Thesis:
The emerging presence of middle-income young professionals and families in Long Island City has driven up prices in the neighborhood, making it a prime target for real estate development. Meanwhile, the new commercial landscape–while still mostly small, local businesses–has replaced former small business and industrial activity to cater to the new demographics. This has led to the creation of distinct economic groups, all of whom are trying to place a claim on Queens’ westernmost neighborhood.
Expanded Thesis 2 (?)/ Intro : Hunter’s Point of Long Island City is a former industrial hub that is rapidly transitioning into a growing residential space for middle-income young professionals and families, drastically altering the demographic makeup of this diverse neighborhood. The prime geographic location of the area, easily accessible from Manhattan and Brooklyn, and the abandonment of former industrial lots has lured real estate developers seeking to invade the neighborhood and build upwards along the waterfront. The shifting commercial landscape and real estate development accompanying the incursion of new residents have driven up the price of living in the area, making it difficult for former working-class residents to afford. Long Island City is no longer the burgeoning industrial center it once was, but the rapidly gentrifying “LIC” — a nod to the hip, younger, more residential and accessible area it is now becoming.
This brings us to the broader question of how different neighborhood respond to the development of economically divergent sub-groups, and what factors contribute to this reaction. The rapid gentrification of formerly working-class Lower East Side serves as a comparison for the transitioning economic demographics of Long Island City.
-
Why long Island City? There has been a recent dramatic shift in the major economic sectors dominating the city.
-
Long Island City was formerly characterized as an industrial hub, a mecca of factory, transportation, and constructed-oriented jobs.
-
Beginning in the 1970s, industry died out and the area has since lost its former function and reputation, leaving a large gap in the local economy and real estate
-
Over the last 20 years, an influx of artists and more recently young professionals and families has revitalized the area and caused prices to climb
-
Desirable/accessible geographic location, large vacant industrial lots, prime riverfront space, and cheaper costs has made LIC the prime target for real estate development
-
Today, there is a division between the newer price-pushing residents, long-time working class residents, and remaining construction/factory workers who still making their living there
-
New residents pulled in by the “affordable” housing, convenient location, and quiet community removed from Manhattan
-
Long-time residents are aware of the changing demographic, increasing commercial activity downtown, and high-rise developments along the river but are frustrated by the feeling of being pushed out.
-
New restaurants and small businesses are catering to the younger, wealthier demographic–resulting in the bankruptcy of many older establishments
-
What the Lower East Side? In the last ten years, the Lower East Side has undergone rapid and expansive gentrification that has changed the distinct demographic makeup of the neighborhood
-
Historically, the LES was a poor and ethnically diverse neighborhood for working-class immigrants
-
The East Village, which The East Village, which split from the Lower East Side in the 1960’s, started to spread gentrification to LES in the 2000s.
-
Construction of luxury condominiums and a new wave of trendy and upscale businesses has brought a new drove of young hip residents and clientele to the neighborhood
-
Gentrification of the LES has displaced former businesses and residents who can no longer afford the area
-
Long Island City vs. LES — what’s the difference?
- It appears that the Lower East Side’s economic divisions are less distinct than those of Long Island City, creating a different dynamic among the residents while still maintaining the gentrification narrative
–Jonathan Eckman, Sophie Simon, and Hannah Whalen
Hi you three,
This is a pretty good start. I can see where you’re going and it seems feasible and fits with my own (limited) knowledge of the neighborhood. I guess my main question is where’s the motivating risk or the tension in the argument that produces new knowledge? I see it in the last bullet point, where you signal that the economic divisions appear less distinct in LIC, creating a “different dynamic among the residents.”
This seems like it might be a classic case in which the conclusion of the rough draft (or the outline) provides the thesis of the final draft. This is perhaps the new knowledge we were looking for, and could become an entire argument, if you want it to be. If this direction is appealing, the thing to do is push the argument as far as you can by bringing in a secondary source to add authority and leverage.
Gentrification is often conceptualized as a rich vs. poor phenomenon. If you can a secondary source that supports that claim, (either by stating this or by providing an illustration of the conceptualization in question) and if you can then offer LES (and/or somewhere else) as an example of a community where this conceptualization is reasonably accurate, then all of a sudden a gateway opens wide for your argument about a “different dynamic” in LIC resulting from a less extreme income distinction between old and new. You could have made this argument anyway, but framing it against the gateway you have created – highlighting its contrast with some existing idea and a neighborhood (LES) that illustrates that idea – makes the argument risky and interesting and exciting.
You could even go further and give a new name this kind of gentrification, as botanists do with newly discovered plant species. This sounds ridiculous but I’m actually serious. Maybe you have found something new in the gentrification universe, in which case you should by all means name it.
Push your argument further, until it becomes risky (i.e. until it begins ever so slightly to test the limits of your evidence). Invite in an academic source to have a dialogue with (and perhaps to tear down), and then avoid the temptation to be humble and conservative in your writing – make the biggest claims that you can back up.
Okay, that’s my pep talk. To be clear, if you write the paper as currently outlined it will be fine. In fact, more than fine. But often, when you’ve built a really solid foundation in an outline or a first draft, its solidness contains a challenge: see how high you can build. This is one of those times, in my opinion.
Mike