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.
Moving to New York City from DC, Manhattan middle class neighborhood for single college educated heterosexual male, affordable studio apartment, no gays or housing projects
first, you're right that neighborhood people need to stay their ground, be responsible citizens, have kids, parent well, send their kids to local schools, etc. that is the only way to affect long term change.
second, despite the way you characterize my views, this issue is much less about the ethnicity of the incomer and much more about what the incomer does/represents. if we had a large influx of UK, French, and Italians but it meant higher rents, more crime, etc., then i would be against that.
thrid, i segregate immigs from midwesterners/outsiders. immigs have been coming here since alexander hamilton. some have brought the city down, but many more others have made it what it is, or was. i may rail about their mannerisms, how rude they are, failure to conform, etc. but, i have never advocated throwing a wall up to keep immigs out. midwesterners/outsiders are different in two major ways. (1) unlike immigs, outsiders are not looking to make this their home. they are transient. this makes immigs more vested in their neighborhoods than any outsider will ever become. (2) immigs have a symbiotic relationship to the city; they contribute their culture, customs, etc. while adopting some of ours. midwesterners/outsiders are parasitic. they have no culture to contribute. they are merely looking to take whatever they can from the city and then move on to another host.
fourth, i challenge your hypothesis that some mystical nyc vacuum sucked all the midwesterners/outsiders here. this city has been at capacity since i was born. now, it is busting at the seams. ridden the 6-train between 7:30-10:00 much? i think that the influx was a result of the confluence of several events. (1) drop in the crime rate. nyc became (or in hustla718's view, appeared to become) a 'safe city.' (2) nyc leapt on the map big time from the late 80's-present. for example, the today show entertaining all the monkeys outside rockerfeller; fashion-setting comparable to paris, milan, and hk; dow jones closing at record highs in the mid-late 80's, contintuing through the 90's (save post-9/11 reactionism), and now we're at 14000...lots of money to be made; 9/11 itself engendered worldwide public sympathy and put nyc at the forefront. (3) gen-y kids have more surplus time/money than any generation in american history due to their parents' success and their grandparents' savings. most nyc outsiders aren't moving to the City with their money, they're moving with their parents' money. they may be using their parents' money to generate revenue for themselves, but at the end of the day, they aren't feeling the pinch of manhattan prices....it's found money. consequently, prices rise for everyone else, as the market seeks to arrive at an equilibrium. the victims wind-up being the guy who lives here, works here, and now has to pay four times as much for a good or service than he did five years prior. i'm sure i have left out other reasons, but i'm writing this stream-of-conscious and those we're easy enough to come up with.
fifth, i don't think that we have to choose between outsiders and jamaican drug lords yet. but, if we continue to develop every sq. inch of the city limits, then the surplus housing left over after the hipsters have left and nyc is no longer the chic, posh, fun thing to do will make the choice for us. then, you will have your vacuum and scumbags will definitely start to move in. the key is for the city to exercise a little forethought before acceding to the short-term demand of people who won't make any long-term impact or difference anyways.
sixth, the majority of the outsiders who move here are really, really obnoxious. clams who act like their jank is made of platnum, carrying their little doggies in arm bags with their heads sticking out like paris hilton, wearing oversized sunglasses, taking up as much room as they can on the sidewalk, having overly loud, vapid conversations on the train. dudes who went to prep school but act like they're gansta, wearing collar-up shirts, tight jeans, etc., talkin overly loud on the train about their frat parties at dartmouth, how much they make, etc. in one second and then about how tough they are in the next, etc. i think i have as much right to find these outsiders as objectionable as any reasonable person and complain about their infestation of my joint.
I didn't use Jamaicans for racial purposes. While many newcomers are decent, some are pretty ****ty. Between the Russians mob, the Jamaican drugs or Dominican gangs. Yes, the vast majority of these people are good citizens, but Bushwick is a good example of an area taking on the wrong people.
Second, I, unlike you, have seen most of America. Americans have their own culture to contribute. I have never seen such hate directed towards one's own country/countrymen. As for being transient, no, I don't buy that for a second. They're here to stay. Believe it or not, there was a very small gentry that formed during the 1960s and stayed through it all. In fact, much of the "culture" and "soul" of places like Greenwich Village and the LES came from the Beats and Hippes (read: early gentrifiers) who came and rehabbed lower Manhattan.
Now, granted, there's some uglyness to Middle America. But you make it seem like the Klan is moving in. That's simply not true. If you wanna talk white-bread ignorance, I got two words for you:
Yussef Hawkins. Remember him?
As for obnoxiousness, how about we talk smack about Dyker Heights mob-wanna bes with their tacky manshions and big hair? Or Long Island kids trying to be MCs?
I didn't use Jamaicans for racial purposes. While many newcomers are decent, some are pretty ****ty. Between the Russians mob, the Jamaican drugs or Dominican gangs. Yes, the vast majority of these people are good citizens, but Bushwick is a good example of an area taking on the wrong people.
Second, I, unlike you, have seen most of America. Americans have their own culture to contribute. I have never seen such hate directed towards one's own country/countrymen. As for being transient, no, I don't buy that for a second. They're here to stay. Believe it or not, there was a very small gentry that formed during the 1960s and stayed through it all. In fact, much of the "culture" and "soul" of places like Greenwich Village and the LES came from the Beats and Hippes (read: early gentrifiers) who came and rehabbed lower Manhattan.
Now, granted, there's some uglyness to Middle America. But you make it seem like the Klan is moving in. That's simply not true. If you wanna talk white-bread ignorance, I got two words for you:
Yussef Hawkins. Remember him?
As for obnoxiousness, how about we talk smack about Dyker Heights mob-wanna bes with their tacky manshions and big hair? Or Long Island kids trying to be MCs?
i do notice that a lot of crime and antisocial activity does stem from immigs, although it is usually their kids who display these traits versus the FOB people.
your assessment of my experiences couldn't be more incorrect, mr. world-traveller. i was in the army for 6 years, stationed all over the U.S. and in Korea. you've got your perception of american culture, and i've got mine. if you think my previous comments constituted 'hate', you've got some thin skin. i've got far worse things to say about 'american culture.' i don't find self-indulgent playing with mummy and daddy's money culturally enriching or enlightened. and, please don't give me any nonsense talking about family values, blah, blah, blah. those people out there have plenty of teen pregnancies, hatred for thy neighbor, and rampant capitalist ambition, despite their church attendance rates and smiley howdy-neighbor facades. anti-midwestern/outsider sentiment does not always stem from accusations of racism.
we're just gonna have to agree to disagree about the transient nature of the majority of midwestern newcomers. there may have been a group of douchebag beatniks in the 60's who infested the village. i don't know; that's before my time. but, this generation of outsiders have no interest in making new york their home. if anything their midwestern, middle class values that you seem to find so laudable dictates that they have no desire to raise a 4-kid family in nyc where their kids have to grow up with all those undesirables.
and, again...difference of opinion. i'm gonna take the ginzos from howard beach, dyker heights, gerritson beach, etc. over the species that i described in my former post every day of the week and twice on sun. final thought...in agreement with LI kids...complete wankers
/\ Tell me then, what's a better option? Who should fill the city? As Asia begins it's ascent into first-world status, there will be less and less of them coming. Sure, we could take in all of Latin America and Africa, but let's be real with ourselves, is that what you really want? Don't get me wrong, most of them are nice people. But the truth is that having a city chock full of third world refugees (of any color) is a fast way for the city to become third world itself.
Muslims? Yeah, check out the UK, they're spiraling down the ****ter.
Latin Americans? Check the South Bronx.
Africans/Jamaicans? Nuff said.
Russians? Nuff said.
Tell me SS. Who's going to come here? Who's going to pay the enormous taxes it takes to keep the city running? If striaghtshooter ran the world, who would be flowing into NYC?
Mead had it right: It's either little omaha or little Beruit. I think I'll take omaha.
/\ Tell me then, what's a better option? Who should fill the city? As Asia begins it's ascent into first-world status, there will be less and less of them coming. Sure, we could take in all of Latin America and Africa, but let's be real with ourselves, is that what you really want? Don't get me wrong, most of them are nice people. But the truth is that having a city chock full of third world refugees (of any color) is a fast way for the city to become third world itself.
Muslims? Yeah, check out the UK, they're spiraling down the ****ter.
Latin Americans? Check the South Bronx.
Africans/Jamaicans? Nuff said.
Russians? Nuff said.
Tell me SS. Who's going to come here? Who's going to pay the enormous taxes it takes to keep the city running? If striaghtshooter ran the world, who would be flowing into NYC?
Mead had it right: It's either little omaha or little Beruit. I think I'll take omaha.
you write, 'fill the city', like we're in population decline. as i wrote in my original response, the city was at capacity when i was born, and now, it is bursting at the seams. we don't need any additional people. i have also already addressed the merits of immigs vs. midwesterners and concluded that i prefer immigs.
no group needs to 'fill the city.' the city is full. i discourage the continued development of the little undeveloped space we have, the demolition of traditionally working and middle class housing, and the pandering to midwesterners/outsiders, as if we need to accommodate them. no need to rebut these propositions with a capitalist argument. i understand it and addressed it in another thread.
ultimately, i think that the luxury high rises and other housing modifications we make on behalf of these outsiders for short-term gain will work against us. when they leave (for whatever reason...rise in crime rate, desire the have the prototypical american family, etc.) or if nyc ceases to be a chic, hip, fab place that all the kiddies want to move to, then changes we made will negatively impact us. the buildings will either (1) be abandoned, (2) demolished, or (3) torched. under all scenarios, property values will increase again in the short-term, as buyers scramble to develop housing that nyc residents can afford (basically, returning the city to the way it was before the current phenomenon) and crime rates will increase in the short-term, as abandoned building is code for squatters' mansions and the yuppie revenue source dries up. i believe the key is to stop relying on the outsiders and yuppies. i think it is tantamount to building a house on sand; it may stand for a while, but as soon as it shifts, the house crumbles.
/\ The only way to do what you're suggesting (which seems to be 1: stop all new constrction and 2: ensure affordabity) would be to somehow governmentaly control the price of housing. Once you do that, you basically make the city one giant NYCHA housing development. Mass-rent control contributed to the arson of the South Bronx. Once you make doing buisness in the city prohibative, you pave the way for the very arson and decline you want to stop.
If you stop all new construction, the price of housing will rise exponentally. San Fransico and Paris are two examples of this. If you want to lower prices, then you need to build more housing, which is something you're against. Trying to do both at the same time would require massive government intervention which would completely **** up the city's natural economic/social ecology. And yes, is extremely anti-capitalist and downright communistic.
Maintanience will fall apart, incentives to invest disappear and you're left with a giant public housing project.
You want your cake and eat it too. The world doesn't work that way. In a capitalist society, your two deisres cancel each other out, like a seesaw.
History has show that when you let government control means of production, really bad **** occurs. I have no problems with 80/20 or allowing incentives for the middle class. But going deeper will result in basically government-controlled housing. Not good.
/\ The only way to do what you're suggesting (which seems to be 1: stop all new constrction and 2: ensure affordabity) would be to somehow governmentaly control the price of housing. Once you do that, you basically make the city one giant NYCHA housing development. Mass-rent control contributed to the arson of the South Bronx. Once you make doing buisness in the city prohibative, you pave the way for the very arson and decline you want to stop.
If you stop all new construction, the price of housing will rise exponentally. San Fransico and Paris are two examples of this. If you want to lower prices, then you need to build more housing, which is something you're against. Trying to do both at the same time would require massive government intervention which would completely **** up the city's natural economic/social ecology. And yes, is extremely anti-capitalist and downright communistic.
Maintanience will fall apart, incentives to invest disappear and you're left with a giant public housing project.
You want your cake and eat it too. The world doesn't work that way. In a capitalist society, your two deisres cancel each other out, like a seesaw.
History has show that when you let government control means of production, really bad **** occurs. I have no problems with 80/20 or allowing incentives for the middle class. But going deeper will result in basically government-controlled housing. Not good.
i understand your argument, and i think it is a good one if i were advocating government controlled housing. however, that is not what i advocate. additionally, i do not want to cease all construction. i do think we need to think about preserving undeveloped areas, though. i advocate responsible building. build with a thought towards something beyond short-term gains.
you write, 'fill the city', like we're in population decline. as i wrote in my original response, the city was at capacity when i was
while I don't have the numbers I can safely say that over the past 20 years or so if there was no immigrants coming into to NYC, NYC would've lost almost 25% of it's population instead of a modest increase, millions of long time NYC residents left for the suburbs between 1970 and now and have been replaced by immigrants.
Most of the old large cities in the US have seen significant reductions in population in that same time frame because they did not get the inflow if immigrants like NYC
History has show that when you let government control means of production, really bad **** occurs. I have no problems with 80/20 or allowing incentives for the middle class. But going deeper will result in basically government-controlled housing. Not good.
one reason why rents in NYC are so high is that from the 1960's until the late 90's there was very little building of middle class apartments in NYC, the reason was rent controls and stabilization schemes that discouraged investors from putting money into rental buildings, in the 1990's when the rent regs. were relaxed you saw a big increase in apt. construction
while I don't have the numbers I can safely say that over the past 20 years or so if there was no immigrants coming into to NYC, NYC would've lost almost 25% of it's population instead of a modest increase, millions of long time NYC residents left for the suburbs between 1970 and now and have been replaced by immigrants.
Most of the old large cities in the US have seen significant reductions in population in that same time frame because they did not get the inflow if immigrants like NYC
one reason why rents in NYC are so high is that from the 1960's until the late 90's there was very little building of middle class apartments in NYC, the reason was rent controls and stabilization schemes that discouraged investors from putting money into rental buildings, in the 1990's when the rent regs. were relaxed you saw a big increase in apt. construction
Kort speaks truth.
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.
