Is New York over the hill?

[doug reich]

http://geekswithblogs.net/bloesgen/archive/2008/08/02/124201.aspx

This section really caught my eye:

My executive summary: "Like Vegas, only more so". More buildings, more money, more construction, and a very strong drive to be the first/biggest/tallest/fastest/best at everything. It was really eye-opening.
...
I stayed at 5-star hotel, and hung out in the executive lounge for happy hour, so maybe my experience was not a typical cross-section of the population, but the snippets of conversation I overheard were fascinating. Everybody was negotiating *something*, even though it was the weekend. Dubai is a haven for type-A personalities, overachievers that's don't have an off switch or pause button. About 80% of the population is non-UAE, many of whom are just working there for a while and moving on. The feel of business in the air was palpable, and was everywhere I went. They've taken what I think was once a sleepy trade port and turned it into a technology and financial hub. Everybody who's anybody wants to be there, all major companies and banks have operations there.


Nothing happens at a small scale in Dubai. They are putting up the Burj Dubai tower (photo below), but for competitive reasons have not announced what the final height will be. Every few months they just say "yup, we're going up a few more floors". They're building a monorail that will serve the entire city, and it looks like they're doing it all at once. No 5 mile pilot projects here, it seemed like 50 miles or so at once.

Their description is everything I have heard about New York prior to 1993 (if we have to date it). Ambition, energy, "can do". The paragraph about not telling people how tall the Burj al Dubai will be sounds exactly like what happened with the Empire State Building and Chrysler building: the Empire state stuck a needle on top to edge out the competition.

Don't get me wrong, I love New York; it just seems like the real energy has gone elsewhere. An ambitious young person has so many roadblocks here that the real growth is not here. That's not to say may beloved home town is going to the dumps, but it will be or has been unseated as the center of the universe (a tough pill to swallow!).

 

[IlyaKEightSix]

NY is not over the hill IMO. Yes, Dubai might look decent now because of all of the construction, but honestly, it was the same case with Japan and Germany 60 years ago and China and India now. They're playing catch-up right now so it looks like they're booming, but they'll level off.

Also, IMO, it's in the middle east, and it's not Israel. How many Jewish people will never step foot there? Quite a few, I'd think.

 

[bigbadwolf]

Dubai is one huge gamble by the Al-Maktoum family. A dubious gamble, in my humble opinion. Let's see what kind of returns on equity the various hotels and office buildings achieve when the dust clears. Some Chinese city might have served as a better example. But I too think NYC's best days are behind it. An imperial city in decline. Perhaps its best days were around sixty years ago, in the immediate aftermath of WW2, when it was a manufacturing hub. Over the decades it has shifted from a manufacturing centre to a finance and services centre -- with a concomitant rise in unemployment, and greater disparity in incomes.

Postscript: For cities like Dubai, Mike Davis's (relatively) new book, Evil Paradises: Dreamworlds of Neoliberalism provides fascinating insight.

 

[Eugene Krel]

NYC is certainly not the booming and bustling hub of manufacturing, import and commerce that it once was. Whether this is due to the stagnation in terms of opportunity for the lower class - lower middle class or due to NYC's specialization as a financial hub, I don't know.

NYC may not be the center of the universe, but in today's globalized society what city is?

 

[charlesdwright]

Definitely digitization is reconfiguring the geography of the collective "plant," and that entails some redistribution of capital.

There's a lot of fast, hot money in the desert. That comes and goes. NYC has been the rock for 4 centuries. Its creative and intellectual legacy is unmatched.

One stated purpose of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 was to decimate the "brains of finance" [paraphrase from memory]. But that failed.

The trading floor is a relic, and that was [just] one thing that made Manhattan unique -- it was the locus of the heart of the market.

It still seems to be the locus of the brains of the market.

The heart is here, too (although the two don't necessarily occupy the same room), and capital is nothing without heart.

Oh, yeah, and the gold is here. That doesn't hurt.

 

[bigbadwolf]

Its creative and intellectual legacy is unmatched.

A thing of the past. This isn't the NYC of a century ago, which was a centre for artistic and literary modernity; one where writers, poets, painters, and bohemians would excitedly talk about culture and philosophy into the wee hours in coffee shops. It's not the NYC of 1946, where aspiring young artists and writers would rent rooms in Greenwich Village or East Village. That creative ferment has gone. The rents are too high. You have to be a quant to afford the rents today. And working 14 hours a day looking at code and trying to find a way to beat the market is hardly building an "intellectual legacy." NYC has become an imperial centre of finance capital. And to this extent, it's dead and sterile.

 

[IlyaKEightSix]

It's still the best city for publishing, BBW. It's just that this "creativity" you speak of has largely gone the way of the dodo because the entertainment industry is completely subjective. There are no exams, there are no credentials. There's just endlessly sending out your manuscript/audition video/song CDs/whatever hoping you'll get lucky.

Before being creative, you have to be able to live the life you want. A job is only part of that. I'd much rather be creative with code and math and have a nice lifestyle than be creative with novels and worry about meeting ends meet.

For every Britney Spears, there are thousands of unheard and more talented people. I'm sure there are plenty of people better than Rowling who just happen to catch agents/publishers on a bad day.

Creativity=you're subject to the whims of people with some very crappy jobs.

 

[charlesdwright]

A thing of the past. This isn't the NYC of a century ago, which was a centre for artistic and literary modernity; one where writers, poets, painters, and bohemians would excitedly talk about culture and philosophy into the wee hours in coffee shops. It's not the NYC of 1946, where aspiring young artists and writers would rent rooms in Greenwich Village or East Village. That creative ferment has gone. The rents are too high. You have to be a quant to afford the rents today. And working 14 hours a day looking at code and trying to find a way to beat the market is hardly building an "intellectual legacy." NYC has become an imperial centre of finance capital. And to this extent, it's dead and sterile.

I wasn't referring to arts and entertainment, which are off topic. And "working 14 hours a day looking at code and trying to find a way to beat the market is hardly building an "intellectual legacy," " while it does require creativity and diligence, isn't exactly the big picture, now is it?

Apparently it is believed that markets and the products they move exist apart from having been imagined, developed, perfected, maintained, expanded and adapted. It doesn't work that way.

As for "dead and sterile," I guess time will tell. But I'm sure it's been pronounced such many times over the hundreds of years of its dominance.

 

[bigbadwolf]

I wasn't referring to arts and entertainment, which are off topic.

Arguably they are relevant at a deeper level. If NYC is to remain a vibrant city, a place where creativity flourishes, it will be partly because of art, literature, and philosophy. I find it revealing that you subsume much of this under "entertainment": testimony of how a venal commercial culture deals with theatre, film, and literature. In my humble opinion, this is why the United States (and not just NYC) is so utterly soulless; why conversations and social interactions are so dominated by egotistic shop talk or personal (and pointless) narrative; why everything revolves around pointless consumption and equally pointless accumulation. A great city needs more than just egotistic people hurrying about their business. This is what NYC has become over the decades. A place for the rich, a place for the underclass, a place where the middle class commutes to in the morning and takes off to its suburban dorms in the evening.

All of this is of course only one humble opinion. And opinions vary.

 

[IlyaKEightSix]

BBW, the thing is...

People have to eat. And when the costs of living for NY are the highest of all the USA, you will work long hours at your technical job, leaving you very little time to develop good literature/art/culture. It's also very, very discouraging when in order to develop said art/lit/culture, you have to go through a very long and subjective process to get your name out there.

The market for the written word is diminishing due to ever-shorter attention spans thanks to the internet, as well.

 

[Adam]

As a former actor and current quant/developer, I cannot disagree that the cost of living in NYC and creating art is high nowadays. Manhattan's expensive, Brooklyn's expensive, and it's only a matter of time before Queens and the Bronx get gentrified, too. And yes, the artistic life is hard, what with the constant auditioning and impossible-to-quantify metrics of success.

Has it ever been different, though? Most of my friends are struggling or working in the arts, and I can tell you with assurance that there has been absolutely no drop in the number of bright-eyed young artists hopping off the bus to make their name here. And who says art and culture is dead here? Spring Awakening and Avenue Q are two of the best musicals I've ever seen on Broadway, both of which were created by first-time writers, both of which expand the form in creative and unexpected ways. Two of the most important, influential, and brilliant comedy shows on TV are written and filmed in NYC, those being the Daily Show and the Colbert Report. Alvin Ailey Dance Company, The Metropolitan Opera, Museum Mile, the galleries of SoHo and Williamsburg, the improv comedy scene, the Brooklyn Academy of Music... I could go on. Pick up an issue of TimeOut New York on any given week and you'll see what I mean. Anyone claiming that the cultural life of New York City is no longer vibrant simply isn't paying attention.

 

[bigbadwolf]

Has it ever been different, though?

In terms of affordability, yes. As your own comments make clear. Just ask old-timers what rents were like only thirty years ago and compare then with today (after factoring in inflation). Many aspiring artists have to look further and further afield for affordable accommodation. I'm not sure this is good fo the life of the city. And perhaps this isn't good for artists either as it's more difficult to have a "critical mass" in any one place.

Most of my friends are struggling or working in the arts, and I can tell you with assurance that there has been absolutely no drop in the number of bright-eyed young artists hopping off the bus to make their name here.

But look at where they're forced to live.

And who says art and culture is dead here?

Not dead. But sterile, tame, afraid to offend the sensibilities of corporate sponsors..

Spring Awakening and Avenue Q are two of the best musicals I've ever seen on Broadway, both of which were created by first-time writers, both of which expand the form in creative and unexpected ways.

Don't know about them so won't comment.

Two of the most important, influential, and brilliant comedy shows on TV are written and filmed in NYC, those being the Daily Show and the Colbert Report.

Tame stuff, careful to not ruffle the feathers of the powers-that-be. Entertainment in the most derogatory sense of the word. Little better than Seinfeld. Not really subversive, not revolutionary.

Alvin Ailey Dance Company, The Metropolitan Opera, Museum Mile, the galleries of SoHo and Williamsburg, the improv comedy scene, the Brooklyn Academy of Music... I could go on. Pick up an issue of TimeOut New York on any given week and you'll see what I mean. Anyone claiming that the cultural life of New York City is no longer vibrant simply isn't paying attention.

Other than the SoHo galleries, how much of this is corporate-sponsored? Art and culture, if they're authentic, have to be subversive, outside the mainstream, underground, risque. Not kept, tame, corporate-sponsored. Not the kind of thing well-heeled executives take their coiffured wives to for an evening of "entertainment." No sirree, this is more "corporate culture" -- only more elegant, more camouflaged. All this marketed and trumpeted culture is faux.

My humble opinion.

 

[chrisd]

Other than the SoHo galleries, how much of this is corporate-sponsored? Art and culture, if they're authentic, have to be subversive, outside the mainstream, underground, risque. Not kept, tame, corporate-sponsored. Not the kind of thing well-heeled executives take their coiffured wives to for an evening of "entertainment." No sirree, this is more "corporate culture" -- only more elegant, more camouflaged. All this marketed and trumpeted culture is faux.

Where in the world, then, is this going on? I've never heard anything about the subversive arts scene in, say, Dubai, or China, so I'd assume that if there is one, it's so far underground as to never see the light of day. I've spent some time in Europe, and as far as I could tell, the consumer culture is every bit as extreme, especially amongst the young people.

There are a lot of things you can see in NYC that are far from tame and corporate-sponsored - even in Manhattan. You just have to look for them. I think that's always been the case. I doubt the suburban middle-class or the financiers knew what cafes in which to find Jack Kerouac (to use a rather lazy example), nor do I think they had interest in finding him or reading anything he wrote.

 

[Adam]

But look at where they're forced to live.

Astoria? Washington Heights? South Park Slope? The HORROR!!! Yeah, the 20-40 minute subway ride to Midtown sucks, but when rents were cheaper the streets were filled with crime, drugs, homelessness, and creepy squeegee guys. If that's the tradeoff, I'll happily take the inconvenience of living in an outer borough, thank you very much.

Spring Awakening and Avenue Q are two of the best musicals I've ever seen on Broadway, both of which were created by first-time writers, both of which expand the form in creative and unexpected ways.
​

Don't know about them so won't comment.

I don't know if I'd be making such strong statements about the state of art and culture in New York City if I didn't know about two of the most successful musicals of the last four years, both of which won the Tony Award for Best Musical. It's not like Broadway musicals are particularly obscure or anything. This, however, is the part of your critique that confuses me:

Art and culture, if they're authentic, have to be subversive, outside the mainstream, underground, risque. Not kept, tame, corporate-sponsored. Not the kind of thing well-heeled executives take their coiffured wives to for an evening of "entertainment."

Mozart worked on commission from the Imperial Court of Vienna, which (if the movie Amadeus can be believed) was full of well-heeled powerbrokers and their well-coiffured wives. Michaelangelo painted the Sistene Chapel while sponsored by the Roman Catholic Church, perhaps the definition of mainstream, non-risque organization in 16th century Italy. Casablanca was a product of the old corporate film studio system, and I'd consider it both a stunning work of art and a fine evening of entertainment. Are you arguing that these works of art are in some way "inauthentic"?

 

[bigbadwolf]

Where in the world, then, is this going on? I've never heard anything about the subversive arts scene in, say, Dubai, or China, so I'd assume that if there is one, it's so far underground as to never see the light of day. I've spent some time in Europe, and as far as I could tell, the consumer culture is every bit as extreme, especially amongst the young people.

It's the suffocating hand of modern capitalism -- particularly American capitalism (though European capitalism is implicated as well). That's why so much of what passes for culture and art today is just kitsch, recycled rubbish with not a touch of originality. My consistent argument is that NYC is on the decline at least partly because of an absent intellectual and cultural life. (Note: I'm not saying I'm necessarily correct.) Where is the American Spengler, Nietzsche, Mozart, James Joyce? As Tocqueville perceptively pointed out two centuries ago, America is inhospitable to such spirits, can't sustain them, can't provide them with the nurture and reception they need. To give a recent example, when the world chess championship was held in the NYC WTC in 1995, both the British BBC and ITV gave live coverage -- though neither player (Kasparov, Anand) was British. In the USA, on the other hand, where the tournament was being held, there was no coverage. Another related example is where Sir Jeremy Morse -- ex-Chairman of Lloyds Bank -- used to sponsor an annual chess tournament -- Lloyds Bank Masters (he was a well-known chess problem composer himself). Where similar examples exist in the US, it's because they're part of corporate public relations, not because of any inherent interest in the corporate or political hierarchy in such matters (with few exceptions the American ruling class is composed of philistines). Original thought, original creation -- subversive and dangeous by its very nature -- is frowned upon. This is why, inter alia the movie theatres are filled with such tripe; why television has fifty channels of rubbish (interspersed with banal and insistent ads); the bookstores stock such low-brow titles; and why conversation here (in contrast to, say, France) is so dead and insipid. And to reiterate, this is arguably one reason why a global city like NYC is on the decline. But I hasten to emphasise that this is a very personal opinion (albeit one that has been uttered by several other commentators over the decades).

 

[bigbadwolf]

Mozart worked on commission from the Imperial Court of Vienna, which (if the movie Amadeus can be believed) was full of well-heeled powerbrokers and their well-coiffured wives. Michaelangelo painted the Sistene Chapel while sponsored by the Roman Catholic Church, perhaps the definition of mainstream, non-risque organization in 16th century Italy. Casablanca was a product of the old corporate film studio system, and I'd consider it both a stunning work of art and a fine evening of entertainment. Are you arguing that these works of art are in some way "inauthentic"?

Don't mention the film Amadeus in polite society: it was made for the great unwashed, and as such is full of deliberate inaccuracies. I'm going off on a tangent now, but arguably the old aristocratic partronage offered more licence than the corporate-sponsored one today. Mozart himself, if memory serves, tried to make a living eventually as an independent composer, and free from patronage. We could have a lengthy and animated discussion on this. The kind of art I'm thinking of is perhaps Picasso's Guernica.

 

[Christian]

Where countries like Russia and Britain value intellectual and academic superiority, America values winning, individualism and material wealth.

Hence the status given to successful businessmen/women that never completed high school or college, or poor people that have made it to the top through hard work.

I hardly think New York is "over the hill." "New" cities like Dubai and Shanghai are examples of an expanding global economy much more than the downfall of NYC.

 

[Adam]

The "great unwashed"? Really? I guess you weren't kidding when you were asking for a new Neitzsche.

Mozart may have wanted to be an independent composer, but he wasn't. He was popular entertainment for the Imperial Court, and his work was awesome nonetheless. But that's neither here nor there. Picasso, whom you rightly mention is awesome, worked within a popular medium of his time, that being painting. Today's Picasso would probably be working within the popular media of our time, perhaps television or pop music. Six Feet Under is arguably as well-told and intricate a tale as Joyce's Ulysses. (Yes, the 4th season was a bit slow, but try getting through Ulysses' 3rd and 14th chapters without taking a nap.)

 

[chrisd]

Another related example is where Sir Jeremy Morse -- ex-Chairman of Lloyds Bank -- used to sponsor an annual chess tournament -- Lloyds Bank Masters (he was a well-known chess problem composer himself).

There was this great bridge player who used to run one of the banks here...

 

[samiam]

I know this discussion is about art and culture in the context of capitalism that ultimately polarizes the rich and the poor and is on a macro scale worse off for the entire city, or if you broaden it, for the country, but let's not forget another reason for the over the hill debate. Corporate sponsors also heavily influence government and that influences legislature and which in turn bolsters the need for police state. America has grown into a country where the laws are out of control and will hinder growth, originality, and creativity for the un-landed, the-uncapitalized, but aspiring. Who will simply choose to take their inner spark to other pastures where they feel more free and less unhindered and confined by not only economics but a suffocation of regulation and trip wires designed to tax you, limit you, or subject you to legal recourse for things you did not even know were "against the law".