'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.
Lost City, Why should any PRIVATE property owner justify to a loser like yourself any reason for their changes? This is not China or Cuba, people have a right to make whatever profit they can. If these “valuable businesses” were so valuable they would earn enough to pay their rent, or buy their building. If it too late now for some blame it on their short sighted business practice. Any business that is closing now probably had at least a 10 year lese if not more, that puts us back in 1998, look at what you could have bought in ’98. Why don’t you steer your own blog away from the whining NIMBY you are toward something more profitable? Oh, then I guess your parents would have an excuse to kick you out of the basement.
12:31, very well said.
“New chain store branches that will make their corporations money.”
Never mind that the chain stores might provide better products, at lower prices, in a cleaner, nicer environment.
Defenders of local-for-local’s-sake would have us all suffer from inferior service if it means keeping chains out. The nice thing about markets is they let people vote for what they want with their dollars. If small guys can’t find a way to get customers to volunarily hand over their money in exchange for something then they won’t be around for long. If chain stores are able to do it, then they will make money for corporations and great for that. Given the choice, if most consumers choose local over chains, especially if in spite of inferior service, then they have expressed their preference. Either way, money changing hands is the true test.
Let’s preserve the MTA subway system, JFK and LaGuardia Airports, the Port Authority bus terminal. These are worth keeping.
It’s true that NYC has always been about money. Unlike other American cities it was not founded by religious people seeking a new Eden. It was founded by the Dutch to make money. It has always been a commercial city therein lies its greatness and its weakness. Turning its back on the beautiful waterfornt, creating an ugly and crowded urban environment for most of the inhbitants, quality of life has never been one of the strengths of NY. It is a city to work in.
The past fifty or so years, some residents have started to think more about aesthetic and quality of life issues. Those things should be compatible with commerce. Beware those who claim ‘Change is good” because it may be, or it may not be. Balance is good. and that is, I think, what preservationists, at least the sane ones, are seeking.
While I agree that you could probably substitute the word “money” for “change” I don’t think that that’s a good rebuke for people who are trying to change the City. The very historic relics that preservationists are trying to preserve were built for the same reason – to make money!!! New York has always been about money. You could say that tearing down old buildings in order to build something new that will make someone lots of money is a more historically accurate thing to do in NYC than preserving old buildings…..
“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.”
Since the “City” so clearly cares so little about all of us, why exactly should we?
…and conversely:
“But tell us why this change is bad, why it will harm the City (and not just you). Don’t just tell us it is bad because it is 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.”
Exactly what I am waiting to hear from all of the current presedential candidates.
“Change” does not always mean good or better. So far what I have heard from all three of these Yokels does not sound like any realistic or positive change.