Page 8 of 10

Re: Pillsbury "A" Mill Redevelopment

Posted: October 23rd, 2014, 12:51 pm
by mattaudio
But aren't artists generally considered to be artists when they produce art?

Re: Pillsbury "A" Mill Redevelopment

Posted: October 23rd, 2014, 1:04 pm
by MNdible
From the movies I've seen, drinking absinthe in your studio is a critical component of the production of art.

Re: Pillsbury "A" Mill Redevelopment

Posted: October 23rd, 2014, 1:16 pm
by xandrex
mattaudio wrote:But aren't artists generally considered to be artists when they produce art?
Of course. But my "suggestion" (that I don't really support) was not arguing for what amounts to a per diem lump sum. It's closer to the GMI you suggested.

It's really why helping with housing might be a better idea. It's a pretty predictable cost. Rent is rent. But determining what you pay someone either on a per diem or ongoing basis for producing art is pretty damn subjective.

Re: Pillsbury "A" Mill Redevelopment

Posted: October 23rd, 2014, 1:37 pm
by EOst
mattaudio wrote:Yeah, that's why I was suggesting more public (and private) consumption of art. You know, that whole Keynesian demand-side thing.

^^Even though E0st apparently doesn't consider public consumption of art to be consumption of art or a government subsidy of artists.
Public consumption of art is certainly a subsidy (though you did list private consumption first). I don't think there's anything wrong with public institutions buying art, though there are certain limitations with that as well; it pretty much limits you to a certain type of graphic or sculptural art with "safe" themes.

Re: Pillsbury "A" Mill Redevelopment

Posted: October 23rd, 2014, 1:52 pm
by HiawathaGuy
I think all the discussion that has no bearing on the actual development should be removed and placed elsewhere. That way people who think that art housing subsidies should or shouldn't happen can discuss that there...

Re: Pillsbury "A" Mill Redevelopment

Posted: October 23rd, 2014, 1:56 pm
by David Greene
This is a really interesting conversation and I admit I'm torn on the topic. Traditionally, wasn't "great" art mostly privately financed via commissions? Most art is not "great" art but folk art (which is great!). Those artists haven't historically received subsidies as far as I know so to me that argument doesn't hold water.

I do have a problem with subsidizing "artists" as such and not other groups. Musicians provide just as much value to society but I don't see many musicians' lofts. And privilege does absolutely matter in this conversation. Some may think they aren't "living off" their privilege but that privilege directly helped with arts education, for example. I'd much rather subsidize truly under-privileged people (including artists!) than "artists" in general, just because they're artists.

As an amateur musician myself who's played a few gigs in his time, I definitely have sympathy for the positions of artists and musicians. As Matt said, you basically can't make money as a musician unless you are very, very lucky and the amount of work that goes into just one gig would probably surprise most people. Generally, musicians aren't in it for the money and I'm betting artists are the same.

I try to support artists as much as I can. All of the artwork in our house was purchased from local artists. We patronize the various festivals and fairs and make regular trips to the NKB. Ironically, I don't support the local music scene as much because I'm just not really into the kind of music that's being made. But that's a personal preference issue and doesn't reflect on the quality of the musicians.

Re: Pillsbury "A" Mill Redevelopment

Posted: October 23rd, 2014, 11:35 pm
by JordanWasaN
Musicians are included. On the rental site there's a fairly lengthy list of who can be considered an artist.

Re: Pillsbury "A" Mill Redevelopment

Posted: October 23rd, 2014, 11:46 pm
by grant1simons2
Sweet! Architecture qualifies!

Re: Pillsbury "A" Mill Redevelopment

Posted: October 24th, 2014, 7:45 am
by TommyT
grant1simons2 wrote:Sweet! Architecture qualifies!
Architecture may qualify, but you can't be a full time student.

Re: Pillsbury "A" Mill Redevelopment

Posted: October 24th, 2014, 8:19 am
by xandrex
TommyT wrote:
grant1simons2 wrote:Sweet! Architecture qualifies!
Architecture may qualify, but you can't be a full time student.
And even if many architects don't make riches, I don't know any of my arch friends who would remotely qualify under the income guidelines.

Re: Pillsbury "A" Mill Redevelopment

Posted: October 24th, 2014, 8:26 am
by Silophant
Yeah, an architect living here is one that wasn't able to find a job as an architect.

Re: Pillsbury "A" Mill Redevelopment

Posted: October 24th, 2014, 11:38 am
by grant1simons2
Wouldn't I be making less than $40k my first year out of college? That's what I was really thinking of is once I graduate. They told me that I'd be working as a junior architect my first 5 years out of college, and they don't make much

Re: Pillsbury "A" Mill Redevelopment

Posted: October 24th, 2014, 11:40 am
by TommyT
The limit for a single person is around 34,860. I would really hope you're making more than that you're first year out of college. Who knows though!

Here's the source from their website. http://www.a-millartistlofts.com/reserve-info

Re: Pillsbury "A" Mill Redevelopment

Posted: October 24th, 2014, 12:35 pm
by xandrex
TommyT wrote:The limit for a single person is around 34,860. I would really hope you're making more than that you're first year out of college. Who knows though!

Here's the source from their website. http://www.a-millartistlofts.com/reserve-info
Plenty of fields start below that level. My field is like that for sure for the vast majority of people.

Still, architects may count, but you have to have a body of work and presumably apply. A committee is going to look at this and say, "Yeah, maybe you make below that amount now [assuming you do], but your income is expected to rise, and you don't have a body of work that shows what you will contribute." I have my doubts there will be anyone fresh out of college lucky enough to snag these spots.

Re: Pillsbury "A" Mill Redevelopment

Posted: October 24th, 2014, 12:43 pm
by TommyT
I also have a feeling that once this place fills up in the next year or so, it's going to have QUITE the extensive waiting list. I know that Buzza lofts' waiting list has over 500 people on it. Also I worked for 808 Berry Place (also a Dominium property) which had 20% section 42 and a lot of my time as a leasing consultant was spent calling people on our VERY extensive waiting list to see if they were currently looking.

Re: Pillsbury "A" Mill Redevelopment

Posted: November 3rd, 2014, 6:33 pm
by schmitzm03
Image

Image

Image

Re: Pillsbury "A" Mill Redevelopment

Posted: November 24th, 2014, 6:30 am
by TroyGBiv
I can't believe how good the stone facade looks! It was going to fall in for decades and I never thought that they could correct the bulging wall! I am really impressed by the developer... this looks like a really well done project!

Re: Pillsbury "A" Mill Redevelopment

Posted: November 24th, 2014, 8:26 am
by mattaudio
Was the wall ever really bulging, or did it just taper due to structural requirements?

Re: Pillsbury "A" Mill Redevelopment

Posted: November 24th, 2014, 12:42 pm
by NE_love
Once they flipped the switch to turn the mill "on," or so the story goes, the vibration caused the wall to move. It is actually curved in both plan and section. If you look at the picture of the front facade, where it says Pillsbury, you can see it. In the middle, is was up to 21" out of plumb. It sat that way for a hundred years. The current project does not correct it, only seeks to keep it from moving more.

Re: Pillsbury "A" Mill Redevelopment

Posted: January 19th, 2015, 8:16 am
by schmitzm03
Most of the windows in the middle building are in. It is starting to look rather nice.

Image

Image