There’s been a common thread running through many of our readings. Critics such as Tochterman, Florida, and Zukin, among others, have referenced the theory of Jane Jacobs and how it has/hasn’t held up. This may be indicative of the recognition her argument has received. It’s striking, and a little odd how a newer theory, one that I was originally skeptical of, has gained traction. Namely, the emergence of the “creative class.” Perhaps if you picture tattooed, young white folks at a gallery, a party, or somewhere along those lines, you’ll get a better picture.
Sharon Zukin, in The Naked City: The Life and Death of Authentic Public Places (not only pays homage to Jacobs’ renowned work with its title but also) outlines how Brooklyn became the alternative Manhattan in the section, “How Brooklyn Became Cool.” This particular section is reminiscent of Tochterman’s piece on the ideology of Richard Florida. Florida had the three T’s: tolerance, talent and technology. We can easily see parallels between the two arguments and observe how Jacobs’ vision was ultimately manipulated or moved to the periphery. Zukin briefly mentions Bohemian culture but doesn’t spend much time (at least in the sections we were assigned to read) talking about the gay community which Florida believed was necessary for the “Tolerance” aspect of his spiel. As for “talent,” and “technology,” Zukin talks of artists who were entrepreneurs and how they were able to develop a culture of being “gritty”–something that was authentic and desirable because of some mild danger it possessed. First, it was Newspapers and magazines, then it was the corporate media that began to pay attention to places like Williamsburg. Only then did prominent players and “creative” folk with money and weight begin to raise their eyebrows–accelerating the gentrification process. Though its particulars are complex, the creative class should be mentioned in a conversation about gentrification in NYC.
Jane Jacobs envisioned old and new buildings in order to keep rents low but the creative class had something else in mind. Illegal residence in warehouse property, underground parties, and music events all sparked interest in neighborhoods that were once immigrant enclaves. Since the East Village was too expensive, those who couldn’t afford Manhattan made Brooklyn their new Manhattan. Tochterman criticizes Jacobs’ vision for not being expansive and adaptable precisely because low rents were what allowed the creative class to come in and gentrify the area. Williamsburg is a perfect case study: Puerto Rican immigrants, other minorities, and immigrants had nothing left to hold on to when industry moved out and creative folk had the money to thrive. It’s important to note, however, this would not be possible without the role of the city. The city, Zukin argues, did not attempt to save industry in Williamsburg, industry that was providing jobs for immigrant families. The city believed Brooklyn didn’t need industry. This, along with city’s role in the Robert-Moses-slum-clearance-and-highway-obsession situation bring up a nagging question: can state and city governments handle the maintenance of projects without reliance upon private corporations?
Many of the projects Robert Moses had undertaken relied heavily on private companies to improve neighborhoods and locales after Moses had them cleared (not to mention the hundreds of residents displaced). The argument was always some derivative of, “you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet,” or “if we didn’t have tax cuts or incentives, you would never have private companies involved. And without them, nothing will get done.” Does this mean that the equation is always: government interest and incentive for companies + private investment = successful project? The paradox of Union Square is a peculiar example in which private involvement allowed, in some ways at least, for many people to enjoy public space. But event then, we have the systematic control of nearby residences and small businesses, effectively removing the unwanted immigrant presence. Though we do have eyes on the street, as Jacobs always envisioned, we still have a deeper network of control from wealthy folk involved in these corporations and companies.
The point is that there is a convoluted structure to the transformations of New York–there are financial, social, political, and cultural aspects that each shape the future of the city.
This all reminds me of a parody video I once saw. Though it is lighthearted in nature, in the context of our discussion, one can see a theme of confusion when it comes to allies and enemies: those who are helping us can also be undermining us. Here it is:
Lurking within the shadows is capitalism itself.
Questions:
- Is the role of the “creative class” being overestimated when discussing gentrification? What role does it have?
- How is Union Square a unique private investment? What are the benefits for the public? What are the drawbacks?
- How did Brooklyn become the New Manhattan and what role did the government play in this? What role did private companies play?
