Letting Go of Nostalgia Urbanism(granolashotgun.com)
granolashotgun.com
Letting Go of Nostalgia Urbanism
https://www.granolashotgun.com/granolashotguncom/2mvygaw3y67fx5bqrvno2lp452zifc
55 comments
> Instead, you need to run off to a dying rust-best town in Ohio
Not Ohio, but most of my serious bo-ho hipster friends went to Pittsburg or Detroit. Aging and rust-belty, but with enough actual city to also satisfy.
Not Ohio, but most of my serious bo-ho hipster friends went to Pittsburg or Detroit. Aging and rust-belty, but with enough actual city to also satisfy.
Problem is, isn't the rent in Detroit and Pittsburg actually pretty high? Esp given the downsides.
Is it? I thought there were opportunities in Detroit to buy a (terrible) house for almost nothing: https://patch.com/michigan/detroit/5-houses-you-can-pick-lit...
Not particularly, especially for the Hacker News set - Pittsburgh has one of the lowest cost of living to earnings ratios in the US for tech workers. Detroit doesn’t have as big of a tech scene, but the cost of living is lower than the national average.
Or you could buy a whole town...
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEjBDKfrqQI4TgzT9YLNT8g
The idea is quite appealing, but I think I prefer to experience Brent's journey vicariously through his Cerro Gordo videos!
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEjBDKfrqQI4TgzT9YLNT8g
The idea is quite appealing, but I think I prefer to experience Brent's journey vicariously through his Cerro Gordo videos!
You don't need to go nearly that far from NYC to find a dying rust-belt town. There are plenty in upstate NY. (Well, maybe not technically rust-belt, depending on how you prefer to define that, but they have all the meaningful properties of it.)
Berlin is going through this at the moment. From being "poor but sexy" to having everything safe, clean and nice and the rents doubled.
Artists (of any kind) don't make any money, and don't want to waste time making money when they could be making art. So they need cheap places to live. Cheap places are cheap for a reason: there's no heating, or the roof leaks, or the kitchen isn't really a kitchen, or it's miles from anywhere you'd want to go. That doesn't matter if what you really want to do is spend every waking moment creatively and around likeminded people.
Apparently Leipzig is where the artists from Berlin are moving now, because it's cheap. But who wants to live in Leipzig? It's a nothing place.
Until 20 years from now, when it'll be a cultural centre because of all the artists there... and they'll have to move on because the rents will be rising.
Artists (of any kind) don't make any money, and don't want to waste time making money when they could be making art. So they need cheap places to live. Cheap places are cheap for a reason: there's no heating, or the roof leaks, or the kitchen isn't really a kitchen, or it's miles from anywhere you'd want to go. That doesn't matter if what you really want to do is spend every waking moment creatively and around likeminded people.
Apparently Leipzig is where the artists from Berlin are moving now, because it's cheap. But who wants to live in Leipzig? It's a nothing place.
Until 20 years from now, when it'll be a cultural centre because of all the artists there... and they'll have to move on because the rents will be rising.
Athens is apparently the new cheap artsy place, at least in Europe. Leipzig had its "The Next Berlin?" moment a few years ago.
As a side note, Leipzig is also an extremely livable city with a ton of history. Definitely not a nothing place.
As a side note, Leipzig is also an extremely livable city with a ton of history. Definitely not a nothing place.
fair point. I've never been there, I just keep hearing this whenever the subject comes up ;)
Semi-related, I found this /r/soccer [1] post about the football history of Leipzig one of the best on that website.
[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/fwkfot/but_why_leip...
[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/fwkfot/but_why_leip...
> But who wants to live in Leipzig? It's a nothing place.
> Until 20 years from now, when it'll be a cultural centre
I've been to Leipzig for a festival. It had history, culture, and art for certain value of "art". It didn't seem like a nothing place.
I've been to Leipzig for a festival. It had history, culture, and art for certain value of "art". It didn't seem like a nothing place.
On the whole this is right, but over simplified - at least in my experience. I know first hand a bunch of people who lived in dumbo in manhattan 5-10 years before it became gentrified and there was a collective sense that it was just a matter of time before it became gentrified and everyone would make some money.
Artists aren't somehow totally oblivious or too high-minded to take this into consideration. It's a weird narrative that paints artists as totally separate from the system, which just isn't true
Artists aren't somehow totally oblivious or too high-minded to take this into consideration. It's a weird narrative that paints artists as totally separate from the system, which just isn't true
I think artists change from doe eyed 20 year olds to mature and cynical 30 year olds just like all of us.
If rent would be the only obstacle I believe they would move East to Hungary or Romania or any other Eastern Bloc country to pay 100-200 euros rent.
that may well happen as the East becomes more Euro-fied
I honestly don't understand this. If this is really such an easy way to make a city grow economically why aren't the artists making money off of this to fund their next move?
> don't want to waste time making money when they could be making art.
You would be making money precisely because you are spending your time making art.
> don't want to waste time making money when they could be making art.
You would be making money precisely because you are spending your time making art.
Most artists make very little money, they do art for art's sake, not because they want to make big money.
Money devalues art.
Money devalues art.
> If this is really such an easy way to make a city grow economically why aren't the artists making money off of this to fund their next move?
How would they do that?
How would they do that?
Its not by itself a way to grow anything. Artists prefer cheap places, preferably in big cities. Those are the kind of places with most potential for growth because most places in big cities are expensive and the whole mean reversal thing.
The incentives are all wrong.
My mother was a professional artist. She was contacted by a property developers who had noticed this effect and wanted to bring artists to their development so it would become gentrified. Mum explained that to do that, they would need to provide cheap (very cheap!) studio space for the artists to use. The developer did the maths and decided to just make apartments for yuppies as it was more profitable.
To make money off this, the artists would need to own the buildings they occupy, and then sell them to the incoming gentrified yuppies. After having spent the money upgrading the building, of course, because the yuppies need all the mod cons. That would involve spending attention, money and time on making money instead of art. To do this, they would need to stop being artists and become property developers.
My mother was a professional artist. She was contacted by a property developers who had noticed this effect and wanted to bring artists to their development so it would become gentrified. Mum explained that to do that, they would need to provide cheap (very cheap!) studio space for the artists to use. The developer did the maths and decided to just make apartments for yuppies as it was more profitable.
To make money off this, the artists would need to own the buildings they occupy, and then sell them to the incoming gentrified yuppies. After having spent the money upgrading the building, of course, because the yuppies need all the mod cons. That would involve spending attention, money and time on making money instead of art. To do this, they would need to stop being artists and become property developers.
If this is really such an easy way to make a city grow economically why aren't the artists making money off of this to fund their next move?
The economic benefits to the city of having a thriving art community might be diffuse enough across many people that there's no one person or group willing to pay individual artists to provide the benefit. That is, it's mostly a positive externality / public good.
You could ask the municipal government for pay for it, the way they pay for roads and other services, but then you'd have the problem of establishing some sort of worthiness standard to ensure the system isn't just being taken advantage of. The determination of such a standard, besides being possibly unrealizable, would probably undermine the creative spirit it's designed to foster.
The economic benefits to the city of having a thriving art community might be diffuse enough across many people that there's no one person or group willing to pay individual artists to provide the benefit. That is, it's mostly a positive externality / public good.
You could ask the municipal government for pay for it, the way they pay for roads and other services, but then you'd have the problem of establishing some sort of worthiness standard to ensure the system isn't just being taken advantage of. The determination of such a standard, besides being possibly unrealizable, would probably undermine the creative spirit it's designed to foster.
I actually think part of it is more to do with people with money trying to buy the experience of art and culture rather than the product itself. As a pro musician I experienced that. Wealthy people want to hang out with the band, and get access and "rough it a bit" sometimes. It does result in artists getting paid, but often it results in people buying expensive coffee while looking at art, buying a slighter nicer house near the artists...
It's hard to describe but my anecdotal first hand experience includes plenty of rich tourists hanging around the emerging cultural hubs. I sincerely think the money goes into feeling cool rather than fueling the art economy, it's the surrounding bars, restaurants and cafes (and property developers) that end up making the big money. As mentioned elsewhere - the artists end up gone, the soul of the place eventually goes, and they end up with those weird soulless expensive places that used to be poor and full of artists.
It's hard to describe but my anecdotal first hand experience includes plenty of rich tourists hanging around the emerging cultural hubs. I sincerely think the money goes into feeling cool rather than fueling the art economy, it's the surrounding bars, restaurants and cafes (and property developers) that end up making the big money. As mentioned elsewhere - the artists end up gone, the soul of the place eventually goes, and they end up with those weird soulless expensive places that used to be poor and full of artists.
> If this is really such an easy way to make a city grow economically why aren't the artists making money off of this to fund their next move?
The returns go to property owners, not workers.
Please pause for a second before saying "why don't they just buy property" and come up with possible answers to that yourself.
The returns go to property owners, not workers.
Please pause for a second before saying "why don't they just buy property" and come up with possible answers to that yourself.
The problem is likely even nastier. Usually trending art is not government sponsored, at best it's semi-legal. (Of course now some German court said recently that yes, DJing is art too, and of course electronic music is big business around the world, but venues are regularly closed, moved, harassed.)
So artists that have this kind of pull would probably have a hard time just buying a cheap warehouse and opening shop.)
So artists that have this kind of pull would probably have a hard time just buying a cheap warehouse and opening shop.)
Making art and selling art are two entirely different things.
I live in Berlin and I can explain the problem quite clearly. The issue purely is that there isn't sufficient capital here (still) to sustain the supply of art. Compared to a city like London or NYC where there is a really healthy market of art patrons.
There is a very clear divide between creatives (artist, musician, videographer, photographer, etc.) who are at the beginning of their career, and those that have achieved some success. The beginners are still trying to make their money in Berlin. The somewhat established creatives make their money outside Berlin, but use Berlin as their home base because of the cultural connections and creativity it generates.
There is a very clear divide between creatives (artist, musician, videographer, photographer, etc.) who are at the beginning of their career, and those that have achieved some success. The beginners are still trying to make their money in Berlin. The somewhat established creatives make their money outside Berlin, but use Berlin as their home base because of the cultural connections and creativity it generates.
I disagree. There was less capital and more art. Now there is more capital and less art. Adding more capital does not create more art. It creates a tiny subset of commercially successful artists. Not the same thing at all.
A lot of this results from an underlying consumerism, I think. The notion that you can buy anything, whether that be coolness, meaning, social standing, or artistic skill. You can be anything you want, and you only need to buy something to get there. Hence the hipster concept, which is fundamentally about representation and not being. The life that Kerouac lived, for example, would make most contemporary upper-middle-class hipsters shudder in horror.
I recommend an old anthology for similar stories to this one called On Bohemia: The Code of the Self-Exiled.
I recommend an old anthology for similar stories to this one called On Bohemia: The Code of the Self-Exiled.
I think it’s more an inevitable consequence of technology and efficiency gains. As more information is easily available, there are fewer arbitrage opportunities.
For example, the reader that asked the article’s author:
>A reader reached out to me with a query. He and his wife and three daughters are in search of “a slower, more nature and community bound life, but without leaving behind people who read books, et cetera. I'm forever looking for where Henry Miller's Big Sur is today, or Provincetown, or even the Upper West Side of 1960, or the San Francisco of the early 90s. We have some money, but we don't want to be around people who are money driven.”
Everyone else is looking for that too. And since it’s easier to find those places (or was) they get bid up as all things do with lots of demand and relatively low supply.
For example, the reader that asked the article’s author:
>A reader reached out to me with a query. He and his wife and three daughters are in search of “a slower, more nature and community bound life, but without leaving behind people who read books, et cetera. I'm forever looking for where Henry Miller's Big Sur is today, or Provincetown, or even the Upper West Side of 1960, or the San Francisco of the early 90s. We have some money, but we don't want to be around people who are money driven.”
Everyone else is looking for that too. And since it’s easier to find those places (or was) they get bid up as all things do with lots of demand and relatively low supply.
>Everyone else is looking for that too. And since it’s easier to find those places (or was) they get bid up as all things do with lots of demand and relatively low supply.
These people want the benefits of insanity with none of the drawbacks. If they were to meet any of the great artists they think were great they would try and cancel them for being *ist. This is first hand experience, I ran an artists commune after I dropped out from my phd for about a year.
These people want the benefits of insanity with none of the drawbacks. If they were to meet any of the great artists they think were great they would try and cancel them for being *ist. This is first hand experience, I ran an artists commune after I dropped out from my phd for about a year.
I don’t think that’s the case at all. None of those places were actually difficult or expensive to make and could easily be replicated today. The difference is that today, there is an army of hipsters with disposable income ready to buy their way into the ‘cool’ subculture. The rich kids of 1980 weren’t eager to live in an abandoned warehouse, whereas today they’ll gladly do so - provided that it’s remodeled into a comfortable condo.
It's theme park Bohemianism.
Real Bohemianism means hanging out with drug dealers, prostitutes, pimps, alcoholics and junkies, people with mental health issues, gallery owners, critics, and other undesirables.
Some of them may happen to make art. But if you want "safe" - a bit of culture but not too much - Bohemia is not for you.
Real Bohemianism means hanging out with drug dealers, prostitutes, pimps, alcoholics and junkies, people with mental health issues, gallery owners, critics, and other undesirables.
Some of them may happen to make art. But if you want "safe" - a bit of culture but not too much - Bohemia is not for you.
Great article, thanks for sharing. But I think this misses the mark a bit. I agree with the general point that the folks who think they want to live in 1960s New York wouldn't be caught dead in the most similar places that exist today, but obviously that's not really what they're asking for. They're wondering why every safe, walkable urban neighborhood seems to be gentrified to the point of being unaffordable to all but the top decile or so. Even if neighborhoods like that have never existed in the past (aren't cities today safer than they've ever been?), it doesn't seem like that should be an unattainable goal, but they seem to be rare if not nonexistent.
As an aside, there are probably classist elements to what they're asking for but it's not just a class thing. Since taking a fully remote job I've seriously considered moving back to my hometown, where I could get a 3BR detached house for <$150k within a couple blocks of an intact downtown, but I keep remembering that this [0] (recorded 3 miles away) is representative of the people who would be my neighbors there. "Classist" is adjacent to the right term for my attitude here but it's not quite right.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4Zdx97A63s
As an aside, there are probably classist elements to what they're asking for but it's not just a class thing. Since taking a fully remote job I've seriously considered moving back to my hometown, where I could get a 3BR detached house for <$150k within a couple blocks of an intact downtown, but I keep remembering that this [0] (recorded 3 miles away) is representative of the people who would be my neighbors there. "Classist" is adjacent to the right term for my attitude here but it's not quite right.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4Zdx97A63s
> safe, walkable urban
"Walkable" is an incredibly loaded term. It has evolved to mean "convenient" rather than "has sidewalks".
Struggling creatives don't usually live in neighborhoods that are safe or "walkable", though they may be urban and have sidewalks.
"Walkable" is an incredibly loaded term. It has evolved to mean "convenient" rather than "has sidewalks".
Struggling creatives don't usually live in neighborhoods that are safe or "walkable", though they may be urban and have sidewalks.
“Walkable” has never meant “has sidewalks.” It means the neighborhood’s denizens can reasonably walk to meet their day-to-day necessities. It has always meant that.
This seems like a bizarre argument, surely it's an "and". Sidewalks are a necessary but not sufficient condition for walkability.
They really aren't. Sufficiently slow traffic (or none at all) will render streets walkable. Prioritizing pedestrian use over vehicle use is what creates walkability.
In the US you tend to find this in places that were built before cars but with sufficiently high property values that rearranging the buildings to widen the streets doesn't make sense. See parts of Boston for example. The places that are both old and wealthy tend to have streets that are pretty much local access only through size alone.
In the US you tend to find this in places that were built before cars but with sufficiently high property values that rearranging the buildings to widen the streets doesn't make sense. See parts of Boston for example. The places that are both old and wealthy tend to have streets that are pretty much local access only through size alone.
In a dense enough place with narrow streets you can just walk on the road. A lot of old towns are like this.
In montreal there is an extensive system of back lanes, and I did a lot of my walking there, no sidewalks. The lanes were shared by cars but they were slow and infrequent.
In montreal there is an extensive system of back lanes, and I did a lot of my walking there, no sidewalks. The lanes were shared by cars but they were slow and infrequent.
Residential neighborhoods in the Tokyo metro area are generally walkable but have very few sidewalks.
> “Walkable” has never meant “has sidewalks.”
Nonsense. Interstate Highway 90 is quite unwalkable due to its lack of sidewalks.
Nonsense. Interstate Highway 90 is quite unwalkable due to its lack of sidewalks.
And if it had sidewalks it still wouldn't mean "[that] the neighborhood’s denizens can reasonably walk to meet their day-to-day necessities". (And in reverse, an interstate without sidewalks can be part of a walkable neighborhood if other infrastructure compensates for it)
> ... still wouldn't be a walkable neighborhood
You clearly have not seen some of the highway interchanges in Olympia, WA.
They aren't just neighborhoods, they're whole towns. Of tents. Walkable, but surely not safe.
;)
You clearly have not seen some of the highway interchanges in Olympia, WA.
They aren't just neighborhoods, they're whole towns. Of tents. Walkable, but surely not safe.
;)
>"Classist" is adjacent to the right term for my attitude here but its not quite right.
Conflict of belief systems or maybe anomie?
Conflict of belief systems or maybe anomie?
I like the finish to this article -- a call to action (rather than to discovery). Reminds me of an old quote, attributed to Henry Ford: "Most people don't recognize opportunity because it's dressed up in overalls and looks like work."
Great post - but they are 'not the good old days' today in terms of affordability in most places.
Gentrification is not so bad, but hypergentrification is.
There is a new form of 'Globalist/Consumerist' gentrification and suburban building that is straight up 'bad' - there is no local anything, just miles of materially 'ok' people working for large corps, driving the same cars.
There are no accents, cuisine, no weird characters, no un-PC opinions, and there's nowhere to walk.
There is a huge missing ingredient in 'urban planning' that we have not put our finger on, and it's related to commodification of culture, particularly in North America.
The Europeans (and others) haven't so much 'figured it out' so much as 'already had it' and are careful to adapt new-tech, even tossing it in retrospect (dumping cars downtown).
Finally: Montreal. It's fairly affordable (super cheap in USD), authentic, cool, there is more going on here in the summer than any American city except NY (even LA) and that's saying a lot. Quebec speaks French and is protected from a lot of the US culture wars as there's no hyper-scrutiny of some things here.
There are many interesting places in the US as well, but probably not so many big ones.
Gentrification is not so bad, but hypergentrification is.
There is a new form of 'Globalist/Consumerist' gentrification and suburban building that is straight up 'bad' - there is no local anything, just miles of materially 'ok' people working for large corps, driving the same cars.
There are no accents, cuisine, no weird characters, no un-PC opinions, and there's nowhere to walk.
There is a huge missing ingredient in 'urban planning' that we have not put our finger on, and it's related to commodification of culture, particularly in North America.
The Europeans (and others) haven't so much 'figured it out' so much as 'already had it' and are careful to adapt new-tech, even tossing it in retrospect (dumping cars downtown).
Finally: Montreal. It's fairly affordable (super cheap in USD), authentic, cool, there is more going on here in the summer than any American city except NY (even LA) and that's saying a lot. Quebec speaks French and is protected from a lot of the US culture wars as there's no hyper-scrutiny of some things here.
There are many interesting places in the US as well, but probably not so many big ones.
For those wannabe Bohemians i recommend to simply buy a ticket to the czech republic.
It's the gentrification cycle, and it's been going on for decades (perhaps centuries.) It's just now getting to smaller mid-sized cities in the US.
- Some part of $City is a dirty, smelly, claustrophobic place, no one wants to live there so rents are low.
-> Low wage service workers, underserved/oppressed communities, and other "undesirables" move there because they have no where else to go, and form their own community.
-> Artists, actors, students, and others with no money move there because of low rents, and the area become "quirky" and "authentic" (ignoring, of course, the community culture that already lives there.)
-> Patrons of artists and actors like to live among artists and actors so also move to the area (or adjacent surroundings.)
-> Some of those patrons start up businesses to serve the low-rent community (the ubiquitous "coffee shop", bookstore, or gallery.)
-> The area becomes a center for art and creativity, and new amenities draw more people.
-> Middle income people start to move in, bringing demand for services and more amenities, but specifically the ones they are used to from elsewhere, not the unique "quirky" ones that made the area interesting to begin with. (Right around here is the part of the cycle where the city council and police start receiving more complaints than in the past, and usually complaints directed at the community which was there first.)
-> Developers start to take notice, buying land and increasing property values, building cheaply constructed luxury "slums" but charging sky high prices due to desirable location and access to amenities.
-> As property values go up, so does rent, forcing out first the low wage service workers, underserved/oppressed communities, and other "undesirables", and then the artists/actors/students/etc.
-> The area starts to lose what made it "quirky" and "authentic" to begin with, as the coffee shops are replaced with Starbucks, ethnic restaurants are replaced with chain restaurants, and little theaters and galleries can't afford rent anymore. It become sterile and Disney-fied.
And while all this is happening, newcomer residents are demanding that the city & police do something about all the growing homeless and addiction problems brought on by the people who can no longer afford to live there being forced out of their homes.
- Some part of $City is a dirty, smelly, claustrophobic place, no one wants to live there so rents are low.
-> Low wage service workers, underserved/oppressed communities, and other "undesirables" move there because they have no where else to go, and form their own community.
-> Artists, actors, students, and others with no money move there because of low rents, and the area become "quirky" and "authentic" (ignoring, of course, the community culture that already lives there.)
-> Patrons of artists and actors like to live among artists and actors so also move to the area (or adjacent surroundings.)
-> Some of those patrons start up businesses to serve the low-rent community (the ubiquitous "coffee shop", bookstore, or gallery.)
-> The area becomes a center for art and creativity, and new amenities draw more people.
-> Middle income people start to move in, bringing demand for services and more amenities, but specifically the ones they are used to from elsewhere, not the unique "quirky" ones that made the area interesting to begin with. (Right around here is the part of the cycle where the city council and police start receiving more complaints than in the past, and usually complaints directed at the community which was there first.)
-> Developers start to take notice, buying land and increasing property values, building cheaply constructed luxury "slums" but charging sky high prices due to desirable location and access to amenities.
-> As property values go up, so does rent, forcing out first the low wage service workers, underserved/oppressed communities, and other "undesirables", and then the artists/actors/students/etc.
-> The area starts to lose what made it "quirky" and "authentic" to begin with, as the coffee shops are replaced with Starbucks, ethnic restaurants are replaced with chain restaurants, and little theaters and galleries can't afford rent anymore. It become sterile and Disney-fied.
And while all this is happening, newcomer residents are demanding that the city & police do something about all the growing homeless and addiction problems brought on by the people who can no longer afford to live there being forced out of their homes.
This about covers it. There really isnt any more to add
I lived on the west side of Chicago in the late 80s and in Pilsen in the early 90s. They were a blend of ethnic neighborhoods, Italian in the former and artists colonies supported by open spaces rented cheaply by the Pomodjarskeys (sp?) in the 90s.
They were interstitial spaces true to the Gibsonian form, small ethnic enclaves, industrial wastelands bereft of industry from the 70s onward, that afforded a isolated née desolated place to live. The areas attracted artistic types, ravers, communes and the sense of existing, living in luminal states where structures of power, churches, local government, economic development were strangely absent from the population of oddballs and irregular who could rent a 4,000 square foot loft in a former printing plant for $1,000 a month. No social services, grocery stores, schools or other symbolic anchors of traditional communities were present. The artists were a community but bereft and ignored by social services, forcing them to create their own. A kind of anti-commune abandoned by late-stage capitalism where individual expression, art and music could take root and fester.
A Bohemia in a sense of those young and old, who fell outside most normative rules of life in order to pursue their own ideal for living.
It existed than and as I drive the Chicago streets of those areas today I sadly realize that happenstance of time and place is gone. Replaced mostly by money. The eviction of the first wave of, let’s not call them gentrifiers, by the commercial gentrifiers seeking to exploit underpriced buildings by boutiques and the final corporate invasion of the Starbucks and potbelly sandwich shop who out performed the local indigenous businesses.
It was money and class, not race or anti-bohemian forces which decimated those areas. The neighborhood micro cultures could not compete with $300,000 condo lofts and so it was no more.
Places like this have been eradicated nationwide by the flow of money in lieu of culture and money wins.
They were interstitial spaces true to the Gibsonian form, small ethnic enclaves, industrial wastelands bereft of industry from the 70s onward, that afforded a isolated née desolated place to live. The areas attracted artistic types, ravers, communes and the sense of existing, living in luminal states where structures of power, churches, local government, economic development were strangely absent from the population of oddballs and irregular who could rent a 4,000 square foot loft in a former printing plant for $1,000 a month. No social services, grocery stores, schools or other symbolic anchors of traditional communities were present. The artists were a community but bereft and ignored by social services, forcing them to create their own. A kind of anti-commune abandoned by late-stage capitalism where individual expression, art and music could take root and fester.
A Bohemia in a sense of those young and old, who fell outside most normative rules of life in order to pursue their own ideal for living.
It existed than and as I drive the Chicago streets of those areas today I sadly realize that happenstance of time and place is gone. Replaced mostly by money. The eviction of the first wave of, let’s not call them gentrifiers, by the commercial gentrifiers seeking to exploit underpriced buildings by boutiques and the final corporate invasion of the Starbucks and potbelly sandwich shop who out performed the local indigenous businesses.
It was money and class, not race or anti-bohemian forces which decimated those areas. The neighborhood micro cultures could not compete with $300,000 condo lofts and so it was no more.
Places like this have been eradicated nationwide by the flow of money in lieu of culture and money wins.
Bohemians must be peripatetic. Just when you have a nest all set up in the wainscoting, it's time to scurry along to the next:
“We must be as stealthy as rats in the wainscoting of their society. It was easier in the old days, of course, and society had more rats when the rules were looser, just as old wooden buildings have more rats than concrete buildings. But there are rats in the building now as well. Now that society is all ferrocrete and stainless steel there are fewer gaps in the joints. It takes a very smart rat indeed to find these openings. Only a stainless steel rat can be at home in this environment...”
“We must be as stealthy as rats in the wainscoting of their society. It was easier in the old days, of course, and society had more rats when the rules were looser, just as old wooden buildings have more rats than concrete buildings. But there are rats in the building now as well. Now that society is all ferrocrete and stainless steel there are fewer gaps in the joints. It takes a very smart rat indeed to find these openings. Only a stainless steel rat can be at home in this environment...”
What an excellent piece.
I think the discussion is missing something though. It is hard to form an artistic community in the middle of nowhere, since many artists work best in a community of collaborators. Is it realistic to move somewhere and expect others to follow? I still think what is required is a cheap urban center. Unfortunately, these are getting increasingly hard to find in the developed world.
I think the discussion is missing something though. It is hard to form an artistic community in the middle of nowhere, since many artists work best in a community of collaborators. Is it realistic to move somewhere and expect others to follow? I still think what is required is a cheap urban center. Unfortunately, these are getting increasingly hard to find in the developed world.
The article makes it sound like there's nothing except:
- gentrified and unaffordable
- derelict post industrial with leaky roofs
- middle of nowhere
That may be the case but it makes me curious why this is so.
- gentrified and unaffordable
- derelict post industrial with leaky roofs
- middle of nowhere
That may be the case but it makes me curious why this is so.
>>curious why this is so.
I think because real estate investors have enough capital to take over cool areas.
A stark counterexample is Japan where you can own a freestanding house in a dense urban environment near public transit for $300k -- what would that cost you in London, NYC, Berlin? It seems like Japan is one of the few major cities where you could have a large family (or large studio) and live an urban life -- everywhere else you are stuck with a 2BR or 3BR apt (if your rich).
How an Average Family in Tokyo Can Buy a New Home https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGbC5j4pG9w
I think because real estate investors have enough capital to take over cool areas.
A stark counterexample is Japan where you can own a freestanding house in a dense urban environment near public transit for $300k -- what would that cost you in London, NYC, Berlin? It seems like Japan is one of the few major cities where you could have a large family (or large studio) and live an urban life -- everywhere else you are stuck with a 2BR or 3BR apt (if your rich).
How an Average Family in Tokyo Can Buy a New Home https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGbC5j4pG9w
>Her bedroom was exactly the size of her mattress since the partition walls had been installed for maximum efficiency. The bedroom door opened outward toward the corridor and she would just fall in on the bed and hang her possessions on hooks like a boat. This was the version of urban loft living that never made it to the pages of Architectural Digest.
My own experience living in a pre-renovation light industrial warehouse: damp, mildew with a side of asbestos roofing, constantly leaking and flooding when there was a storm, illegal heavy metal dumping and illegally wired off the three phase substation, water someone had forgotten to turn off and an electric boiler that would heat water faster than you could use it. The most interesting night was scaring off some skinheads with a crow bar that had a rag set on fire on the end, and a lot of screaming.
It was Victorian brick that sold for $1.3m 15 years later.
My own experience living in a pre-renovation light industrial warehouse: damp, mildew with a side of asbestos roofing, constantly leaking and flooding when there was a storm, illegal heavy metal dumping and illegally wired off the three phase substation, water someone had forgotten to turn off and an electric boiler that would heat water faster than you could use it. The most interesting night was scaring off some skinheads with a crow bar that had a rag set on fire on the end, and a lot of screaming.
It was Victorian brick that sold for $1.3m 15 years later.
Of course my interests are not neutral here. I'm from a place like this, and after a decade of urban living I decided to move back. It's not trendy or sexy, but I encourage people to give it a try.