'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.
Yes, we landlords are full of hate. Well said, comrade!!! Karl would be so proud.
Only one thought to trouble your mind: we hateful landlords are a growing breed. In recent years, the percentage of NYC’s population that are owner-occupants has grown from something like 25% to 33%. In 2007 a record number of condos were built, and the trend continues. At this rate, within a decade the majority of NYC residents will be owners. Think the winds are blowing the wrong way now? Just wait until we get to that tipping point.
Benson
The hateful soul of the landlord on full display here. Thank god that it isn’t in any way a representative sample of NYC’s population.
I cannot afford to buy the building because I have chosen to work for social justice! It is encumbent on the owner, who otherwise does nothing for the greater good, to forgo some potential income as recompense.
3.06 PM;
Re your comment: “What about landlords/corporations who let apartments and storefronts sit empty when they can’t get inflated rents? ” What about it? It’s THEIR property, let them do what they want. How about thinking of this concept for a change: PRIVATE property.
Your other comment is incredible: “Big chain stores can often afford to pay a much higher rent than a mom & pop store, no matter what the community around them prefers.” Have you taken a poll of a neighborhood, where folks indicated that they wanted lower commercial rents in the area??
Here’s another idea for you to think about: you buy the building, and rent it out at a lower rent than the market will bear. Show us the way.
Benson
What about landlords/corporations who let apartments and storefronts sit empty when they can’t get inflated rents? What do they do, write it off as a loss? Big chain stores can often afford to pay a much higher rent than a mom & pop store, no matter what the community around them prefers. How is that fair competition?
More NIMBY whining from people who wish for the glory days of New York, when violent crime was rampant and people frequently compared it to such lovely cities as Detroit.
Can it, NIMBY’s. If you want to keep your lease, pay your rent or buy the building. Despite what you may think, your landlord is not running a charity.
If you’re going out to get some fresh air, please take along an umbrella and boots; it’s supposed to rain.
1.14PM;
Well said! It seems that there is no satisfying these losers. Zoning laws, landmark preservations, ULRP, rent control, affordable housing mandates, community boards, etc. doesn’t seem to be enough for these would-be socialists. They want complete control over the decisions made by a private property owner, all at the same time taking none of the risk.
Folks from Lost City, Forgotten NY and the rest of them really ought to get out and get some fresh air.
Benson
12:31–It’s true that New York City was founded to make a buck, but that’s historically been a strength as well as a weakness. Because it existed for strictly mercantile reasons, New Netherland was more egalitarian and open than other colonies, which were founded on more high-minded but more exclusionary principles. (E.g, the freedom to practice one’s religion–and frequently to persecute others.)
This largely became the model for the United States after independence, which made the country more money-oriented and willing to sweep away the past, but also more willing and able to absorb different cultures and assimilate different points of view, because the main determinant of value was financial success. (The glaring exception, of course, being slavery, another thing that devotion to the almighty buck made possible.)
Culturally, it’s hard to separate the good aspects of these attitudes from the bad. Across the world, the countries that tend to be best about preserving their history and cultural patrimony also tend to be the ones that are the most culturally homogeneous, hostile to foreigners and intolerant of outsiders.