Much of the “rejuvenation” of Times Square to return it to the Great White Way was for what politicians claimed would be to make the area a family-friendly entertainment space, and to reduce violence, perversion, and prostitution. In fact, Alexander J. Reichl, the author of Reconstructing Times Square: Politics and Culture in Urban Development, revered Walt Disney for what he saw as resolving these ongoing political, social and economic problems in Times Square, and for making it a desirable place again (Reichl, 1999. 160). However, when digging deeper, if we were to discover that one of its many problems, such as prostitution, was not actually eliminated, but shielded from the public view, we would be left with a serious question. Would the transformation of Times Square still be considered a success, or would its lack of a permanent solution for the social issues at hand be considered ultimately a failure?
Times Square is the famous, or infamous, plaza that was formed by the 1811 Commissioner’s Plan which shaped the city into a systematic grid. It meets at the intersection of Broadway and Seventh Avenue, and it falls between Forty-Second to Forty-Seventh Street. Moreover, it is renowned for its marquees covered in light. However, during the 1930s, with the emergence of the Great Depression, Times Square’s lights began to dim. The fall of the theaters in the neighborhood brought burlesque entertainment to an environment already becoming known for its sex industry, violence, and prostitution. With areas like Hell’s Kitchen and streets full of debauchery, many believed that only men, seeking sex, felt safe to roam these streets. Groups such as the Committee of Fourteen and the 42nd Street Development Project, claimed that the only way to cure Times Square of its brutality and corruption would be to redevelop it and to leave out sex shops and prostitution (Reichl, 1999. 43-157).
Nevertheless, although this perspective of Times Square was held by many, including The New York Times, this was not the attitude of all. Samuel R. Delany, the author of Times Square Red, Times Square Blue, argued that Times Square was, in fact, not as raunchy, nor as destructive as the public claimed it to be. He compared New York City’s Times Square to the same sort of environment found in segregated suburban life (Delany, 1999. 154). His argument consisted of Jane Jacob’s ideals, arguing that it was because of the lack of mixed-utilities and diversity in its people that Times Square had been given its notorious reputation (Delany, 1999. 169). Additionally, he used his own personal experiences to state that eighty to eighty-five percent of gay encounters were not commercialized sex at all, even if both acts did occur adjacent to each other (Delany, 1999. 145-6). If Delany’s statements were true, perhaps he was correct in suggesting that the government and the Times Square developers had ulterior motives in constructing the “New Times Square.”
An article written in The New York Times in 1998 discussed an increase in the sexual service industry at the time. Although it acknowledged that the Disney-styled redemption of Times Square may have depleted the streetwalking prostitutes found on sleazy corners, it stated that it did not actually diminish prostitution in the city itself. Kit R. Roane, the author of the article, “Prostitutes on Wane in New York Streets But Take to Internet,” discussed how electronic technology was helping contribute to the sex industries economy, while actually making prostitution rings more difficult to be found. Police that had tried to track these escort services down found themselves on wild goose chases against establishments with sophisticated technology. Therefore, the rebirth of Times Square, did not eradicate prostitution, an argument held by many of its supporters, but forced it underground. Thus, this forces us to reevaluate our concept of renovation. Is renovation the renewal of a solely physical space, or does renovation also involve creating durable resolutions to issues like those found in Times Square? If we can agree that the answer is the latter, then the development of the New Times Square did nothing more than waste money on gaudy tourist attractions and displace much of the city’s more vulnerable residents.
___________________________________________________________________
Delany S. 1999, Times Square Red, Times Square Blue. New York University Press.
Reichl A. 1999, Reconstructing Times Square: Politics and Culture in Urban Development.
University Press of Kansas.
Roane K. 1998. “Prostitutes on Wane In New York Streets But Take to Internet.” The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/23/nyregion/prostitutes-on-wane-in-new-york-streets-but-take-to-internet.html
In Delaney’s book Times Square Red, Times Square Blue, he claims that “The New Times Square is simply not about making the area safe for women…nor is it about reducing commercial sex, hustling and prostitution. The New Times Square is about developers doing as much demolition and renovation as possible in the neighborhood, and as much construction work as they possibly can.” Craig Dykers, the cofounder of Snøhetta who was tasked with redesigning Times Square, spoke more of creating an accessible public space for pedestrians in Josephine Minutillo’s article “Times Square Reconstruction by Snøhetta”. Minutillo claims that since the public space was doubled, there has been a drop in both crime and air pollution. “And whether you’re a tourist or a local, today, fewer people say they avoid Times Square.” I suppose that while this may seem an advancement for society as a whole because there is a larger population that flocks towards this area, it’s difficult to assess the actual implications of the reconstruction regarding the demographics that are not actively looked at – like those that were meant to be corralled out of Times Square.
While Leah brings up a good point regarding how the reconstruction of Times Square only succeeded in dispersing prostitution rather than eradicating the problem itself, I believe it is important to keep in mind what the actual goal behind reconstruction was. Many people claimed that it was to reduce crime, violence, prostitution, etc. and that may have been true. However, what was their goal in regards to reducing these problems? Was it for the public image that the area had? The safety of those that passed by and to create a more approachable public space? Caring for the marginalized demographics that resided there and eliminating their problems? In addition to questioning these underlying motives, one should consider how far-reaching they expected the ramifications of this “solution” to be. The article that Leah refers to speaks of prostitution rings that ended up becoming more technology-based and harder to track down. It’s undeniable that this development in the perpetuation of prostitution was not a good one, but was the reconstruction of Times Square meant to completely cancel out prostitution in the whole of NYC? We need to have viable expectations when trying to create solutions to large-scale “issues”.
References:
Minutillo J (2017) Times Square reconstruction by Snøhetta. https://www.architecturalrecord.com/articles/12613-times-square-reconstruction-by-sn%C3%B8hetta (last accessed 18 March 2018)