5 ms·

Quote from the article: "I don't romanticize the bad old days. I find the drop in crime over the last couple of decades refreshing. Manhattan and Brooklyn, thos

Quote from the article: "I don't romanticize the bad old days. I find the drop in crime over the last couple of decades refreshing. Manhattan and Brooklyn, those vibrant playgrounds, are way less scary than they were when I moved here. I have no illusions that there was a connection between that city on its knees and a flourishing of creativity; I don't believe that crime, danger and poverty make for good art. That's bullshit. But I also don't believe that the drop in crime means the city has to be more exclusively for those who have money. Increases in the quality of life should be for all, not just a few."

rayiner 13y ago
What he fails to raelize is that the drop in crime is the result of the "Disney-ization" of New York City. All that "1%" money has been funneled into policing, redevelopment, etc. Contrast: Philadelphia. In the 1970's, New York and Philadelphia were pretty similar. But New York was fortunate to be host to the financial boom of the 1980's, 1990's, and early 2000's, while Philadelphia saw its core industries continue to decline. Today, the per-capita murder rate in Philadelphia is more than 4x higher than New York's.
- gohrt 13y ago
  Not all that 1% money. But some of it.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Philly is way better than it use to be, it just hasn't improved nearly as rapidly or dramatically as NYC has. The blight of urban decay is being pushed back, but that push isn't driven so much by the ultra-rich as it is by college kids and yuppies getting a tad more 'adventurous' in where they live. (I think the effect of universities and their students is most noticeably around Temple in north Philly, though I would still refuse to live there.) The result is that you don't get articles like this one complaining about rich people (since they basically just aren't there, compared to NYC) but renewal is taking much longer as well. No rich people means that a student can afford to live anywhere in that city that they want, but they are more likely to be killed as well. In other words, Philly is exactly what the author seems to want, but he doesn't really seem to understand what he is asking for.
  - a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
    I think you're a bit delusional about crime in Philadelphia. It's intolerably bad by all reasonable accounts. It makes zero sense to put a business in Philadelphia as opposed to surrounding areas because of the tax and regulatory situation. The city of Philadelphia is a financial basket case, just like Chicago, LA, and Detroit. All these cities are getting closer and closer to the inevitable precipice. New York is not.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      Chicago and LA perhaps, but there is no way in hell Philadelphia is in the same basket as Detroit. Philadelphia is improving (slowly), Detroit is rapidly decaying. I'm not accusing Philadelphia of being clean or safe, I am asserting that it is (slowly) improving. I think you are delusional about just how bad crime in Philadelphia use to be. (And to be clear, there are extremely livable portions of that city, but the presence of those areas are obscured in course metrics by north and west philly which, to be honest, do bear some resemblance to what you would expect of Detroit. However those boundaries are being pushed back every year, street by street.)
      - rayiner 13y ago
        My wife and I just walked from 10th street to 38th street along mostly Walnut/Chestnut/Market yesterday. It's great except for the portion of Market after 37th street. It's a continuous strip of gentrification now, which wasn't the case 10 years ago. That said, I think gentrification is happening faster in Chicago. I haven't seen a construction crane yet in months of living here (I rarely leave Center City/University City, to be fair), but I can see half a dozen at any given time in River North/Loop. But Chicago's economy is still largely finance driven (and derivative industries: insurance, consulting, accounting, law). I guess my point is: you can either embrace the 1% and be New York or San Francisco, or reject the 1% and be Baltimore, Detroit, or any of the other American cities in decline.
        jlgreco 13y ago
notahacker 13y ago
But why wouldn't Manhattan and Brooklyn landlords prefer rental incomes from financiers moving in from Long Island to the much smaller rental incomes from the struggling artists they replace? Who's paying for the artists to stay? And what about the vast majority of urban emigres that aren't artists and work far too many hours earning far too little disposable income to be active participants in art scenes. Do they deserve the same chance to stay? For that matter what about those people being displaced who actually are responsible for much of the crime; let's not forget that urban migration patterns affect crime rates as well as vice versa? It's not exactly like members of the 1% don't cough up large chunks of change to support their preferred forms of art anyway (whether you consider that art to be less interesting, authentic or edgy than what it displaces or not). In that vein, I can literally watch the gentrification on my London street, and it'll look even more vibrant and arty once the boutiques and street cafes have fully replaced the betting shops, by which time I won't be able to afford the rent.
pessimizer 13y ago
>I don't believe that crime, danger and poverty make for good art. That's bullshit. First of all, it's not. Second of all, "crime, danger and poverty" are not the opposite of high rents. Low rents are. Low rents make for good art. High rents make for good stockbrokers and bankers.
- jamesbritt 13y ago
  It is a weird claim. Talking Heads, I believe, were squatting in the east village when they came to NYC. Many artists and musicians around that same time (mid '70s to mid '80s) did the same, in the East Village or over in the even more dangerous Alphabet City. (We're talking true post-apocalyptic decay and weirdness here.) They could do this because no sane person would live there and pay rent if they could go elsewhere. Were it safe and clean there would have been considerable competition for living there, rents would go up, and the artists would be out.

rayiner 13y ago

What he fails to raelize is that the drop in crime is the result of the "Disney-ization" of New York City. All that "1%" money has been funneled into policing, redevelopment, etc. Contrast: Philadelphia. In the 1970's, New York and Philadelphia were pretty similar. But New York was fortunate to be host to the financial boom of the 1980's, 1990's, and early 2000's, while Philadelphia saw its core industries continue to decline. Today, the per-capita murder rate in Philadelphia is more than 4x higher than New York's.

gohrt 13y ago
Not all that 1% money. But some of it.
jlgreco 13y ago
Philly is way better than it use to be, it just hasn't improved nearly as rapidly or dramatically as NYC has. The blight of urban decay is being pushed back, but that push isn't driven so much by the ultra-rich as it is by college kids and yuppies getting a tad more 'adventurous' in where they live. (I think the effect of universities and their students is most noticeably around Temple in north Philly, though I would still refuse to live there.) The result is that you don't get articles like this one complaining about rich people (since they basically just aren't there, compared to NYC) but renewal is taking much longer as well. No rich people means that a student can afford to live anywhere in that city that they want, but they are more likely to be killed as well. In other words, Philly is exactly what the author seems to want, but he doesn't really seem to understand what he is asking for.
- a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
  I think you're a bit delusional about crime in Philadelphia. It's intolerably bad by all reasonable accounts. It makes zero sense to put a business in Philadelphia as opposed to surrounding areas because of the tax and regulatory situation. The city of Philadelphia is a financial basket case, just like Chicago, LA, and Detroit. All these cities are getting closer and closer to the inevitable precipice. New York is not.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Chicago and LA perhaps, but there is no way in hell Philadelphia is in the same basket as Detroit. Philadelphia is improving (slowly), Detroit is rapidly decaying. I'm not accusing Philadelphia of being clean or safe, I am asserting that it is (slowly) improving. I think you are delusional about just how bad crime in Philadelphia use to be. (And to be clear, there are extremely livable portions of that city, but the presence of those areas are obscured in course metrics by north and west philly which, to be honest, do bear some resemblance to what you would expect of Detroit. However those boundaries are being pushed back every year, street by street.)
    - rayiner 13y ago
      My wife and I just walked from 10th street to 38th street along mostly Walnut/Chestnut/Market yesterday. It's great except for the portion of Market after 37th street. It's a continuous strip of gentrification now, which wasn't the case 10 years ago. That said, I think gentrification is happening faster in Chicago. I haven't seen a construction crane yet in months of living here (I rarely leave Center City/University City, to be fair), but I can see half a dozen at any given time in River North/Loop. But Chicago's economy is still largely finance driven (and derivative industries: insurance, consulting, accounting, law). I guess my point is: you can either embrace the 1% and be New York or San Francisco, or reject the 1% and be Baltimore, Detroit, or any of the other American cities in decline.
      - jlgreco 13y ago

notahacker 13y ago

But why wouldn't Manhattan and Brooklyn landlords prefer rental incomes from financiers moving in from Long Island to the much smaller rental incomes from the struggling artists they replace? Who's paying for the artists to stay? And what about the vast majority of urban emigres that aren't artists and work far too many hours earning far too little disposable income to be active participants in art scenes. Do they deserve the same chance to stay? For that matter what about those people being displaced who actually are responsible for much of the crime; let's not forget that urban migration patterns affect crime rates as well as vice versa? It's not exactly like members of the 1% don't cough up large chunks of change to support their preferred forms of art anyway (whether you consider that art to be less interesting, authentic or edgy than what it displaces or not). In that vein, I can literally watch the gentrification on my London street, and it'll look even more vibrant and arty once the boutiques and street cafes have fully replaced the betting shops, by which time I won't be able to afford the rent.

pessimizer 13y ago

>I don't believe that crime, danger and poverty make for good art. That's bullshit. First of all, it's not. Second of all, "crime, danger and poverty" are not the opposite of high rents. Low rents are. Low rents make for good art. High rents make for good stockbrokers and bankers.

jamesbritt 13y ago
It is a weird claim. Talking Heads, I believe, were squatting in the east village when they came to NYC. Many artists and musicians around that same time (mid '70s to mid '80s) did the same, in the East Village or over in the even more dangerous Alphabet City. (We're talking true post-apocalyptic decay and weirdness here.) They could do this because no sane person would live there and pay rent if they could go elsewhere. Were it safe and clean there would have been considerable competition for living there, rents would go up, and the artists would be out.