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

The changing face of post-pandemic New York City

osc.ny.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 391 posts

Re: The changing face of post-pandemic New York City

#301

Post by steveBK123 »

randomdata wrote: post #293
steveBK123 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes a lot of people you think of as "NYers" are.. not, for tax purposes. Most famous people you know have enough flexibility that they can be in their West coast / Florida / Mountains / Beach / Westport / Greenwich / Short Hills / etc home 183+ days per year.

> not, for tax purposes. And, really, general quality of life. When you just want to spend quiet time at home, somewhere outside of the big city is going to provide something more quiet and comfortable. And when you want to do the things that the city uniquely has to offer, you go there while you do those things. NYC, nor anywhere else you might want to be, is certainly not walled off to outsiders. There is no advant…

Exactly true and happens at all levels.

Sure Mr Tribeca might have had an awesome loft in Tribeca, but he also has like a 100 acre estate on the Hudson. And a place in Montauk. And and and..

Re: The changing face of post-pandemic New York City

#302

Post by giantg2 »

alex_lav wrote: post #277
giantg2 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the problem they have is that one was not allowed to choose which measurable harm was acceptable to themselves in the no-win situation.

Unfortunately telling hundreds of millions of people to figure it out for themselves is basically the same as doing nothing.

I don't know. It seems the media coverage (sometimes bordering on fear mongering) had most people wearing masks, using hand sanitizer, etc. Enforcement of policies like masking were not widespread in most places, yet most people obeyed because of what they saw on the news. This is the method the government relies on for all forms of emergency preparedness - they present documents/resources for people to use, then in times of emergency the media diseminates them to the public. This generally works fine for stuff like storms, escaped convicts, etc.

Re: The changing face of post-pandemic New York City

#303

Post by randomdata »

steveBK123 wrote: post #301
randomdata wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not, for tax purposes. And, really, general quality of life. When you just want to spend quiet time at home, somewhere outside of the big city is going to provide something more quiet and comfortable. And when you want to do the things that the city uniquely has to offer, you go there while you do those things. NYC, nor anywhere else you might want to be, is certainly not walled off to outsiders. There is no advant…

Exactly true and happens at all levels. Sure Mr Tribeca might have had an awesome loft in Tribeca, but he also has like a 100 acre estate on the Hudson. And a place in Montauk. And and and..

Absolutely. I hale from a village of ~1,000 people and I run into celebrities (Hollywood types, professional athletes, tech CEOs, etc.) quite frequently – because that's where they live.

Re: The changing face of post-pandemic New York City

#304

Post by juped »

crazygringo wrote: post #20
TrueDuality wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you click into the article, they have it broken down by boroughs.

That's still the city. The metro area is wider, things like Jersey City and Westchester etc.

Jersey City is in the New York metro area, Staten Island is not.

Re: The changing face of post-pandemic New York City

#305

Post by ghaff »

belligeront wrote: post #164

Many people are reading this stat to say that NYC is dying because of post-covid crime or some other stat. I really think this is a misreading of the situation. I think it is far likely composition effects from: - High-income people who work remote or hybrid started demanding more space for work and living. Given NYC housing is basically fixed (there is almost no building), this trend has decreased the average number…

I'm not sure what the answer is but I'm also not sure why the downvotes.

There are absolutely tradeoffs involved in living in a big city, maybe especially NYC. You might still choose to do so absent any specific work-related reason but no one can seriously suggest that taking a daily commute off the table couldn't seriously change the decision someone makes about where they live.

Re: The changing face of post-pandemic New York City

#306

Post by ImJamal »

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #174
bugglebeetle wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

According to the CDC[1] Heart disease accounts for 695,547 deaths. Gun deaths [2] are at 48,830 and that includes suicides and accidents.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

[2] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Re: The changing face of post-pandemic New York City

#307

Post by ghaff »

steveBK123 wrote: post #211
eduction wrote: post #163

The comments here are funny. You have a bunch of people saying folks are fleeing NYC due to crime. Then other people saying folks are fleeing due to housing shortage and rents going up. It's like the old restaurant line, "no one goes there anymore, it's too crowded." Keep in mind, crime has risen for each of three years through 2022, and while that trend is worrisome, the actual number of crimes is only back up to 20…

Yeah I mean, covid was a good inflection point where it made people re-evaluate their lives and broke their decision inertia. NYC is a ton of fun, but it is also, to sum it up in one word - hard. People who have lived there 10/20/etc years and not lived elsewhere underestimate how much easier life outside the 5 boroughs can be. Some scoff at NYC people owning a weekend/vacation home, but the funny thing is due to cos…

COVID made a lot of people re-evaluate things--at least at the margin. I'm pretty sure I know a disproportionate number of people who ended up retiring at least a few years early.

Re: The changing face of post-pandemic New York City

#308

Post by tharne »

add-sub-mul-div wrote: post #241
tharne wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New York has always had expensive housing. It's not as if that became a problem yesterday. On the other hand, crime varies considerably from decade to decade. I'm getting a good chuckle watching people bend over backwards to downplay the issue of crime in NYC. It often feels like crime is to liberals what climate change is to conservatives, a big problem made worse by their policies that's better off ignored.

The only people who live in fear of crime in cities are people who hear about it in headlines from afar. If you live there and don't have a reason to want to live in fear, you don't.

That's a bit circular isn't? Of course the people that still live somewhere don't worry about the crime as much, that's part of the reason that they're still there. The folks for whom it's a big deal, tend to leave.

Re: The changing face of post-pandemic New York City

#309

Post by pclmulqdq »

wolverine876 wrote: post #238
pclmulqdq wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some people don't value what NY has to offer - the elite, the center of the world in arts, business, food, talent, etc etc. If you don't value it, absolutely don't pay for it - pay for things that you value. If you do value those things, there is no place else in the US, and with some exceptions, the world. I have a question for people who say this: Have you ever actually lived in any metropolitan area outside New…

> Have you ever actually lived in any metropolitan area outside New York? Yes, and I've spent a lot of time in many cities. > A lot of cities (both in the US and around the world) have better environments for each of the things you stated there, but New York is somewhat unique in that it is good for all of them. It's just not true. For example, name another city in the US that has arts anything like NY: fine arts, ja…

This is actually interesting, because your list includes a lot of things that were invented/developed in New York.

The New York arts:

* If you're looking for the Broadway experience, you won't find it anywhere but Broadway (West End sometimes tries). If you want to define theater a little more broadly, though, there are a lot of options. West End is a different beast, but I think it's actually a bigger scene. For other kinds of theater, Tokyo is also fantastic, and I hear that Melbourne, Australia has a huge theater scene. If you define theater more broadly to include film, LA beats out New York by a mile.

* New York is the jazz capital of the world right now, but New Orleans, Memphis, and Chicago have traded that role and all have a huge scene. That said, jazz basically grew up in Harlem, so it's hard to beat New York.

The non-New-York arts:

* Boston and SF probably have the best classical music scenes in the US. Outside of the US, Vienna holds the title hands down. Like in most arts, New York has the big spectacle (the Met Opera and Carnegie Hall), but in classical music it has a lot less less depth.

* In terms of old artworks, New York has the biggest collection of old works in the US, but Paris, Barcelona, London, and Rome are all huge and probably more notable. In terms of new art, LA is the place to be (in the US).

Again, I said that New York is good at all of these things, but it's not exactly head and shoulders above the rest of the world unless you specifically want a New York experience. It sounds like yours is Broadway, and that's fine, but it's not a universal desire.

I personally prefer to travel to New York when I want to see something on Broadway or at the Met Opera, and that's (IMO) a lot better than living there 24/7.

Re: The changing face of post-pandemic New York City

#310

Post by caddemon »

ghaff wrote: post #251
giantg2 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the problem they have is that one was not allowed to choose which measurable harm was acceptable to themselves in the no-win situation.

That doesn't work in a lot of cases though. It's the RTO/WFH struggle. If teachers decide they don't want to be in a classroom, sending your kid in isn't very practical. Or is it only parents who get a choice?

At least RTO and WFH companies can co-exist though, and there are hybrid models as well. With school parents are stuck with what their specific district wants to do, and the number of hours and days spent in school is extremely rigid. For the academic year that started in fall 2020, it's not inherently impractical that the two options could have co-existed for both teachers and parents. But obviously it was unrealistic given the state of the school system already pre-COVID.

I think the broader issue with this sort of choice in a pandemic is it does have downstream effects. People going to school everyday could cause an uptick in community cases that then makes necessary trips like the grocery store more dangerous for those who do want to isolate as much as possible. Especially relevant in a city where many people are living together in apartment complexes.

So I agree there's no clear answer here, and I think pre-vaccine I would've kept my kids home regardless. But more generally I am very dissatisfied with how homogeneous and inflexible the school system is, and that is something we should push for change in. Funnily enough, my district has done a full 180 since COVID and this past year stopped accepting doctor's notes to excuse absences! They are quite literally encouraging people to send their kids in even while sick. A friend's son has mono right now and the HS is threatening to hold him back over absences (grades are fine still because ofc that matters less than attendance record.

Post reply on HN