4 ms·

> Cities change. Sometimes I think people on the west coast seem to think of a city as a place that's supposed to stay the same forever ("forever" being define

> Cities change. Sometimes I think people on the west coast seem to think of a city as a place that's supposed to stay the same forever ("forever" being defined as starting at about 1960). The lower east side was a German neighborhood, then a Jewish, Italian and Ukrainian. Dutch before that, of course. Then the Italians moved to Little Italy. It mostly became a Hispanic neighborhood. The Ukrainians mostly moved away and the Jews mostly moved away. The north of the neighborhood sort of became Japanese and Chinatown sort of started encroaching on the south and Little Italy slowly declined. Artists and then eventually giant condos started moving in. As you walk around you can still see marks left behind by the groups that departed many decades ago. For example, a few buildings still have prominent German inscriptions on the front, from Little Germany's high point in the 1880s – the Germans were gone by around 1900. You have no doubt whatsoever that your turn there is temporary. A city is a place of constant change. You are every bit a part of that constant change. But the city will slowly move on without you. Don't expect anything to last longer than 10 years.

abritinthebay 9y ago
> Sometimes I think people on the west coast seem to think of a city as a place that's supposed to stay the same forever ("forever" being defined as starting at about 1960). In my experience this isn't a west coast thing - it's just the cities here are "newer" (compared to the east coast) so haven't quite graduated to the density and usage characteristics that modern large metropolises have. I find that what you're describing is the standard Boomer longing for the "good old days" applied to the cities they probably showed up in during their 20s. Or how they pictured them anyhow. Usually they're the worst NIMBYs.
- tigershark 9y ago
  I'm always amazed when I'm remembered how extremely young is US. The little city where I was born is almost 3000 years old. Reading that for some people forever starts not even 50 years ago is quite weird.
  - abritinthebay 9y ago
    Absolutely!! I’m originally from the UK so, living in the Bay, I joke that I used to go to pubs that are older than this entire town. It’s a joke, but it’s also true: my high street had two pubs that had been around from the 1700s, a tourist information center that’s from the 1500s, and - in the middle of the shopping center - a ruined chapel from the 1130s. That some places here are all excited about being founded in the 1850s took some adjusting to when I first moved. For me that was the age of my friends small houses...
    - erik_seaberg 9y ago
      As the saying goes, Americans think 100 years is a long time, while the English think 100 miles is a long way.
      - boulos 9y ago
        "We've restored this building to how it looked... Fifty years ago! No, surely no. No one was alive then": https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OV2PbKpsMRk https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OV2PbKpsMRk
      - abritinthebay 9y ago
        To be fair to us - if you’re traveling 100 miles it’s rarely as easy as it is in the US. In the US that’s likely “sit on this one highway for about 90 minutes”. In the UK you’d have to have do a ton of road changes and work around or through several major towns and cites. It’s just lots more dense. So it’s less that it’s a “long way” - it’s more a pain in the ass to drive 100 miles most of the time.
    - bitwize 9y ago
      "London has a lot of history -- a little TOO MUCH history." --my aunt, a flight attendant
  - dagw 9y ago
    It happens everywhere. I live in "ye olde Europe" and people in my neighborhood are still upset that a bunch of new buildings are destroying the feel of an area from "only" the 40's.
- moultano 9y ago
  This is probably true of everyone as they age, but the demographic bubble of the baby boom gives them unusual political power to fight change. If the population were growing more the young would just outvote them. Our political system is just older than it has ever been.
throwaway40483 9y ago
>Sometimes I think people on the west coast seem to think of a city as a place that's supposed to stay the same forever ("forever" being defined as starting at about 1960). No, forever is defined as "the day after _I_ moved in"
- dionidium 9y ago
  And this is perfectly rational! People move to a neighborhood because they like that neighborhood. This is almost tautological. Of course they don’t want it to change! But that’s why we have to be very clear about rejecting the complaints this mood inspires. I don’t want to tell people they’re wrong to have these feelings. They are perfectly valid and normal feelings. But those feelings don’t outweigh the benefits of allowing the functional and unavoidable change that happens in neighborhoods over time. And when you really start to dig deep into the types of things people want to do to stop this change, you end up with well-meaning, but ultimately counterproductive interventions. And that’s the nice way to say it; much of what incumbents want to do to prevent the free flow of people into and out of neighborhoods is positively dystopian. I am sure there are reasonable things we can do to help more people afford and benefit from booming cities like Seattle, New York, and San Francisco. (For starters, we can build more housing!) But the language of gentrification is such that one new luxury tower in a sea of affordable housing is now opposed in cities like Cleveland and St. Louis on the grounds that it will change its immediate neighborhood. That sort of stuff isn’t just nonsense; it’s harmful nonsense.
  - closeparen 9y ago
    > rejecting the complaints this mood inspires It turns out that it's really hard to be against communities democratically controlling their own destinies and not look like a monster. Local governments and the policies they make to preserve their built environments are about as pure and non-corrupt as democracy gets. Does any place in America have high-density market-rate construction because the community genuinely supports it? Far as I can tell, it's only possible to have a city in America when the government is sufficiently corrupt / community is sufficiently disempowered that developers can cram it through. I'm grateful for these places. I'm happy to live in one. But you have to recognize that cities in America are only possible to the extent that America is corporatist and undemocratic. Any strengthening of our communities, our democracy, or local government has always and will always reinforce the overwhelming majority support for sprawl and "fuck you, I got mine."
Spooky23 9y ago
There is a difference. In the old days for boomers and ww2 generation, you had constant growth and improving conditions. Now, you have displacement, but few people feel prosperous. You also have old signals of nice neighborhoods disappear as people don’t marry, push back having babies, and utilize daycare. There is zero new construction, zero, that is with reach of a median income family. The old ethnic neighborhood where you knew your neighbor is dead. But we have that image burned into our consciousness.
- noutopasokon 9y ago
  I definitely agree as I feel the same personally. However, I've heard about different kind of displacement from my grandparents, such as disappearing farms and forests. Of course, it's not viewed as negative as there was always room for more people.

abritinthebay 9y ago

> Sometimes I think people on the west coast seem to think of a city as a place that's supposed to stay the same forever ("forever" being defined as starting at about 1960). In my experience this isn't a west coast thing - it's just the cities here are "newer" (compared to the east coast) so haven't quite graduated to the density and usage characteristics that modern large metropolises have. I find that what you're describing is the standard Boomer longing for the "good old days" applied to the cities they probably showed up in during their 20s. Or how they pictured them anyhow. Usually they're the worst NIMBYs.

tigershark 9y ago
I'm always amazed when I'm remembered how extremely young is US. The little city where I was born is almost 3000 years old. Reading that for some people forever starts not even 50 years ago is quite weird.
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  Absolutely!! I’m originally from the UK so, living in the Bay, I joke that I used to go to pubs that are older than this entire town. It’s a joke, but it’s also true: my high street had two pubs that had been around from the 1700s, a tourist information center that’s from the 1500s, and - in the middle of the shopping center - a ruined chapel from the 1130s. That some places here are all excited about being founded in the 1850s took some adjusting to when I first moved. For me that was the age of my friends small houses...
  - erik_seaberg 9y ago
    As the saying goes, Americans think 100 years is a long time, while the English think 100 miles is a long way.
    - boulos 9y ago
      "We've restored this building to how it looked... Fifty years ago! No, surely no. No one was alive then": https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OV2PbKpsMRk https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OV2PbKpsMRk
    - abritinthebay 9y ago
      To be fair to us - if you’re traveling 100 miles it’s rarely as easy as it is in the US. In the US that’s likely “sit on this one highway for about 90 minutes”. In the UK you’d have to have do a ton of road changes and work around or through several major towns and cites. It’s just lots more dense. So it’s less that it’s a “long way” - it’s more a pain in the ass to drive 100 miles most of the time.
  - bitwize 9y ago
    "London has a lot of history -- a little TOO MUCH history." --my aunt, a flight attendant
- dagw 9y ago
  It happens everywhere. I live in "ye olde Europe" and people in my neighborhood are still upset that a bunch of new buildings are destroying the feel of an area from "only" the 40's.
moultano 9y ago
This is probably true of everyone as they age, but the demographic bubble of the baby boom gives them unusual political power to fight change. If the population were growing more the young would just outvote them. Our political system is just older than it has ever been.

throwaway40483 9y ago

>Sometimes I think people on the west coast seem to think of a city as a place that's supposed to stay the same forever ("forever" being defined as starting at about 1960). No, forever is defined as "the day after _I_ moved in"

dionidium 9y ago
And this is perfectly rational! People move to a neighborhood because they like that neighborhood. This is almost tautological. Of course they don’t want it to change! But that’s why we have to be very clear about rejecting the complaints this mood inspires. I don’t want to tell people they’re wrong to have these feelings. They are perfectly valid and normal feelings. But those feelings don’t outweigh the benefits of allowing the functional and unavoidable change that happens in neighborhoods over time. And when you really start to dig deep into the types of things people want to do to stop this change, you end up with well-meaning, but ultimately counterproductive interventions. And that’s the nice way to say it; much of what incumbents want to do to prevent the free flow of people into and out of neighborhoods is positively dystopian. I am sure there are reasonable things we can do to help more people afford and benefit from booming cities like Seattle, New York, and San Francisco. (For starters, we can build more housing!) But the language of gentrification is such that one new luxury tower in a sea of affordable housing is now opposed in cities like Cleveland and St. Louis on the grounds that it will change its immediate neighborhood. That sort of stuff isn’t just nonsense; it’s harmful nonsense.
- closeparen 9y ago
  > rejecting the complaints this mood inspires It turns out that it's really hard to be against communities democratically controlling their own destinies and not look like a monster. Local governments and the policies they make to preserve their built environments are about as pure and non-corrupt as democracy gets. Does any place in America have high-density market-rate construction because the community genuinely supports it? Far as I can tell, it's only possible to have a city in America when the government is sufficiently corrupt / community is sufficiently disempowered that developers can cram it through. I'm grateful for these places. I'm happy to live in one. But you have to recognize that cities in America are only possible to the extent that America is corporatist and undemocratic. Any strengthening of our communities, our democracy, or local government has always and will always reinforce the overwhelming majority support for sprawl and "fuck you, I got mine."

Spooky23 9y ago

There is a difference. In the old days for boomers and ww2 generation, you had constant growth and improving conditions. Now, you have displacement, but few people feel prosperous. You also have old signals of nice neighborhoods disappear as people don’t marry, push back having babies, and utilize daycare. There is zero new construction, zero, that is with reach of a median income family. The old ethnic neighborhood where you knew your neighbor is dead. But we have that image burned into our consciousness.

noutopasokon 9y ago
I definitely agree as I feel the same personally. However, I've heard about different kind of displacement from my grandparents, such as disappearing farms and forests. Of course, it's not viewed as negative as there was always room for more people.