While reading “Selling the City in Crisis” by Miriam Greenberg, I was surprised to learn about how important New York City’s public image was in the in the 1970s. I had heard about some of the problems the city faced at this time but it hadn’t occurred to me how much these problems were increased by the impact they had on people’s perception of the city. The negative perception of the city increased the existing problems, caused new problems, and made it harder to solve all of the problems.

I think New York City’s greatest strength is its diversity. By this, I don’t just mean the diversity of its population. I also mean New York City’s diverse economy, cultural experiences, and communities. New York offers something for just about anyone. The different communities in each neighborhood are unique, giving residents options for how they want to live. The city also has endless entertainment and cultural options so New Yorkers and visitors have plenty of things to do. Lastly, New York City’s economy is made up of a variety of industries. This diversity helps New York City to stay relevant as times change. For example, when one industry declines, the economy shouldn’t decline too much because there are plenty of other industries to support the city.

Unfortunately, in the 1970s, although only certain aspects of the city declined, the resulting decline in public image caused the rest of the city to decline as well. The negative public image of New York City prevented people and companies from investing in the city and caused those that were already in the city to relocate. These magnified the original problems the city was facing at the time. Even the city’s credit rating was influenced by public image, making it harder and more expensive for the city to gain the money it needed to solve the original problems.

I was surprised by how many people and companies were willing to give up on New York City. Even the federal government was unwilling to give the city the help it needed. It surprised me that only those who were completely invested in New York City already seemed willing to work to save it. According to the chapter, even those who were invested in New York City but also had interests outside of the city gave up on it, moving on to those other investments. I would have expected much more interest in improving the city than there was.

I thought Greenberg’s chapter was interesting and informative. It was fortunate that the city bounced back after the problems it faced. I hadn’t realized how much of a challenge it was before this reading.