# Gentrification jackpot: the Bowery House becomes homeless themed upmarket hotel



## editor (Aug 29, 2014)

This is a really interesting piece about some particularly tacky gentrification in NY. 





> The Bowery House opened in 2011, on the top two floors of a building on the Bowery formerly known as the Prince Hotel. The Bowery is a lengthy street running through the centre of Manhattan’s Lower East Side, and has long been a place of refuge for the city’s homeless population. Dozens of ‘flophouses’ were built there during the Great Depression, including the Prince, providing cheap living spaces for poverty-stricken New Yorkers. By the 1950s more than 200 residents were crammed into the Prince’s tiny wooden cabins, paying a few dollars a night for a bed, a shared bathroom and a ceiling made out of chicken wire.
> 
> The Prince was sold in the mid-90s, and stopped accepting new residents. By the time plans to convert it into a hotel emerged, there were barely ten residents left. The hotel developers moved them all onto the second floor, and turned the cabins on the higher floors into upmarket ‘tribute’ versions of the rooms downstairs. Guests at the hotel, who pay anything up to $154 a night to ‘live out their flophouse fantasies’, therefore now climb past a floor of chicken-wire rooms inhabited by real-life ‘bums’ in order to reach their ‘authentic’ cabin beds.
> 
> ...


----------



## JTG (Aug 29, 2014)

Wow


----------



## JTG (Aug 29, 2014)

No other comment at this stage


----------



## editor (Aug 29, 2014)

JTG said:


> No other comment at this stage


It's a bit much to take in, isn't it?



> Guests at the hotel, who pay anything up to $154 a night to ‘live out their flophouse fantasies’, therefore now climb past a floor of chicken-wire rooms inhabited by real-life ‘bums’ in order to reach their ‘authentic’ cabin beds.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 29, 2014)

JTG said:


> Wow


 
Seconded.


----------



## Dan U (Aug 29, 2014)

fucking hell. some level above that pub in Deptford named after the job centre.


----------



## porno thieving gypsy (Aug 29, 2014)

What sort of person has a "flop house fantasy"


----------



## Belushi (Aug 29, 2014)

I no longer know what's real and what's satirical.


----------



## killer b (Aug 29, 2014)

I just visited the website, and it doesn't seem to trade on it's history at all, and starting at $59 a night doesn't strike me as upmarket.

http://www.theboweryhousehotelnewyork.com/index.htm?lbl=ggl-en&gclid=COLF6IbduMACFZMRtAod-xoAbQ

just looks like a hip backpacker place to me.


----------



## isvicthere? (Aug 29, 2014)

Belushi said:


> I no longer know what's real and what's satirical.



^^^^this. It reads like a daily mash story.


----------



## killer b (Aug 29, 2014)

that's because its about as made-up qs a daily mash story


----------



## Belushi (Aug 29, 2014)

Yeah, the website certainly doesn't match the claims in the story


----------



## salem (Aug 29, 2014)

Reminds me of the South African shanty town themed place.

http://www.emoya.co.za/p23/accommod...accommodation-experience-in-bloemfontein.html

"Now you can experience staying in a Shanty within  the safe environment of a private game reserve. This is the only Shanty Town in the world equipped with under-floor heating and wireless internet access!"


----------



## killer b (Aug 29, 2014)

Belushi said:


> Yeah, the website certainly doesn't match the claims in the story


liberal clickbait innit.


----------



## editor (Aug 29, 2014)

killer b said:


> that's because its about as made-up qs a daily mash story


Here. Read. The hotel may have (wisely) changed since, but the story is real enough.



> On Bowery, Cultures Clash as the Shabby Meet the Shabby Chic
> On the Bowery, on the second floor of an ancient flophouse, nine men pay less than $10 a night to sleep in cramped cubicles topped with chicken wire. Half the stalls in their shared bathroom are missing doors, and their halls are lined with spooky rows of empty cubicles whose last occupants either took off or died off.
> 
> Directly above them, on the third and fourth floors, stylish young men and women pay $62 to $129 a night for a refined version of the gritty experience below. Their cubicles have custom-made mattresses and high-end sheets. Their shared bathrooms have marble sinks and heated floors. Their towels are Ralph Lauren.
> ...


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 29, 2014)

Surely they shouldn't be living out their flophouse fantasies with custom-made mattresses, high-end sheets, marble sinks, heated floors and Ralph Lauren towels


----------



## killer b (Aug 29, 2014)

editor said:


> Here. Read. The hotel may have (wisely) changed since, but the story is real enough.


Yeah. I read. I don't think it really changes anything.

So, just to recap, an ex-flophouse has been done up in a style that's sympathetic to it's original use, has opened it as a hotel with very reasonably priced beds (£35 - £92 for comparison - that's far from 'upmarket')_ and _has let some of the old residents stay there for peppercorn rents instead of turfing them out on the street. Have I got that right?


----------



## salem (Aug 29, 2014)

killer b said:


> Yeah. I read. I don't think it really changes anything.
> 
> So, just to recap, an ex-flophouse has been done up in a style that's sympathetic to it's original use, has opened it as a hotel with very reasonably priced beds (£35 - £92 for comparison - that's far from 'upmarket')_ and _has let some of the old residents stay there for peppercorn rents instead of turfing them out on the street. Have I got that right?


Interesting take on it. I think whether it stands scrutiny depends on whether the owners are letting the old boys stay on out of charity or obligation. I suspect the latter and they came up with the branding to take advantage of a bad situation. Even if they've chosen to let the old tenants stay on out of charity then it doesn't really excuse them using one of their names without permission or leaving the old cubicles in a bad state.

I suspect this current setup is a cheap and temporary 'pop up' solution until they get all the old tenants out and refurbish it properly.


----------



## Manter (Aug 29, 2014)

salem said:


> Interesting take on it. I think whether it stands scrutiny depends on whether the owners are letting the old boys stay on out of charity or obligation. I suspect the latter and they came up with the branding to take advantage of a bad situation. Even if they've chosen to let the old tenants stay on out of charity then it doesn't really excuse them using one of their names without permission or leaving the old cubicles in a bad state.
> 
> I suspect this current setup is a cheap and temporary 'pop up' solution until they get all the old tenants out and refurbish it properly.


It's been refurbished- it's part hotel, part museum according to the website, and no mention at all of flophouse fantasies....


----------



## killer b (Aug 29, 2014)

Maybe. Who knows (although it's been an arrangement that's lasted 3 years so far)? Either way, it's far from the gentrification jackpot claimed in the OP.


----------



## editor (Aug 29, 2014)

killer b said:


> Maybe. Who knows (although it's been an arrangement that's lasted 3 years so far)? Either way, it's far from the gentrification jackpot claimed in the OP.


That's what the two articles claimed and, frankly, I'm more inclined to believe what they're saying above your personal, long distant take on events. 

Did you not read the bit where both articles claimed that a hotel room had been named after one of the longterm homeless residents there?



> And what about Charlie Peppers?
> 
> Mr. Kunkel displayed a photograph on his smartphone of Charlie sunbathing on the roof. He described the man as cocky, volatile and uncommunicative. And no, he had not told the man of the hotel room named after him. “I don’t even think he knows he’s called Charlie Peppers,” Mr. Kunkel said.
> 
> A touch of irritation could be heard in his words. Here is why: At least twice, he said, the man called Charlie Peppers has smashed the sleek neon sign that announces this new, flophouse-chic hotel to all who walk the Bowery.


It looks like it has changed now, but that doesn't make the original story any less accurate or made up, as you claimed.


----------



## killer b (Aug 29, 2014)

editor said:


> That's what the two articles claimed and, frankly, I'm more inclined to believe what they're saying above your personal, long distant take on events.
> 
> Did you not read the bit where both articles claimed that a hotel room had been named after one of the longterm homeless residents there?
> 
> It looks like it has changed now, but that doesn't make the original story any less accurate or made up, as you claimed.


What made me go  about the article you posted wasn't whether the old guy had been asked if they could name a room after him (although I note, the writer hadn't asked him either - the resident's opinions are notably absent throughout the critical pieces you cite. Funny that). It was the way that a crass review by an unrelated website was being presented as the hotel's promotional material, and the idea that £35 - £92 a night is upmarket, despite it actually being no such thing. It's lazy, dishonest writing with a clear agenda - and if the writer had to stretch the truth so tightly to make his point, then perhaps it's because there wasn't so much there for him to go at in the first place.


----------



## editor (Aug 29, 2014)

killer b said:


> What made me go  about the article you posted wasn't whether the old guy had been asked if they could name a room after him (although I note, the writer hadn't asked him either - the resident's opinions are notably absent throughout the critical pieces you cite. Funny that). It was the way that a crass review by an unrelated website was being presented as the hotel's promotional material, and the idea that £35 - £92 a night is upmarket, despite it actually being no such thing. It's lazy, dishonest writing with a clear agenda - and if the writer had to stretch the truth so tightly to make his point, then perhaps it's because there wasn't so much there for him to go at in the first place.


So you're going to sidestep all the other issues presented in the NY Times piece then?


----------



## killer b (Aug 29, 2014)

I'm talking about the dodgy shit in the article in the OP, not whatever you've desperately googled to support your case after it was challenged.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 29, 2014)

i know someone who stayed there last year - it was the very cheapest hotel they could find, cheaper than the YMCA even. Room was tiny, which was fine, but the ceiling is missing and you can hear what everyone else is up to. Nightmare. Had to get earplugs to sleep. But it was cheap by NY standards - under £40 a night

I know there was no thrill of staying in the bowery house (which theyd never heard of before) etc, it was just a cheap spot to stay in an expensive city


----------



## ska invita (Aug 29, 2014)

They didnt mention anything about "real life bums" staying there... supposedly it was just like a hostel (but worse, as no ceilings )


----------



## editor (Aug 30, 2014)

killer b said:


> I'm talking about the dodgy shit in the article in the OP, not whatever you've desperately googled to support your case after it was challenged.


"Desperately Googled"? _What!!!?  _
You claimed that story was made up. It wasn't. You were wrong.


----------



## killer b (Aug 30, 2014)

apart from the made up bits.


----------



## editor (Aug 30, 2014)




----------



## ska invita (Aug 31, 2014)

tbf its neither "homeless themed" nor an "upmarket hotel" as the thread titles says


----------



## editor (Aug 31, 2014)

ska invita said:


> tbf its neither "homeless themed" nor an "upmarket hotel" as the thread titles says


They had a room named after one of the hostel residents.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 31, 2014)

editor said:


> They had a room named after one of the hostel residents.


that doesnt make it homeless themed - the disney hotel is a themed hotel - this is just a hostel


----------



## editor (Aug 31, 2014)

ska invita said:


> that doesnt make it homeless themed - the disney hotel is a themed hotel - this is just a hostel


If you say so.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 31, 2014)

editor said:


> They had a room named after one of the hostel residents.


i find that respectful, not cynical.


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 31, 2014)

I stayed in a hostel in Sydney once, where all the rooms were named after cricketers, iirc.  It wasn't a cricket-themed hostel, though.  Not decorated in a special way or anything.  Just a regular, slightly grubby and disappointingly unfriendly backpackers' hostel.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 31, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> I stayed in a hostel in Sydney once, where all the rooms were named after cricketers, iirc.  It wasn't a cricket-themed hostel, though.  Not decorated in a special way or anything.  Just a regular, slightly grubby and disappointingly unfriendly backpackers' hostel.


basically this is what this is - a backpacker hostel 
you can see in this pic how there are no ceilings, the rooms are like changing room cubicles YSWIM


----------



## isvicthere? (Sep 1, 2014)

I'm amazed at the lengths some have gone to on this thread to "discredit" (imo without success) the editor for expressing misgivings about gentrification.


----------



## killer b (Sep 1, 2014)

there's plenty to be uncomfortable with here tbf - my beef is with the hysterical overcooking of the story though. Why make out that the place is overun by guffawing hipsters paying through the nose for an 'authentic hobo experience' when that blatantly isn't true? That it's some high class establishment, when it's the cheapest hotel in New York?

I've not gone to any lengths, just pointed out where the story is bullshit. If you want to have a discussion about gentrification, great - do so. But discuss the actual facts rather than making up stuff to scream about.


----------



## isvicthere? (Sep 1, 2014)

killer b said:


> there's plenty to be uncomfortable with here tbf - my beef is with the *hysterical* overcooking of the story though. Why make out that the place is overun by guffawing hipsters paying through the nose for an 'authentic hobo experience' when that blatantly isn't true? That it's some high class establishment, when it's the cheapest hotel in New York?



Can you please point out the "hysterical" bit? I missed that.


----------



## killer b (Sep 1, 2014)

Come on, the OP is two exclamation marks away from being a buzzfeed headline.


----------



## isvicthere? (Sep 1, 2014)

killer b said:


> Come on, the OP is two exclamation marks away from being a buzzfeed headline.



We're not going to agree on this.


----------



## killer b (Sep 1, 2014)

ok, remove the word hysterical if you must. What about the rest of the post?


----------



## editor (Sep 1, 2014)

ska invita said:


> i find that respectful, not cynical.


Shame the resident who it was named after didn't agree, eh?  How is that respectful?


----------



## killer b (Sep 1, 2014)

Eh? Apparently he doesn't know, so his approval (or otherswise) is currently unknown. No-one's asked him. Including all these concerned journalists.

(I don't think it's respectful btw - I think it stinks of the same kind of patronising head-patting that people do over the colourful town drunk and whatnot - but it isn't enough to base the colourful claims in the OP on)


----------



## editor (Sep 1, 2014)

killer b said:


> Eh? Apparently he doesn't know, so his approval (or otherswise) is currently unknown. No-one's asked him. Including all these concerned journalists.
> 
> (I don't think it's respectful btw - I think it stinks of the same kind of patronising head-patting that people do over the colourful town drunk and whatnot - but it isn't enough to base the colourful claims in the OP on)


Here's how those articles see it. it's disgusting. 


> An example of this is the hotel room called the Peppers Bunk, named after “Charlie Peppers,” among the building’s “most colorful longtime residents,” the hotel’s publicity material explains. There is, in fact, a silent, unapproachable tenant named Charlie who does, in fact, eat lots of peppers. He has not been told by the hotel that a room upstairs is named after him, or that he is considered colorful, or that his cubicle lifestyle is being used as a P.R. come-on.





> One room has even been named after ‘one of the most colorful longtime residents’, although no-one is sure whether so-called ‘Charlie Peppers’ is aware of the ‘tribute’ being paid to his ‘colourful’ life. But whether he knows or not, his poverty, and that of his neighbours, is now a cultural niche to be mined for profit. It’s probably one step up from being thrown out on the street altogether, but there’s a peculiarly insidious violence about a vulnerable person’s entire existence being exploited as a tourist attraction behind their back. - See more at: http://theoccupiedtimes.org/?p=13143#sthash.xNYif82X.4clYi84b.dpuf



And here's the lovely room: 
http://theboweryhouse.com/Bowery/peppers.html

And an interview with the race car driving owner : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/12/race-car-driver-allessand_n_1200090.html


----------



## killer b (Sep 1, 2014)

Yes, I read them already. Where do they interview Charlie Peppers, I must have missed it?


----------



## ska invita (Sep 1, 2014)

killer b said:


> (I don't think it's respectful btw - I think it stinks of the same kind of patronising head-patting that people do over the colourful town drunk and whatnot - but it isn't enough to base the colourful claims in the OP on)


 
standardly thats likely too of course - i was trying to be generous


----------



## editor (Sep 1, 2014)

killer b said:


> Yes, I read them already. Where do they interview Charlie Peppers, I must have missed it?


Yes you have. Looks like you didn't bother reading the NY Times piece I posted earlier, but feel free to carry on defending the hotel and insisting that the story was all made up. 


> *But Charlie has, at times, expressed his displeasure with the flophouse homage above him*. Before the hotel, called the Bowery House, opened in midsummer in Lower Manhattan, this man of few words walked up to a couple of its workers and said, simply: Leave.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/us/at-bowery-house-hotel-flophouse-aesthetic-of-old.html?_r=0


----------



## killer b (Sep 1, 2014)

No, I read that - that doesn't say he disaproves of the room named after him does it? It can't do, as they clearly haven't approached him. It simply interprets the actions of a chaotic homeless guy as supporting the premise of their article.

I'm not saying the story was _all_ made up. I'm saying that significant parts of it were. Is that not enough? Must every word of something be fiction before we challenge it?


----------



## editor (Sep 1, 2014)

killer b said:


> No, I read that - that doesn't say he disaproves of the room named after him does it?


You appear to be comprehending plain English rather differently to me. And most other people, I imagine. 


killer b said:


> No, I read that - that doesn't say he disaproves of the room named after him does it? It can't do, as they clearly haven't approached him. It simply interprets the actions of a chaotic homeless guy as supporting the premise of their article.
> 
> I'm not saying the story was _all_ made up.


You did earlier on. Shall I show you your quote?


----------



## killer b (Sep 1, 2014)

I't's ok, I will.


killer b said:


> that's because its about as made-up qs a daily mash story


What daily mash stories do, on the main, is take real stories and add ludicrous or exagerated elements for the purpose of comedy. Which is exactly what's been done here, except with a different purpose.


----------



## killer b (Sep 1, 2014)

editor said:


> You appear to be comprehending plain English rather differently to me. And most other people, I imagine.


 It clearly states in the article that he doesn't know the room has been named after him. How can he be angry about it?


----------



## salem (Sep 1, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/travel/2011/oct/28/bowery-house-hotel-new-york



> One of the guest rooms has been named after a long-term flophouse resident, nicknamed "Charlie Peppers" due to his love of peppers. But no one on the hotel's staff has told Charlie, who can often be seen on the street.



The Guardian also say that no one has told Charlie. That's what 3 articles which make the same point. The thing is he must know now and he must keep telling these journalists the same thing. I would have thought the owners would just find another colourful character to name the bloody room after.


----------



## editor (Sep 1, 2014)

killer b said:


> It clearly states in the article that he doesn't know the room has been named after him. How can he be angry about it?


Are you expecting him to hold a video press conference to articulate his thoughts in a manner you are prepared to accept?

It would be exceptionally weird if he has not heard about it given he lives/loved there and enough journos must have told him by now.


----------



## killer b (Sep 1, 2014)

clearly not, or they would have written about it wouldn't they?


----------



## editor (Sep 1, 2014)

killer b said:


> clearly not, or they would have written about it wouldn't they?


Ah, so now you're believing what's been written without question? Volte face-tastic!


----------



## killer b (Sep 1, 2014)

If a journalist had spoken to him, what possible reason could there be for not giving his reaction? The only reason I can think of is because it doesn't support the story he's putting together. Do you think that's what's happened here?


----------



## isvicthere? (Sep 1, 2014)

killer b said:


> No, I read that - that doesn't say he disaproves of the room named after him does it?



We're arguing the semantics of "express displeasure with" vs. "disapprove of"? 
_
Seriously?_


----------



## killer b (Sep 1, 2014)

no, we aren't.


----------



## isvicthere? (Sep 1, 2014)

killer b said:


> no, we aren't.



Well, I'm not. But you appear to be.


----------



## killer b (Sep 1, 2014)

No I don't.


----------



## isvicthere? (Sep 1, 2014)

killer b said:


> No I don't.


----------



## killer b (Sep 1, 2014)

editor said that the guy disaproves of the room being named after him, which is contradicted by all of the articles he cites which say he doesn't even know about the room being named after him. That's what I was pointing out.

I'm not sure where you get from that to me arguing there's a difference between "express displeasure with" anf "disapprove of". Maybe you could explain?


----------



## isvicthere? (Sep 1, 2014)

Post 48: Editor quotes "express displeasure with".

Post 49: you say he "doesn't disapprove of".

There's hardly a yawning chasm of semantic difference between the two.


----------



## killer b (Sep 1, 2014)

Right. But what I'm pointing out is that he isn't expressing displeasure with having a room named after him (because according to the same article, he doesn't know about having a room named after him), not that there is a difference between two phrases.

Do you only read the words you want to or something?


----------



## isvicthere? (Sep 1, 2014)

killer b said:


> Right. But what I'm pointing out is that he isn't expressing displeasure with having a room named after him (because according to the same article, he doesn't know about having a room named after him), not that there is a difference between two phrases.
> 
> Do you only read the words you want to or something?



Paragraph 4 states he has not been told *BY THE HOTEL* about the room named after him.

Paragraph 5 states he has expressed his displeasure at having a room named after him.

Now, I'm no Sherlock Holmes. But it would appear to me that, maybe, _somebody else_ told him about the room named after him.

This is really becoming _reductio ad absurdam_.


----------



## killer b (Sep 1, 2014)

isvicthere? said:


> Paragraph 5 states he has expressed his displeasure at having a room named after him.


no, it doesn't.

I agree this is ridiculous though.


----------



## isvicthere? (Sep 1, 2014)

First line of the paragraph: "But Charlie has, at times, expressed his displeasure at the flophouse homage above him."

 and out.


----------



## killer b (Sep 1, 2014)

ffs. The flophouse homage is the hotel, not the room.

you do just read the words you want to.


----------



## rutabowa (Sep 1, 2014)

I might change my tagline to CHARLIE SAYS "LEAVE"'


----------



## killer b (Sep 1, 2014)

Maybe have some t-shirts made up, Frankie Goes to Hollywood style? Reckon they'd be a big seller to NY hipsters.


----------

