Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

David Byrne: If the 1% stifles New York's creative talent, I'm out of here

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 91 posts

Re: David Byrne: If the 1% stifles New York's creative talent, I'm out of here

#81

Post by jlgreco »

pessimizer wrote: post #74
jlgreco wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being a desirable place to live isn't a "problem" it is a feature. Being the only desirable place to live might be problematic to some people who want to live in that desirable place cheaply, but the solution to that is not to tear down the desirable place to the same level as other cities, "Harrison Bergeron" style.

Being a desirable place to live for the boring rich, driving up the prices so that the interesting poor all leave, is a problem for both the rich and the poor. Taking away money isn't the plot of Harrison Bergeron, taking away ability was. Ability is spread throughout the population, not just (or even mostly) the rich part. The rich tend to pay people with ability, rather than to be people with ability (other than th…

> "boring rich"

This anti-rich "occupy" shit is getting real old. We get it, you don't like people who have more than you; give it a rest already.

> Taking away money isn't the plot of Harrison Bergeron, taking away ability was.

Harrison Bergeron is about equalization via crippling. If you want to make it just about muscles and brains, then fine, but you are only taking away a very limited message from it. Stripping NYC of it's primary asset over other cities like Philadelphia and Chicago is one way to make NYC resemble those cities in terms of 'housing for poor people', but it is absolutely the wrong approach to take. Don't smooth inequality by tearing people or cities down, smooth inequality by building people and cities up (figuratively and literally, in the case of cities).

Re: David Byrne: If the 1% stifles New York's creative talent, I'm out of here

#82

Post by jlgreco »

busterarm wrote: post #69
jlgreco wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the objective is just to raise more money for subsidized housing, there are more ways to do that than just whining about rich people having underused apartments. Hell, tax caviar; a tax for cheap housing doesn't have to attack rich housing. The only reason to that is pandering to the envious. And I stand by my car analogy, a car a rich person has is a car that a poor person doesn't have. Artificially high demand f…

These arguments don't work when you have supply limitations, which with housing and cars we kinda do. It's not about taxing the rich. It's about taxing where appropriate to get the market effects you want. This is the same reason we have such high tax on cigarettes.

Taxing rich people more for having multiple homes isn't going to make them give up those homes (we are talking about "1%"ers, right?), all it is going to do is increase your tax revenue. If you plan is to use that additional revenue to provide housing for the poor, the knock yourself out, I think that is a swell plan. However focusing on where that money comes from is a distraction.

Rich people having multiple homes is a distraction that is engineered to tug on irrational anti-rich sentiment. Tax them if you want, but don't mistake them for the actual problem.

Re: David Byrne: If the 1% stifles New York's creative talent, I'm out of here

#83

Post by jlgreco »

VLM wrote: post #10
jlgreco wrote: post #3

What's he want, more rent control? To put "the 1%" 'up against a wall'? What is this article other than a whiny complaint, pandering to the envious masses?

I think he wants the 1% to leave because they're not artists but their presence drives up prices. There's only space for one of them in that town... Kind of like no one can afford to live in SV unless they're in tech and/or are rich. Price out the producing class, production leaves the area.

If it wasn't the rich, it would be the "yuppies" out-bidding the grunge and punk. One scape-goat or another, when really all it boils down to is that they don't have enough money to live wherever they want to. Welcome to reality. I can't afford to live on the beach in Malibu, is that a social injustice too?

Re: David Byrne: If the 1% stifles New York's creative talent, I'm out of here

#84

Post by jlgreco »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #52
rayiner wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think mixing density and low-income people is by itself a recipe for disaster. It makes more sense to have good commuter rail into the surrounding suburbs.

That is the interesting test is it not? Why is it that 'high income' people can live in a high rise apartment building but 'low income' people cannot? I am aware of the various 'projects' where we've seen violence, drug use, and property destruction. I am wondering is if it is even possible to create such a facility? Could you, for example, create an elevator system that took you from ground floor to your apartment,…

Such an elevator system might allow the formation of tight-knit safe and trusting communities on each floor, but I suspect that the common areas (lobby, and the elevator itself) would rapidly become as trashed as your stereotypical subway station.

My off-the-wall hypothesis is that poverty breeds crime, and crime breeds decay which itself breeds more crime (see: broken windows theory). Small tight-knit communities seem to, in some situations^ at least, put the brakes on this process. The tighter the community the more of a support net individuals have and the more obligation they feel towards their surroundings.

^ A counter-example that comes to mind are your stereotypical trailer parks and near-ghost-town mining towns across the rust-belt. A poor neighborhood that isn't dense isn't necessarily a wonderful place.

Re: David Byrne: If the 1% stifles New York's creative talent, I'm out of here

#85

Post by rayiner »

a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #71
rayiner wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My wife and I just walked from 10th street to 38th street along mostly Walnut/Chestnut/Market yesterday. It's great except for the portion of Market after 37th street. It's a continuous strip of gentrification now, which wasn't the case 10 years ago. That said, I think gentrification is happening faster in Chicago. I haven't seen a construction crane yet in months of living here (I rarely leave Center City/University…

Both Chicago and Philadelphia will go bankrupt and all bets are off. They are heavily corrupt municipalities. The pension obligations will not be met. New condos here and there don't really enter into it.

What does that have to do with my point about gentrification? The finances of the local government are related to but not coextensive with the economic health of the surrounding region. At the end of the day, changes in the $500+ billion GDP of the Chicago metro area are going to have a much bigger impact on gentrification in Chicago than the deficits in the $3 billion Chicago city budget.

The danger is, of course, that pension obligations cause a rise in taxes that push out wealthy people and businesses, hitting GDP. That's a concern, but I think at least Chicago will fight to reneg on pension obligations before raising taxes. Rahm may be corrupt, but he's corrupt in the right direction. He sounds like a republican these days. Controlled bankruptcies may be the smartest course of action for cities like Chicago, allowing them to avoid the choice between raising taxes and cutting crucial services. The key thing to watch is whether Detroit's bankruptcy results in significantly reduced pension liabilities.

Which circles back to my point about embracing the 1%. The way to see continued improvement in your city is to keep your 1% where they are, and ideally attract new 1%. Those few condos here and there are upper middle class/rich people moving into Chicago and spending money and paying taxes. Since major U.S. cities have a dearth of middle class people (who mostly live in the suburbs), and poor people don't really pay much taxes, it's these folks that keep the show going. You can't afford to let writers like the OP push for policies that encourage these people to move out.

Re: David Byrne: If the 1% stifles New York's creative talent, I'm out of here

#86

Post by harryh »

busterarm wrote: post #23
harryh wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That 40k number is flat out wrong. "But even in Manhattan, nearly half of all rental apartments are rent-stabilized." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/realestate/rent-stabilized...

We're talking about two different things here. I'm talking specifically about rent control. I know what I'm talking about, I live(d) in a rent controlled apartment since birth.

But that's not what the OP was talking about. He was surely using the phrase "rent control" in its colloquial sense.

Re: David Byrne: If the 1% stifles New York's creative talent, I'm out of here

#87

Post by so_says »

jlgreco wrote: post #82
busterarm wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These arguments don't work when you have supply limitations, which with housing and cars we kinda do. It's not about taxing the rich. It's about taxing where appropriate to get the market effects you want. This is the same reason we have such high tax on cigarettes.

Taxing rich people more for having multiple homes isn't going to make them give up those homes (we are talking about "1%"ers, right?), all it is going to do is increase your tax revenue. If you plan is to use that additional revenue to provide housing for the poor, the knock yourself out, I think that is a swell plan. However focusing on where that money comes from is a distraction. Rich people having multiple homes…

I don't know if taxing is the right idea. I just know that a city void of actual residents is a city without a soul. NYC is becoming like parts of Florida, except at least in FL, the residency is tied to a season, so you get a critical mass of people together in one place.

Re: David Byrne: If the 1% stifles New York's creative talent, I'm out of here

#88

Post by l33tbro »

jamesbritt wrote: post #78
pessimizer wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>NY's history is all about 1%ers, like Vanderbilt and Rockefeller and Bloomberg. Not New York's creative history, which is largely based in gradual urban decay and eventually the default. Affordable housing for artists near affordable venues for art are what creates art (if that's not too obvious.)

which is largely based in gradual urban decay and eventually the default. Indeed. NYC in the '70s and '80s was a dangerously magical (and magically dangerous) place. Some good resources: VH1's (no, seriously) "NY77: The Coolest Year in Hell" ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1080761/ ) Love Goes to Buildings on Fire: Five Years in New York That Changed Music Forever ( http://www.amazon.com/Love-Goes-Buildings-Fire-ebook/…

“In the 1970s New York City was not a part of the United States at all. It was an offshore interzone with no shopping malls, few major chains, no golf courses, no subdivisions. We thought of the place as a free city, where exiles and lamsters and refugees found shelter. Downtown we were proud of this, naturally.”

Luc Sante, Low Life.

Interview here: http://www.believermag.com/exclusives/?read=interview_sante

Re: David Byrne: If the 1% stifles New York's creative talent, I'm out of here

#89

Post by jamesbritt »

l33tbro wrote: post #88
jamesbritt wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

which is largely based in gradual urban decay and eventually the default. Indeed. NYC in the '70s and '80s was a dangerously magical (and magically dangerous) place. Some good resources: VH1's (no, seriously) "NY77: The Coolest Year in Hell" ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1080761/ ) Love Goes to Buildings on Fire: Five Years in New York That Changed Music Forever ( http://www.amazon.com/Love-Goes-Buildings-Fire-ebook/…

“In the 1970s New York City was not a part of the United States at all. It was an offshore interzone with no shopping malls, few major chains, no golf courses, no subdivisions. We thought of the place as a free city, where exiles and lamsters and refugees found shelter. Downtown we were proud of this, naturally.” Luc Sante, Low Life. Interview here: http://www.believermag.com/exclusives/?read=interview_sante

He's almost correct. :)

Perhaps surprisingly, there's a golf course in the Bronx, up in Van Courtlandt Park.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Van+Cortlandt+Park+Golf+Cours...

It's not new:

"The Van Cortlandt Golf Course opened on July 6, 1895, as the first public golf course in the United States."

http://www.nycgovparks.org/parks/X092/highlights/11046

Re: David Byrne: If the 1% stifles New York's creative talent, I'm out of here

#90

Post by alexnorman »

jamesbritt wrote: post #78
pessimizer wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>NY's history is all about 1%ers, like Vanderbilt and Rockefeller and Bloomberg. Not New York's creative history, which is largely based in gradual urban decay and eventually the default. Affordable housing for artists near affordable venues for art are what creates art (if that's not too obvious.)

which is largely based in gradual urban decay and eventually the default. Indeed. NYC in the '70s and '80s was a dangerously magical (and magically dangerous) place. Some good resources: VH1's (no, seriously) "NY77: The Coolest Year in Hell" ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1080761/ ) Love Goes to Buildings on Fire: Five Years in New York That Changed Music Forever ( http://www.amazon.com/Love-Goes-Buildings-Fire-ebook/…

You will find many different films if you like some of the 80's pop icons you might like this documentary on Jean-Michel Basquiat: The Radiant Child (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1568335/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1)
Post reply on HN