Wednesday, January 2, 2019

The Creative Destruction of New York City


    From the outset, Dr. Alessandro Busa derides long commutes to work, and shows obvious disgust for tiny rooms. One thing that makes up for it in New York City is the people. To him, tiny rooms are fine as long as he can sit on the fire escape or stoop and watch all the people walking by. His reason for leaving Germany and coming to NYC is to do a degree at Columbia, so I can see how his commute – from Chinatown to Morningside Heights – is either an adventure or a chore. I don’t know how our city’s subway compares to that of Berlin (I’ve never visited) but I know it’s worse than Chicago.

   In the first chapter, Dr. Busa researches how Harlem transformed overnight into a place for the rich (or at least the ones who were not rich enough for the West Village) and how the new stores – Gap, Old Navy, Starbucks, Wholefoods – were of little benefit to those who were already there. Marcus Samuelson’s Red Rooster – discussed heavily in his autobiography Yes Chef – doesn’t really do much for Harlem and probably never will. I find it unlikely that Samuelson would’ve enjoyed Harlem in the 1990’s when he first came over; the kind of people with the money to eat at the Red Rooster did not live there at the time.

    For research, Dr. Busa interviews random Harem residents and he finds some very disturbing experiences. Long- time residents – who lived there during the rough times – are forced out of their apartments and end up in the Bronx. The new arrivals ignore the Mom & Pop restaurants, which end up closing. I personally experienced this on the Upper West Side; the cheaper supermarket had to close because the new residents, with more money to spend, wanted “organic” foods. Back in 2005, I had one meal – and not a good one – at a Harlem diner when I was working up there, and all the customers were middle aged Black men. The food was typical diner grub, and I doubt that someone with more money – even if they wanted a fry-up for breakfast – would want to eat there. McDonald’s has been displacing these diners for years. As for the diner’s atmosphere, it was a very gritty one, and wouldn’t have much appeal for a Columbia Professor. Maybe the problems that Dr. Busa discusses are the same problems seen in all US cities?

    I don’t know if the author read the book Home Girl by Judith Maitloff, who, ironically, was an adjunct at Columbia, where he studied. She bought a Harlem townhouse in 1999, back when it was undesirable except for the price, and she did in fact eat at local places, mainly from the lack of choice. The older Black residents, who refused to flee during the rough ages, welcomed her in. But these weren’t the people in rent-controlled apartments; they were owners of the buildings, and very gentile. They had no interest in the people who were “struggling,” and they were proud of themselves for succeeding on their own merits. They were happy to see a White family moving in. After all, wasn’t theirs a great neighborhood?

    Here’s where Busa puts the blame. First, you had racism, because banks wouldn’t lend to Black home buyers or builders. Then you had Redlining, a practice where the banks – on the advice of Federal research studies – declared Black neighborhoods to be too poor and criminal for mortgages. Then came heroin, crack, and more crime. He points out an interesting fact with regard to credit, using the Apollo Theater as an example. The building was shuttered in 1983, when it was bought by a company owned by Percy Sutton, the Manhattan Borough President. Sutton was an established Black businessman, with lots of connections in banking and in the city government, so credit wasn’t a problem for him. The author cites this as an example of how it takes an established corporation to make positive change, but this is not unique to Harlem. 1983 was a difficult time to get a bank loan, and few banks would loan money to refurbish a building. The book Illegal Living: 80 Wooster Street, is all about how another run-down neighborhood, in this case Soho, needed bank loans. The borrowers who fixed up the Soho lofts were all White, and many of them had good credit, but the banks still wanted huge guarantees. Refurbishing a building, whether commercial or residential, is loan-dependent, and the white-collar bankers are more likely to deal with their own kind. Grass-roots projects don’t do well with bankers.

    Mayor Kotch tried to auction off the city-foreclosed buildings in Harlem, but that failed, because banks wouldn’t risk financing a project in blighted 80’s Harlem. The author doesn’t mention the Homesteader program of the 1980’s, which did in fact work, primarily because very little financing was needed. The homesteaders fixed up the buildings with their own bare hands, often waiting months before having hot (or even running) water. I also disagree with Busa’s attitude towards the media’s portrayal of Harlem. It’s true that the 1970’s were all about Blaxploitation movies and crime, but the more positive 1980’s portrayal of Harlem is just a myth. If Harlem was a good place to be, why did not only the Whites, but also middle-class Blacks, avoid it? The Studio Museum, Sylvia’s, The Schomberg Center, The Apollo Theater, and all the other tourist attractions were just a façade in a neighborhood that was unsafe at night. The John Sayles movie Brother From Another Planet didn’t show all of the extreme misery in the community.

   In each chapter, the author shows how it’s the capital investment that makes all the difference. Whoever can get the bank to lend hi money is the one who will get his way. We see in the first chapter how banks wouldn’t lend money to Black landlords, which led to blight, and (though not mentioned in this book) the artist-owned Soho lofts were all the result of banks that did loan money. The old Rivington House on the Lower East Side, once a nursing home, was changed to condos for the same reason; the owner got his hands on the $16million fee to change the deed. The elderly residents ended up scattered to other hospices.

    I disagree with the author’s attitude that everyone is losing. Rent-controlled tenants are very hard to kick out, as seen in the Stuyvesant Town debacle, and the big businesses with their big money ended up bankrupt, while the Stuyvesant Town residents were left warm and comfortable. Rent control tenants who lose in the end are the ones who (a) don’t pay the rent on time, (b) illegally sublet their apartments, and (c) have kids living with them who are a nuisance to the other tenants. The city had the chance to make adjustments to rent control, but every attempt caused an uproar. Few rent-controlled apartments were lost to eviction.

    The next disagreement that I have with the author is the Landmarks Preservation Commission and the so-called historic districts. A lot of the old buildings are crumbling and unsustainable, like the old Tammany Hall building. Never mind that it was old, it was built with stolen money by the thieving Boss Tweed, and the only good thing about it is the pretty stonework. It couldn’t be demolished, so it had to have commercial tenants who could pay the huge rent. It was too small to have lots of low-rent tenants, an wasn’t zoned as a residence, so in the end, the building was pretty much useless. Dr. Busa is so irritated by the lack of affordable housing, but it would break his heart for Tammany Hall to be replaced by an eight-story apartment house. His chapter on “The Rezoning that Killed Coney Island” is all wrong, because Coney Island was a dump for years. All seaside resorts in the USA suffered after the 1950’s, not just Coney Island but also Atlantic City (NJ) and Venice Beach (CA) which lost revenue too. The amusement venues, only profitable in the summer, weren’t enough to keep things going. What does the author expect the owners to do? Hold on to an unprofitable building just for the nostalgia? Brighton Beach was nothing until the Ukrainians moved in, and they’re probably more interested in good housing than an old façade. He waxes nostalgia on the Coney Island Ballroom and the old arcade, but who cares? I visited in 2008, and it was a decaying old wreck. The old Playland, destroyed by fire years earlier, was no a weeded lot. Across the Hudson River, Long Branch had burned in the 80’s, and was derelict until housing was built in 2005. Today it’s completely revamped, survived Hurricane Sandy, and nobody feels nostalgic because nobody remembers!

   The author could benefit from a little more research. Soho is a great example of activism preserving a neighborhood, and there are many in Harlem who have found ways to avoid displacement. He could also benefit from reading Donald Trump’s Art of the Deal; I know it’s an arrogant tome, but it does have valid points about the problem with rent-control and how Mayor Koch’s well-meaning plans didn’t work. As for the old 42nd Street, gone and replaced by glass office blocks, I have few good memories. The old “Deuce” which entertains with the nostalgic TV drama was of no benefit to the city. Little tax revenue was ever gained, and it was a great place for the mob to launder money.

    He places a lot of the blame on Mayor Bloomberg and his re-zoning laws, but he ignores the fact that a lot of old buildings were barely habitable. While he laments the loss of the “creative types” he ignores (or doesn’t know about) how 30 years ago, the “creative” people were mostly single with no kids, and they left the city when they did have kids. Dr. Busa wasn’t here in 1988, when it wasn’t so good. At the time, few educated Europeans wanted to live in New York. John Lennon’s move to Manhattan was very unusual at the time. The area where he moved to (the Upper West Side) was NOT safe at all, and I know because my parents lived there at the same time he did. You couldn’t go out at night, and even in the daytime you had to be on your guard. Indeed, our city has lost many of the things that made it whole, but at the same time, some buildings are just not meant to last.

     You can’t survive on ideals, nor on nostalgia. It’s true that the old-time residents get screwed by gentrification, and that it wrong. But in every chapter of this book, I see what I’ve long believed; you have to be prepared for the future, and no neighborhood lasts forever. Time waits for no man.

No comments:

Post a Comment