Tonight’s the night Soho House presents its plan for expansion on the Lower east Side before Community Board 3’s SLA Committee. The proposal was first floated in February. The private members’ club postponed the application for a full liquor permit at 139 Ludlow Street twice in recent months. There were numerous open houses inside the former funeral home and an offer to create a community space in the basement.
In the past several days, a high profile Soho House supporter, LES documentarian Clayton Patterson, softened his endorsement of the club somewhat. In his column in the Villager, Patterson wrote that Soho House is the “lesser of what could be so much worse.” By this, he means that the building could become a boisterous night club or restaurant masquerading as night club, like so many other Lower East Side nightlife venues.
Patterson took his share of criticism on The Lo-Down and elsewhere for speaking in favor of the club, which would be located in an area CB3 has designated “over saturated” with liquor licenses. He visited Soho House in the Meatpacking District several times, tried to recruit local artists to join, worked with Soho House on a tribute to Taylor Mead and was planning to hold the Acker Awards, which recognize members of the avant garde arts community, in the Ludlow Street space.
In the end, he decided to move the awards to the Angel Orensanz Center and concluded that the club was not all that interested in supporting the types of struggling artists who are still hanging in there on the gentrified Lower East Side. But as Patterson told us in a phone conversation the other day, he thinks they’ll fit in just fine in the “new neighborhood” and won’t disturb people on the block. Bottom line, he said, “you can’t be against everything” and it makes little sense to fight the gentrification of Ludlow Street when that war has already been lost.
Meanwhile, a neighborhood group, LES Dwellers, has prepared a 34 page document in opposition to the Soho House application and another proposal at 177 Ludlow that has since been withdrawn. They have emailed it to members of Community Board 3 in advance of tonight’s meeting. The document notes that there are 51 full liquor licenses within 500 feet of the proposed club. It also includes illustrated photos highlighting the close proximity between Soho House’s proposed roof deck and the apartments of local residents. The Dwellers argue Soho House will “benefit a few at the expense of many in an area well beyond its ability to manage conditions at night.” You can have a look at the slide show here.
We’ll have a full report following tonight’s CB3 meeting.
UPDATE 5/24/2013: Clayton Patterson contacted us to say the summary above does not accurately reflect his views on Soho House. In an email message, he said, “my objective was to push Soho House to see what they were actually offering.” Patterson did not try to ‘recruit” other artists but indicated he tried to “get local artists to ask about a membership… I asked for a membership for a few local creative people, and I asked if I could trade my photographs for a membership for a neighborhood creative person. And I asked about jobs for local people.” More from his email:
Soho House said creative people who could not afford a membership could trade art for a membership… I had lined up some local people who I thought should be acceptable- then I was told that no decision could be made about memberships for at least 8 months, or until Soho House was ready to open Ludlow Street. I mentioned I thought memberships were good worldwide. If Soho House likes the art then what difference did it make if a membership was for the Meatpacking (location) or Ludlow (Stree). Both are NYC. And I was also told, “no,” I could not trade my photos for another person’s membership. And “no” they were not accepting job applications. I see testing what is being offered as different than recruiting. My disappointment is, as far as I know, no one else actually tested what was being offered. In the end I felt SH is insincere in their offer.
Patterson had this to say about his role in a screening of Taylor Mead’s films on the Lower East Side:
I did not get involved working with Soho House to set up the Taylor Mead show. I put MM Serra (director of the Filmmakers’ Coop) together with Soho House to do a Taylor Mead screening at the Ludlow Street location. I am waiting to see if MM will be given a membership and what kind. My disappointment with the Taylor Mead Memorial screening was there was almost no one from Soho House at the screening. I looked at the audience and understood immediately that almost the whole audience was from the community. When the screening was ready to start why I asked the question: who is from Soho House? Only a couple of people raised their hand. This to me meant no support from Soho House…
First, I can see more clearly now what SH meant when I asked Pierre other than me who else actually stood up for them in public and they said Ed from the Lo-Down.
Ed- couple of points of clarification. You know, as clearly as anyone, my objective was to push SoHo House to see what they were actually offering. So let’s be clear- this is important. No I did not try and recruit people- what I tried to do was to get local artists to ask about a membership, I asked for a membership for a few local creative people, and I asked if I could trade my photographs for a
membership for a neighborhood creative person. And I asked about jobs for local people.
Ed- as you know- SH said creative people who could not afford a membership could trade art for a membership. AS you know I had lined up some local people who I thought should be acceptable- then I was told that no decision could be made about memberships for at least 8 months, or until SH was ready to open Ludlow Street.
I mentioned I thought memberships were good worldwide. If SH likes the art then what difference did it make if a membership was for the Meatpacking SH or Ludlow SH. Both are NYC. And I was also told no I could not trade my photos from another person’s membership. And no they were not accepting job applications.
I see testing what is being offered as different than recruiting. My disappointment is, as far as I know, no one else actually
tested what was being offered. In the end I felt SH is insincere in their offer.
No I did not get involved working with SH to set up the Taylor Mead show. I put MM Serra together with SH to do a Taylor Mead screening at the Ludlow Street location. I am waiting to see if MM
will be given a membership and what kind. My disappointment with the Taylor Mead Memorial screening was there was almost no one from SH at the screening. I looked at the audience and understood immediately that almost the whole audience was from the community. When the screening was ready to start why I asked the
question: who is from SH? Only a couple of people raised their hand. This to me meant no support from SH. And why Rachel was angry with me for asking that question.
Ed – I think you visited the Meatpacking SH as many times as I did. In the end I stated the place is not for me. Another of my disappointments is you, Ed, have not given your opinion. You have told me you also see SH as another typical yuppie establishment, yet you do not come out and say this. Standing by with no opinion is why they believe you are their side.
Saturated or not I will be shocked if the 2 new luxury hotels going up on Ludlow are denied a liquor license. And let us wait and see if SH gets the license on appeal. The community has not yet gone through the next phase of gentrification. What was before will never be again.
My battle now is to adjust to what is. Good luck to LES Dwellers in their battle.
We have now entered into the period where money counts and people do not. If one does not get that from the Taylor Mead crises, or the Economakis taking over 45-47 east 3rds street- or 81 east 3rd street which broke the zoning laws, over built, then turned the
property in a NY Law School dorm- or the eviction of 172 Stanton- or – or – or.