While reading Reichl’s Reconstructing Times Square and Delany’s Times Square Red, Times Square Blue, I found it hard to picture the older versions of Times Square and what kind of atmosphere they must have had. I am only familiar with what Reichl describes to be the “Disneyfied” version of Times Square, filled with families, tourists and mostly family-friendly entertainment. It’s crazy to think that this now family-friendly area of NYC was once known for drugs, sex shops and prostitution. A CNN article described this transition as, “We found people pushing strollers rather than pushing drugs on the street” (Chakraborty 2016).
Both readings bring up the question of whether the previous versions of Times Square were better than the newer, reconstructed version. I feel like it would be difficult to make such a decision because you are comparing two totally different atmospheres. Certain individuals, who would associate land value with moral value, would say that the sex industry along Times Square was ruining its value and making it “slum-like” and crime-ridden (Reichl 1999). People could also be argued that the sex industry brought in business for Times Square and attracted a large male population. We see that in the early attempts to morally cleanse the city, through the Prohibition, there was actually a negative impact on the theater industry and a change in the dynamic of Times Square (Reichl 1999). Delany mentions in his paper that he preferred the earlier version of the 42nd Street area stating, “My personal life as a New Yorker was a lot more pleasant from, say, 1980 to 1992 than it has been, after a three-year transition period, from 1995 to now.” One of his main reasons for feeling this way was because of the increased opportunities for street contact during that time (Delany 1999). Even though one version may be more morally conservative than the other, that doesn’t necessarily translate it to being better. They are simply just catered to two different groups of people and different cultures.
When it comes to the issue of violence, it is generally perceived that the reconstructed version of Time Square was more safe due to the increase policing in the area (Chakraborty 2016). Delany looked at this in a different light and choose to downplay the violence of the old Time Square. In his paper, he argues “Many non-city residents still do not realize that their beloved small towns are, per capita, far more violent places than any big city” (Delany 1999). He also mentions the importance of knowing how to navigate the city in order to avoid being a victim of crime. I find it interesting to see the varying opinions people had on crime and violence in the city. It seems to be somewhat based on perception and whether certain people let things, like violence, alter their view of Times Square. This further goes to show why it would be hard to prefer one version over another. A general decrease in violence and crime rates is certainly a positive thing, but its probably not enough to ultimately determine that the reconstructed version of Times Square was better.
I would refrain from using the term revanchism to describe the transition between the old version of Times Square and the new version of Times Square. The old version of Times Square, no matter how raunchy or immoral, still contributed to the culture of New York City and influenced its’ development. I don’t feel like it would be fair to consider the older versions of Times Square any less than than its’ current version. Instead, I would like to think that Time Square just changed its vibe over the years and was reborn to a different type of cultural center.
Works Cited:
Chakraborty D (2016) When Times Square was Sleazy http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/18/us/80s-times-square-then-and-now/ (last accessed 16 March 2017)
Delany S R (1999) Times Square Red, Times Square Blue. New York and London: New York University Press
Reichl A J (1999) Reconstructing Times Square: Politics and Culture in Urban Development. University Press of Kansas
Hey Ena,
After reading your post a few major points came to mind: First off, I too find it hard to imagine what Times Square could have looked like before the “Disneyfield version” that it is today. The family friendly, iconic landmark which I grew up passing through in order to get to school every day, does not disclose the scene of immorality that it once was. While the question posed asks whether the city as we know it should be viewed as rebirth or revanchism from the drug filled streets of the 80’s, I feel that you are right in saying that the two stages of Times Square can not be compared because of how different the crowds are which each stage attracted.
That being said, in my opinion the Times Square of today, which is known for its constant life and vibrance, billboards and theaters is a better focal point for the city as a whole. I believe that as a main attraction of New York City, it is important for the area to appeal to as large of a varied crowd of people as possible. Times Square is a place of commerce and it is beneficial to draw people in, in order to make the city thrive. The Times Square of old, while appealing to one crowd, was incapable of spreading the morals that the city upholds and was unable to build the city up to the influential center of the world that it is today.
Hi Ena,
I also think that it’s hard to see what the older Times Square was like after being so used to what it’s like now, and I agree with your view of Times Square as a rebirth rather than a revanchism. While the Times Square that we have today is family and tourist oriented, the older Times Square has still been a major part of what the city was like back then, regardless of the issues of its moral standing. However, the rebirth of Times Square hasn’t changed much in the overall dynamic in New York City concerning issues of poverty and crime that are still high in other neighborhoods of the city.
As you said, I think the criticism of the immorality of the older Times Square doesn’t necessarily mean that the Times Square that we have now is “better.” As the main center of tourism in New York City, Times Square aims to display the best that the city can be to the eyes of the rest of the world, but could this newer Times Square really be considered much better than its older self if instead it distracts from the issues that encase its neighbors?
Hi Ena,
I agree with a lot of what you say in regards to not being sure if the current Times Square is “better” than the old Times Square. You bring up a good point when you say morally conservative doesn’t necessarily mean better.
In fact, I think Times Square now lacks the authenticity it once had in the earlier days as a New York neighborhood. The demographics have completely changed in that outside those who have offices at Times Square, the majority of people found there are tourists. New Yorkers might come in for a show or work but then they go back to their own neighborhoods or elsewhere in the city. There are always tables and chairs out forming public plazas, making it seem like a multiple-block attraction, and not really a part of the regular street life of New York. This goes on to show how it really is catered to tourists, not to New York residents. Therefore, it doesn’t exactly represent or accurately reflect New York sentiments or values.
All of you are fortunate not to have known Times Square, nor any other place that has been homogenized, as it was. For those of us who knew the “full plate,” as opposed to the “tapas” versions of life, these superficial environments have the effect of oxygen deprivation. Previously, to experience such places, all senses were involved, without the need for an electric prod to create them.
I can better relate to the Boston wharf as it was into the 1960s. As a young, female, teen, I was allowed to go to that area alone. (Either my grandmother was hoping I would get lost and never return, or she had an extraordinary naiveté – highly unlikely- or, she thought that it was important to explore life). Regardless, I was able to go to that area alone, during the day, of course, and every step led to discovery. There, I found the exotic, as in the form of a restaurant that had such a dark interior, and such exotic décor, and exotic food, that encountering it, forever changed me, developing a keen sense of observation and the side-alleys of life that revealed all of life. The only times, and, unfortunately, there was more than one, that I, or someone I was with, was threatened or, in fact, molested, was in “perfectly controlled” environments – “safe” environments.
There was a deeply rich texture of life, then. There was the benefit of having a dime in the sock to telephone if need be, sans constant contact via electronic devices. An appreciation that “stench” might be from bait for fishing. — As I said – I cannot adequately describe the difference – thriving, yet subtle in its way – although there was no mistaking people who were down on their luck, or drunk, or sweating from their labors as they carried produce from the ships on their backs.