Is gentrification being halted by this recession?

[missionhill]

I disagree with the NY-London analogy. London and Paris dominate their respective countries but I think the US is more like Germany--yes Berlin is big and bigger than all the others but the others--Hamburg, Munich, Frankfort, Dresden... are not just provincial capitals but major cultural and economic engines on their own. NYC is an international city in many respects but the US is more a confederation of big, jostling city-states that have their own cultural scenes and economies. Not sure what this means for gentrification but I think it's folly to assume most professional or creative people would move to New York if they could. Lots still think of it as dirty-snooty-expensive or as too hectic-overwhelming, and the great geographical variety in the US makes lesser cities like Seattle very attractive.

[SobroGuy]

I would tend to agree with that statement missionhill, there are tens of millions, I would even dare say the vast majority of the population of this country, that just would not even consider living here udner almost any circumstances. The US, outside of the NYC metropolitan region, is a really different country essentially, and lives by a different set of rules and culture it seems (more like the NYC metropolitan region is the anamoly actually). So although alot of people want to come here, there are far more than DO NOT want to be here. That being said, I see the revitalization of NYC chugging along, and although there is pain in the area due to the economy, I would not prefer to ride it out anywhere else. The economy is bad everywhere, but imagine how bad things are if you were in middle america where there were hardly any jobs to begin with! Scary stuff.

[tpk-nyc]

The (second) comparison with London not about cultural dominance but the geography/topography. When neighborhoods like Bed-Stuy and Harlem were being planned and connected by the subway, they were intended to house the middle- and upper-middle-classes. The subway itself was seen as middle- (not working-) class transportation. Like London, the planners expected that businessmen would want to commute comparatively long distances by subway to an attached or semi-attached, single-family home (as they still do in London).

In general, a long subway ride in the morning implies that you are poor. This is because we value proximity and amenities over space. New Yorkers can fetishise living in the center because it's actually possible to live in the center. Steel construction and Manhattan bedrock allowed the comparatively rich to congregate in tiny area. The far flung neighborhoods that were also built for them (like Bed-Stuy) descended into slums.

I love London, but I don't know if I'd enjoy living there, or at least it would take a large adjustment. I'm too accustomed to having everything close at had.

[SobroGuy]

Very true tpk..and we now see these areas returning to their middle class original purpose...and I am glad to see it...its about time.

[missionhill]

Originally Posted by tpk-nyc

When neighborhoods like Bed-Stuy and Harlem were being planned and connected by the subway, they were intended to house the middle- and upper-middle-classes. The subway itself was seen as middle- (not working-) class transportation.

OK, except that Bed-Stuy and Harlem were built up before the subways arrived. The brownstones in Bedford and Stuyvesant Heights date from the 1890s or 1900s, and the A train didn't arrive in the district until sometime after 1930. Harlem brownstones are about the same vintage, also predating the subway. I guess people took the elevated trains that existed at the time. Anyway, extending the subways into those districts probably factored into their decline from relatively prestigious upper-middle class to working class and eventually poor areas. With such accessibility they lost their exclusiveness.

[tpk-nyc]

Originally Posted by missionhill

OK, except that Bed-Stuy and Harlem were built up before the subways arrived. The brownstones in Bedford and Stuyvesant Heights date from the 1890s or 1900s, and the A train didn't arrive in the district until sometime after 1930. Harlem brownstones are about the same vintage, also predating the subway. I guess people took the elevated trains that existed at the time. Anyway, extending the subways into those districts probably factored into their decline from relatively prestigious upper-middle class to working class and eventually poor areas. With such accessibility they lost their exclusiveness.

They were serviced by elevated lines in the 1890s and, in Bed-Stuy's case, connected to the Financial District via the Fulton Ferry. A large factor in their decline was that they were simply overbuilt in the first place (the Phoenix of 1900?). They were building out while Midtown/the UES/the UWS were building up.

In Harlem, this left a vacuum that African-Americans filled during the Great Migration. It's nice see the brownstones in Harlem being restored. They're as beautiful as anything in Park Slope or the Village. Equally extraordinary are the art-deco apartment buildings on the Grand Concourse; some of the best examples of the style anywhere in the country.

[DAS]

Originally Posted by tpk-nyc

They were serviced by elevated lines in the 1890s and, in Bed-Stuy's case, connected to the Financial District via the Fulton Ferry. A large factor in their decline was that they were simply overbuilt in the first place (the Phoenix of 1900?). They were building out while Midtown/the UES/the UWS were building up.

In Harlem, this left a vacuum that African-Americans filled during the Great Migration. It's nice see the brownstones in Harlem being restored. They're as beautiful as anything in Park Slope or the Village. Equally extraordinary are the art-deco apartment buildings on the Grand Concourse; some of the best examples of the style anywhere in the country.

Misinformation: Harlem was not overbuilt before 1930. There were brownstones and other wooden house structures. Not many apt buidlings. There were still small farms in Harlem before 1930. The tenement apt buildings built in Harlem starting in the late 1920's were built for the purpose of luring Black people uptown from the Lincoln Center area.

[tpk-nyc]

Originally Posted by DAS

Misinformation: Harlem was not overbuilt before 1930. There were brownstones and other wooden house structures. Not many apt buidlings. There were still small farms in Harlem before 1930. The tenement apt buildings built in Harlem starting in the late 1920's were built for the purpose of luring Black people uptown from the Lincoln Center area.

"The 1890’s saw another wave of speculative development when transportation again improved with the addition of subway routes to west Harlem. By the time the Lennox Avenue subway opened in 1904, all the vacant land in Harlem was built upon." (Harlem on the Rise)

The speculative brownstone and apartment building construction (spurred but the extension of the train lines) of the 1890s led to the local market crash of 1904. African-American migration started shortly afterwards. By 1920, nearly a third of central Harlem was black, despite representing less than 2 percent of the city's overall population. (Harlem's Shifting Population (Gotham Gazette, August 27, 2008)) Yes, the influx greatly increased during the 1930s, but the core inhabitants were established much earlier.

Philip Payton, the godfather of African-American real estate developers, was active in the early 1900s and dead by 1917. (Payton, Philip A.(1876–1917) - Real estate developer, Chronology) What's interesting it that the first waves of migration (encouraged and facilitated by Payton) were of middle- and upper-middle class African-Americans. The poor didn't come until later.

[DAS]

Originally Posted by tpk-nyc

"The 1890’s saw another wave of speculative development when transportation again improved with the addition of subway routes to west Harlem. By the time the Lennox Avenue subway opened in 1904, all the vacant land in Harlem was built upon." (Harlem on the Rise)

The speculative brownstone and apartment building construction (spurred but the extension of the train lines) of the 1890s led to the local market crash of 1904. African-American migration started shortly afterwards. By 1920, nearly a third of central Harlem was black, despite representing less than 2 percent of the city's overall population. (Harlem's Shifting Population (Gotham Gazette, August 27, 2008)) Yes, the influx greatly increased during the 1930s, but the core inhabitants were established much earlier.

Philip Payton, the godfather of African-American real estate developers, was active in the early 1900s and dead by 1917. (Payton, Philip A.(1876–1917) - Real estate developer, Chronology) What's interesting it that the first waves of migration (encouraged and facilitated by Payton) were of middle- and upper-middle class African-Americans. The poor didn't come until later.

Lennox Ave was and still is mostly brownstones up to 125th St. Any other structures were built after 1920.

A third of central Harlem, is a small portion of Harlem considering that the entire central Harlem is composed of the area that goes from, the East side of Manhattan Ave and 116th up to St Nicholas and 135, also East side Manhattan Ave over to Lennox and up to 135th and Lennox. They would have also had to reside in Wooden structures which have been demolished. The brownstones for the most part where owned by the rich and were boarded up and not opened until the more recent past. The rich of that time for the most part did not want to sell to Blacks. Although some Blacks did own brownstones.

Yes, the first African Americans were middle and upper middle class. I get tired of arguing this point.

Good research.