate from the building and its owner.

[archfan]

When someone puts paint on a building, it is paint, and should have no legal rights separate from the building and its owner.

The ruling is in line with interpretations of the Visual Rights Act, a 1990 federal law.

Don't worry, the owner's property appreciated to over $200M while he was allowing the dilapidated building to be a canvas, so he probably won't miss any meals. I wouldn't be surprised if painting over the art/graffiti was a deliberate strategy to short circuit any lawsuits that would tie up a property sale.

[bust]

The ruling is in line with interpretations of the Visual Rights Act, a 1990 federal law.

Don't worry, the owner's property appreciated to over $200M while he was allowing the dilapidated building to be a canvas, so he probably won't miss any meals. I wouldn't be surprised if painting over the art/graffiti was a deliberate strategy to short circuit any lawsuits that would tie up a property sale.

Exactly.

And besides, inviting graffiti artists to paint his building was almost certainly a strategy to increase his property value by turning it, and the surrounding neighborhood, into a popular, if unconventional, tourist destination. First and foremost was PS1. But arguably next after that, 5Pointz significantly contributed to drawing attention, and visitors, and eventually art studios and ever more young people to the live, work, and play nearby. It's not long after then that the money pours in.

Landlord Gentrification Strategies 101.

Kids today; ok yesterday:

PS1 after party @ #5pointz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5Gsm0cV9Vc

5 Pointz Documentary Featuring Meres
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXguu7eiPII

[1953]

That law prohibits destruction only for artists of recognized stature, as I read it. Nobody who painted a mural on a building in Detroit, short of Banksy and that dude who did the Obama poster, would qualify in my book.

1953

[bust]

That law prohibits destruction only for artists of recognized stature, as I read it. Nobody who painted a mural on a building in Detroit, short of Banksy and that dude who did the Obama poster, would qualify in my book.

Getting back to the original topic [[sort of), it's notable the artist who painted the mural on the Gratiot and Mitchell property doesn't qualify in your book.

My guess is if you encountered some of work in modern and contemporary galleries in the street instead of a museum, it wouldn't qualify as art in your book either. I don't like some of it myself. But I humbly suggest one person's art isn't another's, and we should respect different opinions.

There is no good resolution that I know of to the "what qualifies as art" debate.

That said, just because someone painted a building shouldn't mean it shouldn't ever be changed.

My knowledge of the 5Pointz situation is very incomplete, but I think some of the graffiti artists were upset because they weren't given a chance to remove or even document their work before it was destroyed. It was whitewashed without warning. Maybe the property owner should have the right to demolish the artwork so long as they've entered no contract that they wouldn't, and they provide a reasonable chance to the artists to whom they provided a canvas to preserve their work, if possible.

Have no doubt: When the property owner opened 5Pointz up to graffiti artists and PS1 after parties they were not unselfish gestures.