The first model for an urban renaissance was, after all, New York. But while New York's renaissance was certainly a product of a lot of factors, all of the institutional improvements were funded by the post-1982 financial services boom. New York City is projecting its 2010 revenue will be down 30% from FY2008. That's three years after the recession started.Heh, I wish. Then maybe I could afford to actually live in a city. OK, that's a pretty stupid way of looking at cities. The larger problem, at least here in NY, is the seeming insanity of being middle class and living here. I'm slowly coming to grips with the fact that we probably can't continue to live here--the boy's getting big, Kenyatta has dreams, and I'm writing. (Always a bad idea, if you wanna be rich)
Those tax revenues supported New York's extraordinarily odd income structure. New York has extraordinarily generous poverty benefits, made possible because so many of its residents make so much money that they don't really miss the extra taxes. A city with a more normal income distribution couldn't support that level of spending. So if the financial industry really is permanently smaller and less lucrative, what happens to the 650,000 New Yorkers in public housing, the one in three New Yorkers on Medicaid, the 50,000 or so on TANF, and so forth?
Presumably they get fewer services, and get angrier, and commit more crimes, which don't get solved as rapidly by the smaller police force. And the families with children start moving back out. And presumably this problem is replicated in cities like San Francisco and Seattle which depend, indirectly, on revenue generated by the financial markets.
I love Harlem, but I don't know whether it's worth crying over it's rise. And, despite Megan's prognosis, I'd be shocked if prices (over the long term) didn't keep going up. The world changes. We like yesterday better because it's the devil we know, and the one we've faced.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Dude, I ran into the same problem last year. We were living in Brooklyn. I worked in the city. My wife telecommuted. The kid was closing in on two, and we had another on the way. Last July, her company folded, and she was laid off and six months pregnant. There was no way for her to get a job at that stage of the pregnancy, and there was absolutely no way my salary was going to sustain us. Now we live in the suburban sprawl they used to call the city of Atlanta. And I spend ten hours each week in traffic.
Hold on as long as you can.
philly is still affordable, relatively speaking.
That's why I left. I knew I would never be able to own my own place in NY with the type of job I wanted.
The internet makes living outside (and I now live waaay outside) of cities far easier.
If they can just invent a teleporter so I can pop into Momofuku or Salumi whenever I wanted, everything would be perfect.
NY Mag tackled that McMegan article yesterday: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/05/will_the_new_york_city_bubble.html?mid=daily-intel--20090521
I don't know man. I've been hearing how expensive NYC is since I was a kid. I grew up there my whole life. I now (temporarily) live in St Louis. Other than housing, which of course is no small thing, things aren't significantly cheaper. The other thing is that practically everywhere else in the country you can't get by w/o a car and all the expenses that come with them. I can see potentially not living in the city proper but I can't see living anywhere that I can't get to NYC by commuter train. All the city has to offer is worth the extra expense to me. There are so many things and opportunities that I miss on a daily basis living away from the city.
Megan probably threw in Seattle and San Francisco because those are two prosperous metropolii with a predominantly liberal social and financial outlook. That's funny, because I can attest that Seattle is faring pretty well, all things considered.
I don't think that's a stupid way of looking at cities at all. Jerry Brown confronted the people of Oakland with this very problem: if I fix the schools and cut down on crime, the cost of housing will go up, and your neighborhoods may become unaffordable to your children, and stores will open up at which you may not be able to afford to shop, and schools will appear that you will not be able to send your children to.
I remember us actually welcoming a certain low-level of visible non-violent crime just because it kept the insane property boom away, and kept rents low.
Those cities which did the full-on renewal became unaffordable for those who didn't already own their homes, and many of those took the huge sums being offered them for their homes and moved away. I see Megan's prediction, and to a certain extent, I celebrate it: NYC was a lot more interesting in the 1980's than it is now.
"NYC was a lot more interesting in the 1980's than it is now."
Really where did you live? 'Cause I lived in Crown Heights aka Crime Heights. Ok maybe it was "more interesting" but for me it was interesting in a different way than I think you mean it.
Without romanticizing the past, I would at least think Lemmy is writing about the benefits of mixed class/race neighborhoods compared to the kind of class and/or racial homogeneity that follows gentrification.
In my experience I've found that "gentrified" neighborhoods are typically less racially and socially homogeneous than they were before.
You know I've never really understood the whole anti- gentrification movement, never really gotten why tearing down housing projects in cities like baltimore or atlanta (i.e cities that generally speaking are not short on space or housing stock) was a bad thing. I mean go talk to people living in the projects and they'll tell you it's the worst place on earth. But then go tell those same people we're getting rid of these here projects and giving you a section 8 voucher to go live in any number of areas that are less overrun with crime, drug addiction, rodents, and all manner of other social ills and suddenly "their" evil plot is being hatched to get rid of "us" and we need to get to marching in the streets. I don't know the whole phenomena has always smelled liked institutionalization to me.
1) Gentrification will always - at some point - result in a more heterogenous community *while in transition*. And to me, it's those transitional times when neighborhoods can become the most interesting, simply given the mix of sensibilities overlapping at once. The key question becomes: what does the neighborhood look like *after* gentrification is complete? Obviously, it depends on what neighborhood you're talking about but the process isn't possible without some level of displacement, some greater than others.
2) As for the seeming contradiction between complaining complaining about housing projects vs. Section 8 - I think the issue here isn't the nature of the housing but rather, the nature of *institutional housing practices*. People are less reacting negatively to the space they're in and more reacting to the ways in which their lives are shaped (and often for the worse) by inadequate or incompetent public policy.
And who exactly are "those same people"? That reads awfully general. I'm sure some people are happy to live outside of the PJs. I'm sure others miss the sense of community they might have had there too. It's not an either/or.
If the crime waves come, it won't be "interesting." It will be terrifying. Widespread muggings, rapes, robberies, murders, assaults. It's all well and good to celebrate that amongst us, those who survived NYC's bad old days. People who were traumatized, violated, and killed aren't here to call out your nonesense.
It's easier to romanticize it because it's so distant. But ask TNC if facing the anxious terror of the Baltimore gangs makes him long for those more interesting times of his younger years. Crime is insidious. It affects every aspect of life.
It's not cool. Ever. I'd rather try to find a way to cope (or fix?) gentrification than deal with that. This is coming from a dude who, not only went through it, but has a black boy who's about to come of age himself. Violent crime is, indeed, insidious.
Let's just be clear - Lemmy wasn't celebrating the days when violent crime was out of control. It's not like his comment was "yay, muggings helped keep rents low!" He did say that he felt like *non-violent* crime was useful to help slow the wheels of gentrification and that's open to debate but he wasn't romanticizing the crack wars (at least, I don't think he was).
Also, what I interpreted he meant by "interesting" is an urban environment that's a polyglot of different classes and ethnic groups rather than hyper-sterilized neighborhoods that offer a "safety" that is at least partially predicated on same-ness amongst the inhabitants, crime rates aside.
BTW: to me, one of the definitive essays on this topic is Luc Sante's "My Lost City." http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16737
Chicago is where it's at TNC. Deep down, you know this.
Also cold as fuck. Don't do it TNC!
It ain't even that deep deva...
I've been asking this very question of colleagues of mine who study urban sociology and none of them seem to think this recession would be enough to sink any of the *major* cities of the so-called Urban Renaissance back to the 1970s/80s nadir of post-industrialization. Will the recession slow down the rate of gentrification in some neighborhoods? Undoubtedly, especially more "transitional" areas that were in the process of flipping. However, I don't think places like Silverlake, the Mission or Park Slope are about to backslide that far unless we're talking about another Great Depression. If you look at real estate trends in Los Angeles, for example, it's all the exurbs that have gotten hit the worst but you don't see a major wave of foreclosures or plummeting home prices in trendy places like Culver City.
A complete undoing or reversal would require something far, far more substantial - not just at the economic level, but social and cultural as well, especially if you think about the variety of forces that de-populated many urban centers prior to the "Renaissance" (a dubious term at best to describe what's happening, IMO).
Just moved to Gotham. Middle class as a "MF" we will see. However,everytime I read Meagan I always come away with the feeling 's"hatin" on something unless it's the "The Wire".
I guess because I've lived in NYC all my life -- and it is all that I know -- the high cost of living here does not give me the extreme sticker shock that it gives others. I KNOW that it is extremely hard to live here on a middle-class salary with kids. I, however, am a single person living on a middle-class salary so its not quite as bad for me as it may be for others. Then, too, I do not live in Manhattan but in Queens, where the cost of housing is more reasonable.
When I was younger, living in the projects in Queens, it was my fantasy to one day live in NYC -- the West Vill or the Upper West Side -- but I grew out of that fantasy quick once I realized just how expensive it is to live decently in NYC.
I have co-workers who -- just to live in NYC -- are literally living in apt's the size of shoe boxes and paying over $3000 for the privilege. Then there is the chronic roommate syndrome -- where you have 3 or 4 40 yo's sharing the same living space, again just to live in the heart of NYC.
Like I said, I got over my desire to live in NYC proper real fast. I am happy to now to still live in Queens -- no longer in the projects though...I moved on up to a tony co-op in Forest Hills -- and I appreciate the peace, quiet, and park-like serenity of my Qns area. What I love about Queens is the suburban-like feel without actually being in the suburbs. I work in the city five days a weeks, so I appreciate getting OUT of NYC and going home to a slower pace.
Chicago calls. At least, it would be nice to have you around; Chicago needs people talking about it. Obama helped, but it's not enough. It's a city of secrets, with many opportunities for those who can perceive it sensitively.
This and your post earlier this week seem to be calling you out West! Hey, it's not just the cost of living, it's the way of living. Raising kids in the city (I do it in San Francisco) has lots of advantages, but we are a dwindling minority. Everyone who can afford to has the kids and then moves off to Marin or Sonoma in these parts. I'm glad my kid is a city kid - I think she is much better prepared for life, more independent, street-wise and cosmopolitan. Plus, we don't have to drive to the mall every time we need a carton of milk, a cup of coffee, or want to go to a movie. I think SF rivals NYC in expense, but consider the expense of all the vacations you have to take when you are bored out of your mind in the suburbs. If you lived in SF, you would already be on vacation.
'strue. I lived in San Francisco for about 10 years, and traveled internationally constantly - for work. My holidays? Spending time in the neighborhoods, heading up to the Marin or Sonoma coast, or just hanging out with friends.
BTW, about NYC being more interesting in the 1980s: I just can't imagine a Basquiat happening there now. I can imagine a Basquiat in LA. I can't imagine No Wave happening in NYC now. I can imagine it in Osaka or Chicago. The people who in their youth make a place interesting don't go to NYC now unless they're already well-funded. People go their mid-to-late career, when their original vision has settled into a mere personal style.
Yeah I can't see it. Right now the trend is towards urbanization, not flight. That's the culture now, engineered, it is what it is. The Kids are our economy (I'm in retail). Those who grew up in the suburbs can't wait to get out. A letter to NYMag mentioned "millions of boring transplants walking around documenting each other under the guise of [NYC] being the greatest city in the world." Pretty accurate, yet I am trying at this point to remove similar venom from my view of the city's current incarnation. We Who Moved Here tend to lionize the bad old days... and I'm inclined to let us do it even if it's dishonest. I have my own stories; that rough sh*t was cute when I was 17 but at 31 I can't afford it.
I could get mad about San Francisco too, where I spent a lot of time growing up. It was seedy then, dangerous, and very cool to a young me. I may move back at some point. But honestly, my wife and I took the risk to make it or break it in The Big City. We're trying to do just that, and when we leave it will be because we are done, win or lose, not because we have decided that the cost of living is much cheaper elsewhere. Nowhere we actually want to live is so substantially cheaper that it would compensate for the opportunities and advantages afforded, the services provided, the culture and wisdom absorbed from living in a Global City. I know millions of others feel the same way.
Jonathan nails it. The trend towards urbanization isn't just about economics (though that plays a major role). It's also about the cultural transformation of "The City" from the image of Times Square circa "Taxi Driver" to what the LES of "Nick and Norah's Infinitive Playlist" is portrayed as. Rising crime rates would certainly push out many, especially families, but unless there's a wholesale paradigm shift in how urban spaces are viewed, which is going to require something far more dramatic than the current recession, I don't see cities becoming any less attractive for young people to move to (to say nothing of older, monied professionals who can actually afford to do it).
Here's the weird thing for me:
I'm in Portland right now and am in the process of finding a new place to live. As a renter, things couldn't be better. The city is awash with open rental properties and many of the owners are offering incredibly good deals. I'm going to be moving from a situation where I'm living with four people in a house to sharing a two-bedroom apartment with one other person. But my cost of living is going to barely go up. And this is considering the fact that I'm only looking at places that are a few miles from my job, which is easily within biking distance.
Portland may be the exception rather than the rule, but right now, living in the city rocks.
I already made a comment on Megan Mcardle's blog about her post. I will simply say here that i think that she underestimates our urban areas.
As everyone here knows ,our cities did not just become the way they are for no reason.Our urban areas went through so much trauma , that it is amazing that they are still standing.That they are, is a testament to the citizens of our cities.
Many kids today do not even know that many of our cities were devestated by riots in 1968.Or about how our urban areas suffered through de-industrialisation.And i still remember when i first saw crack hit the streets.
They do not seem to teach about this in school nowdays.So many people just think that people in the city just let their neighborhoods go to hell.
I am not saying that people should not take resonsibility for their neighborhoods.I am only saying that there were powerful things happening that people could not stop , nor control.
If our cities could survive the 60's ,70's and 80's ,then they can survive damn near anything.So i don't predict their demise anytime soon.
BTW, I realise that New York did not have riots in 68. My comment was about American cities in general.
Sure - yet, New York did have riots (just not in 68). Bushwick in '77, L.E.S. 1988, the Bronx was in a slow-motion riot for the better part of two decades.
Full disclosure: I was part of the Tompkins Square riots, and it is the L.E.S. in the 80's that I'm thinking of when I'm thinking of a more interesting time. I consider that moment the symbolic closing of NYC as an incubator for the arts. Los Angeles, as unappealing as it is, is a far more dynamic scene right now, because you can still start off broke there.
Some of the points you're making here echo something I read by Joel Kotkin recently on his newgeography.com site, "The Luxury City vs. the Middle Class".
I know that down here in more affordable Philadelphia, some of us still express wonderment at the rents and prices being charged for new residential units in Center City, which has been an island of growth amidst continued decline most of these past 20 years. And even though I suspect you don't share Kotkin's politics (I don't completely either, but I understand his arguments), Kotkin's argument really isn't new: I recall reading comments back in the 1980s about cities turning into enclaves that only the rich and the poor could afford to live in, precisely for the reasons you outline in your blog post.
I don't think our cities can truly rebound without room for the middle class in them. Right now, Philadelphia still has one, but if current trends continue, it could lose it too and become yet another New York City or San Francisco, an outcome most Philadelphians wish to avoid.
Sandy Smith
I would defintly agree with your points. And I read Joel Kotkin's blog , and agree with his opinions as well.
I think that the problem is trying to figure out how to get the dope dealers out of a neighborhood without forcing the retirees and working people out as well.
I do not have the answers to this problem.But I am glad that you and others here ,recognize it as a problem.Our politicians seem not to care, just as long as the tax dollars keep flowing in.
keep in mind that NY state income tax and New York CITY income tax are both pretty high - and i believe every working person gets charged city income tax on some level. i moved to brooklyn from newark, NJ (before that i was in Jersey City for years) about a year and a half ago (i work in engineering downtown), and i bring home CONSIDERABLY less money. to me, it's worth it, because my little social network back in JC disseminated and i get to enjoy NYC and especially Brooklyn - it's just a damn interesting and beautiful place. however - things like food (and beer!) and gasoline and rent are really a lot higher here, and so are the taxes, even for the working poor.
Urban regeneration used to have a pattern that went back ot 2000 BC or before. The new palaces were built on the old slums and the poor moved into the old palaces to get better accomodation than their old slum.
Some time in the late nineteeth or early twentieth century some prosperous middle class folks in old cities like London began to cotton on to the fact that there was cheap, convenient space to be had in the slums, and some of it could be renovated very nicely indeed for not too much. That was the birth of modern urban renaissance aka gentrification. It follows a pretty predictable pattern of movement through the old cities; and quite a few creatively minded folk, writers and such, have found that they can make themselves a comforting cash cushion by spotting the pattern and buying before the spend-their-lives-trying-to-get-to-the-top types wake up to where it is going to be fashionable to live.