Why Can’t We Stop Talking About New York in the Late 1970s?

[austlar1]

NYC in the 70s and 80s may have been a troubled environment, but Manhattan was still a very nice place to live. Rents were kinda/sorta cheap (it did not seem cheap at the time); most of Manhattan below 125 St was safe enough and clean enough; there was affordable culture and art aplenty for every taste both high and low; residents knew the score, and most managed to avoid being victims of crime and violence; it was still THE PLACE to pursue a high powered career in virtually any field you could name; and life in Manhattan still provided lots of rewards for those who had the grit to deal with the place. The outer boroughs (The Bronx and most of Brooklyn especially) were a mess, but I don't think that is the NYC that is being discussed in this thread.

I first visited NYC in 1958 at age 12. I started spending summers there in 1966/67/68, and lived there 1969- early 1971. I was a frequent visitor all through the 1970s and 1980s. NYC decayed rapidly in the late 1960s in certain areas. This was especially true along the waterfront as the shipping industry containerized and moved mostly to New Jersey. I lived in Chelsea and the Upper West Side. Chelsea was very working class but safe enough. The Upper West Side was very mixed economically and had pockets of crime and drug use. Still, I never got mugged and felt safe most hours of the day and night. I also rode subways in the early morning hours without getting robbed. I had family living quite well on the Upper East Side, and friends my age lived in the West Village, East Village, and the emerging area of SOHO. Residential Manhattan started to move upscale as early as the late 1970s. People were starting to do things in Tribeca and SOHO as loft buildings converted to residential. A friend bought an old warehouse in Tribeca for nothing and converted it into a private home with one or two rental units. It must be worth a fortune today. Large numbers of gays started to live in Chelsea. Younger married affluent types clamored for spacious apartments on the Upper West Side. It looked kind of depressing at street or subway level with all the homelessness and grafitti, but the changes that would become so obvious by the early to mid 1990s were starting to take place in the early 1970s.

[Qubert]

Originally Posted by austlar1

NYC in the 70s and 80s may have been a troubled environment, but Manhattan was still a very nice place to live. Rents were kinda/sorta cheap (it did not seem cheap at the time); most of Manhattan below 125 St was safe enough and clean enough; there was affordable culture and art aplenty for every taste both high and low; residents knew the score, and most managed to avoid being victims of crime and violence; it was still THE PLACE to pursue a high powered career in virtually any field you could name; and life in Manhattan still provided lots of rewards for those who had the grit to deal with the place. The outer boroughs (The Bronx and most of Brooklyn especially) were a mess, but I don't think that is the NYC that is being discussed in this thread.

I first visited NYC in 1958 at age 12. I started spending summers there in 1966/67/68, and lived there 1969- early 1971. I was a frequent visitor all through the 1970s and 1980s. NYC decayed rapidly in the late 1960s in certain areas. This was especially true along the waterfront as the shipping industry containerized and moved mostly to New Jersey. I lived in Chelsea and the Upper West Side. Chelsea was very working class but safe enough. The Upper West Side was very mixed economically and had pockets of crime and drug use. Still, I never got mugged and felt safe most hours of the day and night. I also rode subways in the early morning hours without getting robbed. I had family living quite well on the Upper East Side, and friends my age lived in the West Village, East Village, and the emerging area of SOHO. Residential Manhattan started to move upscale as early as the late 1970s. People were starting to do things in Tribeca and SOHO as loft buildings converted to residential. A friend bought an old warehouse in Tribeca for nothing and converted it into a private home with one or two rental units. It must be worth a fortune today. Large numbers of gays started to live in Chelsea. Younger married affluent types clamored for spacious apartments on the Upper West Side. It looked kind of depressing at street or subway level with all the homelessness and grafitti, but the changes that would become so obvious by the early to mid 1990s were starting to take place in the early 1970s.

Which is why I think so many anti-gentrification arguments are silly, since it's been happening since the late 1960s.

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by Qubert

Which is why I think so many anti-gentrification arguments are silly, since it's been happening since the late 1960s.

New York has less white people today than it did in 1980, despite gaining an extra over 1 million more people. Most of the posts here are literally nostalgic bs. Objectively, New York is far more culturally and ethnically diverse today, has more clubs, bars, different ethnic food restaurants, music venues, art galleries, museums, and just about anything else. The only stuff thats gone is criminals, homeless crackheads, trash, and abandoned burned out buildings. Most of what the people remember about old New York is just youth nostalgia with rose-colored glasses.

[kool maudit]

Because you could live in Manhattan for not that much money and a lot of influential culture came from there.

Plus people will kind of scold you for it because it's problematic (or whatever), so that makes it an interesting subject as well.

[MolsonExport]

I blame Martin Scorsese. I just love his NYC themed movies of the 70s, particularly Taxi Driver. The grit and shit is fascinating.


stupiddope


thesweetscience

[maru2501]

I saw this great documentary this one time called "The Warriors"

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by fflint

You are as guilty of mistakenly telescoping your contemporary sensibilities onto the past--in your case, a super-fragile political correctness--as anyone glamorizing the sleazy '70s Manhattan scene.

"Political correctness"? Is that you, Donald?

I assume you're familiar with the gay classic Paris Is Burning. Qubert accurately describes the backdrop of the whole movie.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Qubert

Personally, I think it's a little distasteful that people glamorize a period when many, many people lived in horrid conditions, suffered from terrible lawlessness, drug addiction and economic malasie. Many of those negatively affected were people of color while seemingly the historic lens is focused on white cultural types in Manhattan. I'm not saying this is a purposeful act, but it's something one can't help but mention.

This is exactly what I'm thinking, of course privileged white and straight men would be nostalgic about the era because they're not the ones who had to go through struggles.

The whitewashing of history is on purpose.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by austlar1

NYC in the 70s and 80s may have been a troubled environment, but Manhattan was still a very nice place to live.

Experiences differ. I think it's a stretch to call Manhattan a "very nice place to live" in that era. I'm not as old as you, but I am old enough to remember the era and have family who lived there then who recount a not quite as rosy of a picture as you.

Originally Posted by Qubert

Personally, I think it's a little distasteful that people glamorize a period when many, many people lived in horrid conditions, suffered from terrible lawlessness, drug addiction and economic malasie. Many of those negatively affected were people of color while seemingly the historic lens is focused on white cultural types in Manhattan. I'm not saying this is a purposeful act, but it's something one can't help but mention.

I doesn't seem to me that the period is being "glamorized"? It seems rather that there is an understanding of the era and a realization of the struggles that existed.

Maybe people too young to have even been born at that time might be glamorizing it, but if you pay attention to the nostalgia of people too young to actually have nostalgia, then that's your problem.

The NYT article is about the art of the era and how it engenders "a craving for the city that, while at its worst, was also more democratic: a place and a time in which, rich or poor, you were stuck together in the misery (and the freedom) of the place, where not even money could insulate you."

And just maybe, you're being a bit too sensitive.

Originally Posted by The North One

This is exactly what I'm thinking, of course privileged white and straight men would be nostalgic about the era because they're not the ones who had to go through struggles.

The whitewashing of history is on purpose.

See above. And also actually read the fucking article... because it specifically focuses on the NYC art scene of the era, which was decidedly NON PRIVILEGED and NON STRAIGHT and was increasingly NON WHITE.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

See above. And also actually read the fucking article... because it specifically focuses on the NYC art scene of the era, which was decidedly NON PRIVILEGED and NON STRAIGHT and was increasingly NON WHITE.

Excuse yourself, because I'm not referring to the "fucking" article. The suppressing of POC in history is a very real thing, regardless of whether the article talks about it or not.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by maru2501

I saw this great documentary this one time called "The Warriors"

The funny thing is, that movie is not that far off from being a documentary.

Look up the documentaries "80 Blocks from Tiffany's" and "Flyin' Cut Sleeves".

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by The North One

Excuse yourself, because I'm not referring to the "fucking" article. The suppressing of POC in history is a very real thing, regardless of whether the article talks about it or not.

So do you care to actually counter any of his points or the article because if not it seems like malpractice in invoking feminism.

[fflint]

Every individual has many narratives of change over time, as does every family, group, and society. That means there are simultaneously competing, overlapping and conflicting historical narratives, both generally and specifically. That does not mean any given individual or group has a natural claim, by right of race, gender or any other personal characteristic, to de-legitimize, embargo, or deny any historical narrative. That goes for the powerful as well as for those fragile eggshell personae who identify with the powerless from prior eras and epochs.

The story of change over time is always skewed by the teller, first and foremost by what is included and what is not. Historical "whitewashing" is less about history specifically and more about societal power dynamics generally. Whites have traditionally had the power within organs like the New York Times to get their own historical narratives top bill. Ditto for the wealthy and the powerful. But that does not mean this particular reminiscence is 'whitewashed,' nor does it obfuscate the fact establishment narratives continue to be successfully challenged by historians, individuals and groups with competing and conflicting stories.

Any historical narrative must necessarily exclude more than it can possibly include. It is literally impossible to include the change over time engendered in every thought and action of every living person, group and society within any given time frame. It is true the better historical narratives--from an academic standpoint--have a broader breadth, but that does not mean my Grandpa's oft-repeated stories about Midwestern farm life are a shameful racist and misogynist micro-aggression because he doesn't weave in stories about female genital mutilation in north Africa.

One can reasonably object to who and what is excluded from any given narrative--most everything and everyone is, after all--and promote a competing or conflicting narrative in response. But the attempt to shame people out of telling or enjoying this particular story is bullshit. My favorite saying about history holds true: "The past is another planet. They do things differently there." Telescoping one's contemporary political correctness onto that place and those people in order to shame the story tellers and those who find the story compelling is intellectually dishonest and hubristic. While I personally don't care for the constant rehashing of this particular story line about this particular place in time, there is no reason to feel like a horrible person merely for enjoying the story told by these individuals and groups about life on planet Manhattan c1975.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by The North One

Excuse yourself, because I'm not referring to the "fucking" article. The suppressing of POC in history is a very real thing, regardless of whether the article talks about it or not.

Ok, then if you're not referring to the fucking article, then what are you referring to?

Just some perceived notion that's out there?

Because the comments in this very thread and certainly in the article display NONE of this "privileged white and straight men (being) nostalgic about the era because they're not the ones who had to go through struggles" as you mention... nor the glamorization of "a period when many, many people lived in horrid conditions, suffered from terrible lawlessness, drug addiction and economic malasie... (being) people of color while seemingly the historic lens is focused on white cultural types in Manhattan" as Qubert mentioned and you responded to.

The article has zero to do with what you are expressing (actually, the complete opposite!) and no one on here is displaying what you cite either. No one is questioning that "the suppressing of POC in history is a very real thing". If you just want to bitch about that topic, find a better venue and don't derail what can be an interesting and informative thread by taking it in that direction.

[MolsonExport]

• Video Link

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

It represented the raw, gritty pinnacle of urban decay at its most extreme, most varied, most vast, and most vibrant and most bleak.

Cities were crumbling all over the nation by the mid 70s from white flight and as our economy was unsteadily venturing into post-industrialism... and NYC was the ultimate expression of it. The expression came across in crime and lawlessness, gang culture, street art, hip hop, punk/post-punk, disco drug culture, etc. It was a colorful, unbelievable (by today's standards), and fascinating time and the media ate it up and fed it to us daily. Basically, the culmination of a decade of of sex, drugs, and decay. The 70s were a fucked-up crazy time, and the late 70s and early 80s culture was the, in many ways, ridiculous result.

is it naïve of me to think that once you leave manhattan and parts of Brooklyn that new York of old is still alive in the outer boroughs and new jersey?

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by Qubert

Which is why I think so many anti-gentrification arguments are silly, since it's been happening since the late 1960s.

more like the 60 A.D. gentrification as a modern phenomenon is a liberal myth. poor people ousted from central locations has been happening since the roman empire. sociologists like to think they discovered this phenomenon.....

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by Qubert

Personally, I think it's a little distasteful that people glamorize a period when many, many people lived in horrid conditions, suffered from terrible lawlessness, drug addiction and economic malasie.

this is happening at every period in human history, depending on your perspective. or if we are in a gilded age (which NYC certainly seems to be in now) its just as distatesful that hedge fund managers are making billions and Russian oligarchs are buying stratospheric condos to launder money with, while everyday citizens can no longer afford their own city and are seeing their wages continue to shrink.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by fflint

Every individual has many narratives of change over time, as does every family, group, and society. That means there are simultaneously competing, overlapping and conflicting historical narratives, both generally and specifically. That does not mean any given individual or group has a natural claim, by right of race, gender or any other personal characteristic, to de-legitimize, embargo, or deny any historical narrative. That goes for the powerful as well as for those fragile eggshell personae who identify with the powerless from prior eras and epochs.

The story of change over time is always skewed by the teller, first and foremost by what is included and what is not. Historical "whitewashing" is less about history specifically and more about societal power dynamics generally. Whites have traditionally had the power within organs like the New York Times to get their own historical narratives top bill. Ditto for the wealthy and the powerful. But that does not mean this particular reminiscence is 'whitewashed,' nor does it obfuscate the fact establishment narratives continue to be successfully challenged by historians, individuals and groups with competing and conflicting stories.

Any historical narrative must necessarily exclude more than it can possibly include. It is literally impossible to include the change over time engendered in every thought and action of every living person, group and society within any given time frame. It is true the better historical narratives--from an academic standpoint--have a broader breadth, but that does not mean my Grandpa's oft-repeated stories about Midwestern farm life are a shameful racist and misogynist micro-aggression because he doesn't weave in stories about female genital mutilation in north Africa.

One can reasonably object to who and what is excluded from any given narrative--most everything and everyone is, after all--and promote a competing or conflicting narrative in response. But the attempt to shame people out of telling or enjoying this particular story is bullshit. My favorite saying about history holds true: "The past is another planet. They do things differently there." Telescoping one's contemporary political correctness onto that place and those people in order to shame the story tellers and those who find the story compelling is intellectually dishonest and hubristic. While I personally don't care for the constant rehashing of this particular story line about this particular place in time, there is no reason to feel like a horrible person merely for enjoying the story told by these individuals and groups about life on planet Manhattan c1975.

[mrnyc]

because the media capital says its nostalgic for that era and so that means you are too. so that is what you are going to get.

until it passes back on to why are new yorkers nostalgic about the 1990s or something, that is.

frankly, the people who work in the media business are mostly lazy as sin, so they just go outside the building and film and report and make their media content for the world with that. so it ends up its all about gotham city.

funny enough though, everybody ate it up back then and for some reason they still do today.

of course, there are plenty of 1970s stories of peoria, but you will never know.

all the local yokelism when they are running worldwide viewed media aggravates the hell out of me sometimes. yes i know, i know, in this case its the nytimes, so why not be about ny? except they so fancy themselves as being america's newspaper. say, speaking of that, whatever happened to the lowbrow usa today newspaper? is that still around? at least they reported on places outside of gstaad, seychelles or the hellholes of the world. you would never know there was an american midlands, a middle class or an average person reading the nytimes.

/rant