Times Square was “Disneyfied” before I was even born, and yet, my perception of the area is disdainful. Every time I have been there, I wished dearly that I was somewhere else.
Why?
As Reichl and Delaney point out, Times Square has always been designated for commercial entertainment, simply with varying degrees of social acceptance. While it is undeniable that Times Square historically had much higher rates of drug use, prostitution, and crime than the surrounding neighborhoods, Delaney makes a very convincing argument that much of what was perceived as prostitution or crime was the mainstream recasting of homosexuality and poverty. He argues that pushing these populations out has only served to marginalize them.
I for one, simply out of my own personal experience, am convinced. Watch this advertisement, made by Expedia. Stop it at 22 seconds, and then again at 35.
Notice the sex appeal in the billboard advertisements. If the goal of rebuilding the area was to push out commercial sex and smut, then surely they have failed, only to replace it with a more socially accepted version.
Delaney talks about how Times Square is supposedly safer for woman, and that many honest working women have been displaced for development. But if the goal was to help woman, then the only thing accomplished has been their further objectification. (If increasing wealth for large companies like Disney, who according to Reichl have made quite a tidy sum without doing much for the city, then goal achieved.)
Apparently, according to developers, someone selling indecent pictures is ruining the neighborhood, but if her nipples are covered and she’s on a billboard with the “Aerie” logo on it, we’ve saved the city from itself. This phenomenon has been overlooked by both authors, in that the family atmosphere projected by Times Square does not really exist.
For example, I have seven siblings; I know from experience that a part of parenting is knowing exactly where the restrooms are at all times, because an accident is waiting to happen at any moment. The last time I went to Times Square, I had to try six different stores before I found one that had a bathroom. How can a space be family oriented if it does not serve the most basic of family needs?
And, look at the new furniture designs for the open sitting area.
Can you see children playing on the cubicles with plants in them? Or can you see working class people stopping to read a book in the middle of the Times Square bustle, especially on a seat that looks so incredibly uncomfortable? Can you see anyone doing that, even yourself?
It’s ridiculous, and highly lucrative. It reminds me of Jane Jacobs reference in her book to the square of grass in the tenement building, where the residents would like nothing more than a laundromat or a coffee shop.
Simply put, there is undeniable hypocrisy and contradiction in development policy. Furthermore, it’s been done in the name of helping the city in order to make massive profits from tourists, a population that does not have to live here, and will presumably drive or fly away at the end of the day. There is no utility in the space. The ultimate purpose of every building, every trapping, and every worker is to make money. There isn’t even something so simple as a public restroom.
That’s why I hate going there.
So, this is gonna be a rather two-faced response.
Bear with me.
I couldn’t agree more with your main points against Times Square. I was there most recently with a group of friends, and it is just impossible to find a restroom. I waited for an HOUR on a line at Starbucks to use their “der neutral” toilet. I get made fun of to this day for thinking that was written in German. (In case you missed it, the letters “GEN” fell off the door. I, completely rationally – of course -, thought the sign was for German tourists.) The place is like a zoo for humans; it is loud, there are so many types of people engaged in so many things, and everyone is eating cow feed. It’s a rather overwhelming place to be. It’s also very hard to actually find things to do there, if you don’t have a specific show or venue planned in advance. Times Square is pure glitz and glamour; it’s not for people to be comfortable and calm.
And that’s kind of the point.
I would like to argue that Times Square isn’t a park. It isn’t a family space.
Times Square is a museum.
An art museum.
You may be wondering, “Uh, what? How?”
Good question.
Times Square is the canvas for a very specific form of art – advertising.
Advertising has long since been a very integral part of the commercial sector of our nation. About 256,324 people work at advertising companies in the US, and it is a 52 billion dollar industry (https://www.ibisworld.com/industry-trends/market-research-reports/professional-scientific-technical-services/professional-scientific-technical-services/advertising-agencies.html). But, what many don’t realize about advertising and marketing is that these fields are very artistic. The best ads are creative and nuanced. They jump out at you, interact with you, evoke thoughts and ideas, and even reactions. The goal of an advertisement is to break the stigma of other people telling you what to do and buy; their job is to bypass your senses and convey the utility of something to you in the most concise and expeditious way. An ad has to, in the very short time you see/hear/experience it, remain with you in your head long enough to actually change your purchasing habits.
Times Square is where ads are king.
This is a documentary about Times Square as the epicenter of advertising, created by modern marvels.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXWAw1lmqJI
It describes how Times Square adverts have the unique quality of actually being an attraction. People go there just to see the giant ads! They are gargantuan, often gorgeous, and many times incorporate ingenious elements. The documentary describes many different brilliant campaigns that have been used in Times Square, such as a giant glowing cat getting tangled in yarn for a clothing store or a giant person smoking with real smoke coming out for tobacco. At Times Square ads, ads transcend being small annoying time-wasters we can click away. They become the main event!
So, to speak to your ideas of nudity/sexuality being present in Times Square billboards, I would venture to say that it is not unlike when a Renaissance painting features a voluptuous femme fatale in her birthday suit. It is artistic expression of ideas meant to evoke certain feelings within people, be those feelings ones of happiness, sadness, or a compulsion to buy some designer perfume. Times Square isn’t supposed to be a paradise for families, New Yorkers, or even tourists! It is the Eden for denizens of the American consumer culture. It is a celebration of commerce and our high standards of living. An ode to the American dream.
Truthfully, this even extended back to Times Square’s sleazy past. The Times Square of old that Reichl describes in his piece was a place that pushed societal, cultural, and moralistic norms of those times. The gay culture, pornographic elements, and drug culture were all examples of this. Is this pushing against the status quo, this breaking of tradition, this growth of counter-culture movements, and this free expression of alternative ideas not the very essence of what many styles of art aim to achieve? Truly, Times Square is a place of art. The art is changing, ever molding to the zeitgeist in NYC and the world at large, but one ting has remained constant: Times Square is a place of art.
Josie, you just don’t like this museum.
Not very surprising.
Museums are not, by nature, very comfortable.
They just aren’t meant for that.
You make a very good point, and that is in pointing out the paradox that is times square: How could something that’s supposed to be so good be so bad?
The ideology of what Times Square is, or what it is supposed to be, has not changed over the centuries.
Times Square has (since it was created) been a place where a lot was going on.
It’s detrimental effects on society have definitely been masked by what is considered “modernity.”
This isn’t only about the “socially acceptable turned sex-appeal” that you point out, although that does stand out; things seem to be more “politically correct” now, so we might think they’re not there. But they are, dressed as “socially acceptable” models. I agree with you when you say that “prostitution” is still alive (in a way), with the example of the aerie model (dependent on one’s definition of prostitution).
Like the objectification of women’s (and men’s!) bodies that Times Square has always featured, there are other things that have been “modernized,” and it is important to keep in mind that just because these things have been “modernized,” it does not change the fact that they are there.
Take for example, the idea of it as a public advertising space, that would reap economic benefit to all who advertise there: Times Square “[s]till contains the largest concentration of advertising space in the world” (Reichl 52) with an add being placed in every direction that you look. This is no accident, as the original big-name stores wanted to advertise there because they knew they would get business from tourists, “[and also because they wanted] to protect their own turf from becoming a “carnival spectacle” that would attract the “wrong kind of people” and cause poverty values to drop” (Reichl 52). The billboards that appear today, and definitely more “modernized” thanks to technology; though eye-catching, they still seem to benefit only the big-name stores in the area today: “It costs between $1.1 and $4 million a year to buy advertising space in Times Square. Moreover, it can cost up to $3 million per month to advertise on Time Square’s largest billboard [1]” (https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/022315/high-cost-advertising-times-square.asp) . Big companies who can afford it are the ones getting their names up there: you would never see a neighborhood mom-and-pop store on a billboard at Times Square, simply because the cost to advertise is too much, so no, it is not advertising space for “all”. Who’s really reaping the economic benefit that Times Square brings? The million-dollar companies that have the money to afford pasting their name on a billboard in the most convenient location.
Not all aspects of Times Square are detrimental to society: The area does a good job at keeping an integrated society, although the people who are typically found in Times Square are usually not residents and are probably just passing through. In his writing, Reichl claims that Times Square was different from the rest of the city because it did not segregate the “elite” from the “lower class”; According to him, this “pattern [of segregation] did not hold…in Times Square” (Reichl 48). Times Square still remains a place where tourists from all different places can be found; although most native New Yorkers’ stay away from there, at least it is an attraction that can bring New Yorkers’ a taste of everything.
Reichl’s passage highlights the transition of Time’s Square from an area of vice to a space for families. This could only have been possible with the help of the trio of Disney, AMC, and Madame Tussaud’s entertainment companies. The business model of the area had changed. The question stands of whether in practical terms, Time’s Square is family-friendly. Although there are aspects of Time’s Square like the disturbing billboards, uncomfortable seating, and scarcity of bathrooms, it is important to distinguish the reason for those problems. I believe that if one were to summarize Time’s Square in one sentence, it would sound like: “you get what you pay for.” Time’s Square is not a park. The goal of that space, although controversial, is not to serve the people, but the businesses that operate there. After all, the area is a commercial zone! It is a center where some private and mostly public businesses operate. The treatment that anyone receives on Times Square is dependent on how much that person spends there on the businesses. If you want to enjoy a nice family-outing, it is recommended that you go to a broadway show or restaurant. If that is too expensive public museums like the MoMa are also family-magnets. All of these places offer comfortable seating, restrooms, and do not display disturbing billboards. Money gives consumers more choices in sightseeings for families, but options for poorer families are still available. Here is a site with various family friendly sights: https://www.nymetroparents.com/article/times-square-family-attractions. Notice how the article is a bit biased in its choice of photos . I do believe that commercialized sex still happens in Times Square, but the businesses that operate within those vicinities offer a refuge from these influences.
Concerning the objectification of women and the message that Delaney stated concerning the overall safety of women, Times Square does have a nudity problem. This problem makes the area less family-friendly. The point of nudity is to gain attention. In a big place like Times Square, getting attention is difficult, so people resort to drastic measures in attaining it. According to the article below, there seems to be a difference in public opinion on the effects of nudity on big screens versus in public, but why? I hypothesize that this goes back to the idea of fighting big businesses versus an individual. The naked cowboy is an easier foe to hold accountable than Aerie. Aerie is more “socially accepted” because it is bigger! If it was a small company, critics would destroy the company the same way the small business peep shows got destroyed years earlier.
https://www.adweek.com/brand-marketing/brief-history-how-times-square-got-so-naked-166528/
A couple of years ago I was in Las Vegas. I was young and it felt uncomfortable walking through the city streets with my parents. There was gambling everywhere, cigarettes littering the floor, and big billboards with x-rated material. Prostitution is legal in Nevada and big businesses have taken advantage of that. This has created an unsafe environment for both men and women by objectifying both genders. Thank God (pun intended) prostitution is illegal in New York, but the thought of big businesses backing a billboard that is borderline legal, is frightening. There is a matter of freedom of speech and expression, but what if the expression violates a universal norm.