Contractors covering part of Keith Haring mural at 22nd and Ellsworth

**the mule** · 02-09-2012, 11:25 AM

These guys need to be stopped. This is a landmark mural and asset to Point Breeze. I've had friends and relatives from around the world seek out this mural during their visits to Philadelphia and now the owner of the adjacent building is covering a portion of it with stucco. Aside from the cultural violation here, the contractors are also doing work on a portion of the wall that is someone else's property. That side of the party wall is part of a community garden owned by a land trust.

**Decker** · 02-09-2012, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by the mule

These guys need to be stopped. This is a landmark mural and asset to Point Breeze. I've had friends and relatives from around the world seek out this mural during their visits to Philadelphia and now the owner of the adjacent building is covering a portion of it with stucco. Aside from the cultural violation here, the contractors are also doing work on a portion of the wall that is someone else's property. That side of the party wall is part of a community garden owned by a land trust.

Okay, you've recognized the problem. Now get on the horn and DO something about it. Try calling 311 if you don't know where else to call. How about the office of the Mural Arts Program. I bet they'll know whom to contact.

**the mule** · 02-09-2012, 11:53 AM

Thanks for the condescension, I've already contacted police, L&I, 311, mural arts, among others. I posted this here because more voices heard by all involved can put a stop to this.

I just confirmed, the Mural Arts operations director just drove by it too, so people are on this as we speak, but I'd like to raise a stink until the work stops.

**Wifi** · 02-09-2012, 12:53 PM

I don't really see the problem with this if he's just capping on the front of the building. He owns the bricks. What ever happen to home ownership in this world? I know a bunch of people have different opinions with the "mural" some how this will just give murals a bad rep to anyone looking to have one painted on the side of their own home. With all these silly strings attached what private owner would EVER want a mural painted on his wall? It's give and take. It's a man's home.

After looking up this Keith Haring guy, it seems he was just some dude with Aids that died trying to find a cure or raise awareness. The art world really likes to get on someone's grundel only after they die. This feels like someone trying to stop improvement in any place of shelter.

foofoo OMG the painting.

I feel like hugging a tree now.

**Hospitalitygirl** · 02-09-2012, 12:57 PM

A little reminder as to why the Mural Arts Program even began. It was to protect the exposed sides of buildings from tagging and other vandalism, when abutting vacant properties. They weren't ever really meant to permanent, at least not initially. But people get unusual emotional attachments to things and forget about how this all came about. Really, it's a sign of progress when a mural is covered up because that means that a vacant property is no longer vacant. It's probably not illegal in the least that this is getting covered now.

**the mule** · 02-09-2012, 12:58 PM

His property line stops about 4 inches away from the far side of that wall. He does not own any portion of the side wall face with the mural. The party wall straddles the property line and half of the thickness is on either side. That's not just unique to this situation but any brick party wall in a Philadelphia row home. The entirety of the mural is owned by a land trust for the garden. I am absolutely in favor of unrestricted property rights, and so his rights do not extend to neighboring property.

With that said, apparently Mural Arts knows about this and has worked something out with the contractor.

**the mule** · 02-09-2012, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by Hospitalitygirl

A little reminder as to why the Mural Arts Program even began. It was to protect the exposed sides of buildings from tagging and other vandalism, when abutting vacant properties. They weren't ever really meant to permanent, at least not initially. But people get unusual emotional attachments to things and forget about how this all came about. Really, it's a sign of progress when a mural is covered up because that means that a vacant property is no longer vacant. It's probably not illegal in the least that this is getting covered now.

That entire property, the side wall and garden, is part of a land trust that will protect a landmark mural by a world famous artist. Yes, if someone were to buy the lot (Which they can't) they would have every right to cover up the mural, but as it stands, nobody has the right.

**Hospitalitygirl** · 02-09-2012, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by the mule

That entire property, the side wall and garden, is part of a land trust that will protect a landmark mural by a world famous artist. Yes, if someone were to buy the lot (Which they can't) they would have every right to cover up the mural, but as it stands, nobody has the right.

So what is the problem here? You do realize that a few coats of paint don't do anything to protect bricks which need periodic pointing.

**phillyfreedom** · 02-09-2012, 01:08 PM

thanks the mule for quick attention to this issue! it's a wonderful mural by an important artist - it's absurd that contractors would just start covering it up - dont listen to the haters

**the mule** · 02-09-2012, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by Hospitalitygirl

So what is the problem here? You do realize that a few coats of paint don't do anything to protect bricks which need periodic pointing.

The problem clearly is that someone who doesn't own that wall, (a wall with a mural of cultural and historical significance, currently under consideration as a national landmark) is destroying part of it. Regardless of your feelings about this particular mural, property rights are being violated, and nobody has the right to do any work on that wall - except the owner of the garden, which is a land trust dedicated to the preservation of the mural and garden.

The mural is painted over a coat of stucco that is on the brick party wall. There is no need for pointing whatsoever on the side wall. Now the front wall of the adjoining property clearly had masonry issues and the owner has chosen to deal with that by stuccoing it rather than restoring and pointing it, but that's neither here nor there.

**Sean** · 02-09-2012, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by the mule

His property line stops about 4 inches away from the far side of that wall. He does not own any portion of the side wall face with the mural. The party wall straddles the property line and half of the thickness is on either side. That's not just unique to this situation but any brick party wall in a Philadelphia row home. The entirety of the mural is owned by a land trust for the garden. I am absolutely in favor of unrestricted property rights, and so his rights do not extend to neighboring property.

With that said, apparently Mural Arts knows about this and has worked something out with the contractor.

Is the mural owner offering to pay to ensure that the 4 inches as you say of the wall exposed to the front that the adjacent property owner is trying to fix is fixed to their liking? I doubt it. The fact of the matter is that while your property line may stop at the middle of the party wall, anytime there is work done to one side, it must extend to the other side. This happens often with a new roof. In order to properly seal you have to bridge the common party wall.

Also, what HGirl said about why it began is also important to consider. Paint will not protect brick or stucco forever. At some point work will need to be done to that wall.

**brandywine** · 02-09-2012, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by Hospitalitygirl

A little reminder as to why the Mural Arts Program even began. It was to protect the exposed sides of buildings from tagging and other vandalism, when abutting vacant properties. They weren't ever really meant to permanent, at least not initially. But people get unusual emotional attachments to things and forget about how this all came about. Really, it's a sign of progress when a mural is covered up because that means that a vacant property is no longer vacant. It's probably not illegal in the least that this is getting covered now.

You are absolutley right. I hope one day to live in a city that doesn't need murals pastered on walls to overcome blight......I may have to move to another city.

**brandywine** · 02-09-2012, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by Decker

Okay, you've recognized the problem. Now get on the horn and DO something about it. Try calling 311 if you don't know where else to call. How about the office of the Mural Arts Program. I bet they'll know whom to contact.

The mural reminds me of what I saw at the SPHINCTER zoning meeting.....lots of arm flailing and jumping up & down....Kinda looks like Tiffany Lamp.

**gijyun** · 02-09-2012, 02:54 PM

Is it an actual mural by Keith Haring? If so, isn't it worth more than all of the properties on all of the blocks combined?

**gijyun** · 02-09-2012, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by Wifi

After looking up this Keith Haring guy, it seems he was just some dude with Aids that died trying to find a cure or raise awareness. The art world really likes to get on someone's grundel only after they die.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're joking. Keith Haring brought AIDS to the world's attention far before he died from it. He's the reason the AIDS ribbon is red.

**Hospitalitygirl** · 02-09-2012, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by gijyun

Is it an actual mural by Keith Haring? If so, isn't it worth more than all of the properties on all of the blocks combined?

Right. Keith Haring died in 1990. I highly doubt it is painted by him.

**Hospitalitygirl** · 02-09-2012, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by the mule

The problem clearly is that someone who doesn't own that wall, (a wall with a mural of cultural and historical significance, currently under consideration as a national landmark) is destroying part of it. Regardless of your feelings about this particular mural, property rights are being violated, and nobody has the right to do any work on that wall - except the owner of the garden, which is a land trust dedicated to the preservation of the mural and garden.

The mural is painted over a coat of stucco that is on the brick party wall. There is no need for pointing whatsoever on the side wall. Now the front wall of the adjoining property clearly had masonry issues and the owner has chosen to deal with that by stuccoing it rather than restoring and pointing it, but that's neither here nor there.

Trust me, a coat of stucco over brick wall won't be enough to protect it from the ravages of time, either. Stucco, if not done properly, and just slopped on, tears away from the wall with the elements working on it.

**brandywine** · 02-09-2012, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by phillyfreedom

thanks the mule for quick attention to this issue! it's a wonderful mural by an important artist - it's absurd that contractors would just start covering it up - dont listen to the haters

We are not haters. These mural are temporay placeholders. Someday the lot will be developed, I just hope my relatives from all over the world make it to philly in time to gaze upon its transcendental gorgeousness.

**Jayfar** · 02-09-2012, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by gijyun

Is it an actual mural by Keith Haring?

Haring's second CityKids Foundation project was a "We the Youth" celebration in Philadelphia. Collaborating with children from the Philadelphia Brandywine Workshop, Haring painted the side of a building in the south of the city. Locals subsequently planted a garden outside.

**gijyun** · 02-09-2012, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by Hospitalitygirl

Right. Keith Haring died in 1990. I highly doubt it is painted by him.

Nope. It's original.

Originally Posted by Jayfar

Apparently.

Keith Haring | About Haring | Exhibitions | Public Works

Collaborative mural with Citykids, 1987, exterior mural
22nd and Ellsworth, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania