Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is something I've always wondered about. As it stands in the 21st century, the neighborhoods on the west side of Manhattan (as in closer to the Hudson River) are generally speaking better/more desirable than their East counterparts. For instance, Tribeca, SoHo and the West Village are upscale, cleaner and more desirable than the LES and East Village. Chelsea is better than Kips Bay. West Harlem/Morningside are definitely better than East Harlem. Even up in Inwood west of Broadway is more expensive and desirable.
Of course, one notable exception to this is the Upper East Side which breaks the trend and is generally more upscale/nicer than the Upper West Side, until 96th St at least.
Is it the proximity of the Hudson River? The way the subways were originally being built?
LES - More older housing stock, lots of students, and cultural pockets. Long history of working class neighborhoods. Gentrification came later to LES.
Kipps/Murray - Is this area less desirable??? Dunno as a gay man my view on these neighborhoods have been midtown for heterosexuals.
Hell's Kitchen/Hudson whatever - TBH HK & parts of Times Square still feel like a grimy hobo infested hole. However the gays & affluent foreigners have helped transform this area. The western portion by the river was very much industrial which meant cheaper for developers to transform into glass towers.
Yorkville - Until recently going further east from CP meant a transit desert. Unlike the UWS lack of mass transit access slowed development.
UWS - See above ^ - Better access to subways.
Tribeca, SoHo, VW, Chelsea, etc - That whole area has been well connected by transit for a long time + close to major employment centers. Also like HK/Hudson there was plenty of run down commercial/industrial property here even a few decades ago. Made it much easier to redevelop.
Morningside/Washington Heights - Proximity to Columbia and better transit access.
East Harlem - Because East Harlem. Developers avoided this area until everything south was already gentrifying.
This is something I've always wondered about. As it stands in the 21st century, the neighborhoods on the west side of Manhattan (as in closer to the Hudson River) are generally speaking better/more desirable than their East counterparts. For instance, Tribeca, SoHo and the West Village are upscale, cleaner and more desirable than the LES and East Village. Chelsea is better than Kips Bay. West Harlem/Morningside are definitely better than East Harlem. Even up in Inwood west of Broadway is more expensive and desirable.
Of course, one notable exception to this is the Upper East Side which breaks the trend and is generally more upscale/nicer than the Upper West Side, until 96th St at least.
Is it the proximity of the Hudson River? The way the subways were originally being built?
It's simply about the newer, better housing stock, and/or historical housing stock and/or larger spaces. For example, TriBeCa (which really stands for "Triangle Below Canal") was more industrial back in the day, so you have these historical buildings that have been converted into residential spaces that are nice and large, with high ceilings and in some cases, great views, and pushed by the real estate industry to make it chic and expensive. It's like SoHo (which really stands for "South of Houston") with those cast iron buildings. SoHo was a DUMP. The real estate industry marketed it and it became trendy. You're not going to find those cast iron, industrial buildings around in new construction. It's also about the amenities as well. TriBeCa is known for having great restaurants, just like SoHo, though SoHo has more shopping and is more hip. The East Village is older, with older housing stock. The West Village has a more "charming" aesthetic, with housing stock that is old, but historical.
It's simply about the newer, better housing stock, and/or historical housing stock and/or larger spaces. For example, TriBeCa (which really stands for "Triangle Below Canal") was more industrial back in the day, so you have these historical buildings that have been converted into residential spaces that are nice and large, with high ceilings and in some cases, great views, and pushed by the real estate industry to make it chic and expensive. It's like SoHo (which really stands for "South of Houston") with those cast iron buildings. SoHo was a DUMP. The real estate industry marketed it and it became trendy. You're not going to find those cast iron, industrial buildings around in new construction. It's also about the amenities as well. TriBeCa is known for having great restaurants, just like SoHo, though SoHo has more shopping and is more hip. The East Village is older, with older housing stock. The West Village has a more "charming" aesthetic, with housing stock that is old, but historical.
I feel like housing stock certainly plays a role. The nicer housing stock is usually to be found in the west parts which, as you mention, had a lot of old but beautiful industrial buildings left over. To me the east side, in particular Kips Bay, has a lot of the ugly mid 20th century towers thrown around everywhere. They're just products of an awkward time in architecture and now are neither new nor charming/historical. They're just... ugly
I feel like housing stock certainly plays a role. The nicer housing stock is usually to be found in the west parts which, as you mention, had a lot of old but beautiful industrial buildings left over. To me the east side, in particular Kips Bay, has a lot of the ugly mid 20th century towers thrown around everywhere. They're just products of an awkward time in architecture and now are neither new nor charming/historical. They're just... ugly
Yes, part of this has to do with how NYC was developed earlier on. To be honest, a lot of the nice areas today were planned communities back in the day and heavily influenced by the rich. Some time ago, I think I watched a show about how parts of Lower Manhattan were developed, which is part of it. Some parts were industrial and some more residential. For the most part, development moved north from Lower Manhattan on up, and you had people that worked in some areas, and then commuted north to more residential parts.
What was shocking to me was how influential the rich were in NYC's development. Certain parts of the City were developed specifically for the rich as seasonal homes to "escape" from other more overcrowded and quite frankly dirty parts of the City, so some areas that look as if they were planned were indeed planned and planned with the upper class in mind. Outside of Manhattan there was Forest Hills Gardens (one of the first planned communities in NYC), Dyker Heights, Brooklyn Heights, Riverdale, etc., and it is no mistake that some of these areas look the way they do today, and lack things like normal street grids, as they were planned that way. Forest Hills Gardens has a very "English" look on purpose.
This is something I've always wondered about. As it stands in the 21st century, the neighborhoods on the west side of Manhattan (as in closer to the Hudson River) are generally speaking better/more desirable than their East counterparts. For instance, Tribeca, SoHo and the West Village are upscale, cleaner and more desirable than the LES and East Village. Chelsea is better than Kips Bay. West Harlem/Morningside are definitely better than East Harlem. Even up in Inwood west of Broadway is more expensive and desirable.
Of course, one notable exception to this is the Upper East Side which breaks the trend and is generally more upscale/nicer than the Upper West Side, until 96th St at least.
Is it the proximity of the Hudson River? The way the subways were originally being built?
You've got things totally incorrect historically.
Tribeca and Soho are former manufacturing/industrial areas that only began taking off as residential back in 1980's, and even then they were far from "desirable". That has only come in past two decades as more money moved down there, and certain things improved.
Back in the day you went down their for clubs, parties, art gallery events and so forth. There was nothing else down there, and if late at night or whatever even finding a taxi was near impossible.
West Village in large parts was middle/working class Irish and Italians with some areas of "wealth" mixed in. Oh and of course by the 1970's or so gays began to claim parts of area for their own.
It was the middle and lower classes who banded together and stopped Robert Moses from building an expressway that would have decimated large parts of West/Greenwich Village.
There is a reason why the nuns had Saint Vincent's hospital in straddling Greenwich and West Village...
Again that area while nice has really only taken off in past two decades as more and more money began moving downtown, especially south of Union Square or certain parts of Chelsea.
Chelsea is not better than Kips Bay for many people. Chelsea is another area that was largely working to middle class if not pockets of poor until first gays then others began moving into area.
What really got Chelsea RE hot was when Bloomberg stopped the demolition of High Line ROW and turned it into a park. What Chelsea does have is tons of old town or row houses that people began moving into after converting them back into single family residences.
Easy way to sum things up is that west side of Manhattan from just above Trinity Church going north west of say Broadway and certainly 8th Avenue was largely commercial, industrial and shipping related industries. Until things finally closed and moved to NJ or elsewhere along Hudson River from Battery north to west 50's was lined with docks, railroad tracks and other infrastructure that people with any sort of wealth got away from.
Hell's Kitchen was just that, and you can add area starting from about 34th street near Penn Station into that mix.
I feel like housing stock certainly plays a role. The nicer housing stock is usually to be found in the west parts which, as you mention, had a lot of old but beautiful industrial buildings left over. To me the east side, in particular Kips Bay, has a lot of the ugly mid 20th century towers thrown around everywhere. They're just products of an awkward time in architecture and now are neither new nor charming/historical. They're just... ugly
One area of Manhattan that was definitely a ghetto back in the day was the Lower East Side. It was for the poor for sure. Dirty, crowded, shoddy tenements, and if you look today, there are still remnants of these buildings, but many have been torn down to gentrify the area and make it more appealing, but most of the Lower East Side was gritty and run down looking for years.
Some areas of the City were always just run down. East New York is an example of that. It was always a ghetto. The land that the area was built on was not great to begin with so the poor lived there until they could move out to the nicer, middle class areas that were developed later on. Back in the day, you had your Italians and Jews in East New York. When the Italians moved up the socioeconomic ladder, they moved out to areas of Brooklyn like Bensonhurst, which had been developed back then as a nice middle class area. Better housing stock. Eventually that was outgrown as well, and so it goes.
Tribeca and Soho are former manufacturing/industrial areas that only began taking off as residential back in 1980's, and even then they were far from "desirable". That has only come in past two decades as more money moved down there, and certain things improved.
Back in the day you went down their for clubs, parties, art gallery events and so forth. There was nothing else down there, and if late at night or whatever even finding a taxi was near impossible.
West Village in large parts was middle/working class Irish and Italians with some areas of "wealth" mixed in. Oh and of course by the 1970's or so gays began to claim parts of area for their own.
It was the middle and lower classes who banded together and stopped Robert Moses from building an expressway that would have decimated large parts of West/Greenwich Village.
There is a reason why the nuns had Saint Vincent's hospital in straddling Greenwich and West Village...
Again that area while nice has really only taken off in past two decades as more and more money began moving downtown, especially south of Union Square or certain parts of Chelsea.
Chelsea is not better than Kips Bay for many people. Chelsea is another area that was largely working to middle class if not pockets of poor until first gays then others began moving into area.
What really got Chelsea RE hot was when Bloomberg stopped the demolition of High Line ROW and turned it into a park. What Chelsea does have is tons of old town or row houses that people began moving into after converting them back into single family residences.
Easy way to sum things up is that west side of Manhattan from just above Trinity Church going north west of say Broadway and certainly 8th Avenue was largely commercial, industrial and shipping related industries. Until things finally closed and moved to NJ or elsewhere along Hudson River from Battery north to west 50's was lined with docks, railroad tracks and other infrastructure that people with any sort of wealth got away from.
Hell's Kitchen was just that, and you can add area starting from about 34th street near Penn Station into that mix.
He's not totally incorrect though. If we're going wayyy back to when some of these areas were developed, they were indeed built with the middle class in mind, hence nicer housing stock in parts. Definitely the case for parts of Greenwich Village. Of course you had your industrial areas as you mentioned too.
I agree about everything else though. Hells Kitchen back in the day was an Irish nabe, and there was nothing great about it either. Gritty, and quite frankly dangerous in parts, as you had the Irish mob in some areas. Only with gentrification did the area improve over time.
He's not totally incorrect though. If we're going wayyy back to when some of these areas were developed, they were indeed built with the middle class in mind, hence nicer housing stock in parts. Definitely the case for parts of Greenwich Village. Of course you had your industrial areas as you mentioned too.
I agree about everything else though. Hells Kitchen back in the day was an Irish nabe, and there was nothing great about it either. Gritty, and quite frankly dangerous in parts, as you had the Irish mob in some areas. Only with gentrification did the area improve over time.
History of Manhattan is that "wealthy" areas moved further north about every generation.
At one time Greenwich/West Village area was largely farms and estates because it was that far from lower Manhattan were original settlement began. Gradually estates or farms were bought up and land subdivided into lots for row houses or mansions.
Yes, by 1800's Washington Square Park area was "upscale", but by 1930's or so it wasn't exclusively, and certainly post WWII into 1970's.
If you look at history of many buildings below say Canal Street or 14th in certain areas west of Fifth avenue, you'll find even by 1800's many of the townhouses had been converted into SRO type housing or other apartments.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
