For all the talk about how gentrification will lift this or that neighborhood out of poverty and be good for the city, all you need to do is look at San Francisco to see the real effects. The rich millionaire techies went in, housing costs skyrocketed and the residents who live there for generations and raised families there were pushed out. SF has no rent regulation, no effective voice to advocate for fair housing. If our city is becoming a divided one, SF has moved on from being divided to being sole accessible solely to the very rich, unless you are willing to live in a one-bedroom apt. with multiple roommates. I fear NYC is already well on the same path.
7
I think there is something so despicably fascist about people moving into a poor neighborhood, gentrifying it and then telling the original occupants to get out and go somewhere they can afford - like out in the boondocks, Mars, or anywhere where they don't have to rub shoulders with the new elite. There is something very unAmerican about it, too. Even though These United States is the bastion of capitalism, one of the unique strengths of NYC has been that is has been fairly egalitarian city as compared to the Old World with its snobbism and class systems. Not saying that everyone has to have the same income level, but lower income people should not be treated like pariahs and driven out of their lifetime neighborhoods by newcomers and "Hurrycomeups" who covet whatever it is about the location they find so desirable.
9
Shocking news by the NY Times - there is a great wealth divide in his country ! Who would have thought about it ? The NY Times can lament about it until the cows come home, but there will be no reversal of this development . The poor and the middle class will be forced out of the city, driven by the relentless global accumulation of wealth. Maybe in 50 to 100 years, the Manhattan inhabitants will then find out that they are occupying a boring island and move out elsewhere, and Chelsea and the upper west side will again become that what it was in the eighties, but who cares about that now ?
What I most resent in many of these comments is the implication and admonition of tenants like Ms. Waters, who as a stable working woman must leave the place where she has spent her entire adult life just because the neighborhood has improved. It was people like Ms. Waters who caused that improvement, providing stability at a time when the neighborhood was not as economically viable. Now she has to pick up and leave the life and friends she's established so someone with far greater income can displace her?
No matter which neighborhood it is, those who have been here for a long time have the right to stay. If the newcomers don't like it THEY can leave.
No matter which neighborhood it is, those who have been here for a long time have the right to stay. If the newcomers don't like it THEY can leave.
9
Who pays $10 for a slice of cake? This is highway robbery on all fronts...welcome to 2015 America.
1
Many of the Irish left when Chelsea became more Latino. The gay men who moved north of 14th Street in the '80s because they couldn't afford the Village in their turn pushed out older residents.
New York is a city of dynamic neighborhoods, where the only constant is change.
New York is a city of dynamic neighborhoods, where the only constant is change.
5
From this article, it's clear that people in subsidized housing believe they own their apartments, the parking spaces, the neighborhood. Last I heard, property rights still exist in the USA, even in NY. Resenting any changes and sabotaging improvements are not the way of the progress, and there should be no special perks for people who have it pretty good (free) as it is. It's just not fair to the teachers, nurses, all other middle class people who are forced to subsidize the life of non-taxpayers.
The person who coined the "gentrification" verbiage is probably the same person who decided for us that if you make $45000/year, it's enough for you to support a family of strangers who never paid taxes but want to live where they want and how they want.
The person who coined the "gentrification" verbiage is probably the same person who decided for us that if you make $45000/year, it's enough for you to support a family of strangers who never paid taxes but want to live where they want and how they want.
12
When did it become acceptable to resent one ethnic group as invaders and not being called out as a racist? Answer: when the racism is perpetrated by a non-white person. It's not equality, it's hypocrisy at its worst.
And since when things moving up is a negative development? How the replacement of an awful, overpriced and below-the-radar "supermarket" with something better is bad for the neighborhood?
Now about subsidies: SUBSIDIZE EDUCATION so people can aspire to better life and better jobs.
By the way, how does an average family can afford a trip to the movies in NY? Or in LA?
And I don't believe that a pretty much a 1%-er NY Times sincerely believes that projects and rotting supermarkets are good for anybody. It's a very much condescending approach to the poor, NYT.
And since when things moving up is a negative development? How the replacement of an awful, overpriced and below-the-radar "supermarket" with something better is bad for the neighborhood?
Now about subsidies: SUBSIDIZE EDUCATION so people can aspire to better life and better jobs.
By the way, how does an average family can afford a trip to the movies in NY? Or in LA?
And I don't believe that a pretty much a 1%-er NY Times sincerely believes that projects and rotting supermarkets are good for anybody. It's a very much condescending approach to the poor, NYT.
5
Upon reading this article, I had to wonder whether the people at the Times read the Times. Within the past week, the paper has reported on and advocated the Mt. Laurel model, requiring subsidized housing to be built in upscale neighborhoods. The paper trumpeted the magical transformation of the poor once re-located among the not poor. A few days later it tells us, that Mt. Laurel is a mixed blessing because living among wealth causes dislocation and tensions for the poor. On Wednesday, the idea was beyond criticism. By Sunday it is, at best, a mixed blessing. In between, the Times did a lot of reporting on the Mexican hurricane. Maybe that caused the editors a head injury.
4
The gentrification of most neighborhoods does not produce jobs. I've watched it living on both coasts. It may beautify the surroundings but economically it is a blight upon long term residents.
San Francisco is an excellent example where the former coolest city in America is now no more than a corporate enclave. If displacing lower income people whether they be unskilled or artists is viewed as progress we have much to learn.
San Francisco is an excellent example where the former coolest city in America is now no more than a corporate enclave. If displacing lower income people whether they be unskilled or artists is viewed as progress we have much to learn.
8
I have a question that the author does not address: why live in NYC at all?
I can guarantee you that there are places in the country where the cost of living is reasonable enough that even the subject of the article can afford a decent living while still being able to find work.
There are places in this country where the MORTGAGE PAYMENT of a decent size house (3BR+) is LOWER than the median RENT of a studio in NYC. And, these places are NOT high crime areas with bad schools.
I can guarantee you that there are places in the country where the cost of living is reasonable enough that even the subject of the article can afford a decent living while still being able to find work.
There are places in this country where the MORTGAGE PAYMENT of a decent size house (3BR+) is LOWER than the median RENT of a studio in NYC. And, these places are NOT high crime areas with bad schools.
6
No matter how great it may be outside of NYC, people living in NYC have friends and family and strong attachments and responsibilities. It isn't always about the money, you know.
4
Perhaps it's true that people should be forced to live in places that they can afford but one must also consider whether what's going on is rent gouging. If people are forced to live in enclaves according to their ability to pay, we then have a third world situation.
5
" If people are forced to live in enclaves according to their ability to pay, we then have a third world situation."
So people should be able to live wherever they want to and if they can not afford to do so the government (in reality the taxpayers) should make up the difference?
So people should be able to live wherever they want to and if they can not afford to do so the government (in reality the taxpayers) should make up the difference?
6
Silly me. I had always assumed that, ever since the Sumerians, people have lived in areas they could afford.
3
I can't wait for all those who posted mean spirited comments to someday find themselves priced out of where they live and have to move away. Karma people, karma.
9
Moving to where you can afford is NORMAL. Feeling entitled to what you did not pay for is NOT NORMAL. Karma is right.
8
If you are already established in a place that has become unaffordable, you should not have to move to make room for newbies who covet your location.
2
Only in NYC are mere renters imbued with this mythical value and "ownership of the neighborhood". Most of the rest of the country lives by private property rights. By all measure having wealthier neighbors makes for a much cleaner and safer neighborhood. People longing for the old days where the poor can all "gather outdoors" drinking and doing little to nothing can just move to somewhere cheaper. No study shows that poor people are better off living with rich people on the off chance they might pick up a good haboit by osmosis
9
We have laws against all forms of discrimination in housing and employment. Does the NYT believe that "economics discrimination" should be added to that ever growing list? I can't afford to to pay the rents asked in order to live on Central Park East does that count as discrimination against me? Should the government force a building owner to allow me to live there paying only what I can afford?
8
When I lived in Chelsea 1943-1949, we had similar economic divide. My family was in "luxury" London Terace Garden Apartments where doormen dressed as London bobbies watched out for us and elevators transported residents who were opera singers, high-level public officials, and also Mafia. I attended, along with children of blue-collar parents, Guardian Angel Catholic School on 10th Avenue, enjoyed the public playground, learned to step over drunks lying on subway steps, said daily hello to the prostitute who solicited clients at the brownstone on 23d St, played sidewalk jumprope and hopscotch with my best friend Georgia Brew (yes, that was her name; where are you now, Georgia?) who lived in the downscale flat across 24th St., watched the "poor kids" cavort in fire hydrant "fountain" on hot summer days. Always was a wealth divide in Chelsea, which gave it panache. I am thrilled with the High Line which looks down on my old neighborhood, and with the art galleries and boutique restaurants which have cropped up. I make a pilgrimage to Chelsea every year, bask in the memories while enjoying the "gentrification." For me, Chelsea is the best of Manhattan, and one of my plays (The Porch) was performed outdoors at London Terrace Gardens a few years ago, for a diverse and enthusiastic audience. Long live Chelsea!
6
I could not decide if you had any empathy or understanding of the less privledged.
1
This is the logical and expected result of years of people moving to the suburbs. The new generation of young professionals desire living in a community where you can walk to shops, restaurants , concert halls and arts offerings. It should not go unoticed that two and three generations ago, the upwardly mobil wanted to live in the suburbs or even farther upstate in weekend homes. When this happened , property values dropped, businesses left and crime escalated, as per the article. It will now take excellent city planning and management. We can no longer look upon this as an economic opportunity for builders, investors and city tax coffers but a long term plan to create quality neighborhoods for all levels of inccome. We, as a society, cannot legislate economic equlity but can ensure that our tax dollars, city planning and financial resources are used fairly and equitably. This also assumes that city and state governments have elected officials that are interested in the entire community and not just a wealthy voting block.
4
We can definitely "legislate economic inequality": It's called taxing the rich (and rich corporations that don't pay all that much in corporate taxes).
3
firstly, "gentrification" loses its meaning when it is used for every time more powerful people invade and take over territory. perhaps "columbus day" should be changed to "gentrification day." secondly, inadequate income is not caused by a lack of affordable housing. as bernie might say, "nyc has a wealth distribution problem," but gentrification sounds better.
4
This makes me sick. I live in Penn South-my income is okay-- I am fine- but the prices at local supermarkets are exorbitant. One roll of Scott's tissue for $1.59! When I see these very rich people walking the streets with their $2000 handbags it makes me sick. I HATE rich people-- I really do--have they no shame? When is enough ENOUGH? I go to SF Xavier Church on West 16th in Manhattan and I love the Mass, the people --(many common folks) but I occasionally see some of the RICH RICH people coming to Mass and I just want to say, please go away. I'm sorry for that but that's what goes through my mind.
6
You should not think like that if you are a regular churchgoer. The rich people you see could easily be somewhere else, partying. One parishioner left our church, St Frances Cabrini, $2.2 million recently. A rich parishioner, devout, will do the same for your church, and likely already has.
1
There's a 99cent store on 32nd just east of 7th Avenue -- 3 blocks from Penn South. I'm not saying prices aren't higher in Chelsea, but this kind of comment seems to be just lashing out.
Perhaps you should be taking the bus or train to NJ to get a cheaper deal on tissue paper. At Penn South you are very close to Penn Station or Port Authority. Perhaps you can take what you save in housing costs at Penn South and put that toward your other living expenses. The fact that there are 3 overpriced Gristedes supermarkets next to Penn South may also be weighing on your perspective. What I find most disgusting about the gentrification of Chelsea are the hundreds of nail salons and day spa's offering pedicures and eyebrow tweezing for 100s of dollars. Where do people have the time and money for these things?
While the NYT is continuing on its relentless drive to create division in the USA, let's look at what has helped this along. I am sure the "1%" comment is lurking out there, as is a shot at Wall St. However, this time it's not us. This time it's a policy that openly encourages the global elite to buy and essentially squat in NYC. First, it's largely Chinese nationals buying US citizenship with EB5 investments, paying $500k for an investment that guarantees zero return apart from citizenship. This program isn't a Republican program.... The 500k can be applied to investments into condo developments.
Then the developers get city tax breaks and absurdly low property taxes via abatements. Sorry, but this divide isn't wall St. In fact I think there are frustrations from that community how absurd real estate prices have become in NYC as well.
Then the developers get city tax breaks and absurdly low property taxes via abatements. Sorry, but this divide isn't wall St. In fact I think there are frustrations from that community how absurd real estate prices have become in NYC as well.
5
In the end, Ms. Waters stated she likes Chelsea as it is today; I agree with her. I do believe in public housing and know it's benefits. I am disappointed with the city's Public Housing Authority for allowing developments such as Elliot Houses deteriorate. Public Housing is good for the city, but it must be maintained; the current and former administration's reduced the budgets and now they must be increased. Security must be provided so residents feels safe in their communities, the interiors should be clean and updated and the exterior grounds landscaped routinely.
5
44,000 for kindergarten? You have to be RICH to afford that. The income disparity that is touching all neighborhoods in NYC is appalling and unhealthy.
That housing project will not last, not when it's value would be in the billions if torn down and replaced by luxury housing. Once Deblasio leaves office and we get another Bloomberg type mayor those residents are doomed.
That housing project will not last, not when it's value would be in the billions if torn down and replaced by luxury housing. Once Deblasio leaves office and we get another Bloomberg type mayor those residents are doomed.
5
The area has improving somewhat in a declining though growing more expensive NYC?
1
I must say: those who see wealth as spreading like a cancer should have their heads examined.
What would happen if the poverty classes, who, by right, seem to view being at the low end of natural selection, views economics and everything that proceeds from it as 'unfair and inequitable” were largely priced out of the city
and public housing undergoes a realistic transformation.
The middle class, long term homeowners and renters in the outer boroughs (and they are out there in the millions despite the continual focus on cost of residency in prime real estate areas) would leap and rejoice at not having to continually and increasingly fund the myriad of bank breakers that focus on managing poverty and it's effects.
The middle class on the whole are not heartless and they are certainly not subsidizing Google engineers, they are in many cases, providing
tradesman services or other type of work that goes into their pockets and into the general local economy.
The word has changed, economies have changed, however, low income people, at the low end of natural selection have bottom feeder politicians like De Blasio at their disposal who give cake to the rich and crumbs to the poor and weave a tale of bitterness that they see as holy writ. They do not see or understand the big picture, but swallow propaganda--hook, line and anchor.
The middle class wants fair and equitable and it may be coming with the next election.
What would happen if the poverty classes, who, by right, seem to view being at the low end of natural selection, views economics and everything that proceeds from it as 'unfair and inequitable” were largely priced out of the city
and public housing undergoes a realistic transformation.
The middle class, long term homeowners and renters in the outer boroughs (and they are out there in the millions despite the continual focus on cost of residency in prime real estate areas) would leap and rejoice at not having to continually and increasingly fund the myriad of bank breakers that focus on managing poverty and it's effects.
The middle class on the whole are not heartless and they are certainly not subsidizing Google engineers, they are in many cases, providing
tradesman services or other type of work that goes into their pockets and into the general local economy.
The word has changed, economies have changed, however, low income people, at the low end of natural selection have bottom feeder politicians like De Blasio at their disposal who give cake to the rich and crumbs to the poor and weave a tale of bitterness that they see as holy writ. They do not see or understand the big picture, but swallow propaganda--hook, line and anchor.
The middle class wants fair and equitable and it may be coming with the next election.
5
Missing from the seemingly endless line of articles bemoaning how difficult it is for middle class people to live in Manhattan (it's always Manhattan - apparently there's no such problem in the outer Boros or NJ) is consideration of the demand side of the equation. There are high skilled and well paying jobs in Manhattan. This in turn creates demand for housing and services. In my experience those threatened by that reality, like a friend of mine that fancies herself a photographer but rarely sells a photo, are the folks that cling hardest to stabilized apartments and write the majority of responses to articles like this one.
8
Del Webb Is building 6000 homes for 55 and over people who are increasingly following their children down whose companies have left the Northeast. The largest development is just over the North/South Carolina border 3 miles from Charlotte. Two huge hospitals, two huge banks and numerous smaller ones are here to serve them. Publix recently opened and is opening stores to serve the large number of "half backs" moving out of Florida.
Low state income tax rates and low real estate taxes means those pensions will go further. North Carolina is reducing its income tax with an eventual elimination of them. Both states are predominately Republican. We are doing our best to prevent those who fouled up their old nests with Democrat ideals from fouling up ours.
Low state income tax rates and low real estate taxes means those pensions will go further. North Carolina is reducing its income tax with an eventual elimination of them. Both states are predominately Republican. We are doing our best to prevent those who fouled up their old nests with Democrat ideals from fouling up ours.
1
yes, this is NY. Upper and lower classes. No middle. Much of that is seeing the writing on the wall and has moved away or will soon.
6
New York has been a magnificent experiment. It was the epicenter of an American dream where generations from other worlds came and made good on that promise. A multi-cultural miracle-a natural weaving of economic and social spheres coexisting in relative peace. Sadly, this experiment is ending-and the reason is transparent. The power of money and real estate and its gravitational force has sidelined what it is which keeps a city vibrant, and viable for the long run. And that is the dynamic mix of the sacred and the profane, the proprietors of the small bodega and the chairman of the board, the bike messenger and the Broadway star, the school teacher and the restauranteur, the artist and the stock trader. Somehow with a formulaic imprint, developers, Mayors, zoning boards and landmark commissions have coalesced in a strange alliance, and shrunk the larger than life essence that was New York. Now it is a commodity to be bought and sold, and traded just to have more-'til it's devoid of human scale. Even the current "progressive" Mayor has declared that hard fought for contextually zoned neighborhoods must get higher by 20 or 30%, feigning the building of low income housing, which in actual fact will lose more low income units than will purportedly be built, while displacing historic districts with an invitation for even more luxury condos that are not needed, in the shadows of mega towers that are not wanted. A sad remorse sits in the knowledge of all that once was.
6
RE: Ms. Waters, 70, a retired assistant nursery school teacher, lives in public housing, so at least she can afford her rent.
This is just disgraceful that the taxpayers are forced to support people want to live in places they can't afford. Waters is retired. She could live many places other than NY without mooching off the taxpayer. Public housing should be eliminated.
This is just disgraceful that the taxpayers are forced to support people want to live in places they can't afford. Waters is retired. She could live many places other than NY without mooching off the taxpayer. Public housing should be eliminated.
14
People in expensive neighborhoods also have children who go to nursery school and those schools have personnel, including assistant teachers. So, where should these awful moochers who care for the children of the rich live?
8
Poor and middle class people go to Aldi in low rent locations in NYC, including Sheepshead Bay Brooklyn, East Harlem, Manhattan, and 3rd Ave in the Bronx for selected European food products, very good quality inexpensive store brand food and supplies. Only cash and debit are accepted, no credit card fees going to bankers, or extra revenue going to Megalomart, WalMart. NYT readers though wouldn't be seen in those places. There is still an affordable grocery store, with rotisserie chicken on 14th St. and 8th Avenue across from Google. Wonder how long that will last?
6
I think DeBlasio's efforts to maintain low and moderate income housing in Manhattan are misguided. New York City is not like Aspen where there are no less expensive alternatives for working class people to live. How about protecting people who are handicapped or over 65 but there's no reason why other people should not be able to move to New Jersey or Queens when their rents go up.
As the article points out, many of these people would probably be happier where they could afford to shop and eat at establishments in their price range. In New Jersey and Westchester, you can also send your kids to neighborhood schools.
To paraphrase, no one ever promised you you could live in one of the most expensive areas of the world. New York would not be a very different place if only wealthy people lived in areas like Chelsea. They are already mingling every day with people who took a train in from a nearby suburb.
As the article points out, many of these people would probably be happier where they could afford to shop and eat at establishments in their price range. In New Jersey and Westchester, you can also send your kids to neighborhood schools.
To paraphrase, no one ever promised you you could live in one of the most expensive areas of the world. New York would not be a very different place if only wealthy people lived in areas like Chelsea. They are already mingling every day with people who took a train in from a nearby suburb.
6
Plenty of land, affordable housing, friendly people. Come join us in my neck of the woods. And don't think there isn't diversity - I'm of Scandinavian descent; my husband is Cape Verdean.
10
Wow! The Avenues school is SO generous with it's financial aid to 35 of it's students out of a total of 1,229 students!
Do the math: that's a big 2.85% of their student population! Wow!!!!
Do the math: that's a big 2.85% of their student population! Wow!!!!
7
Interestingly enough, the commenters rail and flip out about "for profit" colleges being a rip off and not providing a genuine education because it's all about the money. Last I heard, Avenues is a for-profit school.
2
Had to read that figure twice myself! And then still thought my math was off, but I guess not. And how about that $5 million for new housing? For what? Animal shelters?!
Who says they have to do anything at all? You can always count on Liberals to condemn someone who does good because they didn't do more.
I'm reminded of the beggar in Fiddler on the Roof complaining because he regular benefactor had a bad week and couldn't give as much. "Just because you had a bad week why should I suffer?"
Is there no room for joy in their lives?
I'm reminded of the beggar in Fiddler on the Roof complaining because he regular benefactor had a bad week and couldn't give as much. "Just because you had a bad week why should I suffer?"
Is there no room for joy in their lives?
In New York City a trend which has been well documented on these pages continues apace, the current Mayoral administration's hopes and policies notwithstanding. Foreign money, sometimes ill-gotten, is being sunk into high end residential real estate (condos, townhomes, super-high rent apartments). Many of these jet-set foreigners will never live there much if at all.
Then there are the masters of the universe from the hedge funds and big investment houses joined by the instant techie multi-millionaires. Some commenters are clearly part of the high end real estate machine (brokers, building owners, investors, developers, yuppie store owners, etc.). How else to explain the disdain for the low income people in the public housing? They were in that neighborhood first. They don't dislike the newcomers if you read the article. Rather they are anxious that the only apartment they can afford will be sold and bulldozed for the benefit of more gazillionaires.
Though I don't deny all of the negative and too often anti-social behavior large brick "projects" in urban areas often incubate, in this case it's obviously minimal. If it were not, the affluent wouldn't live cheek by jowl with the public housing complexes.
Then there are the masters of the universe from the hedge funds and big investment houses joined by the instant techie multi-millionaires. Some commenters are clearly part of the high end real estate machine (brokers, building owners, investors, developers, yuppie store owners, etc.). How else to explain the disdain for the low income people in the public housing? They were in that neighborhood first. They don't dislike the newcomers if you read the article. Rather they are anxious that the only apartment they can afford will be sold and bulldozed for the benefit of more gazillionaires.
Though I don't deny all of the negative and too often anti-social behavior large brick "projects" in urban areas often incubate, in this case it's obviously minimal. If it were not, the affluent wouldn't live cheek by jowl with the public housing complexes.
8
It is not the Tooth Fairy who is changing our city. It is City officials who are rezoning our neighborhoods and granting building permits that increase density and housing costs, e.g., on the Upper West Side, without maintaining schools, parks, and public transportation.
6
Remember the old saying "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer"? It's true not only in Chelsea but across the United States. The demagoguery of the ultra right wing Republicans is unraveling every last remnant of the social safety net established through the New Deal. Democrats, unable to find direction, can't defend the Republican onslaught.
The projects, rent control, housing subsidies and laws that were intended to prevent discrimination in housing have been turned upside down. Landlords are unable to evict people who can't pay the rent and are unable to invest in modernization and upgrades to existing housing stocks. Tax breaks and zoning changes go to the wealthy. The former middle class has no jobs and no hope of finding any in an economy that is dependent upon imported goods. Thus manufacturing, research and new technology in manufacturing is diverted overseas creating even less jobs and more impoverishment.
The projects are a dismal failure. Transportation in the City is expensive and in too many areas of the city out of reach of those who need mass transit the most.
The Great Wealth Divide is real and expanding. We are become a nation of have nots, have less and will never have. The wealthy, of course, prosper. I remember living in the South Bronx. In the 1950s and 60s you could find jobs and work your way up. Moving out to Long Island was something accessible to almost everyone.
Now people move because they can't afford to stay. The division grows.
The projects, rent control, housing subsidies and laws that were intended to prevent discrimination in housing have been turned upside down. Landlords are unable to evict people who can't pay the rent and are unable to invest in modernization and upgrades to existing housing stocks. Tax breaks and zoning changes go to the wealthy. The former middle class has no jobs and no hope of finding any in an economy that is dependent upon imported goods. Thus manufacturing, research and new technology in manufacturing is diverted overseas creating even less jobs and more impoverishment.
The projects are a dismal failure. Transportation in the City is expensive and in too many areas of the city out of reach of those who need mass transit the most.
The Great Wealth Divide is real and expanding. We are become a nation of have nots, have less and will never have. The wealthy, of course, prosper. I remember living in the South Bronx. In the 1950s and 60s you could find jobs and work your way up. Moving out to Long Island was something accessible to almost everyone.
Now people move because they can't afford to stay. The division grows.
5
That "middle-and-low-income" housing built on NYCHA'S former parking lot? Exactly one public housing family moved in. Most can't pass credit checks and prefer living in public housing. They'll never get kicked out for not paying rent, and their rents will remain ridiculously low, no matter how much they earn.
6
The question all New Yorkers should be asking themselves, regardless of whether we live in public housing or a luxury building is what kind of city do we want to live in, and how are we going to achieve whatever that goal is. I don't want to live in a city populated only with banks, drugstores, chains and soulless glass high rises. I miss the news stand, shoe repair shop, fish store, and neighborhood restaurant that went out of business when they tore down a building on my corner to put in an expensive condo with a bank on the ground floor. I miss the diner that went out of business across the street because of the crazy expensive rent. I miss the original Highline - before it became a clogged walkway completely hemmed in by huge apartment buildings that block out the views and the sunshine. I miss the skyline before One57. I know that things change and that if someone can make a buck replacing a five story walk-up and mom and pop businesses with a luxury building filled with $3M one bedroom apartments it is likely to happen. But that doesn't mean that we should just sit back and say - get over it, things change, move if you don't like it. Before we know it Manhattan will be one big strip mall. The city needs a long range plan for controlled development that includes provisions for commercial rent protections for small business, middle/low income housing, open spaces, sensible zoning and height restrictions.
19
It's the way things go. I used to live in the upper east side and had to move out because the rent was going through the roof. As more well-off people move in, the inevitale result is being priced out, and those ugly and scary public housing buildings should go too. Why should they have more right to live in the cith than those who can afford it?
11
People like YOU are exactly the problem!
Why should weathlier people have more of a right to live in the city than poor people????
Why should weathlier people have more of a right to live in the city than poor people????
4
All I can say is "wow," And how will many of these elderly, retired, and poor people find that housing outside of the city? Don't worry, though. In a decade or two, many of them will be dead, and, then, neither they nor you will live in the city. What a victory!
12
Live is possible outside of the city.
2
As Chelsea goes, so goes the Lower East Side? We face the same issues on the LES – stark income disparity between new residents and those living in the numerous NYCHA buildings and elsewhere in the neighborhood. While gentrification here has resulted in increased safety and some public amenities, it has also significantly increased resident displacement anxiety to a level that is profound. As a 123-year-old LES settlement house, Henry Street has had to fight even harder for funding to provide vital programs for our low-income clients, and to convince funders and other stakeholders to look beyond the numbers. A rise in overall neighborhood income does not diminish the need of the 30 percent of LES residents who live below the poverty line. If anything, settlement houses – community based organizations – are needed in gentrifying neighborhoods more than ever, to ensure that the needs of longtime residents are considered in the sweep of gentrification.
24
What needs? Get over it, move out, you don't have any right to live there on subsidising housing. You want the best for free, you got to earn it, don't expect anything as a handout.
7
Maybe you should work on your spelling and reading comprehension. This is someone who says he or she is trying to help poor people. Help, get it? Perhaps not a concept you are familiar with. And I seriously doubt that most or any public housing counts as "the best." People just want to live their lives, be near their friends and family, and do their jobs. Do you have contempt for every person you walk by on the street who looks less than affluent to you? It certainly sounds as if you do.
8
Oh yeah. Only the rich earn it. If you don´t make a ton a money, you aren´t really earning it, despite how hard you may work.
1
I'm still getting over.......$10.00 for a slice of cake??
12
I just returned from visiting my friend in Boston. $10 there, too/
4
Gluten, sugar, butter, and egg substitutes ain't cheap.
And in Houston too.
The major difference between the NYC of today and NYC in which I grew up is the absence of good paying industrial jobs. Long Island City, Maspeth, and parts of Brooklyn were full of factories in which most of the workers made middle class incomes and resided in the city. The demise of NYC as a "working city" involved many things, one of which was the acquisition of small but steady manufacturing by larger conglomerates which then outsourced manufacturing to countries in which the cost of doing business is less. Those who point this out would be well advised to look at corporate tax rates: the United States has one of the highest, if not the highest, in the world. There has to be an incentive to have these lost jobs brought back to our shores. Steady employment offering sustainable incomes is what solidifies neighborhoods.
19
One of the biggest factors in changing the middle class level was the New York World's Fair in 1964.
Practically everyone in my neighborhood worked on that project in construction. Our landlord had 7 sons 6 of them were working on it. Near the end they were working and extra 20 hours a week over time. As soon as it was over they packed up and moved to Long Island or New Jersey. We moved to Florida.
The landlords had to fill those apartments and they did so with anyone who could pay the rent. My grandparents had lived on Stanhope street for over 60 years and later we and my Aunts and Uncles did too. By 1970 we were all gone including the cousins leaving only my grandparents there.
Practically everyone in my neighborhood worked on that project in construction. Our landlord had 7 sons 6 of them were working on it. Near the end they were working and extra 20 hours a week over time. As soon as it was over they packed up and moved to Long Island or New Jersey. We moved to Florida.
The landlords had to fill those apartments and they did so with anyone who could pay the rent. My grandparents had lived on Stanhope street for over 60 years and later we and my Aunts and Uncles did too. By 1970 we were all gone including the cousins leaving only my grandparents there.
My father owned the Chelsea Steak and Chop House at 248 8th Avenue (near southeast corner of 23rd street) from 1954 unitl 1975. Growing up, i worked there from the 1960's into the 70's. By 1975, Cavanaugh's restaurant had become the Galaxy Disco, and the restaurant became a pharmacy (same terrazzo floor there to this day).
Our customers came from all walks of life. We also had a beautiful bar on the right side of the dining room. My father was tending the bar one day when Brendan Behan, the Irish playwright came in asking for any gin as long as it wasn't from England (by then we had domestic bar gin as well). Teachers from the Fashion Institute ate there alongside corporate account customers from Otis Elevator and Chock ful of Nuts coffee. I met Jackie Robinson when i was a busboy. Many from London Terrace dined there as well as those living in the Chelsea Hotel.
Chelsea, like New York City as a whole, has always been this great mix of many types of people, living together, getting along, caring about eachother.
Our customers came from all walks of life. We also had a beautiful bar on the right side of the dining room. My father was tending the bar one day when Brendan Behan, the Irish playwright came in asking for any gin as long as it wasn't from England (by then we had domestic bar gin as well). Teachers from the Fashion Institute ate there alongside corporate account customers from Otis Elevator and Chock ful of Nuts coffee. I met Jackie Robinson when i was a busboy. Many from London Terrace dined there as well as those living in the Chelsea Hotel.
Chelsea, like New York City as a whole, has always been this great mix of many types of people, living together, getting along, caring about eachother.
31
So once again the same old question that is plaguing just about EVERY neighborhood in New York City: What good is gentrification when the long-time residents can't afford to be around to enjoy it? And whoever thought that Red Hook, Bushwick, Bed-Stuy or the South Bronx would ever be on the map for luxury ANYTHING??
Clearly, the quest for finding a decent, desirable neighborhood here has become as impossible as finding the American Middle-class itself.
Clearly, the quest for finding a decent, desirable neighborhood here has become as impossible as finding the American Middle-class itself.
14
Head out to Staten Island or eastern Queens. But a longer commute and an automobile is the price of more affordable though not cheap homes.
2
It's cheaper and easier to just leave completely. With the exception of a cousin my entire family now lives in Arizona, Wisconsin, Florida and North Carolina.
New York magazine got it right 25 years ago when they predicted the divide between the haves and the have nots would intensify. Why does anyone think it's their birthright to live anywhere? And who pays for all the "affordable housing?"
9
Oh yes. We don´t want our servants living anywhere near us.
1
The gentrification cycle is inevitable. Whether I like it or not, I am a gentrifier on my street in a neighborhood that suffered substantial crime 20 years ago. Now it's surrounded by popular restaurants and an easy walk from Los Angeles' nascent subway system. We are still near the sweet spot right now, with many small independent businesses and housing costs which are high but still lower than in other better-known but less convenient areas.
But what goes up also eventually comes down. Once an area becomes too expensive for anyone but the wealthy, unless it has a natural asset such as a beach it loses interest-value to visitors. Those independent businesses are replaced by homogenous corporate outposts. The rich residents grow old and less inclined to go outside and spend money in the local businesses. The area declines. This happens over and over again.
Nothing remains static. The elderly should absolutely be allowed to finish their lives where they are comfortable. Anyone who argues against that simply isn't elderly and doesn't know anyone who is. The kids in these changing neighborhoods, however, should be planning to leave the nest because that's the nature of the life cycle and the nest is changing anyway.
But what goes up also eventually comes down. Once an area becomes too expensive for anyone but the wealthy, unless it has a natural asset such as a beach it loses interest-value to visitors. Those independent businesses are replaced by homogenous corporate outposts. The rich residents grow old and less inclined to go outside and spend money in the local businesses. The area declines. This happens over and over again.
Nothing remains static. The elderly should absolutely be allowed to finish their lives where they are comfortable. Anyone who argues against that simply isn't elderly and doesn't know anyone who is. The kids in these changing neighborhoods, however, should be planning to leave the nest because that's the nature of the life cycle and the nest is changing anyway.
14
The second generation resident of public housing is an anomaly not the rule. The average length of residence in America is five years. I suspect it is shorter in New York. In the early days of the city, May 1st was the official moving day, when half the city's residents clogged the streets with carts full of their households moving another few blocks uptown in pursuit of better water, cleaner air, newer buildings. There are long waiting lists for public housing. Maybe they should be term limited?
6
NYCHA families traditionally moved on by or before the kids left school, but in NYC, that changed in the 1970s. Rents, always high in NYC, became too high for working class and low income people. So they stayed put--mainly the prents, now grandparents. In 1960, there were 500,000 legal NYCHA residents. Today, there 400,000 residents in the same number of apts. That's grandma living by herself in 2 or 3 bedrooms, paying an average $400 a month. Rent is based on her income, not her living space. AND she either refuses to move, or NYCHA has nowhere to put her absent availability of one-bedrooms, plus a dearth of studios. You can't compare NYC public housing to any other American city on the mainland, as most places have torn theirs down. Puerto Rico may be the only fair comparison, and their public housing is wretched.
6
When I worked for the telephone company I ran into a woman who had grown up in a project here in Charlotte, got pregnant and got an apartment for herself in it, her daughter got pregnant and got and apartment too.
That's four generations of women living in the same public housing project. Moving is the anomaly here.
That's four generations of women living in the same public housing project. Moving is the anomaly here.
Chelsea was a dangerous and ugly place before the building and improvements took place.
Get the welfare people/projects out of there. Those people should live in the Bronx anyhow...
Get the welfare people/projects out of there. Those people should live in the Bronx anyhow...
8
Plenty of nice neighborhoods in the Bronx like Morris Park.
Wow! "Those people." What does that mean? Would you like it if someone told you where to live?
6
So much for The Grapes of Wrath! Is New York becoming a xenophobic place that hates the working class people and the poor? Maybe the Pope wasted his time in coming here. Some of the comments here are incredibly shameful. Sorry to inform you-there are poor people in the world-even in New York, and they have every right to be here. As does the middle class.
1
An illustration of this article's message lies at the corner of 9th Avenue and 18th Street - just north of the high end Maritime/Dream hotels, Tao Restaurant and Chelsea Market. The apartment building at southeast corner, (across from Robert Fulton Houses) used to have eight businesses, including a dry cleaner, bodega, pizzeria, barber shop, newsagent/giftshop, check cashing, etc. along 9th Ave. The building management - Stonehenge - eliminated all these business, renovated and now half the space is Wells Fargo Bank, the rest empty. A Wells Fargo branch already exists at 17th and 7th Ave; this current branch was previously at 15th and 9th. Now there are fewer services to Robert Fulton Houses, and the rest of the neighborhood in favor of redundant bank services which undoubtedly pays higher rent.
24
I could be wrong, but I believe your map and the accompanying text is incorrect. Specifically, the thoroughfare you have labeled "26th Street" in your map is not 26th but 25th--and the "26th Street: Economic canyon" text is of course similarly erroneous.
3
Many of the comments on this article show how deeply ingrained racism is in official American culture. And also how touchy wealthy people become when they perceive, as they always do, real or imagined threats to their property rights. Their narcissism is such that they will proclaim loudly that they had it as hard if not harder than "them" and that they never asked for help, etc. Pretty gross.
27
Indeed and it also includes claims that "they" (obviously meaning mostly brown and black people) should just move. But why? Their apartments long pre-date the arrival of the wealthy bourgeoisie, and their pampered privately educated kids. These arrogant and racist trolls on here show us (as if we needed proof) that we are not a post-racial society. Their comments also betray the fact that these commenters have other agendas since one screamed, "Stop forcing public housing on neighborhoods" while ignoring the fact that public housing was there first, long before the entitled yuppies arrived.
2
What's amusing about the real estate market in Manhattan is that before government intrusion its housing market, Manhattan hosted all classes within its borders. Now between housing projects, rent control laws, tax abatement and various affordable housing schemes, only the poor and the affluent can afford to live in Manhattan below 96th Street. Public housing is crumbling because the rents collected can't cover operating costs let alone contribute to a capital fund. What a mess.
Leadership is required. Dem politicians need to take an economics class, heck take one from lefty Krugman if they like. He'd tell them to get rid of rent laws as a start.
Leadership is required. Dem politicians need to take an economics class, heck take one from lefty Krugman if they like. He'd tell them to get rid of rent laws as a start.
9
It looks as though only market rate housing is going up, more ugly glass phallic towers going up for the upper echelon of society. de Blasio must be delusional. And thank you bloomberg for your legacy and ruination of this once great city.
6
Ruination? Bloomberg, despite a disappointing 3rd term, left a safe prosperous city to deBlasio who is the process of bringing back the NYC of the 1970s.
3
I live in Penn South, which is not only Chelsea's last real bastion of affordable housing for middle-income families, but one of Manhattan's as well. Those of us who live here are lucky enough to reap the benefits of improvements in schools, amenities, and services without being forced out due to higher rents. We also get to live in an amazing, vibrant community where our neighbors are teachers, nurses, artists, and social workers, not just hedge fund managers. Luckily, the people who live here realize how precious this place is and have repeatedly voted against efforts to privatize.
Unfortunately, in order to get into Penn South you literally have to win the lottery. The waiting list opened last summer for the first time in over ten years; Penn South received something like 30,000 applications for a total of 1,200 spots. I simply can't understand why the city doesn't include plans for MORE Penn Souths in its affordable housing plans.
Unfortunately, in order to get into Penn South you literally have to win the lottery. The waiting list opened last summer for the first time in over ten years; Penn South received something like 30,000 applications for a total of 1,200 spots. I simply can't understand why the city doesn't include plans for MORE Penn Souths in its affordable housing plans.
19
Because the powers that be care more for the 1% than the rest of its inhabitants. They spend more they make more money and they don't mind paying through the nose.
5
" I simply can't understand why the city doesn't include plans for MORE Penn Souths in its affordable housing plans."
The money to pay for this subsidized "affordable" housing is just not available.
The money to pay for this subsidized "affordable" housing is just not available.
5
Here's why: developers don't make money on affordable housing, and before they agree to build it, govt has to give tax breaks in exchange--plus permission to build even more market rate housing. That's why we will continue to see affordable housing schemes being a drop in the bucket. We lose way more than are built each year.
1
Chelsea has really changed in the past ten years, with most of that change occurring as a result of the High Line. In 2005, Ninth Avenue from 14th Street to 23rd was dotted with small, mom and pop businesses, many of which are gone now. Alvin's Alley (a fab independent video store); Frank's (a less than glamorous bodega) and a bunch of other places, all gone. What this article speaks of is a problem our whole city faces.....the loss of the heart and soul of our communities through the loss of small businesses. Sadly, if a business doesn't own the building it is in, it will be gone soon because of rising rents, which will leave our communities with a shortage of tailors, hardware stores, shoe repairmen, and the like. Chelsea will hold onto it's middle class because of Penn South and its lower income residents because of the projects...but the world will and is changing around those places and will continue, in some aspects, to alienate them both. I look around every day and wonder where my City went to. I am not alone in this thought. At all.
21
Good to read that some local corporations like IAC and Hilfiger are contributing to the neighborhood-. But what about the gorilla Google? They have a cornacopia of free eateries in their building that the googlers can't possibly consume- there's am almost obscene amount of food available in this behemoth of a building. The waste must be formidable but hopefully it is distributed to the many needier in the area- whether in these public housing complexes with elderly or some of the homeless pantries such as St. Xavier's where it would be greatly appreciated.
7
I went to law school in NYC moved to Washington DC for awhile then moved back 6 years ago. Now I feel like I have to leave again. There are many things I love about this city - the sparkling diversity, the array of some of the best public parks in the country - but even at my exalted 200K per year salary I just can't maintain a middle class existence here. Rent consumes and distorts everything. In any other place I'd be a homeowner, but here Im too rich to get affordable housing assistance (and this is fair I should not need it at my income level) but too poor to compete with the investors and condos and coops seeking all cash buyers and massive 6 figure downpayments. Basically, NYC is being hollowed out. You're either very poor getting assistance or a millionaire. If youre somewhere in the middle there really is no long term future for you here.
35
200K per year and you can't enjoy a comfortable existence in New York?
5
Bro--you need to learn how to use your money! At that income, you should own a $350,000 studio somewhere. The Dept. of Consumer Affairs has financial assistance programs for a small fee. I suspect your law school note is what's weighing you down, but you still need some Suze Orman in your life.
3
Dash, at that income level, you can buy a nice house in a nice neighborhood in Queens. What's stopping you?
1
I'm a lifelong NY-er. Only the wealthy are safe here now. I predict Cuomo will gut rent stabilization and drive everyone out to places where subways don't run or keep selling the notion that it's "cool" to live in a pre-fab storage container. It's the same story in San Francisco. We'll all be American refugees renting rooms not apartments while foreign interests take the land right out from under us. Government, law, rules, are controls now for the 99% while continuing to be protections for the 1%. It's not going to get better and it probably won't shift back to where it was in the 80s/90s for fifty years, which, by that time, all the land will be taken and the only remnant left of old NYC will be the subway because anything old above ground will be long since demolished.
19
I disagree with your doomsday scenario but the deBlasio administration is currently considering permitting apartments as small as 260 square feet (approx 16' x 16'). Not too far off from your storage container. Also the subways don't run to my neighborhood which is maybe why it's safe and quiet.
Chelsea is embarrassing. So many pretentious boutiques and increasingly crass consumerism with the Apple Store and The North Face. It doesn't feel bohemian or young or whatever the real estate developers put in their brochures. It feels like SoHo — trendy, with a rich artistic tradition, and now utterly vapid.
16
Then don't go there.
10
In Key West ,the same thing has been going on for years. As the old Conchs sell off their property to rich northerners, the rest of us working class people scramble to find affordable housing.
if you are a working class local you must maintain at least two jobs just to pay the rent on a shabby efficiency. The out of town landlords don't care and only look to the almighty dollar. "What ever the market can bear" seems to be the new motto on our little island.
I'm not a fan of Bernie Sanders,but he starting to look good to me. Pass me another margarita, the rent just doubled. I feel your pain Chelsea.
if you are a working class local you must maintain at least two jobs just to pay the rent on a shabby efficiency. The out of town landlords don't care and only look to the almighty dollar. "What ever the market can bear" seems to be the new motto on our little island.
I'm not a fan of Bernie Sanders,but he starting to look good to me. Pass me another margarita, the rent just doubled. I feel your pain Chelsea.
13
The author does not clarify if there are true threats to the NYCHA housing in Chelsea. Are they under imminent danger? I cannot imagine that any present or future administration would allow for razing of the NYCH housing in Chelsea. In fact, Chelsea is one of the few neighborhoods in Manhattan, save for Harlem perhaps, with a true mix of economic diversity. Chelsea is still more affordable for a one bedroom than the east village, for example. In the east village, public housing is relegated to the far edge of FDR. In contrast, in Chelsea almost every block has a mix of housing and a diverse citizenry.
3
Every reporter feels compelled to quote a NYCHA resident predicting privatization or razing. Ain't gonna happen. Residents vote, too, and they represent a huge percentage of all New Yorkers living in affordable housing. Plus, though the federal govt owns the property, NYC determines how it will be managed/maintained. Congress has tried to get rid of public housing by underfunding it, and cities that want to keep it must either come up with the additional funds, or let private developers come in to lease and build on available land.
When I moved into Chelsea in 1985, there were approximately 7-8 Cuban-Chinese restaurants - offering delicious, low-priced fare - within five blocks. Today, there are approximately none.
15
Nice woman with her cart going to N.J., the article writer should have told her to walk to Trader Joe's on 6th & 21st, better produce, cheaper prices than anywhere. I drive there myself. Even when there are no victims, the Times can always manufacture one.
21
She can probably go to NJ and back in less time than it will take her to reach the front of the checkout line at the TJ on 21st.
2
Yes, Trader Joe's is not inexpensive, and that line is way too long. It has some inexpensive produce and inexpensive cheese, but that is not enough variety to form a whole diet.
So I guess the answer is to give every poor person a multi-million dollar apartment among the rich. And this will of course bring in millions more poor people from around the world and let them know that when you come to America, they will give you free up-scale apartments, because Americans are idiots and all you need to do is shame them for being "discriminating" and they'll give you everything.
13
That's the spirit. So kind and caring and thoughtful of you.
These poor people are also working people. They might even be people you have employed in your home, a nanny, a home aide, a maid, a driver, a carpenter, an electrician, a tutor. What is it that makes rich people treat others with such contempt?
1
As long as you don't make them use a separate entrance.
The writer must not be familiar with the neighborhood because the "economic canyon" to which he speaks is 25th Street not 26th Street. There is no 26th Street between 9th and 10th avenue. I should know I live there.
6
That's an editing problem. The very fine reporter, M. Navarro, is not responsible for the grapics.
Seems as of Ms. Waters has a great deal, except for the lack of lower cost shopping -- so, why doesn't the city change the zoning so allow a box store on the grounds of the NYCPHA projects, between the buildings or above the parking lots, or why not have NYCPHA open PX type stores as exist on military bases-- contracting out the management of them to lowest bidder. Limit access to residents w/ ID cards from NYCPHA. Building more so-called affordable housing in affluent neighborhoods just creates more problems.
5
NYCHA has tried mightily to get these stores, mainly supermarkets, to come in. Fact is, the way these 40-80 year old structures were built, they don't have the necessary space. Besides, how many such places even exist in NYC? Certainly not adjacent to public housing.
IIRC at one time the city did allow for some retail stores on NYCHA property but local merchants complained that it was unfair competition.
Housing insecurity is a huge problem for poor and middle-class New Yorkers. No one can predict where it's all going to end. Areas previously impervious to gentrification are seeing notable increases in housing costs, and even working people with good, stable jobs are not able to predict where they will be in five years and what it will cost them.
Strangely, something similar is happening to businesses. Businesses that have been around for decades are closing because they can't pay the rent, leaving people in gentrifying areas with no choice but to pay more for everything, or to order everything online, which is a fundamental threat to the whole point of living in a high-density, urban environment in the first place.
in the Manhattan neighborhood where I've lived for the last 20 years, we saw most of our neighborhood services replaced by restaurants and bars. But the true turning point was when the independently-owned restaurants and bars began closing because they weren't making it--leaving only the large, national chains.
The residents and leadership of this city need to come together to think about what makes a livable city, and to institute regulations in place to protect it. Otherwise, we are well on our way to creating a transient environment where no one can really live, raise families, invest in the future. We can just put the entire city up for rent on AirBnB...are we all comfortable with that?
Strangely, something similar is happening to businesses. Businesses that have been around for decades are closing because they can't pay the rent, leaving people in gentrifying areas with no choice but to pay more for everything, or to order everything online, which is a fundamental threat to the whole point of living in a high-density, urban environment in the first place.
in the Manhattan neighborhood where I've lived for the last 20 years, we saw most of our neighborhood services replaced by restaurants and bars. But the true turning point was when the independently-owned restaurants and bars began closing because they weren't making it--leaving only the large, national chains.
The residents and leadership of this city need to come together to think about what makes a livable city, and to institute regulations in place to protect it. Otherwise, we are well on our way to creating a transient environment where no one can really live, raise families, invest in the future. We can just put the entire city up for rent on AirBnB...are we all comfortable with that?
71
Our comfort stopped mattering when Bloomberg bought his third term and began the wholesale demolition of our city.
10
To AMV: Yours is the most comprehensive and realistic comment about what is happening and has happened all around my neighborhood. I live in the community called Greenwich Village but it is no longer that community at all..
I've only lived in Chelsea for 10 years, but I live on the far west side where all the development has occurred. My rent has almost doubled and is at market rate, and I look jealously at my neighbors who live in large elevator serviced apartments with views and pay cents on the dollar for their rent. Yes, I'm college educated, but I'm Hispanic and I spent my early years in Wilmington, California literally in the last house next to the port of Los Angeles so I know what it's like to live in extreme poverty and I know how education and hard work and sacrifice can create class mobility. Nowadays I often resent affordable housing and middle income housing mainly because I'm always just above the income threshold for what are prime apartments that I couldn't afford at market rates but systematically I'm blocked out of when they are state or city subsidized. How is this fair? To live well in this city and have proper housing you either have to be extremely rich or extremely poor. I look at the picture of Ms. Water's kitchen in the affordable housing unit and I think - Look how big that dining room table is! What a great apartment, an apartment I will never see or be able to afford. Why don't we get rid of Restricted Public Housing and instead give out Housing Subsidies to be spent on housing and open the housing market to everyone? Why are we subsidizing poor people to live in some of the most expensive neighborhoods in the country? I would rather subsidize education.
108
@andym: First, we aren't subsidizing "poor people" - most of these tenants are working people or retired working people. Everyone acts as if "poor people" are all slackers who just take from the trough, which is completely wrong.
Second: These neighborhoods WEREN'T "some of the most expensive neighborhoods in the country" until the aggressive gentrifiers moved in. A lot of people who are now avidly pursuing "luxury housing" in Chelsea would have dismissed the idea of living in that "unsafe" neighborhood just a few years ago. The area around 9th & 10th Avenues in the west 20's was long considered one of the most undesirable areas one could possibly get stuck living in.
Second: These neighborhoods WEREN'T "some of the most expensive neighborhoods in the country" until the aggressive gentrifiers moved in. A lot of people who are now avidly pursuing "luxury housing" in Chelsea would have dismissed the idea of living in that "unsafe" neighborhood just a few years ago. The area around 9th & 10th Avenues in the west 20's was long considered one of the most undesirable areas one could possibly get stuck living in.
13
I completely understand where you are coming from. What you don't understand is Chelsea (many others that are also going through gentrification) was once one of the worst neighborhoods to live in. There were major issues with drugs, etc. The residents who still pay cents on the dollar for their rent lived through these very difficult circumstances. They had to be strong enough to go about their daily lives surrounded by chaos. They are the reasons why artists and other gentrifyers came in the first place. Now that Chelsea is a safer neighborhood, the residents who endured so much are not going walk away from it. They should be allowed to enjoy it. It would be great if we can all choose what we subsidize but the reality is government dictates where our money is spent. The old Chelsea was never going to get money for education but the new Chelsea will. As you should know, everyone doesn't learn the same. An education for a higher learner will not help someone who has a learning disability or health condition. Would you suggest that we need to stop subsidizing education because they can't learn the same way? If they open the housing market to everyone, the only ones who will be able to afford it are the thousands of absentee millionaires and billionaires or maybe those who are cronies of the politicians. I'm sure I speak for many people but I wouldn't want to live in a city where it resembled The Capital in the Hunger Games.
25
Because the poor and working class built this city and those neighborhoods. I think every union and underpaid person should go on a one day strike to show all the people like you how necessary we are.
15
Thanks to involved tenants like Mrs. Waters low-income tenants can still make their homes in luxury neighborhoods like Chelsea.
As more art galleries move into the neighborhood, it's a sure sign living is getting better all the time. While Mrs. Waters cannot afford the pictures in her present site, she can still enjoy the ambiance it generates. -The Colonel
As more art galleries move into the neighborhood, it's a sure sign living is getting better all the time. While Mrs. Waters cannot afford the pictures in her present site, she can still enjoy the ambiance it generates. -The Colonel
3
We live in a market economy. Deal with it!
8
We live in a market economy. Vote for Bernie Sanders and change it!
4
"We live in a market economy. Deal with it!"
See, that line of thinking is the problem. At a Republican debate in 2012 the audience chanted "let him die!" when there was a question about a person without health insurance. And that was Ron Paul's sentiment — he made a bad choice and deserved to die for it, or in this case become homeless.
We are better than that.
See, that line of thinking is the problem. At a Republican debate in 2012 the audience chanted "let him die!" when there was a question about a person without health insurance. And that was Ron Paul's sentiment — he made a bad choice and deserved to die for it, or in this case become homeless.
We are better than that.
7
I would like to hear from the retired folks on fixed incomes how they would feel if they worked all their lives providing a socially beneficent service and waiting for the shoe to drop that they will be priced out of where they live with no where to go on a fixed income. Do you see the predicament now???? If rents are soaring all across the city, where do you suppose they should go? Do you know how hard it is to save for a down-payment on a fixed income?
Ask me: I make less than the median income as an administrative assistant and had to take a break from college because I don't get financial aid because I "make too much money", would have to borrow and get into further debt, while I have health problems requiring physical therapy and medication, while simultaneously getting out of debt brought on by one year of unemployment plus the expenses two parents with terminal illnesses (which I whittled down to $4500 right now without declaring bankruptcy nor cheating), AND I make too much to qualify for the housing lotteries to get a cheaper rent, and I pay $1025 for a 13 x 17 studio in lumpen Ozone Park.
If you don't believe me, check out New York Craiglist. There are people charging $1000 for a basement apartment in the less than nice parts of QUEENS. This is what real estate speculation does.
Ask me: I make less than the median income as an administrative assistant and had to take a break from college because I don't get financial aid because I "make too much money", would have to borrow and get into further debt, while I have health problems requiring physical therapy and medication, while simultaneously getting out of debt brought on by one year of unemployment plus the expenses two parents with terminal illnesses (which I whittled down to $4500 right now without declaring bankruptcy nor cheating), AND I make too much to qualify for the housing lotteries to get a cheaper rent, and I pay $1025 for a 13 x 17 studio in lumpen Ozone Park.
If you don't believe me, check out New York Craiglist. There are people charging $1000 for a basement apartment in the less than nice parts of QUEENS. This is what real estate speculation does.
17
Then go somewhere else. No one's stopping you.
1
If someone is of retirement age 65 or plus and they don't have a couple of grand for a down payment they are completely irresponsible.
I moved my sister out of Jamaica last year and took her and her household goods to Neenah Wisconsin where my other sisters and brothers live. She was paying $800 a month for a really ratty illegal apartment. $800 here would get you a decent one bedroom and sometimes a two bedroom without all the patched up mess an 80 year old house has. And she wouldn't have to tiptoe up the stairs when she gets off work at 2AM and have to listen to the landlord's nonsense.
First of all, low-income, subsidized housing in Manhattan arguably makes no sense--the FMV of the subsidy (to permit someone to live in a decent sized apartment in a nice part of Manhattan for a few hundred dollars a month) is probably worth upwards of $40-$100k a year in many cases. I'm guessing the residents might just elect to take the cash and move to Jersey City if they had the option. Stop and think about this--we as the taxpayers are essentially paying someone north of $50k a year to live on one side of a river rather than another. Does that make sense?
Second, the design of these housing units is terrible for the city. They are brutalist, ugly and inward facing. They cut off the street life. They are dark and scary for a woman to walk through alone at night. If we want to subsidize low income housing, how about we build something that conforms to the typical Manhattan block design, with residences on top of commercial space.
Second, the design of these housing units is terrible for the city. They are brutalist, ugly and inward facing. They cut off the street life. They are dark and scary for a woman to walk through alone at night. If we want to subsidize low income housing, how about we build something that conforms to the typical Manhattan block design, with residences on top of commercial space.
15
If you are going to use the word Brutalist, please use it correctly. The only NYCHA project I can think of that is built in the Brutalist Style are the Stuvessant Houses in Bed-Stuy. Other than that, most are built in the functionalist or new international styles of Modernism. Ironically, the Stuyvessant Houses are not inward-facing...
2
Middle class families, not reliant on public assistance, also can't afford to live in Chelsea. Is that more or less of a problem than the fact that people on public assistance can't afford to live there?
31
It appears the only people who can live in NYC are friends of Bloomberg, thanks to his bought for third term he gave the city away to his developer friends, they were THE ONLY ones who received help from Bloomberg. The city and its inhabitants lost out long ago. It's now a city for the 1%, the others? Merely worker bees.
6
The article misses a huge part of Chelsea that is leaving this neighborhood due to costs: middle income coop and condo owners. Why? Real Estate taxes. In the coop building where I lived for over 20 years, the original buyers of the coops were middle income families who gave up the luxuries of the Village, Park Slope, Upper West, etc. to afford reasonably priced lofts.
However, during the 12 years of Bloomberg the real estate taxes on the 6 story, 25 unit builidng went from $98,000 in 2001 to $386,000 in 2011. Where once an owner of a 1 bedroom loft was paying $950/month in maintenance, it is now over $2000. These middle income families are being priced out of their homes and public housing will not be available to them.
The disparity of income in Chelsea is primarily due to the loss of middle class. The article seems to think adding more poor and low income would change this. it doesn't. Those lucky enough to have public housing will never leave. Those who earn only $60,000 to $100,000 cannot afford Chelsea any longer.
This is the great legacy of Bloomberg.
However, during the 12 years of Bloomberg the real estate taxes on the 6 story, 25 unit builidng went from $98,000 in 2001 to $386,000 in 2011. Where once an owner of a 1 bedroom loft was paying $950/month in maintenance, it is now over $2000. These middle income families are being priced out of their homes and public housing will not be available to them.
The disparity of income in Chelsea is primarily due to the loss of middle class. The article seems to think adding more poor and low income would change this. it doesn't. Those lucky enough to have public housing will never leave. Those who earn only $60,000 to $100,000 cannot afford Chelsea any longer.
This is the great legacy of Bloomberg.
108
The thing you're ignoring is that real estate taxes are only going up because the underlying properties are much, much more valuable now. Sorry, but I have a hard time crying tears for someone because of hardships arising from the millions of dollars they've made on their real estate. If anything we should be raising taxes aggressively on the owners of these valuable properties, its pretty much the only way we directly tax wealth in this country and we need more of that, not less.
4
Current RE Tax assessment laws date to 1981, and have not been changed since then. The laws predate Bloomberg by 20 years. Class 2 buildings, including Coops and Condos, pay nearly 40% of NYC's tax levy.
Class 1 buildings (1-3 family homes) do not pay their fair share. They make up over 50% of NYC's overall RE values, but only pay 15% of the Tax levy.
Our current mayor owns two Class 1 homes in Park Slope, each valued at 2M. He pays $2900 per year in RE taxes on each property. If he really wanted to help New Yorkers, he should overhaul the Dept of Finance, and make Class 1 buildings pay taxes in line with other dwellings.
The amount raised by taxes could be used to build housing needed for middle and lower income families.
Class 1 buildings (1-3 family homes) do not pay their fair share. They make up over 50% of NYC's overall RE values, but only pay 15% of the Tax levy.
Our current mayor owns two Class 1 homes in Park Slope, each valued at 2M. He pays $2900 per year in RE taxes on each property. If he really wanted to help New Yorkers, he should overhaul the Dept of Finance, and make Class 1 buildings pay taxes in line with other dwellings.
The amount raised by taxes could be used to build housing needed for middle and lower income families.
6
We need property taxes to pay for municipal services and various subsidies for our ever-increasing number of poor people.
Besides, compared to Long Island and Westchester, NYC homeowners pay very little.
A $700,000 property in Tarrytown can carry property taxes upwards of $50,000 a year whereas a $700,000 property in Brooklyn runs about $5,000.
Of course, a $10,000,000 townhouse in Brooklyn Heights carries with it property taxes in the hundreds of thousands a year.
Bloomberg raised them as much as he could. No one likes it, but you can't blame him. We do need the cash.
Besides, compared to Long Island and Westchester, NYC homeowners pay very little.
A $700,000 property in Tarrytown can carry property taxes upwards of $50,000 a year whereas a $700,000 property in Brooklyn runs about $5,000.
Of course, a $10,000,000 townhouse in Brooklyn Heights carries with it property taxes in the hundreds of thousands a year.
Bloomberg raised them as much as he could. No one likes it, but you can't blame him. We do need the cash.
Funny how liberals demand change, but only if that change doesn't affect them (or who they view as less fortunate and are always attempting to "help"). Being able to live in the middle of Manhattan on the taxpapers dime is akin to winning the lottery, its not a right. We shouldn't be funding people to live unchecked in their bubble as the world around them evolves.
11
So you would be AOK if your parents or your children (obviously I don't know what stage of life you're in) suddenly felt forced to move because a bunch of rich people were taking over their neighborhood? Funny how conservatives seem incapable of empathy.
Like most middle class NYers, I shop at Trader Joe's, which is a nightmare of crowds and lines, but is at least 1/3 cheaper than any other supermarket.
It is hardly news that Manhattan is too expensive for all but the rich and subsidized poor.
Fortunately, no one is forced to live here. Any one of us can all move to cheaper areas and commute to work and hour or more each way, as do millions of unsubsidized middle class workers every weekday.
Cry me a river.
It is hardly news that Manhattan is too expensive for all but the rich and subsidized poor.
Fortunately, no one is forced to live here. Any one of us can all move to cheaper areas and commute to work and hour or more each way, as do millions of unsubsidized middle class workers every weekday.
Cry me a river.
17
I don't understand why those with low incomes are protective, as if living in Manhattan is a right given to them. I used to live in Manhattan, I couldn't afford it anymore, so I moved out. I made new friends, found new activities and still commute into NYC everyday. Life goes on.
If your excuse that these people should be allowed to live in taxpayer funded housing in the middle of the most expensive real estate market in the U.S. because "thats how its always been" or "thats where they grew up" - its a very weak argument, and doesn't really play well with the liberals cry of "CHANGE!"
If your excuse that these people should be allowed to live in taxpayer funded housing in the middle of the most expensive real estate market in the U.S. because "thats how its always been" or "thats where they grew up" - its a very weak argument, and doesn't really play well with the liberals cry of "CHANGE!"
26
You can write the same article about Astoria, the South Bronx, or Bed Stuy. Sure, you can still move to Newark. But how long before the wealthy decide they want Newark, too?
6
Systemic inequities propelling consumer capitalism inevitably confronting institutional racism is how I understand the phenomenon covered in this piece. I live in Oakland and am watching the seeds of greed take flight here - the glory of capitalism, where displacement and class entitlement run amok. Mentioned in these comments is that somehow those with less should cease resentment toward those who have 'succeeded', that folks should 'figure out there own success'. Sounds like bootstrap-theory myopia to me. The problem with ideas like this is the playing field is not level, never has been, and likely won't be until there is a massive economic (or environmental) crisis. Horatio Alger myth is busted - racial (class) inequality is real. The idea that "success" deserves the right sweep working class poor out of town is endemic to the larger spiritual (secular) malady manifest in a dependence on material wealth and its self-centered bi-product: 'I got mine, if you can't figure out how to get yours, that's your problem.' Go team!
10
“The area is much more beautiful than when I was coming up... The big problem is money.”
This pretty sums up the state of things in Chelsea and many other NYC neighborhoods: both the good and the bad! Things may be nicer, but who can afford to live there any more?
Thanks for a nuanced discussion of the changes in Chelsea--typical of many other NYC neighborhoods!
This pretty sums up the state of things in Chelsea and many other NYC neighborhoods: both the good and the bad! Things may be nicer, but who can afford to live there any more?
Thanks for a nuanced discussion of the changes in Chelsea--typical of many other NYC neighborhoods!
14
It is not just Chelsea and not just low-income residents who are anxious an have cause for concern.
Plenty of moderate or middle-income New Yorkers in what used to be middle-class neighborhoods in Manhattan and Brooklyn (and Queens is currently being targeted) are worried as their neighborhoods are decimated by the luxury housing tsunami (luxury housing for young wealthy people in finance,tech,media or for pied a terre residences for older wealthy people).
Life long residents, families who have lived in NYC for generations, are being pushed out and/or become strangers in their own neighborhoods as "luxe" takes over. Essentially "demographic cleansing"of neighborhoods.
And much of the luxury real estate expansion was helped along by tax breaks, and beneficial zoning changes, particularly those implemented by the Bloomberg Administration intent on transforming NYC into a "luxury brand." As for Chelsea, it turns out that the High Line was just a real estate Trojan Horse
Plenty of moderate or middle-income New Yorkers in what used to be middle-class neighborhoods in Manhattan and Brooklyn (and Queens is currently being targeted) are worried as their neighborhoods are decimated by the luxury housing tsunami (luxury housing for young wealthy people in finance,tech,media or for pied a terre residences for older wealthy people).
Life long residents, families who have lived in NYC for generations, are being pushed out and/or become strangers in their own neighborhoods as "luxe" takes over. Essentially "demographic cleansing"of neighborhoods.
And much of the luxury real estate expansion was helped along by tax breaks, and beneficial zoning changes, particularly those implemented by the Bloomberg Administration intent on transforming NYC into a "luxury brand." As for Chelsea, it turns out that the High Line was just a real estate Trojan Horse
67
So the High Line project was a mistake, an opening salvo in the "demographic cleansing" of a neighborhood? It's dramatic, but it's just not true. The problem I have with arguments that lament change is that you can't stop change. No neighborhood has ever been or ever will be static. That's true everywhere. No one "demographic" owns a neighborhood or has the right to claim ownership. What's wrong with young wealthy people? I wish I was young and wealthy. Are they somehow less worthy of living in a neighborhood that they like and choose to live in?
17
Every now and then, I'd like to see poorer people displace richer people--just for a nice change of pace. We're all sick of being shoved around by the well-to-do, who constantly want their taxes decreased.
3
Newcomers should be the ones who have to find some other place to live, not families who have been there for generations.
4
The fact that Jamestown Properties' Chelsea Market made a deal that involves "...a pledge of more than $1 million over four years for a technology training program for public housing youth...$12 million for the High Line and about $5 million for a fund to build affordable housing" says it all. Why does the park get $12 MILLION and tech training for kids only get 1?
7
This story was first dealt with in the Bible.
For a more recent version of it, watch Diner, a 1962 film about young working-class men in Baltimore. Two them are driving through a rich area of the suburbs and come across a beautiful young girl galloping her horse across a country estate. One turns to the other and says: "Do you ever get the feeling that there's something going on that we don't know about?"
For a more recent version of it, watch Diner, a 1962 film about young working-class men in Baltimore. Two them are driving through a rich area of the suburbs and come across a beautiful young girl galloping her horse across a country estate. One turns to the other and says: "Do you ever get the feeling that there's something going on that we don't know about?"
5
Many of the comments here, no doubt by recent transplants, are disgusting. The number one group receiving public money in NYC is the uber wealthy through the ridiculous developer subsidies on all of the atrocious "luxury" towers going up everywhere. And then of course, there was the massive handout given to Wall Street bankers. The rich strip our society of far, far more than the poor do. Anyone who thinks otherwise is trying to justify their own ignorance and greed. The good news is that these disgusting people that are flocking to our city now will be singing a different tune when the next crash comes. And it's coming......
39
To the very, very few poor persons who will read this: tell your friends that we the rich (and overwhelmingly white) are coming for your homes. It's become "hip" to live where you live, so now you have to go. What, you couldn't find work with Google? Tough tootsies, sweety. Blame mama.
4
Of course, there's no mention of the Trader Joe's that opened - because of gentrification - at 6th Avenue and 22nd Street. Lamenting the loss of dirty, overpriced bodegas - most of which were just number running joints - in the face of a very reasonable grocery store is laughable.
24
Thank you. I grew up in NYC and recall those filthy bodegas that smelled of feet and sold food well past its prime. I do not understand the good feelings people have for those places. Good riddance, i say.
1
I live in Chelsea.We have our share of high end resaurants and markets and apartments but there are ample resturants and markets for low and middle income families.There is a good supermaket on ninth Ave. and 28th..sales every week.We have abundant sidewalk fruit and vegetable stands.We have Trader Joes. We have Jacks. We have TjMax. We have Macy's. We have Marshall's.We have an excellent Senior Center serviing breakfast and lunch. We have the wonderful HIgh Line open to all..Chelsea is just fine..I don't have to go to New Jersey for bargains..oops forgot the Whitney..
8
Sorry, but not everyone gets to live in midtown Manhattan. I don't, and I paid tens of thousands of dollars to NYC in commercial rent and income taxes over several decades. Dis-location is tough on the poor but they will gradually move elsewhere. In the meantime, the inconvenience of regular shopping expeditions to New Jersey is more than compensated by having a safe neighborhood.
7
They thought Google would provide jobs for locals? Come on.
As if people who are barely scraping by in public housing have the attributes and intelligence to work at the smartest company in the world.
Not saying these are bad people, but live where you can afford; you don't deserve to live in the richest city in the world on other people's subsidies. Why?
I'd like to live in Manhattan too. Or Beverly Hills.
As if people who are barely scraping by in public housing have the attributes and intelligence to work at the smartest company in the world.
Not saying these are bad people, but live where you can afford; you don't deserve to live in the richest city in the world on other people's subsidies. Why?
I'd like to live in Manhattan too. Or Beverly Hills.
7
This piece, and the comments, make clear that there is in fact a very fine line between "socioeconomic diversity" (which people praise as a good thing) and "inequality" (which people decry as a bad thing.)
2
Boo Hoo! Take a 2.75 subway! Makes you want to privatize the apartments and give the apartments to people who are less entitled...
7
Welcome to the 21st century, where THE two main challenges facing society will be dealing with the implications of climate change and with the implications of urban gentrification/affordable housing. Ironically, it now appears that the problem of climate change may admit to a solution more readily. No one has a clue about how to solve the other one.
3
These kinds of articles, bemoaning the sentiments of the economically and culturally adrift in changing neighborhoods, frustrate me. Of course no one wants to move when they're used to a certain place, but this phenomenon is a normal part of life.
I grew up in a tiny two bedroom apartment in Brooklyn. Although we appreciated the city's amenities, once my parents managed to save a little bit of money we moved to NJ, where they were able to afford a modest home, an impossibility in Brooklyn, even then. After college, I moved to Manhattan for medical school, where I lived in a small, crowded, but subsidized dormitory housing for four years. As soon as I graduated, the subsidy dissipated and my modest resident salary meant moving to Brooklyn. I shared a small apartment with two roommates for four more years. Once I started my first attending job, I moved to my own one bedroom apartment in a somewhat nicer area of Brooklyn, traveling to Manhattan on weekends. Now, several years later, my partner and I are planning to start a family and realize that we can't afford to stay in Brooklyn, so we will move - possibly back to NJ, just as my family did.
We would love to live in Manhattan. We can't afford it.
This is NORMAL. This is what EVERYONE does when they don't have the money to continue living where they had been. Neighborhoods, and lives, change over time. We ALL have to change with them. Trying to force public housing where it doesn't belong anymore just doesn't make sense.
I grew up in a tiny two bedroom apartment in Brooklyn. Although we appreciated the city's amenities, once my parents managed to save a little bit of money we moved to NJ, where they were able to afford a modest home, an impossibility in Brooklyn, even then. After college, I moved to Manhattan for medical school, where I lived in a small, crowded, but subsidized dormitory housing for four years. As soon as I graduated, the subsidy dissipated and my modest resident salary meant moving to Brooklyn. I shared a small apartment with two roommates for four more years. Once I started my first attending job, I moved to my own one bedroom apartment in a somewhat nicer area of Brooklyn, traveling to Manhattan on weekends. Now, several years later, my partner and I are planning to start a family and realize that we can't afford to stay in Brooklyn, so we will move - possibly back to NJ, just as my family did.
We would love to live in Manhattan. We can't afford it.
This is NORMAL. This is what EVERYONE does when they don't have the money to continue living where they had been. Neighborhoods, and lives, change over time. We ALL have to change with them. Trying to force public housing where it doesn't belong anymore just doesn't make sense.
95
Your argument has a surface appeal which wilts when you consider the fact that the poorer residents profiled live in public housing, not the private market. They live in housing projects dating to periods when Chelsea was not an attractive neighborhood.
More importantly, they live in apartments designed from the start as housing for those of limited means. Of course the private market has, and will always change and neighborhoods with it. But these residents actually like the cleaner safer neighborhood (if you actually read the article) while experiencing anxiety about possible future demolition of their complex. Why should yuppies and foreign expat millionaires get your support and long time residents your all too obvious condescension, doctor?
More importantly, they live in apartments designed from the start as housing for those of limited means. Of course the private market has, and will always change and neighborhoods with it. But these residents actually like the cleaner safer neighborhood (if you actually read the article) while experiencing anxiety about possible future demolition of their complex. Why should yuppies and foreign expat millionaires get your support and long time residents your all too obvious condescension, doctor?
2
It is a sad state of affairs when a DOCTOR can not live in Chelsea. The only job worth having in NYC is hedge fund manager .
2
What you say is "normal" for someone who rents. If you are able to buy your home then you profit when the neighborhood gets more expensive. I was fortunate enough to have money to buy back in 2009 when the housing market was tanking (at least in most on the country, and certainly in my hometown). Since then our home has increased in value by almost 46%. My family would not be able to afford to buy an equivalent place in a such nice area if we were looking today. Yet we are here and we don't have to move because prices went up.
We had to move away from our home area in the late 1980s, because the jobs that young people, even with college degrees, could get there, simply didn't pay enough for us to support our family. Being away from extended family was difficult, and some days I felt as though, in moving to a different region with a different culture, we had actually moved to a different country altogether.
We are now very glad that we relocated, as we are better off financially than any others in our family, and our children are better off in many ways. To stay in an area that caters only to others at your own expense, simply because you grew up there, is silly. It's not as if all of these families had been in NYC forever, and making enough room for all descendants to stay in the same area would be next to impossible.
That said, there are things that could be done to make life better and more harmonious for everyone concerned. Less-advantaged residents could be discreetly provided with a discount card that would entitle them to pay less for neighborhood goods and services, especially during so-called off hours. And the public housing buildings could be spruced up with some of the tax dollars paid by the newer residents, perhaps to the extent of hosting a reasonably-priced restaurant or food co-op or neighborhood community center/gym/coffeehouse. A cap on business rents in the area wouldn't hurt, either.
We are now very glad that we relocated, as we are better off financially than any others in our family, and our children are better off in many ways. To stay in an area that caters only to others at your own expense, simply because you grew up there, is silly. It's not as if all of these families had been in NYC forever, and making enough room for all descendants to stay in the same area would be next to impossible.
That said, there are things that could be done to make life better and more harmonious for everyone concerned. Less-advantaged residents could be discreetly provided with a discount card that would entitle them to pay less for neighborhood goods and services, especially during so-called off hours. And the public housing buildings could be spruced up with some of the tax dollars paid by the newer residents, perhaps to the extent of hosting a reasonably-priced restaurant or food co-op or neighborhood community center/gym/coffeehouse. A cap on business rents in the area wouldn't hurt, either.
7
'...To stay in an area that caters only to others at your own expense...'
How are the upscale shops for rich tourists at the public housing residents 'expense'?
'...Less-advantaged residents could be discreetly provided with a discount card that would entitle them to pay less for neighborhood goods...'
You mean food stamps? Many public housing residents already have that 'discount'.
How are the upscale shops for rich tourists at the public housing residents 'expense'?
'...Less-advantaged residents could be discreetly provided with a discount card that would entitle them to pay less for neighborhood goods...'
You mean food stamps? Many public housing residents already have that 'discount'.
CM you apparently don't know the first thing about business or economics.
When you use government to stop change you end up with Havana very picturesque but would you want to live there? No people living in public housing heavily subsidized by the rest of us do not have to have Manhattan Apts. Some of these projects are down right badlands patrolled by a specialized police force. Stop resenting people and their success figure out your own. This town needs to promote small business getting rid of onerous taxes and regulation that slow growth. NYCHA without Federal funds is too big it needs to be downsized so local tax funds are adequate to maintain it..
25
Your comment is palpably ridiculous.
Ms. Walker, representative of many in subsidized housing, is a retired nursery school teacher not a welfare queen. Who's to say her chosen vocation wasn't a success? Or that she resents others?
Would free enterprise support nursery school teacher salaries at $150k a year?
I think not.
Ms. Walker, representative of many in subsidized housing, is a retired nursery school teacher not a welfare queen. Who's to say her chosen vocation wasn't a success? Or that she resents others?
Would free enterprise support nursery school teacher salaries at $150k a year?
I think not.
2
What you don't realize is that once earning $50,000 to $100,000 was a sign of success. No longer if you want to own or rent in Chelsea. Where once you had a broad spectrum of income groups, you are now just left with the extremes: the very poor and the super rich. I don't think anyone will want to live in Manhattan in those conditions.
One way these project people should have "figured out" their own success would have been to be born to white financially stable families. I mean, DUH, right?
So I guess the answer is to isolate the poor in huge housing projects in isolated sections of the city?
10
So I guess the answer is to give every poor person a multi-million dollar apartment amongt the rich. And oh, of course, call in millions of more poor people from around the world and let them know that when you come to America, they will give you free high-scale apartments for free, all because Americans will be "shamed" into giving that to you by the likes of Arthur Layton.
6
I agree, it is sad that large amounts of people are forced to live in dangerous and unhealthy environments. However, it is still a blessing to live in a country that provides public housing for families in poverty. But with average income of that specific area being so higher than the national average, it is strange that more funds could not be raised for the maintenance of such old buildings.
3
So I guess the answer is for the poor to get an education and a good job and then move out of the huge housing project to a better part of the city, as millions have done for generations?
4
Barry Diller Island would be a perfect gift and location for more much-needed low and middle-income housing.
2
Put the nouveau riche and trust funders there. They can access it via their yachts.
1
On the very Lower East Side -- Grand Street -- a solid row of so-called middle-class housing--built 55 years ago with Federal mortgages and intended for working class families--has "gone private" with two bedroom apartments now tipping upwards of $800,000 and more.
Food?
Virtually all the families --thousands of them -- are middle income with a growing group of high-income buyers (often absentee) -- drag themselves great distances to buy fresh, reasonably priced food.
The neighborhood stores have been utterly corrupted...forced into hugely high rents and substandard, outdated food-- in short garbage.
Families drive, bus, walk to stores and outlets miles away to buy food.
When we are pinched we buy the $6.99 jar of mayo, or watermelon at $3 a pound. We buy the eggs at $4.50 a dozen, or head of rotting lettuce at $4.99.
Landlords are the second half of the equation...it is not only the higher income families. They gouge, and markets gouge, the people pay or walk or ride....in search of bread, milk, eggs.
Food?
Virtually all the families --thousands of them -- are middle income with a growing group of high-income buyers (often absentee) -- drag themselves great distances to buy fresh, reasonably priced food.
The neighborhood stores have been utterly corrupted...forced into hugely high rents and substandard, outdated food-- in short garbage.
Families drive, bus, walk to stores and outlets miles away to buy food.
When we are pinched we buy the $6.99 jar of mayo, or watermelon at $3 a pound. We buy the eggs at $4.50 a dozen, or head of rotting lettuce at $4.99.
Landlords are the second half of the equation...it is not only the higher income families. They gouge, and markets gouge, the people pay or walk or ride....in search of bread, milk, eggs.
16
When I was looking to buy a small one bedroom apartment, I looked at the Grand Street buildings. The apartment are huge and most are filled with elderly single rent controlled tenants who would have moved out long ago, except for their lifelong subsidies.
No one wants to live in a community without a diverse population of young, old, and in between, as it becomes a NORC (naturally occurring retirement community).
If the city wants to subsidize people's rent, subsidize the person, not the apartment.
No one wants to live in a community without a diverse population of young, old, and in between, as it becomes a NORC (naturally occurring retirement community).
If the city wants to subsidize people's rent, subsidize the person, not the apartment.
"Great distances" is so not true. If you live on Grand St, you have the option of taking the bus to Trader Joe's where produce is fresh and cheap. Not to mention, Trader Joe's, Whole Foods and the farmers market take food stamps. It's not like options do not exist in NYC.
There's a 2 bedroom for only $800k?! Where do I sign?
1
I would argue they got lucky. The area is safe and enjoyable and fun.
22
I'm surprised that the NYT focuses on the public housing component so much. Much of Chelsea, which was affordable years ago, and has varied housing stock, has become too expensive for "normal" folk. Like Corey Johnson's apartment the prices have spiked for rent, and like him have to pay an rapidly inflating market rate.
But NYC's complicity in this orgy of development and upwards price pressure on Chelsea was magnified by Bloomberg and continued under DeBlasio. No matter what Mr. DeBlasio says, his Dept. of Buildings routinely gives out permits for construction after hours and on weekends "as of right."
Illegal evictions are rampant. And the DOB doesn't even care about safely - read about the recent fire on 17th Street where sprinklers were removed in a luxury condo conversion:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/fire-torches-chelsea-building-slated...
This Mayor and his administration approve of the "great wealth divide" at least in Chelsea. Let's place blame squarely where it belongs - with these politicians who talk about affordable housing but do NOTHING to help the average market-paying, middle-class citizen, not even a fellow politician like Corey Johnson.
But NYC's complicity in this orgy of development and upwards price pressure on Chelsea was magnified by Bloomberg and continued under DeBlasio. No matter what Mr. DeBlasio says, his Dept. of Buildings routinely gives out permits for construction after hours and on weekends "as of right."
Illegal evictions are rampant. And the DOB doesn't even care about safely - read about the recent fire on 17th Street where sprinklers were removed in a luxury condo conversion:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/fire-torches-chelsea-building-slated...
This Mayor and his administration approve of the "great wealth divide" at least in Chelsea. Let's place blame squarely where it belongs - with these politicians who talk about affordable housing but do NOTHING to help the average market-paying, middle-class citizen, not even a fellow politician like Corey Johnson.
9
Aside from the obvious economic and social aspects this article and commenters are addressing, it seems to me the neighborhood is getting very boring.
11
If we don't like high concentrations of poverty because of their accompanying bad schools and high crime, and we don't like superconcentrated enclaves of wealth because they concentrate privilege and render their powerful residents ignorant of and callous to the needs of ordinary citizens, and we don't like mixed income neighborhoods because it makes some people feel poor, then what do we want?
94
Easy. We don't want anyone else to be happy other than ourselves
2
The old NYC back, it was perfect
We like mixed income neighborhoods. Having a neighborhood with just millionaires and the homeless is not a mixed neighborhood.
1
I make more than the 'average income' in Chelsea and I couldn't afford to live there in my wildest dreams, nor any other place in NYC.
17
It's not actually true that affordable food has disappeared in Chelsea. The old bodegas of twenty years ago are gone, but they were expensive and the hygiene and food quality was grim. (I used to be happy to see illegal cats in the Ninth Ave bodegas, at least they kept the rats in line). The only supermarket in the area was the old Pioneer on Eighth Ave. True, prices in Chelsea Market are sky-high, but you now have a Trader Joe's within walking distance - cheap prices and decent food. What IS true is that inequality increased as rents soared.
28
"If you’re a poor person in Chelsea, you’re just as poor as the person living in Bushwick.”
I would say that you are even poorer.
In Bushwick, you can go to the neighborhood barbershop and get a $10 haircut; Shop at the local supermarket and do your week's shopping for a family of 4 for $120; get a suit at a local retailer for $150.
All of these prices in Chelsea are at least double, if not an even higher multiple.
I would say that you are even poorer.
In Bushwick, you can go to the neighborhood barbershop and get a $10 haircut; Shop at the local supermarket and do your week's shopping for a family of 4 for $120; get a suit at a local retailer for $150.
All of these prices in Chelsea are at least double, if not an even higher multiple.
8
The drug dealers are gone, parks are safe for kids, streets aren't trashy and jobs are available. Yet those on a government dole still complain. One's sympathy for the poor is stretched too thin here in Chelsea.
71
Most of the folks in the article have jobs and are not on the dole. Their complaints about lack of affordable options for groceries are valid. I know, as I am a middle-class resident in NYC, not Louisiana.
3
If you read past your dogmatic diatribe, they are both complaining AND praising the changes. It's a mixed bag, but with some unintended negative consequences that are real. Don't want to hear about it? Don't read the article.
1
Those on the government dole? Like Trump who has filed how many bankruptcies? Or like Wall Street that has politicians like Chuck Schumer eating out their hands? Or like Bloomberg who allowed foreign and domestic criminals to gobble up real estate, lay down 20 million in cash, no questions asked? Dole indeed.
4
Isn't there a Costco and Target up in Harlem she could go to for a $2.75 subway ride? (These are not owned by the "evil" Wal-Mart....)
Also, they could build more affordable housing units if they did away with the parking spaces for the residents who can afford cars thanks to their subsidized housing.
Also, they could build more affordable housing units if they did away with the parking spaces for the residents who can afford cars thanks to their subsidized housing.
25
I don't understand this: Councilman Johnson, “it’d be ideal to try to get young people who are from low-income families to offer paid internships, job training and jobs to get them involved so they could stay in the neighborhood they grew up in.”
In the Bronx, the office I work in employs people who live nearby but also people who live in Queens, Manhattan and Brooklyn. There is no imperative to "make work" for people just because they are proximal to our building - we hire those who are interested and qualified. I am sure that only a handful of employees of the NY Times live in Hell's Kitchen - the vast majority must commute from another borough or New Jersey.
Given this, why is the expectation always there that low income people are only seeking jobs blocks from their homes? This idea that there needs to be employment in the same spot as affordable housing often comes up in NY Times pieces about gentrification and economic opportunity and it has always baffled me. Many people commute or move for economic opportunity, this is not a moral failing of our economy it is just the modern world.
In the Bronx, the office I work in employs people who live nearby but also people who live in Queens, Manhattan and Brooklyn. There is no imperative to "make work" for people just because they are proximal to our building - we hire those who are interested and qualified. I am sure that only a handful of employees of the NY Times live in Hell's Kitchen - the vast majority must commute from another borough or New Jersey.
Given this, why is the expectation always there that low income people are only seeking jobs blocks from their homes? This idea that there needs to be employment in the same spot as affordable housing often comes up in NY Times pieces about gentrification and economic opportunity and it has always baffled me. Many people commute or move for economic opportunity, this is not a moral failing of our economy it is just the modern world.
50
Its because all these big companies come in with promises to help develop the local area, so of course the politicians who agreed to let them in will put out the idea that it will benefit the locals and enrich them...
@Chris: Are there any more affordable areas in the city? That luxury housing came into a poor neighborhood because of cheap available land is the story. Why shouldn't the city use subsidies (if properly managed) to help people live? Of course their housing should be better maintained. If not, the city would house only those of the 95-1% high income.
3
The answer to the question is something the rich and beautiful people, or the google engineers, or the people writing comments in this thread, all miss. If NYC becomes the province of the very well off, if all we have is luxury housing and luxury condos, where do you think they will get their nannies and the cooks in their restaurants and the clerks in their stores and the people driving them and the people painting their apartment or the myriad things they get done? If middle class and low income housing all disappears, where will those people live? One of the things that made NYC such an attractive place is that unlike the gated communities and such you see everywhere else, it always had a mix of people.
It also made NYC attractive as place, where people like Google engineers would want to live. If NYC becomes like Rodeo Drive in LA, or totally becomes like the sterile world of the east side well off, where is the fun of NYC? Where is the edge? One of the neat things about NYC is you have always been able to experience a lot of different people, ethnic restaurants that don't serve a scallop for 25 bucks, stores that are different, do you want a NYC that has literally been bleached out by wealthy, mostly white, people from other places? Do you want a city that is full of drunk frat boy and sorrority girl types, or one with some life to it? And what happens when the wealth bubble bursts, when the money fueling these things goes elsewhere, what will be left?
It also made NYC attractive as place, where people like Google engineers would want to live. If NYC becomes like Rodeo Drive in LA, or totally becomes like the sterile world of the east side well off, where is the fun of NYC? Where is the edge? One of the neat things about NYC is you have always been able to experience a lot of different people, ethnic restaurants that don't serve a scallop for 25 bucks, stores that are different, do you want a NYC that has literally been bleached out by wealthy, mostly white, people from other places? Do you want a city that is full of drunk frat boy and sorrority girl types, or one with some life to it? And what happens when the wealth bubble bursts, when the money fueling these things goes elsewhere, what will be left?
38
The value of diversity is not so that rich people can have nannies, cooks and clerks.
'...where do you think they will get their nannies and the cooks...'
From the boroughs, which is where the middle class commutes from, at which point wages will rise.
'...If middle class and low income housing all disappears, where will those people live?...'
The unsubsidized middle class already has moved out, leaving only the rich and the poor, neither of which NYC needs any more of.
From the boroughs, which is where the middle class commutes from, at which point wages will rise.
'...If middle class and low income housing all disappears, where will those people live?...'
The unsubsidized middle class already has moved out, leaving only the rich and the poor, neither of which NYC needs any more of.
That's about the fifth comment I've read now making allusions to gentrification making the city less "interesting." I didn't grow up in the city, but according to the subject of the article, Chelsea wasn't so much "interesting" as it was drug-infested and dangerous. I'm not saying people should be priced out of neighborhoods, that's another issue entirely. I'm just saying the constant assertions that the city is becoming less interesting is baffling. Poorer communities often suffer from greater crime victimization (to which this article attests). Even Darlene Waters, a struggling RESIDENT of Chelsea says that she'd rather struggle financially than go back to what Chelsea used to be. Bodegas or not (are bodegas supposed to be particular cheap, by the way?) she's just happy her daughter can take a "boring" walk to school and spend time boringly playing in a park that poses no interesting threats.
31
I lived on 19th Street and went to mass at Church of the Guardian Angel on 10th Avenue, a small, beautiful Romanesque-style gem built in 1930. One Sunday, I noticed fluttering shadows behind the rose-window behind the altar and thought it was rustling pigeons, and then realized it was the shuffling legs of tourists on the newly opened High Line.
I worry about that church. Across the street the General Theological Seminary turned its dormitories into the High Line Hotel. Churches are selling their assets for condo development (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-03-28/new-york-city-boom-hea... and I think it's only a matter of time.
There are many "hip" urbanism seminars conducted in the event space on the High Line from which you can see my old church. And when I hear forward-thinking mayors talking about their gentrifying-visions, I want to know why they didn't purchase lots at the pre-boom rates for future affordable housing construction, or lower commercial rents.
These are not either/or choices, more enlightened urban planning in cities like Toronto proves you can still "render unto Caesar" or Trump, and serve the little church on the corner and its parishioners who try to hang on with her.
I worry about that church. Across the street the General Theological Seminary turned its dormitories into the High Line Hotel. Churches are selling their assets for condo development (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-03-28/new-york-city-boom-hea... and I think it's only a matter of time.
There are many "hip" urbanism seminars conducted in the event space on the High Line from which you can see my old church. And when I hear forward-thinking mayors talking about their gentrifying-visions, I want to know why they didn't purchase lots at the pre-boom rates for future affordable housing construction, or lower commercial rents.
These are not either/or choices, more enlightened urban planning in cities like Toronto proves you can still "render unto Caesar" or Trump, and serve the little church on the corner and its parishioners who try to hang on with her.
15
The Great Wealth Divide is not about housing. It has never been about housing.
The Great Wealth Divide is about jobs that never materialize. Never.
They NYT promotes the belief that housing, poverty, crime, drugs and gangs all go hand in hand to creating the wealth gap in America.
It is not so.
The wealth gap, the Great Divide is due solely to the lack of jobs that pay decent wages and that would ultimately allow people to move up.
Yesterday Intel announced that it was investing $3.5 billion in China to rebuild a chip factory. The total investment in that factory is now approaching more than $5 billion. And that does not count the wages paid to employees or the infrastructure in China that is supported by that investment.
When we ship jobs and wealth and opportunity overseas to China or any other nation then that must be recognized as the largest single factor that creates the American Great Wealth Divide.
Unemployed and under-employed people cannot afford better housing. They cannot escape the poverty and crime of the projects. They cannot properly educate their children or buy consumer goods or even pay the taxes that they should.
The number of jobs shipped overseas is equal to or greater than the unemployment rate.
It is time for the NYT and others to call out strongly for jobs for Americans. When every American who wants a good paying job, decent housing and education has their wishes fulfilled, then, and only then, should American companies look overseas.
The Great Wealth Divide is about jobs that never materialize. Never.
They NYT promotes the belief that housing, poverty, crime, drugs and gangs all go hand in hand to creating the wealth gap in America.
It is not so.
The wealth gap, the Great Divide is due solely to the lack of jobs that pay decent wages and that would ultimately allow people to move up.
Yesterday Intel announced that it was investing $3.5 billion in China to rebuild a chip factory. The total investment in that factory is now approaching more than $5 billion. And that does not count the wages paid to employees or the infrastructure in China that is supported by that investment.
When we ship jobs and wealth and opportunity overseas to China or any other nation then that must be recognized as the largest single factor that creates the American Great Wealth Divide.
Unemployed and under-employed people cannot afford better housing. They cannot escape the poverty and crime of the projects. They cannot properly educate their children or buy consumer goods or even pay the taxes that they should.
The number of jobs shipped overseas is equal to or greater than the unemployment rate.
It is time for the NYT and others to call out strongly for jobs for Americans. When every American who wants a good paying job, decent housing and education has their wishes fulfilled, then, and only then, should American companies look overseas.
121
This is such utter nonsense. Lack of jobs? Chelsea is in walking distance of the BIGGEST cluster of jobs in the country in midtown manhattan. Jobs that have low pay jobs that have moderate pay jobs that pay millions.
Tens of thousands of people commute over 2 hours each way to get the jobs that can be walked to in 10 minutes from Chelsea. 36% of the people who live in NYC were born in a foreign country. Almost all of them came to NYC to work and almost all of them have managed to find a job. Now someone who lives in a subsidized apartment steps from literately millions of jobs and speaks the local language cant find a job. I think its the person and not "lack of jobs"
This may be an appropriate comment for Upstate but not NYC.
Tens of thousands of people commute over 2 hours each way to get the jobs that can be walked to in 10 minutes from Chelsea. 36% of the people who live in NYC were born in a foreign country. Almost all of them came to NYC to work and almost all of them have managed to find a job. Now someone who lives in a subsidized apartment steps from literately millions of jobs and speaks the local language cant find a job. I think its the person and not "lack of jobs"
This may be an appropriate comment for Upstate but not NYC.
27
There is an economic and cultural divide in this neighborhood, but on the whole it is harmonious and makes the neighborhood diverse and interesting. Ms. Waters appreciates an enhanced sense of physical safety despite having to shop in Secaucus. And as a previous poster has noted, the city can always subsidize a moderately priced supermarket for the lower income residents of the neighborhood (some of the local artists would also appreciate it).
7
Wow. Subsidized housing and now you're pushing for subsidized groceries? Can I stop working a get a piece of that?
1
I'm a subscriber of the NYT and it's clear based on what it chooses to report and its editorials that inequality is an important issue for the paper. That's fine. Many of the articles tend to bemoan the lack of diversity in various corners of the NYC metro area and beyond. Some articles and opinions agitate for moving poor people to middle class areas through government fiat.
Now we have an area with the economic diversity that the NYT agitates for and it too is a problem. One wonders what solution would appease the inequality zealots? Everyone equal in misery?
Now we have an area with the economic diversity that the NYT agitates for and it too is a problem. One wonders what solution would appease the inequality zealots? Everyone equal in misery?
54
No - the point is that that the Neo-Liberal Economic Policy which is Reaganomics 2.0 states that by lifting the big boats, all boats float. This article is proof that it is not true. Capitalism, the crony kind we have, basically decimates the poor and working classes in exchange for enriching the already rich rentier class. We've had 6,000-10,000 years of civilization to figure out a system where people who are already at the bottom of the rung don't get further screwed by people who are already at the top of the run wanting yet more wealth.
1
There are problems in every solution, but that doesn't mean one can't work to make it better. There were worse problems before the solutions. Anyway, Chelsea doesn't have much in the way of economic diversity. There is a very small middle class and the new buildings which totally overwhelm the smaller old buildings are all luxury. The subsidized housing are like islands in a flood of very high-priced development. What the NYT agitates for, a truly mixed economic environment, is indeed worth arguing for.
When non-Hispanic white residents complain like Barbara Sanchez that an influx of new residents is changing the ethnic or racial makeup of their neighborhoods, we call them racists. At least the new, more-affluent residents are subsidizing the rent on her apartment and lowering the crime rate.
54
Thank you for weighing in as a New Yorker. I hate it when out of towner types who like to come visit and give rebel yells on the street when they get drunk then want to turn around and lecture us on Adam Smith.
5
In case you didn't notice, she was not making any reference to the color of anyone's skin, she was making reference to the price of tomato sauce.
This is not Texas.
This is not Texas.
2
According to the article, "Ms. Sanchez spoke of the loss of an ethnic enclave when most residents of the area were from Puerto Rico, where her parents came from. Now, she said, she travels to Delancey Street on the Lower East Side to shop for her Puerto Rican dishes as she tries to impart her culture to her daughter and 13-year-old son." The article isn't just about economic displacement; it's also about changing racial and ethnic demographics. Sanchez is complaining about people of another race and ethnicity moving into her neighborhood. "Crossing Delancey" works both ways.
5
I live in Chelsea. Soon the High Line will simply be a shadow-filled elevated corridor between 'luxe' apartment buildings. Chelsea was a missed opportunity - by City Hall - to create a forward-thinking, socially and economically diverse neighborhood instead of the outdoor mall that it is rapidly becoming. To suggest that this 'progress' is laughable. To suggest that Ms. Waters move to NJ is unforgivable.
189
'...To suggest that Ms. Waters move to NJ is unforgivable...'
As has millions of unsubsidized middle class workers.
Is it also 'unforgivable' that these workers, who commute hours every weekday, had to move to areas where they could afford to live?
As has millions of unsubsidized middle class workers.
Is it also 'unforgivable' that these workers, who commute hours every weekday, had to move to areas where they could afford to live?
2
You realize that a huge portion of northern NJ's population are "migrants" from NYC???? Why should anyone moving there be "unforgivable"?
If she weren't over 70 I would definitely suggest she move to NJ although many people throughout the country do move to smaller, cheaper places at that age. She's also not working in Manhattan. If she made way for a family with 2 parents working in Manhattan it seems like it would be a win-win for everyone.
1
One wonders how much of this big money destroying old NY was honestly worked for. People who work hard for what they have are not callous and insensitive. Citizens should learn to live together and learn from one another, or no one will win.
8
Jesus people. have a little humanity. Some empathy. This woman (Darlene Waters) is retired. She worked as an assistant nursery school teacher. She was not a crack dealer. She grew up in the neighborhood. She came first. And now, at seventy, how can she hope to make up the economic difference that exists in Chelsea? It's impossible. Not everyone can be a tech engineers. Many of the people who live in this type of housing provide the services that many of these gentrifiers use everyday (Nursery schools, being a great example). yet they can't live in the city they grew up in and helped create. Does anyone think that the city is better off filled with a bunch of wealthy, homogeneous, rich or semi rich white people? Do we want a city of people who are only bankers, financiers, real estate agents? Or a city so expensive only LLC's can buy real estate? Money makes the world turn, but so do the people that create the cultures and societies we live in. And we need them to stay.
244
'...Does anyone think that the city is better off filled with a bunch of wealthy, homogeneous, rich or semi rich white people?...'
The city is better off filled with middle class people, not poor people and not rich people.
But the middle class gets no subsidies and no free parking spaces (who can afford a car?), only the bill.
The city is better off filled with middle class people, not poor people and not rich people.
But the middle class gets no subsidies and no free parking spaces (who can afford a car?), only the bill.
Let's see. She lives in subsidized housing. She probably gets a pension from her work; definitely Social Security. She has Medicare for medical. There's a cheap grocery store nearby in the form of a Trader Joe's. What else? She doesn't like that the area changed...well, neighborhoods and cities all across the country evolve, for better or worse.
Perhaps the powers that be should've thought of that before that decided to build projects and warehouse - and basically experiment - on black Americans.
Perhaps the powers that be should've thought of that before that decided to build projects and warehouse - and basically experiment - on black Americans.
I've lived in NYC since the late 70's and could not agree w/ you more. I'm a white, male, middle aged, home-owner, lawyer and find the direction many in this city have taken to be grossly self absorbed and increasingly dull. People like Darlene Waters and others, made this city great and these rich newcomers--who by the way and not just white--should get a grip and learn how to show some respect and behave w/ empathy.
3
Government cannot create. It can only destroy.
The city and state of New York, as well as the Federal government, has made housing infinitely more expensive - through laws that are enforced by rules and regulations. The politicians and bureaucrats tell you - actually, they scream at you - that this is all for your benefit. And they neglect to tell you that it makes your life more expensive. Because if a politician said "This will make your life safer, but it will cost you twice as much as it did before" their term of office would be over.
Fraud is a crime, and builders should be punished if they build a home fraudulently. When do politicians get punished for the fraudulent promises they make on a daily basis?
The city and state of New York, as well as the Federal government, has made housing infinitely more expensive - through laws that are enforced by rules and regulations. The politicians and bureaucrats tell you - actually, they scream at you - that this is all for your benefit. And they neglect to tell you that it makes your life more expensive. Because if a politician said "This will make your life safer, but it will cost you twice as much as it did before" their term of office would be over.
Fraud is a crime, and builders should be punished if they build a home fraudulently. When do politicians get punished for the fraudulent promises they make on a daily basis?
9
"Government cannot create. It can only destroy." OK, so here goes:
The fact that you're reading the NY Times and typing on the Internet is thanks to government funding:
The Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET) was an early packet switching network and the first network to implement the protocol suite TCP/IP. Both technologies became the technical foundation of the Internet. ARPANET was initially funded by the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) of the United States Department of Defense.[1][2][3][4][5]"
The fact that you're reading the NY Times and typing on the Internet is thanks to government funding:
The Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET) was an early packet switching network and the first network to implement the protocol suite TCP/IP. Both technologies became the technical foundation of the Internet. ARPANET was initially funded by the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) of the United States Department of Defense.[1][2][3][4][5]"
1
This transition is in the early stages of development here in Bedstuy, Brooklyn as well. There's a pretty large stretch of Fulton Street where nearly every single business is shuttered, as landlords push old businesses out in hopes of a gentrification wave that will soon allow yoga studios, coffee shops and expensive boutique shops and markets to move in,as the gentrification wave moves further inland from areas such as Williamsburg.
Nearly every building is for sale and most of the lifelong tenants have been forced into month-to-month lease situations while they have to allow brokers to barge into their apartments several times a month to show the buildings to aspiring real estate moguls who are looking to cash in on the next wave of gentrification.
It's quite bazaar how the landscape has changed so drastically from low income to high income in so many areas of New York City... Obviously this is all great for "growth", but what is happening to our city's culture and where are all these lifelong residents in these neighborhoods going to go when capitalism swallows their neighborhoods whole?
In 10-15 years is Brooklyn going to be any more recognizable than Chelsea is today?
Nearly every building is for sale and most of the lifelong tenants have been forced into month-to-month lease situations while they have to allow brokers to barge into their apartments several times a month to show the buildings to aspiring real estate moguls who are looking to cash in on the next wave of gentrification.
It's quite bazaar how the landscape has changed so drastically from low income to high income in so many areas of New York City... Obviously this is all great for "growth", but what is happening to our city's culture and where are all these lifelong residents in these neighborhoods going to go when capitalism swallows their neighborhoods whole?
In 10-15 years is Brooklyn going to be any more recognizable than Chelsea is today?
25
It's barely recognizable now. Just like in Chelsea the old stores and bodegas have disappeared. Prices have skyrocketed and tourists flock to neighborhoods where people were once afraid to walk. I like most of the changes but Brooklyn seems like a completely different place now. But that's how life works.
I remember "Downtown" Brooklyn when it had lovely department stores like Martins and A&S, and middle-class women like my mother wore white gloves whenever they left the house. There was a little shop that sold ink bottles and nibs for the Parker fountain pen that my mother used to write her checks. It was where the 75 Smith Street bus stopped.
Funny how Fulton Street, that elegant old landscape I grew up with, changed so radically in such a short time -- it made its nosedive in the late 1960s. My friends and I weren't allowed to go shopping after school there anymore when a couple of us got hassled by a gang of girls.
Well, that was new and different, I'll say.
I don't mind that Brooklyn is becoming cleaner, and safer, again. Well, maybe my neighborhood will get there too . . . .
Funny how Fulton Street, that elegant old landscape I grew up with, changed so radically in such a short time -- it made its nosedive in the late 1960s. My friends and I weren't allowed to go shopping after school there anymore when a couple of us got hassled by a gang of girls.
Well, that was new and different, I'll say.
I don't mind that Brooklyn is becoming cleaner, and safer, again. Well, maybe my neighborhood will get there too . . . .
Replacing neighborhood coffee shops with Starbucks is not always progress...
16
And the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting squeezed
4
Please, come gentrify Newark, N.J.. Many of us little guys would welcome an influx of people with the means to improve the quality of our neighborhoods. We might even get some new voters that actually understand the machine that has occupied Newark for all too long. So, yea, Mr./Mrs. Snazzy Pants, please come to Newark!
32
Finally an article that wrestles with the absurdity of derelict housing projects in the middle of the most expensive real estate in the world. I hope mayor DeBlasio will continue to embrace public-private partnership and let the housing projects get "bulldozed over" by real estate development. The money can be used to fund subsidized apartments in private housing complexes that are better maintained and provide an improved environment for the next generation.
25
Kevin, those "Projects" are far from derelict, and were there way before it was the "most expensive" place. As usual, the government put the affordable housing in the very worst neighborhood. They keep the property up and the landscaping etc. The reason that they built the expensive stuff was because the property values where very cheap. Your comment is offensive to normal working people, the ones that live in the "projects", the middle class.
3
lol, have you seen what they did to atlantic avenue with the barclays center and it's fugtastical housing complexes?
Another non article churned out by the Times rote propaganda machine, the Times can't stand that conditions improved for every one involved.
23
Strip away the obligatory brand names and hand wringing, you are left with the same problem that exists in most of the world; high rents equal high prices.
When I was a kid in the 1960’s we understood that some grocery stores were where the “rich people” would shop. The Gristedes next to my apartment building on East 86th street was well known for having the best lamb and asparagus. However they also charged .15 cents for a .10 package of Twinkies so I took my business 500 feet farther to Sloan’s.
Today the internet makes shopping for Newman’s Own Marinara sauce a $1.98 purchase at Wallmart.com. Plus no miserable trip required.
With all the money you save you can to get a nice sandwich at Katz’
When I was a kid in the 1960’s we understood that some grocery stores were where the “rich people” would shop. The Gristedes next to my apartment building on East 86th street was well known for having the best lamb and asparagus. However they also charged .15 cents for a .10 package of Twinkies so I took my business 500 feet farther to Sloan’s.
Today the internet makes shopping for Newman’s Own Marinara sauce a $1.98 purchase at Wallmart.com. Plus no miserable trip required.
With all the money you save you can to get a nice sandwich at Katz’
11
Those walk ups on the corner of 1st avenue are being torn down for 'luxury housing'. Everything changes but I miss old Yorkville. New York has lost it's charm.
5
people don't believe me when i tell them that when i lived in murray hill in the 70s and 80s lexington avenue from 23rd street until around 33rd street was heavily populated by ladies of the evening and htird avenue was lined with 8am to 4am gin mills.
4
The saddest part, as a Chelsea resident, has been watching the disappearance of small business throughout the neighborhood - not helped by the arrival of Google, whose employees remain cosseted indoors with their free food, while the businesses around them die. The arrival of thousands of tourists haven't helped, either, as they are happy to pay for chain-store meals, or high priced generic restaurants, while the food counters that served the locals disappear entirely.
What is needed is some planning, and some government. What do we have these councils and community boards for, if protecting neighborhoods' businesses and residents isn't the highest priority?
No one can stop progress, but a little planning and foresight might be helpful. as the displacement continues. A "tech lab" for local public housing kids who will never get a job at Google just doesn't cut it.
What is needed is some planning, and some government. What do we have these councils and community boards for, if protecting neighborhoods' businesses and residents isn't the highest priority?
No one can stop progress, but a little planning and foresight might be helpful. as the displacement continues. A "tech lab" for local public housing kids who will never get a job at Google just doesn't cut it.
38
Oh, dear.
The city "took" a parking lot from Elliot and Chelsea Houses "to build 168 apartments for low-to-middle-income households, and it now plans another affordable building, at a parking lot and compactor yard at Fulton Houses, Housing Authority officials said."
And this is bad?
As for having parking lots in subsidized housing complexes . . . .
Things change. I dislike change. I disliked it when Flatbush fell into disrepair, and Prospect Park became unsafe, and women had their small gold necklaces that they'd worn all their lives snatched off their necks when subway doors opened.
I disliked it when, one day, driving on Eastern Parkway, I stopped for a red light and was surrounded by six or seven young men who tried my car doors (luckily, I had them locked).
That, too, was new.
I do understand Ms. Sanchez's feelings of sadness at losing her ethnic enclave. But that cuts both ways, especially when newcomers bring nothing but trash. As long as she's in subsidized housing, the improvements to the area are all to the good.
The city "took" a parking lot from Elliot and Chelsea Houses "to build 168 apartments for low-to-middle-income households, and it now plans another affordable building, at a parking lot and compactor yard at Fulton Houses, Housing Authority officials said."
And this is bad?
As for having parking lots in subsidized housing complexes . . . .
Things change. I dislike change. I disliked it when Flatbush fell into disrepair, and Prospect Park became unsafe, and women had their small gold necklaces that they'd worn all their lives snatched off their necks when subway doors opened.
I disliked it when, one day, driving on Eastern Parkway, I stopped for a red light and was surrounded by six or seven young men who tried my car doors (luckily, I had them locked).
That, too, was new.
I do understand Ms. Sanchez's feelings of sadness at losing her ethnic enclave. But that cuts both ways, especially when newcomers bring nothing but trash. As long as she's in subsidized housing, the improvements to the area are all to the good.
56
When I was born in 1950
My parents lived in a floor thru apartment on 22nd st
just off 7th ave. They paid $40.00 a month including heat.
In 1975, I had an studio apartment on 18th st. just off 7th ave.
I paid $220. a month.
Haven't been back for quiet a few years and was wondering what the rents are now?
My parents lived in a floor thru apartment on 22nd st
just off 7th ave. They paid $40.00 a month including heat.
In 1975, I had an studio apartment on 18th st. just off 7th ave.
I paid $220. a month.
Haven't been back for quiet a few years and was wondering what the rents are now?
3
At 18th and 7th a studio apartment would be around $2000 a month and easily go up from there.
7th and 18th? I'd expect that $220 to be $2200 now.
These major coorporations that get tax breaks from the city to encourage their growth and development: Google, NYU, Columbia, et al always promise to hire locally and seldom to never do. They should be pressed to do more to stay true to their commitment. However, why is it that if neighborhoods are ghettoized, society is criticized. If neighborhoods integrate classes, society is criticized. I thought the latest research pointed to benefits to the poor when living next to middle and upper income people. Is that only when the poor are transported to a wealthy neighborhood, and not when wealthy individuals move into neighborhoods inhabited by a preponderance of lower income individuals?
6
"These major coorporations that get tax breaks from the city to encourage their growth and development: Google, NYU, Columbia, et al always promise to hire locally and seldom to never do."
I would imagine that major corporations do not have much need for functional illiterate, high school dropouts that are available locally.
I would imagine that major corporations do not have much need for functional illiterate, high school dropouts that are available locally.
2
Having lived in Chelsea for years until a year ago, I have to say that it seems the writer spent only a minute there. It is still very much a normal NYC neighborhood in many ways. The small corner stores are still there, the dry cleaners and of course the great equalizer to Chelsea Market, Western Beef, still makes it a choice instead of a necessity to shop there. It would have been better to have a writer who really understood that it all works there. Live there, and then pass judgement.
58
"the small corner stores are still there..."?
I'm not sure what sort of "small corner stores" you're referring to, but most of the small local stores I can think of are long gone!
Starbucks, cell phone stores, nail salons, upscale restaurants, and trendy boutiques and clothing stores hardly count as "small corner stores" even if they're sited on the corner!
I'm not sure what sort of "small corner stores" you're referring to, but most of the small local stores I can think of are long gone!
Starbucks, cell phone stores, nail salons, upscale restaurants, and trendy boutiques and clothing stores hardly count as "small corner stores" even if they're sited on the corner!
2
I recently moved to Chelsea from the Bronx. I would disagree with your assessment. Everything costs more. From a pair of eyeglasses, a burger, the grocery store, a cup of coffee, a haircut, the drycleaner, a slice of pizza, a movie --- THEY ALL COST 50% MORE INCLUDING AND ESPECIALLY THE CORNER STORES.
1
sorry but totally not true--No poorer person can afford supermarket prices. People who work at Bow-Tie theater on West 23rd Street eat popcorn for their lunch-- they can't afford to eat out.
All people deserve a safe roof over their head, I feel that is our duty as a civilized, wealthy society....the problem is that no one is entitled to live wherever they feel like it. The town I grew up in costs a lot more now than it did when I grew up. Our annual income is $300,000+ but that does not mean we can afford to live here comfortably as homeowners - so we will move a few towns over, less desirable but in line with where we are. I assure you no one is concerned that I can't stay in the neighborhood...that my supermarket and restaurants are different. That is just a completely unrealistic expectation and our government should not be allowing this type of thinking which is immune to all reality.
88
Actually - the thinking endemic to your opinion NR of Washington DC is typical of the transient world we are suffering today with displaced Syrians, Africans, and others shaping our international landscape. They are just a larger manifestation of 'tough luck.' But, luck is a lot tougher on social security than $300,000 moving 'a few towns over' in the Beltway. Neighborhood preservation, landmark districting, rent control and stabilization, tenant rights, have helped make NYC what it is. Now years of erosion is threatening that. No doubt you and many others around the nation gloat and wallow in that - but that does not make it a 'good thing.'
3
As a displaced Brooklynite, I agree. We moved to Jersey City and I often tell people that if our 1910 Arts & Crafts townhouse that we paid $320k for could be moved to our old neighborhood, Carroll Gardens, it would be worth well more than $2 million. The move also cut our food and utility bills by 1/3. It's just the way things go, I guess.
1
I feel you are missing the point of this and other articles about the downside of gentrification. We all understand that neighborhoods change, that some come up and some go down. However for you, someone with a very high income, to simply suggest that people will have to move, and that's the way things are, is to ignore the problems that lower income or elderly people have when they are priced out or forced out of an area. Many people cannot drive or cannot afford a car. They are therefore dependent on living in areas where they can reach employment or healthcare by public transportation. For them, it is not an issue of simply finding another suburb to move to! In addition to practical barriers, how many suburbs or relatively safe areas near major cities have affordable housing or are actually welcoming to minorities? Even you would have to concede that cities need employees of all kinds in order to function, so it will be interesting to see where low wage workers will be materializing from when the whole of New York becomes a city of only the wealthy. Perhaps you and others in your situation could advocate for higher wages and more equal educational opportunities so moving to the next suburb over will be an actual choice for those without high incomes.
3
I live in a relatively affluent neighborhood, not as affluent as Chelsea. We are under pressure to take more low income and minority residents. This is seen as something that will be good for the new residents. There are areas close to downtown where relatively affluent people are moving in. This is sometimes seen as a negative, gentrification I believe is the term. There is a contradiction here which is hard to figure. If you live in a desirable area, be open to low income housing which may have a negative impact on your neighborhood. If you move into a low income neighborhood and bring your skill, belief in obeying the law, and your wealth, you are again the problem.
101
Chelsea was working class until only a few years ago
New York City tried that fifty years ago -- you know, by opening up middle-class neighborhoods to poor people by making some apartments Section-8.
It takes just a couple of drug dealers plying their trade and smoking dope near your apartment door, and three or so families that like their music loud (at all hours); and then, after some months, going over to the incinerator to throw out your trash and finding feces on the floor, slipping in urine in the stairwell, and wondering why the hall lights are always smashed . . . .
It takes just a couple of drug dealers plying their trade and smoking dope near your apartment door, and three or so families that like their music loud (at all hours); and then, after some months, going over to the incinerator to throw out your trash and finding feces on the floor, slipping in urine in the stairwell, and wondering why the hall lights are always smashed . . . .
2
Is that so much of a contradiction? It is the wealthy who have the power to effectively oust the poors, not the other way around. The wealthy can gentrify wherever they want, leaving low-income residents to be pushed around at their whim. Sorry if you have to look at a poor person, or if your local patisserie is forced to serve a sandwich that isn't fifteen dollars, but there are people with lives and livelihoods at stake due to gentrification, and that matters a lot more than your carefully coded bigotry.
1
What is truly remarkable is the fact that New York City continues to house thousands of people in dilapidated, crime-infested public housing complexes, in the middle of the wealthiest section of the wealthiest city in the world. All of them should be demolished, and the people who live there should be given subsidies to live in more affordable areas in the City. Nobody has any right to live anywhere they please on the taxpayer dole.
36
They do when they use their right to vote for representatives who represent their rights and protect them. That is called democracy. If you don't like it, after making your millions, move to Greenwich.
1
Small walk-up buildings were demolished in the 1960s to make way for the projects -- in Brooklyn's Fort Greene and Boerum Hill neighborhoods, to name just two, in Manhattan's Chelsea, all up and down the East River, and where Lincoln Center is now . . . . The buildings like all buildings need maintenance and would need less if some of the residents stopped breaking things, urinating in the halls, and dropping their cigarette butts in the corridors.
4
I would much prefer "profound anxiety" while living in Chelsea to paying market rent on the outskirts of Queens.
61
Well it seems as if the residents interviewed here all basically agree with you. The writer really strains to show the "profound anxiety" they face, but their direct quotes all speak to the neighborhood being a better place to live than it was when it was poorer, and a place where they want to stay.
5
So there are not enough market-rent apartments available so rents are astronomical. And those paying the high rents also have to subsidize NYCHA to house people who feel like they have a right to live in a Manhattan neighborhood? Glad I no longer live in Chelsea.
14
With time, hipsters will choke NY's character out and Manhattan will become a gentrified cultural deadzone. The rest of the country will rejoice and continue to do our awesome things.
12
we're aready there.
manhattan and brooklyn are a wrap.
manhattan and brooklyn are a wrap.
2
The article illustrates the process of food gentrification, the displacement of affordable and culturally appropriate supermarkets, restaurants, coffee shops, bars and other food venues as a neighborhood becomes populated with wealthier residents. Food gentrification forces low-income residents like Darlene Waters and Barbara Sanchez to trek to New Jersey and the Lower East Side to feed their families. As neighborhoods throughout the city are rezoned to stimulate affordable housing, enhancing the food environment through the creation of below-market commercial spaces, incentives for healthy food retailers, and protections from displacement for existing markets and restaurants should be a high priority. And an analysis of the potential effects of rezoning on the food environment needs to be built into the city's environmental review process, alongside conventional impacts like transportation or noise.
7
The truth hurts the PC crowd but everyone knows that, as in every major US city, the small enclaves of public housing (projects) all over NY City are enclaves of 99% of our crime. The quicker they are all torn down, the better. Gentrification has upgraded out city for the last 30 years. Let's not let the criminal element get the upper hand again. Remember the 70s!!!!!!!
58
"Everybody knows" Can't say I do. Links to evidence is much appreciated.
Here's a link about Chicago Housing Authority and crime after they demolished high-rise housing like Cabrini Green:
http://chicagotonight.wttw.com/2012/04/05/cha-relocations-linked-higher-...
Crime has gone up. But I guess the good news is that the wealthy Old Town neighborhood, where the towers stood, has that huge, new Dominick's supermarket next to it, which in Chicago "everybody knows."
Here's a link about Chicago Housing Authority and crime after they demolished high-rise housing like Cabrini Green:
http://chicagotonight.wttw.com/2012/04/05/cha-relocations-linked-higher-...
Crime has gone up. But I guess the good news is that the wealthy Old Town neighborhood, where the towers stood, has that huge, new Dominick's supermarket next to it, which in Chicago "everybody knows."
3
I live in public housing, it's integrated by race and income, we don't have any crime, your libelous accusations are false, and it's obvious that you're talking out of complete ignorance.
11
"the small enclaves of public housing (projects) all over NY City are enclaves of 99% of our crime"
Where should they go? That's not a facetious question. The only logical answer is that they should all live on the street, I suppose.
Where should they go? That's not a facetious question. The only logical answer is that they should all live on the street, I suppose.
The only justice to be found here if any is that all the high earners enjoying the very good life they think will never end may be in for a rude surprise in a world of robots and automation advancing ever more quickly and make all jobs insecure lawyers and doctors and so many more along with the candle stick makers.
8
Maybe Ms Waters should move to Seacaucus and stop expecting the taxpayer to fund her housing. Just because she grew up in Chelsea doesn't mean she gets to be immune to economic reality.
76
Maybe ms Waters should stay exactly where she is and people like you should grow a little compassion for your fellow humans.
113
Oh, you know, enough already. Taxpayers subsidize the wealthy plenty. You ever take a mortgage deduction on your home? Who do you think pays for that? Taxpayers. You ever take a child tax credit? Who do you think pays for that? Taxpayers. Now you may not be one of those but if your were I'd say pay for your own house and kids, stop being a taker and stop asking me and other taxpayers to fund your housing and family.
128
If you own your home or apartment, you can lead by example: stop taking the mortgage interest deduction. Your mortgage is between you and your banker, as a renter at market rate, I don't enjoy subsidizing your life. Government shouldn't choose winners and losers, right?
The quasi-government "Fannies" own half of the mortgage market so banks can lend at lower interest rates with lower downpayments. Ms. Waters does not benefit from that mandate. Do you?
Ms. Waters taxes pay for roads and highways she never uses that go to the suburbs.
In housing, we're all socialists (except me the market rate renter :)
There's your "economic reality"
The quasi-government "Fannies" own half of the mortgage market so banks can lend at lower interest rates with lower downpayments. Ms. Waters does not benefit from that mandate. Do you?
Ms. Waters taxes pay for roads and highways she never uses that go to the suburbs.
In housing, we're all socialists (except me the market rate renter :)
There's your "economic reality"
38
Sounds like this is working out real well for everyone--the wealthy move in, fix up, renovate and build, while those with more modest incomes can continue to live where they are in harmony. No one can or should stop progress.
17
I don't think you really know what you're talking about. It's NOT rich people moving in; it's LGBTQ people who were the pioneers, back when they were demonized and the West Village became gentrified in the 1980s.
It's NOT progress when you have people demonized by income level. And it isn't just the "poor" who deal in drugs or use them. There are many "white-collar" or "better" populations who are drug users, drunks, or so self-entitled that they think everyone else is a form of "lesser" life. Just look at the utter arrogance of the "47%" comment that lost Romney the presidency.
It's NOT progress when you have people demonized by income level. And it isn't just the "poor" who deal in drugs or use them. There are many "white-collar" or "better" populations who are drug users, drunks, or so self-entitled that they think everyone else is a form of "lesser" life. Just look at the utter arrogance of the "47%" comment that lost Romney the presidency.
8
Sounds like Bruce didn't bother to read the article. Yes, the wealthy come in and clean up the area and make it look all nice and pretty but where are the low income residents to shop when the local delis, discount stores and bodegas are replaced with boutiques, expensive cafes and shops selling ridiculously priced "artisanal" cake for $10. a slice simply because people are foolish enough to pay that?
1
Only in New York would people think that displacing crack dealers with Google engineers is a problem.
If the city is so concerned, why don't they just subsidize a supermarket so the people don't have to schlepp over to Jersey for their Newman's Own?
If the city is so concerned, why don't they just subsidize a supermarket so the people don't have to schlepp over to Jersey for their Newman's Own?
90
Was that the choice, crack dealer or Google engineer? Blew right past teacher, fireman and secure long-term, law-abiding public housing resident didn't we.
24
"displacing crack dealers with Google engineers>'
What distortion and ignorance.
What is being displaced, more than "crack dealers," are tailors, cobblers, healthcare providers, deli owners, carpenters, electricians, teachers, etc.
That is not how a healthy city functions.
What distortion and ignorance.
What is being displaced, more than "crack dealers," are tailors, cobblers, healthcare providers, deli owners, carpenters, electricians, teachers, etc.
That is not how a healthy city functions.
29
Typical false dichotomy by an apologist for the One Percent: either we give them everything they want, or we get crack dealers.
There's no such thing as a healthy balance that serves the public interest, when your "interests" are confined to your own greed.
There's no such thing as a healthy balance that serves the public interest, when your "interests" are confined to your own greed.
8
San Francisco has demonstrated what unchecked gentrification looks like. We can do better on this side of the nation, and we should.
104
You truly should. I'm from...yes "from" San Francisco. My great-grandma was there in the 1906 quake. We've been in that city and it's surrounding area for around 300 years. Suddenly I'm barred from the streets I grew up walking on, the streets an uncle carried mail on back in the 1800s. I had to leave to raise my son in a blasted backwater. I've lost my home and so has my son. It's a horrible thing. Average people SHOULD be able to live in a city and the fact that now there is beauty there, and now there is some effort taken to make the area pleasant will only help those who might develop better in a pleasing and humane environment. It's inspiring and uplifts the soul and mind. People without money are people as well. We ALL like the odd tree. I do hope they aren't forced to give up their lives and histories as so many of us San Franciscans were.
7