SoHa 118 Nears Completion
Ed. note: The following article ran in the NY Times. A regular reader of U.F. submitted it as a tip. The article basically juxtaposes the scandalous history of 8th Avenue and the new luxury high rise set to open on “the avenue.”
It wasn’t long ago that if someone who lived downtown mentioned needing to make a trip to the corner of Frederick Douglass Boulevard and 118th Street, you could assume they were not making the trip to buy groceries. For one thing, there were no grocery stores around there.
Until recently, Frederick Douglass Boulevard, sometimes called Eighth Avenue, had been one of the centers of Harlem’s heroin trade since at least the late 1940s.
To read the whole article click on City Room
Add to Google
I would like to know what is going in to the retail spots on the ground level in these buildings, and I am keeping my fingers crossed that it is something better than banks.
So what if it is a thinly veiled advertisement, or thickly for that matter, why are you bothered? Why not rejoice more print type is devoted to Harlem?
You sound like the crowd that’s complaining about Harlem gentrification in general.
Thinly veiled advertisement is nothing new, done all the time, why are you mad? Harlem Vintage has been on the receiving end of such articles, as have many Harlem business entities, this is nothing new.
I suspect if the article was on a Black Harlem business, but really a thinly veiled advertisement, you would have no problem with it. B Braxton, Harlem Vintage, Harlem Lanes etc. you would not pipe up. They’ve all received the same thinly veiled advertisement in the NYT. However this business entity receiving it somehow disturbs you.
I’ve learned many Blacks are not consistent, and have a double standard in viewing things, such is the case in this thread.
Sorry #3, but attacking another poster doesn’t take away from the fact that the article is nothing more than a thinly veiled advertisement for the Soha and for whatever other new developments in the neighborhood are currently ongoing. Just like the rest of the articles in the City or Real Estate sections, this article wasn’t printed to benefit Times readers worldwide: it’s for locals.
Ha…Anonymous. You’ve made my point for me. It is precisely the fact ,that a lot of the people reading the article are not from harlem, that makes the argument for a more in-depth analysis. I’m not talking volumes. Just 3-4 sentences that put things into context. It’s Narrative Writing 101. Read the article. It leaves off on 1984 with the heroin problem and picks in 2008 with SoHa 118! What the hell to happened to the other 24 years! All of a sudden condos have sprung from the ground and the place is all different than when Frank Lucas left it…lol.
While it can’t be disputed that the author is trying to play off the hype surrounding the movie American Gangster, the fact is that 8th Avenue was a bit “sketchy” up until just a few years ago. I have a friend who used to be on heroine back in the day and most of his old hot spots were along 8th Avenue. To this day he is still uncomfortable in some of the upper 140s.
I will admit that the article was all over the place…perhaps due to overediting or simply the thinly veiled attempt to connect it to the movies and books referenced.
Wow, illoquentgent, you’ve written some true rubbish worthy of lining the canary cage (if anyone ever publish it on paper). I would disagree with every single point you made. The article was an “update” piece speaking to the over arching transition of the street. The intended readership can be in NYC,statewide, national, or worldwide. In case you were not aware, the New York Times has a little more distribution than the Amsterdam news.
Your failure to appreciate the article speaks to your failure to realize not every NYT Times reader is familiar or current to 125th issues, they might be in Queens or Queensland, Australia. The article was an excellent update piece with the official transition that’s looming. Excellent on all levels including length, depth, general feel, etc.
You simply fail to understand the competing issues of the newspaper business. You know you can always crank out that whiz bang talent of yours on par with Hemingway and submit an on topic piece for publication with print media all over NYC. Can we look forward to that?
this article was poorly written. not to mention that it completely failed to accurately juxtapose the harlem of yesterday and today. it is completely devoid of true harlem history. it had no direction and its use of the frank lucas reference was useless. sounded more like a semi-promo piece for SoHa 118. what was the article about?
this was also in the times today…
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/nyregion/21rezone.html?ref=nyregion