If transforming Williamsburg was thought to be difficult, then transforming Harlem must have seemed impossible a few decades ago. While Williamsburg had its underground parties and its nightclubs, Harlem had a rich cultural history of musicians, political figures, and athletes. Though the two neighborhoods differed in many respects, it was precisely the atmosphere they imbued that drew in the lurking gentrification.
Both neighborhoods had a quality of grittiness, something authentic and coveted; rebellious and unsafe (in various degrees); promising but perhaps problematic. In Williamsburg, industry was forced out, by rising rents and the betrayal of the city, ultimately engendering the semi-legal parties and musical events that occurred in the abandoned warehouses. In Harlem, the increased safety as well as the renewed cultural interest and appreciation of the neighborhood gave it new flavor, For both neighborhoods, it was new residents, cultural entrepreneurs, media coverage, and actions (or lack thereof in the case of Williamsburg) taken by the city that made it desirable.
The case of Harlem, however, is a complicated, sometimes paradoxical one. As Zukin puts it, the dark ghetto’s complex authenticity is “both impenetrable by outsiders and powerless against them, very much like a traditional urban village.” Racial and economic disparities ran through the neighborhood since the early twentieth century when rural blacks, who were often poor, migrated to move in alongside urbane, rich, well-educated middle class blacks in cities. Then, there are the racial struggles throughout and after the civil rights movement, in which troubles between blacks and whites occurred. The incident of the “Harlem on my mind” exhibition in the Metropolitan Museum of art, is one that embodies the friction that we can see in Zukin’s piece. It was criticized as a white man’s distorted view of Harlem, and at least two more things were problematic: the museum didn’t offer any work done by contemporary white artists and it was only available in the stronghold of white cultural power. Protests and vandalism were part of the response to this exhibition.
Even with the antagonism that was seen, eventually, with the help of increased safety, the black middle class, the climate in Mayor Giuliani’s time, and the interest of political forces like Charles B. Rangel, Harlem saw changes emerge. The creation of the Upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone (UMEZ) for example, nurtured and was the impetus for booming retail in Harlem. A selective vision of the distant past was creating a new sense of authenticity.
A few blows struck both neighborhoods heavily: rezoning and the negligence of public opinion. Williamsburg faced changes to establish the desired waterfront, rezoning that allowed luxury condos and high rise lofts, ignoring the dissent of the community board. As for Harlem, there was the rezoning of 125th Street, often recognized as “the Main Street of Black America,” for high-rise, mixed-use towers. These plans were given the “okay” by the New York City Council, effectively stomping on residents’ fuming protests and efforts by Harlem’s city council representatives to have more affordable apartments.
The two tales have similar characters in them and can be likened in more ways than one. However, where Williamsburg became “gritty” and was future oriented, Harlem’s desirability had something retrospective about it as well.
Questions to consider:
- What does the response of the mayor and the NYC council say about the structure of power? What else did Jane Jacob’s want along with a community board?
- How has rezoning altered Williamsburg and Harlem? What role does affordable housing play in all this?
- Why does Zukin say that Harlem isn’t a ghetto?
