Hacker News Reader

Comment by morgante | Hacker News Reader

In addition to the investments in social services which the government provides, I suspect there's also a psychological element as well. New Yorkers, rich and poor, share a common identity which I don't see in a lot of other communities. There's an understanding that everyone lives in one city (even if they live in different parts of it), and at least has a modicum of responsibility to each other.

Contrast this with other cities like Detroit where the rich and poor live entirely separate existences.

View on HN

This was part of the social purpose of Central Park.

Frederick Olmstead advocated similar parks for San Francisco, writing that people could be found in public parks: "with a common purpose, not at all intellectual, competitive with none, disposing to jealousy and spiritual or intellectual pride toward none, each individual adding by his mere presence to the pleasure of all others, all helping to the greater happiness of each."

https://books.google.com/books?id=hAItCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA368&dq=%...

This is what I felt walking through Boston Commons, during my brief time as a SF resident. If only we could move Golden Gate Park a few miles East!

Don't worry, New York will get there eventually.

Having spent 30 years in this city, I've seen two ends of the spectrum in terms of class-mixing. In the 80s & early 90s it wasn't uncommon to go to a house party in some squat or slum and see social elite there (with their shared love of art, music or drugs) or go to a club/elite art gallery and see the misfits there.

This does not happen any more. At all. There are some of us remaining who straddled both circles that can fit in both places but the poor really do not socialize (as in parties) with the rich anymore.

But at least it's not like Atlanta where I see the middle class show open hostility to the homeless.

It's entirely possible that you are right. But have you considered the possibility that it's you that's changed instead of or in addition to the city? I certainly don't go to the same type of parties I did when I first moved to the city and that was only a dozen years ago.

I've considered that but my circles are pretty wide and I've been thinking about this for a long time and going out and verifying (asking absolutely everyone who will listen).

Consensus seems to be that we're trending towards homogeny.

I think you're probably right on this. I'm probably about a generation younger than the guy above you and I still see parties across the board. I've been with millionaires in Bushwick squats at avant-garde art shows and poor-as-s* immigrant artists in massively famous actor lofts. I'm a lower middle-class grandson of farmers and preachers, who's done OK for himself. I LOVE that New York lets me hang out with everyone without having to fake my way through any side.

(There are exceptions, but the ultra-wealthy are annoying as hell, even if they do have the drugs, music, booze etc.)

Its interesting you mention this, because the same trains that the run through some of the poorest areas of the city, also run through the wealthiest area of the city. (D train, Norwood and UWS. 2/3 trains, Tribeca and East New York.)

The ability for any New Yorker to be just about anywhere regardless of income is unparalleled.

Yup, it was always fun to see the bankers on the UES forced to stand in the morning while Bronx commuters got to sit down.

Personally, I think the subway is a great force for egalitarianism.

During the periods of reduced service, I could always hop on a 6 train at 116th Street, while people who lived in the UES had to wait hours for a spot on a train. I was pleasantly surprised to see that even the wealthiest and most powerful New Yorkers respected the unwritten rules of MTA etiquette.

I've also seen times when order has broken down during rush hour in Manhattan, and the transit employees start talking about calling the transit police. This was back in the early 90's, and from what I've seen, those guys were feared! People started backing away from the train and stopped crowding it after the mention.

What unwritten rule do you mean? They couldn't fit on the train in the first place, right?

There's strong social pressure enforcing a first-come, first-serve rule on seats and standing room. Seats are only surrendered for the pregnant or disabled, and standing room is only surrendered if a child pushed his way onto a train but his parent or guardian didn't quite make it.

In other cities, I've seen people ask for spots on an otherwise full bus or train because they were running late. That would be unheard of in a NYC subway.

Do people really have to wait _hours_ for a spot on a train?

New Yorkers may exaggerate from time to time. But I have been at the 1st Avenue L stop during the morning rush and had to let 3 trains go by before getting on to the fourth (probably 20 minutes total waiting). I probably should have walked at some point but then I would have had to pay again at Union Square.

1st Ave L is probably one of the most crowded stops in the morning for rush hour in the city, probably competing closely with Lorimer and Bedford L stops. In PM out of the city Union Square is similarly packed, and the train is nearly empty once you pass Lorimer

When I lived in Chicago, the State Street Subway at evening rush hour would have every car packed literally sardine tight. They could barely close the doors and there was barely room to breathe, forget about sitting down. I'm sure it was illegal but the conductors seemed to just pack people on until there wasn't room for one more.

Do you mean ask people to move in? Or actually ask that someone gets off for them?

I think you're hitting on the biggest contributor to this feeling of it being one city. In pretty much every city on the planet you have the different districts that are known for different things, predominantly the wealth of that area, but New York is somewhat unique in how intertwined and connected all of those distinct districts are in that city. As others point out, the same trains all go through the same areas, and everybody rides them. It's hard to develop the "little people" attitude when you spend so much time around said little people.

This is hardly unique to New York. Many European cities have this feature (it was deliberately designed into London, for example).

It may be unique to New York within the US.

Have you been to London lately? It's heavily segregated, and the only place I've seen much mixing is at the chip shop or curry joint.

I see what you mean. There's certainly a feeling of community that don't exist in other places but I still think the rich and the poor live very separate existences despite some proximity.

Actually, it reminds me of a "date" I had once in New York. One night I met a rich finance girl (from Craigslist!). It's a bit of a cliché, but when I left her luxurious penthouse and went back to my life, I couldn't help but think we lived in totally separate worlds!

> It's a bit of a cliché, but when I left her luxurious penthouse and saw the poor people on the street, I couldn't help but think we lived in totally separate worlds!

You still saw them though. In many places, the closest you'll come to poorer people is on a highway overpass.

Obviously the rich and poor don't have identical existences anywhere, but in New York there's a lot more commonality between the existences (everyone taking the subway, for example).

It could also be due to the fact that New Yorkers tend to walk much more than populations in other areas. My theory is that just walking a couple miles a day between subway stations is a great benefit to an aging population.

Another key element is that you have old style ethnic communities in NYC.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com