Rebirth: the action of reappearing or starting to flourish or increase after a decline.

Revanchism: when policy is designed to recover lost territory or status.

Which one of these do I believe applies to the change that occurred in the late 1900s in the area known as Times Square? When I first approached the question at first I thought rebirth. In my mind Times Square was an area that over a century has gone through so many rebirths before becoming the huge attraction it is today. When it was known as Long Acre Square it featured predominantly horses and carriages. In 1904 when the New York Times set up their headquarters there the area was renamed for it. With the introduction of the sex industry and its later dissolution in the late 1900s to the Disneyfication of the city I truly believed that Times Square had a history that told of its rebirth, from a small time trading area to one that dominates New York City today. However, after reading Reconstructing Times Square I started to feel a bit differently about it, especially after reading about the events that took place to bring Disney to NYC. I realized that though much of the change that people were calling for was based on the social issues that plagued the area, the methods with which the government took to solve these problems, were completely economical.

In 1993 when Disney expressed interest in opening a location in NYC and reached out to the 42 Street Development Project, they jumped on the offer and did whatever they could to get Disney. They were so desperate that they offered to pay the $250,000 necessary to buy the land for the site. As it says in the reading, other companies were offered but none of them had the symbolic might of Disney. I totally agree with this. Disney is a multi-million dollar corporation synonymous with happiness. People wanted a return to the Old Times Square and this was the best option at bringing that nostalgia to life. As soon as the deal was made public the business poured in from all sources, restaurants, bars, and cafes. Times Square was going to become a nice place for people again. The old status of what it was was being reclaimed little by little.

What I realized after all this was that people hated Times Square because it wasn’t safe, it was full of prostitution, and was home to people that were considered vagrants and criminals. Instead of looking for reasons as to why these people were in the situations they were in and solving that, they resorted to getting rid of the businesses and shops that facilitated these individuals. They used money and made deals to bring in nicer businesses so they could attract wholesome people and families instead.

Back to the original question, Times Square: Rebirth or Revanchism? I can honestly say that I do not have the same positive view as I did about the history of Times Square. I feel that the area has gone through more of a revanchism because many of the things in the area have to do with choices tied to economics. For example, in the New York Times article, Several Days After Christmas, Toys ‘R’ Us Closes in Times Square, Elizabeth Harris discusses how the megastore is closing because of the high rent costs. It turned out that this was the same reason the Disney store that changed Times Square in the late 90s closed up shop. It’s interesting that the two stores that without a doubt helped create the image of Times Square as this wholesome tourist attraction are now being closed because the rent is too high and staying in these areas would not prove profitable. The article says that a Gap Inc. will be opening stores there to which one woman replied, “Oh wonderful… we really need another one of those.” Seeing that these stores have closed because they simply cannot be open anymore makes me wonder how the landscape of Times Square will change within the next few years. How will people see it then? Are things about to change again?

NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/04/nyregion/04square.html?_r=0