# NYC: Death of a Once Great City



## Dale (Sep 12, 2002)

Well, that was a thoroughly depressing read ...

"Instead, our leaders seem hopelessly invested in importing a race of supermen for the supercity, living high above the clouds. Jetting about the world so swiftly and silently, they are barely visible. A city of glass houses where no one’s ever home. A city of tourists. An empty city."

https://harpers.org/archive/2018/07/the-death-of-new-york-city-gentrification/


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Marvelous article, yet so depressing. 

NYC is on the way of becoming a city of those who are never there.


----------



## Dale (Sep 12, 2002)

Interesting that you should bring up Vancouver. I was just there, last weekend, and aside from its gorgeous setting - and a few notable buildings - there is little that is stimulating about the downtown area.


----------



## wakka12 (May 17, 2015)

Fascinating and even quite upsetting article in how honest and true it is, I guess it really hits home because well its not that unique to new york, most of the worlds cities are suffering from many of those problems to some extent
Predatory monoculture, chains, uncomfortably high rents,and increasingly insular and anti urban societies, nowhere in the world escapes it unfortunately due to intense globalisation , yet everyone thinks their own city is the worst hit by it..if it only that were the case


----------



## MerynnTrant (Apr 4, 2018)

NYC is and still is a great city. surprising because after decades of democratic leadership eroding the city away, it still stays resilient


----------



## MerynnTrant (Apr 4, 2018)

my only wish was that Trump could be governor of the state, or mayor of the city so it could see some real change. this guy is going to be better than Reagan.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

^^ You are officially a fool if you believe that Trump has any interests other than his own as real estate developer. He would sell all of NYC for a dime to China if he could personally gain from that.


----------



## Dale (Sep 12, 2002)

Slartibartfas said:


> ^^ You are officially a fool if you believe that Trump has any interests other than his own as real estate developer. He would sell all of NYC for a dime to China if he could personally gain from that.


And what do you think NY Democrats have been doing all this time ?


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

I read the whole article. Interesting but very dark. Is it something that could be done to prevent or it's just the way things will become and we should get used?


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Dale said:


> And what do you think NY Democrats have been doing all this time ?


Whataboutism doesn't change anything about my statement above. 
I am not here defending to defend democrats either.


----------



## wakka12 (May 17, 2015)

Yuri S Andrade said:


> I read the whole article. Interesting but very dark. Is it something that could be done to prevent or it's just the way things will become and we should get used?


Of course theres lots that could be done but it takes effort and much of it is a product of the lifestyle we enjoy and are used to..everyone loves independent businesses in their local area but when it comes down to it most people choose the chain because it offers a quicker..cheaper..more well known alternative to products you like, hence their popularity and replacement of smaller businesses, just one example, and its a bit subjective too whether things such as that are that bad


----------



## SutroTower (Jun 25, 2008)

It's sad what NYC has become but here, in San Francisco, we're on the same boat. 90% of the article could be about SF just by exchanging names and places. Same sh*t. 

This is the future of all major cities. Industry and cultural changes indicate that this won't reverse. I don't know if we should be fighting for a city of equal opportunities where our success or failure is on our own hands and rent can still be paid by working 9 to 5 or stop resisting and acknowledge that times have changed and city living for the mid and working classes is now a thing from the past.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Great article, spot on on so many things, and that I see happening in all the most popular cities. I love the bit about how he addresses the apologists, on how you could wax lyrical into the vaults of history and memory about a Gap or Starbucks, sure, but a bank branch for Chrissakes? There's only so much you could poeticise about in essence on a carpet and a cash machine. Or yes, that could be the next student Dostoevsky stumbling drunk down those Chelsea steps, but also a 5K-a-month-in-rent student Dostoevsky.


----------



## Stan-nec (Aug 8, 2018)

The unfortunate situation with all major urban areas where there is high wealth concentration.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

The-E-Vid said:


> It's sad what NYC has become but here, in San Francisco, we're on the same boat. 90% of the article could be about SF just by exchanging names and places. Same sh*t.
> 
> This is the future of all major cities. Industry and cultural changes indicate that this won't reverse. I don't know if we should be fighting for a city of equal opportunities where our success or failure is on our own hands and rent can still be paid by working 9 to 5 or stop resisting and acknowledge that times have changed and city living for the mid and working classes is now a thing from the past.


I very much doubt that this can not be reversed or will stay forever. Why? Because the current trend already nurtures the downfall of the system. The end point of this development will be cities void of their most basic functions, not even empty open air museums, which will make them unattractive or at least less attractive to those with too much money and they are the only ones at that point who could afford those places. The immediate consequence will be a bursting of the real estate bubble and collapsing prices, down to a point where people with real world salaries might be able to afford them. If they still want to live in such places is the question. In the worst case the inner cities could collapse into ghost towns. Their central location in the transportation networks would suggest however that they could regain or retain actual uses.

Good urban planning can mitigate those destructive forces. Removing substantial chunks of the real estate market from the free market, dedicating them to actually affordable housing for example can substantiall dampen those effects. I think Vienna is evidence that this can work, even if it won't prevent the destructive speculative price spiral altogether.


----------



## Copperknickers (May 15, 2011)

There's only one solution to the decline of modern cities and that is, build new cities. It's crazy that at this, perhaps the greatest expansion in human population for thousands of years, we are seeing one of the smallest rates of new city foundations. When the Roman empire was booming they founded cities left right and centre, so did the Persians, so did the Chinese Dynasties, so did the Aztecs. And yet Western Civilisation in the 21st century seems to be forever tied to the same 200 year old, if not 2000 year old, cities. Why?


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

It's a lack of population growth - almost all new cities will be in Africa, while the older ones will balooon: Lagos, Kinshasa and Dar Es Salaam may grow to >60 million becoming the world's largest singular cities.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

^^ Interesting. So population prediction are foreseeing a leveling off in global populiation growth. What factors are causing that? Is it some hard factors like resource limitation and in the worst case starvation etc or a global rise in education, especially in Asia?

Regarding founding new cities, well, the spliff fairy said it all. The West isn't growing all that much, nothing what the existing cities could not cope with.


----------



## snot (May 12, 2004)

MerynnTrant said:


> my only wish was that Trump could be governor of the state, or mayor of the city so it could see some real change. this guy is going to be better than Reagan.


How would the kind of ******* anti public anti governement anti public transport anti tax kind of politics favorising the ultra rich be benificial for New York???
A city in need of more fundings for it's public transport, governement investments in infrastructure en better housing with governement planning. A city with a large population who barely can afford the maffiosi American private healthcare.


----------



## snot (May 12, 2004)

Copperknickers said:


> And yet Western Civilisation in the 21st century seems to be forever tied to the same 200 year old, if not 2000 year old, cities. Why?


:dunno:

Western populations are stagnating and you want new cities. 
While many US cities boomed last 50 years and are still suburban wastelands that can be developped in real cities.


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

You can still get internal dynamics that are different to international ones, like people flocking into the most attractive city (or cities) of a country at an unsustainable rate, despite the total population of the country shrinking. There are also regional transborder dynamics, like Western European cities receiving a lot of immigration from Eastern Europe despite the EU population overall shrinking as well. In fact, the biggest losers in the process are provincial towns and rural localities.

As for building new cities lol, all that's needed is much simpler to do, like rent control, social housing quotas, binding of minimum wage to living wage etc.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

snot said:


> How would the kind of ******* anti public anti governement anti public transport anti tax kind of politics favorising the ultra rich be benificial for New York???
> A city in need of more fundings for it's public transport, governement investments in infrastructure en better housing with governement planning. A city with a large population who barely can afford the maffiosi American private healthcare.


Don't pay much attention to him he is a troll.


----------



## wakka12 (May 17, 2015)

Copperknickers said:


> There's only one solution to the decline of modern cities and that is, build new cities. It's crazy that at this, perhaps the greatest expansion in human population for thousands of years, we are seeing one of the smallest rates of new city foundations. When the Roman empire was booming they founded cities left right and centre, so did the Persians, so did the Chinese Dynasties, so did the Aztecs. And yet Western Civilisation in the 21st century seems to be forever tied to the same 200 year old, if not 2000 year old, cities. Why?


I agree, Id much prefer to live somewhere that had a large collection of medium sized cities rather than a few massive cities everyone is rammed into and has to live in some sprawling montonous dormitory surburb tens of kilometers away from any centre wheres any life or culture

If we had new cities there could be so much more experimentation into new forms of social organisation, city planning and architecture

In my own city nearly 45% of the entire country's population is crammed into the capital while smaller cities and rural areas are sucked dry of young bodied and skilled men and women and are stagnating and dying, 75% of the city is completely soulless unsustainable and badly serviced urban sprawl identical to anywhere else in the western world, slow bus systems and just 3 train lines lines attempt to serve the transport needs of nearly 1.2 million people among the traffic grid locked streets, all crippled by the narrow, winding georgian and medieval street network which simply cannot support the infrastructure for this size population, not that Im in any way encouraging or condoning road widening or destruction of the old city, but it simply should never have gotten this big, and its only sprawling more and more, not to mention the severe shortage of new housing being built and inevitable skyrocketing rents among the highest in the world,and yet the idea of creating a new city to counterbalance the capitals magnetic pull is not even on the cards


----------



## Phoenyxar (Mar 4, 2012)

the spliff fairy said:


> Lagos, Kinshasa and Dar Es Salaam may grow to >60 million becoming the world's largest singular cities.


They'll still grow, no doubt, but they'll never reach 60 million, let alone 30. If the economic mega-hub that was/is Shanghai didn't do this, then no city on earth will. These cities will just grow and then stagnate at some point, suffering from the same problems as other cities of their size, and then surrounding towns will start ballooning. It happened and happens everywhere. The Shanghai-Nanjing axis had multiple towns/villages becoming giant cities. Another good example would be Cairo, with its giant suburbs.

This is already true for Lagos which is the largest of your 3 examples, Ibadan and Abeokuta already are local alternatives for the giant that is Lagos. Perhaps you're viewing this from a "metropolitan/megalopolitan area"-perspective, but those are not cities in my opinion.


----------



## Copperknickers (May 15, 2011)

snot said:


> :dunno:
> 
> Western populations are stagnating and you want new cities.
> While many US cities boomed last 50 years and are still suburban wastelands that can be developped in real cities.


Western populations may be stagnating in the long term, but in the short term they're experiencing an influx of migrants and crippling housing and infrastructure crises. It costs more to dig up and rebuild Victorian infrastructure in a city like London than it does to just build new infrastructure from scratch, so why not do it? The biggest problem in the US, UK and other post-industrial economies is that whole regions have seen their economies torn up, which means people flock to a few small regions with thriving economies. 

But in the digital age, there's no longer any good reason for people to head to one specific region. Young people move away from Ohio and Derbyshire and other rusting post-industrial areas not because there's any inherent natural resource possessed by London or NYC, but because of the cachet these cities possess as 'cool', 'modern' metropolises in stark contrast to their aging delapidated hometowns. There's absolutely zero reason not to build a city in Derbyshire or Ohio that is modern and cool: stick in some generous infrastructure funding and business tax breaks, a big airport and some well-built housing and good public spaces, and people will flock there. We tried that in the 1960s in Europe, with places such as Milton Keynes - that didn't go as well as it could have because:

1. It was too car-centric.
2. It was too utopian in its planning, seeking to immediately conjure a geometrically perfect new city out of thin air rather than letting it grow organically into its own shape, meaning it has a reputation as being a bit soulless and ugly.
3. It was marketed too much at middle aged professionals and didn't seek to get a diverse array of people. This has improved in recent years though with high rates of immigration and the city is now demographically similar to other areas of Southern England.

Generally speaking Milton Keynes was a success, it's not a bad place to live by any stretch, just boring. Its biggest problem is its car-centric layout meaning it's not a good place for children but otherwise we definitely need more such places to take the strain off of big cities like London which are becoming less and less liveable.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

I am not a fan of those new town projects in the middle of nowhere. It is not too clever in my opinion to start from scratch when you can instead take some struggling midsized cities and update their central districts while expanding their surrounding neighbourhoods or building entirely new districts, well connected with existing parts. The latter offers all the advantages you mention yet, on top of that gives the big advantage that there is already a lot of existing infrastructure so there is no gaping lack of for years or decades. For example why construct all sorts of infrastructure like national road and rail connections to some newtown in the middle of nowhere when you can buildt upon the existing connections to some existing midsized city, where you are fine with existing connections or need merely some modest expansions/updates. 

The other crucial aspect is that those new towns or new districts are not planned all at once and then constructed but built in an evolutionary process, with frameworks, that enable later adaptations and include step wise realisation. Also there should be reserve spaces left with temporary developments which can be later on developed in whatever way is neede in 10, 20 or 30 years down the road. Not falling into the trap of car centric planning goes without saying. 

The centre of Milton Keyenes looks soul suckin drab and outright anti-pedestrian, simply because how spread out everything is, with buildings lost in endless street space. No one enjoys strolling such streets.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Another anti-gentrification article. Getting boring already. Would anyone actually prefer 70s and 80s New York to the one from 2018? Crime, grime, deprivation, stagnation? Thanks, but no thanks, if you want that you're welcome to visit Brownsville. New York and other cities have never been better. Sure we have the same brands everywhere, but hey if you're unhappy with that chain of Starbucks opening down the road, here's an idea - walk a little bit more and buy at an independent!


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

^ why are you pitting them against each other like they are mutually incompatible? It is perfectly feasible to do regeneration without letting it turn into gentrification.



Copperknickers said:


> Generally speaking Milton Keynes was a success, it's not a bad place to live by any stretch, just boring. Its biggest problem is its car-centric layout meaning it's not a good place for children but otherwise we definitely need more such places to take the strain off of big cities like London which are becoming less and less liveable.


Milton Keynes sounds in many ways, but not bad for children - quite the contrary. I wouldn't live there as a personal choice, but I'd do it for my son.


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

Another great city that is going through the same sort of death, and fast: https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/09/dublin-ireland-protests-housing-rents/570157/

Remarkable!


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

alexandru.mircea said:


> ^ why are you pitting them against each other like they are mutually incompatible? It is perfectly feasible to do regeneration without letting it turn into gentrification.



If you give a new lick of paint to a few buildings, what changes? Nothing. They’ll be vandalised again. You need to bring in new people too.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

^^ You do. But if that means throwing out all of the former inhabitants and bringing in people which aren't even living there most of the time, you bascially create a nice looking ghost town filled with a few short term visitors gazing at the ghost town, a glorified Disney Land without entrance fee. This is happening in quite a few cities around the world, especially those which are on the laissez faire end of the ideological spectrum.


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

El_Greco said:


> If you give a new lick of paint to a few buildings, what changes? Nothing. They’ll be vandalised again. You need to bring in new people too.



which doesn't contradict anything I said


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Slartibartfas said:


> ^^ You do. But if that means throwing out all of the former inhabitants and bring in people which aren't even living there most of the time, you bascially create a nice looking ghost town filled with a few short term visitors gazing at the ghost town, a glorified Disney Land without entrance fee. This is happening in quite a few cities around the world, especially those which are on the laissez faire end of the ideological spectrum.


Ghost town? I wouldn't call Shoreditch ghost town. It is probably on of the liveliest areas in London. Or perhaps you would prefer how it was 20 years ago? Endless abandoned warehouses, dodgy pubs, thugs, crime and grime? You know which area has the most vacant properties? Kensington and Chelsea and that was never poor.

I think there's too much dishonesty and beating about the bush which prevents us from solving problems. It is this fear to offend and appear non-PC that's to blame. For instance take my area. It is your usual London suburb somewhere in the North East. My street is totally unremarkable, there's thousands like it here. However about 2 years ago the local council dumped a couple of problem families in the area and their thuggish offspring immediately set about re-doing the area. You'll find them hanging on street corners drinking, smoking weed, vandalising stuff, pissing, smashing bottles on the street surface, making comments at passers-by etc. We called the police numerous times - they can't do anything. So, would my area be better off without these people? Yes it would. Now imagine a problem area where there's hundreds of thugs like that. It is this criminal element that brings down areas and it is this criminal element that needs removing. A developer is looking to maximise his profit. It is number 1 rule of business. Can you really blame him? Besides it is a win-win situation because you get a safe, clean area where you can hang out with your friends. Is it really so bad?

In many places, including London, the problem is that the housing market is totally broken. For example when people are talking of 'social-cleansing' it bothers me not in the slightest. I'd rather have a fancy cocktail bar than some dodgy pub from which you're unlikely to return, if you have the stupidity to enter. The reason is this - I and thousands of other Londoners have zero chance to live in those areas anyway. On the one hand you have council tenants (it is them who are being moved out) who pay way below the market price and on the other you have the professionals who pay way above. There's no middle ground whatsoever. So if a guy who pays next to nothing for his Zone 2 flat is moved to Zone 4 or 6 where he will continue paying next to nothing is of no interest to me. What I want is mixed income developments where all working people can afford to live. Now I don't ask for a cheap flat in an exclusive development, no. But a more central area would be great, but alas, it is quite impossible to find anything of the sort. Still I will continue to visit places like Shoreditch, Vauxhall, Brixton and Hackney because they have great things there.

-

Take this place. Right beside King's Cross and St Pancras stations. For a very long time it was a disused area full of crumbling warehouses, rough sleepers and junkies. Now, it has been transformed into a fantastic area with incredible public spaces, restaurants and bars. Of course you can forget about living there, but it is, infinitely, infinitely better than how it used to be. That's a move forward. A positive one too. However we can make it better by putting a mixed income development next to that fancy tower and if a council tenant gets moved out to somewhere farther away in the process then so be it.

https://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=505188&page=174


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

El_Greco said:


> Ghost town? I wouldn't call Shoreditch ghost town. It is probably on of the liveliest areas in London. Or perhaps you would prefer how it was 20 years ago? Endless abandoned warehouses, dodgy pubs, thugs, crime and grime? You know which area has the most vacant properties? Kensington and Chelsea and that was never poor.


I can't comment on these neighbourhoods as I really don't know much about them. 

Gentrification can come in various forms of course. The one I was talking about is the form of gentrification which makes it even hard for upper middle class to afford homes, rented or purchased. Instead international investors or the filthy rich individuals are buying much of the appartment space while rarely actually using them. That leads to the death of urban live in those affected areas. If however, you have a more local gentrification of people with more attachment to the area, actually living in the apparments most of the time, things are quite different. 

In a way what you describe seems to confirm what I am saying. Formerly poor neighbourhoods are now the places for upper middle class to be as more traditional wealthy places are increasingly turned into luxury ghosttowns. If the upscaling continues in places like Shoreditch, they might become at some point like those luxury ghost towns i was talking about. Of course, that gentrification can not go on forever, at some point there will not be enough investors left to drive it anymore, at which point one can expect another real estate bubble to burst. 


You think by concentrating all underdogs into one ghetto the city as a whole will ultimately benefit? Well, good look with your South American approach. Maybe you fancy the idea of living in gated communities, and other secured places, with only moving inside of a safe car in between. Then your idea might fly, otherwise not really as you probably know that there aren't walls between those ghettos and the wealthy districts. Unless of course, you'd like to have those back as well. 

That said, I don't suggest that low income groups should get luxury apartments in the very centre almost for free. The way to go are mixed income developments, with a strong intervention of the public hand to make sure, laissez faire capatilism doesn't undermine that. I think Vienna is doing a decent job, not a perfect one but way better than eg Munich and most certainly London. 




> Take this place. Right beside King's Cross and St Pancras stations. For a very long time it was a disused area full of crumbling warehouses, rough sleepers and junkies. Now, it has been transformed into a fantastic area with incredible public spaces, restaurants and bars. Of course you can forget about living there, but it is, infinitely, infinitely better than how it used to be. That's a move forward. A positive one too. However we can make it better by putting a mixed income development next to that fancy tower and if a council tenant gets moved out to somewhere farther away in the process then so be it.
> 
> https://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=505188&page=174


Whats above ground level? Offices? Luxury aparmtents for foreign investors? My problem is not so much with the upper 1% living somehwere, I am having a problem with large real estates being constructed for standing around half empty (while still making a profit due to some abstract investement logics, or gambling on real estae bubbles). Empty blocks using up the best connected places is a waste of horrendously expensive infrastructure supporting those places. If those buildings are actually used by people than it is maybe a luxury district but a functional one. That is fine with me, as long as there are urban districts elsewhere with a more mixed income variety.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Slartibartfas said:


> In a way what you describe seems to confirm what I am saying. Formerly poor neighbourhoods are now the places for upper middle class to be as more traditional wealthy places are increasingly turned into luxury ghosttowns.


You haven't answered my question of whether or not you prefer these gentrifying areas as they used to be - half derelict and crime ridden? That's very important thing.

As for 'ghosttowns'...Sorry, but that is exaggeration. There are a few individual developments that are half empty but this does not apply to the entire areas. Not in America and certainly not in Europe. Shoreditch and similar areas have plenty of life in them. I think the spoiled millennials are just upset that they can't afford to buy a house in Alamo Square the moment he gets his degree in gender studies.



> You think by concentrating all underdogs into one ghetto the city as a whole will ultimately benefit?


Depends what you mean by underdogs. If you mean criminal elements and non-contributing members of society, then yeah they should be moved somewhere where there's least pressure on housing. If, however, underdogs merely mean poor, then no. As long as they work and contribute they have just as much right to live in the centre/inner city as the hedge fund managers. Criminal elements and non-contributing members of society do not!



> idea of living in gated communities


Having a concierge and security isn't a bad thing.



> The way to go are mixed income developments


That is what I said as well. Mixed income development is the way forward and it is happening, although at a very slow pace. However, it is important to remember, than when people talk about 'social cleansing' it is non-contributing members of society that are being moved out. They have zero right to complain. It is simply not fair that they can live in central areas while doing nothing, but a working Londoner cannot.



> Whats above ground level?


Literally everything. Schools, offices, fancy flats, mixed developments, college, restaurants, bars and parks. 10 years ago this was a notorious blackspot full of junkies, prostitutes and homeless.



> I am having a problem with large real estates being constructed for standing around half empty


But that is largely a myth. No development stands empty. Most are lived in or rented out. What stands empty are the grand Georgian and Victorian mansions in Kensington and Chelsea. This myth has been started by the lazy SJW loonies in America who dream of Communism and a time when everyone, no matter how poor, will be able to live in penthouses and buy Louis Vuittons and Chanels. There's even a thread with exact quotes on DLM. I bet the St Petersburg troll factory had a hand in this too. The simple fact is housing is under strain everywhere, because land is finite and expensive. Only a tiny, tiny percentage of all housing is empty. An empty house or a flat is nothing, it makes no money, it loses it. Most that are bought by investors are bought with an intention of renting them out.


----------



## Hudson11 (Jun 23, 2011)

Is there some sort of misconception going around that NYC isn't building affordable housing? Maybe stop and take a moment to look around rather than staring up at the millionaire condo towers. Do you really think that space would be viable for low income housing? No. Affordable/low income housing is being built in droves in the outer boroughs, especially the Bronx. Granted, we're not building enough- and our old stock of housing is in dire need of replacement, but it's not as though lower earners have nowhere to live anymore and will eventually be expunged entirely. 
NYC, boring? feh. The author seems more _jaded_ than bored.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

El_Greco said:


> You haven't answered my question of whether or not you prefer these gentrifying areas as they used to be - half derelict and crime ridden? That's very important thing.


I don't know those areas, but if they were more or less some central ghettos for the poor than my answer is no. 

I think we are talking past each other. I have no problem with the artsy, interesting phase of gentrification even though, I do think that one should mitigate the harshest side effects. The problem is that gentrification rarely stops at this stage. 

The interesting phase is usually being further upgraded to neighbourhoods for the rich where those who do interesting stuff are also outpriced. Usually those neighbourhoods loose most of their appeal afterwards, even if they might be even cleaner and nicer to look at. If gentrification continues even further even the rich are priced out and instead investors or filthy rich come in. At that point the residential live will start to slowly collapse as the actual use of apartments will sharply decline even though prices for them skyrocket. 

Most certainly gentrification does not continue forever, it is limited by demand. There is only so much demand for speculative investors and super rich. The nicest cities are those which are still for whatever reason not on the radar of the superrich, ie where gentrification halts at a level where urban structures are very upscale but still somewhat intact. 


That is the one aspect, the other aspect is mixing of income. If you concentrate all misery into some dense quarter you are multiplying the negative potential for the entire cities. As I said before, those miserable quarters don't have walls. You can build walls around your middle income/ upper income homes though and live in modern castles. Apparently you don't find that idea too appaling. 



> As for 'ghosttowns'...Sorry, but that is exaggeration. There are a few individual developments that are half empty but this does not apply to the entire areas.


I don't know concrete numbers but I heard that things are pretty bad in Vancouver. What is the actual de facto usage of residential areas in the most affected parts there? 



> Depends what you mean by underdogs. If you mean criminal elements and non-contributing members of society


Low qualified people of whatever kind which of course are most affected by unemployement and most likely to turn towards criminality. Concentrating them into ghettos has been shown time and time again to make things worse. The "non-contributing" share of society isn't a fixed number, unlike what you imply. You can potentially decrease it by incrasing social upwards mobility especially for that group of society. Putting them into such ghettos is the best way to minimize that. If you grow up in such an area your chances of getting out of the hole are minimal. They are much better if those concentrated ghettos of misery don't exist. Social upwards mobility in cities with such ghettos is pretty miserable and crime across the entire city is usually much higher. I mean, I thought the right is also against "no-go zones"? Or do those on the right side of the spectrum believe those "no-go zones" (ie ghetto of the poor) go away if you simply find a "solution" to all muslims and immigrants?



> Having a concierge and security isn't a bad thing.


Well, if you prefer having to relly on them for actually staying safe and alive instead of merely serving ones own paranoia, you truly like to live in a city very different from the one I want to live in. 
f renting them out.[/QUOTE]


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Slartibartfas said:


> I don't know those areas, but if they were more or less some central ghettos for the poor than my answer is no.


All ghettos are like that. Therefore the question is simple - we either leave them as they are - derelict and crime ridden or we turn them into somewhere people actually want to visit and live. Inevitably the past demographic will be removed. But in my book that is a price worth paying. Isn't it?



> I do think that one should mitigate the harshest side effects.


So you prefer that junkie or a criminal or a thug living there?



> Low qualified people of whatever kind which of course are most affected by unemployement and most likely to turn towards criminality.


There's no poverty in the West. Period. If you can afford a smartphone you're not poor. I've seen poverty in Hong Kong and Taiwan, but people there, for some reason do not feel inclined to turn to criminality! Funny isn't it? And that's the crux of the matter - criminality is a choice on the part of the individual, not something that has been forced on him. I really have no clue why liberals constantly try and perpetuate this myth. Criminals take it and run with it. For instance whenever a teen thug gets busted by police, the story is always the same :

- why did you join the gang, son?
- oh coz of racism/foreigners stealing jerbs, innit, blud!

In other words he worked very hard to find legal employment but racism/foreigners meant he had only one choice - to turn to criminality. And liberals indulge them by perpetuating this myth. It is bullshit, though. Selling drugs or robbing Chinese tourists is simply easier and pays better than stacking shelves in Tesco. Such criminal elements must be removed as far away from cities as possible. This might even do them good -

a. they are removed from opportunities for crime
b. they lose their criminal networks, thus might change their ways

The other elements that should be moved are the non-contributing members of society, such as long term unemployed. As somebody who does not contribute anything he/she has no right to demand where to live. They should be placed where there's least pressure on housing. If they are unhappy with this then there's plenty of government skills programmes which can help them into the labour market. I don't see anything controversial about any of it.



> The "non-contributing" share of society isn't a fixed number


I know it is not, but what I am saying is that these should not be housed in the prime locations. They should be moved to somewhere where there's least pressure on housing, ie- some town somewhere else.



> You can potentially decrease it by incrasing social upwards mobility especially for that group of society.


Well there's plenty of government skills programmes that can help them. They should make use of them :dunno: Too often, though, they prefer to collect the dole and do nothing. 



> Putting them into such ghettos is the best way to minimize that. If you grow up in such an area your chances of getting out of the hole are minimal. They are much better if those concentrated ghettos of misery don't exist.


Did you read the part where I said that criminal elements and long term unemployed should be moved and not the working poor.


----------



## gandhi.rushabh1992 (Dec 10, 2010)

I had to remind myself that I dont live in NYC to lift my mood up after reading that article.

The street shops will keep on shutting down as long as the online retail industry keeps growing. As a society we want a vibrant city with lively streets lined with shops, but when it comes to the individual, they choose to buy from the net. There is a definite disconnect in between which is causing this very visible damage to the urban fabric of the cities.


----------



## luci203 (Apr 28, 2008)

Dale said:


> Well, that was a thoroughly depressing read ...
> 
> "Instead, our leaders seem hopelessly invested in importing a race of supermen for the supercity, living high above the clouds. Jetting about the world so swiftly and silently, they are barely visible. A city of glass houses where no one’s ever home. A city of tourists. An empty city."
> 
> https://harpers.org/archive/2018/07/the-death-of-new-york-city-gentrification/


Typical first world worries... when you don't have real problems. hno:

From the start, New York is much more than Manhattan, actually the majority live outside Manhattan.

Second, the glass houses in the sky where no one’s ever home, really occupy just a rather small part of Manhattan. 

Of course, poor funding of roads, public transport, education, health are real problems. 

Bunch of russian oligarhs, chinese new rich, arab investors and local wealthy people that buy empty apartments in their ivory towers are really first world problems.

Just like those soviet nostalgics, some people just miss the ''good old days''









http://www.flickr.com/photos/photographers-gallery/

^^ full of life if you ask me... 


66-252 by nick dewolf photo archive, on Flickr


14th Street Meat Packing 1976 by Eugene Gannon, on Flickr[/QUOTE]

Meatpacking District and Soho, before damn hipsters made it all dull and boring.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Golden Age said:


> It has never been art's purpose to be universally appraised


Maybe not, but it helps if your art is widely liked. It gets you commissions. Art is after all business. Lets cut all this holier than thou crap.



> Artists have always been critical minds, but now we label them as SJWs to trivialize them to the fringes and, even worse, to entrench the status quo ("nothing to see here").


We label them SJWs because that is what they are. If we return to my poet friend, she and her friends spend more time waving red flags and going to random marches than doing or discussing poetry. 



> If fighting for the common good and something greater than yourself, then it is a fight worth having.


Artists (and SJWs) are by and large white and middle class living in affluent white neighbourhoods. What 'common good' are they fighting for precisely? They are merely parrots screaming slogans that they read on Twitter in the hopes that it will endear them to certain sections of society. They are like Bono. They like to preach but not to practice. Common good would be fighting for things like decent pay and decent working conditions etc, not whether or not milk is racist.



> In the same vein, Galileo was labeled as heretic at his time, today's version of just another "windmill warrior".


Galileo was not an artist. He was scientist and he was labelled a heretic not for taking some artistic licenses or poking fun at someone but for disagreeing with the Church's teachings. Totally incomparable to a white, middle-class snowflake waving Red Flag.



> Don't underestimate the greater societal value of the arts, they often foresee and challenge wider societal developments and are not infrequently ahead of their time, which is why they are often misunderstood, mis-characterized and simply dismissed as "irrelevant".


Maybe in the past. I don't really see what developments a messy bed or some chicken foresee.


----------



## Golden Age (Dec 26, 2006)

Mr Bricks said:


> The issue is that there is no counter culture anymore, except the "alt-right".


Are you kidding me? Hard-right conservatives are the "culture", they hold all levers of power in the US and UK. They control the narrative in most of Western and all of Eastern Europe. No counter culture, the alt right is all pro "status quo".

If there ever is a march on Washington either by women, young people (Parkland high school) or "Black Lives Matter", they are immediately branded as "actors", "George Soros funded", or "corporatist", etc. Who dare challenge the NRA?

The "Occupy Wall Street" movement (remember Zuccotti Park?) was also widely overlooked. They later joined the "Bernie wave" and will likely support Liz Warren in her presidential bid.


----------



## Golden Age (Dec 26, 2006)

El_Greco said:


> We label them SJWs because that is what they are. If we return to my poet friend, she and her friends spend more time waving red flags and going to random marches than doing or discussing poetry.


Objection, YOU label them SJWs because it fits your narrative (and of course to provoke a reaction). You seem to believe that the behavior of your poet friend is completely indicative of all poets and, even worse, all other artists. Arguing from single to whole is the most common logical fallacy. You do realize there are more colors than "black and white", right?

Artists challenge the status quo, they speak uncomfortable truths, they are annoying to some people. They hold up the mirror to who we are and what we have become. This is why they will NEVER be universally liked, by definition.

That is why I brought the example of Galileo, who I never claimed was an artist. However, his pioneering achievements in astronomy resulted from Galileo's treatment of science and art as interconnected ideas. 

Art forces you to see the world through a different perspective and it is up to interpretation. Ask yourself why many art objects seem banal, inconsequential and worthless to you. Is the artist trying to tell you something, just like the author of an article? Often artists reveal a lot about the time we are living. As we now have a reality TV star as president who is governing the country via social media, that is very revealing of who we are. The age of self-righteous narcissism and asinine self-promotion is currently being addressed everywhere in the arts, and rightfully so.


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

Golden Age said:


> Are you kidding me? Hard-right conservatives are the "culture", they hold all levers of power in the US and UK. They control the narrative in most of Western and all of Eastern Europe. No counter culture, the alt right is all pro "status quo".
> 
> If there ever is a march on Washington either by women, young people (Parkland high school) or "Black Lives Matter", they are immediately branded as "actors", "George Soros funded", or "corporatist", etc. Who dare challenge the NRA?
> 
> The "Occupy Wall Street" movement (remember Zuccotti Park?) was also widely overlooked. They later joined the "Bernie wave" and will likely support Liz Warren in her presidential bid.


Which is why I wrote "alt right" (quotation marks) as most independent thought today is branded as such. The actual alt-right is of course despicable . However, those movements you mention are nothing but status quo-radicals i.e. they push the same agenda as the media and the democrats, only in a more militant way. There is nothing brave or counter-cultural in that. BLM is a violent group of loonies.


----------



## Golden Age (Dec 26, 2006)

Mr Bricks said:


> Which is why I wrote "alt right" (quotation marks) as most independent thought today is branded as such.


Understood, but Occupy Wall Street came pretty close to being counter-culture and definitely goes against Republican and Democratic corporatist / big donor mainstream. It also took place right in the heart of NYC (Zuccotti Park), which shows that subcultures DO still exist there, of course not on the level of Bohemianism, Beatniks, Hippies or Punks. 

There certainly are remnants of an "indie"culture out there (music, film, art, etc), however, it has "fallen in line" with commercial interests in past years (witness the corporate takeover of nearly every music festival out there, "this authentic artistic expression is brought to you by Doritos Cool Ranch").


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

I think the online community is as close as it gets - the sad part is that none of this original stuff gets channeled into music and nowhere is it seen in cities.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Mr Bricks said:


> Which is why I wrote "alt right" (quotation marks) as most independent thought today is branded as such.


Funny. I have never been called "alt right", ever. I suppose I don't have any independent thought and should therefore just think what others who apparently do have it say.


----------



## steppenwolf (Oct 18, 2002)

El_Greco said:


> Maybe not, but it helps if your art is widely liked. It gets you commissions. Art is after all business. Lets cut all this holier than thou crap.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You clearly don't have an artistic bone in your body so can't understand what art is. But in my opinion art, at its best, is innovation and innovation drives the world forward. Art is the fuel behind all the creative and design industries. It's a driver of commerce. It's none of what you misunderstand it to be. I think the closest you've come to art is seeing a few hipsters on the street. Those are miles behind the artistic process that drives the train.


----------



## Golden Age (Dec 26, 2006)

steppenwolf said:


> But in my opinion art, at its best, is innovation and innovation drives the world forward. Art is the fuel behind all the creative and design industries. It's a driver of commerce. It's none of what you misunderstand it to be. I think the closest you've come to art is seeing a few hipsters on the street. Those are miles behind the artistic process that drives the train.


Very well said. Art is the expression of imagination, concepts or even technical skills and shows up in many different ways, for example in commerce, as you rightly point out.

The current innovation of art is often overlooked due to limited attention spans and a general tendency for intellectual laziness / escapism / nostalgia thinking / lack of curiousity, which blinds us from seeing great things that happen all around us. Many things are currently happening in cities such as New York, which we will likely not hear about until 2028. 

This superficial tendency to glorify the past and stigmatize and belittle the present is probably more pervasive in the arts than ever. Never is it the opera that you are currently seeing, which is the masterpiece, but always the one from 1982 or 1995. Never is the current album from artist XYZ "transformational", but always the one from 2002. 

As an example, we are currently witnessing a long period of 90's nostalgia in fashion, music and art. I am not saying that 90's nostalgia prevents all of us from appreciating the present, but it is certainly easier to cherry pick highlights from a by-gone era than having to invest the time and effort to truly appreciate the arts of the present day.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

steppenwolf said:


> You clearly don't have an artistic bone in your body so can't understand what art is.


Dunno. Having studied art and moved in the artistic circles since I was 12 I think I have pretty good understanding of what art is. Perhaps the issue here is that I find contemporary Western art dishonest. It tries too hard to be different and edgy. Falls flat on its face, though. The art of the 'developing' world (what a nasty term) is another thing. It does have value, because it is honest.


----------



## The Polwoman (Feb 21, 2016)

alexandru.mircea said:


> ^ why are you pitting them against each other like they are mutually incompatible? It is perfectly feasible to do regeneration without letting it turn into gentrification.
> 
> Milton Keynes sounds in many ways, but not bad for children - quite the contrary. I wouldn't live there as a personal choice, but I'd do it for my son.


Well, after a year or twelve already I was totally done with suburban living. And still am, so when on holiday I always pick cities to go to. The common misperception is that they need some empty suburbs, but in fact they need places to play outside and that should be around everywhere, no matter whether it's downtown Manhattan or Utrecht Leidsche Rijn. I know great places in cities where they're free to play.


----------



## zaphod (Dec 8, 2005)

Provocative question, is modern fine art really that relevant to contemporary culture and social mores? How are the metaphors represented by weird fiberglass pig sitting in a gallery channeled towards enriching the world view of an ordinary person?

I've always wondered if a lot of art is just a means for noveau rich people to invest/gamble/launder liquid cash. It makes sense that the art world is transient and always shifting to frothy places like Berlin and Beijing. When Andy Warhol lived in New York it was sort of the same thing, a financial capital gradually transitioning into its 'greed is good' phase. I always think about the story of Martin Shkreli and how his thing was to buy rare copies of Wu-Tang and Kanye albums. Turning crappy pop hiphop into artistic objects whose value is defined by the willingness of someone to blow a lot of money. To me this speaks of a certain culture or attitude that is ephemeral and unstable.



El_Greco said:


> We label them SJWs because that is what they are. If we return to my poet friend, she and her friends spend more time waving red flags and going to random marches than doing or discussing poetry.





> Dunno. Having studied art and moved in the artistic circles since I was 12


It sounds like your problem is that you surround yourself with people you don't like but you can't escape from the bubble you've created? That's a personal problem, not society's responsibility.



> Artists (and SJWs) are by and large white and middle class living in affluent white neighbourhoods.





> Totally incomparable to a white, middle-class snowflake waving Red Flag.


I get it, you are alienated. So you need to differentiate yourself. But don't take it out on "white people".



> What 'common good' are they fighting for precisely?


People are observant and capable of holding opinions about things that don't directly affect them. It's a normal part of being Human to have a moral code or have values and to feel strongly about things they observe others doing or experiencing.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

zaphod said:


> It sounds like your problem is that you surround yourself with people you don't like but you can't escape from the bubble you've created? That's a personal problem, not society's responsibility.


Nah, I'm just good at smelling bullshit and hypocrisy. I also love to laugh at those who overestimate their importance, or fancy themselves as next Picasso.



zaphod said:


> People are observant and capable of holding opinions about things that don't directly affect them. It's a normal part of being Human to have a moral code or have values and to feel strongly about things they observe others doing or experiencing.


I'd tend to agree, but having observed this I came to a totally different conclusion. The trendy, artsy types have very little time for the real issues that do indeed affect them directly (ie government corruption), but will get outraged in an instant and will launch into an angry Twitter rant about what Donald Trump has said. Meanwhile a random working person from the same country will moan about his government instead (kind of explains the disconnect between the Left and the electorate and why leftists are losing ground just about everywhere). Reminds me of that eco-warrior I saw interviewed on British television some years back, who came to an eco protest in London. First Class all the way from Toronto. Yes she was white.


----------



## Raymond Luxury Yacht (Dec 22, 2005)

El_Greco said:


> There's no poverty in the West. Period. If you can afford a smartphone you're not poor. I've seen poverty in Hong Kong and Taiwan, but people there, for some reason do not feel inclined to turn to criminality!


******* hell you actually believe this? A smartphone is not a lot of money and is certainly a hell of a lot less that a house or rented flat. How old are you exactly?


----------



## wakka12 (May 17, 2015)

Raymond Luxury Yacht said:


> ******* hell you actually believe this? A smartphone is not a lot of money and is certainly a hell of a lot less that a house or rented flat. How old are you exactly?


Well it's all relative isnt it? Being poor in any country sucks but its silly to say a poor german or british person has any way similar life to a poor person in south asia

Poor people dont starve in europe, while they do in many other developing countries, theres just certain levels of poverty that are common in the world that western countries dont allow to occur, so in world terms yes theres no poverty in the west because standards of living are that much higher overall and the lowest threshholds of poverty that are allowed are incomparable to those in developing nations

I consider poverty to mean you cannot buy anything that is not absolute necessity, iphones may come cheap nowadays but if you are that poor, you wouldnt have one, its certainly not completely wrong to say theres no poverty in the west when comparing it to the rest of the world, theres only poverty among westerners when comparing only to other westerners .there is nobody homeless in the traditional sense ie. out on the street, unless they choose to be (usually have mental health issue or are drug addicts)

One of the requirements to be considered below the poverty line in ireland for instance is that you cant afford to buy more than two servings of fresh meat or fish per week, thats just ridiculous, also in ireland people considered' homeless' are placed in hotels free of charge by the government until they find accomodation for them(Large suburban house in a nice area with back garden) There is nobody homeless in the traditional sense ie. out on the street, unless they choose to be (usually have mental health issue or are drug addicts)


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Raymond Luxury Yacht said:


> ******* hell you actually believe this? A smartphone is not a lot of money and is certainly a hell of a lot less that a house or rented flat. How old are you exactly?



Smartphone is not a necessity it’s an accessory. If you can afford that then you’re doing alright.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

El_Greco said:


> Smartphone is not a necessity it’s an accessory. If you can afford that then you’re doing alright.


Smartphones are the single most transformative technology that has changed large parts of Africa, especially also very impoverished ones, and led to a real boost in economic development. It has become so important that smartphones have been broadly established even in areas where electricity is hard to come by. They might be even common nowadays where water from the tab is still a rare luxury. 

In many countries they also function as full computer replacement and as one can find extremely affordable entry models in developing countries this has given a vast array of information tools to people who had been entirely cut off from those possibilities before. 

Given that I am confident that many people would challenge your claim that smartphones are just some superflous accessory.


----------



## Raymond Luxury Yacht (Dec 22, 2005)

El_Greco said:


> Smartphone is not a necessity it’s an accessory. If you can afford that then you’re doing alright.


Mobile phone = £80. House = £20,000 to £400,000. Total bullshit to think that having the phone = alright. It sounds like you really don't like the idea of poverty and so are creating these crazy arbitrary standards in order to refuse to recognise it.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Smartphone is £80? Which ones? You’ll need at the very least a couple hundred and often approaching a grand. So. Once. Again. If you’d rather spend that kind of money on a phone rather than food, you’re doing alright. There’s no poverty in the West. Period.


----------



## zawszony-pis (Jan 19, 2019)

I will likely never understand why they always claim that "ownership society" is the reason for poverty. How would it be any better with everyone owning nothing and simply renting state-owned or municipal tenements?


----------

