Doubt, Worry and Fear: New York Faces Dramatic Consequences of Crisis
spiegel.de
spiegel.de
with that said, things have changed...every wall street job lost is 3.3 other jobs lost (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aQJz...), and rents/prices have moderated on the high end, especially in door man buildings. the vancancy rate on rental apts in many neighborhoods has moved from fractions of a percent to a couple percent...hardly a crisis. of course something dramatic happened in nyc--it being the epicenter of the credit crisis--but this author simply doesn't know the city he is writing about, so he has turned anecdotes into broad generalizations.
"Stores are closing or barely scraping by, offering "three suits for $250." No one is buying. "Food traffic" -- taxis ferrying people straight across Manhattan to the coolest restaurants -- has dwindled to a trickle. Theft, violent and drug crimes are on the rise. There are New Yorkers who pretend to be surprised if a bar only accepts cash, say they're going to an ATM, and never return. "Impulse shopping," the practice of popping down to a boutique over lunch, has died a death."
I would guess that the author saw a) one store advertising a suit sale, b) someone told him about perhaps taking the subway over a taxi to dinner, c) someone else who slipped out of a bar, and d) someone else who isn't shopping on impulse any more. He then interpreted them as broadly occurring trends. The Times does this all the time for 'trend' pieces. He just took it to a crazy hyperbolic extreme.
i could pick apart a lot more, but i think the example of Virgin closing is the best example of why this author is so off.
1) Music/Movie retailers are suffering not because of a downturn in NYC....they have other structural issues to their business. Tourist visits have barely dropped, and Broadway had its most successful year ever (http://www.eturbonews.com/11665/new-york-city-welcomes-new-b...).
and 2) The Virgin chain was bought by real estate companies in 2007, primarily b/c NYC's Times Square and Union Square locations had long term leases at below market rents. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/15/arts/music/15virgin.html
There was some worry over the last year, but things have quieted down in the last few months. The big changes are mostly localized to the high end of incomes, where lifestyles have been downsized a bit. Non-profits that depend on wealthy donors are putting off plans to expand, and it may be easier to get seats at a popular show or a table in the most exclusive restaurants.
The streets are not filled with bankers who were making hundreds of thousands last year and are homeless this year. The subways are still crowded and no more or less clean than last year.
It's a big city, and it's not going to turn into a warzone because Lehman Brothers closed.
I live in SF, which is not cheap at all (second most expensive market in the US), and I think NYC is ridicusly overpriced. A software engineer in NYC makes less than in SF, yet the cost of living are at least 30% more (rent and groceries, and everything else). and you have to pay a NYC tax also.
No wonder there are no startups in NYC.
The only great sides of NYC, are it's nightlife, and lots of girls (meaning even if you are a dork, you will get laid). When it comes to dating, SF/Silicon valley, is a dessert in comparison.
In terms of jobs, I knew of a few people who've lost theirs but they were able to find new jobs in a matter of a few months.
So again, I don't notice much slowdown in NYC. In fact places in brooklyn such as Williamsburg, Carroll gardens, park slope are growing in popularity and people are moving to these for slightly cheaper rent than in the city. A few years ago, I remember that these places used to be very crappy and run down. Now they are blossoming.
Because that part of the article reads like communist propaganda about rotting capitalist society.
A good place to start would be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_blackout_of_1977 http://www.amazon.com/Ladies-Gentlemen-Bronx-Burning-Basebal...