The 'Hood Game
If you ever study gentrification in a class, chances are you will read about the Lower East Side of New York City. It is just the quintessential example of gentrification, rent gap theory, and the gentrification of the area is still happening.
The Lower East Side, aka Loisaida, was once considered the area from 14th St. south, east of, oh, let's say 4th Avenue. It was inhabited mainly by low-income ethnic families; the latest dominance being Latino families (hence Loisaida). As early as the seventies, artists started living in the area east of 4th Ave. and north of Houston St. By the late eighties, the newly dubbed East Village was the place for everyone hipsters to young Wall St-ers with a lot of disposable income. The realtors and developers, wanting to get away from the bad associations with the name Lower East Side, started using the name East Village to stand opposite to Greenwich/West Village, sort of the anti hoity-toity of downtown.
So last week, when there was an article in the NYTimes about food delivery by neighborhood, I wasn't surprised that a restaurant on Rivington St. at Orchard St. was thrown into the East Village category. This area, during the first East Village renaming, remained the Lower East Side, and still does in most people's minds. But, if the name East Village represents hipster gentrification south of 14th St, then the area south of Houston on the east side of Manhattan is part of the new East Village. The LES is becoming increasingly "tame", just like Avenue B, and immigrants and low income families are being forced out by ever-raising rents.
So if re-naming a neighborhood could be the key to attracting business and renters, how about the area where I currently live, the Financial District? Unlike Loisaida, that name is just too tame. It conveys anonymous glass skyscrapers, a daytime population greater than its nighttime population, and overall boringness. The neighborhood, in a way, has to be de-gentrified to return to its glory I am told it once had. Rents here are inflated because of its proximity to the downtown Central Business District, but the area offers little else. And every new development I see down here is more housing, with the extreme example being Calatrava's 80 South Street Tower. By just adding the type of person that will pay 30 mil+ for such a place will not add to the character of the neighborhood in any way. What "worked" about the East Village is that middle to middle-upper classes infiltrated the neighborhood, and hence brought with them the requirments of wanting to be right in the middle of a great city, with diverse shopping and food possibilities. All that super luxury developments will do is increase the feeling of the Financial District as the anti-Manhattan, reinforcing the suburban aspects of the neighborhood, such as businesses closing by 7pm and keeping late night pedestrian traffic low.
The Lower East Side, aka Loisaida, was once considered the area from 14th St. south, east of, oh, let's say 4th Avenue. It was inhabited mainly by low-income ethnic families; the latest dominance being Latino families (hence Loisaida). As early as the seventies, artists started living in the area east of 4th Ave. and north of Houston St. By the late eighties, the newly dubbed East Village was the place for everyone hipsters to young Wall St-ers with a lot of disposable income. The realtors and developers, wanting to get away from the bad associations with the name Lower East Side, started using the name East Village to stand opposite to Greenwich/West Village, sort of the anti hoity-toity of downtown.
So last week, when there was an article in the NYTimes about food delivery by neighborhood, I wasn't surprised that a restaurant on Rivington St. at Orchard St. was thrown into the East Village category. This area, during the first East Village renaming, remained the Lower East Side, and still does in most people's minds. But, if the name East Village represents hipster gentrification south of 14th St, then the area south of Houston on the east side of Manhattan is part of the new East Village. The LES is becoming increasingly "tame", just like Avenue B, and immigrants and low income families are being forced out by ever-raising rents.
So if re-naming a neighborhood could be the key to attracting business and renters, how about the area where I currently live, the Financial District? Unlike Loisaida, that name is just too tame. It conveys anonymous glass skyscrapers, a daytime population greater than its nighttime population, and overall boringness. The neighborhood, in a way, has to be de-gentrified to return to its glory I am told it once had. Rents here are inflated because of its proximity to the downtown Central Business District, but the area offers little else. And every new development I see down here is more housing, with the extreme example being Calatrava's 80 South Street Tower. By just adding the type of person that will pay 30 mil+ for such a place will not add to the character of the neighborhood in any way. What "worked" about the East Village is that middle to middle-upper classes infiltrated the neighborhood, and hence brought with them the requirments of wanting to be right in the middle of a great city, with diverse shopping and food possibilities. All that super luxury developments will do is increase the feeling of the Financial District as the anti-Manhattan, reinforcing the suburban aspects of the neighborhood, such as businesses closing by 7pm and keeping late night pedestrian traffic low.
posted by Aaron at 1:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home