The Era of Urban Supremacy Is Over

[craigs]

Originally Posted by JManc

Because it weeds out a diversity in socioeconomics which makes a city truly interesting and vibrant. NYC was far more interesting 25 years ago than it is today.

Originally Posted by llamaorama

I guess it depends on the measure of a city.

I think the function of a city is to connect people, in a broad sense beyond personal relationships (buyer meets seller, employer meets employee, etc). This is clearly value-added in an economics sense. It's more than the sum of it's parts. It actively creates wealth.

Communications and transportation technology has for the past 100 years gradually made it less important for everyone to live close together, jobs can be remote, things can be bought online, people have cars to travel further distances, etc. Cities have fewer exclusive name-brand things like a store only found in the biggest malls, you can get in a small town on Amazon now.

But there are so many things that rely on proximity to a large customer and worker base because they are niche. Access to medical care, the long tail of personal services categories. Karate dojos, mentally disabled adult day care that will take your relative and insurance, kitchen and bath tile installation pros who can be out on Wednesday at 8 am, Volkswagen certified paint and body shops, Dermotologists who treat your weird skin thing specifically, restaurants that serve Georgian khachpuri, a vet that's open on Sunday when your cat is looking sickly, a dentist you like, etc.

I think these "long tail of niche categories" activities should also benefit from clustering. A restaurant needs someone who can clean it's vent hood and repair it's dish machine. The repair shop needs to be able to order replacement parts and get them delivered fast and needs a steady supply of qualified tradespeople to hire from a local community college or they'll never be able to keep guys and be understaffed. Also the restaurant is some fast-casual concept and it needs interior design, it needs an architect and they might be remote but the people who install the hipster decor aren't.

All these things are also job creators and small-medium-business markets and none of them can be either sold online or are jobs that can be remote work from home. There's a difference in lifestyle where if you live in a city the answer is always "sure" and if you live in a small town "oh well that won't work out".

Finally at the end of the day Amazon's ability to offer fast grocery delivery for example is dependent on efficient traveling salesman routes for its delivery vehicles which requires density. Even if robot drones bring you things to your home, NYC will always have superior delivery times and you won't get fresh produce air-dropped in the middle of Wyoming.

...

TLDR though, if a city becomes an asset type for the rich, and nobody normal can live there anymore, and it NIMBY's away all the light industry and warehouses and air cargo hubs, etc, then it fails at all this. Then it's not generating the value added from the clustering and we are actually poorer for it.

I guess we can afford to lose a few places like SF to be these kinds of fake show pieces but the US will always need cities that bring lots of things together, which is why places like Dallas will just continue to grow, and why if Chicago got it's shit together it could come back, etc.

Good post. Cities are valuable for a variety of reasons.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by JManc

Because it weeds out a diversity in socioeconomics which makes a city truly interesting and vibrant. NYC was far more interesting 25 years ago than it is today.

What city is more socioeconomically diverse than NYC?

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Fortunately there is a decline at the moment with housing prices in general, and I hope it accelerates. Will aid to make some of our metros more affordable to the masses.

Higher interest rates mean prices will come down, but monthly payments will remain similar.

Apartment rents will only go down when mass unemployment (and underemployment) forces people to live with family members or many roommates.

Also, homeowners who are not currently renting spare bedrooms will be motivated to do so if it makes the difference between keeping or losing their house.

I mean, I get that most of the people who post here are from rich families and have never had to work 2+ jobs or sell stuff to pay rent, but I would think that you'd have to be awfully insulated from the working class to have not observed these things during the collapse.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by JManc

Because it weeds out a diversity in socioeconomics which makes a city truly interesting and vibrant. NYC was far more interesting 25 years ago than it is today.

And much less interesting in 2023 than it was as recently as 2016, when this book was published:
https://www.amazon.com/St-Marks-Dead.../dp/0393353303

Compare the sterilized, "vibrant" NYC of today to the fold-out panorama from The Beastie Boys' Paul's Boutique, from 1987.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

And much less interesting in 2023 than it was as recently as 2016, when this book was published:
https://www.amazon.com/St-Marks-Dead.../dp/0393353303

Compare the sterilized, "vibrant" NYC of today to the fold-out panorama from The Beastie Boys' Paul's Boutique, from 1987.

yes the stagnant 80s and paul’s boutique — and that’s exactly the problem with you two boy’s assessment, its entirely selectively manhattan biased.

clearly with a record high population, the city, and by that i mean the whole city, has become much more interesting and accessable over the recent years — and especially around the pandemic — than not.

err, or maybe times square should go back to porn theaters.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Not a total collapse but one that brings prices back to what it was pre-Covid, before the big greed festival occurred with housing prices.

Fortunately there is a decline at the moment with housing prices in general, and I hope it accelerates. Will aid to make some of our metros more affordable to the masses. And yes, it will be at the expense of those that bought but that's what being an idiot and paying 70-100k more for a house than what its actually worth will get yah. To expect the bidding war prices that one bought at to be the new normal for housing is lunacy.

Rich people are going to be the beneficiary in NYC just like they were the last time this happened. It's going to be much harder to get a home loan for the next year or two than it was in the past several years. This will favor people who either have pristine credit histories or can purchase in cash.

People are being priced out of neighborhoods in NYC, but people aren't necessarily being priced out of the city, if they really want to be in the city.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

yes the stagnant 80s and paul’s boutique — and that’s exactly the problem with you two boy’s assessment, its entirely selectively manhattan biased.

clearly with a record high population, the city, and by that i mean the whole city, has become much more interesting and accessable over the recent years — and especially around the pandemic — than not.

err, or maybe times square should go back to porn theaters.

Exactly.

[Crawford]

I'm pretty sure places have always been more "interesting" in the past. It's people looking back on their youth. I don't see how, objectively speaking, one could say NYC was generally more interesting decades ago, even if it's cliche to say that places like the Lower East Side were so fascinating when they were grimier and emptier.

I remember the LES in the mid-1990's, when I first started exploring NYC, and it was still pretty dumpy. It was kind of the only remaining remotely "tough" neighborhood in Manhattan south of Harlem. It wasn't really interesting. Housing projects, Chinatown overflow, and dingy tenements. Clinton Street, where my friend's older sister had an apartment (I was still in high school) was such a dump. There were lots of artists and creative types, but it wasn't like it felt like Haight Asbury or the East Village circa 1968. Just felt like a crappy area where young people sought cheap rent, alongside Puerto Ricans in rent controlled apartments, and a couple of Italian and Jewish grannies. It didn't really get vibrant until post-2000 or so.

Not sure how a block with bricked-up apartment windows and a sketchy bodega is more interesting than the present. Now, yes, it's cleaned up and very nice, but it doesn't exactly look like Greenwich or the Upper East Side. It's still gritty, but upscale and trendy.

[mrnyc]

^ thats another manhattan centric bias viewpoint, just with your added rich kid gentrification preference twist.

its been a more safe and accessably open city to all since the late 80s, so many more parts of town are doing things and are worth one’s time, at least on occasion, if maybe not to live, than just manhattan.

what i’m really getting at is of course the city is more interesting now as it has boomed so much in recent years and decades, minus a temporary covid blip (which also made it super interesting). if that keeps up, and there is every indication it will, then the future is where the most interesting times lie as the city passes 9 and 10 million with its untold fresh new souls (muwaa ha haa).

[JManc]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

What city is more socioeconomically diverse than NYC?

NYC was certainly more interesting warts and all during the 90's than it is now which become increasingly sterile as it has become cost prohibitive and not just in Manhattan. Most cities are starting to look alike as they follow the same trajectory catering to the same upper middle class professionals. Sure, things are nicer, cleaner and more upscale but something is lost along the way.

We don't have to have hookers and porn in Time Square but not sure if the hyper commercialized theme park we have now is the desired outcome either.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Crawford

. I don't see how, objectively speaking, one could say NYC was generally more interesting decades ago,

Because it was the center of many more worlds than it is now.

Music - all of it - is dying.

NYC was the center of jazz, it was the headquarters of MTV, it was home to Showtime at the Apollo. It was the (more or less) birthplace of American punk rock, rap, etc. There were independent record labels there, the record stores imported all sorts of stuff from overseas that you couldn't get almost anywhere else in the United States. NYC was home to famous recording studios that are now gone, like Columbia's 30th St. Studio.

All of that is over because music - no matter the style - is over as a cultural force.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by JManc

Most cities are starting to look alike as they follow the same trajectory catering to the same upper middle class professionals.

NYC, more so than any other U.S. city, still had tons and tons of independent retail businesses until recently. Each one of those places was a world in itself.

I remember ordering photography stuff from the NYC places in the 90s, before the internet existed. The places were all owned by Jewish families and the customer service was terrible, but you had to use them because they were the places importing directly from Japan and Germany and so had better prices. You had no other option.

Sure, the customer service was terrible (when they weren't outright scamming you), but at least you were arguing with a real human being and not someone in a call center or a bot.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Because it was the center of many more worlds than it is now.

Music - all of it - is dying.

NYC was the center of jazz, it was the headquarters of MTV, it was home to Showtime at the Apollo. It was the (more or less) birthplace of American punk rock, rap, etc. There were independent record labels there, the record stores imported all sorts of stuff from overseas that you couldn't get almost anywhere else in the United States. NYC was home to famous recording studios that are now gone, like Columbia's 30th St. Studio.

All of that is over because music - no matter the style - is over as a cultural force.

In pop culture terms I'm an old person at this point, but I think this is a poor take. Music seems as vibrant as ever. The concert industry is bonkers, and you can hardly get seats. There are always going to be people listening to music and consuming different types of pop culture. There are always going to be young people leading new cultural movements.

Anyways, I don't know what this has to do with NYC. Yes, NYC (and definitely LA) are the primary music centers, but these are relatively small economic engines and don't have much to do with city vibrancy. The Apollo Theater has never been busier, BTW, and is expanding.

[UrbanRevival]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

TLDR though, if a city becomes an asset type for the rich, and nobody normal can live there anymore, and it NIMBY's away all the light industry and warehouses and air cargo hubs, etc, then it fails at all this. Then it's not generating the value added from the clustering and we are actually poorer for it.

I guess we can afford to lose a few places like SF to be these kinds of fake show pieces but the US will always need cities that bring lots of things together, which is why places like Dallas will just continue to grow, and why if Chicago got it's shit together it could come back, etc.

This is easily one of the most insightful and well-articulated posts I've seen on this forum. Very well said, and needless to say I agree 100%.

For the record, I think the article prompting this thread is classic media hyperbole for attention (even the NYX is capable of that). But I absolutely also believe that "business as usual" cannot continue for big cities.

If the last decade hasn't flashed the red warning lights to everyone about the over-reliance on over-capitalized rich people and mega-corporations to be the decision-makers about the fate of our cities, I don't know what will. Cities will always have to strive to maintain a balance, and socioeconomic diversity MUST underpin that balance.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Because it was the center of many more worlds than it is now.

Music - all of it - is dying.

NYC was the center of jazz, it was the headquarters of MTV, it was home to Showtime at the Apollo. It was the (more or less) birthplace of American punk rock, rap, etc. There were independent record labels there, the record stores imported all sorts of stuff from overseas that you couldn't get almost anywhere else in the United States. NYC was home to famous recording studios that are now gone, like Columbia's 30th St. Studio.

All of that is over because music - no matter the style - is over as a cultural force.

This has nothing to do with NYC. The exact same changeover happened in other music cities. It happened in Chicago, Detroit, and Philadelphia. If anything, NYC has been able to withstand more than other places the macro economic conditions that wiped out almost all of those types of places in other cities.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

In pop culture terms I'm an old person at this point, but I think this is a poor take. Music seems as vibrant as ever. The concert industry is bonkers, and you can hardly get seats. There are always going to be people listening to music and consuming different types of pop culture. There are always going to be young people leading new cultural movements.

Anyways, I don't know what this has to do with NYC. Yes, NYC (and definitely LA) are the primary music centers, but these are relatively small economic engines and don't have much to do with city vibrancy. The Apollo Theater has never been busier, BTW, and is expanding.

Taylor Swift selling out stadiums or a world famous music venue coasting on the momentum of historical significance is not really indicative as to the vibrancy of the music industry overall. Someone mentioned influencer culture earlier which is a great observation as it more or less displaced music as front and center for youth culture and since that by nature is online, you do see the effects at the street level.

I am glad I went through my teens and 20's during the 90's.

[ocman]

It’s all just pop and rap. But pop and rap have always dominated. Now they just monopolize the airwaves. This might be the longest stretch of time where we haven’t experience a renaissance of genre or innovation in style. The internet was supposed to expand our tastes with access to different types of music, and expand the reach of smaller artists, but somehow it did the exact opposite. Maybe it was too overwhelming that societal taste retreated to what was comfortable and familiar, and to a few platforms, mainly Spotify. There was always a counterpoint to the mainsteam. But the mainstream today is more monopolizing and powerful than its ever been.

All of pop today seems like music/ idol worship for teenage girls. All the boys are still on hiphop/rap.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by ocman

It’s all just pop and rap. But pop and rap have always dominated. Now they just monopolize the airwaves. This might be the longest stretch of time where we haven’t experience a renaissance of genre or innovation in style. The internet was supposed to expand our tastes with access to different types of music, and expand the reach of smaller artists, but somehow it did the exact opposite. Maybe it was too overwhelming that societal taste retreated to what was comfortable and familiar, and to a few platforms, mainly Spotify. There was always a counterpoint to the mainsteam. But the mainstream today is more monopolizing and powerful than its ever been.

All of pop today seems like music/ idol worship for teenage girls. All the boys are still on hiphop/rap.

Exactly what folks said with the rise of Elvis and The Beatles
60-65 years later same thing just different style of music (less instruments more synths, heavy on the Autotune)

Rumors of music's demise have been greatly exaggerated
I listen to new music all the time, they just don't play it on the radio in 2023.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by ocman

The internet was supposed to expand our tastes with access to different types of music, and expand the reach of smaller artists, but somehow it did the exact opposite.

Exactly. The music press doesn't exist anymore, either. There used to be a huge amount of serious writing about music, but the internet killed off magazines, newspapers, and independent zero-profit zines. Facebook then killed off music blogs and independent fan websites.

College and independent Community Radio is still around in some cities, but most young people don't have a radio, and listen to streaming while in the car.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by ocman

It’s all just pop and rap. But pop and rap have always dominated. Now they just monopolize the airwaves. This might be the longest stretch of time where we haven’t experience a renaissance of genre or innovation in style. The internet was supposed to expand our tastes with access to different types of music, and expand the reach of smaller artists, but somehow it did the exact opposite. Maybe it was too overwhelming that societal taste retreated to what was comfortable and familiar, and to a few platforms, mainly Spotify. There was always a counterpoint to the mainsteam. But the mainstream today is more monopolizing and powerful than its ever been.

All of pop today seems like music/ idol worship for teenage girls. All the boys are still on hiphop/rap.

Maybe...? I don't think this is entirely the internet's fault. Mass media in general has blurred the different music genres. I'd blame this way more on MTV than on Spotify. The internet did play a role in the collapse/mass consolidation of the global music industry, though, which has made the industry even more formulaic than it was in the late 20th century because it is much more risk averse.