The answer might just be generational and speaks volumes on the changes the city went through in the middle of the last century. New York City started losing half of its population because of the Robert Moses Era of automobiles which promoted vehicle use and an easy exodus to the suburbs. Those who stayed in the city did not want to hang around the neighborhood anymore because things were bad all over. Empty storefronts, crime and loitering was rampant so living in an isolated tower (or house) and having a car to get to one's destination was the better option.
As some of my older former coworkers have told me, everyone wanted to live in a new tower on the Upper East Side back then. Everything new was better than the dirty village in the 60s, 70s and 80s! Even the Upper West Side was dangerous (the so-called White People Exit was 59th Street Station). The isolated tower model made sense in a city that looked like it was on an endless decline and having a car was essential to avoid dangerous streets and equally perilous mass transportation. Public housing even adopted this model and folks of all economic levels had cars.
Now a new generation has come into the picture that wants to stay within the big cities and raise their family. The city's population is growing after half a century of rapid decline and the suburbs are not attractive to young people these days. Maybe this movement happened because of folks growing up around chain stores and strip malls in their younger years helped them understand the lack of culture in the urban sprawl. There is also that sense of not belonging in the suburbs which often seem way too conservative and homogenized for folks who envision life in the city. For whatever the reason, the idea of bicycles and living in a pedestrian friendly New York is now a strong movement which is actually going back to the original city plan. This is especially true in neighborhoods like Brooklyn or Harlem.
With all that said, I can just think of my parents now in their later years. Mom and Dad are now recently retired, live in the South and the thought of taking a couple of flights of steps or even going to the gym is a foreign idea to them. Even though it has been proven that just a little physical activity might just make them healthier, lose some weight and extend their life, my parents have not adopted this lifestyle even with much persuasion. Change is not always comforting to embrace but sometimes the results are for the best. Maybe it is the younger folks who want the old ways that have got it right this time around but that is probably just a moot opinion to those set in their habits.
Please allow me to amend one aspect of your recap of NYC history. The Columbus Circle Station used to be the "White People Exit" because commuting whites were terrified of ending up in Harlem accidentally -- so if a local C or B train which normally made all the stops along CPW was suddenly designated as an express train with 125th Street as its next stop, whites would rush out of the train cars like gangbusters. Your description makes it sound like whites' fear of the UWS in general, which was certainly not the case. If you want to make that case, your sentence should read : "Even the northern reaches of the Upper West Side were dangerous (West 96th Street, for instance, was often referred to as the DMZ, i.e., Vietnam-War-era speak for "demilitarized zone" or front line dividing two warring camps.)."
ReplyDeleteOne thing you are missing here is the idea that just because one may not support the Citibike program, it does not mean that one does not support bikes in general. Many of us see Citibike as a moving advertisement for corporate big business banks, another sign of the mass corporatization and chainification of the city, and aesthetically an eyesore.
ReplyDeleteI've lived in NYC since the mid-1970's, and however much people want to wax nostalgic about the city on the brink of bankruptcy, it was a far less livable city -- filthy, chaotic, maddeningly irrational. For better or worse, corporate/public partnerships cleaned up this town -- business improvement districts (BIDs), the Central Park Conservancy, etc. I share your disdain for "mass corporatization" -- both as a matter of good governance and also simply on the score of bad taste -- but sponsorships alas, like Citibike, are how things have gotten done, and done quickly, here in NYC, esp. in neighborhoods that don't have the tax base (i.e., rich gentry) to finance these projects out of their public coffers. If it's any consolation, I imagine Citibank won't always be the sponsor of this bike program, that it will change patrons (public and private) many times in the coming years; but still we should tip our hats to the bank for its creative community relations.
DeleteAbout 700 signatures in support so far and thus very popular in comparison to a few who are against it. The vast majority of negative comments were about parking and parking space. This program was started by a separate company that needed millions to fund it and a major bank stepped in to make it become a reality.
ReplyDeleteI think it could be argued that preference for bikes over cars for older generations is not so much a generational change as a practical one. When you cannot walk very far or bicycle what you want is more parking so you can drive. You also don't want to have to cross bike lanes and deal with cyclists in addition to cars when crossing streets. You want car travel to be as easy as possible since it is what you rely on. This is also true for anyone who has a physically disabled family member and frankly many households with multiple small children. Not everyone is able to bicycle.
ReplyDeleteI do buy into the generational argument, if only for practical reasons. Can't really see my grandmother wanting to get around on a bike these days. That said, there's something specifically "Harlem" about the obsession cars and a knee-jerk dislike of anything that impinges on driving, real or perceived. Not long ago, there was a proposal to add a bus lane or a high-speed bus (I forget which one) to 125th street that would significantly increase people's ability to get across town faster and more efficiently. You'd think that a majority of people would embrace this, but I was shocked when CB9 and CB10 members came out against it. I would have thought improving non-car owners' ability to move around uptown would trump the perceived gridlock fears of the car-owning minority, but that was not the case. The proposal was tabled.
ReplyDeleteSeems concerns over citibike stem from a similar place. Shame!
Well this was also about being less car centric. The subways, buses and even plain walking ten blocks was not such an odd thing for most New Yorkers. The buses especially are helpful with those in a wheelchair.
ReplyDeleteAgree! Didn't mean to imply otherwise. Rather that the car-centric mentality isn't just reserved for Citibike. It's all coming from the same place, and unfortunately, sometimes this minority mindset has significant consequences for some people - i.e., people that really NEED the bus as you suggest. What's scary is that some of the bodies that are meant to protect the interests of the community as a whole (i.e., CB9, CB10) are doing their constituencies a disservice by voting in the interests of the minority.
DeleteCar-owners may be the minority, but those who take cabs frequently may not be. When you pay by not only distance but time in car for traffic it can really add up.
ReplyDeleteI take a cab to work practically every day. I'd gladly pay the few extra bucks - or avoid 125th all together - to ensure a faster trip for those who really need the bus.
Deletehaving a hard time being sympathetic to this. . .
Delete