Has anyone here ever visited the Dakota?

Hey, each to their own. It might hit closer to home to us because it's John Lennon, but I'm sure people do these types of things at Auschwitz (this is presuming there's some sort of museum there now). Remember, there has been at least two re-enactments of the murder (for films!) at the site. Can't imagine what Yoko must have gone through when that was happening, if she knew at all.

 

To be fair, the Dakota was a famous building before Lennon was killed outside--home to several other stars, and movies have been filmed there. Nothing wrong with smiling for the camera. I have a photo of myself smiling outside the Chelsea Hotel.

 

I live in the neighborhood, so I can't help but pass by on a daily basis. I always think about John when I am there. There is also a coffee shop nearby where John and Yoko frequented and the place is virtually unchanged and has a lot of pictures of them hanging. It is Cafe La Fortuna on 71st off of Columbus, but I heard some months ago they may be closing.

 

If someone wants to do it, go ahead - I don't think it's a BAD thing. I just wouldn't have any interest in doing so...

 

I live in NJ & very often work in NYC, so I've been there countless times, sometimes by choice, sometimes not. It is a very beautiful building, & is the same building that is filmed via aerial photography in the beginning of the movie "Rosemary's Baby".

 

I walked there when I was in New York a couple of years back but resisted the impulse to take a picture. It seemed a bit ghoulish to me so I just walked by and checked it out.

 

Also the interior scenes are filmed there- that's where they live in the movie.

 

The Dakota has a long history. I love the photo below from 1890- showing the Dakota with no other buildings nearby:

 

Who lived in it then ?

 

Right, but I wasn't sure that the interior scenes were actually "filmed" there as well. Pretty cool, thanks.

 

I've been by it once. Had a very haunting feeling to me knowing what happened.

 

The Dakota, almost all by itself:

 

I've been by there twice, neither time did I feel like I wanted to walk right up near where it happened so I stayed across the street.

 

They named it after Dakota Fanning. of course...

 

I think it had something to do with the fact that the upper west side was nearly uninhabited when it was built; so it was as if it was in the 'badlands'.

 

Amazing to think that, barely a century ago, vast tracts of Manhattan would be so sparsely developed.

 

From Wikipedia:

"According to popular legend, the Dakota was so named because at the time it was built, the Upper West Side of Manhattan was sparsely inhabited and considered as remote as the Dakota Territory. However, the earliest recorded appearance of this account is in a 1933 newspaper story. It is more likely that the building was named "The Dakota" because of Clark's fondness for the names of the new western states and territories. High above the 72nd Street entrance, the figure of a Dakota Indian keeps watch."

 

I stand corrected- the scenes were not filmed there as the building does not allow it. The interior scenes were filmed on a soundstage. i have been in the building and they did an amazing job of recreating it.

 

In 1980 a Brazilian music magazine (Somtres) had a "Beatles page" and they printed two pictures of the Dakota before Lennon was killed. "This is the building where John Lennon lives." I think they also mentioned other famous people who lived there.

When I visited New York in 1985, our tour bus drove by the Dakota. When I visited again in 1990 I had other plans in mind and didn't even consider going there. But if I had, I would surely have taken a picture of myself in front of it. I have no problem with that.

 

Yeah, my post was sort of tongue-in-cheek. To be fair to the girl she says that she doesn't care about Lennon and I think her intent was to show potential movie shoot locations.

I'm not a prude but it does seem like an odd thing to photograph yourself in front of these places - smiling or not. It always seemed like enough to me to see them but a photograph showing that you were there is just a different thing. But to each his own, it's not a big deal or nor is it surprising that someone would do it.

 

As a resident of Manhattan, it never ceases to amaze me where tourists will have their picture taken.

 

Went there in the early 90's, on a trip to visit my brother and cousin, who both lived in NYC at the time. I specifically requested a trip to the Dakota. I had of course seen the area where Lennon was shot in news footage and dozens of photos over the years, but it was quite a different experience seeing it in person, seeing things like the destinctive doorman's tower just next to the entrance.

 

There's a sequal called from Time To Time. Not quite as good, but essential if you ae interested in some great details on life in NYC in 1882.