Clinton Hill Article Reaction

Clinton Avenue. Photo by Phil Mansfield for the NY Times.
Knowing us for the Clinton Hill boosters that we are, a reader asked us our reaction to yesterday’s big NY Times article on the rising fortunes of the neighborhood, expecting that our take may have been, “There goes the neighborhood.” In fact, our reaction was quite the opposite.

In our opinion, the more good press, the better at this stage. While the article paints an idyllic picture, the neighborhood still has a ways to go in terms of improving the safety of its streets and its commercial infrastructure (i.e. Fulton Street). We aren’t worried about typical gentrification fears–we don’t think Clinton Hill is in imminent danger of being taken over by a swarm of bankers (at this point, that would only add to the diversity, since there ain’t many of them there). In our opinion, the most important factor for addressing the two issues we cited above–safety and infrastructure–is stability of the ownership base. Whether they have been there two decades or two months, families who are occupying the houses, attending the schools and playing in the parks of Clinton Hill are much more likely to work towards these improvements than absentee landlords and transient renters.

If the current momentum continues in this direction, we strongly believe that the neighborhood–whose architecture is second to none in the entire city–can reclaim the former grandeur and prominence it had over a century ago. On the other hand, if the city keeps cutting funding for the local police, goes ahead with its plans to shut more and more token booths, and ignores quality of life issues like broken street lights, this momentum could also be lost and even reversed. Thoughts?
Clinton Hill: Into the Big Leagues [NY Times]