I think his stuff was actually pretty good. I remember learning that he'd applied to art college, but when they rejected him, they recommended he try the school of architecture because he had a good eye for buildings. He angrily rejected their advice.
But in terms of the new law/ruling/whatever you call it, I think it makes a reasonable amount of sense. If a building has a minor code violation, you should let people still live/work there. I remember a story from New York City where a group of nuns wanted to open some sort of shelter, but were forbidden because the elevator didn't work (it was a relatively small building). Would you prefer a place stays vacant and decays, or keep people there, active upkeep, etc?
I think the idea of "artists" moving in is just the "starving artist" stereotype. I, too, think art, if done well, can lighten a place up (like Fort Collins getting electric boxes painted, those are cool), but lost of "art" is indeed junk.






Reply With Quote
