I don't see it that way at all. Disclaimer: I say this as someone from Australia who has only lived in NYC for a matter of months.
I see the fate of NYC--at least Manhattan--as being very much like that of Paris. Paris is now basically an enclave for the wealthy (in the 20 arrondisements). The people who keep the city that way live somewhere else. Singles come to the city and live in expensive cramped apartments for the Paris life.
You see the same thing happen increasingly in Manhattan.
Up until the 1960s there was (and still is) a view for NYC being for all the people, not just the rich. For this reason you have programs like rent control/stabilization so "key workers" (as they'd be called in London, which faces similar issues) can afford to live there. Up until the 1960s, NYC had a very socialist mentality. Education for NYC residents was free at NYU.
In the 1970s the golden goose that paid for all this died. Crime rose. The middle class moved to the suburbs. The tax base dropped and industry (NYC had a heavy port industry up to this point) went elsewhere, creating unemployment.
In the 70s, NYC almost went bankrupt until it was bailed out by union pension funds and ultimately the Federal government.
Starting in the late 70s with Koch and then with Guiliani the city, from my understanding, radically changed. This was due to a combination of economic change as well as a change in policing and other policies.
I think it would be fair to say that NYC--particularly Manhattan--is now largely gentrified. Where there were race riots in Alphabet City in the 80s and you'd only go to Avenue D at your own peril, now they have a Whole Foods.
Even in the 90s Times Square was the butt of many jokes from the likes of David Letterman and I can remember his standup bits often talking about the hookers in Times Square. It was up until the 80s and 90s a red light district. Now? It's basically Disneyified.
Some complain about this change, either saying the NYC has lost its grit and charm (probably true) and that NYC is no longer for all people (also possibly true), but NYC has an important constraint: the available land is limited. As the city grows, this will inevitably go up. Of course it can go down if the city is abandoned, much like parts of Baltimore have been and NYC was in the 70s and 80s.
So I see NYC as becoming America's Paris--possibly Monte Carlo. This shift if anything is hugely responsible for drops in crime. The sad fact is that crime doesn't travel far. Move the poor people elsewhere and the crime goes with them. It's why the Bronx, which has had much crime and poverty, can still have rich enclaves like Riverdale just a few miles from a ghetto.
There are huge advantages to urbanization. I don't see this trend diminishing. As people tend to move to cities, New York will grow. While it grows (or at least doesn't shrink), it will become increasingly gentrified.
This says nothing about the state of poverty in the US. You cannot take the state of NY as a barometer for that, good or bad.
"I think it would be fair to say that NYC--particularly Manhattan--is now largely gentrified. Where there were race riots in Alphabet City in the 80s and you'd only go to Avenue D at your own peril, now they have a Whole Foods."
I see the fate of NYC--at least Manhattan--as being very much like that of Paris. Paris is now basically an enclave for the wealthy (in the 20 arrondisements). The people who keep the city that way live somewhere else. Singles come to the city and live in expensive cramped apartments for the Paris life.
You see the same thing happen increasingly in Manhattan.
Up until the 1960s there was (and still is) a view for NYC being for all the people, not just the rich. For this reason you have programs like rent control/stabilization so "key workers" (as they'd be called in London, which faces similar issues) can afford to live there. Up until the 1960s, NYC had a very socialist mentality. Education for NYC residents was free at NYU.
In the 1970s the golden goose that paid for all this died. Crime rose. The middle class moved to the suburbs. The tax base dropped and industry (NYC had a heavy port industry up to this point) went elsewhere, creating unemployment.
In the 70s, NYC almost went bankrupt until it was bailed out by union pension funds and ultimately the Federal government.
Starting in the late 70s with Koch and then with Guiliani the city, from my understanding, radically changed. This was due to a combination of economic change as well as a change in policing and other policies.
I think it would be fair to say that NYC--particularly Manhattan--is now largely gentrified. Where there were race riots in Alphabet City in the 80s and you'd only go to Avenue D at your own peril, now they have a Whole Foods.
Even in the 90s Times Square was the butt of many jokes from the likes of David Letterman and I can remember his standup bits often talking about the hookers in Times Square. It was up until the 80s and 90s a red light district. Now? It's basically Disneyified.
Some complain about this change, either saying the NYC has lost its grit and charm (probably true) and that NYC is no longer for all people (also possibly true), but NYC has an important constraint: the available land is limited. As the city grows, this will inevitably go up. Of course it can go down if the city is abandoned, much like parts of Baltimore have been and NYC was in the 70s and 80s.
So I see NYC as becoming America's Paris--possibly Monte Carlo. This shift if anything is hugely responsible for drops in crime. The sad fact is that crime doesn't travel far. Move the poor people elsewhere and the crime goes with them. It's why the Bronx, which has had much crime and poverty, can still have rich enclaves like Riverdale just a few miles from a ghetto.
There are huge advantages to urbanization. I don't see this trend diminishing. As people tend to move to cities, New York will grow. While it grows (or at least doesn't shrink), it will become increasingly gentrified.
This says nothing about the state of poverty in the US. You cannot take the state of NY as a barometer for that, good or bad.