The Times Square of 1992, looked very different from the Times Square of 1995, in the sense that in 1995, there was a lot of construction being done to benefit the developers of these new buildings, but this was done under the guise of benefiting the community. Of course, in order to build these new buildings, old ones had to be destroyed, which as we’ve learned from Jane Jacobs’ theory of city planning, wouldn’t be conducive to the diversity of the city. That is if, most of the old buildings are being torn down instead of being kept and reused by others who wouldn’t be able to afford using other, newer buildings. These new buildings, the ones that are being built to transform Times Square, were supposedly meant to help reduce the amount of drug deals and prostitution occurring in NYC at the time.
Delany explains that new buildings are being built with the assumption that new buildings will automatically bring more money into the city, however, the process entails something else. He goes on to say that what really happens is a large corporation wants to construct a building because they know they’ll be earning money off of simply having it built, even if the building doesn’t get rented out. This is because they are getting paid by the smaller corporation to have the building built, and the construction company since it takes part in the stocks the larger corporation has control over. So, these buildings are being built with no regard as to whether they will actually be beneficial for the city or even used by the city. A side effect of these buildings being built is the displacement of several older buildings already established in the city, which actually served a purpose for the inhabitants of the city.
In the 1980s, these buildings and its streets were often where men could find other men who wanted to engage with other men, either in a sexual way or simply to socialize with them, or perhaps both. Theaters were a popular location for homosexual activities, since as explained by Delaney, they would show sex movies which would entice several theater-goers. Of course, street corners and hustler bars were also popular hangouts for gay men to meet and to participate in carnal desires. What was often troubling is that younger and younger several male prostitutes started appearing in the city, even as young as 15, trying to earn money doing whatever was asked of them. In a NYTimes article, focusing on the dynamic of “Hawks and Chickens,” which are older men, “Hawks” preying on younger boys, “Chickens,” there were even mentions of boys entering prostitution from the ages of 10-15. The article goes into how easy it is for these children to fall into this business, when they’re often minorities who come from low-income families, and end up finding a father figure in these older men. This is especially tragic when compounded with the knowledge that they were most probably pushed into doing this because of the drug that spread through the city like a disease, namely crack. These children could have been earning the money to purchase the drugs for their parents who could have become addicted by then, or even worse, for themselves. With the context provided, one could suggest that children wouldn’t be subjecting themselves to this abuse, had it not been for the drugs and poverty of the time, and that it did not have much to do with the hustler bars that proliferated old Times Square. In fact, several of these boys met their “Hawks” at the arcade and not at homosexually-coded areas.
However, with more people keeping watch of the neighborhood perhaps this wouldn’t have become such a prevalent problem, or at least it could have been stabilized. As Jane Jacobs has discussed before, it is important to have eyes on the street, and it is important to whom those eyes belong to. By having people own local businesses in Times Square, it causes them to care about what goes on in the neighborhood seeing as it can affect their business in the future. She claims it is important to have wide sidewalks and commercial diversity in order to encourage pedestrians to walk on city streets (Gopnik 2016). What shouldn’t be done, which is what happened in 1995, is the reduction of the commercial diversity within the city, like having 4 businesses to 1 theater on a street, when earlier there had been 3 businesses and 3 theaters on the same street (Delaney 1999). Although there were problems in the 1980s concerning the buildings in Times Square, that doesn’t mean we should decontextualize the events that were occurring at the time. The buildings that were built for the transformation of Times Square were not created for the safety of the people as developers promise, instead they may have even compromised the quality of life for several of the city’s dwellers in that age.
References
Delany S R (1999) Three, two, one, contact: Times Square red. In Times Square Red, Times Square Blue (pp 145-169). New York: NYU Press
https://www.dropbox.com/s/guhxrvp324gnbe1/Delany%2C%20Times%20Square%20Red%20Times%20Square%20Blue.pdf?dl=0&preview=Delany%2C+Times+Square+Red+Times+Square+Blue.pdf
Gopnik A (2016) Jane Jacobs’s street smarts. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/09/26/jane-jacobs-street-smarts (last accessed 16 March 2018)
New York Times (1977) ‘Chicken‐Hawk’ Trade Found Attracting More Young Boys to Times Square Area. (last accessed 16 March 2018)
