Reshaping New York(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Reshaping New York
http://nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2013/08/18/reshaping-new-york/
129 comments
1) The moving around over the city skyline is slick and fun, but I doubt it conveys much useful information.
I actually live in New York and it conveyed a lot of useful information for me, because I know my immediate neighborhood very well, along with a few others, but don't have a strong geographic sense of how various neighborhoods connect with each other. The swoops demonstrate how one neighborhood changes into another through space.
I actually live in New York and it conveyed a lot of useful information for me, because I know my immediate neighborhood very well, along with a few others, but don't have a strong geographic sense of how various neighborhoods connect with each other. The swoops demonstrate how one neighborhood changes into another through space.
I'm with you that it was mostly flashy without useful information. I actually hadn't really noticed just how much new construction had been going on in my neighborhood. I would have loved if the NYT provided something that I could actually interact with and form some conclusions of my own. It seems like good journalism has taken a back seat to flashy visualizations -- with most of these stories there hasn't really been much of a story.
If they provided something like that, I would actually actively look at their site again, rather than follow the occasional linkbait there.
If they provided something like that, I would actually actively look at their site again, rather than follow the occasional linkbait there.
How do you qualify "good journalism"? Data visualization is a powerful tool for story telling and the NYT has been at the forefront of this revolution in news. "Good journalism" is telling a story accurately and in a format that people can understand. Your claim that "good journalism has taken a back seat to flashy visualizations" seems to denigrate the work of data scientists such as Mike Bostock who are transforming news in a very meaningful way.
How does data visualization qualify as "link bait" in the derogatory sense of the word?
[1] http://bost.ocks.org/mike/
How does data visualization qualify as "link bait" in the derogatory sense of the word?
[1] http://bost.ocks.org/mike/
I don't mean "link bait" in quite the derogatory sense it's usually used (though slightly).
I mean it in the sense that other than links from aggregator sites with provocative titles, there is absolutely no reason that I would ever be on the NY Times' site. They've done some pretty serious damage to their reputation in recent years and newspapers are on the decline anyway.
While I'm sure these stories are a big hit for them, I don't really feel like I gained anything from my time spent on the site. It looks cool and the work done in data visualization is _very_ cool, but I want to look at some of the data. I want to dig down and look at the parts of data that are interesting to me.
So yes, data scientists are transforming news, but they're still failing to deliver a product that I want..and something that I think a lot of people want now. People used to look to newspapers as their go-to information source for current events.
Oh the hours of my life that I've spent in a library looking at microfiche. Thankfully we don't have to do that anymore, but instead of going to the NY Times still, most of us go to wikipedia and follow links from there.
The NY Times is actually in a position to provide something that would give them some relevance and make people want to use their resources to find out things.
This site, however, was little more than entertainment. They could even just present a platform to crowdsource information collection about the locations (pictures of the locations over the years, places to put links to building and tax records, etc) and I would be totally pleased with it.
Just give me some interaction with the data.
I mean it in the sense that other than links from aggregator sites with provocative titles, there is absolutely no reason that I would ever be on the NY Times' site. They've done some pretty serious damage to their reputation in recent years and newspapers are on the decline anyway.
While I'm sure these stories are a big hit for them, I don't really feel like I gained anything from my time spent on the site. It looks cool and the work done in data visualization is _very_ cool, but I want to look at some of the data. I want to dig down and look at the parts of data that are interesting to me.
So yes, data scientists are transforming news, but they're still failing to deliver a product that I want..and something that I think a lot of people want now. People used to look to newspapers as their go-to information source for current events.
Oh the hours of my life that I've spent in a library looking at microfiche. Thankfully we don't have to do that anymore, but instead of going to the NY Times still, most of us go to wikipedia and follow links from there.
The NY Times is actually in a position to provide something that would give them some relevance and make people want to use their resources to find out things.
This site, however, was little more than entertainment. They could even just present a platform to crowdsource information collection about the locations (pictures of the locations over the years, places to put links to building and tax records, etc) and I would be totally pleased with it.
Just give me some interaction with the data.
Just give me some interaction with the data.
Thing is, most people don't want that. They want something that is the result of digesting that data and pulling out relevant conclusions, presented in a clear and easy to comprehend narrative.
Thing is, most people don't want that. They want something that is the result of digesting that data and pulling out relevant conclusions, presented in a clear and easy to comprehend narrative.
If you design things on the basis of what you think most people want, you end up with nothing special. People probably won't complain much, as it is what they expected, but it is unlikely to excite or interest them very much.
There are many other examples of the New York Times providing interactive data visualizations which do exactly what you're talking about.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/06/us/politics/co...
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/02/us/politics/pa...
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/02/20/movies/among-t...
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/06/us/politics/co...
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/02/us/politics/pa...
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/02/20/movies/among-t...
> It seems like good journalism has taken a back seat to flashy visualizations
Slate just wrote an article about this at the end of the week:
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2013/08/...
Slate just wrote an article about this at the end of the week:
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2013/08/...
Another great web piece by the New York Times. The other two I know of are Snow Fall [1] and the Riding the New Silk Road [2].
1 - http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2012/snow-fall/
2 - http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2013/07/21/silk-road/
1 - http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2012/snow-fall/
2 - http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2013/07/21/silk-road/
About the making of Snow Fall:
http://source.mozillaopennews.org/en-US/articles/how-we-made...
See also: http://www.interactivenarratives.org
http://source.mozillaopennews.org/en-US/articles/how-we-made...
See also: http://www.interactivenarratives.org
I didn't like this one as much as Snow Fall and Silk Road. The before and after image presentations would be better side by side instead of in series form. I had to toggle back and forth. Then, midway through the article, the page froze and I wasn't able to scroll up or down.
Thank you for posting Snow Fall. Simply stunning, both the story itself and how superbly presented it was.
New York Times has been killing it with their visualizations. It would have been nice to have 2013 pictures overlaid on the 2003 pictures though, to really understand what the changes were. In some pictures, like Times Square, I had to flip back and forth a couple of times and still wasn't sure what exactly the changes were (can't see any obvious bike lane in that image, which is supposedly what it's representing).
A lot of the photos are aerial, I'd imagine it'd be nigh impossible to get them lined up so perfectly to overlay each other, but it would be very nice indeed.
On the Times Square picture: the entirety of Broadway (the slanted street on the far right) has been closed to traffic and is now entirely a pedestrian mall. It's not just Times Square, large stretches of Broadway has been reconfigured for bikes and pedestrians.
Interesting sidenote: they've been digging up Broadway in Times Square lately to put actual sidewalk in its place. My guess is that Bloomberg is doing this to cement his legacy and throw up additional barriers in case future mayors want to re-automobile-ize Times Square.
On the Times Square picture: the entirety of Broadway (the slanted street on the far right) has been closed to traffic and is now entirely a pedestrian mall. It's not just Times Square, large stretches of Broadway has been reconfigured for bikes and pedestrians.
Interesting sidenote: they've been digging up Broadway in Times Square lately to put actual sidewalk in its place. My guess is that Bloomberg is doing this to cement his legacy and throw up additional barriers in case future mayors want to re-automobile-ize Times Square.
Fair point. Perhaps some labels on the images, at least, would make it clear what they were trying to point out. The Times Square picture in particular was confusing because I saw the pedestrian mall, but thought that the point was about bike lanes which a pedestrian mall isn't.
What are residents of NYC opinion on Bloomberg? Is this reshaping good or worse for the city?
It seems that he won his most recent re-election but barely, from what i know he is a socially liberal, environmentally friendly, fiscal conservative.
It seems that he won his most recent re-election but barely, from what i know he is a socially liberal, environmentally friendly, fiscal conservative.
As an NYC resident, I feel that Bloomberg has made the city a remarkably better place. Probably the most transformative effect of Bloomberg's initiatives has been making the outer boroughs appealing. Young people who might have otherwise lived elsewhere because of ridiculous Manhattan rents (~$2-$3k for a studio in downtown Manhattan!) are now flocking to neighborhoods like Bushwick and Bedford-Stuyvesant. These young people with disposable income create demand for more great restaurants, shops, and venues like the Barclay's center, all of which make the city a much more fun place to be.
It isn't all roses. The poorer residents in Bushwick and Bedford-Stuyvesant are being forced to move elsewhere as their neighborhood gentrifies. However, this is part of the typical cyclic trend: artists / poor people move into a cheap neighborhood, make it trendy, then get forced out when the rent goes up. The starving artists move to another more affordable neighborhood, and the cycle starts all over again. Trying to stop the cycle by preventing development is just delaying the inevitable. Bloomberg has simply accelerated the trend of creating more upscale neighborhoods. I can understand how someone in a less fortunate socioeconomic situation might feel differently, but it's hard to argue that the changes haven't been beneficial from an outsider's perspective.
It isn't all roses. The poorer residents in Bushwick and Bedford-Stuyvesant are being forced to move elsewhere as their neighborhood gentrifies. However, this is part of the typical cyclic trend: artists / poor people move into a cheap neighborhood, make it trendy, then get forced out when the rent goes up. The starving artists move to another more affordable neighborhood, and the cycle starts all over again. Trying to stop the cycle by preventing development is just delaying the inevitable. Bloomberg has simply accelerated the trend of creating more upscale neighborhoods. I can understand how someone in a less fortunate socioeconomic situation might feel differently, but it's hard to argue that the changes haven't been beneficial from an outsider's perspective.
This is what always confuses me about gentrification. The core idea is that improving the neighborhood is a bad thing that should be prevented.
I mean, I understand the arguments. I just have a difficult time saying, "Yes, let's prevent these neighborhoods from being improved".
I mean, I understand the arguments. I just have a difficult time saying, "Yes, let's prevent these neighborhoods from being improved".
But the neighborhood improves without its residents. The economic situation of those living there doesn't really change and they're forced to relocate to other neighborhoods with similar locations to where they were but much further away.
Bascially "we're going to make this a nice place to live, please gtfo".
It's not an argument against improving a space. It's one against improving a space at the expense of its residents.
Bascially "we're going to make this a nice place to live, please gtfo".
It's not an argument against improving a space. It's one against improving a space at the expense of its residents.
This assumes everyone is renting which while probably true in NYC is far from universal. In other places people on fixed income have been forced out though propery taxes but it's closer to here is 100,000$ GTFO simply from the difference in propery values.
Neighbourhoods change over time and we have to be comfortable with that, but we also have to seriously consider what the long term effects of displacing residents are. If there are other obvious neighbourhoods people are able to easily move to, then that's the best case situation, but it's troubling if there aren't, and all too often I find that people hand wave at that problem and say that people will just go somewhere else, but don't seriously consider the effects of displacement.
However, this is part of the typical cyclic trend: artists / poor people move into a cheap neighborhood, make it trendy, then get forced out when the rent goes up. The starving artists move to another more affordable neighborhood, and the cycle starts all over again. Trying to stop the cycle by preventing development is just delaying the inevitable.
I partly agree, but artists move to an area partly by choice. Poor people are often born there, and then forced to move because the area has become trendy underneath their feet.
it's hard to argue that the changes haven't been beneficial from an outsider's perspective.
The city might be better off in the aggregate, but the poor people presumably ended up in other places, which are slightly worse off.
I partly agree, but artists move to an area partly by choice. Poor people are often born there, and then forced to move because the area has become trendy underneath their feet.
it's hard to argue that the changes haven't been beneficial from an outsider's perspective.
The city might be better off in the aggregate, but the poor people presumably ended up in other places, which are slightly worse off.
> (~$2-$3k for a studio in downtown Manhattan!)
Pretty sure even parts of Brooklyn have that type of rent, such as Williamsburg, DUMBO, maybe even Prospect Heights.
Pretty sure even parts of Brooklyn have that type of rent, such as Williamsburg, DUMBO, maybe even Prospect Heights.
I'd say considerably better. You have to understand the backround though.
In the beginning (or at least the beginning for me, I was pretty young during the Koch era) there was Dinkins, and the city was a crime ridden cesspool. You weren't supposed to take the subway at night, or go anywhere near a park. Parked cars routinely had their radios and sometimes tires stolen. There were very aggressive beggars all over the place. Whole parts of Manhattan, much less the outer boros, were no go zones.
Then came Giuliani. I think most people that lived in the city under Giuliani have very mixed feelings. The crime rate dropped, which was great, but there was very much a sense that a deal had been made with the devil. While to this day stop and frisk is a major issue for minority communities, back then there was a sense that the NYPD was killing and beating up people for no reason. Then there was the whiff of corruption (around Kerik and others), the messy personal life, fights with the unions, and the drama around the Senate race. I'll skip the post-9/11 apotheosis because it's not really relevant in the long run.
So that's when Bloomberg came in. He continued to preside over a drop in crime, but without as much visible divisiveness (though as mentioned above stop and frisk is still very much alive). Ditto with the public sector unions, they were still unhappy but there didn't seem to be the same sense of crises surrounding labor affairs. Meanwhile the finances of the city are very much improved, in spite of looming pension and health care problems the city is in very good financial shape as compared to any other large American city. No one thinks he's corrupt -- people think he's too rich to be corrupt. Then there's the nanny stuff, there's mixed opinions about that, but even smokers seem to be okay with having no smoking in bars. The biggest knock on him is that he only cares about Manhattan and the rich people that live there. That may be true from an emotional standpoint, but from a practical standpoint what he's done has benefited all layers of the city. The gentrification of Manhattan has generated a ton of revenue which is being plowed into services across the city. Honestly other than being better at feeling people's pain, I don't really see the argument.
In the beginning (or at least the beginning for me, I was pretty young during the Koch era) there was Dinkins, and the city was a crime ridden cesspool. You weren't supposed to take the subway at night, or go anywhere near a park. Parked cars routinely had their radios and sometimes tires stolen. There were very aggressive beggars all over the place. Whole parts of Manhattan, much less the outer boros, were no go zones.
Then came Giuliani. I think most people that lived in the city under Giuliani have very mixed feelings. The crime rate dropped, which was great, but there was very much a sense that a deal had been made with the devil. While to this day stop and frisk is a major issue for minority communities, back then there was a sense that the NYPD was killing and beating up people for no reason. Then there was the whiff of corruption (around Kerik and others), the messy personal life, fights with the unions, and the drama around the Senate race. I'll skip the post-9/11 apotheosis because it's not really relevant in the long run.
So that's when Bloomberg came in. He continued to preside over a drop in crime, but without as much visible divisiveness (though as mentioned above stop and frisk is still very much alive). Ditto with the public sector unions, they were still unhappy but there didn't seem to be the same sense of crises surrounding labor affairs. Meanwhile the finances of the city are very much improved, in spite of looming pension and health care problems the city is in very good financial shape as compared to any other large American city. No one thinks he's corrupt -- people think he's too rich to be corrupt. Then there's the nanny stuff, there's mixed opinions about that, but even smokers seem to be okay with having no smoking in bars. The biggest knock on him is that he only cares about Manhattan and the rich people that live there. That may be true from an emotional standpoint, but from a practical standpoint what he's done has benefited all layers of the city. The gentrification of Manhattan has generated a ton of revenue which is being plowed into services across the city. Honestly other than being better at feeling people's pain, I don't really see the argument.
I don't live in NYC, but I've visited there many times. I remember as a kid in the 80s, during my first visit and driving through rough parts of the city thinking "what a hell hole". Cars on fire in the middle of the street, graffiti covering everything, in the evenings dark shadowy areas had an immediate feel of danger.
Over the years I noticed a definite improvement in the city. Cars stopped being on fire for one. The Subway, while not exactly the nicest place, isn't bathed in spray paint, etc.
The last few years I started doing week long business trips up there two or three times a year and the city seemed absolutely transformed. Parks were being used by families after dark, streets were generally clean, people were out and about strolling around, biking or exercising. It wasn't Singapore clean, but the streets were generally cleaner, and you really had to get into hard areas to see graffiti. Bars on windows started coming down, and the city felt like it was opening up. I also noticed a huge police presence everywhere.
And people were generally friendlier. Most of that New York snarl was gone (both a positive and a negative).
On one trip I did some consulting work for the NYPD and got a chance to see some of the data the city collects and processes and uses to improve city services -- I believe this system was put in place by Bloomberg. To say it's impressive is an understatement. Noise complaints are correlated to nearby construction and crime, NLP was being brought online to process 911 call transcripts to look for crime trends, recently released prisoners were being cross checked against recent crime reports for recitivism. I think they're still on the edge of what's possible with what they're collecting, but it's being put to immediate and long-term city planning use. It's not quite what you see in the movies, but outside of the federal government, I've never seen anything at quite the scale and level of detail as what NYC collects.
I'll have to say that I do skip the outer boroughs, because they've been particularly unattractive to visitors, but I think in recent years some of the major new development work is starting to make me think again about that. There's lots of downsides to staying in an overpriced cramped hotel room in downtown Manhattan, such as finding a reasonably priced place to eat dinner without heading 20 minutes uptown or eat endless Chinese food. But staying across the river, closer to a residential area with good local eateries might be a better alternative in the future.
Over the years I noticed a definite improvement in the city. Cars stopped being on fire for one. The Subway, while not exactly the nicest place, isn't bathed in spray paint, etc.
The last few years I started doing week long business trips up there two or three times a year and the city seemed absolutely transformed. Parks were being used by families after dark, streets were generally clean, people were out and about strolling around, biking or exercising. It wasn't Singapore clean, but the streets were generally cleaner, and you really had to get into hard areas to see graffiti. Bars on windows started coming down, and the city felt like it was opening up. I also noticed a huge police presence everywhere.
And people were generally friendlier. Most of that New York snarl was gone (both a positive and a negative).
On one trip I did some consulting work for the NYPD and got a chance to see some of the data the city collects and processes and uses to improve city services -- I believe this system was put in place by Bloomberg. To say it's impressive is an understatement. Noise complaints are correlated to nearby construction and crime, NLP was being brought online to process 911 call transcripts to look for crime trends, recently released prisoners were being cross checked against recent crime reports for recitivism. I think they're still on the edge of what's possible with what they're collecting, but it's being put to immediate and long-term city planning use. It's not quite what you see in the movies, but outside of the federal government, I've never seen anything at quite the scale and level of detail as what NYC collects.
I'll have to say that I do skip the outer boroughs, because they've been particularly unattractive to visitors, but I think in recent years some of the major new development work is starting to make me think again about that. There's lots of downsides to staying in an overpriced cramped hotel room in downtown Manhattan, such as finding a reasonably priced place to eat dinner without heading 20 minutes uptown or eat endless Chinese food. But staying across the river, closer to a residential area with good local eateries might be a better alternative in the future.
Heh, back in the days when you didn't go above 96th or below 14th (except to the Financial District) and you didn't leave Manhattan for any reason except to visit Grandma.
If you want to find one group who completely and decisively hates Bloomberg though, just talk to cab drivers. The things that he did regarding new medallions and all of the bullshit with the TLC the last 8 years have made most old-timers quit. The mere mention of the guy's name will bring out some pretty big curse words.
The funny thing is though, most of the crime in the city peaked during the Koch era. He started some of the things that Giuliani and Bloomberg later got credit for. Dinkins gets saddled with a lot of the worst memories of it mostly because of how ineffective he was as Mayor.
Koch did some right dickish things to outerborough New Yorkers though. The closing of bike/pedestrian traffic on the Queensboro Bridge will always stick out in my memory. Caused a 3000+ bike protest down Park Avenue... and a couple years ago they named the fucking bridge after him. >_<
If you want to find one group who completely and decisively hates Bloomberg though, just talk to cab drivers. The things that he did regarding new medallions and all of the bullshit with the TLC the last 8 years have made most old-timers quit. The mere mention of the guy's name will bring out some pretty big curse words.
The funny thing is though, most of the crime in the city peaked during the Koch era. He started some of the things that Giuliani and Bloomberg later got credit for. Dinkins gets saddled with a lot of the worst memories of it mostly because of how ineffective he was as Mayor.
Koch did some right dickish things to outerborough New Yorkers though. The closing of bike/pedestrian traffic on the Queensboro Bridge will always stick out in my memory. Caused a 3000+ bike protest down Park Avenue... and a couple years ago they named the fucking bridge after him. >_<
"you didn't go [...] below 14th"
Say what? No Village, Chinatown, Little Italy, South Street, Battery, etc., etc.? These are the best parts of Manhattan. No 25 cent trip on the Staten Island Ferry?
Say what? No Village, Chinatown, Little Italy, South Street, Battery, etc., etc.? These are the best parts of Manhattan. No 25 cent trip on the Staten Island Ferry?
Nope. http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/04/nyregion/a-new-gang-s-viol...
Just because they're some of the best parts of Manhattan doesn't mean that they were safe. The East Village certainly wasn't so. All of these areas were pretty damned sketchy and you had some reasonable chance of something bad happening to you. Not a strong likelihood but reasonable enough that you'd only go during the day and be aware of your surroundings.
If you were a gweilo in Chinatown you were pretty much only safe on Canal Street until the late-90s. I've seen with my own eyes people get robbed at gunpoint in the back of Chinatown Fair towards the end of this period and seen gangs beating on each other on Pell Street.
Heck, I saw gangs of kids fighting with chains and baseball bats in the East Village on Rivington as recently as 2007. I've even started seeing junkies back near Tompkins Square Park again. South Street Seaport was still a popular place to find a hooker at night until 9/11.
14th Street, in days past, was a famous dividing line for residents of the city, with many proudly claiming that they either didn't go below it or didn't go above it. I grew up in Midtown, but I still kind of went everywhere. It's only hindsight that gives me the perspective of just how dangerous some of the neighborhoods are, because in my youth I didn't really think about things like I mentioned above.
Just because they're some of the best parts of Manhattan doesn't mean that they were safe. The East Village certainly wasn't so. All of these areas were pretty damned sketchy and you had some reasonable chance of something bad happening to you. Not a strong likelihood but reasonable enough that you'd only go during the day and be aware of your surroundings.
If you were a gweilo in Chinatown you were pretty much only safe on Canal Street until the late-90s. I've seen with my own eyes people get robbed at gunpoint in the back of Chinatown Fair towards the end of this period and seen gangs beating on each other on Pell Street.
Heck, I saw gangs of kids fighting with chains and baseball bats in the East Village on Rivington as recently as 2007. I've even started seeing junkies back near Tompkins Square Park again. South Street Seaport was still a popular place to find a hooker at night until 9/11.
14th Street, in days past, was a famous dividing line for residents of the city, with many proudly claiming that they either didn't go below it or didn't go above it. I grew up in Midtown, but I still kind of went everywhere. It's only hindsight that gives me the perspective of just how dangerous some of the neighborhoods are, because in my youth I didn't really think about things like I mentioned above.
Thanks for the interesting response, and, especially, the link to a fascinating article.
I grew up in a housing project just East of Chinatown, so I might be calibrated differently. Some people's "dangerous" is my normal.
On the other hand, my time was the '60s and '70s. I left for education in tame New England in '76. This was a high-crime era, but Chinatown and Little Italy were safe if you minded your own business, because organized crime did not tolerate street violence directed at tourists and civilians. This was before the phenomenon of Vietnamese gangs discussed in Fox Butterfield's article. Of course, when I say "Village" I don't mean East Village: Alphabet City was always considered bad.
I grew up in a housing project just East of Chinatown, so I might be calibrated differently. Some people's "dangerous" is my normal.
On the other hand, my time was the '60s and '70s. I left for education in tame New England in '76. This was a high-crime era, but Chinatown and Little Italy were safe if you minded your own business, because organized crime did not tolerate street violence directed at tourists and civilians. This was before the phenomenon of Vietnamese gangs discussed in Fox Butterfield's article. Of course, when I say "Village" I don't mean East Village: Alphabet City was always considered bad.
Smith Houses or further east?
That neighborhood has a really interesting cyclic history of crime dating all the way back 200 years. The history of Five Points is incredibly interesting to read about.
> Some people's "dangerous" is my normal.
Same here, but I tend to try and refer to things from (what I assume is) the reader's perspective. All of this stuff is pretty normal/safe to me. But I have to be careful and tell myself that it isn't so that I don't get nostalgic for something that was actually terrible.
It's hard for me to settle on a particular viewpoint of the city due to the time and place I grew up...coming from working middle class midtown, getting a private school education with upper-crust kids uptown and having my life and friendships all downtown. There really was sort of a classlessness where I could just fit in anywhere growing up and that feeling has totally disappeared in the last 15-20 years.
> Alphabet City was always considered bad.
Even though I saw Hell's Kitchen/The Deuce and (most of) Harlem transformed, still the strangest thing to me as a New Yorker was watching Alphabet City transform almost overnight. I know that it gentrified quietly over a long period of time but it was always really dangerous until suddenly it wasn't. I would keep going to bars in/around there and it was like a completely different neighborhood inside of three months. A thriving bar/club scene developed out of nothing and then died quickly when everyone moved over to 27th Street for their entertainment and bottle service took over Manhattan. For a short time, Bridge & Tunnels swarmed that place. Now all of the traffic seems to be between Houston & Delancey.
That neighborhood has a really interesting cyclic history of crime dating all the way back 200 years. The history of Five Points is incredibly interesting to read about.
> Some people's "dangerous" is my normal.
Same here, but I tend to try and refer to things from (what I assume is) the reader's perspective. All of this stuff is pretty normal/safe to me. But I have to be careful and tell myself that it isn't so that I don't get nostalgic for something that was actually terrible.
It's hard for me to settle on a particular viewpoint of the city due to the time and place I grew up...coming from working middle class midtown, getting a private school education with upper-crust kids uptown and having my life and friendships all downtown. There really was sort of a classlessness where I could just fit in anywhere growing up and that feeling has totally disappeared in the last 15-20 years.
> Alphabet City was always considered bad.
Even though I saw Hell's Kitchen/The Deuce and (most of) Harlem transformed, still the strangest thing to me as a New Yorker was watching Alphabet City transform almost overnight. I know that it gentrified quietly over a long period of time but it was always really dangerous until suddenly it wasn't. I would keep going to bars in/around there and it was like a completely different neighborhood inside of three months. A thriving bar/club scene developed out of nothing and then died quickly when everyone moved over to 27th Street for their entertainment and bottle service took over Manhattan. For a short time, Bridge & Tunnels swarmed that place. Now all of the traffic seems to be between Houston & Delancey.
Rutgers Houses. It's smack up against the Manhattan Bridge, so I get to see my apartment window in movies now and then.
Staten Island Ferry is free now. Best way to see the Statue of Liberty up closish.
The cab drivers are full of shit. He forced them to accept credit cards and GPS in all cars. The drivers complained like crazy, and even went on strike. The result? Revenue increased 14% the following year. Medallion prices are at a record high, and driver revenues are also at a record high.
They literally went on strike to protest a pay increase.
They literally went on strike to protest a pay increase.
Except that's not really how it works at all. Individual drivers don't really buy medallions anymore. Big money investors who operate cab companies do. A company can buy a medallion and pay for it from their cab fleet in a day. An individual driver can never hope to make that much money anymore.
Also, when all the new medallions were issued and the GPS/credit system put in their cars, some of the companies passed the cost of install onto the drivers, taking more than the maximum lease rate (The current day rate is like $229, whether you're on the road or not).
Cab drivers aren't making that much money ultimately. It has always been bad but it's way worse now than it used to be (my mom drove a yellow from 1978-1992 before she became an RN).
The overwhelming majority of the money earned in a taxi cab goes to the medallion holders -- owning a medallion is basically a guaranteed 5% ROI because the fare price is fixed. Cab drivers are basically little more than modern sharecroppers. I don't disagree that they're full of shit though, I'm just saying it's a shitty life and a lot of them hate Bloomberg's guts.
Also, when all the new medallions were issued and the GPS/credit system put in their cars, some of the companies passed the cost of install onto the drivers, taking more than the maximum lease rate (The current day rate is like $229, whether you're on the road or not).
Cab drivers aren't making that much money ultimately. It has always been bad but it's way worse now than it used to be (my mom drove a yellow from 1978-1992 before she became an RN).
The overwhelming majority of the money earned in a taxi cab goes to the medallion holders -- owning a medallion is basically a guaranteed 5% ROI because the fare price is fixed. Cab drivers are basically little more than modern sharecroppers. I don't disagree that they're full of shit though, I'm just saying it's a shitty life and a lot of them hate Bloomberg's guts.
> Revenue increased 14% the following year
Reported revenue increased 14% the following year.
Reported revenue increased 14% the following year.
Revenue comes from the meters and is accurate. There can be a discrepancy in the tips, but tips also increased because the credit card tip presets are 20-30%.
The drivers have come around and admitted the credit card machines increased ridership and revenue drastically. There was a big switch from Black cars to taxis primarily because business travelers can now pay with corporate cards.
The drivers have come around and admitted the credit card machines increased ridership and revenue drastically. There was a big switch from Black cars to taxis primarily because business travelers can now pay with corporate cards.
I think you misread his comment. I think he's saying revenue never really went up. It's just all reported now.
I was never a Dinkins fan but I seem to recall he started the program that got the cop out of the car on back on the beat which, certainly helped with crime.
> The biggest knock on him is that he only cares about Manhattan and the rich people that live there. That may be true from an emotional standpoint, but from a practical standpoint what he's done has benefited all layers of the city. The gentrification of Manhattan has generated a ton of revenue which is being plowed into services across the city. Honestly other than being better at feeling people's pain, I don't really see the argument.
There are some problems though...Bloomberg started the policy of having a bed for every homeless person. Just to keep them off the street and out of the public eye. This is being paid for with taxpayer money and for more than $100/night. A lot of residential buildings on the upper west side have kicked out their tenants to convert exclusively to housing the homeless at high daily rates because of the money. This has contributed to a massive hike in rents across the city. Landlords are definitely the "rich" we're talking about here and Bloomberg has absolutely no problem with the practice.
There are some problems though...Bloomberg started the policy of having a bed for every homeless person. Just to keep them off the street and out of the public eye. This is being paid for with taxpayer money and for more than $100/night. A lot of residential buildings on the upper west side have kicked out their tenants to convert exclusively to housing the homeless at high daily rates because of the money. This has contributed to a massive hike in rents across the city. Landlords are definitely the "rich" we're talking about here and Bloomberg has absolutely no problem with the practice.
There are undoubtedly problems across a range of programs -- such is the nature of the beast -- but the one you've picked doesn't seem like much of one.
Giving the homeless singles a place to sleep seems like a good policy not a bad one, and I don't see why the NIMBYites of the upper west side shouldn't bear their share of the burden. Perhaps the city is overpaying, but $100/night is hardly as grotesque as your original $400/night. Finally, in a city with 1.5 million rental apartments, I very much doubt that a few hundred apartments leased by the city for the homeless on the upper west side has contributed to massive hikes in rent across the city.
If you want to blame anything for high market rents blame rent control and rent stabilization. I'd love if Bloomberg had gotten rid of them, but that's one of the third rails of city politics so I don't much hold it against him.
Giving the homeless singles a place to sleep seems like a good policy not a bad one, and I don't see why the NIMBYites of the upper west side shouldn't bear their share of the burden. Perhaps the city is overpaying, but $100/night is hardly as grotesque as your original $400/night. Finally, in a city with 1.5 million rental apartments, I very much doubt that a few hundred apartments leased by the city for the homeless on the upper west side has contributed to massive hikes in rent across the city.
If you want to blame anything for high market rents blame rent control and rent stabilization. I'd love if Bloomberg had gotten rid of them, but that's one of the third rails of city politics so I don't much hold it against him.
Really? Any source for this?
Less money than I remember reading the first time, but still ~$3000/month at the reported locations.
http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2013/aug/12/homeless-...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/09/nyregion/for-some-landlord...
http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2013/aug/12/homeless-...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/09/nyregion/for-some-landlord...
Thanks
I think the majority of New Yorkers support his policies. He has basically engaged in a massive gentrification of the city. This has pushed poor people (many of them minorities) out of Manhattan and even Queens and Brooklyn, has led to higher housing prices, tearing down of "historic" buildings, etc. As a result, there are tons of people who hate him for these things. But I think the core demographic of upper middle class Manhattanites generally supports these policies.
As an aside: I was watching a documentary about Giuliani (then U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York) the other day. It was about how in the early 1980's he led a full-scale attack on the Mafia, by bugging the cars and houses of the heads of the five families and using the collected evidence along with the RICO Act to send them to prison. Apparently, after being indicted one of the bosses (Paul Castellano) was assassinated just a few blocks away from where my office was in Midtown. Today, that whole area is basically Disneyland. It is crazy how different New York is today than how it used to be. Last year, My wife used to stroll all over Manhattan with our daughter, often late at night waiting for me to get out of work, without any worry at all.
As an aside: I was watching a documentary about Giuliani (then U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York) the other day. It was about how in the early 1980's he led a full-scale attack on the Mafia, by bugging the cars and houses of the heads of the five families and using the collected evidence along with the RICO Act to send them to prison. Apparently, after being indicted one of the bosses (Paul Castellano) was assassinated just a few blocks away from where my office was in Midtown. Today, that whole area is basically Disneyland. It is crazy how different New York is today than how it used to be. Last year, My wife used to stroll all over Manhattan with our daughter, often late at night waiting for me to get out of work, without any worry at all.
> He has basically engaged in a massive gentrification of the city.
Can you elaborate on that? Specifically in what policies Bloomberg supports that have led to gentrification.
I ask because often gentrification is an effect of making a city a nicer place to live. Better public transit, lower crime, better schools, etc. Rich people move in and outbid poor incumbent residents for their apartments. But tearing down historic houses is a signal in the other direction: the city is building new, bigger buildings to house all of those rich people moving in, thus taking price pressure off the incumbents and preventing gentrification. It's hard to simultaneously hold the ideas -- as "tons of people" apparently do -- of "I want to keep New York historic" and "I'm against gentrification" without also thinking, "I'm against making the city nicer". Unless, I guess, those are different people hating on Bloomberg from different directions? Or he's causing gentrification in some other way that I don't understand?
Can you elaborate on that? Specifically in what policies Bloomberg supports that have led to gentrification.
I ask because often gentrification is an effect of making a city a nicer place to live. Better public transit, lower crime, better schools, etc. Rich people move in and outbid poor incumbent residents for their apartments. But tearing down historic houses is a signal in the other direction: the city is building new, bigger buildings to house all of those rich people moving in, thus taking price pressure off the incumbents and preventing gentrification. It's hard to simultaneously hold the ideas -- as "tons of people" apparently do -- of "I want to keep New York historic" and "I'm against gentrification" without also thinking, "I'm against making the city nicer". Unless, I guess, those are different people hating on Bloomberg from different directions? Or he's causing gentrification in some other way that I don't understand?
I don't know specifically what the other poster was referring to, but traditionally the Landmarks Preservation Commission hasn't given a shit about 'historic' buildings in the outer boroughs unless they can preserve an entire district. I think to get a clear answer you'd have to make sure we're all using the same definition of historic.
There are definitely buildings that have been torn down for new construction that debatably should have been preserved. A lot of the area around Astoria Park has been demolished for new highrise construction that has mostly not been completed due to market events. Not only are these a blight on the neighborhood but they tore down some absolutely fantastic sites to put them there. Specifically in Astoria Village.
The neighborhood, though mostly safe, has been in a shit state for decades due to neglect from the city and housing projects from the 60s.
[1] http://forgotten-ny.com/1999/05/astoria-village-part-1-queen...
[2] http://forgotten-ny.com/2005/06/astoria-village-part-2-queen...
[3] http://forgotten-ny.com/2007/12/astoria-village-part-3-queen...
There are definitely buildings that have been torn down for new construction that debatably should have been preserved. A lot of the area around Astoria Park has been demolished for new highrise construction that has mostly not been completed due to market events. Not only are these a blight on the neighborhood but they tore down some absolutely fantastic sites to put them there. Specifically in Astoria Village.
The neighborhood, though mostly safe, has been in a shit state for decades due to neglect from the city and housing projects from the 60s.
[1] http://forgotten-ny.com/1999/05/astoria-village-part-1-queen...
[2] http://forgotten-ny.com/2005/06/astoria-village-part-2-queen...
[3] http://forgotten-ny.com/2007/12/astoria-village-part-3-queen...
Right, so that's the kind of thing I'm talking about. I don't know anything specific about Astoria Village, but if rich people want to live there (and presumably they do, or else the real estate developers who wanted to build there were incompetent), then they'll move in one way or another. And with historic Astoria being relatively low-density, they'll displace the existing residents by bidding up rent prices. Unless there's a bunch of new construction.
I have no doubt that there are buildings that are of enough historical importance that they shouldn't be demolished to build high rises (i.e. that marginal bit of rent pressure is worth it). I also don't know if in this particular case -- especially given that they weren't completed due to a housing crash -- building high rises ended up being wise; sometimes developers are foolish or shit just happens. And perhaps those things really are all that happened in Astoria; I couldn't say. My point, though, still holds in the general case and certainly holds for something the size of NYC as a whole: preserving historical buildings is fundamentally in tension with preventing gentrification. It's a tradeoff.
(And it's a bit of an odd one too: the people who care and should care the most about the historic value of a neighborhood are the people who actually live there. But if constrained housing supply forces them to move, they won't be around to enjoy it anyway.)
This is a big issue for me because this exact conversation is happening in my neighborhood in Cambridge, MA, which keeps very strong control over new construction. Rent is skyrocketing with people like me moving in to a poorer minority neighborhood because it's nice and we like it. Developers see that as a market opportunity and the city should see it as a signal to allow more construction to reduce rents. But many (most?) of the residents oppose new construction on the grounds that it will change the neighborhood's feel and, incorrectly, that it will cause gentrification. It will certainly do the former, but it will help prevent the latter.
I have no doubt that there are buildings that are of enough historical importance that they shouldn't be demolished to build high rises (i.e. that marginal bit of rent pressure is worth it). I also don't know if in this particular case -- especially given that they weren't completed due to a housing crash -- building high rises ended up being wise; sometimes developers are foolish or shit just happens. And perhaps those things really are all that happened in Astoria; I couldn't say. My point, though, still holds in the general case and certainly holds for something the size of NYC as a whole: preserving historical buildings is fundamentally in tension with preventing gentrification. It's a tradeoff.
(And it's a bit of an odd one too: the people who care and should care the most about the historic value of a neighborhood are the people who actually live there. But if constrained housing supply forces them to move, they won't be around to enjoy it anyway.)
This is a big issue for me because this exact conversation is happening in my neighborhood in Cambridge, MA, which keeps very strong control over new construction. Rent is skyrocketing with people like me moving in to a poorer minority neighborhood because it's nice and we like it. Developers see that as a market opportunity and the city should see it as a signal to allow more construction to reduce rents. But many (most?) of the residents oppose new construction on the grounds that it will change the neighborhood's feel and, incorrectly, that it will cause gentrification. It will certainly do the former, but it will help prevent the latter.
I'm with you. The occasional building is fine, but this business with whole neighborhoods gets out of hand. The landmark commission recently created a landmark district in the east village. The east village is an ugly neighborhood of undistinguished walk up buildings. It's no historic Penn Station, that's for sure.
The justification was that it was historically important because generations of immigrants had moved through the area. Generations of immigrants had moved through the area, because at the time it was built it was high density housing, and so was affordable. So to honor that history we are going to keep in as a museum that no one can afford to live in. Brilliant!
The justification was that it was historically important because generations of immigrants had moved through the area. Generations of immigrants had moved through the area, because at the time it was built it was high density housing, and so was affordable. So to honor that history we are going to keep in as a museum that no one can afford to live in. Brilliant!
That's for damn sure!
I still get a chuckle at how the former Mars Bar's upstairs residents got such a sweet deal got their fancy new apartments for $10.
http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2013/06/18/jupiter_21_launches...
I don't mind this though. That old bar was a f'in dump and the rest of the block with it.
I still get a chuckle at how the former Mars Bar's upstairs residents got such a sweet deal got their fancy new apartments for $10.
http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2013/06/18/jupiter_21_launches...
I don't mind this though. That old bar was a f'in dump and the rest of the block with it.
I don't see anything worth preserving in those photos. Maybe the triangle building. The homes are just like the rest from that period you'll find in the northeast, nothing particularly noteworthy.
I don't understand why people think they should be able to tell owners what to do with their property. Don't like it? Buy it yourself.
I don't understand why people think they should be able to tell owners what to do with their property. Don't like it? Buy it yourself.
> Today, that whole area is basically Disneyland.
I am sure lots of entities public and private have contributed to and accelerated this situation, but we must also keep in mind the nationwide trends in violent crime in the last few decades. I think this sets the stage more than any particular mayor, police chief, development company etc. can do.
I am sure lots of entities public and private have contributed to and accelerated this situation, but we must also keep in mind the nationwide trends in violent crime in the last few decades. I think this sets the stage more than any particular mayor, police chief, development company etc. can do.
There has also been a nationwide trend of aggressive policing and aggressive prosecution with statutes like RICO, largely pioneered by the work of people like Giuliani in New York. Abstract trends of decreasing crime didn't break the Mafia...
And the Mafia has largely been involved in white-collar crime (stock scams like pump & dumps, running boiler rooms, etc) since at least the early 80s. The Mafia hasn't really had much impact in violent crime statistics in an incredibly long time.
It is important to understand that violent crime is one of the many tools at Mafia's disposal. You could be living in a New York today that does have Mafia but similar levels of crime.
While true, how does this explain Chicago and Detroit?
I think there are general trends but local policies (and lack of such) contribute to direction.
I think if Koch or Dinkins had been mayors for the times Giuliani and Bloomberg were mayors, crime stats would be noticeably different --less than mid 90s, but higher than today. Of course, that's just speculation.
I think there are general trends but local policies (and lack of such) contribute to direction.
I think if Koch or Dinkins had been mayors for the times Giuliani and Bloomberg were mayors, crime stats would be noticeably different --less than mid 90s, but higher than today. Of course, that's just speculation.
The NYT is doing alot of coverage about him with the elections coming up and all:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/nyregion/what-new-yorkers-...
I think jobs and the economy matter most to people and since Bloomberg was mayor during the 2008 recession, that's going to make him seem worse than he might have though he may not have been able to affect the worst of the economical situation in any way.
In the story linked to above, it says less than half of surveyed think that crime has improved under BLoomberg. That is just plain absurd no matter how you look at the stats...Bloomberg's (arguably too strong) law policies have made the city safer than it was in 2002. IT just shows how hard it is for people to remember what things were like a decade ago, due to nostalgia, etc.
Also you say he won his re-election "just barely" but that's because he bent the term limit rules for what most people considered in an illegitimate way
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/nyregion/what-new-yorkers-...
I think jobs and the economy matter most to people and since Bloomberg was mayor during the 2008 recession, that's going to make him seem worse than he might have though he may not have been able to affect the worst of the economical situation in any way.
In the story linked to above, it says less than half of surveyed think that crime has improved under BLoomberg. That is just plain absurd no matter how you look at the stats...Bloomberg's (arguably too strong) law policies have made the city safer than it was in 2002. IT just shows how hard it is for people to remember what things were like a decade ago, due to nostalgia, etc.
Also you say he won his re-election "just barely" but that's because he bent the term limit rules for what most people considered in an illegitimate way
I remember very well what New York was like 10 years ago. And 20 and 30. I can't say that Bloomberg's policies have made the city any safer than it was 10 years ago. That is, I can't say that his policies are responsible for the reduction in (certain type of) crime. (Some types of crime are actually on the rise in NY). What I can say is that violent crime statistics have been in severe decline nationally since the end of the 1970s. New York pretty much follows the trendline exactly and doesn't seem remarkably exceptional in this.
Certain neighborhoods are still high crime. Yes, I would say that 99% of Manhattan is about as safe as Disneyland, but the policing has been especially disproportionate between the use and effectiveness of things like Stop & Frisks, constant & disruptive patrol car drills crosstown during rush hour, and "Show of Force" demonstrations of the ESU in full body armor and M4 rifles stationed outside popular tourist areas. Some see these things as safety and security and others see them as waste and symbols of a state abusing its power.
A lot of the revitalization efforts for areas of the city have been in the works since the 1950s (pay attention in NY to how much is named after or dedicated to Robert Moses). Case in point, the Times Square Redevelopment Project (though that was completed under Giuliani). When I was a child growing up in this neighborhood, there were porn theaters, street prostitutes, hustlers, con men and pickpockets everywhere. People got mugged in my elevator or at the payphone on my corner regularly.
Nearly 80% of the storefronts in Midtown were vacant. My mom was a corporate real estate broker in the 70s and had a listing on 57th street and 5th avenue going for $5/sqft (in what was later the Playboy Enterprises building). Let that figure sink in for a second.
I'm not nostalgic for those times, but back then we also had a bit more community than now. I actually knew by name the homeless people and the street hustlers in my neighborhood. My mom took care of most of them in her nursing work at St. Luke's Roosevelt. That sense is totally gone. Nightlife and entertainment in the city is _dead_ (we'll see how the Space nightclub does when it opens though). You used to regularly have people playing music on the street without too much bother. I remember a lot more people just being in the street and friendly (for NY standards) all the time. Everything is much more conservative and elitist than it used to be, but that's just as much times changing and culture moving on as Bloomberg is lucky to be in the right place at the right time.
I get really passionate about this topic and am being a bit rambly, but two years ago I left New York City. I'm likely returning next year, but I had to get away and it's no longer somewhere I could imagine living the rest of my life. It's just not that much fun a place to live anymore. Almost every NY-native I know in my age group either can't stand to live there anymore or has been priced out. Most of my friends have moved away or want to. We're going to places like Portland and New Orleans...or moving to Europe.
Certain neighborhoods are still high crime. Yes, I would say that 99% of Manhattan is about as safe as Disneyland, but the policing has been especially disproportionate between the use and effectiveness of things like Stop & Frisks, constant & disruptive patrol car drills crosstown during rush hour, and "Show of Force" demonstrations of the ESU in full body armor and M4 rifles stationed outside popular tourist areas. Some see these things as safety and security and others see them as waste and symbols of a state abusing its power.
A lot of the revitalization efforts for areas of the city have been in the works since the 1950s (pay attention in NY to how much is named after or dedicated to Robert Moses). Case in point, the Times Square Redevelopment Project (though that was completed under Giuliani). When I was a child growing up in this neighborhood, there were porn theaters, street prostitutes, hustlers, con men and pickpockets everywhere. People got mugged in my elevator or at the payphone on my corner regularly.
Nearly 80% of the storefronts in Midtown were vacant. My mom was a corporate real estate broker in the 70s and had a listing on 57th street and 5th avenue going for $5/sqft (in what was later the Playboy Enterprises building). Let that figure sink in for a second.
I'm not nostalgic for those times, but back then we also had a bit more community than now. I actually knew by name the homeless people and the street hustlers in my neighborhood. My mom took care of most of them in her nursing work at St. Luke's Roosevelt. That sense is totally gone. Nightlife and entertainment in the city is _dead_ (we'll see how the Space nightclub does when it opens though). You used to regularly have people playing music on the street without too much bother. I remember a lot more people just being in the street and friendly (for NY standards) all the time. Everything is much more conservative and elitist than it used to be, but that's just as much times changing and culture moving on as Bloomberg is lucky to be in the right place at the right time.
I get really passionate about this topic and am being a bit rambly, but two years ago I left New York City. I'm likely returning next year, but I had to get away and it's no longer somewhere I could imagine living the rest of my life. It's just not that much fun a place to live anymore. Almost every NY-native I know in my age group either can't stand to live there anymore or has been priced out. Most of my friends have moved away or want to. We're going to places like Portland and New Orleans...or moving to Europe.
As an aside, some folks would say that the J-O theaters actually served an important function in our community and that with their closure, something is lost forever.
Samuel R. Delany wrote a really good book about this and his experiences called Times Square Red, Times Square Blue. Not a book to read if you are at all homophobic or squeamish reading about sex acts though.
Many, many references to Jane Jacob's The Death and Life of Great American Cities.
Samuel R. Delany wrote a really good book about this and his experiences called Times Square Red, Times Square Blue. Not a book to read if you are at all homophobic or squeamish reading about sex acts though.
Many, many references to Jane Jacob's The Death and Life of Great American Cities.
Bloomberg has made Manhattan unfordable except for those who pay the long term capital gains rate on regular earnings and those who stole money out of the ground in their home country and are looking for a good place to stash it out of reach of local authorities.
And it's not for a lack of space because there is tons of vacant commercial real estate in the city. Any time my company does a demo at a bank, we see rows and rows of empty desks.
In short, Bloomberg has favored unneeded commercial development and high end oligarch dwellings over supply that the even the top 3% of wage earners can afford.
You can buy a $100MM Penthouse at One West 57th and pay the same taxes as a $2MM apartment due to dubiously applied 421-A tax abatements.
And it's not for a lack of space because there is tons of vacant commercial real estate in the city. Any time my company does a demo at a bank, we see rows and rows of empty desks.
In short, Bloomberg has favored unneeded commercial development and high end oligarch dwellings over supply that the even the top 3% of wage earners can afford.
You can buy a $100MM Penthouse at One West 57th and pay the same taxes as a $2MM apartment due to dubiously applied 421-A tax abatements.
I'd say generally favorable and he's certainly done a lot, but a lot of people have grown to resent his tendency to force his own agenda regardless of public opinion, e.g. his crusade against soda, his third term, etc.
The guy ran as a republican to get elected on Giuliani's coattails, and in his bleeding heart he's a liberal. Typical politician; meddling, petty, crony, crooked, and oh did I mention meddling?
No one thought for a minute he was Republican -- there were no coattails. The issue is that the Democratic machine in NYC is so sclerotic and dysfunctional, it is virtually impossible for an outsider to get on the ballot. For a billionaire fiscal conservative who will finance his own campaign, the NYC Republicans will be obliging.
It's interesting to contrast the evolution of NYC with the (lack of) evolution of SF.
This article cites a net increase of 170,000 housing units from 2000 to 2010. I can't find an exact comparison for SF, but it looks like SF has less than 25k net increase from 2000 to 2012.
This article cites a net increase of 170,000 housing units from 2000 to 2010. I can't find an exact comparison for SF, but it looks like SF has less than 25k net increase from 2000 to 2012.
John Rahaim, SF's Planning Director, recently gave a speech regarding the challenges SF has faced in adding units and offices: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZhp-xKxB_A (34 min, starts about 1:25 in)
Some of the most important points he made:
-80% of the city's growth will occur in 20% of the city's area.
-Neighborhoods are in opposition to projects which follow community-crafted plans that were designed to encourage growth. He argues that it is not the amount of growth, but the rate of growth that those neighborhoods are opposed to.
-Large segments of the city are zoned to protect industrial and production businesses.
-Last year, SF reviewed 8,000 permits (for everything from routine window replacements to new construction). Of those, 6,000 were considered "routine" and were issued over the counter while 1,800 became "cases" that require additional review and hearings. For comparison, NYC (a city with 10 times the population of SF) reviewed only 500 equivalent "cases". It issued most permits (including one for a building that purports to be the tallest residential highrise in North America) "as-of-right" without any review by their planning department.
TL;DR: SF's planning code is much more strict than that of NYC and gives residents a lot of veto power.
Some of the most important points he made:
-80% of the city's growth will occur in 20% of the city's area.
-Neighborhoods are in opposition to projects which follow community-crafted plans that were designed to encourage growth. He argues that it is not the amount of growth, but the rate of growth that those neighborhoods are opposed to.
-Large segments of the city are zoned to protect industrial and production businesses.
-Last year, SF reviewed 8,000 permits (for everything from routine window replacements to new construction). Of those, 6,000 were considered "routine" and were issued over the counter while 1,800 became "cases" that require additional review and hearings. For comparison, NYC (a city with 10 times the population of SF) reviewed only 500 equivalent "cases". It issued most permits (including one for a building that purports to be the tallest residential highrise in North America) "as-of-right" without any review by their planning department.
TL;DR: SF's planning code is much more strict than that of NYC and gives residents a lot of veto power.
Well, given that NYC is ~10x the population of SF, SF is doing pretty well!
SF is 1/10th the population of NYC in part because of those restrictions, so the comparison is more apt than it seems...
NYC is also 10 times bigger land-wise, 470 sq miles compared to 47.
SF is also twice the size of manhattan
I'm trying to figure out where this discussion is going, haha.
Let me simplify it - NYC continues to build up, SF doesn't.
Let me simplify it - NYC continues to build up, SF doesn't.
San Francisco is currently in a building boom. Over the next 25 years, there is going to be approximately 92,000 more housing units. The population of San Francisco should reach 1 million by then. Here are some links:
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2012/12/sa...
http://www.spur.org/publications/library/article/san-francis...
http://sf.streetsblog.org/2013/07/19/plan-bay-area-passes-in...
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2012/12/sa...
http://www.spur.org/publications/library/article/san-francis...
http://sf.streetsblog.org/2013/07/19/plan-bay-area-passes-in...
It's important to point out that 92k units is the amount needed to accommodate future growth. The creation of those units is entirely dependent on local politics, which is even more polarized here than in NYC.
It's so obvious he is preparing and advertising himself to run for president. And it's about time.
He has something few other presidents have. Success in both Private and Public office.
He has something few other presidents have. Success in both Private and Public office.
I don't think it'll work. He's neither Republican nor Democrat (and in fact has been both at one point or another) - even someone as well-known as Bloomberg I don't think can capture the Presidency as an independent candidate.
Not to mention his stance on things is too complicated for modern American politics. He's socially liberal (supports heavy social programs, large-scale public education, gay rights, pro-choice), but also largely anti-civil liberties (stop and frisk, crackdowns on demonstrations, pro-surveillance). He's the exact sort of candidate New Yorkers vote for, but I don't think the rest of the country would go for it.
Not to mention his stance on things is too complicated for modern American politics. He's socially liberal (supports heavy social programs, large-scale public education, gay rights, pro-choice), but also largely anti-civil liberties (stop and frisk, crackdowns on demonstrations, pro-surveillance). He's the exact sort of candidate New Yorkers vote for, but I don't think the rest of the country would go for it.
I've thought for a long time that the US political system will someday realign along the lines of urban vs. everything else. The "tough on crime / livable cities / pro environment / social programs" platform resonates with a huge swath of urban America, be it in Pittsburgh, Dallas, Detroit or New York. Bloomberg could well be our first urban candidate for president, and I think he would have broad appeal beyond NYC.
Bloomberg will never run for President.
He's too protective of his private life to subject himself to the circus.
Plus he's too conservative to run as a Democrat, and he's a communist compared to the current national GOP.
Plus he's too conservative to run as a Democrat, and he's a communist compared to the current national GOP.
He won't make it out of the primaries for either party. The state setup at the start works against him, as he has received a lot of "the crazy NYC Mayor banning something else" pieces.
I agree. He's a remarkable man. Not sure he's powerful enough to win the race for US President.
Does he need to go through a stint in the senate/congress first, or could he run directly for nomination?
I don't mean "need" as in legal, but just as a path to it?
Has anyone ever done that before? Run for president without being a governor or a senator/congressman? (Asking as a Canadian who isn't super familiar with historical presidential politics in the US).
I don't mean "need" as in legal, but just as a path to it?
Has anyone ever done that before? Run for president without being a governor or a senator/congressman? (Asking as a Canadian who isn't super familiar with historical presidential politics in the US).
Mayor of New York City is a harder and more important job than governor of Arkansas, which was Bill Clinton's highest elective office before being elected president. (Although he ran for Congress, he did not win.)
Zachary Taylor*
US Grant*
Chester A Arthur (if you don't count VP)
Taft (if you don't count appointed governorship of territories)
Hoover (if you don't count VP)
Eisenhower*
HW Bush was barely a representative (2 terms, most well known as CIA director prior to VP).
*military generals
US Grant*
Chester A Arthur (if you don't count VP)
Taft (if you don't count appointed governorship of territories)
Hoover (if you don't count VP)
Eisenhower*
HW Bush was barely a representative (2 terms, most well known as CIA director prior to VP).
*military generals
Probably get more hands on experience being the mayor of NYC than most other positions. Of course, that's not saying much given the current political landscape.
Zachary Taylor, Ulysses S Grant, and Dwight D Eisenhower all had held no political position before running for president. They all came from the Army.
They were also presidents in a bit of a different era.
I would suggest it could still work fine for a General. They are experienced in leadership, logistics, and dealing with budgets.
According to a Wikipedia article, it would be likely be in his best interest to start somewhere bigger:
Every President of the United States has served as either:
Vice President of the United States a U.S. Senator a Congressman a Governor of a state a Cabinet Secretary a General of the United States Army
Every President of the United States has served as either:
Vice President of the United States a U.S. Senator a Congressman a Governor of a state a Cabinet Secretary a General of the United States Army
Mayor of NYC is probably a better executive experience that many (most?) state governorships. Bloomberg isn't my cup of tea, politically, but he's certainly qualified to run if he decides to do it.
For example, as mayor of NYC, Bloomberg governs about three times as many people as Bill Clinton did as governor of Arkansas.
The governor of Arkansas deals with both rural and urban issues and has a good cross section of what makes up this country.
The biggest city in Arkansas is less than 3/4ths of a million people. To say that Arkansas cities gave Clinton experience with urban issues in America is roughly like saying that the sum total of NYC's parks and gardens give Bloomberg experience with rural issues in America.
That's more than a bit of hyperbole. He had to deal with the issues of an urban area typical for US residents. He didn't deal with the super metroplexes, but that is not the typical problems faced by most. NYC is not a cross section of what makes up the US.
You're using a terrible example. There is exactly one city in Arkansas with greater than 100k people, and that is Little Rock with 193k. That state has zero claim to being "a cross section of what makes up the US".
From a government systems point of view, it is a cross section. The White House isn't about demographics, it's about process.
I disagree. Fully one third of Americans live in urban areas with populations of two million or more. Only about one fifth of Americans live in an area that qualifies as "rural".
No, NYC is not a cross section of the US, but neither is Arkansas, and of the two, I'd say NYC gets closer to more of the population.
No, NYC is not a cross section of the US, but neither is Arkansas, and of the two, I'd say NYC gets closer to more of the population.
The amount of process and rules the White House deals with is not confined to the demographics or where the population is. NYC has a fraction of the overall rules and needs of a state like Arkansas. The absolute number people are not the determining factor.
You seem to be shifting the goalposts here. Before, you were talking about "rural and urban issues". Now you're talking about process and rules, which is completely different.
Absolute number of people is not the determining factor in any of this, but with no major cities in Arkansas, I reject the notion that Bill Clinton's governorship gave him experience with urban issues.
Absolute number of people is not the determining factor in any of this, but with no major cities in Arkansas, I reject the notion that Bill Clinton's governorship gave him experience with urban issues.
I'm not shifting the goalposts, it is rural and urban issues that leads to having different departments and systems to deal with them. Clinton knew and dealt with urban issues. That is obvious from his campaign and experiences he brought to the White House. You can reject it, but a state is much closer to structure, system, and rural / urban concerns than any city. Even one as big as NYC. Clinton's dealing with HUD and as governor gave him an appreciation of how things work in DC more than any city official.
Relevant xkcd: http://xkcd.com/1122/
[deleted]
Woud be interesting to see the backstory on how they got access to the data/subsamples. The visuals are well done, but the story is sort of interesting in terms of how its edited. It neglects any mention, for example, of the role of Finance in the building boom. And by extension, glosses over the Financial crisis spawned (under his tenure, in new york) by real-estate investment instruments and the general bubble-icous tendencies that follow from "free money". NYC basically skims the profits of wall street both directly (retail&real estate sails subsidized by incomes from the financial sector) and indirectly through double taxation of corporation (financial lagest sector) and city income taxes. So, there are a lot of grandmother's withs withered pensions and decimated savings outside of New York that are basically subsidizing all of this. Just worth thinking about.
Anyone else find this really buggy/broken + A horribly non-intuitive awkward way of presenting information even if it worked?
The UX of this site is pretty bad. There's nothing to tell you what you should click on or what clicking on those elements do. I found myself clicking on random things, ending up in places that weren't related to what I clicked on, and not sure how to get back.
My first reaction was to scroll down the page, as the scroll bar was indicating there was more below. Apparently I was not supposed to do this as it basically flips out.
This is your typical 'fancy flash website' syndrome
This is your typical 'fancy flash website' syndrome
Scrolling worked just fine for me. It moved between the pieces of the visualization quite smoothly.
On websites it is not customary or to be expected for scrolling to bring you to essentially another page.
This thing is a slideshow fitting badly into webpage format.
This thing is a slideshow fitting badly into webpage format.
...... I don't contest that ......
You said it "flipped out", which I took to mean that it didn't function at all. I replied saying that it worked for me. That's it.
You said it "flipped out", which I took to mean that it didn't function at all. I replied saying that it worked for me. That's it.
Yeah, it also flipped out on me (I had a load of green lines instead of text)
But I'm more concerned about the intended design. I think the act of scrolling triggering a full-window video is shocking bad.
Yes. However, I will say that it became much more effective and downright usable with a discrete scroll wheel (i.e. NOT the two-finger gesture on a Mac trackpad). Not sure exactly how to characterize a web design decision that's hardware-dependent like that.
I am neither from nor do I live in New York so I can't talk about validity and range but that was a very enjoyable presentation of the city.
OT: Kudos to the interactive team. I think it would be an interesting job to work for the NYTimes interactive/mobile/media lab just based on the work they have been producing. I hope that they will continue to push the envelope and start to open source more or blog more about the process (which is the interesting part) of creating.
Good news, they do http://chartsnthings.tumblr.com/, though tends to come in bursts and looks like they haven't put up much since July.
That sure didn't like my 1200x1920 monitor.
It also appears to depend on a codec that chromium on ubuntu doesn't have.
It also appears to depend on a codec that chromium on ubuntu doesn't have.
Why does the "Time Square, 2013" picture have markers for Hello Kitty, Elmo, Mario and Spider-man?
Ironically, the mobile view is a MUCH more usable and navigable look at the data. The technical restrictions of mobile reined in a lot of the excess flashiness.
The central park remain the same!
That's a reservation de-facto.
That's a reservation de-facto.
Can anyone count how many times "Mr. Bloomberg" is mentioned across all the slides? I lost count...
This shouldn't be down voted. It's significant that it's not "Mayor Bloomberg". "Title Lastname" is the format that it used to refer to candidates.
No, NYT style is to use Mr. and Ms. on second reference when using last names. This applies to even the President. It's a policy that makes sense when you consider the variety of titles (even just political) and the lack of corresponding well known abbreviations
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/world/middleeast/pressure-...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/world/middleeast/pressure-...
That's the NYT editorial style. If I remember correctly, it was notable that they did not use Mr. for Osama Bin Laden's obituary. Short of that, you are getting a Mr.
Seriously? Including the Freedom tower in this map is D-I-S-G-R-A-C-E-F-U-L. Shame on the NY Slimes.
Bloomberg bloomberg bloomberg bloomberg.
Sorry, but most of these changes, are the result of private businesses and taxpayers.
Saying "you can now build a skyscraper in area X" is hardly an amazing achievement.
Sorry, but most of these changes, are the result of private businesses and taxpayers.
Saying "you can now build a skyscraper in area X" is hardly an amazing achievement.
Negotiating the rezoning process was largely a political triumph. Same for the bike lanes, parks, and redevelopment of public land. Bloomberg has had a very visible impact on the city - but even more importantly most of his reforms are a ratchet. Plenty of politicians implement a program for a time, they can later be undone. Bloomberg has done a bunch things that can't be undone. There is no way to put the bike share program or more park land back in the bottle now.
It is an accomplishment when no one else has had the ability or interest in doing it.
Criticisms: 1) The moving around over the city skyline is slick and fun, but I doubt it conveys much useful information. I'd rather see the growth of new building over time. In visualization, motion should convey some meaning. Here it doesn't seem to. 2) It's important for visualizations to convey both anecdotal information (achieved through the before/after snapshots). But it's also important to convey quantitative information, magnitude and directions of changes. I don't detect anything like that here, even though there is quantitative information embedded in the text (e.g. "Population is up 2,000, but 600 poor people have left"). Numbers are good, visualizations that artfully convey the magnitude and direction of relevant numbers are even better. It's rare to have news narrative that can't be improved by conveying the quantities involved.
Things they did right: 1) The before/after snapshots are useful and pack a punch. 2) Inclusive. The visualization includes a a variety of changes and doesn't get sucked down a narrowly focused rabbit hole. 3) Simplicity. It's not a data dump. The visualization does a decent job of conveying single themes without including unnecessary extra. It may go too far with this though (see criticism #2 above).
Overall, I look forward to more visualizations like this from NYT and other media outlets.