Should the shrine at Nostrand and Park Place, R.I.P.?
Comments
-
A picture of his name on the wall would be a nice addition to this thread.
Stacey, where on the wall is it located?
BTW, here is a photo of the mural previously located outside the Mosque that Tsarina and Homeowner referenced in their posts:
I am told that mosques can't have images of humans, because humanity does not have god like qualities. ...but I am no expert on Islam.
-
I cannot upload it from my tablet but it's on the lower right hand corner.
I took a few names to google:
MICHAEL BISHOPhttp://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/20/nyregion/youth-is-fatally-slashed-in-times-square-subway.html
GLORIA MINGO
Unfortunately you need a subscription for this site but this is what is cached in the google results:Dog's Life For Pedestrians?
Pay-Per-View - NewsdayApr 20, 1992
Gloria Mingo, 18, was run over and killed in January while she stood on the sidewalk in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn, waiting for a cab. Mingo was hit by an ... -
Damon Allen in red.
So, can we conclude that during the period that this wall commemorates, not all of those listed seem to have died from homicide, and of those who did, not all were "bad" people?
That certainly would be consistent with what homicide looked like in NYC in 2012:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/murder_in_nyc_2012.pdf -
Threads like this are why the "natives" hate the "newbies"
Nobody here owns the building; it's nobody here's place to say what they should or shouldn't have on their walls
-
There are a lot of reasons the "newbies" and "natives" hate each other; many of them seem to stem from presumptions about motivations, and uniformity.
As stated above, I assume that (if left alone) the building owner will paint over the mural to adapt to (appease?) the changing neighborhood (i.e. the growing population of largely white, newbies).
Despite causing a much better looking mural to be painted over, the folks who rented out the building that is now a mosque seem to be held harmless. While it used to have the mural pictured above on it, it now looks like this:
NW corner of Park Pl and Nostrand.When a landlord quickly and quietly "greenwashes" a building exterior to suit the preferences of its new Islamic tenants, should they be given a "pass" that a landlord renting to a business that is serving the rapidly growing population of newbies is not eligible for?
At present, the neighborhood has changed to the degree that it is "still black", but the landlord, bodega and daycare may now have the power to erase the past without any real consequences.
Should the white newbies to be blamed or "credited" for this power, or does the blame/credit belong to the people perceived to be "natives"?
-
I think this thread started with an erroneous assumption, mainly that the majority of the people on that wall were participants in and victims of local drug activity. Now it seems that the mural marks the deaths of people who may or may not have lived in the neighborhood, but who had some connection to the neighborhood and were crime victims.
Whynot's original thought that the building owner would paint over the wall to adapt to the changing neighborhood probably doesn't hold water now that the mural seems more of a tribute to crime victims in NY and less of a tribute to gangbangers. Unless, of course, newcomers are somehow living with the impression that NYC is now crime-free and being reminded that innocent people are sometimes killed in the city is offensive.
-
I think the mural remains at risk of being painted over because the current landlord or tenants (or future ones) may hold a belief that the wall commemorates criminals, or fears that others will perceive it as such.
...not everyone is going to do the research we just did.
...not everyone wants to be reminded that genuine victims exist.
...people want to believe that no one cared for dead people, because it makes their death less tragic.
...people want to believe that people who break the laws are "bad" in every aspect of their lives, that they have no good qualities. It allows us to do things like imprison them and not care about their treatment while incarcerated, and/or believe that street justice is justice.
The wall needs context to let future people know why it is an valued artifact; A nice bronze plaque on one of the blank spots would go a long way toward deeming it as such.
A politician (Eric Adams? 'Tish James?) presenting said plaque in the presence of media would go even further.
If we then presented the LL, the bodega manager and the daycare Director with framed photos of themselves shaking the polticians hand, that would likely be icing on the cake.
-
I think we have a winner:
Could we pull this off?
-
Why do you want to "pull it off"? It's not your wall, and the building owner has no obligation to appease you. It's not like the wall will prevent people from going to that deli.
Gentrification is bad enough for folks being displaced... no need to exacerbate the situation by outright demanding that the neighborhood be recreated in your image. Don't speak for everyone in the neighborhood and don't assume everyone wants what you do
-
Cool The Kid, In this case, why would pushing to leave a wall exactly as it is be recreating it in why_not or others' image? Why_not, and others like myself also argue that the wall will not prevent people from going into the deli or anywhere else and should be kept as a memorial for the rights of the people who lived and died in this neighborhood. Sure, the question is, does everyone in the neighborhood want to keep it? But trying to keep the wall seems far less offensive than leaving it to be painted over. Through intuition or contacts Why_not seems to think is going to happen soon. How is trying to keep a memorial up such a gentrification outrage?
-
At the end of the day, fortunately, none of your opinions will matter and the owner of the property will do whatever they please with the wall.
And we can reasonably anticipate what that will be, given that the mural doesn't exactly boost the value of the property.
-
Why_not has been "hinting" at "alternatives" from the first post.tateinbk said:
Cool The Kid, In this case, why would pushing to leave a wall exactly as it is be recreating it in why_not or others' image? Why_not, and others like myself also argue that the wall will not prevent people from going into the deli or anywhere else and should be kept as a memorial for the rights of the people who lived and died in this neighborhood. Sure, the question is, does everyone in the neighborhood want to keep it? But trying to keep the wall seems far less offensive than leaving it to be painted over. Through intuition or contacts Why_not seems to think is going to happen soon. How is trying to keep a memorial up such a gentrification outrage?Whether the rest of the neighborhood wants it is irrelevant. This would be like some stranger on the street walked up to you and said "we have all decided that you need to change your outfit". Just because the mural is in the view of the public doesn't mean the public has the right to dictate what the mural says. Especially when the "public" is a limited, privileged subsect of the general public, with no connection to the people or Brooklyn depicted on the mural.
The FIRST move to make is to go to the families of the victims on the mural. That that hasn't even been hinted at in this thread kind of speaks to the naivete and sense of entitlement some folks new to BK (possibly unintentionally) give off.
Not to freak anyone out but people are watching this thread- I was linked back here from another forum by folks displaying their disgust.
-
Regardless of who "saves" or "destroys" this wall, it isn't going to happen thru a democratic process, much less one based on consensus.
We have far too many opinions and emotions to attempt such an illusion.
-
Then why engage in the essentially purely academic discussion of what it "should" be? And indeed, the process with which folks have taken it upon themselves to decide and mobilize to execute the fate of the wall is far from academic.
I have no dog in this fight; I am just saying you should be more self-aware regarding matters like this.
-
As alluded to above, I perceive this mural as now being under the almost exclusive control of the LL, whereas it never was beforehand. Because I've never met the LL, I'm not sure he perceives it that way yet.
Hence, we may be in a unique moment, wherein "we" could claim it via asking a politician or the Day Care Director what they want, and them presenting said idea to the LL.
As noted above, there are all kinds of debates over whether everyone should get to be heard. If this thread leads people to believe the wall is a prize, one that must be claimed before someone else does, I am both delighted and flattered.
My only advice to those reading this is that they conduct themselves in such a way that it doesn't cause the LL to make it simply a red wall.
I also really like how this thread has reflected the NYT article on the walls in Mexico City.
-
Whynot, unless its changed hands recently, I think the guy that owns it has had it for many years (along with other property on Nostrand). Similarly, the daycare center has been there for at least ten years. As I stated earlier, the bodega has changed hands recently (within the last year or two), but all in all, the parties that really matter in this discussion have been extremely stable.
"We" aren't a party to the discussion of the future of the mural, any more than "we" were part of the decision process for the offensive mural the pawn shop painted on the wall a couple of blocks down or the decision of the landlord to paint over the mural in front of Syls when that space was rented to the mosque.
At some point the landlord gave his/her/its permission for the mural to be painted. Unless the landlord decides to change his/her/its mind, this is all just chatter.
-
Do you agree that the days of the mural are numbered, in large part as a result of how the neighborhood is quickly changing?
If so, than we are the ones creating the change, even if we don't express our views.
...The landlord and day care director will merely give us what they believe we desire.
-
No I don't agree. I think that unless and until there are changes in the ownership or usage of the building, the current parties have no problem with the mural and it will remain.
-
Pre-gentrification, there used to be a lot of murals in Harlem and the LES. Now, most are gone.
http://galessandrini.blogspot.fr/
...I do not believe that the ownership and usage changed in most instances.
In my experience, the few murals that survive are due to the community (be them long term residents or newbies) expressing their affinity for them; Many seem to have survived because there is a public garden next to them.
-
Here is an old article that some might find interesting.
Richard Green (who I happen to think the world of) is quoted in this piece. -
NYT wrote: The memorial wall at the corner of Crown Street and Bedford Avenue in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn is like the ones in Bedford-Stuyvesant, the ones in the South Bronx, the ones in Harlem. They hold the names of dead children, innocent bystanders, stone-cold killers, untrue lovers and fallen angels.
The four corners of Bedford and Crown are now dominated by the "new" MEC buildings.
...a quick look on google street view found no mural remaining.
-
Those are gone, but the one at 1736 Bedford Avenue remains...
-
While 1736 Bedford has remained a mural, it has changed over time:
Here's what it seems to have looked like pre 2008:
Then, sometime around 2009 (?), it was changed into this:
Use directional feature to turn around:
<small>View Larger Map</small>I believe it survives in its present form because it provides a homage to a force that has not been forced off the block: The Police. It also seems as if it was done with permission and care.
Whereas, as we have discussed, our mural on Nostrand is far more raw. Our seems as if it was created over time, by people who actually knew the deceased.
...hence, for now, it remains due to a combination of reverence, fear, and neglect.
-
whynot have you spoken to anyone involved with the mural, to speak with such authority on why it hasn't been taken down?
-
At this point, I am learning about the mural from third parties. As I learn things, I am providing readers with a combination of knowledge and supposition; not "authority".
Ultimately, only the landlord, daycare director, bodega proprietors, and the people who walk by it everyday know why the mural has not been taken down.
If we were to poll them all, I suspect they would provide a variety of answers, and that some of the answers would conflict.
All of this has led me to conclude that, as a result of the neighborhood's change and the passage of time, I do not believe that changing the wall "would be signing your death warrant" as Detective Carbone remarked in the NYT article from 1994 that Stacey linked.
For better or worse, times have changed.
-
Why do you feel the logical conclusion is for the mural to come down??? Do you go to graveyards and say 'alright nobody is coming to see these folks, lets build some condos!' Do you go to museums wondering when they will take down all the irrelevant "old" art? It's clear you want the mural down; the question to me is why?
-
I don't think stating that I believe it's days are numbered is the same as wanting it to go away.
I have started/continued a conversation so people who have feelings about it organize, or at least stop by to see it.
-
You've taken an emotional stake in the mural's disappearance by making the assertion/claim that it's days are numbered.
IOW the longer the mural stands, the longer you have to eat crow.
Not to mention your repeated assertions that the mural is representative of distant past people want to forget says to me you want to wipe clean the old CH and make it into your own. It was the same deal with that thread you made a while back about apts on Rogers getting cleared out of "old tenants". You are bent on bulldozing the old CH and making it yours, while claiming it is all "inevitable" and in the name of "progress"
-
Progress often has positive connotations. We should always keep in mind that such connotations are ascribed, not earned.
For better or worse, the former version of Western CH is rapidly disappearing.
As a result of this thread, some folks are poised to ask the LL whether they could restore the mural.
Who (if anyone) should ask him?
....it isn't something that should be rushed into, because by merely asking him, they run the risk of unintentionally causing its demise, and him asserting his ownership.
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds