'The Nature of New York Is Change,' Dissected
Lost City’s well-reasoned and highly entertaining take on preservation is always a treat to read, as with a post a few days ago, an inspired takedown of the lazy, hackneyed phrase so often used to defend the tear-em-down, build-em-up mentality: “The Nature of New York Is Change.” We were particularly struck by these paragraphs: I’ve…
Lost City’s well-reasoned and highly entertaining take on preservation is always a treat to read, as with a post a few days ago, an inspired takedown of the lazy, hackneyed phrase so often used to defend the tear-em-down, build-em-up mentality: “The Nature of New York Is Change.” We were particularly struck by these paragraphs:
I’ve long suspected that when people trot out this retort, the word “change” is used only as a euphemism for “money.” For most of the changes that occur in the City and are argued in the press and on the sidewalks are motivated by money. Developments that will make the builders money. New chain store branches that will make their corporations money. Landlords who jack up the rent, forcing out valuable businesses, so they can make more money. And people don’t like it when you get in the way of their cash flow, whether you be an individual, a neighborhood, a community board, an activist, a mayor or a mere blogger. “You object to my new development? Why, you dunderhead, don’t you know that the Nature of New York is Money, er, Change?”
This phrase needs to be retired for good. The statement does not confer an air of wisdom on the speaker. It is a gigantic and insulting shrug that shows you don’t care a whit for the City, and aren’t willing to lift a finger on its behalf. You’ve got a proposal to change some part of New York? Fine. Change is welcome here. We’re all about change. But tell us why your change is good, why it will profit the City (and not just you). Don’t just tell us it is good because it is change.
“The Nature of New York Is Change” [Lost City]
Photo by the c-side.
No, I’m not patronizing Carol Gardens. I just like what she has to say most of the time.
And for the record, I will never respect or take seriously any commenter who ever calls anybody other commenter a loser. It’s such an infantile and simple-minded epithet. It also reveals an ugly mindset the divides the world into losers and winners. I don’t think Benson and his ilk are losers. I disagree with them strongly and they me angry. But I don’t think they’re losers.
9:47, I think your examples of “good” socialist countries don’t quite cut it. Brazil and Chile might be socialist in name, but they are very capitalistic in practice. If you really want to see true socialist asthetics, check out Moscow’s apartment towers, the suburbs of Paris or the housing projects of East New York.
Right on Benson! Great posts. If the nimby, or asshat, fucknozzle (whichever you prefer) loosers would get off of their asses and leave their parents basements, rent controlled apartments etc. and get a job they might be able to purchase a building so we could see how they would charge below market rent for the social good -until their mortgage was due. Unfortunately this will never happen. If the mom and pop stores are being forced out by big business its their fault. They should be able to provide more personal service, however usually they give less of a shit than the big stores. If you loosers like lost city were so concerned you would patronize the establishments you are always whining about closing so they didn’t have to. As to eminent domain these folks at AY were offered 2-3 times the value of their property to sell, i only wish my house was in the footprint, my only question would be do you want me to take all my shit out or just leave it?
Polemicist, that last piece is beneath your usual standard. It is not well considered, you do not chose your words carefully, and I don’t really know what you are gatting at.
Many socialist countries are very advanced. Take for instane Sweden, Norway, France to a cetain extent. The most promising emerging economies are lead by socialists take for instance Brazil and Chile. If you want a country where preservation plays no part look at China. The last traditional neighborhoods full of lovely tiled roof houses in Beijing were recently cleared for Olympic housing. I don’t see why you suppose socialists are particularly enamored of their heritage, on the contrary, most wish to overthrow the old and discredit the bourgeoise society who built the great houses and collected the fine art, I think you are muddled. You should bone up on preservation and culural patrimony. it is not the great satan.
test
Nowhere in the world has socialism produced anything remotely beautiful for human habitation, especially by the definitions of the NIMBY crowd that posts on this site.
Socialism is by its very definition the total, complete organization of society and culture along explicitly materialistic terms. Beauty, that which the NIMBY wants to preserve, is outside of the philosophical and political concerns of the Socialist. This is why wherever socialism flourishes, preservation of the past is all that can be accomplished. Where socialism is powerful, cultural stagnation is the rule.
There is really no way to stop change. We are just humans and change is just built into the universe and it is always a part of our short lives. Controling change a little while evrything and everyone changes around us (think SoHo or DUMBO) is all that preservationists are seeking to achieve. It is sad to hear, as people get older, their complaints about “lost character”. What they are bemoaning is that the character of their own youth is dying out or has died out and been replaced by something new, which in turn will be replaced when youngsters today get long in the tooth. Preservation is all about change, it is just about preserving some of the old things that form the framework of our visual environment as our lives and our culture transform themselves in ever new ways. Saving old works of art or old works of architeceture has nothing to do with resisting change. I wish more people understood this about the modern preservation movement.
what a disgusting reaction is coming from the real estate community in this thread. Unbridled capitalism related to housing is going to bring us all down. Time for a correction in all matters. SOCIALISM ROCKS it could surely improve things by getting a little closer to it – thanks to the post calling for balance. Balance the good of the many instead of the profits of a few. And by the way, New York City has always been vital and changing yes but it used to have character and was different from the rest of the country – some change is really loss.
Brooks of Sheffield;
Are you patronizing Carol?
As to your point: I make no bones about it – I’m pro-private property, pro-development. I believe that private property is the basis of liberty.
I have no problem with folks criticizing the aesthetics of a developer’s work. As I said, I believe in liberty, and I think criticsm is a healthy thing.. What I do have a problem with are folks who want to create laws to tell a developer the types of aesthetics they should implement on a property, or to whom they should rent or sell. As I said above, for these folks, zoning is not enough. Just look at the controversy regarding the development on Court St for proof of this. These folks want to go further, and dictate every facet of the building’s design. The apotheosis of this mentality was a recent “Forgotten New York” diatribe by Mr. Walsh, in which he stated that he would like to spit on any person who buys a “Fedders” building.
I’ll be around again, defending liberty and the rights of private property!
Benson.