New York is a diverse place with people from all around the world and from all walks of life. Some people consider it an example of the immigrant salad bowl theory or they may even dare to say it exemplifies a melting pot. They look at New York as a place that welcomes people who are different. Perhaps this idea can even be perceivably true by glancing through New York City’s “center”- Times Square. However, what is seen is just a perception, it is not reality.
Times Square has been the focus of redevelopment in multiple occasions. A lot of time and effort has been invested and there has been a strong insistence on the redevelopment of this one portion of the city. Why? The reason behind this, in my opinion, is that New York City wants to have a good image. When tourists say they want to come visit New York City very often they are not talking about Queens or the Bronx but rather New York City, even more specifically Times Square. Therefore, by making Times Square an appealing place you create an image and a good appearance for New York City. For example, in 2010 with the construction of the glassy 40 story tower Times Square’s luxurious appearance was even more heightened. The redevelopment as described by Charles V. Bagli in his article “After 30 Years, Times Square Rebirth Is Complete, was looked as a triumph against all odds and an example of success through perseverance. A success that finally led to the creation of the great glamourous Times Square people think of today. Thus, in the words of Jimmy Glenn,” Everybody loves Times Square now”. By creating this great reputation for Times Square, the entire New York City is considered great by association and therefore, is held higher in a global scale.
Why does everyone love Times Square, now? Is it because of the change of demographic or “moral value” of the area. Although Times Square seems to be full of diverse people it is not essentially built to accommodate all people or rather the cultural values of all people. Essentially it’s history exemplifies the clash of cultural values and the inability for different cultural values to be embraced and to manifest themselves jointly.
In New York City not everyone’s cultural values are encouraged. The cultural values that are supported are those that produce capital or can be commoditized or the cultural values that are exercised by people with capital. This dynamic, further emphasizing the constant battle between who’s opinion is valued. Who is considered desirable in a community? The answer, supported heavily by the capitalist system which this city is based on, is: those who can afford it.
This system allows for those who can afford a good education to get a good education. It allows for those who can afford to live in a greener or safer community to move to a greener or safe community. It allows for those who have always afforded to be at the top to stay at the top while others are given this false hope in upward mobility to hold on to. This system has allowed for this great disparity between classes to occur thus pushing groups of people farther and farther apart. Therefore, this diverse city has become a city of segregation and dis-unification.
However, although this is a result of the capitalist ideals I don’t think that was the intention. I think there could be a city in which we still have capitalist ideals that promote incentive but that does not have such great gaps in education, income, and social value. However, I think the only way these gaps can be closed is if people start to diversify and not minimize each others cultural values but allow these cultural values to live in harmony. This will allow the destruction of false perceptions that people have of one another and for the unmasking of a politicized environment where people build a fancy building to hide the root of the problems and to leave them unaddressed. By allowing the true unification of the city we will stop living in a city that is living in a façade of beauty, luxury, and diversity under which lies segregation, inequality, and disservice.
Additional Works Cited:
Bagli C (2010) After 30 Years, Times Squares Rebirth is Complete. After 30 Years, a Rebirth Is Complete pA17
Hi Karen,
I totally agree with your idea that New York City changes itself to become the ideal “New York” that people come to see as tourists. When you hear tourists talking about coming to see the “city,” no one ever thinks Queens, The Bronx, Brooklyn, or Staten Island; everyone thinks Manhattan. Even people who live in New York think of “the city” as Manhattan rather than all the boroughs. But an intriguing question to ask is why did the government decide that Times Square specifically would be “the place” that gets to be modernized and be shiny and a tourist attraction? Subway lines were built around this area because of real estate and economic purposes, and I think out of this arose a huge population and attraction to this area. Easy access makes Times Square a desirable area, and maybe that plays a role into when people think of “the city,” they think of Manhattan and not Queens or The Bronx.
Also, I think I disagree with your statement about Times Square being built to accommodate the values of all people. I don’t think Times Square is built to accommodate the values of any person in all honestly. It’s a tourist attraction today, and people come to see the aura of New York City at Times Square. I think the area was built to accommodate what has become the New York City aesthetic, and rather than it be a place for all to embrace culture, I think it is a place to witness the mesh of cultures that New York City is.
I do agree though that New York City itself only listens to those who can afford to be heard. Although you were speaking broadly, the topic of gay prostitution jumped out at me while I was reading your blog. Young gays who prostituted themselves because they were thrown out of the house were looked down upon and were looked at as lesser people. Their work, which they did to survive, was viewed at as disgusting and vile, but those that were rich could never conceive what kind of economic state someone could be in to have to begin doing that. This was seen with Times Square, and this was also seen again with the revanchism of The High Line. Gaps in education due to low income and lack of familial support led to an HIV/AIDs epidemic in the city, causing a further divide between the gay community and the rest of New York City. This stigma of HIV is still present today, and prevents total unification of this city, and even amongst the gay community itself. Like you said, destroying the false perceptions that people have would truly allow for the unification of New York City. Building something to hide the problems a community is facing (Times Square and the High Line [which I know the topic about this is not the High Line but it’s just another example that I know about]) seems to be a reoccurring theme in New York City’s history. Hopefully, our city will be able to progress and learn to allow every culture to flourish in harmony.
Hey Karen,
I definitely agree that in Times Square, and so many other situations in the history of NYC’s development do we see the interest of the rich catered to. There were marginalized groups who were pushed out of the Times Square area because of the redevelopment: particularly, the gay population. Massage parlors, peep shows, and prostitution were all under attack in what we can consider the revanchism of elite business owners in the area . As “employees” in these industries, this marginalized population was excluded from the newly revitalized Times Square.
However, I question whether or not this showcases the inability for Times Square to embrace the values of different cultures, and if this is synonymous to a change in the moral values of the area. For one, capitalism is a system that only appears to focus on profitability. As Reichl mentions, the elite was able to make a fair share of wealth off of the prostitution and vice industry by renting out their brownstones. Therefore, with the crackdown on this practices, both marginalized groups and some middle/upper-class were negatively impacted. Even those who sat on boards that aided in the demanding of the vice-life of Times Square owned businesses rooted in these newly condemned practices. Because of this, I think the fight to reform Times Square became that of a moral one: eliminating blatant lewd acts from the streets of NYC even though various groups were interested in having the businesses remain. Though the intention may have been to cater to the groups of middle/upper-class who owned/attended the theatre, ultimately Times Square has become a tourist attraction that caters to all New Yorkers: an area that is diverse in its entertainment and their costs.
Rebecca Robertson’s comment in After 30 Years, Times Square Rebirth Is Complete is rather interesting however. She notes that “those four huge skyscrapers were designed more to bury Times Square’s sordid past than to celebrate its connection to popular culture.” This is the problem that I think helps classify Times Square’s rebirth as revanchism rather than solely redevelopment, which you seem to argue. If this moral cleansing was interested in creating a better climate for the general NYC population and Time Square businesses-or simply redeveloping- there should have been a push to legalize and then regulate gay entertainment industries that promoted a safe environment for the well-being of workers. This would have exemplified a connection to popular culture at the time and a valuing of various cultures. Instead, it seems as though the government intervention that Charles Bagli argues aided free-market capitalism at the time actually limited it to the city’s desirables, as you mentioned.