Replies

As I said on the post earlier today, notwithstanding that the writer is focused on western cities, at the end of the article he seems to be rolling all cities into one big ball of wax. On that front, I'm afraid the writer doesn't get out much.

To be sure, reports out of SanFran aren't good. I've never been to Denver, but, OK...maybe legalization hasn't been good for that city.

But many of the larger cities which I've visited recently, including Manhattan, Chicago, and Anaheim, don't look like war zones. Every city has it's bad area, and to be sure DeBlasio has overseen a general decline in NYC vs prior years. But NYC remains WAY better than it did in the 1970s/1980s.

I worked in Manhattan for a long time found it NOT to be the hellhole many outside of NYC consider it to be. To be sure, you have lots of radicals and statists and similar types who make MSNBC seems like Deplorables. And for every improvement you see on 42nd Street, Bryant Park, and even Hell's Kitchen, there remain nasty areas that NOBODY would want to frequent.

That said, I've found Deplorables in NYC to be very strong, good people. The Churches are fantastic (and very traditional if you know where to look), the food is great, businesses are innovative, the music scene is pretty strong, and the scenery can be breathtaking.

City living may not be a Deplorables' cup of tea, but to paint with a broad brush (thank you, mouske!) like this guy does toward the end of the article hurts his claim and his cause.

Yes, you’re right about NYC. If you look at some of the John Cassevettes films of the 60s shot in NYC (like Husbands) you really see a decline. Even in the 70s it didn’t look as bad as that! I never understand what people are talking about when they discuss NYC as a “hellhole.” And Chicago - the same thing. What people are thinking of is the inner city, the ghetto. Or, they are thinking of Times Square in summer after tourists have completely trashed the place.