Is New York "Over?" - Part One
Published January 01, 2007
After graduating from college in the New York suburb of Long Island in 1979, I returned to New York City and got an apartment on the Upper East Side of Manhattan with my then-boyfriend. Every now and again I'd make the trip down to the Lower East Side to visit my aunt and uncle, who had raised me after my parents died when I was 15. Though I took the subway there, by the time I left it was dark and my aunt insisted that I take the bus across the street rather than walk to the subway. They'd watch anxiously from the window to make sure I was okay as I waited for the crosstown bus that would first take me to 14th Street and 1st Avenue, where I'd transfer to the second bus that would transport me on the long but pleasant ride back home to the East 80s.
At the time, my aunt had a subscription to New York magazine, which came out weekly. She'd save up the old issues and present the bundle to me when I came to visit, along with jars of homemade chicken soup, to take home to my cramped one-bedroom fifth floor walk-up. From perusing the magazines and observing the street scene on the bus, I learned a lot about how neighborhoods can change over the years — in a gradual but inexorable metamorphosis from seedy to trendy to unaffordable.
Manhattan was a somewhat different city back then. Though the "hellhole" days of Manhattan (think Taxi Driver or Midnight Cowboy) and the concomitant dirt-cheap rents had started to wane, by the time the '80s hit it was still possible to emerge fresh out of college and get an apartment in the city. And indeed, the Upper East Side (or the far East side of it, at any rate) was a kind of ghetto for young singles back in the day. It was reasonably safe, and had all the city amenities I craved — bars, restaurants, bookstores, and all-night delis where you could grab the Sunday Times on Saturday night on your way back from dinner or a neighborhood movie.
The Lower East Side, however, was a different story. It seemed to have been suspended in time, its roots as the starting point for countless 19th and early 20th century European immigrants still very much apparent with its ancient tenements and unhip demeanor. To me, the Lower East Side didn't even seem to be part of Manhattan at all, but a dowdy enclave where many working and middle class predominantly Jewish families, my aunt and uncle included, had settled in the big apartment complexes on Grand Street that offered affordable coop living. But after dark, when the local shops closed, if one ventured down the nearby tenement side streets, one's only purpose (or so it seemed at the time) would have been to risk life and limb to buy drugs.
- Is New York "Over?" - Part One
- Published: January 01, 2007
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Culture
- Filed Under: Culture: Business and Economics, Culture: History, Culture: Media, Culture: Personal History, Culture: Society
- Part of a feature: New York Stories
- Writer: Elvira Black
- Elvira Black's BC Writer page
- Elvira Black's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Archie Conservatory says "it's you people that need to get over yourselves and your grossly inaccurate sense of importance."
So if that's right, then calling someone an asshole for writing a demographic opinion in the Culture section (not Politics, mind you) is not shouting from a high horse, eh?
Get over yourself AC, and stop being jealous that you are stuck living in the sticks where kissing cousins and monster trucks help get your kicks.
Nice article, EB. Looking forward to reading Part II.
hhmmm..New York..lets see..thats on the other side of Nevada, right?
Arch:
If you think this is bad, Part 2 will be even more obnoxious, because it deals in part with New Yorkers' "grossly inaccurate sense of self-importance" in some detail.
Yes, it is true that many New Yorkers are very proud to live here--and some can be insufferable about it. It may not be the center of the universe, but you've got to admit that it's got a little something going for it (or in your case, I guess you don't have to admit it--lol).
The phenomena I describe here is true of a lot of cities across the country--at least in terms of the way neighborhoods can change over time. In that sense, it seems more "universal" to me--something that, perhaps, non-New Yorkers can relate to as well.
So now I'm curious, Arch--where y'all from?
I'm in New Delhi. Never been to New York. Read NYT everyday. The latest New Yorker is always on my desk. It was a great piece and one day I wanna live in NYC. Thank-you.
Celeste:
LOL and thanks!
I do feel a little awkward when I write about New York, since I can see Arch's point in a sense. But I'm the first to admit (as I do in other articles in this series) that New Yorkers can be the most xenophobic folks on earth. Some are so snobby that they dismiss every area outside of their own neighborhood. For example, some downtowners pride themselves on never going above 14th Street. Others feel that any NYC borough aside from Manhattan is a cultural wasteland.
Yeah, New Yorkers can have a bad attitude--fuhgeddaboudit!
Mayank:
Thanks so much. The New Yorker is a great mag, but for a slice of New York in all its (as Arch puts it) "pretentious, superficial, liberal" glory, New York magazine is the way to go.
Elvira,
Much of what you write resonates with me. For years, I held onto an article from New York about how corporate execs were the modern equivalent of cavemen hunters (accountants and bookkeepers being the equivalent of women and children) and which co-related the size of military units to how many people one can recognize, going from the squad to the platoon.
We come from roughly the same generation, you and I, and share many of the same memories of the same haunts.
New York has been "over" for a long time, dear. In twenty years, assuming that the world will not have been totally changed by some messianic event by then, the city you and I grew up in will be totally gone, remembered only in an occasional "Thoid Avenue" out of the mouth of a senescent fellow who still hasn't gotten the drift.
But the nastier part of all this is that America is over too.
Oh, is it? I always imagined New York magazine has some paparazzi version of The New Yorker. I confess of never really reading it. Now, I'll try it out. Anything to be in the New York state of mind...
Ruvy:
Oy vey--are you trying to burst my New York bubble here? (lol).
It's hard to say what might be in 20 years...especially in light of 9/11. When I was trying to sell my coop, a small plane crashed into an apartment in a fancy East Side building. A few months ago, a fellow who didn't want his wife to get his townhouse blew the whole thing up. I was hoping that no similar disaster befell my building while it was on the market.
In all seriousness, though, I don't see New York as quite over yet. When we were younger, the city was in bad shape. Now it's the safest large US city (despite the above) and more international than ever. But I think I get where you're coming from.
Mayank:
You can pretty much get the gist of New York mag from their website, which includes a lot of their main articles and other features--as well as great reading from their archives. Probably better (and cheaper) in a way than actually subscribing!
Elvira:
Thanks. I do appreciate your suggestions and I guess reading the magazine online is a sensible idea. American magazines are very expensive in India. By the time The New Yorker reaches in New Delhi's Khan Market, it is 5 times of what it would sell for in NYC. But I still buy it!
I love The New Yorker. Its fiction, its "Talk of the Town" pieces, its cartoons, its David Remnick opinions, its book reviews, its covers, including the nice "New Yorkish" feel the magazine gives to me when I turn its pages....I guess New York will be a good accompaniment. Thanks again.
Mayank:
Though I think of the New Yorker as a much more literate/literary magazine which takes more time to absorb and digest, New York is more like a light "nosh" with a decidedly New York flavor--like a bagel with a "schmear."
Some of the pieces I've read of yours remind me of how universal all this can be--for example, the contrast of different classes and generations brought together in the Central Park you described so eloquently. Though I'm assuming that America may be more "classless" in theory than India or Pakistan, in reality folks here can be very conscious of "status"--especially in New York--but all manage to coexist for the most part in harmony. On the other hand, the current issue of New York has a feature on how the great middle class are being screwed royally, while CEO's here are making out like bandits. I don't know if that's an apt comparison, though, since I'm so shamefully ignorant of your country, being a myopic New Yorker and all (lol).
Elvira:
Every nation, every culture, every race is essentially the same. Young people are lusty - both in Baghdad and Berlin; and old people are fussy - both in New York and New Delhi. But America (or is it the New York City?) has a pull that no other land has. Class differences lurk everywhere but what is different about your place is that it divides people according to what they are, and not what their parents were. That's what makes America great, I guess.
Mayank:
Wow, that was beautifully put. Thank you!
'it divides people according to what they are '
Hmm...I wonder how one would divide someone like Arch, and define what he is? (Sorry, just couldn't resist).
Elvira, great piece as always. I experienced some of the transitions that you mention when living in New York (Astoria!) in the mid- to late '90s. Manhattan was way too expensive for the likes of I, but Astoria was still a sleepy and safe and cheap alternative that was a quick N train ride into midtown.
Throughout the '90s it was easy to see the East Village transition from truly fringe to somewhat manufactured/commoditized/gentrified fringe. Ludlow and Essex streets were just becoming hot spots for hipsters.
Everytime I return to NYC, it's a different city. And that's the great thing about it. But I do miss the New York -- my New York -- of the '90s!
Excellent read Elvira as always. Im afraid Ruvy is right however. Consider Israel. I am. HAPPY NEW YEAR ELVIRA.
I'm from NH Elvira and other than San Fransisco there is no place I'd rather live in less than NYC. I can barely stand the Devall Patrick loving reds and how they think their shitty little city is so great when I have to go into Boston nevermind NYC. As for reading the NYT or the New Yorker.....well you might just as well be reading Pravda to get your news.
What is it about large cities that attract the most superficial, pretentious, arrogant, smug, smarmy, ignorant, hypocritical, uber liberal jackasses?
And what is it about elitist, northeastern psuedo- intellectuals that think they are smarter than anyone they come across who happens to have a Southern accent? It was quite comical and enjoyable watching a president embroiled in the middle of an unpopular war and having historically high job disapproval ratings manage to beat the so called war hero, champion of the left/progressive movement in our last presidential election.
I congratulate Arch on his attack on the liberal elitism of an article that had not the slightest trace of liberal politics and a great deal of speculation that New York is becoming too elitist! Archie, my dear, you are proving my belief that you are, indeed, a caricature, a piece of online performance art.
Now! To the article at hand. I'm a little biased, because I only visit New York a couple of times a year and cringe at the prospect of living there...but yes, I am getting the impression that it is, indeed, over.
More and more, Manhattan feels like a Newport or a Beverly Hills: places that only the very, very wealthy and/or famous live. And Brooklyn? Not long ago I saw a tiny 2-bedroom, 650 square-foot condo there, selling for over a million dollars. My wife's best friend still works at a midtown law firm, but six months ago she gave up on living in the East Village and moved out to - guess where? Yup...Jersey City.
But you know what really seals the city's fate for me, Elvira? I live in the smaller-but-still-major city of Washington, D.C., a place that is becoming increasingly cosmopolitan, diverse, and--well, hip--with every passing year. (That is, the D.C. that is not involved with the federal government, which actually constitutes most of the city.) And there's a feeling in its burgeoning artistic/musical/theater/culinary scenes that it's possible to come in and really make your mark. You can still own this town by coming in and doing something really special and original.
That's what New York City was when I was growing up, in the 1980s and most of the '90s. It was the place where you came to conquer the world: it was where you had to pay your dues and make your name.
New York City in 2007? It's where you come when you're the newest media sensation and want to be photographed hanging out with Gwyneth Paltrow and Stephen Sondheim. I still know fresh-faced young kids who get their start there...but they're fresh-faced young kids who are getting their starts with six-figure entry-level salaries at JPMorgan Chase.
I'm sorry to sound so cynical and dismissive about a place I know you breathe and love, Elvira. It's just that what I see is no longer the place you go to pay your dues and make your name. I see the finish line for people who have ALREADY paid their dues and made their name. It's hard to see that as the hip place.
"I congratulate Arch on his attack on the liberal elitism of an article that had not the slightest trace of liberal politics and a great deal of speculation that New York is becoming too elitist! Archie, my dear, you are proving my belief that you are, indeed, a caricature, a piece of online performance art."
The article is rife with examples of the typical smug, smarmy, condescending liberal attitude Micahel. All the talk of what's the hippest place to live, what's the best scene to be part of......... and the rest of the trendy superficial bullshit that one dimensional big city liberals concern themselves. If we were to ask the author I am sure she'd say that the only life worth living is the NYC life.
I hate liberals and I hate big cities, mostly because they are full of liberals. So maybe you didn't see anything particularly offensive in this article Michael but I can read between the lines.
Toledo liberal elitism > New York liberal elitism
"the rest of us in 'flyover country'"
Planes from New York to California don't fly over New Hampshire. Stop trying to glom onto a group you aren't a part of, poser.
Flyover country isn't a term used to refer literally to a specific geographic area you dunce.
Rather it's a term used to describe the vast majority of this nation that exists outside it's largest cities.
I'm amazed you can even tie your own shoes in the morning Col.
Arch wrote: "OOOHHH look at me.....I'm so liberal.....I'm so sophisticated.....I live in a big city and am so much better than everyone else...oooohhh I'm so superior in every way to you ignorant rubes that live outside the city."
Yes, good work, Archie old boy. What a lovely piece of outside-the-envelope, lucid thinking.
Elvira's New York: Somewhere a bit north of Sydney, I think, judging by Elvira's map and the view across the Pacific.
Some time, I must do a story on trendy, liberal Hobart (Tasmania), so that I can justify putting a nice Map of Tassie on the site.
do you try to be this stupid or does it just come naturally?
the term "flyover country" came from big shots doing business on both coasts, traveling between Los Angeles and NYC, and flying over the middle of the country.
It's no wonder your parents put you up for adoption.
Eric:
Many thanks!
"Everytime I return to NYC, it's a different city. And that's the great thing about it. But I do miss the New York -- my New York -- of the '90s!"
You pretty much said it all right there. The city keeps changing exponentially, but I think it also passes through distinct "eras" that one can remember with nostalgia.
I believe they've just passed zoning restrictions to limit Lower East Side highrises so as not to destroy the essential character of the neighborhood. Nevertheless, there's a number of very fancy high-rise condos like the Blue Building gracing the landscape now. But there's plenty of people who still see the LES as declasse--lol.
sr:
Thanks, my friend. Well, shall we meet up with Ruvy then? What do you say--next year in Jerusalem?
Happy New Year to you!
"Class differences lurk everywhere but what is different about your place is that it divides people according to what they are, and not what their parents were. That's what makes America great, I guess."
Especially if they were poor and you've just earned a great big stack of cash.
Come on Mayank, it's not that bloody simple. If your parents were poor nobodies, and you don't break the mold, you'll be judged exactly on how your parents were.
That's actually the tragedy of America, not what makes it great.
Arch:
You said:
"The article is rife with examples of the typical smug, smarmy, condescending liberal attitude Micahel. All the talk of what's the hippest place to live, what's the best scene to be part of......... and the rest of the trendy superficial bullshit that one dimensional big city liberals concern themselves. If we were to ask the author I am sure she'd say that the only life worth living is the NYC life."
I see your point, Arch--and in a very real sense, you are right. New York City is pretty liberal and can be elitist as well.
But I was born here (in Queens, to be precise) so I didn't choose to come here. I like cities like New York in part because I don't drive and don't want to have a car. For me, the suburbs are a nice place to visit, but I don't want to live in one. Just a personal preference.
I'll even go so far as to say that though I don't "step out" as much as I used to, I still like to know that I could if I wanted to. Somehow having that choice at my fingertips is comforting to me.
Even New Yorkers (myself included) will admit that there are a number of folks here who are insufferable snobs. And the incessant development of the city is rapidly making Manhattan into a place only the wealthy "elite" can afford.
But the area of the Bronx where I'm moving soon is about as far from elitist and trendy as you can get! BG's 'hood has very few of the amenities that Manhattanites "need" to "survive." No movie theatres, bookstores, fancy clubs, sushi joints, or coffeehouses. But that's just fine with me.
I hope you don't hate NYC so much that you were glad they destroyed the Twin Towers though? After all, we are still part of America.
Michael:
Thanks for the great comment.
You said:
"I'm sorry to sound so cynical and dismissive about a place I know you breathe and love, Elvira. It's just that what I see is no longer the place you go to pay your dues and make your name. I see the finish line for people who have ALREADY paid their dues and made their name. It's hard to see that as the hip place."
Yes, I agree with what you're saying for the most part. How can a young kid fresh out of school afford to live here unless they're working on Wall Street or the equivalent? Artists and anyone else who wants to make their mark here are being driven out by the sky high rents and are discovering other cities, as you said. In a word, Manhattan has become--well--very bourgeois. Some talk about the Disneyfication of NY as well, and say that it's lost its essential gritty character altogether.
Those who persist in trying to live here without a lot of bucks have to explore the less tony areas of the city--and do so before all five boroughs become off limits to the poor and middle class.
It's almost as if you have no business in Manhattan unless you are super-rich. The biggest real estate news of the year was the sale of Peter Cooper Village and Stuyvesant Town for a record price--two middle class enclaves of affordable downtown housing, originally designed for returning WW II vets. It's probably just a matter of time til the development becomes yet another enclave for the well-to-do.
STM:
I know that map is a little hard to read, but it's a legendary New Yorker magazine cover cartoon from March 29, 1976 by Saul Steinberg called "View of the World from 9th Avenue." It comprises a "map" of the world from a "New Yorker's" point of view. Looking west from 9th Avenue in Manhattan is the Hudson River. Beyond that is a flat plane of land with a few vague rocky landmarks depicting the rest of the U.S. On the outermost edge is New Jersey (from which many NYC workers commute). Also shown are Chicago, Kansas City, Utah, Las Vegas, and Texas. To the left of this is Mexico; to the right is Canada. Then comes the Pacific and beyond that, in the far distance, are a few little lumps of land representing China, Japan, and Russia.
Shamefully, I'm not sure where Hobart is, but it should have been included!
I'm intrigued by your reply to Mayank--not sure I follow exactly. Would you care to elaborate?
Great map Elvira, I got one just like it, only it starts on pier 39 in San Francisco :)
Good grief! Why all the harshness when Elvira is writing about the culture of NYC in the Culture Section?
Nice piece, Elvira. Although I'm certainly no authority on big city living. I grew up in a town of 200 people, we were greatly outnumbered by the cattle. Luckily, they couldn't count and didn't know that or a revolution may have occurred! lol
Keep up the good work!
Donnie:
Thanks! I think a lot of folks feel their identity is very intimately tied to their home and hometown, so that might explain some of it.
Rats outnumber people in NYC, so cattle seem much nicer-- though they do take up more space.
Elvira. Just sitting here with my new PC and watching a virtual tour of Jerusalem, the most beautiful city on earth. Jerusalem. What a beautiful sound. Told my bride of 25+years I want to go. She thinks it's to dangerous at this time. As if it will be less dangerous in the future. For me I would feel secure and safe. Besides, Ruvy would keep us safe.
"Shamefully, I'm not sure where Hobart is, but it should have been included!
I'm intrigued by your reply to Mayank--not sure I follow exactly. Would you care to elaborate?"
Sorry Elvira, I'm being very naughty about the map of Tassie. Hobart is the State capital of Tasmania ... and it's a very beautiful, small city with fabulous colonial architecture and a wonderful backdrop of mountains and water. So beautiful, in fact, it can be heart-stopping. A map of tassie, however, is an irreverent take in Oz on something else. Hint: it's all about the shape of the island.
OK, covered that one. Now, for Mayank, who was effectively saying that the beauty of America is that, I assume unlike India (and maybe also Britain), you can be judged for who you are, rather than who your parents are.
That is true up to a point. If you become rich or famous or a combination of both in America, no-one judges you on who your parents were or their socio-economic standing.
However, if you are poor, and your parents were poor, you will still be regarded with some contempt in some circles in the US, with money being a defining factor in the collective thinking (in some circles).
Get my drift? Not attacking America, just saying that Mayank's reasoning applies nicely if you're rich and/or famous (or even just quite comfortable), but certainly doesn't if you're not.
Much like most places in the developed world, I guess, including here.
sr:
Well, I know a little Yiddish, but I guess Ruvy could supply the Hebrew lessons!
STM:
There's been quite a lot of focus in the media, especially of late, with the crisis in public education in New York as well as the US. Public schools are often unsafe and riddled with gang activity; teachers are quitting the system in droves; and math and reading scores are abysmally low compared to what they once were.
I think one of the main indicators of whether a poor child will escape the cycle of poverty in America lies in the quality of the education they receive--and of course the degree to which both student and parents recognize its value. The kind of jobs that could allow someone to maintain at least a lower middle class standard of living--such as manufacturing jobs--are very scarce now, so it is fairly crucial for most people to try to get that college degree as a stepping stone to a better quality of life.
Even so, the middle class is in deep dogshit in this country. Many of them are struggling mightily for a piece of the American dream, which is becoming more and more difficult to obtain or maintain despite two-family incomes. But I guess that's really another topic...
Hey y'all:
Come and visit me over at Part 2, ya hear?
Elvira. I do speak Yiddish. Hey y'all: sr
Archie: I draw comfort from my belief that, by the time Staten Island becomes "hot", you'll be dead.
(Uhhh, me, too, most likely.)
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/57654)
Why is it that every pretentious, superficial, liberal, NYT reading, New York city asshole thinks that the whole world revolves around their city and that the rest of us are just pining to make the trip to live there ourselves.
The fact is that the rest of us in "flyover country" want nothing to do with your city, your "scenes" or your "hip factor." Is New York over? The only thing that needs to be gotten over is most of the people that live in New York and other big cities. "OOOHHH look at me.....I'm so liberal.....I'm so sophisticated.....I live in a big city and am so much better than everyone else...oooohhh I'm so superior in every way to you ignorant rubes that live outside the city." it's you people that need to get over yourselves and your grossly inaccurate sense of importance.