Connect with us

News

How artists saved New York

Published

on

How artists saved New York

Don’t even think about Brooklyn. 

That was the golden rule in the late 1950s and early 1960s when the movement of artists into old factories in New York started to become a serious thing. Though Brooklyn had loads of empty industrial space, gallerists simply refused to venture out there. If artists had any hope of selling their work, they had to stay in Manhattan.

“The first time I heard that, I thought, that’s crazy,” says photographer Joshua Charow, who has just published Loft Law, a book about artists who pioneered a new way of living and working. “But it kept being said.”

The revival of desolate, unloved industrial areas by artists is the miracle of modern urban history. By now, the phenomenon is exceedingly familiar, observed in cities across the world. But the story of how it originated and evolved in New York is useful to consider as cities struggle with a stultifying asymmetry: office districts depleted by remote work while residential prices soar beyond the reach of anyone whose aspirations are not fixated on wealth. Where will the dynamism we want and expect from cities come from?

Performance artists from the Marylin Wood Dance Company dangle from a SoHo fire escape in 1977 © Allan Tannenbaum/Getty Images

The original Cinderella neighbourhood is a rectilinear chunk of downtown Manhattan, bound by Houston Street to the north and Canal Street to the south. Around the time of America’s civil war, this was the bustling heart of New York, filled with fashionable merchants and workshops, as well as a robust confluence of brothels. The tight cluster of five- and six-storey cast-iron buildings created what architecture critic Michael Sorkin described as “a sense of enclosure and texture much like streets in Paris”. 

Advertisement

If that sounds like a place to be treasured for all time, well, New York had no patience for such niceties as it plunged into the 20th century. It had a new subway that scattered people and commerce. The wealthy migrated to luxurious towers that formed a necklace around Central Park, while manufacturers relocated to larger facilities in outlying areas.

New York’s little piece of Paris, which lacked even a proper name, was referred to derisively as “the Valley”, or “Hell’s Hundred Acres” because of the frequency of fires, fell into disrepute and was taken over by garment sweatshops and purveyors of rags and machine parts. Even the brothels left for classier environs.

In 1959, when New York’s influential planning tsar Robert Moses formally submitted his plan for the 10-lane, elevated Lower Manhattan Expressway — slashing across the area’s once-majestic Broome Street — he expected it to be embraced as an unparalleled symbol of progress. Mobility was the essence of the modern city.

People mingle at a party in a loft artist’s studio with paintings on the walls
Artist and film director Alfred Leslie (centre, in light shirt and dark tie) talks to guests at his loft party on West 22nd Street in 1960 © Fred W McDarrah/MUUS Collection via Getty Images

What Moses did not know, or at the very least discounted as something worthy of his attention, was that a sizeable contingent of artists was filtering into the surrounding neighbourhood, attracted by big raw space that could be bought or rented for next to nothing.

The cast-iron buildings so admired today were filthy wrecks. Zoning restrictions made it illegal to live there and only freaks would think to do so anyway. There were no kitchens; the plumbing, heating and electricity were antediluvian. Whatever needed doing you had to do yourself. But these artists were not timid souls raised in the suburbs. They were not afraid to get their hands dirty.

One galvanising force was a marvellous, Lithuanian-born kook named George Maciunas, the founder of the art movement known as Fluxus, which more or less bridged the gap between Dada and Pop. Maciunas envisioned the rebirth of this doomed area as an alternative, art-first civilisation. George, a documentary from 2018, tells his crazy, remarkable story; he was buddies with Yoko Ono and John Lennon, as well as a major influence on Andy Warhol, but, alas, a terrible civilisation builder.

Advertisement
Two men in suits stand holding drinks and talking to each other in a loft studio
David Hockney (right) at a party in his honour in 1972, held in the New York loft apartment of art dealer Michael Findlay © Peter Simins/WWD/Penske Media via Getty Images
A man in a suit stands holding a drink and talking to a woman in a loft studio, with a vase of flowers on a table in front of them
Filmmaker Cinda Fox (right) at the Hockney party in 1972 © Peter Simins/WWD/Penske Media via Getty Images

Slippery about finances and paperwork, he was beaten nearly to death by local goons over a delinquent debt, losing an eye and fading from the scene just as it was gaining critical mass. By that time, the neighbourhood had acquired a catchy name: SoHo, short for south of Houston.

In Loft Law, Charow picks up a parallel strand of the story. While Maciunas championed the ownership of lofts, most artists had to rent, often ending up at war with landlords who tried to throw them out the minute loft living became the slightest bit trendy. For protection, artists turned to elected officials, who would have happily ignored this minor constituency if only they could have.

“One thing politicians really don’t like is being yelled at,” says Michael Kozek, a prominent loft-tenant lawyer who was himself raised in a loft by artist parents. “The artists were tenacious. They made a lot of noise.” In 1982, New York passed the first loft law, establishing guidelines that enabled artists to stay in designated buildings at affordable rents. It has been updated and expanded several times since.

Charow became aware of these special arrangements when, as a teenager growing up in New Jersey, he made regular trips into the city to climb buildings and bridges, and explore abandoned subway tunnels. On one of these illicit adventures, he discovered a bunch of artists living in a former pasta factory. Who were these people, he wondered, and how did they get here? A few years later, when he moved to the city himself, he decided to explore this hidden society of misfits and document their stories. 

Working off a list of addresses he found online, he started pressing buzzers. By this time, of course, the moratorium on Brooklyn had long since lapsed. Artists had infiltrated every old industrial quarter of the city. Most of them had been living there quietly for decades, diligently pursuing their singular visions while the city around them turned into something unrecognisable from the one they had arrived in decades previously.

“I won’t tell you what it cost but it was very cheap,” artist Carolyn Oberst told Charow about the building in the neighbourhood just becoming known as Tribeca that she and her partner Jeff Way moved into in 1975. “We’ll just leave it at that.” There were so few residents in the area that essentials were hard to come by; they relied on wholesalers willing to share their surplus goods. “They would leave wheels of Brie out on the docks, knowing we would come to get it,” said Way. “Everybody would go down and get a wheel.”

Advertisement
A man in a shirt and jeans sitting in a modern leather chair in a loft studio with plants on a palette-shaped table
Musician JG Thirlwell in his loft studio in the ‘Dumbo’ district of Brooklyn © Joshua Charow

In the Brooklyn neighbourhood known as Dumbo (short for Down Under the Manhattan Bridge) Charow found an artist named Curtis Mitchell, who has lived for 40 years in a former ice-cream factory with 36-foot ceilings. “It’s a fantastic place,” Mitchell said. “Cold as hell in the winter and hot as hell in the summer. But I don’t care.” (Legend has it that local artists came up with the name Dumbo because it sounded silly and would deter real-estate agents. Oh well.)

After the Lower Manhattan Expressway was defeated by activists in the late 1960s, SoHo flourished over the next decade as an oasis of 3,000 artists — probably the best time and place to be a creative person as any in recent American history. But as money came flooding in, it turned into one of the most expensive neighbourhoods in the city while the artist population dropped close to zero. Meanwhile, however, close to 2,900 lofts throughout the city remain under protection.

What made SoHo’s renaissance possible in the first place was the single-mindedness of the artists, growing antipathy to disruptive public works and eventual political support for a process of neighbourhood regeneration that began organically. To the extent anyone ever had a plan, it was a tiny plan, or more like hundreds of simultaneous experiments, artists making it up as they went along.

This is the phenomenon that seems hardest to rekindle today when you look at problems such as empty office buildings or the lack of affordable housing. How low do economic conditions have to sink before ordinary citizens have the freedom to come up with their own ideas and run with them?

Part of Charow’s inspiration for his book was that he’d find a loft for himself, but he never did. He arrived, he figures, about 10 years too late. The last frontier was in Bushwick, a Brooklyn neighbourhood overwhelmed by crime and disorder as recently as two decades ago. It is now the closest thing New York has to SoHo in the 1970s, with plenty of gallerists, though it surely lacks any semblance of Parisian texture. 

‘Loft Law: The Last of New York City’s Original Artist Lofts’ by Joshua Charow is published by Damiani Books. An exhibition of Charow’s artist portraits, including work by the artists, is at the Westwood Gallery, 262 Bowery, in Manhattan, until June 29

Advertisement

Find out about our latest stories first — follow FTWeekend on Instagram and X, and subscribe to our podcast Life and Art wherever you listen

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

Trump Says Israel and Lebanon Agree to Extend Cease-Fire by Three Weeks

Published

on

Trump Says Israel and Lebanon Agree to Extend Cease-Fire by Three Weeks

President Trump announced a three-week extension of a cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon that had been set to expire in a few days, after hosting a meeting between Israeli and Lebanese diplomats at the White House on Thursday.

Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militant group that has been attacking Israel from southern Lebanon, did not have representatives at the meeting and did not immediately comment on the announcement. The prime minister of Israel and the president of Lebanon also did not comment.

A successful peace agreement would hinge upon Hezbollah halting attacks, which Lebanon’s government has little power to enforce because it does not control the militia. Lebanon’s military has mostly stayed out of the fighting and is not at war with Israel.

The cease-fire, which was scheduled to end on April 26, would last until May 17 if it takes effect as Mr. Trump described it. Before the cease-fire was brokered last week, nearly 2,300 people were killed in Lebanon and 13 in Israel. Since then, the number of Israeli airstrikes and Hezbollah attacks have been dramatically reduced, though the two sides have continued exchanging fire.

The Lebanese Ambassador to the United States, Nada Hamadeh, credited Mr. Trump for extending the cease-fire, saying that “with your help and support, we can make Lebanon great again.” Mr. Trump replied, “I like that phrase, it’s a good phrase.”

Advertisement

Asked about the potential of a lasting peace agreement between Israel and Lebanon, Mr. Trump said that “I think there’s a great chance. They are friends about the same things and they are enemies on the same things.”

But Lebanon and Israel have periodically been at war since Israel’s founding in 1948. Israel has invaded Lebanon for the fifth time since 1978, incursions that have destabilized the country and the delicate balance of power between Muslim, Christian and Druze communities.

In the hours before the president’s announcement on social media, Israel and Hezbollah were trading attacks in southern Lebanon, testing the existing cease-fire.

Mr. Trump said the meeting at the White House had been attended by high-ranking U.S. officials, including Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the U.S. ambassadors to Israel and Lebanon.

Earlier on Thursday, an Israeli strike near the southern Lebanese city of Nabatieh killed three people, according to Lebanon’s health ministry. Hezbollah claimed three separate attacks on Israeli troops who are occupying southern Lebanon, though none were wounded or killed.

Advertisement

Hezbollah set off the latest round of fighting last month by attacking Israel soon after the start of the U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign in Iran. Israel responded to Hezbollah’s attacks by launching airstrikes across Lebanon and widening a ground invasion of the country’s south.

Continue Reading

News

U.S. soldier charged with suspected Polymarket insider trading over Maduro raid

Published

on

U.S. soldier charged with suspected Polymarket insider trading over Maduro raid

Smoke rises from Port of La Guaira in Venezuela on Jan. 3, 2026 after U.S. forces seized the country’s president, Nicolas Maduro and his wife.

Jesus Vargas/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Jesus Vargas/Getty Images

Federal prosecutors on Thursday unsealed an indictment against a U.S. Army soldier, accusing him of using his insider knowledge of the clandestine military operation to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in January to reap more than $400,000 in profits on the popular prediction market site Polymarket.

The Justice Department says Gannon Ken Van Dyke, 38, who was stationed at Fort Bragg, in North Carolina, was part of the team that planned and carried out the predawn raid in Caracas earlier this year that resulted in the apprehension of Maduro.

The Department of Justice and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission filed the actions against Van Dyke, the first time U.S. officials have leveled criminal charges against someone over prediction market wagers.

Advertisement

According to the indictment, Van Dyke now faces counts of wire fraud, commodities fraud, misusing non-public government information and other charges.

Trading under numerous usernames including “Burdensome-Mix,” Van Dyke allegedly traded about $32,000 on the arrest of Maduro, resulting in profits exceeding $400,000.

“Prediction markets are not a haven for using misappropriated confidential or classified information for personal gain,” said U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton for the Southern District of New York. “Those entrusted to safeguard our nation’s secrets have a duty to protect them and our armed service members, and not to use that information for personal financial gain.”

Van Dyke’s defense lawyer is not yet publicly known. Polymarket did not return a request for comment.

The charges against Van Dyke come at a sensitive time for the prediction market industry, which has been growing exponentially, despite calls in Washington and among state leaders for the sites to be reined in.

Advertisement

Van Dyke is the first to be charged in the U.S. for suspected Polymarket insider trading, but Israeli authorities in February arrested several people and charged two on suspicion of using classified information to place bets about military operations in Iran on Polymarket.

Continue Reading

News

Senate Adopts GOP Budget, Laying the Groundwork to Fund ICE and Reopen DHS

Published

on

Senate Adopts GOP Budget, Laying the Groundwork to Fund ICE and Reopen DHS

The Senate early Thursday morning adopted a Republican budget blueprint that would pave the way for a $70 billion increase for immigration enforcement and the eventual reopening of the Department of Homeland Security.

Republicans pushed through the plan on a nearly party-line vote of 50 to 48. It came after an overnight marathon of rapid-fire votes, known as a vote-a-rama, in which the G.O.P. beat back a series of Democratic proposals aimed at addressing the high cost of health care, housing, food and energy. The debate put the two parties’ dueling messages on vivid display six months before the midterm elections.

Republicans, who are using the budget plan to lay the groundwork to eventually push through a filibuster-proof bill providing a multiyear funding stream for President Trump’s immigration crackdown, used the all-night session to highlight their hard-line stance on border security, seeking to portray Democrats as unwilling to safeguard the country.

Democrats tried and failed to add a series of changes aimed at addressing cost-of-living issues, seizing the opportunity to hammer Republicans as out of touch with and unwilling to act on the concerns of everyday Americans.

Here’s what to know about the budget plan and the nocturnal ritual senators engaged in before adopting it.

Advertisement

The budget blueprint is a crucial piece of Republicans’ plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security and end a shutdown that has lasted for more than two months. After Democrats refused to fund immigration enforcement without new restrictions on agents’ tactics and conduct, the G.O.P. struck a deal with them to pass a spending bill that would fund everything but ICE and the Border Patrol. Republicans said they would fund those agencies through a special budget bill that Democrats could not block.

“We can fix this with Republican votes, and we will,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and the Budget Committee chairman. “Every Democrat has opposed money for the Border Patrol and ICE at a time of great peril.”

In resorting to a new budget blueprint, Republicans laid the groundwork to deny Democrats a chance to stop the immigration enforcement funding. But they also submitted themselves to a vote-a-rama, in which any senator can propose unlimited changes to such a measure before it is adopted.

The budget measure now goes to the House, which must adopt it before lawmakers in both chambers can draft the legislation funding immigration enforcement. That bill will provide yet another opportunity for a vote-a-rama even closer to the November election.

Democrats took to the floor to criticize Republicans for supercharging funding for federal immigration enforcement rather than moving legislation that would address Americans’ concerns over affordability.

Advertisement

“This is what Republicans are fighting for,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the Democratic leader. “To maintain two unchecked rogue agencies that are dreaded in all corners of this country instead of reducing your health care costs, your housing costs, your grocery costs, your gas costs.”

Democrats offered a host of amendments along those lines, all of which were defeated by Republicans — and that was the point. The proposals were meant to put the G.O.P. in a tough political spot, showcasing their opposition to helping Americans afford high living costs. Fewer than a handful of G.O.P. senators crossed party lines to support them.

The G.O.P. thwarted an effort by Mr. Schumer to require that the budget measure lower out-of-pocket health care costs for Americans. Two Republicans who are up for re-election this year, Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Dan Sullivan of Alaska, voted with Democrats, but the proposal was still defeated.

Republicans also squelched a move by Senator Ben Ray Lujan, Democrat of New Mexico, to create a fund that would lower grocery costs and reverse cuts to food aid programs that Republicans enacted last year. Ms. Collins and Mr. Sullivan again joined Democrats.

Also defeated by the G.O.P.: a proposal by Senator John Hickenlooper, Democrat of Colorado, to address rising consumer prices brought on by Mr. Trump’s tariffs and the war in Iran; one by Senator Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, to require the budget measure to address rising electricity prices, and another by Mr. Markey to create a fund to bring down housing costs.

Advertisement

Senator Jon Ossoff, a Democrat who is up for re-election in Georgia, also sought to add language requiring the budget plan to address health insurance companies denying or delaying access to care, but that, too was blocked by Republicans.

While Republicans had fewer proposals for changes to their own budget plan, they also sought to offer measures that would underscore their aggressive stance on immigration enforcement and dare Democrats to vote against them.

Mr. Graham offered an amendment to allocate funds toward a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to the apprehension and deportation of adult immigrants convicted of rape, murder, or sexual abuse of a minor after illegally entering the United States. It passed unanimously.

Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, sought to bar Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood, which provides abortion and other services, and criticized the organization for providing transgender care to minors. Senator John Kennedy, Republican of Louisiana, also attempted to tack on the G.O.P. voter identification bill, known as the SAVE America Act. Both proposals were blocked when Democrats, joined by a few Republicans, voted to strike them as unrelated to the budget plan.

The Republicans who crossed party lines to oppose their own party’s proposals for new voting requirements were Ms. Collins along with Senators Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Thom Tillis of North Carolina.

Advertisement

Ms. Collins and Ms. Murkowski also opposed the effort to block payments to Planned Parenthood.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending