Chelsea as the New York’s dominant gallery would have shocked a lot of people just twenty years ago. Chelsea, which had been known as the meatpacking district, did not become a a gallery district over night. The snowball effect to Chelsea becoming a dominant gallery neighborhood all started with the previous renown gallery district in New York City, SoHo. The former gallery district became far to expensive because of the raising of rents to fit in designer stores that were willing to pay far more then a gallery could make a marginal benefit from. “SoHo became such a desirable place to shop and work and landlords could command far greater commercial rents from high-end, relatively high-volume clothing boutiques then galleries” (Halle 43). With rents becoming to costly it was inevitable that the galleries needed to move somewhere else. The first step towards Chelsea’s future came when the Dia Art Foundation made the economic decision in the 1980s to move their gallery.
Dia Art Foundation moved from SoHo to Chelsea opening as Dia Chelsea in 1987. By Dia moving people that would visit there were unable to participate in “gallery hopping, whereby viewers go from one gallery to another in a dominant gallery neighborhood” (Halle 24). When there is no option of “gallery hopping” it is harder to stay in business. “Since each gallery likely brings or attracts a …show more content…
However, the article does not mention that not everyone wants that treatment, some people just wanting to view the art feel uncomfortable having converstation with the employees because they know they do not come as potential business only as an interested viewer. The galleries also have to worry about meeting the necessary amounts of work they have to do so welcoming and having conversation with the viewers can limit the amount of work that is required to be done everyday so the gallery can end up making a
Dia Art Foundation moved from SoHo to Chelsea opening as Dia Chelsea in 1987. By Dia moving people that would visit there were unable to participate in “gallery hopping, whereby viewers go from one gallery to another in a dominant gallery neighborhood” (Halle 24). When there is no option of “gallery hopping” it is harder to stay in business. “Since each gallery likely brings or attracts a …show more content…
However, the article does not mention that not everyone wants that treatment, some people just wanting to view the art feel uncomfortable having converstation with the employees because they know they do not come as potential business only as an interested viewer. The galleries also have to worry about meeting the necessary amounts of work they have to do so welcoming and having conversation with the viewers can limit the amount of work that is required to be done everyday so the gallery can end up making a