The Death of a Once Great City: The fall of NY and the urban crisis of affluence

[dc_denizen]

I see co op city as the next hip neighborhood.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by 10023

^ mostly because it’s good beer, but also because the owners and apparently most of the clientele are locals.

Although one shouldn’t assume that just because most of the people drinking there are black, that this isn’t exactly the same thing. What if it’s mostly black 20-somethings who grew up in upper middle class suburbs of places like Atlanta and moved to NYC for marketing jobs after college, settling in Harlem because they like the “idea” of it and the commute to Midtown isn’t bad?

And then I’m sure there are farm-to-table trendy restaurants in Brooklyn opened by guys whose grandparents lived in those neighborhoods. There’s a lot of judging of books by covers in the whole gentrification debate.


This is incorrect, for quite obvious reasons of organizational structure and scale.

As I once said to a guy I worked for who made fun of my fondness for food trucks (he asked if my lunch tasted better because it came from a truck), the person running that independent has probably staked their life savings on a dream and passion, whereas the guy managing that chain outlet might be paid $30 an hour. And even under a franchise model, they don’t have that much upside or flexibility. If it’s a really small independent (the extreme example being a food truck), the guy making and serving your food might be the founder/owner himself, performing the same function that a guy making $7.25/hr is doing at a chain outlet. Which do you think is going to be better most of the time?

There are, of course, bad independents... but there are no great chains, or really anything that surpasses “pretty decent” (and that would be the Shake Shack’s and Blue Bottle Coffee’s of the world, not the mega-chains).

The food business is inherently not scalable, meaning that major sacrifices in quality must be made as scale increases in the name of efficiency and consistency. The best example being Starbucks, which over-roasts the hell out of their beans. Why? Because a chain that large can’t possibly source enough similar tasting coffee globally. It buys anything and everything, and then burns it so that a cup of Starbucks coffee tastes the same from Dallas to Tokyo. Brand identity and consistency is more important that getting the best flavor from a particular batch of coffee beans. And then of course you need pre-portioned food, prepared up to a point in commissary kitchens, etc.

/rant

Yeah, but most people just want good consistency. Also food trucks(since it was brought up) usually are 10-14 dollars for a meal. I can go to some chain and spend 8 dollars, and not spend 3 dollars for a bottle of water. I think its hard for some people to realize having the best of the best isn't what most people aim for. It would be nice, sure, but so would a 5k sq ft apartment on the 60th floor in Manhattan, but I don't have the extra money or care to spend 10-25% more for that option(food, that is), on most days.

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I don't even know what that means. If it means there are more non-chain stores in NY than in SF, of course there are--the city is 10 times bigger. But when walking down any given street, I think one is less likely to encounter a chain retail outlet in SF than in NYC. That's what I took and still take "least chained market" to mean.

That's pretty much what I meant. I just wanted to do that one-up like a usual homer.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by 10023

But it is totally gentrified. It’s just that the current, wealthier residents also like John’s Pizza, and Murray’s Cheese, and Faicco’s, etc.

Gentrification doesn’t displace all pre-existing businesses. It replaces the bad ones that don’t offer products or services that appeal to people with more choice.

Bleecker St. also has like a 25% vacancy rate.

[10023]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

I see co op city as the next hip neighborhood.

lol

[10023]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Yeah, but most people just want good consistency. Also food trucks(since it was brought up) usually are 10-14 dollars for a meal. I can go to some chain and spend 8 dollars, and not spend 3 dollars for a bottle of water. I think its hard for some people to realize having the best of the best isn't what most people aim for. It would be nice, sure, but so would a 5k sq ft apartment on the 60th floor in Manhattan, but I don't have the extra money or care to spend 10-25% more for that option(food, that is), on most days.

The fact that something is more expensive doesn’t mean that it’s not better. Being more expensive also doesn’t necessarily make it better, but there’s a decent correlation. On the other hand McDonald’s is probably the cheapest source of calories out there, but I consider it inedible.

[10023]

Originally Posted by mhays

Of course restaurants are scalable. Big cost elements are cheaper when shared between many outlets. Everything from food buying to menu development to menu printing to space design to central preparation of some food. You're paying leadership who are really just managers who don't need to bring much creative input.

One of the positive side effects of my city piling on fees and employment requirements is that the chains get it much worse than the independents, like laws for publishing work schedules weeks in advance or our slight overdo of minimum wage increases. All well meaning but huge added cost. A one-off escapes some of that. A true mom+pop+kids+grandma escapes all of it. In many ways the laws even the playing field vs. the efficiencies of chains.

Restaurants are not scalable beyond a certain point (and I mean like 6 locations, that the owner can visit regularly) without sacrificing quality.

All of those things you mention (bulk purchases, centralized menu development, and especially central preparation of food) represent a reduction in the quality of the food and the experience.

[sbarn]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I don't even know what that means. If it means there are more non-chain stores in NY than in SF, of course there are--the city is 10 times bigger. But when walking down any given street, I think one is less likely to encounter a chain retail outlet in SF than in NYC. That's what I took and still take "least chained market" to mean.

Its hard to compare NY and SF in this regard. There is so much more ground floor commercial activity in NY than SF that you are probably more likely to encounter a chain store / restaurant on any given street. However having lived in both, I feel that NY has a greater proportion of non-chain establishments, particularly outside of Manhattan. For instance, there is no equivalent in SF to the ubiquitous NY bodega.

[cjreisen]

^^ Ironic, i'd say the greater density of chains would be in the outer boroughs, especially the more conventionally black non-immigrant areas in brooklyn and the bronx, where you tend to see tons of checkers haha

[Qubert]

a full 85% of the city is either non-rich, non-white, or non-yuppie. The fact that those people seem to be invisible to the author is a questionable facet in an of itself. There have been bazillions of these "NY is dead" articles written since the 1990s yet I bet not one of their authors even dared to go to The Bronx, Newark, or ENY to get their urban grit fix.

Also, as a resident of Jackson Heights, I find the fetishization of "culture", particularly of non-white ones, offensive. All of my neighbors, wherever they came from, are living as normal everyday lives as people in Nassau County. Life here is not some exotic adventure filled with strange customs and people acting out wild alien traditions. Most people are probably fixated on what they need to pick up from Target more than anything.

[chris08876]

I feel like the OP article has a very Manhattan-centric bias to it. Even so, there is nothing boring about the city. Its over 300 sq-miles, and if we focus on a tiny section of it, that is dangerous. Land prices will vary based on where your at, and the elusive aspect can apply to some sections, but in the bigger picture, the city is a welcoming place for immigrants and new comers.

It has not become boring, but has changed. Change is often hard to accept, and those that resist change will result in fear mongering. And this change isn't profound, but applicable to certain sections in that the wealth gap has increased. But as a whole, the city is NOT a gated community. Venture to parts of Queens, Bronx, Brooklyn, hell, even Manhattan to see diverse communities that are exhibits of the melting pot.

Its often hard to have a realistic view point of the city IF you have a bias that originates from working and living on the Island (NY County).

And besides, what is boring? Are we to have the notion that the city is boring because of one opinion?

[jd3189]

^^^ That probably it. I have always been led by these articles to believe that all of NYC was becoming too expensive. But it seems like every time I actually check the city itself, gentrification is mainly high in parts of Manhattan and the parts of Brooklyn close to it. The rest of the city is still affordable and local, as in there's still bodegas, delis, etc serving long time residents in most blocks. Pretty much the New York I remember.

[maru2501]

another interesting take on NYC sterilization


https://thebaffler.com/outbursts/nee...age-done-timms


"It’s a place of moonshot wealth, skinny buildings, no resistance, and no surprises; a city that’s not really a city at all, but its own comfortable superstate."

[pico44]

Originally Posted by maru2501

another interesting take on NYC sterilization


https://thebaffler.com/outbursts/nee...age-done-timms


"It’s a place of moonshot wealth, skinny buildings, no resistance, and no surprises; a city that’s not really a city at all, but its own comfortable superstate."

Yup, New York is already dead. We've already established this. I'm glad he did his research before writing this fantastic article. Forget population and job growth. Who cares about cultural vibrancy? Tell us what we really want to know: how many piano shops are on 58th street. 'What?! Only two!! Forget this place!"

Aaron Timms is obviously an intolerable human being. Tell me when he writes an article rejoicing the greatness of New York and I'll start to worry. These are fun to read, we should continue posting these as they come out. I'm guessing I can count on Chicago posters to keep this going. Haha

[yankeesfan1000]

Originally Posted by pico44

Yup, New York is already dead. We've already established this. I'm glad he did his research before writing this fantastic article. Forget population and job growth. Who cares about cultural vibrancy? Tell us what we really want to know: how many piano shops are on 58th street. 'What?! Only two!! Forget this place!"

Aaron Timms is obviously an intolerable human being. Tell me when he writes an article rejoicing the greatness of New York and I'll start to worry. These are fun to read, we should continue posting these as they come out. I'm guessing I can count on Chicago posters to keep this going. Haha

It's so much worse than just that...

"... Cities change, of course they do; but what matters is for whom they change, and at what cost..."

Written by someone who has lived in New York since 2010... In short, person who just moved to New York, complains about other people moving to New York.

These articles make me want to slam my head in a car door.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by jd3189

^^^ That probably it. I have always been led by these articles to believe that all of NYC was becoming too expensive. But it seems like every time I actually check the city itself, gentrification is mainly high in parts of Manhattan and the parts of Brooklyn close to it. The rest of the city is still affordable and local, as in there's still bodegas, delis, etc serving long time residents in most blocks. Pretty much the New York I remember.

Even in Manhattan, and I'm talking in places like the UES, you can actually get good deals with regards to rentals. Its all about scouting the units and research. Timing is also important. One can live on the UES and have a salary of 60-70k. It can be done... its all about timing and research.

The cities housing market takes dedication to crack, but if one is willing to look, it can be affordable.

Right now the best places to snatch are along transit corridors. Prices vary and sometimes a good deal could be had if one is willing to walk 6-10 blocks from a subway station (2-3 blocks vs 6-10 will vary in price).

Studios vs 1-2 bedrooms will vary. Studios can at times be bargains, and for single folks, a studio is ideal in Manhattan.

Best to take advantage of Harlem, the area is quickly gentrifying (property buying) and a studio or 1 bedroom purchases now, in 2-3 years, will make a healthy profit. Some units I have seen rise 90k in a single year in Harlem. Buy buy buy!!!

[10023]

^ the UES is a completely different neighborhood on either side of 3rd Ave. Living on 2nd, 1st or York is cheaper than most parts of Manhattan south of the park these days.

The problem with Harlem is that it’s so far uptown, and downtown is the cool NYC where young people want to live. Most people in their 20s and 30s prefer Brooklyn to moving north of about 28th. And it’s only recently that this far north has been appealing, because NoMad is booming.

[chris08876]

The preference of certain areas is what drives the misconception that the city as a "whole" is expensive. Preference can only go so far, and a compromise has to be made where folks have to look elsewhere. Sometimes "X" neighborhood or blocks isn't ideal for certain financial circumstances.

What I'm driving at is that if folks are willing to try new things, they might end up not struggling as much.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by 10023

^ the UES is a completely different neighborhood on either side of 3rd Ave. Living on 2nd, 1st or York is cheaper than most parts of Manhattan south of the park these days.

The problem with Harlem is that it’s so far uptown, and downtown is the cool NYC where young people want to live. Most people in their 20s and 30s prefer Brooklyn to moving north of about 28th. And it’s only recently that this far north has been appealing, because NoMad is booming.

I'm basically middle aged these days - certainly no longer young and hip, but something always appealed to me about far upper Manhattan.

I've always wondered why Hudson Heights and to a lesser extent far northern Inwood have survived as non-Hispanic white islands in "Greater Washington Heights." Anyone care to explain.

Also, Inwood has the last couple single-family homes in Manhattan. A cool oddity I've always loved.

[pico44]

A very good friend of mine is an artist and a doorman at a major fashion house on the UES. He is the most financially irresponsible person I have ever met and he lives comfortably in a warehouse apartment in the Bronx.