Reflecting on Chelsea through the eyes of a sociologist

By David Gibbons

David Halle, a congenial, understated Englishman, lives in Manhattan and commutes to Los Angeles, where he is Professor of Sociology at UCLA. An expert on urban societies, Halle edited and contributed to a 2003 book comparing America’s two megalopolises, “New York & Los Angeles: Politics, Society and Culture.” Among his numerous other publications are books about the art people display in their homes (“Inside Culture: Art and Class in the American Home,” 1996) and the attitudes and beliefs of blue-collar workers (“America’s Working Man: Work, Home and Politics Among Blue-Collar Property Owners,” 1984), both focusing on the New York region. Halle is currently at work on two different projects, one a study of the Chelsea art-gallery scene and the other a major ethnography of Manhattan’s “Far West Side,” including Chelsea. In 2005, Halle organized the UCLA Sociology Department’s first-ever summer travel program for undergraduates to study—where else?—New York City. He sat down with Chelsea Now recently at the Half King bar and restaurant, on 23rd Street west of Tenth Avenue, to talk about his field and to share some astute observations about our neighborhood and beyond.

You have an interesting work arrangement, not to mention quite a commute. Is it difficult to be bi-coastal?

The UCLA quarter is 10 weeks, and during the quarter I generally fly out of Kennedy [Airport] on Monday, and I usually fly back on Thursday or Friday. I’ve gotten used to it. And in my field—urban sociology—there are a lot of advantages to going back and forth between the two largest American cities. I teach my California students about New York. In New York, I tell everybody about L.A., although they tend not to be very interested.

What is sociology?

It’s the study of how an advanced, industrial society works overall. How the politics, the economics, the culture, the social organization do or don’t fit together. It’s really the big picture. There are people who would define sociology more narrowly, but that’s what excites me about it—that it’s really the big picture.

What is an ethnography?

It’s a study that’s eclectic in its use of data. It uses survey data, interview data and observational data. In my view, it’s the kind of study that enables you to get into a topic in real depth. It really makes the subject come alive.

Tell us about your current study of Manhattan’s Far West Side.

I started it about five years ago. I’m also doing a study of the art galleries for a separate book. People know about the art galleries, but I don’t think they really know just how important Chelsea has become globally. It is definitely the dominant art-gallery district in the world. And it’s interesting how all this happened. No one planned it, no one controlled it, no one predicted it. It was just market forces, as galleries who were priced out of Soho moved to Chelsea, which was more affordable at the time.

On the Far West Side, it’s interesting to compare and contrast the various big projects and try to figure out some central questions, such as how the city can grow and develop while protecting the less-advantaged; how to strike the right balance between preserving some historic buildings and neighborhoods while not turning the area into a museum or period room; what makes for a more or less successful project? Then there is the question of why some projects get built and others do not, and the related question of where the political power lies. Some of the Far West Side projects, such as the Hudson River Park, seem to suggest the virtues of a model where power is concentrated in a central agency. For example, the bike path along the Hudson River was built by the N.Y. State Department of Transportation quickly, with very little consultation, and is a huge success. Some of the least successful projects occur when power is fragmented and divided; then, you can end up with a widely unpopular result. For example, the Trump development at Riverside South, where opponents, thinking they could deter Trump from putting up the development, stopped the plan to re-route the Miller Highway to make a spectacular wide waterfront park. But Trump built anyway and so almost everyone, even Trump, was worse off. While these cases suggest the virtues of putting a strong entity in charge, clearly there are a lot of complexities, not least of which is when that strong entity wants to do something many people don’t like. The case of the art galleries suggests that a completely different model that entails minimal planning and can produce enormously successful outcomes. Overall, one lesson is that one should not be dogmatic. Jane Jacobs was such a great thinker because she hated dogmatic positions of any kind. She was always on the lookout for the new and unexpected. The High Line is a great example of that.

What are the unique and defining characteristics of our neighborhood?

I think Chelsea is always changing. It used to be associated with the longshoremen, then it was associated with the sleazy waterfront district, then it was associated with the Chelsea Hotel and all the intellectuals who lived here. In the eighties and nineties, the gay scene moved from the West Village to Chelsea. Then—it was a horrible thing—a lot of the gay people in Chelsea just died of AIDS. And they weren’t replaced by other gay people; they were replaced by families and couples. With things like the art gallery district and the High Line, Chelsea’s image is changing again. It’s becoming more and more chic.

What’s your opinion of how the city is being run today?

I’m a great fan of the Bloomberg administration. I think he’s definitely the best mayor since I’ve been in New York [1971]. I think he’s doing exactly what a mayor should do, which is trying to balance out growth. The city has to grow; if it doesn’t, it’s a catastrophe. The last time New York City had a significant population decline from 1970 to 1980, you had all the horrible things that go along with that, like the burning of buildings in the Bronx because landlords couldn’t get enough money out of them. So it’s good that cities grow. But then someone has to address issues such as affordable housing and the poor, to make sure that cities are not just places for the rich.

Can you comment on gentrification and the decline of an affordable lifestyle for middle- and working-class people in Chelsea and comparable neighborhoods?

I don’t really like using the term “gentrification” because I think it’s just a catch-all. If gentrification means neighborhoods are becoming more attractive and desirable and people want to move there, I believe, on the whole, that’s good. Schools get better, crime is lower. But you have to make sure the existing people are protected and that there is affordable housing. I think the city is addressing that with the Hudson Yards project and with the various 80/20 arrangements for affordable housing. It’s not a perfect solution, but I don’t think the correct approach is to be against improvement of neighborhoods. There’s even some talk of doing in New York what Thatcher did in London, which is allow residents of public housing to buy their apartments. Then, when they sell, they can share in some of these huge New York real estate profits. Some people have mooted the idea and Bloomberg is against it, but I think it’s at least worth discussing.

What about the “mall-ification” of America? Mom-and-pop stores vs. chains; supermarkets vs. greenmarkets; multiplexes vs. local art-film houses—is this battle going on in our Manhattan neighborhoods?

I’ve written a couple of articles about Jane Jacobs, who was wonderful. She was a lot less intent on keeping out large chains and tall buildings than people often think. The essence of what she said in [her book] “The Death and Life of American Cities” is that we need variety and diversity in almost every area. She said one of the great things about cities is that you have such a dense population that you can support both the niche-type, mom-and-pop stores and the supermarkets. In her day, it was the supermarkets. Now the interesting question is what would she have thought of the Costcos? There was a move to put a big-box store on Pier 40. It was opposed and it didn’t succeed. There are downsides to big-box stores; there’s the view that mom-and-pop stores will go out of business and so forth. I’m not really dogmatic either way; I think these are just interesting questions to debate.