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.
right now the nabe feels to me, a lot like what yuppie manhattan felt like 25 to 30 years ago, and what lots of brownstone brooklyn feels like now. Is that what you mean by "Hells kitchen feel"?
It is hard to convey the feel of Hells Kitchen..it is lower density, still rough around the edges and grungy, but lively with energy and a strong identity from the people (new and old), housing stock, location, the tunnel/times square traffic, and mix of amenities, which distinguishes it from surrounding neighborhoods and all other Manhattan neighborhoods.
I don't think it feels like Brownstone Brooklyn at all....that area of Brooklyn feels more suburban and quiet than Hells Kitchen...totally different vibe. I cannot comment on what yuppie Manhattan felt like 25- 30 years ago though...I am too young.
I walked along 9th avenue, under the trees, and felt like in some ways I could have been on 7th Avenue in Park Slope (which is not suburban, no way, no how - I LIVE in suburbia) Granted 8th, 42nd, and some of the the blocks to the west are grittier and/or more bustling.
"still rough around the edges and grungy, but lively with energy and a strong identity from the people (new and old), housing stock, location, the tunnel/times square traffic, and mix of amenities, "
take away the tunnel/times square reference, and that was, I guess, Columbus Avenue in the early 1980s. Maybe even some of the rougher parts of the UES in the late 1970s. IOW, nothing like what the words "hells kitchen" conjure up, but a basic Manhattan nabe well along in transition to normal yuppiedom (as opposed to supereliteness). Or, IOW, its exactly what those nasty realtors meant to convey by the name "Clinton" and not much like the image they were trying to avoid.
It may be that in Manhattan of 2010, where so many areas are "superelite", we misread the connotations of what people (including realtors) were trying to do in the 1970s, and what the connotations of names and neighborhoods were then.
I did not say the neighborhood was suburban, I said it felt MORE suburban and quiet..and nobody would dispute that.
Columbus ave spans a few neighborhoods, so not sure to which you are referring in your comment.
Hells Kitchen has evolved as the neighborhood has....it is not the Italian ghetto of crime/food/filth from which the name was derived, nevertheless the words Hells Kitchen conjure up exactly what the neighborhood is now...and a new name is unnecessary as a result. I do not believe it is a basic Manhattan nabe well along in transition to normal yuppiedom, although that is it's future in some form. I think because of its location, tunnel/traffic, and the housing stock and amenities, it will continue to be a distinguished neighborhood that is more similar to the LES than your basic Manhattan nabe...which is its primary appeal.
Well in those days gentrification was moving steadily up Columbus, so you'd have to match the block to the year. I was thinking mainly between Lincoln Center and the Museum of Natural History.
I found 9th Avenue and some of the side streets surprisingly quiet. More through traffic on 9th than on 7th in Park Slope I suppose, but more a matter of degree than of kind. You can say "Park Slope is MORE suburban than Hells Kitchen". Thats like saying NBA guard is MORE of a midget than an NBA center. I would say instead that Park Slope is a slightly quieter urban nabe than the area we are discussing.
I don't know the LES well, but my impression is that it is far grittier than Clinton/Hells Kitchen/Midtown West is now - in particular the housing stock is very different, with large numbers of housing projects in the LES, and with no brownstones.
That the area we are discussing is not like basic Manhattan nabes, is not particularly relevant to being a neighborhood well along the path to Yuppiedom. Most contemporary Manhattan nabes are, AFAICT, well beyond basic yuppieness - they are preserves of the wealthy. I use yuppie as it was used when the term originated and was most widely used in the 1980s - Young urban professionals - people no more than a couple of years out of college or grad school, earning the average salaries for people with such educational backgrounds. AFAICT such people in NYC today usually live in Brooklyn or in Hoboken or on the edge of Harlem or in - well - "Hells Kitchen".
Right now we are talking impressions (and not living in NY, that really handicaps me) I need data. I wonder what the average salary is in Hells kitchen today, and how that compares (after inflation adjustment) to the average salary in the areas of gentrification on the UWS in the early 80s, say. My guess is its the same or higher.
The operative word was MORE, but the other important word was FEEL. It FEELS MORE, not that either IS one or the other. I think Park Slope is significantly quieter than Hells Kitchen...but I guess that is subjective..kinda.
LES is slightly more gritty outside of the immediate housing projects. No brownstones, but same tenements and mixed population which dominate both areas.
I think it is particularly important to recognize that although it will have some form of yuppiness in its future, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, it does not mean it is a typical Manhattan nabe or that it will be. What I have learned in my very brief time on this Earth, is that what people usually believe will/won't happen, the opposite actually occurs in some substantail way so as to make people think "I should have done XYZ" or "I never thought ABC would happen."
With a substantial amount of development still on the drawing board, maybe the bulk with be affordable housing with the mid-range retailers to follow. A big rebirth of family housing to keep them from fleeing to Jersey....and ensuring a diverse future for Manhattan for all its present and future residents. We know that luxury condos aren't the answer...and you know where to go for all the Prada socks you were after. But where do you go in Manhattan with a family of 5,6,7? Maybe it's the new "Hells Kitchen", west of 9th of course.
Bloomie is taking this course in the outerboroughs, so not sure if there is a place for it in Manhattan. But Hells Kitchen has the space to provide a substantial development for families..so why not.
Upson..why do you believe Chelsea today is Disneyland? I have been to Disneyland...and Chelsea couldn't be further from it.
Chelsea today feels like Disneyland in the same way that Disneyland is an artificial environment which attracts tourists. Bars and restaurants in Chelsea used to have a neighborhood feel. Yes, they attracted gay people from the larger metropolitan area, but the day-to-day felt very neighborhoody. I remember when folks used to bring their armchairs out in the summer to sit in front of their stoops. In addition, the local stores were unique and local instead of the current spate of American Apparel, Starbucks, CVS, and other national chains.
Therefore with the massive crowds from all over and the antiseptic chains, Chelsea feels more like Disneyland than the individual and unique neighborhood that it still has on the fringes. Seriously, have you been on 8th and 20th on a Saturday night? It is exactly like walking through Disneyland. And I know because I have been there.
"I think it is particularly important to recognize that although it will have some form of yuppiness in its future, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, it does not mean it is a typical Manhattan nabe or that it will be."
I don't think I am making myself clear. Unless I am very mistaken (and I don't think I am) lots of people I would call yuppies could not afford the UES or UWS, much less Soho or Tribeca.
Take a new college graduate with a decent job for a new graduate. If they were to move to a borderline nabe in DC, it would be called yuppification. A fortiori if they moved to a frontier inner city nabe in Baltimore, or Philly, or Chicago. And when folks like that pioneered Boerum Hill and Carrol Gardens, or moved to the marginal parts of the UES (like say 2nd avenue above 90th) or filled in the weaker blocks of the UWS in the 1980s, it was also yuppification.
Today, if I am not wrong, it would a very very lucky recent grad who could afford to live without a roommate in most Manhattan nabes below 96th street (even living WITH a roommate many college grads with professional jobs couldnt afford it). I don't call those yuppie nabes.
When I walked on 9th avenue, I was pleasantly surprised to find lots Thai and mideastern and Japanese restaurants, with entree prices from $8 to $15, and none that were outrageous. And they were nice looking - well yuppie looking -places. I decided that "9th is yuppie restaurant heaven" To me NON-yuppie would have been places that were older NY type luncheonettes, or at least places that hadnt been remodeled since thats what they had been. And sure enough, 10th avenue looked precisely like that. 10th, I agree is not particularly yuppie, or didnt feel that way to me. and 8th, well it seems a combo of touristiness oozing out of Times Square, and residue of the scuzzines of the old Times Square (which I do not particularly associate with the nabe to the west of 8th).
I think my defintion of yuppie is different from yours. This may be a result of my age, and of living recently in cities (baltimore and DC) where the social phenomenon of gentrification is carried out by people at far lower income levels than in NYC, esp than in Manhattan.
"But where do you go in Manhattan with a family of 5,6,7?"
even when I was growing up, and there were still middle class families in Manhattan, I think most of them were families of 3 or 4 (IE one or two kids). I suspect rather more of three than of four.
I cannot foresee a neighborhood such a short walk to midtown, one of a handful of the most concentrated employment centers on earth, economically providing family housing. I do not think the disamenty value of the tunnel or the bus terminal is enough to keep prices down absent a major effort by the local govt, which I think is not likely to be in the cards.
The big unknown in Hell's Kitchen is the pace of future development, which logically should happen because there is so much underutilized land there. That development would have picked up really fast had NY landed the 2012 Olympics and I've heard, anecdotally that some people werre buying property there before then in anticipation of making a fortune. (Have no hard facts on that, however.) Then there is the new subway across the area on 42nd St and down to the Javits Center. This will, I predict, depress property values SOMEWHAT now (as has the recession), but they'll quickly after its finished. Of course, if it does like the 2nd Ave subway, that won't be for another 100 yeras. Proposed big office and retail developments West of MSG will aslo eventually make this a pricier part of town for residents.
OTOH, don't hold yr breath for all this to happen quickly. Aside from the assorted bohos, pensioners, new college grads, and old-timers I don't think this is yet a nabe of choice despite the advantages of proximity to Midtown and relatively low housing costs.Too many newcomers to the city are put off the general unglamourosness of HK ("This is New York?"), while native families-- at least those whtih a choice--are put off by the lack of good schools.
The gentry may well arrive, but I don't think it will be any time soon.
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.
