To me, much of the "too expensive" critique smacks of nostalgia, possibly mixed with resentment.

There is a tendency, when an area gets too expensive, towards corporatization and homogenization - big national chains move in and crowd much of what made an area unique and interesting out. In addition, as rents go up, establishments that cater to a narrow and higher-end set of tastes tend to push other businesses aside.

I value having a variety of entertainment experiences. Maybe I'll go to that too-cool-by-half bar and pay $12 per drink every so often, but when *every* place starts looking like that, ugh. And when I travel to a different city, I don't want to be confronted with the exact same options I have at home; otherwise, why not just stay home?

You can call all that resentment if you like, but I think it's fairly distinguishable from envy.

I think that is the argument, although I do not buy it.

Yeah, that's it. For DC, take out "finance" and replace it with "lawyers and lobbyists."

I'm going to be staying near Grand Central and am looking for a steak house within walking distance.

Sparks and the Palm are nearby and have been recommended. Thoughts?

There is a tendency, when an area gets too expensive, towards corporatization and homogenization - big national chains move in and crowd much of what made an area unique and interesting out. In addition, as rents go up, establishments that cater to a narrow and higher-end set of tastes tend to push other businesses aside.

I value having a variety of entertainment experiences. Maybe I'll go to that too-cool-by-half bar and pay $12 per drink every so often, but when *every* place starts looking like that, ugh. And when I travel to a different city, I don't want to be confronted with the exact same options I have at home; otherwise, why not just stay home?

While it's true there's less porn and drug trade in certain sections of Manhattan, the notion that there's less to do is untrue. There's a new experience there for people who don't think strung out hookers adds to the "flavor" or "diversity" of NYC. Andy may miss that, but I don't.

I'm going to be staying near Grand Central and am looking for a steak house within walking distance.

Depends on what you consider walking distance, but there's always Smith & Wollensky. 7 blocks north, one block east.

www.smithandwollensky.com

I liked San Francisco when I visited, but have a hard time seeing it ranked above Boston when half the downtown area looks like New Orleans post-Katrina. In my five days there I saw more homeless people than in a year living in Boston or Philly.

In my five days there I saw more homeless people than in a year living in Boston or Philly.

Among other questionable areas, I lived in notorious South Central LA in the year after the riots, but the only place I actually felt fear of the unknown in the middle of the day was in the Tenderloin in San Francisco.

There is a tendency, when an area gets too expensive, towards corporatization and homogenization - big national chains move in and crowd much of what made an area unique and interesting out. In addition, as rents go up, establishments that cater to a narrow and higher-end set of tastes tend to push other businesses aside.

I value having a variety of entertainment experiences. Maybe I'll go to that too-cool-by-half bar and pay $12 per drink every so often, but when *every* place starts looking like that, ugh. And when I travel to a different city, I don't want to be confronted with the exact same options I have at home; otherwise, why not just stay home?

While it's true there's less porn and drug trade in certain sections of Manhattan, the notion that there's less to do is untrue. There's a new experience there for people who don't think strung out hookers adds to the "flavor" or "diversity" of NYC. Andy may miss that, but I don't.

JC, of course there's still more "to do" in New York than anyone could ever do in a lifetime. It's still the greatest American city in all respects except cost of living, weather and traffic.

Again, it comes down to money, and you seem to wilfully ignore that, perhaps because you're satisfied to enjoy New York as a tourist (as am I). But the fact that huge numbers of people used to be able to afford to live there, but no longer can, IS a factor that diminishes the cultural vitality of a city. It is NOT a culturally neutral event when entire neighborhoods become de facto reservations for those with mid-range six figure incomes, and when most of an entire borough becomes off limits to those living on a middle class salary.

And while that doesn't affect tourists who only come and go for a week---though they're not unaffected by hotel prices---it does affect those people who have the nerve to say that they'd like to live there.

I suppose if you want to reduce this to cliches about "envy" and "class resentment," you can do that. And yeah, it's always the best of all possible worlds, and you can answer every instance of social stratification with a "so what?" But it doesn't make the facts go away.

And yes, I'll say it: The Times Square of old was, on balance, a far superior and more interesting place than the Times Square of today. And for the same reason: It was far more affordable, and hence gave more people more choices. (I'd say more bang for the buck, but...)

The addition of Metrorail and the boom downtown is gradually turning Los Angeles into somewhat of an eastern-style metropolis. Downtown L.A. will never be midtown Manhattan by any means, but the city is not the amorphous collection of suburbs it was disparaged as 20 years ago, either.

Los Angeles will be the 21st century American equivalent of what New York was in the 20th, especially with the development of U.S. cultural and population ties with Mexico, Latin America and the Pacific Rim. (NYC had the same ties to Europe in the last century, and while those connections are still strong, there's little growth.)

I'm going to be staying near Grand Central and am looking for a steak house within walking distance.

Best one in that area, by a longshot, IMO, is Wolfgang's Steakhouse at 33rd and Park (one stop down on the 6 from Grand Central, but is walking distance).

http://wolfgangssteakhouse.com/

If you don't mind taking the train down to Union Square (only 1 stop on the 4 or 5, but not walking distance), I'd also recommend Strip House. However, I haven't tried it since it changed ownership, so it might have 'regressed.'

http://www.theglaziergroup.com/restaurants/striphouse/

If you're really lazy and don't want to actually leave Grand Central, Michael Jordan's is passable.

And then if you're really just into the scenery, I've heard good things about (but never actually been to) Robert's Steakhouse in the Penthouse Club.

Smith & Wollensky is crap, IMHO, and you can get it in almost any city.

I liked San Francisco when I visited, but have a hard time seeing it ranked above Boston when half the downtown area looks like New Orleans post-Katrina. In my five days there I saw more homeless people than in a year living in Boston or Philly.

Eh, it's the West Coast, it comes with the weather ... well, that and the extremely accepting populace and accommodating administrations ... think of them as doing you a favor and keeping your homeless out of sight and mind ...

the real problem with San Francisco is all the damn San Franciscans that are living there ...

Of course, Andy's totally right. And this has nothing to do with any kind of envy. My God, I'd never in a gazillion years want to work any of the kinds of jobs those financial guys do. What's the point of having all that money when you're bored as hell 10 hours out of every day?

I suppose that's sour grapes . . .

I understand putting down Smith & Wollensky because of its growth and "so-90's" thing it has going on, but to call it crap and then recommend Michael Jordan's and the Penthouse Club?

Los Angeles will be the 21st century American equivalent of what New York was in the 20th, especially with the development of U.S. cultural and population ties with Mexico, Latin America and the Pacific Rim.

I hope you're right.

One thing I always found weird is how the US cities that are the most walkable and have the best public transportation networks also tend to have lousy winters. Meanwhile, as thT song goes, "nobody walks in L.A."

Sparks and the Palm are nearby and have been recommended. Thoughts?

Sparks is my fav. Anywhere a mafia don gets shot has to have good food.

I'd go to Sparks, because then you could say you ate at a place where a mob hit happened.

From Wikipedia:
It is the establishment where Gambino crime family boss Paul Castellano and mobster Thomas Bilotti were gunned down near its entrance before having dinner there in 1985 under the orders of John Gotti. This led to Gotti being able to take control of the Gambino family.

The addition of Metrorail and the boom downtown is gradually turning Los Angeles into somewhat of an eastern-style metropolis. Downtown L.A. will never be midtown Manhattan by any means, but the city is not the amorphous collection of suburbs it was disparaged as 20 years ago, either.

$4+ gas is going to be a much bigger factor in determining the density of downtown, reversing the exurban flight, though i suppose that depends on how quickly the next generation of vehicles come on line and what kind of energy savings they provide.

Right now, Metrorail is a curiosity for 95% of the population and the Metro Buses are something that "the poor" ride.

That's going to be a long time changing, no matter how many overpriced lofts and condos developers build near downtown ...

I understand putting down Smith & Wollensky because of it's growth and "so-90's" thing it has going on, but to call it crap and then recommend Michael Jordan's and the Penthouse Club?

- Michael Jordan's was with the caveat that it's the best steakhouse physically located inside Grand Central. Smith & Wollensky's is the same distance away from GC as Wolfgang's.

- Penthouse Club was mostly a joke. Like I said, I've never eaten there, but the fact that the place stays in business (and actually does receive better food reviews than S&W;) is a testament to the fact that a lot of business travellers would rather go somewhere they can quench both types of carnal satisfaction.

In case you didn't read, the actual recommendations were Wolfgang's and Strip House.

The problem with San Francisco is that the people that run its city government are insane. I also agree with the Katrina comment. I am loafing prior to heading down to the Moscone for a computer trade show right now and walking two blocks to get a newspaper I must have seen a dozen homeless, two people urinating and five people asked me for money. I am two blocks off Union Sq.

I visited New York in 1972 and ate at Umberto's Clam House in Little Italy where one of its most famous customers, Crazy Joe Gallo, was gunned to his death on April 7, 1972. Joe knew there was a contract on him and still came out of hiding to eat there, so I figured it had to be good. I understand Umberto's is now in a new location.

Egads, I had to correct my punctuation when I read your answer.

It's been a few years since I've been eaten at S & W, which doesn't compare to Dylan's, which I mentioned earlier. But I've been there a few times. I may have missed something due to the particular company I was with that always had my attention at S & W, but I didn't find Puck's any better.

I think I defended it out of loyalty to the girl. ;-)

What's the point of having all that money when you're bored as hell 10 hours out of every day?

My best friend is a lawyer with a big firm in Manhattan, making gobs of money, and he would be delighted if he had to work only 10 hours a day.

you might find this informative ...

http://health.usnews.com/sections/health/best-hospitals

fwiw, LA is the only city with 2 hospitals on the "honor roll", UCLA Medical and Cedars-Sinai ...

Just a small quibble with the list. New York Hospital and Columbia Presbyterian are actually completely separate hospitals, 100 blocks apart. They each have their own medical school (Cornell and Columbia respectively) and their own faculty. They merged their "business operations" as a cost saving measure.

Conversely, several of the Boston hospitals are affiliated with Harvard, so are basically branches of the same hospital despite the separate names.

It's been a few years since I've been eaten at S & W, which doesn't compare to Dylan's, which I mentioned earlier. But I've been there a few times. I may have missed something due to the particular company I was with that always had my attention at S & W, but I didn't find Puck's any better.

Wolfgang's is Wolfgang Zwiener, former headwaiter of Peter Lugar's, not Wolfgang Puck. There's actually a lawsuit going on about it right now because Zwiener is preparing to open a new steakhouse in LA, about a mile away from Spago.

I haven't tried Dylans, so I can't vouch for it one way or the other.

I'm not a fan of S&W;simply because I find the quality of the meat to be poor. I've been there 4 times, and 2 of the 4 times the meat itself was gristly and underaged, which is a cardinal sin for a steakhouse, if you ask me. I haven't been there in about 4 years now, and its reviews have improved since then, so it's possible they've turned their act around.

My best friend is a lawyer with a big firm in Manhattan, making gobs of money, and he would be delighted if he had to work only 10 hours a day.

Word.

I'd go to Sparks, because then you could say you ate at a place where a mob hit happened.

The joke for years afterward was that the specialty of the house was "Duck!".

Lassus, if you don't mind my asking, what is it that you dislike about Seattle? I'm moving there in September.

The problem with San Francisco is that the people that run its city government are insane. I also agree with the Katrina comment. I am loafing prior to heading down to the Moscone for a computer trade show right now and walking two blocks to get a newspaper I must have seen a dozen homeless, two people urinating and five people asked me for money. I am two blocks off Union Sq.

I was shocked by that last time I was in SF (maybe 4-5 yrs.).

I'm a New Yorker, Manhattan for 10 years, so I'm used to "urban" life, but I've never seen anything like SF, even in the bad old Dinkins days. Several major parks had large homeless encampments. In every subway stop I was harassed 2 or 3 times. Totally out of control. It must be scary for women, the aged, and people with small children.

I suppose if you want to reduce this to cliches about "envy" and "class resentment," you can do that. And yeah, it's always the best of all possible worlds, and you can answer every instance of social stratification with a "so what?" But it doesn't make the facts go away.

I didn't reduce it to that. I reduced it to envy and nostalgia (a worse sin). Regardless, much of Manhattan was out of the price range of many people long ago, and much of NYC is still livable for many people (as evidenced by the, you know, many people living there. The substance of your critique reduces to YOUR not being able to live there. No one has a claim to live in a particular spot. If you're middle income in NYC, making say, $250k, you can live very comfortably in S.I., in Queens, in Brooklyn, etc. This isn't 1965, it's 2010.

And in in all this complaining about the "problem", does anyone give any thought to what it's like to be those people. I have. I've been one, and yet here I am, talking to you now, intelligently in complete sentences. I now teach at a college--clearly I was worth something even then. Yet I was a homeless person. Yes, I even "harassed" people like you. It was that or starve. That or die. In your world, I apologize to you for still being alive.

And #245 is some kind of ethicist or something, isn't he?

If someone's been living in a particular spot for 30 years, than they absolutely DO have a "claim to live in a particular spot." And if $250, 000 is "middle income" in NYC . . .

Wolfgang's is Wolfgang Zwiener, former headwaiter of Peter Lugar's, not Wolfgang Puck.

Whoops. Well, in payment of this stupidity, I strongly recommend Dylan Prime downtown on Laight street.


Lassus, if you don't mind my asking, what is it that you dislike about Seattle? I'm moving there in September

Well, I'm generally moody and opinionated, so don't take it too close to subjective. And all of my opinions are from exactly 11 years ago. The things that caused my negative assessment:

1. Failing relationship. That pretty much says it all.

2. Rain. I was there from August 1996 to August 1997 and it was cloudy from September to May. As I was leaving, a native told me that it was "a bad year for rain". Well, that's great, but goodbye. The summer was gorgeous, however.

3. I didn't like the layout of the city, having lived prior to that in NY and Portland and then after in San Francisco. Everything seemed very spread out and difficult to get around to without a car.

4. Did I mention the rain? And the failing relationship?

5. Sometimes I found the attitude of the northwesterners to be trying. WE LIVE IN THE GREATEST PLACE ON EARTH SO PLEASE GO AWAY WE HATE CALIFORNIA AND NOWHERE IS AS GOOD AS HERE ONLY NOW IT SUCKS BECAUSE OF CALIFORNIA. It was a constant drumbeat.

6. I don't drink coffee and find coffeehouses annoying.


POSITIVES:

1. Lots of Ethipioan restaurants.

2. Good record stores

3. Great 24-hour bookstore with cats (Twice-Sold Tales)

4. When the weather is good, it's REALLY good.

5. Olympic penninsula

6. Good 20th-Century chorus (Esoterics)

7. I broke up with the girl.

EDIT:

8. MONORAIL!

Actually, Midwest > any other region in the country.

lol. anywhere you can live where, at certain times of the year, if you forget your hat/coat/boots you can die of exposure ... ridiculous.

liked San Francisco when I visited, but have a hard time seeing it ranked above Boston when half the downtown area looks like New Orleans post-Katrina.

??? downtown san fran is not at all like any part of new orleans. i lived in n.o. for 28 yrs prior to moving west. you don't know what you are talking about.

Meanwhile, as thT song goes, "nobody walks in L.A."

i walk to my office in the miracle mile every day. i can walk to the farmers market on 3rd and fairfax from my apt. i live almost directly across the street from the los angeles county museum of art. i can walk to over a dozen restaurants from my place.

los angeles is the most misunderstood city in america by a mile. it is too big to get one's head around, so everyone who's spent more than ten minutes there forms a stupid opinion of it that is divorced from reality. it must be the hollywood thing. you can take sf, boston and dc and tuck each of them neatly into a corner of LA, with room left over for several austins and portlands and what have you ... with better weather than ANY of them. when you get in it, and live in it, and work in it, it's immense potential for a full and exciting life becomes more apparent every day.
and like any other great city, it is expensive to live in. but also like any other great city, if you live there long enough you can find a place to live that won't beggar you, and then you can relax a little and enjoy what is on offer.

The issue is not there are problem people in SF- the issue is that the way the city runs they would rather that the homeless die on the street that force them into housing or programs that could help them. In SF large legal firms freely defend dangerous homeless people and help keep them on the street, recently helping a man with, I believe, an 80 page rap sheet. He later knifed some one.

csea - definitely the palm. probably best steak in manhattan, and old-time ny culture. though if you don't get the typical steak sides, only get tuna app...

was stunned when heston blumenthal (uk chef) for his "in search of perfection" series on steak, went to the penthouse club in nyc. i can't imagine (not having eaten steak there) that it's better than the palm, or luger's, or...well, any number of steak places in the city.

however, note that the demand for aged steaks has increased / supply decreased over the past few years.

when i worked in the city, as a techie in the financial industry, i worked 9-9 1/2 hours/day. and i knew that i had an incredibly light day compared to others in my sector/industry.

lol. anywhere you can live where, at certain times of the year, if you forget your hat/coat/boots you can die of exposure ... ridiculous.

You know, some people genuinely enjoy cold weather, or at least keeping it on the seasonal menu. I'm among them.

Regardless, I find the idea that any city's weather is "perfect" or "lousy" to be ridiculous.

I've never seen anything like SF, even in the bad old Dinkins days. Several major parks had large homeless encampments. In every subway stop I was harassed 2 or 3 times. Totally out of control. It must be scary for women, the aged, and people with small children.

another inexplicable comment about s.f. ... try getting out of downtown. the city's charms are undeniable. i've never had to worry about homeless harassment and i've been there many times. the tenderloin district is completely safe in the daytime. i concede it is not where i would want to be wandering around at night, though.

In every subway stop I was harassed 2 or 3 times. Totally out of control. It must be scary for women, the aged, and people with small children.

14 years in SF, never harrassed once on the Muni or BART.

It was 10 times worse in NYC and 20 times worse in Philly when it came to fear factor on the subway when I lived in both those towns. And I love 'em both and would live in either again.

And in in all this complaining about the "problem", does anyone give any thought to what it's like to be those people. I have. I've been one, and yet here I am, talking to you now, intelligently in complete sentences. I now teach at a college--clearly I was worth something even then. Yet I was a homeless person. Yes, I even "harassed" people like you. It was that or starve. That or die. In your world, I apologize to you for still being alive.

If you want to make the discussion about the morality of homelessness, or our recognized system of property transfer, super, but spare me the self-righteousness. The discussion was about the relative merits of cities and I questioned (and still question) what the cost of living in that city has to do with it. If you can't afford to live there, that's sad in an insignficant way, but not transparently a knock against the city or an argument in its favor. I love Spain. I love the Spanish countryside. But I cannot afford to have a home there, given a variety of circumstances. That is no knock on the Spanish countryside, however.

And, nostalgia.

I was not a "problem person," GregQ. I never broke the law, I never harmed anyone, and I'm not even more than slightly insane. The problem I have is the way everyone talks about homelessness being a problem for them, but not for the people who don't get to go home, lock the door, pull the blinds down, and forget about it. They're the ones with the problem.

I'm not self-righteous, just right. I simply can't understand the way most people seem to dismiss whole groups of people as a nuisance, like mosquitoes or something, and I bring up my example to illustrate that such people are actually people and are worth something. We would do well to remember that.

Does IFC have a full-time dedicated rep screen? I thought it was more sporadic.

Full-time? I guess I'm not sure. Seems to me they're usually playing an old movie or two. Maybe not as many as Film Forum, but the Forum plays some new releases as well.

And in in all this complaining about the "problem", does anyone give any thought to what it's like to be those people.

Of course not...after all, sometimes they had to step over someone lying on the sidewalk, and that was just the biggest pain in the ass ever.

I suppose if you want to reduce this to cliches about "envy" and "class resentment," you can do that. And yeah, it's always the best of all possible worlds, and you can answer every instance of social stratification with a "so what?" But it doesn't make the facts go away.

I didn't reduce it to that. I reduced it to envy and nostalgia (a worse sin).

IOW this IS the best of all possible worlds, and to note the fact that not all change is progress is to wallow in sin.

Regardless, much of Manhattan was out of the price range of many people long ago,

Which everyone acknowledges, and is neither here nor there. The point is the proliferation of such areas into neighborhoods that were previously afforable to the middle class.

and much of NYC is still livable for many people (as evidenced by the, you know, many people living there.

Again the meaningless rejoinder. The question is the shrinking of areas that are affordable to the non-wealthy.

The substance of your critique reduces to YOUR not being able to live there.

Uh, huh. Just me and my nostalgia for 1951. No substance at all to the facts that remain.

No one has a claim to live in a particular spot. If you're middle income in NYC, making say, $250k, you can live very comfortably in S.I., in Queens, in Brooklyn, etc. This isn't 1965, it's 2010.

"If you're middle income in NYC, making say, $250K...."

I've gotta love it when with one sentence you've demonstrated my point far better than I could have.

another inexplicable comment about s.f. ... try getting out of downtown. the city's charms are undeniable. i've never had to worry about homeless harassment and i've been there many times. the tenderloin district is completely safe in the daytime. i concede it is not where i would want to be wandering around at night, though.

I'm not saying SF is not a strikingly beautiful city, it surely is. My comment is my own experience, and I'm comparing downtown to downtown NY, at its worst. SF was worse.

In one park in a residential area, I think it was near Ft. Mason, there was a full blown homeless encampment right near the playground. Th panhandlers were numerous (I was approached more in 5 days in SF than in a typical year in NY) and agressive, much worse than NY.

The fact is that the governing class of SF is off the reservation. Their ideology completely dominates their thinking and prevents them from maintaining reasonable standards of public conduct.

"If you're middle income in NYC, making say, $250K...."

That was a joke, which you didn't get.

There is no point except your resentment and nostalgia. I never said it was the best of all possible worlds. You did, and now you assert I agree with it? ######## - DMN is right about your tendency to claim people said things they didn't say. I continue to ask what is wrong with the fact that you can't afford to live there? How has that changed the city materially?

And, if you want a ludicrous claim, it's the notion that Times Square was better when it was porn and drugs and crime ridden. If we're going to get weepy about this, let's weep as well for the victims of these crimes. Yeah, I loved NYC when tourists were getting mugged! It added to the "feel!"

If you're middle income in NYC, making say, $250k,

Holy ####.

LA is expensive. I make more money than some people I know, less money than others, but I do have a decent-sized apartment in a safe neighborhood. I hesitate to do the math to figure out how many years it would take me to make $250,000, but I'm sure it'd take more than one year or two years or three years or... (and I could go on)... and you're saying that $250,000 per year is a middle income for NYC?

Hell, my parents live comfortably in a nice suburb of Philadelphia, top of the pay scale at the private school in which they teach. Combined, I'm pretty sure they don't make $250,000 in one year. Or two years. Possibly not even three years (or more), though I may be misremembering how their school's pay scale works.

And then if you're really just into the scenery, I've heard good things about (but never actually been to) Robert's Steakhouse in the Penthouse Club.

The food is pretty good there. Prices weren't unreasonable.

I also like Primehouse (Park and 27th), BLT Prime (Park and 22nd), and Old Homestead (9th and 14th).

Haven't been to Striphouse -- it's on my list.

But all the suggestions are great, unless you are an absolute steak connoisseur (in which case you wouldn't be asking for advice on a baseball message board), you'll enjoy a great meal.

That was a joke, which you didn't get.

There is no point except your resentment and nostalgia. I never said it was the best of all possible worlds. You did, and now you assert I agree with it? ######## - DMN is right about your tendency to claim people said things they didn't say. I continue to ask what is wrong with the fact that you can't afford to live there? How has that changed the city materially?

Ah, thanks for the clarification.

Still, anyone out there who is struggling along with a $250,000 income should apparently move to LA. My apartment complex has vacancies, and I get something like $100 if someone I refer moves in.

What do you want them to do, round them up and bus them off into the woods to freeze to death, like Giuliani?

How about concentration camps?

There's no chance of . . . actually helping them, by giving them . . . I don't know . . . money? That's what one generally needs to get off the street.

Now--how does one normally get money? By working.

How does one work? By getting a job.

What does one need to get a job? A telephone number and an address.

What does a homeless person not have?

So what in hell are they supposed to do if no one will help?

In one park in a residential area, I think it was near Ft. Mason, there was a full blown homeless encampment right near the playground. Th panhandlers were numerous (I was approached more in 5 days in SF than in a typical year in NY) and agressive, much worse than NY.

no doubt that happened to you. but i submit my personal experiences in many parts of s.f. ... i have not been harassed by homeless people. and i suggest you try parts of town like the presidio, laurel heights, clement st., chrissy field, the mission district, north beach, filmore, etc. ...
true, there are lots of homeless in s.f. ... they like the weather and there does seem to be a bit of a lax attitude towards their presence by the governing authorities. somewhat regrettable. but i don't want to get drawn into that debate. i'll just say they don't seem to be the problem they are made out to be.

How about concentration camps?

Inefficient.

What do you want them to do, round them up and bus them off into the woods to freeze to death, like Giuliani?

They'll thaw in the Spring and stink to high heaven.

Or

Giuliani froze to death?

What does a homeless person not have?

The headaches associated with junkmail and telemarketing?

What are you talking about?

vaux,

The REAL problem w/ the homeless in SF is that they receive oodles of help while being virtually unaccountable for their behavior. This combo attracts homeless people from all over the state if not the whole country.

... and you're saying that $250,000 per year is a middle income for NYC?

No he's joking. Middle income for a two-earner family (basically all middle class families in Manhattan are two earners, if you want the wife to stay home with the kids, you're moving to the outer boroughs or burbs) is probably $150,000 - $200,000. NY pay scales are just different.

In the NY area, a reasonably experienced civil servant (age 35-45 with 10-15 years in) will make $70-80,000. A secretary at a big bank or law firm, probably $50-70,000. A mid-level accountant, analyst, IT person $100-150,000. Union construction $75,000+.

There are an astonishing number of people making $150-250,000 in NYC and surroundings. "Real money", i.e. rare money, kicks in above $300,000.

The fact is that the governing class of SF is off the reservation. Their ideology completely dominates their thinking and prevents them from maintaining reasonable standards of public conduct.

According to this article from last November, homeless numbers in SF were down 38% between 2002 and 2007.

In that same article, a Bush Administration official says about San Francisco's aggressive approach to solving its homeless problem:

It has served as a real model of some of the best practices in our nation, showing that you must not simply continue to manage homelessness, but you must abolish it.

Among the aggressive measures cited in the article:

Some 2,519 homeless people have been sent away from the city to live with friends or family since 2005 under the Homeward Bound bus-ticket program.

The latter highlighting one of the major sources of SF's problem over the years: cities and towns throughout Northern California have spent decades making the purchase of one-way bus tickets to the Transbay Terminal their only expenditure on local homeless services.

they like the weather and there does seem to be a bit of a lax attitude towards their presence by the governing authorities.

California: super cool to the homeless

no doubt that happened to you. but i submit my personal experiences in many parts of s.f. ... i have not been harassed by homeless people. and i suggest you try parts of town like the presidio, laurel heights, clement st., chrissy field, the mission district, north beach, filmore, etc. ...
true, there are lots of homeless in s.f. ... they like the weather and there does seem to be a bit of a lax attitude towards their presence by the governing authorities. somewhat regrettable. but i don't want to get drawn into that debate. i'll just say they don't seem to be the problem they are made out to be.

Fair enough. I'd guess our differing experiences may have to do with where we are the local and where the tourist.

I've never had any trouble in NYC, even in the bad days, though surely many have.

machemer, i've tried numerous times to get a primate bunch to a dodger game, as i often get tickets. would you be up for that?

And agree w/ phred -- it is a BIG problem downtown (as well as GGPark & the Haight) but much less an issue in other parts of town.

And the weather in the East Bay is perfect. It better be.

According to this article from last November, homeless numbers in SF were down 38% between 2002 and 2007.

I did say I was there 4-5 years ago. It seems like things have improved. Good on them.

Sparks if you prefer Sirloin or lamb chops. Wolfgang's for Porterhouse. Bobby Van's on 46th for Surf & Turf. Capital Grille for a filet. Palm for pork chops.

Lassus, if you don't mind me asking what were you doing in Idyllwild for a year? You must have jumped from the rock at Fulmer a million times during your stay. I've been camping there for 33 years and I love the place like no other, but a year straight would be a challenge. There is a relatively new restaurant (Gastronome I think) that is pretty good and might keep your interest if you make it back.

With respect to SF, I find redbird's experience atypical. My local station was the Powell station and the north entrance to that station could be scary as ####. About a month into my stay, my girlfriend and I were buying BART tickets at that station and someone, who was clearly mentally ill, came up behind her and grabbed a huge handful of her hair, yanking her head back in the process. You can imagine her excitement, and my measured response. Fortunately, she was an ADA in a neighborhing county and my stay at the local precinct was relatively short.

That said, my biggest gripe with the homeless in SF was that it was just so ####### sad. The same people, clearly mentally ill, at the same places, for years at a time. The only change would be that every six months or so, someone would shave them and give them fresh clothes and then dump them back in the same spot. It can be absolutely crushing to see. The solution - well that's above my paygrade.

machemer, i've tried numerous times to get a primate bunch to a dodger game, as i often get tickets. would you be up for that?

i'd be up for a primate meet at a dodger game ... i'm in pasadena, so it's just a gold line trip and a free shuttle ride for me (thus making dodger stadium one of the few places public transportation is an easy, cheap doorstep-to-destination trip for me)

I did say I was there 4-5 years ago. It seems like things have improved. Good on them.

Forgive me for accepting at face value your use of the present tense to describe the attitudes of the "governing class of SF."

Which everyone acknowledges, and is neither here nor there. The point is the proliferation of such areas into neighborhoods that were previously afforable to the middle class.

I just did a quick search on the NY Times web site for 2 BR apartments in Manhattan with rents between $1000 and $2000. There are 41 pages (about 400 listings). About 50 3 BR apts. in the same price range.

Granted, most of these are in upper Manhattan, which is not fashionable, but is very safe these days.

To say that Manhattan (much less the outer boroughs) is out of the reach of the middle class is just not true.

The thing is people can't live where they WANT to live in Manhattan. I'd love a 3 BDR in the West Village, but now I live in the burbs, c'est la vie.

Sparks if you prefer Sirloin or lamb chops. Wolfgang's for Porterhouse. Bobby Van's on 46th for Surf & Turf. Capital Grille for a filet. Palm for pork chops.

And Keens (36th between 5th and 6th) for mutton and history (it's 120 years old).

Lassus, if you don't mind me asking what were you doing in Idyllwild for a year?

Worked at the music and arts school, ISOMATA.

Vaux, please know that I pretty much agree with everything you've said in this thread. Especially regarding homelessness. The only thing I haven't agreed with?

That you aren't self-righteous. Leeeeeeeeeetle bit, yes. ;-)

Of course I am :)

There's no chance of . . . actually helping them, by giving them . . . I don't know . . . money?

Any expert on homelessness, including homeless rights groups, urges the public not to give cash to those begging on the street, and insists that it generally is not helping the recipient. The City and County of San Francisco has an annual budget of $186 million spent on the problem. That is nearly $50,000 annually per homeless person, using estimated counts. That is obviously not counting any of the cash handed out on the street. The problems go beyond money.

One thing we need to keep in mind is that the term "homeless" is a catch-all term for a wide population, including addicts, insane persons, those temporarily down on their luck, physically disabled, and scam artists. That is one reason the problem has been so difficult to solve.

SF Chronicle - Most homeless not actually homeless

And that being said, my heart does go out to these people, and they do need our help in various ways. I recommend assisting food shelters, donating food, jackets and blankets to shelters, and donating to agencies that give medical help to those in need before giving cash to someone on the street.

"If you're middle income in NYC, making say, $250K...."

That was a joke, which you didn't get.

The problem is that in the context of everything else you've written, it read far more like a Freudian slip. But I'm glad to see that you have at least a minimal grasp of the economic realilties of New York City.

There is no point except your resentment and nostalgia.

JC, I've lived more or less happily outside of New York City for over half a century. I don't "resent" anyone's lifestyle, and perhaps you might look yourself in the mirror when it comes to assuming what other peoples' inner thoughts are. I could just as easily reduce your views on abortion to saying that you're merely "nostalgic" for the period before Roe v. Wade, and claim that your position is based on nothing more than "nostalgia" and "resentment" towards women who don't care to bear unwanted children. And that'd be no more evasive to the substantive point about the beginnings of human life than the buzzwords that you've been repeating about my "nostalgia" are to the substance of the issue here.

IOW enough with the personal attacks. You don't need them.

I continue to ask what is wrong with the fact that you can't afford to live there? How has that changed the city materially?

Again, this isn't about me, hard as that may be for you to understand. I like my quiet street and big back yard in Kensington, and I have no personal interest in living in New York, not even if I could afford a penthouse overlooking Yankee Stadium. This is about the fact that people with working class and middle class incomes who used to be able to afford to live in New York are being pushed out by economic forces way beyond their power to control.

This isn't even a particularly political point, because you can't repeal the law of supply and demand beyond scraping around the edges. But to reduce all this to "resentment" and "envy" and "nostalgia" is nothing but evasion. Try talking to some people who remember what could be afforded in New York not that long ago and see how sanguine they are about the changes of the past 15 years.

And, if you want a ludicrous claim, it's the notion that Times Square was better when it was porn and drugs and crime ridden. If we're going to get weepy about this, let's weep as well for the victims of these crimes. Yeah, I loved NYC when tourists were getting mugged! It added to the "feel!"

JC, if all you mean by that is that it's better now than it was in the 70's and 80's, I won't argue with you all that much, because in fact it was pretty grim then. And I'll even credit two Republican mayors for doing much to improve that.

But the history of Times Square didn't begin with John Lindsay. It wasn't written in stone that crime reduction had to be accompanied by Disneyfication and Mallification. Tourists flocked happily to Times Square and lived to tell the tale long before that, while at the same time there were midtown neighborhoods that artists and actors could still live in. This isn't just a Runyon fairy tale. This was reality.

Again, all of that is gone, and there's no turning back. But it's more than simply "nostalgia" to think that this sort of diversity wasn't a far better overall state of affairs than a Times Square populated by little more than million dollar condominiums.

When I first saw that an Olive Garden opened up in Times Square, I was both appalled and mystified - who would pay all that money to travel to New York City, then eat the exact same thing in the exact same environment they could have back in suburban Kansas City?

Then I overheard some tourists talking about they had had dinner the previous night at the Olive Garden in Times Square, and how exciting that was. So go figure. I can't understand that mind-set, but it's definitely out there.

Which everyone acknowledges, and is neither here nor there. The point is the proliferation of such areas into neighborhoods that were previously afforable to the middle class.

I just did a quick search on the NY Times web site for 2 BR apartments in Manhattan with rents between $1000 and $2000. There are 41 pages (about 400 listings). About 50 3 BR apts. in the same price range.

Granted, most of these are in upper Manhattan, which is not fashionable, but is very safe these days.

To say that Manhattan (much less the outer boroughs) is out of the reach of the middle class is just not true.

The thing is people can't live where they WANT to live in Manhattan. I'd love a 3 BDR in the West Village, but now I live in the burbs, c'est la vie.

The only problem with that is that you're overlooking the domino effect. When the people who can't afford to live in lower Manhattan are forced to live in $1000-$2000 apartments in Harlem and points north rather than finding those same $1000-$2000 apartments in Chelsea or the Village, that may be but a relatively minor inconvenience for them. Having to spend an extra half hour on the subway isn't the end of the world.

Now in your next reply, kindly address the plight of those people who could formerly---but no longer---afford to live in Harlem. And points north.

When I first saw that an Olive Garden opened up in Times Square, I was both appalled and mystified - who would pay all that money to travel to New York City, then eat the exact same thing in the exact same environment they could have back in suburban Kansas City?

Then I overheard some tourists talking about they had had dinner the previous night at the Olive Garden in Times Square, and how exciting that was. So go figure. I can't understand that mind-set, but it's definitely out there.

Overheard in New York has the best take on this ever

Then I overheard some tourists talking about they had had dinner the previous night at the Olive Garden in Times Square, and how exciting that was. So go figure. I can't understand that mind-set, but it's definitely out there.

Oh, I understand this. It isn't about the Olive Garden, it's about the LOCATION of the Olive Garden. I grew up about 300 miles yet around 1200 parsecs from Manhattan, and it is exciting to do the SAME things you'd do at home BUT have them be in the middle of the sheer vertical insanity of Times Square. OF COURSE it would be better as far as we're concerned to walk the 3 avenues over to have something on 10th, but it's not necessary for the experience for a tourist.

I'm not saying SF is not a strikingly beautiful city, it surely is. My comment is my own experience, and I'm comparing downtown to downtown NY, at its worst. SF was worse.

SF (as a place to live) should not be judged by its downtown. Downtown is a little bit denser than the rest of the city but it isn't the heart of it in any way, and people that don't live or work there (like me) don't need to go there.

Downtown-to-downtown is a poor comparison for SF/NYC. NYC doesn't have as many charming, quiet, convenient neighborhoods as SF: on that count SF wins.

Please note that in my own rankings NY is #1 and SF, while probably #2, isn't anywhere near it.

I ended up going to the Times Square Olive Garden in 2006, when I was in NYC for about 5 days to close a deal.

That was the first day we were there, we were close (the Sheraton on about 48th Street) and he'd studied in Boston (he was still a young guy) and the Olive Garden had been a cheap option he'd gone to a bunch of times when in College.

We didn't go back there or to any chain restaurant during the rest of our time there.

(My personal fave, relatively cheap NY find was Saraavas on Murray Hill, where I went mid last year. The food was amazing, though I hear the place has gotten crowded of late).

Now in your next reply, kindly address the plight of those people who could formerly---but no longer---afford to live in Harlem. And points north.

Well, they move to the next ring of boroughs, and suburbs, and so on.

The fact is that NYC is a MUCH more attractive place to live than 20 years ago. People can actually raise families in the city, safety wise, and the public schools are even getting better.

That's going to raise the cost of housing, simple supply and demand. Supply is largely unable to keep up b/c of very strict zoning and approval processes. If you try to suppress that increase (i.e. rent control) you get what happened in the 60's and 70's; no new housing is built, and landlords let the housing stock decay.

Go back to the 1900-20's when NY had no rent control, little restriction on building and massive population growth through immigration. The private sector kept up with housing demands. There are stories that people used to move every year to get the 1 free month of rent on a year lease. They could b/c housing was so plentiful.

If you want cheaper housing in NY, you should favor massive rezoning (there are tons of "manufacturing" area where little-to-no manufacturing gets done) and a removal on all but basic restrictions on building.

If you want to address the plight of the working/lower middle class in this country (which is a very real problem) you're going to have to look at our trade and immigration policies, and the state of public education.

basebaal, you should email me through my btf profile and i'll put you on my list. i have a couple of primates i contact whenever i get a batch of tickets. i know i'll have tickets to a game sometime in september.

I've lived 33 of the past 41 years in New York City (in the Bronx and Manhattan, not in the perfectly nice suburbs). So, yes, I do feel a little miffed that NYC has gotten expensive way beyond the nationwide rate of inflation, and that housing costs take up a disproportionate percentage of income. I don't begrudge any bankers and lawyers the money that they earn, nor do I envy the long hours that they work. And nostalgia has nothing to do with it: it's about how I want to live now and in the future, and raise my child, and in a larger sense, I worry about New Yorkers less well off than I am and the sometimes difficult choices they will have to make. Things have changed, and the middle class is getting squeezed out of Manhattan and out of much of Brooklyn. But I cannot shrug this away because I do think this tighter squeeze on the middle class is a loss.

This doesn't mean that New York sucks. It's still one of the greatest cities in the world. But as someone who has lived on the Upper West Side since 1993, I can tell you that there are more chain stores, even in the Village, and proportionately fewer independent stores and boutiques. Why? Prices are going up, and many smaller businesses can't afford the escalating rents. Not all chain stores are bad, but many people value the sense of community and variety created by a mix of locally-owned shops.

And as Manhattan's prices aim more and more for executives and tourists, there is an impact on the city's culture. For example, more Broadway and off-Broadway shows have become of the "Mamma Mia!" type, which appeal to tourists (I know, "Cats" was a hit 20 years ago, but there are more "Cats"-quality shows now than ever) -- to this theater fan (who likes plays or at least musicals with brains), and to many theater fans, it's a loss; and even Off-Off-Broadway is kinda expensive and less interesting. And yes, there are still bargains to be found (the cheap seats at City Opera, for instance, or tickets to almost anything at Film Forum), but there are fewer bargains around.

Also, rising prices for renting/buying in New York, and encroaching gentrification, are pushing lower-earning people farther to the outer boroughs or the suburbs, and these people are disproportionately people of color. The city is taking a hit on diversity, which feeds its heterogeneous culture. It also means a less diverse tax base: if New York grows increasingly dependent on people who work in the boom-and-bust financial industry, then the city's revenues will become even more volatile. (And who knows, maybe that will reduce NYC's debt rating and make its borrowing more expensive, necessitating higher taxes -- a material effect for everyone living in New York.)

Sure, this chipping away at NYC's large and abundant culture is marginal. But it is noticeable. And it is directly related to the rising costs. I know how capitalism works, and I am not surprised by any of these changes. I am not asking for any violin music nor do I advocate socialism. I am merely reporting on things as I see them.

Re: tickets... theoretically very interested, but practical considerations may interfere (prior commitments and cost, for two). But yeah, I would love to be kept in the loop for such things.

It also means a less diverse tax base: if New York grows increasingly dependent on people who work in the boom-and-bust financial industry, then the city's revenues will become even more volatile. (And who knows, maybe that will reduce NYC's debt rating and make its borrowing more expensive, necessitating higher taxes -- a material effect for everyone living in New York.)

That ship has already sailed. NYC is COMPLETELY dependent on the financial industry and supporting sectors. It has been ever since The tax policies of the 60s-70s killed the manufacturing sector (although the trade policies of the 90s-2000s would have killed it by now anyway) as well as devastating the upstate economy.

Things have changed, and the middle class is getting squeezed out of Manhattan and out of much of Brooklyn. But I cannot shrug this away because I do think this tighter squeeze on the middle class is a loss.

I agree with your sentiments, I grew up in an old ethnic neighborhood in Queens in the 70s. Saw just enough to know what I missed, before it fell apart and everyone moved to the burbs. If I could snap my fingers and move NYC back to 1960, I'd do it, but life don't work that way.

One more point of information: Scanning the NY Times real estate listings will not necessarily give an accurate picture of the real estate situation in Manhattan. Many places listed as "2BR" apartments are cramped one-bedroom places where you must put walls around a space the size of a closet to create a "second" bedroom. Many of the "reasonably priced" rental listings are actually ads looking for a roommate who will be paying $1,500 to $2,000 per month for one bedroom within a 2BR or 3BR apartment. And many of the apartments are so far north in Manhattan, and so far from the subway, that you'd do better to live in Queens or Jersey City. (To say nothing of the apartments in bad neighborhoods where the schools suck.)

There are some very lovely suburbs near NYC that are more affordable, and I may well move to one of them. But there simply is not an abundance of cheap apartments in Manhattan. Manhattan is increasingly out of reach of large portions of the middle class.

EDIT: In response to my posts on NYC prices, a number of posters here have said, "Oh well," and stated, essentially, that one cannot halt the march of progress. True, but so what. On a site where people post 300 comments lamenting what Ted Williams might have hit had he not lost several years to military service, I think I'm allowed a comment or three lamenting the very real decline of middle class housing stock in New York.

Loren:

Your report drips with nostalgia. You only have recollections of how "Mamma Mia!" prior NY theater productions were and are now. NY theater has always catered to big hits (Grease, Cats, Mamma Mia, The Producers) but also, b/c of the off-Broadway scene, allowed a great diversity of other kinds of shows. I don't know, and you don't know aside from hunches, what the ratios of those were.

And I won't weep for evidence of fluidity in housing markets. People have been moving for decades in this country, the poorer displaced by the richer, the poorer reclaiming places the richer fled. Everything gets abstract when you guys start lamenting this: The middle class is pushed out of Brooklyn. That's not really true. The middle class (and poorer) lives in Brooklyn, just not, as Snapper said, where some people may want to live. My uncle lives in Brooklyn. His neighborhood is excellent (near Borough Park). He drives a school bus. I can assure you he's not upper class.

Things change. NY has changed for the better. Not in every way, of course, but in many many respects. You don't have to be Ron Winston to live there.

The problem with San Francisco is that the people that run its city government are insane. I also agree with the Katrina comment. I am loafing prior to heading down to the Moscone for a computer trade show right now and walking two blocks to get a newspaper I must have seen a dozen homeless, two people urinating and five people asked me for money. I am two blocks off Union Sq.

I was shocked by that last time I was in SF (maybe 4-5 yrs.).

I'm a New Yorker, Manhattan for 10 years, so I'm used to "urban" life, but I've never seen anything like SF, even in the bad old Dinkins days. Several major parks had large homeless encampments. In every subway stop I was harassed 2 or 3 times. Totally out of control. It must be scary for women, the aged, and people with small children.

I worked on 5th and Market in SF (by Powell St. BART) for a year, and then briefly at 8th and Folsom, both in the downtown area being referenced. An ex-girlfriend went to school at UC Hastings in the Tenderloin. I never had any notably bad experiences in terms of homeless people. Sure, they're there, but I think the locals just ignore them (this could be a good or bad thing, depending on your politics). Probably 10s of thousands of people work around there every day. Some streets are bit sketchy but it's not a fundamentally unsafe place.

thanks for the steak house rec's. I'm leaning towards Wolfgang's (due to the Luger connection) or the Palm--never been there and from what I've read it's a unique experience.

Is there an area restaurent anyone would recommend. We'll be near Grand Central and I don't mind walking (in fact that's still one of the great things about NYC).

When I first saw that an Olive Garden opened up in Times Square, I was both appalled and mystified - who would pay all that money to travel to New York City, then eat the exact same thing in the exact same environment they could have back in suburban Kansas City?

I come from a family that eats at those sorts of restaurants on holiday all the time. Personally, I'd rather not, but it's what we do and it probably does make sense. Here's why: My sister, brother and mother are relatively conservative eaters. I've suggest Thai, Chinese and other ethnic restaurants, but they don't really want to eat there. I've pushed for it on several occasions, but it's been clear they'd be having a worse dining experience than I would at Hard Rock, so I don't push for it. It's much easier for us to find something everyone will tolerate (burger, some pasta dish, ribs, etc...) at a chain restaurant like that than it is at some other places.

Also, my sister and mother have to eat on regimented schedules, so if we're out at some site until 6 or 7, we have to find something to eat relatively quickly. We never get restaurant recommendations ahead (which I should probably try, but don't) and thus, as fun as it wander until you find an appealing place to eat, that's not usually a feasible option for too long. It's often easy find a chain restaurant quickly, as it is often handily located near some attraction or at some central location.

As I said, it's not my choice at all. But it probably worked best our family on family trips, so I get why people do dine there.

JC:

I have a good sense of NY Theater, which is why I specifically mentioned the execrable "Cats", and "The Producers" was a fairly recent hit (and a very enjoyable show). The stats do show a drop in the number or new serious plays done on Broadway and Off-Broadway. I have no problem with hits (I liked "The Drowsy Chaperone", for instance), but with crap like "Mamma Mia!". However, YMMV.

And the lone example of your uncle, whom I wish well, does not disprove the statistics. According to Prudential Douglas Elliman, average sales prices in Manhattan rose from roughly $500,000 to roughly $1.7 million from 1998 to 2008 (and I know that "average" numbers are skewed by sales at the high end, but look at the overall trend here). This has a ripple effect on the other boroughs too. We could have bought a place in Windsor Terrace, an unfashionable part of Brooklyn, five years ago: now it would be a struggle.

Loren:

Your report drips with nostalgia.

JC, what is this thing about "nostalgia" that seems to drive you up a wall? It's about as meaningful as a Republican's cry of "elitist," and it seems to be little more than your way of not confronting the facts that Loren and I have laid out.

And when Loren writes

Things have changed, and the middle class is getting squeezed out of Manhattan and out of much of Brooklyn.

why do you leave out the "much of" in your reply?---which makes it sound as if he's saying that this is already a borough-wide phenomenon. He didn't say that at all.

And while there are still many pockets of middle class residency in Brooklyn, the question is just how long that can continue, when your school bus driving uncle passes on and either (1) his rent controlled lease runs out; or (2) the next generation of school bus drivers tries to buy his house at current market rates. To a great extent the survival of the middle class in our biggest cities---and not just New York---is based on the fact that many of the homeowners bought their houses decades ago, when housing was far more affordable.

Things change. NY has changed for the better. Not in every way, of course, but in many many respects.

No question it has---for those who can still afford it. But I guess that's just my "nostalgia" speaking.

Is there an area restaurent anyone would recommend. We'll be near Grand Central and I don't mind walking (in fact that's still one of the great things about NYC).

You'll probably need to hop on the subway or hail a cab to get to a good restaurant. There are a number of places near Grand Central that cater to the business set (hence the plethora of steakhouses), but the area is pretty devoid of nightlife in general.

That said, one of the better meals I've had within walking distance of Grand Central was Szechuan Gourmet on 39th between 5th and 6th. It's not quite as good as the authentic Szechuan places in Flushing, but it's close enough to skip the 45 minute ride on the 7 train.

It is also pretty busy since it was written up in the NY Times. The last time I was there Sarah Jessica Parker and Matthew Broderick had a table in the back.

The next 10-20 years will be very interesting. As fewer and fewer new college graduates can afford to buy houses, and the houses occupied by people now in their 60s and 70s, who bought them many years ago, go on the market, will the prices drop, or will the houses simply go vacant? I hear they've dropped slightly, but not enough to make a real difference.

It's funny--in my non-message board life, I often rail against "nostalgia." It's a nebulous concept. If there's nothing to back it up, then it's "just" nostalgia, and it's annoying. People need to be willing to admit that the way something is now is better than the way it once was, if for no other reason than that change and development are good for the mind.

But people also need to be willing to admit that the way something is now is worse than the way it once was. There is a real whistle-past-the-graveyard mentality in American life today, which is understandable; no one wants to think that his children will have a harder life than he had, or that he's having a harder life than his parents had. But facts are facts. Reasons can be speculated about and discussed endlessly, but observations are just that.

cseadog, for great Japanese fusion, i.e., more than standard sushi, try Sakagura. It's at 211 E 43rd St., between 2nd and 3rd Avenues. It's a little hard to find in that you have to walk into the lobby of a corporate office building, then down an industrial stairwell and through a corridor, but it's a real hidden gem.

EDIT: I haven't seen the episode, but am told that it was featured and raved about on Anthony Bourdain's show. Given his notorious pickiness about Asian food in general, and Japanese in particular, that's a high compliment. Also, if you're a fan of sake, you won't find a better selection in many places outside of Japan.

Sparks and the Palm are nearby and have been recommended. Thoughts?

Sparks is the best steakhouse in teh city. Period.

I would not want to live in a city without a Spitfire on public display.

Chicago has one, and a U-Boat in the same building.

There is a real whistle-past-the-graveyard mentality in American life today, which is understandable; no one wants to think that his children will have a harder life than he had, or that he's having a harder life than his parents had. But facts are facts. Reasons can be speculated about and discussed endlessly, but observations are just that.

There is a real problem you're pointing to, but you're only looking at the symptoms.

The issue is that the working/lower middle class in the U.S. has had falling real wages over the past 30 years. In my opinion (somewhat professional, I'm a training Economist but don't practice as one), globalization is the clear primary cause, with illegal immigration as a secondary factor.

Since the 1980's the world economy has added something like 2 billion workers (primarily in China and India) at very low wages, and with almost no environmental, safety or labor standards. This has devastated manufacturing employment in the U.S. How could it not?

Meanwhile, the U.S. has added 12M illegal immigrants, who have depressed wages for low skilled workers.

If we care about the distribution of income in the U.S. (which I do), we have to talk about trade policy (i.e. tariffs) and immigration restrictions. I'm very conservative, economically and socially, but have to say that the continued reduction of the standard of living for the 10th-50th %-ile of the population is bad for democracy in the U.S. The socialistic response would be devastating to economic growth.

Unfortunately, middle class (and richer) Americans like their cheap flat screens, DVD players, gardeners and nannies a little too much.

It's funny--in my non-message board life, I often rail against "nostalgia." It's a nebulous concept. If there's nothing to back it up, then it's "just" nostalgia, and it's annoying. People need to be willing to admit that the way something is now is better than the way it once was, if for no other reason than that change and development are good for the mind.

But people also need to be willing to admit that the way something is now is worse than the way it once was.

Very true on both counts. People who claim that things are "better" now, or were "better" in the past, should always be called upon to back it up with specifics: What, exactly, is "better"---or "worse"---about now, or about the past? And for whom? Who has benefitted and who has suffered, and through what effort (or fault) of their own? And to what extent is it "better" or "worse" because of our conscious policy decisions? As opposed to its being genuinely inevitable and beyond any real control. Without filling in these details, it's all just a lot of gibberish.

thanks for the steak house rec's. I'm leaning towards Wolfgang's (due to the Luger connection) or the Palm--never been there and from what I've read it's a unique experience.

Unless you absolutely have to stay in Manhattan, I'd recommend just grabbing a cab and going to Luger's. I haven't been in a couple of years, but it's always been the best of the NYC steakhouses IMO, and is well worth a visit.

I'd call ahead to Luger's, or even Sparks for that matter. Both places tend to be crowded.

Now in your next reply, kindly address the plight of those people who could formerly---but no longer---afford to live in Harlem. And points north.

That means those people have to ####### move. Just like I can't live in ####### idaho if I wanted, because I don't have the skills for one. It doesn't mean there is something wrong with Idaho, it means something is wrong with my skills.

I'd call ahead to Luger's, or even Sparks for that matter. Both places tend to be crowded.

Good point. Unless things have changed, don't expect to get a table at Luger's without reservations unless you're willing to eat really early or really late. Actually, expect to wait around a while even with reservations.

That I cannot afford to live in Manhattan doesn't bear on the great, unique time I can have in Manhattan.

To me, much of the "too expensive" critique smacks of nostalgia, possibly mixed with resentment.

The population has grown less diverse in Manhattan. Not everyone values diversity. If you like seeing bars populated by people that were made with the same cookie-cutter mold, button-down shirt types and girls dressed like they're auditioning to be extras in the new Jessica Parker vehicle, then you'll be happy there. But that isn't what drew me to the area. The influx of money means it's easier to just have a generic hip-hop DJ than it is to try something off-beat. I can still have a great time if I put some effort into seeking out interesting events, but that doesn't change the fact that there's been a demographic shift in Manhattan that has brought a cultural shift. JC might not notice it, but I don't care what a tourist thinks is a fun time in NYC. I have known a number of interesting bars that had to shut down only to be reopened as generic faux-old bars. This is a totally subjective criticism, and my issue isn't with change but with the change of that neighborhood to look like any run-of-the-mill college neighborhood near an expensive private school.

Of course, Andy's totally right. And this has nothing to do with any kind of envy. My God, I'd never in a gazillion years want to work any of the kinds of jobs those financial guys do. What's the point of having all that money when you're bored as hell 10 hours out of every day?

Yeah. The problem is when that population drives the rents up so ridiculously that it means a reorganization for the rest of the population. The rent at our place has gone up over 30% from when we moved in 3 years ago, and (in the EV) it is pretty closely linked to NYU students with parents who will write a blank check to allow their kid to live in a safe area (we were beat out on several different apts in Grammercy by students with parents who were paying their rent b/c the parents signed on to guarantee the lease). This has come along with a sharp increase both in tuition and admission standards at NYU. JC can denigrate all of these observations as "nostalgia" but there's no imagination of a past where things were better here- there's a past where things were different, and an expression of a value judgment regarding the change.

It is change that makes the place less interesting, but the type of change in particular. Since the late 1990s, Manhattan has increasingly become a playground for the rich. If you're smart and don't mind the lack of security, you can make enough of a living entertaining them to inhabit their space.

edit: this was written before the spate of posts about nostalgia in general, which is a very interesting discussion. I do a lot on technology and social reactions to it, and nostalgia figures heavily in this. In general, I'm against nostalgia for nostalgia's sake (before was always better *because* it was before). But that's not what's going on here. I'm perfectly fine with my own subjectivity.

Re: Steakhouses- My friends all swear by the Strip House on 12th and University, but I skip out on those outings. Looking for a good one for my no-longer-ABD break the bank dinner coming up, so all of these suggestions are great.

cseadog, for great Japanese fusion, i.e., more than standard sushi, try Sakagura. It's at 211 E 43rd St., between 2nd and 3rd Avenues. It's a little hard to find in that you have to walk into the lobby of a corporate office building, then down an industrial stairwell and through a corridor, but it's a real hidden gem.

I echo this recommendation, and made it somewhere earlier in the thread as well. It's not fusion though - it's honest to goodness Japanese food, just menu items you tend to see more in Japan than in the US.

I've heard great things about Wolfgang's. I think it's a safe bet.