Get over yourselves already
From today's AM New York -
I'm sick of the denizens of Billyburg thinking their little enclave is some sort of bastion of cultural relevance and that any invasion of a national franchise is somehow detrimental to the very fabric of the neighborhood. First of all, Williamsburg lost any semblance of being hip and arty once the mainstream media picked up on this story like eight years ago. Secondly, I fail to see how the installation of a Subway or McDonald's is so devastating that people are wasting time protesting. When will stupid hippies realize that no organized protest has ever done anything ever? Go paint a picture or crap out a shitty poem.
In the story, "Billyburg resists 'McBurg'," resident Eve Sibley is quoted as saying "The old neighborhood and what it stands for is going to be lost." What it stands for? It stands for laughingstock of New York City because you people take this shit way too seriously. Honestly, how the fuck is your daily life going to be impacted by a chain store?
The fact that anyone can be appalled by these potential developments is beyond me. It's a natural progression of things. Once a neighborhood formerly thought to be uninhabitable becomes gentrified and popular why wouldn't national businesses look to cash in? If you really have a problem with it, then don't go to Subway. Protest by not spending your money there. Surely no true Billyburger would deign to set foot in such a capitalistic citadel.
If the folks in Williamsburg are really looking for someone to blame, hassle the trust-fund babies who made your 'hood trendy in the first place by driving up the property value.
posted by CT at 7:49 AM
13 Comments:
Blow ME
you say that protesting never accomplishes anything, but there are places where it has worked- woodstock, new york comes to mind. not a single chain store in the whole place (except for one supermarket), and yet it's still full of rich snobby artist types, not so much different than williamsburg. every time a chain tries to come in, people protest the shit out of it and it goes away. recently, cvs tried to set up shop on the edge of town and people literally took to the streets to keep it from happening. and it worked. moral of the story: if there really was a true neighborhood fabric in williamsburg, it would either a) survive chains, or b) be strong enough to repel them. the fact that it is neither proves that the majority of people who live there don't give a shit about "character" or whatever, and the paper just found a few extremist nutjobs to quote and make it sound like people in general care about something, when in reality they do not.
--t
Sorry Larry, I must attribute your fiery comments on the post to having been raised in Stuy Town, in the center of Manhattan. If you've never lived in Brooklyn, or in a small "up and coming" 'hood, then you really don't know what it feels like to have your favorite no-name coffee shop or a small VHS-only video store be replaced by a good-for-nothing bum-attracting Subway. I was raised in Parkslope and Williamsburg and I've seen both neighborhoods be transformed to Radioshack/Subway infested overly trendy pieces of crap. It's a Brooklyn thing...
-Josina
josie, you speak as though your old neighborhoods were "invaded" by outside forces, against the will of the people who lived there. but it's the fault of the residents for shopping at these places. if nobody bought sandwiches at the new subway, you better believe it would be gone in a month, never to return. chain stores like radio shack succeed in up-and-coming neighborhoods because the people who live there shop at these places.
i'll agree with you that it's sad to see quirky neighborhoods become trendy and mainstream. i also grew up in park slope, way before it was "nice", and i don't even recognize it when i go back now. but you can't blame national corporations for robbing a neighborhood of its identity. if people weren't so ready and willing to save 20 cents on their sandwiches by going to subway instead of the local sandwich shop, they'd get to keep their oddball mom and pop businesses. lay the blame in the right place.
in the grand scheme of things, how does one stop gentrification? you can't really keep yuppies from moving in, because that would be discrimination by class- low-income housing is one thing, but you can't legislate against, say, people with salaries over 60k moving into williamsburg. that's not america. so the question becomes, how does an increasingly affluent neighborhood preserve the character of its businesses?
there are two routes- one is simply not shopping at any new chain that tries to take hold in the area. any business without customers will fail and fail fast, and other businesses will be hesitant to enter the market. but this is difficult to implement- the motivation for any one person not to save a buck or two is small ("one person doesn't make a difference"), so this method, while theoretically feasible, will fail in reality.
the other option is legislation. woodstock has succeeded in preserving its character by setting up zoning laws that require approval from the town's board for any new business permit, and that board is decidedly anti-chain. this has worked. the board is so intent on preserving the character of the town, in fact, that verizon can't even build a cell phone tower within a reasonable distance, and everyone there gets shoddy service. just because towers are big and unsightly. all in the name of character.
what's the solution for williamsburg? there isn't one. it's going to get nicer and trendier because that's what the people there want. you, as a young person, have an attachment to your childhood and the memories aroused by the old businesses. but you are obviously in the minority. the majority of the people there want their property values to go up so that they can be financially comfortable. they don't give a rat's ass whether it's mom's pizza or domino's on the corner if they can retire a decade earlier than they'd planned. how can you blame them? furthermore, how can you put your sentimental attachment to a bygone era over someone else's well-being?
there is a place for aesthetics in this world, but we can't stop time.
T, do you have a blog? I'd like to subscribe to your brain.
He doesn't, but we've been begging him to do one for months.
Haha, what an essay! T, I definitely agree with you that gentrification and the "invasion" of Subway are a necessary evil for areas such as Parkslope and Williamsburg...but it doesn't mean I have to welcome them with open arms. Of course I will shop at and support the new Subway and Tasti-D, for simple lack of funds. But walking down Bedford simply won't be the same. Everytime I come back from school, theres a new mainstream store - it's just something I have to accept.
Also, I grew up in Parkslope and contrary to your statement that you lived there "before it was nice," I would argue that it was significantly "nicer" before what I believe to be the "invasion." That's kind of the whole point. It's not the same as, say, the gentrification of LES, where retailers such as Starbucks and McDonalds MUST come in, merely to compete with the rest of Manhattan and hold its own. Brooklyn doesn't NEED them, and that's where the discrepency lies.
-Josina
I think T most likely covered this point (I started reading it but then realized I'd likely die of natural causes before finishing it) but I would say this --
1. Larry you're an idiot for your comment about protests never accomplishing anything; but much more importantly --
2. See folks, the way the free market works is that Subway wants to move to Williamsburg because their market research indicates that there is a profitable customer base for their sandwiches in the location in question. If Subway determined that the location would be unprofitable, they wouldn't move there (duh).
What often happens in free markets is that people vote with their wallets. If Subway moves in and no one wants it there, it will shut down. The hipsters will win. If, on the other hand, it succeeds, the hipsters will be proven wrong. If they are so confident that they speak for all of Williamsburg, I don't see why they shouldn't have the confidence to watch as Subway moves in and shuts down shortly thereafter.
This argument doesn't apply to ALL chain stores because there are extenuating circumstances. Wal Mart, for example, takes up a huge amount of real estate and is abusive to its employees. Subway takes up a 50 square foot storefront and employees maybe half a dozen folks. Not exactly an evil empire, I'd say.
I like Cowboy's idea of subscribing to T's brain. That'd be one hell of an RSS feed.
Protest-shmotest. I've never even been to Williamsburg, but I agree these people sound like idiots. I put protestors in pretty much the same category as the ACLU.
Go Subway! Go Walmart!
devil's avocado: I generally agree on the vote with wallets/hipsters don't speak for the whole community thing, but when neighborhoods become fashionable, property values go up as do rents.
Then, mom & pop businesses who were doing okay before either have to raise prices or get priced out. National chains can afford to pay higher rent, even take some losses. Mom & pops can't.
Not saying it's wrong necessarily, but it's never a simple matter of "If you don't like it, don't shop there."
In any case, Subway's okay except for the shit sandwiches and treating franchisees like crap.
Isn't it the height of irony when young "quirky" hipsters infiltrate a formerly "uninhabitable" (er-except by the original residents) neighborhood--get their new territory set up all nice and artsy but not too commercial (custom blended just like their lattes) and then bitch and moan when the property values go up and their fave little cafes that opened just for them go belly up. Stinking spoiled little hypocrites.
http://www.williamsburgwarriors.org/subway.html
Post a Comment
<< Home