Marlene Krauss Plans to Bring Back Mark Twain & William Dean Howell

     In today's NY Times, Marlene Krauss talks about the future plans for the Chelsea Hotel which include "...cleaning it up and bringing it back to its former glory."  We hope that we're not part of the trash that gets swept out by Marlene Krauss' planned spring cleaning binge.  As for the former glory, it never left,  Marlene.  You just missed it!  Anyway how would you know since you've only been here a couple of times in your life.
     What era could Marlene be referring to anyway.  It's doubtful that she would have found the era of Warhol and Dylan all that glorious. 
    In the same story, Ira Drukier reports that "it's not the intent to turn this into a boutique-y hotel."  Well, ok, then why did your hire Andre Balazs?

Comments

You're quite right, bloggers! I wondered too. Back to its former glory ? When would that be, Ms. Krauss? The 50s, the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s? Or does it predate the Bards, in your view? Stanley Bard is the main reason that hotel is a legend. It’s his glory, not yours. Don’t even dare to try to steal it, you interlopers. The Chelsea Hotel remained glorious until you and Elder started messing with it. If you truly want to restore it to its former glory, give management back to the Bards and let them run it their way. You just sit back and thank your lucky stars you were born into a stake that you didn't have to earn.

This is what Rubenstein PR gets paid for, the vague language combined with a few appealing words, "glory," "pleased." Drukier says, “People will be pleased with the changes.” Which people? The residents? The perennial guests? Page Six? How would Drukier know, being an outsider? What gives him the right to make such an arrogant prediction about this complicated and unique community and building? They talk about cleaning up and infrastructure improvements, renovations. But no specifics, allowing them to plug whatever they want into that framework. And Stanley, who has given his life to the place, has no say.

Sorry, Rubenstein can sweeten their words till kingdom come, it won't change the fact that they have nothing but a very superficial understanding of the hotel and its spirit, it won't change the fact that they took management away from the Bards, which they earned by being their day in, day out, while these two "partners" were giving the place a wide berth.

Watch them like hawks.

[Sherill]

The Chelsea's original "former glory" stemmed from its architect's socialist-inspired, utopian vision of a city in which residents had the space, time, and freedom in which to discover and tell the truth about this society. Its ongoing glory stemmed from its occupants'steady, determined resistance to the commericalized, corporate-dectated culture being developed all around it.

Will the new management team turn this back into a venue for free social interaction and unfettered creativity now, when New York needs it most? If so, how exciting. But it seems unlikely.

[421to323]

It's not their intention to turn it into a boutique-y hotel NOW, thanks to a firestorm of bad publicity (and more to come, I promise). But if they hired Drukier and Balazs just to upgrade the infrastructure, I fear they overpaid a lot. And that's not good for the bottom line. (Hey, maybe Stanledy can sue them for that and get the hotel back.)

[guest]

Restoring the hotel to its former glory was something that Stanley had said his kids wanted to do themselves! That's a fact. It was in a short video someone did here not all that long ago.

What their version of "former glory" is and what the new management's version is, well...that might just be two different things. But the Bards wanted to do the same thing as well. There's no disagreeing that the hotel needs repair to the infrastructure. What OTHER changes are intended is another story. I think new management is still sizing up the place and figuring out what they're going to do on a grander scale. They're starting to make statements that sound reasonable, but now they have to live up to this. Ultimately, it's what they DO that they'll have to be responsible for in the end. You can't hide behind PR when the public can see something with their own eyes. I hope they remember this in their choices.

[chelsearez]

Everything they say comes off as either a direct or backhanded insult of Stanley's Chelsea Hotel. Let me see now, Stanley's Chelsea helped hundreds of legendary people bring great art in various forms to the world. So what could they possibly mean by "back to its former glory?"

[Previous Tenant :-(]

Former Glory is the partners' thing, not Stanley's. In the little video you mention Stanley says his kids are trying to restore its "former glory," and he's trying to impress upon them the need to keep the hotel's spirit in tact. I understand that his kids were trying to restore its "former glory," a phrase impressed upon them by the partners who failed to see the ongoing glory, under pressure from the partners. Apparently, the Bard's efforts were not enough for the partners, hence the shameless coup. Clearly, whatever is meant by "former glory," the Bards and the new management have very different ideas. Stanley was well aware of the glory, past and present, of the Chelsea Hotel. The partners have demomnstrated nothing to that effect. The burden of proof is on them.

The Bards have every right to do what they want with the hotel. They are a known quantity, with a demonstrated dedication to the residents and the history and the arts. They have a majority stake. They've run the hotel for over fifty years. The partners? The management? If they turn the place into the Taj Mahal, it won't matter, it'll still be a shadow of its former self if the Bards aren't running it. They want to restore it to its former glory? Leave and let the Bards run it again,

[lp]

Actually, "guest", Stanley says, "My children want to restore this to its original excellence, and they are working with designers and decorators, but whatever they're doing, they're keeping the architectural beauty of the building intact. And I'm trying to instill in them how important that this hotel is, it's the last vestige of... I don't want to say decency, I don't want to say anything else, but I'm trying very hard to keep this hotel going in exactly the same way and tradition as it has been for a hundred years."

Well said, Stanley.

[lisa kj]

I hope ABC Australia come back to show everyone here what they are doing now to the Chelsea it,s a crime.

[guest]

Well, first, nothing can stay the same as it was 100 years ago and still be accepted. If the hotel didn't have tv (only recently have they added Showtime and HBO) or internet access- things that people want and actually NEED (internet access) these days (without having to go to Kinkos or another public internet station) then there would be a lot less people willing to stay here for more than one night, and some wouldn't even want to do that. Not all, but a good amount. I know this isn't quite what he meant, but it's a valid point. "Tradition" is another thing. You CAN keep the "tradition" of something alive, but it's still never going to be quite the same as things DO change over the decades.

I believe that "excellence" and "glory" are pretty close to the same thing in that context. What I was trying to point out was that they both said pretty much the same thing about wanting to "restore" the hotel to its "former" excellence/glory and that I was taking a guess that what that The Bard's vision of this and new management's version of this are possibly, maybe even probably, different two different things. That's important to remember too as it's not just what someone SAYS, it's what they end up DOING that is going to matter most.

We're all going on hearsay and statements at the moment rather than what actually has been DONE. Any PR or claims of what new management plans on doing or wants to do can end up being what they say, but what their vision of this actually is....we'll only know once it starts being done. Unfortunately.

Not everyone thinks the change in color of the lobby was for the better. I actually do, but I've heard people say that it's atrocious. That's true, it is...TO THEM. I think it enhances the artwork. People didn't think that so much as it was being painted, but once the work was back in place on the walls, I think it was smart choice. My opinion.

And THAT is what I mean by restoring something easily meaning two differing visions. But thank you for the direct quote. It is a good one and I do hope that new management realizes that too much change to the hotel will make it just another hotel with history, which New York has plenty of as it is. It's unique in its own way and that's often what brings people back time and time again because anyone who lives or stays here knows it certainly isn't for the room service. :)

[421to323]

Excellence and glory are two very different words with different meanings.

Yes, things change. But only the Bard family has earned the right to change them, and only they are qualified by virtue of their long experience and hard work with this hotel and its many residents.

[Hotel Chelsea Strangler]

Ready to be shocked and wonder anew what the hell this new management is really up to?

Here, below, are the legendary Chelsea Hotel's brand-new room rates, making it officially the CHEAPEST joint in NYC. For a management team that was supposed to increase revenues, this seems odd at best.

Shared Bath Studio: $99.00
Full Bath Studio: $129.00
Junior SUITE: $149.
One Bedroom Suite: $169.
TWO Bedroom Suite: Just $179.

Now nobody can dispute that Stanley was renting big suites for hundreds and hundreds a night. I'm now paying more than I might have paid at their per night rate for my apartment. So what the hell is going on? These prices come directly from anonymous staff who told me they were not even supposed to be looking at the memo....

Very SCARY.

[chelsearez]

I think they've been reading the blog and the news reports. My guess is it's some kind of introductory rate to fill up the hotel to offset the criticism and take the steam out of the talk about greed, etcetera.

[Miss H]

This could be an encouraging thing. I'm all for an affordable hotel in New York for bohemians and others. This could mean that

a) protest works - again

b) the two partners and the new management firm are actually humans who can respond positively to criticism

c) they have a gained a slightly better understanding of the hotel now thank to all the news articles and personal opinions

But to truly restore it to its former glory, I agree with the other posters -- they have to hand the reins of power back to the Bards and let them run it their way. It's a magical combination, the Bards, the Chelsea Hotel, and the kinds of residents Stanley lets in. And no more unncessary rent hikes for residents.

[guest]

421-323:
Let's not bother with the "excellence" and "glory" debate because if I heard someone say both those sentences, I'd still put them in the type of CONTEXT. Yes, they are two different words with different meaning if you go by the dictionary.

What you said about The Bards earning the right to make changes...technically, new management has the right to make changes, but my point was exactly what you were saying. It makes me wonder if you're trying to spin everything I say into something the opposite of what I mean or if you're just taking everything defensively?

Stanley and David have changed things over the years, which was my point about everything changes. It wasn't to say, "everything changes, I hope new management comes in and really does a number on the place," because I point out about how I hope they respect what The Bards have created.

No matter what, things are going to change and what those changes are, we just have to wait and see.

Hotel Chelsea Strangler:
"Here, below, are the legendary Chelsea Hotel's brand-new room rates, making it officially the CHEAPEST joint in NYC. "

Are you saying that there are no other hotels with rooms CHEAPER than this hotel? Because if you are, that's utter nonsense. OF COURSE there ARE other hotels with cheaper rooms! I think I see a pattern in your posts when it comes to facts. I hate to tell you this, but your thoughts or opinions are not necessarily FACTS just because you think them. What is a fact is that the rates are definitely the lowest they've been at the Chelsea for quite a long while! I'll agree that it's probably one of lowest for the higher end rooms in the city at the moment.

It's silly to think that they're going to keep the rates this low. It's a pretty safe bet that they'll shoot up soon enough. Maybe even higher than Stanley had them.

[Witness]

A number of Manhattan hotels, such as the Tudor, are offering a summer discount rate of $169 per night right now. I received such an offer in my e-mail today.

"GUEST" -

Pattern in our posts? This must be David Elder or some other soon-to-be elsewhere interloper -- but typical...in that you have no idea what you're talking about. If theres a pattern in our posts the pattern is this: WE WANT YOU OUT.

So when you stop running your gums, try Hotel 17 on Stuyvesant Park for rates. Thats were all us retired clubland people lived before the Chelsea--because the Chelsea was too EXPENSIVE. Or try the SoHotel downtown. And thats just two that are completely modern, air condition, cable-ready and all the rest. Oh, and live-able. So by the standards of the rooms that you get at the Chelsea now for the same price --THE CHELSEA IS THE CHEAPEST JOINT IN NYC. Are you aware of any other hotel were you can get a Two-Bedroom Party Suite for a buck seventy nine? I wish you'd let us all in on it.

Know what the hell you're talking about before you open your hole, "GUEST".

Someone should confiscate your keyboard.

[REAL Guest]

GUEST, we just detected and analyzed a pattern in your posts, as well. It tells us beyond all scientifically measurable doubt that, well, you're a TOOL.

[Hotel Chelsea Strangler]

Oh, we get it..."Guest" is a little upset that BD's supposedly "secret" new flophouse rates got blasted onto the blog. It leaves management wondering exactly who they can trust to keep their b.s. confidences. Seems like they have their answer.

[421to323]

I'm not trying to spin everything you say, guest. Rather, that's what you are doing. I'm deconstructing, de-spinning if you will. You try to look like you're fair to the Bards and the Tenants as well as new management, but you keep slipping in things like this, "What you said about The Bards earning the right to make changes...technically, new management has the right to make changes, but my point blah blah blah."

It's a slithery way of trying to get a point across without anyone addressing it.

And when you get called on it, you get defensive.

So fucking what if new management has the "right" to make changes because of a legal decision. Lovers of the hotel don't recognize that as a right. They recognize it as an unfortunate legality, something on paper. That you keep stumping for this idea shows what side you are on, Mr. Rubenstein PR. Only Stanley and his kids have earned the right to make significant changes to the hotel, by virtue of their long service and hard work and great understanding of the hotel. Earned. Get it? Try to spin this you asshole.

[Betty Bishop]

I clicked the link to make a reservation [well - you know what I mean!] but did not see the "new" prices? If we could get a room at the Chelsea for $99.00 I suggest the Chelsea Bloggers&BlogReaders book rooms for sometime early in September and have a Town Hall meeting in the lobby and maybe a march [a funeral procession - is there not a casket somewhere in the basement?] to the Mayor's office?? I have friends who will book a room for me in their name - just in case new management wouldn't like my name!

421 to 423, REAL guest and Mr./Ms. Strangler:
Well well...now you're true colors have emerged with name-calling. Who's the real asshole here? "TOOL?" Are you all children who can't control your anger in proper, adult ways and have discussions rather than arguments?

So fucking what if new management has the "right" to make changes because of a legal decision?!?! Are you kidding me?!?! So WHAT? They have the RIGHT to make changes and any claims that they DON'T is ridiculous and plain old WRONG!

This also means that they have the RIGHT to make changes that the people who live and stay here may NOT welcome!!!! That's NOT GOOD! But you can't say they don't have the "right" to do it. They DO, and THAT is what makes this situation so scary!!! Do you not see what I'm saying? Just because someone has the RIGHT to do something doesn't mean it's what people necessarily want, but if your argument is that "they have no right" well, you're WRONG, they DO! Come up with a better argument than that, PLEASE. I welcome it.

I've said to you before that I agree about the Bards EARNING the right, but that doesn't change the FACTS. Do you follow me a little better?

Riiight, "I'M" spinning facts? YOU are "deconstructing and de-spinning?"

I'm stating FACTS and saying that I'm not sure of all the details behind them and that I DON'T know what reasoning new management and the shareholders had...just stating the FACTS. If this same thing happened at another building or if YOU were one of the other shareholders in a building like this, you would want some sort of say and you'd have t he right to it. Does that mean I AGREE with what's been done? NO, and I SAID THAT. OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Do you just not want to admit to that?

You keep spinning things the way you want...there's nothing I can do since you seem to know all the facts behind the facts and so on. Or at least you seem to think you do. YOU keep spinning it the same way and STUPIDLY are trying to make someone who wants the Bards back into an enemy.

I'M ON THE TENANTS SIDE MOST OF ALL!!!! Stop trying to make me the opposition just because I'm trying to be fair and accurate when it comes to the FACTS. Take those FACTS and then present the results of what these changes SEEM to be doing, etc... and you're on better grounds. THEN you have a REAL statement there that can't be refuted by proving what you say to either be untrue or your personal opinion. DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING? It's more powerful to admit certain FACTS and then present what those facts means and how they affect people.

I don't see how what I said was a "slithery way" of trying to get whatever point you want to spin my point into being. It was fair, justified statement. What point wasn't addressed that you think I've tried to get across without people addressing? You're starting to sound really irrational.

And let's not resort to childish name-calling, okay? It really makes the people who are on The Bards' side look bad, which in turn, gives new management the "right" to say, "See what the people who live and stay here under Stanley's management are like? They twist facts, call names, threaten to strangle people....tsk tsk." And believe me, I don't doubt that they would use this tactic if need be. No more fuel for the fire...if you REALLY care about Stanley at least.

Witness:
Thank you! Yes, these are NOT rates that make this officially the CHEAPEST in New York. That's a ridiculous claim to make as I've seen $60 dollar rates.

YOU, 421-323, are the one who is "running their gums" not knowing what you're talking about. You cannot say that the prices at the Chelsea are now the cheapest in NYC when that is NOT accurate! You never said anything about comparing the STANDARDS of the CHELSEA ROOM, you simply said THE CHEAPEST. That DOES make a big difference. Besides, SOME of the rooms standards are a lot higher than other rooms' standards. That's why the Bards were trying to renovate them. Have you seen room 512 for instance? Sorry, but that room is WAY overpriced for its "standard" and I don't know if many would disagree.

Like I said, you have to be accurate when stating facts! Otherwise, YOU are spinning things that can be proven wrong. Do you want that for Stanley? Don't you want strong arguments for him? I understand that your passions run high, mine do too, but perhaps you need to take a deep breath and realize that the facts can work for or against you. I'd rather them work FOR you, to be honest.

I'm glad other people realize that a lot of the rates for The Chelsea were way overpriced, but now some of the rates are way underpriced...like the two-bedroom. And I've never denied that this either. You made a blanket statement 421, and in doing so, you proved yourself wrong. If you had mentioned the two-bedroom rate, I'd have totally agreed. It probably IS the cheapest rate for that type of room in the city. But not the rooms as a whole. You can get a shared bathroom room cheaper elsewhere, believe me. Or don't, look it up yourself.

And a room with a shared bathroom for $99 is still too high by some people's standards, but it's a hell of a lot more fair than what they used to be. The reason people took those is because they didn't have much else by way of choice at that moment. That's usually how it went down.

Also, Hotel Strangler, if you look back at my posts, you'll see that I think I was the first one to say, CHECK THE PRICES OF THE HOTEL RATES NOW. I knew they lowered them a lot!!! I am perfectly fine with the rates being posted on the blog....I hinted that something was going on with them early on. Another statement of yours and other people on here either proven inaccurate or downright wrong. If I didn't want it outed on the blog, I certainly wouldn't have suggested looking into the prices so you could see for yourself what I already knew.

As far as confiscating keyboards, you would want to take away people's freedom of speech if they don't agree with you or prove you inaccurate, wouldn't you? This whole thing is so ridiculous. Why not just get the facts straight and go from there? The feelings behind what you guys are saying is spot on about tradition and the character, that's a given, but when other facts behind it aren't correct, it doesn't bode well for your side. If I didn't truly feel more along your lines, I wouldn't bother. I'm sure you'll spin that as well but I'm being honest.

And just for the record, I've noticed sunflowers missing from the staircase over the years and it's always made me wonder if they just wore out or were damaged accidentally or if people actually removed them as a souvenir. The former, well...that does happen. The latter, not cool.

[guest]

p.s.- Miss H, great post. I'm not sure I believe the theory about new management quite yet, but maybe. MAYBE they're seeing things a little differently after reading the press, seeing residents, etc... I hope.

REAL guest: that's no way for a guest to behave in other people's HOMES. ;P

421-323- SIGNIFICANT changes are actually NEEDED here regarding certain aspects of the infrastructure, and the Bards were working on renovations themselves. I think you're talking about what you believe to be NEGATIVE changes, to which, I agree with you. What's negative to some people may be positive to others. Is it negative to make some of the same changes that the Bards were making? I assume they'll be making those changes a little faster, but it's not all negative or positive you know...there are good and bad to both sides. No spinning, just trying to be accurate and fair.

Personally, I think they should have kept Suites and the 2 bedroom prices at a competitive rate and lowered the other rates and shared-bath rooms as a lot of them needed to be lowered anyway. It is true that a lot of the more expensive rooms went empty. But so did the shared-bath rooms. Whatever new management is doing, unless they state their thinking behind it, we can only make assumptions, and I don't think anyone doesn't welcome people's thoughts on this.

[guest]

One last thing...

REAL guest: I'm a REAL guest too... I'm not a registered member, owner, moderator of this site, just a guest of it. THAT is why I use "guest" as a screen name. I was not talking in terms of being a guest or a resident or anything regarding the hotel. I think you thought that's what I meant, and it's not. If you're actually a REAL guest of the hotel and are staying here, I hope you're enjoying the new room rates. You're doing just what new management wants...occupying rooms. But I welcome you nonetheless.

[Miss H]

"They have the RIGHT to make changes and any claims that they DON'T is ridiculous and plain old WRONG!"

Thanks for clarifying what you really think, Mr. Guest

We've discussed this quite a lot here.

They have a legal right because they got a sympathetic judge and won a bs lawsuit against Stanley on the basis of "legal corporate issues: according to David Elder.

They have no moral right. NONE.

At the Chelsea, the latter is a lot more important than the former. It's one of the few places in the world, sadly, where this is true. If you truly knew the Chelsea, you would know this.

Stanley has the moral right as the engine behind the hotel's legend. Stanley is the guy who was there, day in and out, and long days at that, for over fifty years. Stanley is the majority shareholder. Stanley knows all the residents names and life stories. Stanley knows their work. Stanley knows the regular guests at the hotel (most if not all of whom will not stay there again.)

These people are absentee (minority) landlords who seem to understand little of the place, and of the worldwide love for it.

Stanley made the Chelsea a special place.

It became significantly less special after the other partners overthrew him in a coup.

So they better have a very very light touch with any changes, because those walls have eyes and ears. The best thing they could do is to quietly turn the hotel back over to Stanley and get out of his way.

[guest]

Miss H... :) I think it's interesting how you don't even know me or who I am yet you're making statement about me that are actually VERY inaccurate. If you think I truly don't know the Chelsea, well...I'm sorry, you're not right about that. Perhaps YOU don't truly know the Chelsea.

You are also taking statements OUT OF CONTEXT and trying to make it appear as if I'm against Stanley. Then, in the same breath, you make pretty much say the same thoughts about Stanley that I've made. This is the kind of thing I am talking about. A lot of talk about things and assumptions made about people when the truth isn't quite as people think or want to believe. And a lot of out of context twisting of words and meanings.

I think that's probably apparent to most of the people who read this though.

I do agree (and said) that I think The Bards have EARNED the right (morally) to make changes. I think the other shareholders should have frequented the hotel a lot more than they have over the years. I know the place a million times better than they do. But they are coming from a business side, and we are coming from a more personal side. I do think that the personal side is more important than money, as do a LOT of people, and I do think that if they change the character of the place too much, they'll probably lose a LOT of business. Sure they'll get OTHER business, but it will definitely fade and whatever "former glory" they intend on bringing back to the hotel won't quite work.

Unless you know all the details or facts behind the lawsuit and other business aspects, you can't really make accurate statements about why the other shareholders won their case...you can just give your opinions on why.
I'm sure there's some truth to your opinions as well. I can't claim to know anything I don't know, and that's what I've pointed out. Whatever you want to spin that into me believing or whose side you want to claim I'm on, it doesn't matter. What does matter is what happens from NOW ON. What's done is done and how or why etc, when we don't have all the real business facts on paper for us...doesn't matter. New management has control and now we all are worrying about what they are going to do with the place. And there's good reason for that.

I've seen a pretty good number of regular guests staying here since new management took over. I'm assuming there shall be less regular guests than normal down the road, and I've got no problem with that. I think that's a great way to protest.

I don't know if saying that the hotel became significantly less special after the other partners overthrew Stanley. Isn't that taking away all that Stanley worked so hard to make this place what it is today? It's still special! There's less character in it currently, but I don't believe that a few weeks without Stanley at the helm (he IS still there at the hotel most days!) cannot destroy what he's worked so hard to create over the years. New management isn't THAT good.