The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Gotham Under Pressure

Re: Gotham Under Pressure

Diversity — Sun, 24 May 2009 18:09:01 -0000

Urban regeneration used to have a pattern that went back ot 2000 BC or before. The new palaces were built on the old slums and the poor moved into the old palaces to get better accomodation than their old slum.

Some time in the late nineteeth or early twentieth century some prosperous middle class folks in old cities like London began to cotton on to the fact that there was cheap, convenient space to be had in the slums, and some of it could be renovated very nicely indeed for not too much. That was the birth of modern urban renaissance aka gentrification. It follows a pretty predictable pattern of movement through the old cities; and quite a few creatively minded folk, writers and such, have found that they can make themselves a comforting cash cushion by spotting the pattern and buying before the spend-their-lives-trying-to-get-to-the-top types wake up to where it is going to be fashionable to live.

Re: Gotham Under Pressure

sv — Sun, 24 May 2009 12:17:46 -0000

keep in mind that NY state income tax and New York CITY income tax are both pretty high - and i believe every working person gets charged city income tax on some level. i moved to brooklyn from newark, NJ (before that i was in Jersey City for years) about a year and a half ago (i work in engineering downtown), and i bring home CONSIDERABLY less money. to me, it's worth it, because my little social network back in JC disseminated and i get to enjoy NYC and especially Brooklyn - it's just a damn interesting and beautiful place. however - things like food (and beer!) and gasoline and rent are really a lot higher here, and so are the taxes, even for the working poor.

Re: Gotham Under Pressure

pete from baltimore — Sun, 24 May 2009 11:43:26 -0000

Sandy Smith

I would defintly agree with your points. And I read Joel Kotkin's blog , and agree with his opinions as well.

I think that the problem is trying to figure out how to get the dope dealers out of a neighborhood without forcing the retirees and working people out as well.

I do not have the answers to this problem.But I am glad that you and others here ,recognize it as a problem.Our politicians seem not to care, just as long as the tax dollars keep flowing in.

Re: Gotham Under Pressure

Sandy Smith — Sun, 24 May 2009 11:06:12 -0000

Some of the points you're making here echo something I read by Joel Kotkin recently on his newgeography.com site, "The Luxury City vs. the Middle Class".

I know that down here in more affordable Philadelphia, some of us still express wonderment at the rents and prices being charged for new residential units in Center City, which has been an island of growth amidst continued decline most of these past 20 years. And even though I suspect you don't share Kotkin's politics (I don't completely either, but I understand his arguments), Kotkin's argument really isn't new: I recall reading comments back in the 1980s about cities turning into enclaves that only the rich and the poor could afford to live in, precisely for the reasons you outline in your blog post.

I don't think our cities can truly rebound without room for the middle class in them. Right now, Philadelphia still has one, but if current trends continue, it could lose it too and become yet another New York City or San Francisco, an outcome most Philadelphians wish to avoid.

Re: Gotham Under Pressure

Lemmy Caution — Sat, 23 May 2009 23:07:28 -0000

Full disclosure: I was part of the Tompkins Square riots, and it is the L.E.S. in the 80's that I'm thinking of when I'm thinking of a more interesting time. I consider that moment the symbolic closing of NYC as an incubator for the arts. Los Angeles, as unappealing as it is, is a far more dynamic scene right now, because you can still start off broke there.

Re: Gotham Under Pressure

Jonathan — Sat, 23 May 2009 13:08:27 -0000

Sure - yet, New York did have riots (just not in 68). Bushwick in '77, L.E.S. 1988, the Bronx was in a slow-motion riot for the better part of two decades.

Re: Gotham Under Pressure

pete from baltimore — Fri, 22 May 2009 23:18:17 -0000

BTW, I realise that New York did not have riots in 68. My comment was about American cities in general.

Re: Gotham Under Pressure

pete from baltimore — Fri, 22 May 2009 23:16:12 -0000

I already made a comment on Megan Mcardle's blog about her post. I will simply say here that i think that she underestimates our urban areas.

As everyone here knows ,our cities did not just become the way they are for no reason.Our urban areas went through so much trauma , that it is amazing that they are still standing.That they are, is a testament to the citizens of our cities.

Many kids today do not even know that many of our cities were devestated by riots in 1968.Or about how our urban areas suffered through de-industrialisation.And i still remember when i first saw crack hit the streets.

They do not seem to teach about this in school nowdays.So many people just think that people in the city just let their neighborhoods go to hell.

I am not saying that people should not take resonsibility for their neighborhoods.I am only saying that there were powerful things happening that people could not stop , nor control.

If our cities could survive the 60's ,70's and 80's ,then they can survive damn near anything.So i don't predict their demise anytime soon.

Re: Gotham Under Pressure

Jordan — Fri, 22 May 2009 20:30:28 -0000

Here's the weird thing for me:

I'm in Portland right now and am in the process of finding a new place to live. As a renter, things couldn't be better. The city is awash with open rental properties and many of the owners are offering incredibly good deals. I'm going to be moving from a situation where I'm living with four people in a house to sharing a two-bedroom apartment with one other person. But my cost of living is going to barely go up. And this is considering the fact that I'm only looking at places that are a few miles from my job, which is easily within biking distance.

Portland may be the exception rather than the rule, but right now, living in the city rocks.

Re: Gotham Under Pressure

odub — Fri, 22 May 2009 20:08:53 -0000

Jonathan nails it. The trend towards urbanization isn't just about economics (though that plays a major role). It's also about the cultural transformation of "The City" from the image of Times Square circa "Taxi Driver" to what the LES of "Nick and Norah's Infinitive Playlist" is portrayed as. Rising crime rates would certainly push out many, especially families, but unless there's a wholesale paradigm shift in how urban spaces are viewed, which is going to require something far more dramatic than the current recession, I don't see cities becoming any less attractive for young people to move to (to say nothing of older, monied professionals who can actually afford to do it).

Re: Gotham Under Pressure

odub — Fri, 22 May 2009 19:35:56 -0000

Let's just be clear - Lemmy wasn't celebrating the days when violent crime was out of control. It's not like his comment was "yay, muggings helped keep rents low!" He did say that he felt like *non-violent* crime was useful to help slow the wheels of gentrification and that's open to debate but he wasn't romanticizing the crack wars (at least, I don't think he was).

Also, what I interpreted he meant by "interesting" is an urban environment that's a polyglot of different classes and ethnic groups rather than hyper-sterilized neighborhoods that offer a "safety" that is at least partially predicated on same-ness amongst the inhabitants, crime rates aside.

BTW: to me, one of the definitive essays on this topic is Luc Sante's "My Lost City." http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16737

Re: Gotham Under Pressure

Jonathan — Fri, 22 May 2009 19:19:04 -0000

Yeah I can't see it. Right now the trend is towards urbanization, not flight. That's the culture now, engineered, it is what it is. The Kids are our economy (I'm in retail). Those who grew up in the suburbs can't wait to get out. A letter to NYMag mentioned "millions of boring transplants walking around documenting each other under the guise of [NYC] being the greatest city in the world." Pretty accurate, yet I am trying at this point to remove similar venom from my view of the city's current incarnation. We Who Moved Here tend to lionize the bad old days... and I'm inclined to let us do it even if it's dishonest. I have my own stories; that rough sh*t was cute when I was 17 but at 31 I can't afford it.

I could get mad about San Francisco too, where I spent a lot of time growing up. It was seedy then, dangerous, and very cool to a young me. I may move back at some point. But honestly, my wife and I took the risk to make it or break it in The Big City. We're trying to do just that, and when we leave it will be because we are done, win or lose, not because we have decided that the cost of living is much cheaper elsewhere. Nowhere we actually want to live is so substantially cheaper that it would compensate for the opportunities and advantages afforded, the services provided, the culture and wisdom absorbed from living in a Global City. I know millions of others feel the same way.

Re: Gotham Under Pressure

Ta-Nehisi Coates — Fri, 22 May 2009 19:16:28 -0000

It's not cool. Ever. I'd rather try to find a way to cope (or fix?) gentrification than deal with that. This is coming from a dude who, not only went through it, but has a black boy who's about to come of age himself. Violent crime is, indeed, insidious.

Re: Gotham Under Pressure

Aubrey Maturin — Fri, 22 May 2009 18:43:35 -0000

If the crime waves come, it won't be "interesting." It will be terrifying. Widespread muggings, rapes, robberies, murders, assaults. It's all well and good to celebrate that amongst us, those who survived NYC's bad old days. People who were traumatized, violated, and killed aren't here to call out your nonesense.

It's easier to romanticize it because it's so distant. But ask TNC if facing the anxious terror of the Baltimore gangs makes him long for those more interesting times of his younger years. Crime is insidious. It affects every aspect of life.

Re: Gotham Under Pressure

Lemmy Caution — Fri, 22 May 2009 17:43:03 -0000

'strue. I lived in San Francisco for about 10 years, and traveled internationally constantly - for work. My holidays? Spending time in the neighborhoods, heading up to the Marin or Sonoma coast, or just hanging out with friends.

BTW, about NYC being more interesting in the 1980s: I just can't imagine a Basquiat happening there now. I can imagine a Basquiat in LA. I can't imagine No Wave happening in NYC now. I can imagine it in Osaka or Chicago. The people who in their youth make a place interesting don't go to NYC now unless they're already well-funded. People go their mid-to-late career, when their original vision has settled into a mere personal style.

Re: Gotham Under Pressure

Jennifer D. — Fri, 22 May 2009 17:27:50 -0000

This and your post earlier this week seem to be calling you out West! Hey, it's not just the cost of living, it's the way of living. Raising kids in the city (I do it in San Francisco) has lots of advantages, but we are a dwindling minority. Everyone who can afford to has the kids and then moves off to Marin or Sonoma in these parts. I'm glad my kid is a city kid - I think she is much better prepared for life, more independent, street-wise and cosmopolitan. Plus, we don't have to drive to the mall every time we need a carton of milk, a cup of coffee, or want to go to a movie. I think SF rivals NYC in expense, but consider the expense of all the vacations you have to take when you are bored out of your mind in the suburbs. If you lived in SF, you would already be on vacation.

Re: Gotham Under Pressure

xaphoo — Fri, 22 May 2009 17:06:30 -0000

Chicago calls. At least, it would be nice to have you around; Chicago needs people talking about it. Obama helped, but it's not enough. It's a city of secrets, with many opportunities for those who can perceive it sensitively.

Re: Gotham Under Pressure

Storm — Fri, 22 May 2009 17:00:22 -0000

I guess because I've lived in NYC all my life -- and it is all that I know -- the high cost of living here does not give me the extreme sticker shock that it gives others. I KNOW that it is extremely hard to live here on a middle-class salary with kids. I, however, am a single person living on a middle-class salary so its not quite as bad for me as it may be for others. Then, too, I do not live in Manhattan but in Queens, where the cost of housing is more reasonable.

When I was younger, living in the projects in Queens, it was my fantasy to one day live in NYC -- the West Vill or the Upper West Side -- but I grew out of that fantasy quick once I realized just how expensive it is to live decently in NYC.

I have co-workers who -- just to live in NYC -- are literally living in apt's the size of shoe boxes and paying over $3000 for the privilege. Then there is the chronic roommate syndrome -- where you have 3 or 4 40 yo's sharing the same living space, again just to live in the heart of NYC.

Like I said, I got over my desire to live in NYC proper real fast. I am happy to now to still live in Queens -- no longer in the projects though...I moved on up to a tony co-op in Forest Hills -- and I appreciate the peace, quiet, and park-like serenity of my Qns area. What I love about Queens is the suburban-like feel without actually being in the suburbs. I work in the city five days a weeks, so I appreciate getting OUT of NYC and going home to a slower pace.

Re: Gotham Under Pressure

odub — Fri, 22 May 2009 16:23:58 -0000

1) Gentrification will always - at some point - result in a more heterogenous community *while in transition*. And to me, it's those transitional times when neighborhoods can become the most interesting, simply given the mix of sensibilities overlapping at once. The key question becomes: what does the neighborhood look like *after* gentrification is complete? Obviously, it depends on what neighborhood you're talking about but the process isn't possible without some level of displacement, some greater than others.

2) As for the seeming contradiction between complaining complaining about housing projects vs. Section 8 - I think the issue here isn't the nature of the housing but rather, the nature of *institutional housing practices*. People are less reacting negatively to the space they're in and more reacting to the ways in which their lives are shaped (and often for the worse) by inadequate or incompetent public policy.

And who exactly are "those same people"? That reads awfully general. I'm sure some people are happy to live outside of the PJs. I'm sure others miss the sense of community they might have had there too. It's not an either/or.

Re: Gotham Under Pressure

jb4080 — Fri, 22 May 2009 16:09:01 -0000

Just moved to Gotham. Middle class as a "MF" we will see. However,everytime I read Meagan I always come away with the feeling 's"hatin" on something unless it's the "The Wire".

Re: Gotham Under Pressure

Green — Fri, 22 May 2009 15:49:04 -0000

In my experience I've found that "gentrified" neighborhoods are typically less racially and socially homogeneous than they were before.

You know I've never really understood the whole anti- gentrification movement, never really gotten why tearing down housing projects in cities like baltimore or atlanta (i.e cities that generally speaking are not short on space or housing stock) was a bad thing. I mean go talk to people living in the projects and they'll tell you it's the worst place on earth. But then go tell those same people we're getting rid of these here projects and giving you a section 8 voucher to go live in any number of areas that are less overrun with crime, drug addiction, rodents, and all manner of other social ills and suddenly "their" evil plot is being hatched to get rid of "us" and we need to get to marching in the streets. I don't know the whole phenomena has always smelled liked institutionalization to me.

Re: Gotham Under Pressure

odub — Fri, 22 May 2009 15:37:48 -0000

Without romanticizing the past, I would at least think Lemmy is writing about the benefits of mixed class/race neighborhoods compared to the kind of class and/or racial homogeneity that follows gentrification.

Re: Gotham Under Pressure

odub — Fri, 22 May 2009 15:27:51 -0000

I've been asking this very question of colleagues of mine who study urban sociology and none of them seem to think this recession would be enough to sink any of the *major* cities of the so-called Urban Renaissance back to the 1970s/80s nadir of post-industrialization. Will the recession slow down the rate of gentrification in some neighborhoods? Undoubtedly, especially more "transitional" areas that were in the process of flipping. However, I don't think places like Silverlake, the Mission or Park Slope are about to backslide that far unless we're talking about another Great Depression. If you look at real estate trends in Los Angeles, for example, it's all the exurbs that have gotten hit the worst but you don't see a major wave of foreclosures or plummeting home prices in trendy places like Culver City.

A complete undoing or reversal would require something far, far more substantial - not just at the economic level, but social and cultural as well, especially if you think about the variety of forces that de-populated many urban centers prior to the "Renaissance" (a dubious term at best to describe what's happening, IMO).

Re: Gotham Under Pressure

Ta-Nehisi Coates — Fri, 22 May 2009 15:27:08 -0000

It ain't even that deep deva...

Re: Gotham Under Pressure

TKOEd — Fri, 22 May 2009 15:27:04 -0000

"NYC was a lot more interesting in the 1980's than it is now."

Really where did you live? 'Cause I lived in Crown Heights aka Crime Heights. Ok maybe it was "more interesting" but for me it was interesting in a different way than I think you mean it.