New York City is a hustling, bustling paradox. As explained in the first section of this chapter, North American cities were built upon and are constantly influenced by economic forces. While this had led to the creation of thriving American cities, as we know them today, it has also created a huge divide between socioeconomic classes. To further delve into this issue, let us examine the residential makeup of the city over time, as described by the chapter. Major sections of the city were first home to the working class; members of society who took on blue collar jobs that created and maintained the infrastructure of the city. However, as jobs in the city transitioned from being almost entirely blue collar, to having a greater percentage of white collar jobs, more affluent workers started coming into the city and residing there. Of course this also led to the creation of suburbs as technology advanced, as well. As living conditions of the city improved, many neighborhoods gained better reputations. We can still see this occurring today with gentrification. To what extent is the rebuilding of these neighborhoods beneficial? To what extent is it leading to a greater increase in the polarization of New York’s socioeconomic groups? New York seems to be becoming only more of a paradox over time.

It seems to be the case that in today’s housing market, many of those who work in the city can hardly even afford to reside in the here. I find this shift both incredibly interesting and troubling. New York City, which was once a place of residence for the working class people who built this city, is now a place in which the working class can no longer afford to live. The city’s ever-changing character is attributed to its ever-changing residents. However, one thing that won’t change is the city’s incessant need for the labor of the working class. As stated in the chapter, “The city is home to the richest and poorest of North Americans. Some of the worst social problems stand, literally, in the shadow of the proudest cultural achievements” (p. 92). Gentrification plays a huge role in this issue. At what point does improving the city’s neighborhoods lead to destruction of its character? With a city built on economic forces, it is incredibly difficult to accommodate both the richest of the rich, as well as the poorest of the poor. Due to the fact that both socioeconomic classes play huge roles in the city, it seems that New York will maintain its paradoxical nature for years to come.

New York is a difficult place to acclimate to, but once you’re here, you don’t want to leave. You want to live in this spectacular city. But chances are, you can’t afford to. The major problem with this city is its increasing rent and cost of living. Stores that were seemingly popular and busy, such as Toys ‘R’ Us in Times Square, are closing down due to the high cost of rent. High rent prices and apartments worth over a million dollars are forcing city dwellers outside the city to settle for the suburban environment. As the city places improvements in transportation, creates new cultural centers, and expands upwards, the cost of properties increases. For example, DeBlasio proposed a Brooklyn-Queens Streetcar to serve both the poor and wealthy as a means of transportation. It seems like a good idea until you realize how the city plans on paying for it: “It would increase the property values along its route, and the increase in property taxes over time would amount to $4 billion” (Jim Dwyer of NY Times). As if taxes aren’t high enough as they are. Yet we need these improvements for the betterment of our city. So, is there a middle ground?

It seems like the city is only affordable for the rich and wealthy. How would this impact low-income families in the future? We need our nitty-gritty workers- the workers who are willing to work in the low-paying jobs that provide the backbone for the city. But how do we prevent another Boss Tweed from taking advantage of the poor and making millions from corruptive practices?

Before the appearance of high-rise apartments and the rise of suburban life, New Yorkers lived in tenements. In the tenement museum, the living conditions were absolutely atrocious. With very small rooms, a large volume of people, and lack of clean water and electricity, one would wonder how these people were able to stand these conditions. We no longer face these sanitation issues, but we do face the problem of paying rent and saving enough money for groceries and personal needs. So, should we cramp ourselves into small apartments for the sake of saving money? It looks like it has to come down to that. Immigrants hoping for a new life and low-income residents face these issues. They settle for anything, which unfortunately impacts their living health conditions. In fact, micro-apartments have recently become popular. A room basically the size of a one-car garage costs $950 a month. Is it me or does that sound insane?

According to the Times, about 57% of apartments, co-ops, and condos are empty for 10 out of 12 months of the year. Some of these apartments are so insanely expensive, with an estimate cost of $500,000,000, that only a few billionaires can afford it. It is not the lack of apartments that is the problem here, but the prices. My question is, why construct these luxury condos if no one is going to live in them? Strip these apartments of their gold plated toilet seats and diamond doorknobs for something cheap and affordable. Some millionaires actually buy apartments in NYC for their children. Even before they’re born.

We need to work on these housing issues and the cost of living in New York. New York has been able to adapt to changing environments and recover from (some) economic and social crises, yet housing was and still is a major issue in New York City. So the question is, can you spare $2 million for an apartment?

As we read in the excerpt from Macionis and Parrillo’s Cities and Urban Life, New York is a constantly evolving city that has had a long history of problems and issues. Nowadays, media and community organizations have turned a lot of attention towards gentrification, housing problems, homelessness, rezoning issues, financial, economic, and cultural inequality, and a variety of other issues rampant throughout the city. Numerous critics of city government policies and programs have highlighted how, despite all the grandeur and allure NYC might seem to effuse on the outside, that gold coating doesn’t show the many problems still affecting New Yorkers every day.

It is, however, important to note that we’re actually a lot better off than we’ve been in the past. Optimistically speaking, our city conditions are better than before; we have access to clean, fresh water and a sanitation system that keeps public spaces and the streets fairly clean. Technological developments throughout the past century or so have granted us access to public transportation, high-speed telecommunications and information networks, and countless innovations that have made our lives far easier and more comfortable. The postindustrial economy has also supplied more white-collar jobs for the working class, and has helped neighborhoods like the South Bronx revitalize and improve for the better, as Macionis and Parrillo describe.

Of course, NYC is still far – very far – from perfect, and it probably never will be. But I believe there’s something to say about the fact that this city was able to survive through multiple economic recessions, poor city conditions, and numerous other issues to become the thriving megalopolis it is today. Indeed, the city is still lacking in many ways and suburbanization and decentralization continue to negatively affect its circumstances, but the mass “exodus” of people trying to forge better lives elsewhere has slowed down. Now, more people, especially minorities and the poor who are unable to move elsewhere, are staying within NYC and improving their lives and communities step by step. Near the end of the excerpt, Macionis and Parrillo briefly discuss individuals who have worked to revitalize and improve their neighborhoods, and these small, but important, developments ultimately lead the way towards progress and growth in the future.

Call me an optimist, and maybe even somewhat ignorant. I’ll admit I’m not all too familiar with the issues that rack the city today, but I do think it’s sometimes good to just take a step back and look at how far we’ve already come. There’s still much work and a lot of improvement to do, but at least we got somewhere a little bit better, right?

A reoccurring theme in the reading was that much of the effective governance of New York was accomplished with the help of communities or by creating them. The concept of BIDs  is a really keen move to have businesses for communities of there own where they work together in order to improve their immediate area. This takes advantage of the fact that no one knows an area better than those who live and work there. In the case of businesses they work together in order to reduce crime and improve services in was they deem most effective. Efforts to create communities such as Battery Park, where housing is paired with business and entertainment, are also surely effective at stemming the tide of people who are leaving the city by creating little self sufficient havens. If someone feels secure with their job which is close to their home and surrounded by entertainment – there is little reason for them to leave.

The power of a community can also serve to revitalize an area. Efforts to take a community in decline and get it back in the right direction may take as little as people moving into and renovating run down properties. This helps not only the person doing the renovation by creating equity, but it also lifts the surrounding area as well. Given enough time once bad neighborhoods could become thriving communities with just a little investment.

Unfortunately the idea of community can be taken too far. Boss Tweed took advantage of the idea that immigrants formed their own communities and became an overwhelming power in New York City government.  He played the power of a community to stick together in rough times and was able to harness it in order to create an omnipresent political machine. Fortunately this is a bit of a stretch and we now see mostly positive outcomes of people organizing for reform – not just in New York communities but all around the world.

Discussion Question: Will minority groups be able to take advantage of the current economic revitalization or will it only serve to push them out?

New York City has certainly undergone a radical change from the gritty place it once was in the 1970s and 80s. It is hard to imagine Bryant Park as anything but the hot spot that it currently is, or to imagine 42^nd Street as a “center of sex and sleaze” (p.101). The changes that these areas, and the rest of the city, have undergone can be attributed to the construction projects that began in the 90s and that are still happening today. The drawback to this urban renaissance, however, is that New York City, particularly Manhattan, is extremely expensive to live in. It is fantastic that “clubs, coffee bars, chic shops, and trendy restaurants” (p.99) are springing up throughout the city, but they do not come cheap, and frequenting them would cost a New Yorker a great deal of money.

Similarly, the price of housing in the city has dramatically increased; apartments in the city cost $2,000 – $5,000 a month to rent, and lofts can cost upwards of $700,000. This is to be expected, however, because new construction costs money. Business Improvement Districts seem to be helping the city, but these, too, cost money. Some people may not view the rising cost of living in the city as a big deal; many simply accept this as a fact of life. But this could have serious consequences for the city’s future. In both this article and the previous one, Macionis and Parillo mention that an efflux of people from a city can harm the city’s economy. With fewer people living and working there, the city government receives less tax money, so the quality of life in the city naturally starts to deteriorate. The positive changes that New York City has undergone have raised the cost of living to the point where more people, especially the middle class, might start to move away to less expensive areas. This could ultimately harm the city’s economy and bring it back to the state it was in during the 70s and 80s. But without those positive changes, the city would still be in that state today. Obviously, there are pros and cons to every situation, and it is important for New York City to strike a balance between safety and affordability.

Discussion question – How can the cost of living in New York City be decreased while maintaining the current quality of life in the city?

In the section Upgrading the City, it is remarked that the city is constantly under development. With each new construction giving a significant boost to the surrounding neighborhood. The Twin Towers, Battery Park City and the New Harlem USA shopping center all helped to improve the image and economic value of the area, made the initial investment into development worth it. For people of lower income, more people did not want to live in the projects, instead preferring to invest their live savings into buying their own homes. By sharing the same goal, the investments of people of lower income were also able to achieve results similar to that of big Manhattan developments, in which the neighborhoods would gradually improve and become a nicer place to live.

This pattern of investment in development can still be seen today. In Flushing, the construction of Skyview Mall seemed a little unstable at first, with only one supermarket really attracting any business. However, over the years, the mall now has multiple chain stores in it and has extending the area of economic growth in Flushing (the mall is located more on the outskirts of Flushing, along the water). While Skyview has definitely achieved success, it can be noted that the only stores at the mall are chain stores; small businesses have tried to rent space in the mall but have not achieved much success. The rezoning plans for Flushing plan to develop a waterfront promenade near Skyview, with smaller retail spaces to encourage small businesses. Even with NYC’s pattern of new developments equaling economic growth, I am a little wary about the feasibility of this plan as new roads will need to be constructed, Flushing Creek is heavily polluted and will have to be treated, and also the waterfront view, won’t be much to look at. Or is the population in Flushing so high that any developments have a significantly higher chance of success, as more people look to escape, if only by a small distance, from the intensity of Main Street?

Discussion question: Is it possible for other cities in the United States to achieve the same level of “success” as NYC?

Macionis and Parrillo mention that New York City resembles a pressure cooker, rather than the more popular analogy of a melting pot. There are racial and economic tensions that are constantly intensifying, but the city is able to still function. When tourists arrive, they may be enchanted by the city lights and see a swift, unceasing machine; it is a true sight to see. However, other individuals, probably those who reside in or commute to New York, may see how chaotic this great city really is. There seems to be no end to the traffic, pollution, overcrowding, economic strain, and racial injustice. However, the tensions in the city have yet to boil over. One misstep may throw the entire dynamic off. There would be too much chaos for a working city to manage. For example, this could even explain the MTA’s recent decrease in efficiency. NYC may have reached its peak and is on its way back to an age of decline.

NYC encompasses just about everything, including the good and the bad. It is filled with a rich history, from being the former U.S. capital and the origins of the Sons of Liberty to becoming a financial, fashion, and art capital in the States. As O. Henry once said about New York, “It’ll be a great place if they ever finish it.” NYC is known for having waves of prosper and decline. This city has been able to adapt to and accommodate for the chaos so far.

Discussion Question: Will there be a point where NYC will not be able to bounce back from turmoil?