Coming back from Chicago we flew right over Manhattan. Very impressive as always, to see all those buildings so densely packed. But think of how impressive it must have seemed in 1950! The world had a lot less of everything back in 1950 (well, we had more oil in the ground, but that’s about it), so Manhattan must have just seemed amazing. I can see how American leaders of that period could’ve been pretty smug. Our #1 city was leading the world by so much, it was decades ahead of its time, still impressive even now after 60 years of decay.
What do you mean by decay? NYC has never been "in decay." Even decades with high levels of crime and incompetent city government enjoyed remarkable artistic expressions – consider the No Wave movement, conceptual art, the invention of hip hop. And even the most hardened philistine couldn't suggest that the period from 1990-present is one of urban decay. In fact, the only thing I can think of that would correspond with your 60 years of decay is white flight. Strange post.
"60 years of decay"?
Adam, Phil:
By decay, I'm talking not about artistic contributions or residents' ethnicity, but rather decay of the physical infrastructure. Yes, they did complete the third water tunnel, and every thirty years or so they add a new subway line, but most of the urban infrastructure is the stuff that was so impressive back in 1950.
Fair enough, but convincing anyone that NYC is currently in a state of total infrastructural decay would be a very tough sell… It still has arguably the best subway system in the US. Once the T is finished and Moynihan Station is completed, it will be even better. I don't recall any major bridge failures or other serious infrastructural disasters, either.
One way or the other, those infrastructure will be brought down to make way for progress. And I understand your nostalgic sentiments. I myself sometimes would wonder what was it like back then when I happened to see old beautiful buildings.
Adam:
Yes, the NYC infrastructure is still pretty good. My point was that in 1950 it was amazing, compared to the rest of the world. Now it's merely on par with other great cities.
Adam: have you been on subways outside the States? As a NYer, I find our subway an embarrassment (and a health hazard) rather than a source of pride. on my way out to Queens last weekend, I couldn't believe how horrible the road surface is.
Andrew, I agree with your point about NYC not being so much (or at all) more impressive than other cities now. But I thought — perhaps erroneously — that there are lots of big buildings less than 60 years old.
I feel the same type of amazement and pride when I fly over Dallas.
Kaiser: Yes, I've used the subway in London (way too expensive), Paris (filthy), Rome (too hot), Prague (awesome stations, but unreliable) and Tokyo (no complaints). I vastly prefer the MTA to the subways in Chicago and D.C. In fact, I used to live in Bushwick and the 24/7 reliability of the L was very impressive: even when there was track construction, the street-level bus was almost as quick.
I'd argue that the MTA does a pretty great job, especially considering NYC's budget constraints. The stations may be dirty at times, but in my opinion that adds to their charm. I rarely see overflowing trash cans or dangerous messes, and I've often seen cleaning teams water-blasting the platforms in the wee hours. Is it possible that a bit of urban "decay" actually adds to the character of a city? What would Jane Jacobs say about spotless, soulless subway stations?