3 ms·

While media can reflect reality to a certain extent, it is still just a fantasy. See 'Friends' and young 20 somethings living in a million dollar loft in NYC wh

While media can reflect reality to a certain extent, it is still just a fantasy. See 'Friends' and young 20 somethings living in a million dollar loft in NYC while working as a barista. "What happened to those good times in the 90s?" They never existed.

qp11 2y ago
Google Sharon Zukin. She wrote a book on loft living and describes the decline-rejuvination cycles in cities. According to her poor artists are the reason for those million dollar valuations. Cycle goes something like this. Factories in parts of the city shut down after it get cheaper to run them outside. Those spaces lay empty, rents drop, decay begins. Poor Artists move in. Area starts getting interesting. Yuppies move in cuz of the 'cool' factor. Property developers notice. They start buying everything up. Rents jump. Artists get kicked out. And you end up with boring rich people living in a formally cool area.
- dml2135 2y ago
  Ha, never thought I'd see Sharon Zukin referenced on HN. "Loft Living" is a great book, although it's been a minute since I read it. To quibble on a minor point -- if I remember correctly, a major part of that book was pushing back on the narrative on part of that cycle, that these factory spaces "lay empty". Something she describes in this book is that these factory spaces were still very much in use by light manufacturers, and that it was the rich real estate interest specifically targetting this area for redevelopment that pushed a narrative that it "lay empty" so that they could more easily get the neighborhood rezoned and push out the manufacturers for more lucrative residential tenants.
TeMPOraL 2y ago
FWIW, wasn't the apartment in "Friends" on rent control? IDK how that works exactly, but maybe it explains the plot hole away.
- jogjayr 2y ago
  One of the characters "inherited" it from her grandmother (read: the grandmother's name is still on the lease and the landlord was never notified) so the original lease was probably signed a long time before the show's timeline begins. Since rent control limits rent annual increases, that means they're paying well below market rent.
jogjayr 2y ago
> See 'Friends'...living in a million dollar loft in NYC while working as a barista. I see this comment everywhere and it irks me. Here's my point-by-point, obsessed-fan's rebuttal: 1. It isn't a loft. It's an unusually large apartment. 2. It's explained on the show that it's a rent-controlled sublet illegally inherited from a grandmother of one of the characters. The illegality of the situation is a key plot point in one of the episodes. 3. It's obviously easier to shoot on a larger set than a smaller one. It isn't hard to suspend your disbelief on a fairly minor point. Would it have been a better show if they had shot it on a smaller set purely to satisfy people who want realism? 4. The size of the set is irrelevant to the storylines and characters. The characters don't otherwise live lavishly or appear to spend out of proportion to their income. 5. All but one of the main characters lives with a roommate or romantic partner throughout the entire show's run.
- bongodongobob 2y ago
  Cool, but it's still not the norm, that's my point. It was the most popular show at the time so regardless of what the intricacies of the backstory were, people got the impression that was normal. "This must be what it's like for the avg 20 something in New York." Almost every show does this. No one wants to watch a show about someone struggling to get by in a shithole. It's just how TV works. You see only the nice stuff with people thriving. The fat dumb husband with a hot wife is another unrealistic trope.
  - __oh_es 2y ago
    Not quite right… https://www.emmys.com/shows/breaking-bad https://www.emmys.com/shows/breaking-bad https://www.emmys.com/shows/shameless https://www.emmys.com/shows/shameless

qp11 2y ago

Google Sharon Zukin. She wrote a book on loft living and describes the decline-rejuvination cycles in cities. According to her poor artists are the reason for those million dollar valuations. Cycle goes something like this. Factories in parts of the city shut down after it get cheaper to run them outside. Those spaces lay empty, rents drop, decay begins. Poor Artists move in. Area starts getting interesting. Yuppies move in cuz of the 'cool' factor. Property developers notice. They start buying everything up. Rents jump. Artists get kicked out. And you end up with boring rich people living in a formally cool area.

dml2135 2y ago
Ha, never thought I'd see Sharon Zukin referenced on HN. "Loft Living" is a great book, although it's been a minute since I read it. To quibble on a minor point -- if I remember correctly, a major part of that book was pushing back on the narrative on part of that cycle, that these factory spaces "lay empty". Something she describes in this book is that these factory spaces were still very much in use by light manufacturers, and that it was the rich real estate interest specifically targetting this area for redevelopment that pushed a narrative that it "lay empty" so that they could more easily get the neighborhood rezoned and push out the manufacturers for more lucrative residential tenants.

TeMPOraL 2y ago

FWIW, wasn't the apartment in "Friends" on rent control? IDK how that works exactly, but maybe it explains the plot hole away.

jogjayr 2y ago
One of the characters "inherited" it from her grandmother (read: the grandmother's name is still on the lease and the landlord was never notified) so the original lease was probably signed a long time before the show's timeline begins. Since rent control limits rent annual increases, that means they're paying well below market rent.

jogjayr 2y ago

> See 'Friends'...living in a million dollar loft in NYC while working as a barista. I see this comment everywhere and it irks me. Here's my point-by-point, obsessed-fan's rebuttal: 1. It isn't a loft. It's an unusually large apartment. 2. It's explained on the show that it's a rent-controlled sublet illegally inherited from a grandmother of one of the characters. The illegality of the situation is a key plot point in one of the episodes. 3. It's obviously easier to shoot on a larger set than a smaller one. It isn't hard to suspend your disbelief on a fairly minor point. Would it have been a better show if they had shot it on a smaller set purely to satisfy people who want realism? 4. The size of the set is irrelevant to the storylines and characters. The characters don't otherwise live lavishly or appear to spend out of proportion to their income. 5. All but one of the main characters lives with a roommate or romantic partner throughout the entire show's run.

bongodongobob 2y ago
Cool, but it's still not the norm, that's my point. It was the most popular show at the time so regardless of what the intricacies of the backstory were, people got the impression that was normal. "This must be what it's like for the avg 20 something in New York." Almost every show does this. No one wants to watch a show about someone struggling to get by in a shithole. It's just how TV works. You see only the nice stuff with people thriving. The fat dumb husband with a hot wife is another unrealistic trope.
- __oh_es 2y ago
  Not quite right… https://www.emmys.com/shows/breaking-bad https://www.emmys.com/shows/breaking-bad https://www.emmys.com/shows/shameless https://www.emmys.com/shows/shameless