- Restaurants |
- Nightlife |
- Shopping |
- Movies |
- All
The New York City Waterfalls
Rating Details »
- Nearest Transit:
-
Northern Blvd (G, R, V)
- Good for Kids:
- Yes
60 reviews for The New York City Waterfalls
Polarizing, eh?
I know what side of the equator I'm on.
_C$
I guess I am in the minority here, but I find the waterfalls to be quite beautiful. Aesthetically interesting and yet very simple... It is water! I can see all four of them from my Wall Street office. It's really a unique and fantastic sight during the workday.
As always, I round up for art. 5 stars!
I saw the Waterfalls in passing, while on the Long Island Ferry, walking across Brooklyn Bridge, in Brooklyn Bridge Park, and by Battery Park. I first heard about them in Newsweek, so thought surely they had to be a great work of art.
Wow. It's...water flowing over scaffolding. Seriously?! It makes me sad to think of how much energy is wasted pumping water over scaffolding. Two stars rather than one because they look pretty at night, but a lot of things look pretty at night. Fairgrounds, the Manhattan skyline, pockmark-faced guy who's been hitting on you for hours...wait, that might be the alcohol talking.
Dear Mr. Eliasson,
I know you're a busy man so you probably won't even read this. Your assistant may even toss this letter into the trash before you even have a chance. I recently saw your shows at MoMA and P.S.1 and I was dazzled. Especially by the sodium lamp gallery at MoMA. The monochrome effect was amazing.
But I'm not writing you today about that. I'm writing about your waterfall project. I am going to propose, with all due respect, an idea for your artistic consideration. You're free to ignore my advice of course. But here's my idea: turn off these damn things during the day. May they flow only at night. When you can see the scaffolding, the whole effect is ruined. We see enough scaffolding here in the city already. Any sort of art combined with scaffolding, we won't pay attention. It looks like some sort of construction project gone wrong.
I recently saw Brooklyn Bridge Falls at night though--and it changed my mind about your falls project. The reason it worked, Mr. Eliasson, is that no longer was there any indication of the real mechanics behind the falls. It just seemed like some fantastic aberration of reality. Whence comest this rushing water? Doth it leap forth from Roebling's Stone? The effect, as I believe you intended it, rang true.
Sincerely yours,
Christopher I.
After having just seen Olafur Eliasson's "Take Your Time" exhibition at the MoMA, I was pretty pumped about his ability to capture experiential art in manipulating one's interaction with space, light, and sound.
"Imagine what he can do with NYC as a backdrop!"
Mmmmmmmmm...yeah.
When I first saw it in the daylight, I was like "This is it?" Then I thought I should give it a chance because it's supposed to be sparkling at night.
And then I saw it at night. And I was still like "This is it?"
I never really thought I'd use this word beyond the sixth grade, but really...."LAME."
Honestly, NYC shines enough as it is -- no need for millions of dollars spent on this kind of ridiculousness.
Give me a surprise Banksy spotting any day.
Yay!! Scaffolding with water coming off of it! Genius! A blatant waste of money.
The only waterfall that actually looks alright is the one underneath the Brooklyn Bridge but only if you're looking directly straight at the waterfall. From the side mmmmm not so much.
I'm not the biggest expert when it comes to Modern Art. To me, Modern Art is X-Men issue #137 (the "Phoenix Must Die" issue). But I can appreciate some modern art. The Gates at Central Park, yes. The lightbulbs thrown on the floor at the MoMA, oh hell no.
The New York City Waterfalls I can appreciate, although for the current time it's from afar, literally. I saw all four waterfalls from South Street Seaport and they were just....there. Water coming down from a big scaffolding thingy. But I can see the way the water falls, especially when the wind was rather, uhh, windy yesterday. So the water would begin to fall but then splash going backwards. I guess you had to be there to appreciate it.
I do want to see how they look after sunset, when the Waterfalls are illuminated. That must be something to behold. But for now, I'll jump on the minority bandwagon and say that I liked it but not loved it.
Edit - 07/03/2008: So I can see the Waterfalls on Governor's Island from the park behind my office building. And from far away, it actually looks pretty good: like a waterfall coming out from the side of a building. So for that, I shall bump it up to four stars. I think I see what Eliasson was going for.
When I first heard about this, I was excited!
When I caught the first glimpse of it, I was excited!
When I finally saw them at a decent viewing distance, I was sorely disappointed...
Waterfalls should be majestic and powerful. They should not be able to be bullied around by the wind. These "waterfalls" are WEAK! Even when we were sailing around on the Hudson and went right by the Governor's Island waterfall, it was a disappointment.
Bummerski!
I've liked Olafur Eliasson ever since I saw his Weather Project at the Tate Modern. Londoners flocked to the free museum to "sunbathe" and to photograph silhouettes against a spectacular fake sun. The Weather Project was in a controlled indoor environment, and it worked like gangbusters.
The Waterfalls are different: they're outside, so weather conditions make a difference. When it's windy, the water doesn't fall so much as fling sideways, and not impressively at that. Also, in the daylight the metallic scaffolding is as prominent as the water itself. So the waterfalls look more like they're "under construction" than like finished works of art.
But then I got on the Circle Line cruise at sunset. What a difference it made! At night, with the LEDs glowing and the river shimmering below, the waterfalls are just gorgeous! The cruise also gets you really close, so you can hear the water flowing and appreciate their scale better than from a distance.
So yeah, the waterfalls are awesome. But only at night.
Brilliant idea - on paper.
In reality:
The New York City Pissing Scaffoldings
Overrated and overfunded.
My taxes should be going to helping the public school system, not this glorified water-fountain, 'cause hearing ebonics on the bus every morning makes me cry.
At least Christo's gates were more 'interactive' ie; walking through them, using the gates as balances for stretching, etc.
I will say that trying to view all four resulted in a hardcore day of strolling through Brooklyn, so yay for the exercise....but boo to the use of public funds.
We are not friends.
Artwork reflects the culture from which it comes. These massive man made structures provide an often beautiful control over nature, just as the city's buildings defy the boundaries of the sky and threats of incliment weather.
A critical eye will catch the underlying themes that have resulted in the repeated slams on this work: Not needed, Waste of Electricity, Trite tourist attraction, relatively weak flow of water, and a generally simplistic idea.
If all that scaffolding held solar panels, windmills or somehow provided free housing or at least free showers for our homeless (Carlin called them 'houseless'), then we might sing its praises.
Since I can't stop bragging about how I live under the BK bridge, I keep getting emails from everyone I know that go something like, "OMG can you like, TOUCH the waterfalls???!!!!?"
I can't. The waterfalls are, believe it or not, IN the water, under the BK bridge facing away from BK, and I, as it turns out, live on land. But what I can do is walk out my door and down to the pier at the Fulton Ferry Landing and get a nice profile view (see pics). If you can call that view nice.
I don't know. I mean, obviously I'm not getting the full experience here, and when I finally get my butt on the water taxi later this summer I'll have a better perspective. But for now...eh. And I like large-scale installation-type art, except for those hideous MLB statues of liberty all over the place. Gah, could they be any worse? But I'm not going to launch into a big diatribe here about What Is Art.
I'm willing to give the waterfalls a chance--at the very least, the city didn't pay for them, and they'll hopefully bring in lots of tourists to block my front door while they wait in a 2-hr line for Grimaldi's.
I see two of these waterfalls every day to and from work while commuting on the N or D train. Artificially induced cascading water really isn't all that impressive. Perhaps if the structure itself had been created with a less industrial look, the effect might've been more profound. As it stands now, they're just run-of-the-mill structures that do very little to embellish the East river.
To be fair, however, I will have to check them out at night. Illuminated cascading water sounds better when the actual industrial-like structure is cloaked by darkness.
I get why this is a potentially cool concept: waterfalls in New York City. In a city that is constantly metamorphosing, why not? Anything's possible here.
The thing is, during the day anyway, they're not that interesting. Being able to see the metal scaffolding while the water is flowing makes the waterfalls just look like big industrial showers. I will say that the one at the foot of the Brooklyn Bridge is kind of neat because you can't see the scaffolding as much.
We were hoping to see them at night, since I've seen gorgeous pictures of them lit up, but weren't willing to hang around the fracas that is South Street till after sunset.
Interesting concept-but not so much.
Blah.
I think the Waterfalls are awesome.
That said, $15,000,000 should of been able to buy some bigger pumps. At their best they remind me of a light mist not a heart-pounding Oregon Cascades or Glacier National Park waterfall.
Watch $15 million gradually get flushed into the east river from tomorrow through October 13th.
I can appreciate art, but this is a whole other story.
I remember reading about the waterfalls before they actually went up, and they sounded so amazing. And they were just... a-okay.
My boyfriend and I actually took an hour long Zephyr boat tour ($54.00!), which wasn't as bad of a deal as first thought - mostly because you get to see so much of Manhattan, Jersey City, and Ellis Island. And it was kind of fun to do a touristy thing in the city.
The waterfalls itself were not bad, but they did really meet the hype. Weather wasn't bad today, so they flowed pretty nicely. I would probably do the tour again at night because I bet everything in the dark is that much better.
Also, big thumbs down because the seats around the boat were punctured and after moving my ass two inches, I sat directly on one of the cushion holes that had absorbed rain water. I walked off the boat looking like I pissed my pants, along with two other unlucky boat riders. Watch yourself, kiddies.
Just like the NYC skyline, the waterfalls are to be enjoyed at night.
For the aspiring astronomers like I once was, living in NYC means the natural radiance of the stars are drowned out by the man-made stars on every block and every building around us.
For a while, I hated it. But then, I came to accept it. The stars we have around us might not be natural, but they're just as beautiful as the ones above us. The waterfalls, when lit up at night, is like the dessert in a perfectly managed feast for the eyes. I have only seen one from the N train going to Manhattan in person, but I have seen a pic that my friend took that looks absolutely amazing. Check out the pic (http://www.yelp.com/bi...) so you guys can see exactly what I'm talking about.
Since I happened to be in town, we decided to get tickets beforehand (don't wait in line for sold out tickets, get them beforehand). The whole ride was $10 each and 30 mins long. Since i get seasick kinda easily, we sat in the back of the boat. There was some recording in the beginning of the ride that might have been from the captain or the actual artist, I have no clue since i couldn't hear it at all.
I don't always understand modern art, but the effort a person put into creating these multiple story tall waterfalls is worth 4 stars cause I wouldn't know where to start to build something like that, let alone 4 of them around the river. Props to the artist.
As for the art, there are 2 scaffoldings that have powerful wide flowing water and the other 2 were higher scaffold structures but the water was thinner in width, not as heavy flowing, and due to the wind, the water tail was flowing to the side.
Overall, for $10 each, it was worth it in the name of art. Did I understand what it all meant, no, but I got a boat tour around the harbor on a nice, sunny day and got to take some cool skyline and bridge pics.
I guess you would enjoy these artificial waterfalls if you you've never seen one in person! What an absolute bummer after three years of preparation only to have an end product of metal and water.
The least appealing of the four is of the one right by the FDR next to Pathmark, which just looks out of place (not that the others don't). Olafur must have had a good hookup to get the city's buy -in to place these wasted structures.
I know, I know all art is subjective. Some artists just make it because of their connects. =/
Turns out I'm not delusional. Others shared my sentiment that this indeed sucked dead dried hairy moose balls:
http://curbed.com/dash...
Told ya.
1 Previous Review: Show all »
-
10/10/2008
Are you out of your Falken mind? What are there, 4 of these things? If I wanted Niagara Falls, I'd… Read more »
Was one of those freaks,counting down to actually go see THE waterfalls in NYC. Even pulled my reluctant husband along to witness man's creativity in the making. Hobbled down to South Street Seaport to see all four waterfalls in action in my new ballet flats that did nothing for my pinched feet.
And boy ! Did I feel like a fool when we actually saw it. And to top it off, my husband was trying hard not to laugh at me and even offered a sympathy shoulder.Tsk Tsk.This thing needs some face lifting done if it's gonna make money for the city.
Sounds exciting and pretty. First glimpses we ooh-ed and ahh-ed. Saw 2 of the waterfalls while driving up/down the BQE, but made a huge effort to get to the waterfall under the Brooklyn Bridge. Something free and different to see. Yea... it's limited time, cost a crap load of money to build, and you "just gotta" see and take pictures of it, but in the end... it's not really all that. Scaffolding and water..... whoop.
(I still took pictures though. heeeeee)
I prefer the real thing. booo..
review 7/10/2008
I.M.Y.
In daytime they look like someone started building a water slide and ran out of money when it was time to attach the slide.
It is the Manneken Pis and the bridges are the little boy
Waste of a subway ride.
It's a huge scaffold with water coming out of the top - all 4 of them. And the one under the Brooklyn Bridge which had the most potential wasn't on.
When the wind blows, which is just about every day - the water gets pushed to the side so you can see the ugly scaffolding in full view - making it even less interesting.
Sorry, but this totally missed the mark!
some little known facts: after visiting old faithful in yellowstone state park, eliasson was reportedly inspired. he began studying hydrogeology and decided his next project would somehow include geysers, or steam eruptions.
shortly after his decision, he saw the classic film dragonheart. you remember that film, it's the one where sean connery does the voice of a dragon. he was so taken by this scottish dragon, that he KNEW his idea had begun to evolve. "what about an earth dragon?" he thought. "an earth dragon that blows fire from the ground every ten minutes?" he felt it to be the best idea of his entire career.
he carefully outlined his proposal, presented it to the powers that be, and was unceremoniously turned down. eliasson was crushed, but he wouldn't be stopped.
shortly after this rejection, someone reportedly overheard him say to a friend "if they won't have my earth dragon, then i am going to give them the most insipid and uninspiring pieces of public art this city has ever seen!"
thus, the waterfalls were born.
I was happy to see when I went to this past weekend's New Amsterdam Market down close to the Seaport that you could see the Waterfalls, which I had been wanting to check out for quite some time. Nice that it came to me :)
I definitely want to get a closer view, since it was from a bit of a distance. I thought they were very nice though. I've seen pictures closer towards sunset and those look amazing. I think they look better when in the context of the surrounding city than say from the side where you are just left to focus on the mechanics of the structure itself.
Bleh...some scaffolding and running water is set up by the iconic Brooklyn Bridge, and I am suppose to be impressed? Why mess with this perfect view of one of the most picturesque landmarks in America. Can't wait for them to come down.
i like it for what it is. i like it a lot.
so what is it? and why do i like it so much when yelp is so uniformly (one exception as of this writing) and strongly against it? i don't know how well i can explain, but i'll give it a shot.
if you took the eiffel tower and put it on the great plains or on top of a mountain or in tel aviv or in antartica, it would still be a ferocious sight. it wouldn't matter where it was. the eiffel tower is about the eiffel tower, it's awesome, and it's not a site-specific work.
not so the waterfalls project. it isn't really about waterfalls. it's about transforming, in some way, how we see a familiar environment, in this case the shoreline of the east river where it widens and empties into NY harbor. it's already a pretty captivating view, the way it opens up with governor's island, the mingling of the currents, the brooklyn shoreline, the brooklyn bridge -- jesus, how could anything be expected to make the brooklyn bridge disappear? that bridge is one of the all-time wonders of the entire world. the waterfalls blend in and add a twist, a little sleight of hand. their success is that they can exist in harmony with the environment, without interrupting, as if they were always there, but make the environment something different than it was before. they are not spectacular, not romantic, not life-changing. they simply work.
when the sun is bright and the air is clear, those four little waterfalls (yes, they are not dominating, maybe in omaha but certainly not in nyc) are sparkly and add something refreshing to the whole place. when it's grey and cloudy, they retreat more into the background in a rather plain way. such is life. the main thing is that they move. everything else in the landscape is stock-still, fixed. the water pours down, it's alive. it's enough.
when you go camping you don't usually walk around in amazement at how beautiful the forest is. you don't freak out over a bunch of trees. not to take anything away from it, but it's just a forest. at the same time, it feels good to be there, it's beautiful in a laid back way, it's nourishing. it's something experienced, not witnessed. the forest isn't really there to put on a show, anything of that nature is something you have to bring to the forest.
transforming a huge landscape like the mouth of the east river into something a little different, as a result of a relatively simple idea, is really a great achievement. maybe i wouldn't travel 100 miles to see it, but if i was in the area i'd go out of my way to check it out.
anything that helps me to see things in a new way is worthy of my respect and admiration. anything that helps me become more aware of the process of seeing, or makes me question how i see so that i can maybe see a little more of what is really going on around me, is a very good thing and something i'd want to share with others. speaking only for myself here, that is what i call great art.
You'll either love it or hate it, but regardless, make a trip to Brooklyn to see all 4 of the waterfalls. The fact that people are arguing about the execution of this ambitious art project tells me that it's a success. If it really sucks that bad, then at least you tried.
whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat is going on in todays 'art' world?
they aren't terrible... nor do they hurt anyone, but i find sewer rats more interesting.
ok, so let me get this straight... its water, right? plain water. falling from a bridge. and...thats all right? so how much did we spend on this?
take a vacation and go see a real waterfall... its romantic for like, .5 seconds
About as artistic as a crucifix in urine.
It's not that I don't get it. I get what he was trying for. He just doesn't accomplish it. I'm actually kinda embarrassed by their lameness. Take a lesson from Christo and Jeanne-Claude: if you're gonna try to pull something like this off, at least get it right. Please tell me my tax dollars are not funding these crap pieces of "art." I shudder to think how many meals we could have provided the homeless for all this money.
I'm a huge fan of Olafur Eliasson (awesome exhibit at the SF MOMA) but I was not sure if these waterfalls were implemented to his style. I knew going to NY late September 2008 that these waterfalls were setup, the first location I was looking for them was when going to see the Statue of Liberty in Battery park across looking to Brooklyn. The fountain wasn't turned on, maybe because of the rain, but it looked like trashy scaffolding in the distance, sad that it wasn't on. Well, it was on when the ferry came back, I was unimpressed. The second time I saw it was taking a taxi from battery park to midtown, under the Brooklyn bridge. It did seem like a waste of energy. I think it ruined my pictures of the bridge that has such great history.
Sooo much better than the Gates. From a distance they look so beautifully incongruous in the city. From where I was sitting in the Seaport area yesterday, the one by the Brooklyn promenade looked like it was cascading off the roof of one of the apt. buildings. We need more of this stuff! Yes, up close you can see some scaffolding, but--they're freakin' waterfalls. . . .in Manhattan! Appreciate!
These waterfall so called "art" pieces just irritate me. Especially the one that is junking up all the photos I want to take of the REAL piece of art, Brooklyn Bridge. Some cool colored lighting may have been nice to add at night and make it more of an interesting nightly art piece. Maybe some multicolored fiber optic. Otherwise, I with everyone else... it's scaffolding with water & yeah Manhattan has enough of that everywhere!