Timothy Diep
Professor Nancy Aries
IDC 3001H
May 20, 2015
The Core of New York City
New York City is the center of the world in many aspects. While the city may not be the
center of the world in a geographic sense, the fact that many different branches of knowledge
converge here makes New York where all of the action is. With concentrations ranging from
finance to the arts, the city is the only place to look to find the top professionals in their fields. In
an “All roads lead to Rome” type of way, New York City is Rome; and if the city is Rome,
Columbus Circle is the Coliseum. Just as the Coliseum attracted the upper class to the defining
display of Rome’s culture, this little area ranging from 59th Street to 72nd Street does the same
with New York. It is this timeless combination of wealth and culture that makes Columbus
Circle the core of the city, and this can be seen by the neighborhood’s past, present, and future.
In terms of the history of Columbus Circle, the area’s popularity basically follows an
exponential trend. In the mid-1800s, when the population was concentrated in the downtown
regions of Manhattan and the land was divided into wards, the area by Columbus Circle was
basically open farmland (Sider). In fact, the area wasn’t even open to the public; the farmland
was owned by a wealthy businessman named John Somerindyke (Davidson). But even if it were
open to the public, without an efficient way to navigate the city (the subway system was not fully
developed yet), it was just too difficult for New Yorkers to travel from the Columbus Circle area
to downtown and vice versa. Nobody had even lived above 14th street, let alone 59th, until the
1840s (Gardner). It was only until the 1860s when people started moving uptown. As the
population began to grow and the developed areas became denser, people started to try to find
other areas to live; this new desire coupled with the introduction of a new train line, the 9th
Avenue El, led to the beginning of the development of the neighborhood.
However, all change starts slow, and this was still the case with Columbus Circle. While
there was new interest in the area, the population certainly did not flock uptown. In 1860-1870,
Ward 22, the area from 40th Street to 86th Street, had one of the lowest population densities in
the city, surpassed only by Ward 12, which was the area above 86th Street, and Wards 1 and 2,
which were located at the southern tip of the island (Gardner). The action was still focused in the
downtown portion of the city. As for the Columbus Circle area, it was dotted with warehouses
and a few tenements—which is not exactly the luxurious mecca that we are used to today
(Shaw). Over the next two decades, the neighborhood continued to be seen as an unattractive
place; while the train had made it easier to travel from place to place, it was loud and dirty, and
the area was polluted both by the smoke from the engine and the noise from the rattling tracks. It
was a place where people who did not need to use land efficiently had come to settle—the most
prominent institutions were an armory located on around 66th to 68th Street and an equestrian
school by Central Park. Looking at the city today, where land is at a premium, there is almost no
incentive to build places that take up a large area and bring little returns. An example of such a
place includes public baseball fields; to actually be able to play baseball, there has to be a huge
area dedicated to construct the field. Today, the only locations in the city that have baseball
fields are places that are not exactly in high demand; most of the fields are found in the outer
lying boroughs, and the ones that are found in Manhattan are in places like Murry Bergtraum,
which is shadowed by the Brooklyn bridge, and East River Park, which is sandwiched between
the FDR Drive and the East River Housing Projects. Basically, the things that take up large
amounts of land are usually found in unpopular places, like the armory and the equestrian school
at Columbus Circle in the mid-late 1800s.
Just as the opening of the 9th Avenue El signaled a turning point in the growth of the
neighborhood, the construction of the Dakota Apartments signaled another turning point.
Completed in 1884, the Dakota Apartments was the first luxury building erected that far uptown.
In fact, the very reason why it was called the Dakota Apartments is because “the Upper West
Side of Manhattan seemed, at that time, as remote as the Dakota Territory” (“The Dakota”). The
introduction of this luxury building started a chain reaction that would define the neighborhood
and set it towards the place we know today. Despite the fact that it was in a remote location, the
building attracted wealthy tenants nonetheless, and with these wealthy tenants came more
wealthy tenants. Soon, more apartment buildings, not just tenements, were built, and the area
began to grow into a booming place. By 1890, the area had become the third most populated
ward in the city, behind the other two wards uptown (Gardner). With such a large population, it
was only inevitable that there would be a push to monetize the popularity, and the entertainment
business was developed as a result. Restaurants and theaters began to join the apartments as the
buildings to replace the disgusting warehouses of the neighborhoods. By the turn of the century,
places like the Majestic Playhouse and the Circle on 60th and Broadway, and Blarney’s Lincoln
Square Theater on 66th and Broadway popped up and set a foundation for the neighborhood as a
whole (Shaw). Also around this time came the invention of the automobile, and there was really
only one place that seemed to be appropriate for dealerships to open up. Not only was the
resident base able to afford such a luxury, but the availability of space needed for car lots made
Columbus Circle the perfect area for car sales as well. In fact, Broadway was known as
“Automobile Row,” after the countless dealerships along the avenue (Shaw).
From the beginning of the area’s existence, there were two main events that shaped
Columbus Circle’s history: the first was the introduction of the 9th Avenue El line, which opened
up the neighborhood to business in general, and the second was the completion of the Dakota
Apartments, which opened up the neighborhood with the wealthy. The third main historical
event of Columbus Circle took the area to the final step, and transformed it from a simple place
of entertainment and wealth to a beacon of luxury and culture. This transition, spearheaded by
the renowned urban developer Robert Moses, was perhaps the most controversial event in
Columbus Circle’s history as well.
In 1949, in the wake of World War II, the American Government introduced the Housing
Act of 1949. While the most notable aspect of the plan was the federal subsidization of public
housing projects (Title III), a different part of the program, Title I, gave federal funding for slum
clearance programs ("Housing Act of 1949"). Harry Truman, who was the president at the time,
decided to address the problem of unsafe and poor housing conditions for the countless lowerclass residents of the nation’s metropolitan areas, and created the act to replace these slums with
higher quality apartment buildings. But while the initial intentions of the act were to create better
housing conditions for residents, the wealthy businessmen of the country saw the program as a
highway to carry out their own motives. There are a few published reasons for why Moses
wanted to change Lincoln Square: establishment of culture, development of business, and even
some subtle racism as well. While it may be because of one reason, the others, or a combination
of all three, Moses, backed by other incredibly powerful people such as John D. Rockefeller III,
created a plan to get rid of the slums and build a cultural supercenter in the Lincoln Square area
that featured the fine arts (Zipp 411). The clearance and development program, known as
Lincoln Square Title I, was introduced in 1955. It covered an area of 48 acres spanning from
60th Street to 70th Street, had an estimated cost of $185 million ($1.62 billion in today’s
standards), and featured additional institutions such as the Lincoln Towers and a campus for
Fordham University (Zipp 411). But while the program was definitely impressive, it cleared out
the vast majority of the residents in that area, and that prioritization of culture over housing was
the cause of controversy in the area.
The main motive behind this massive project, which is understated for obvious reasons, is
the fact that Moses and his sponsors wanted to attract the white residents that had been lost over
the past few decades. This vaguely ties into what Moses and the others publicly stated, which
was the fact that they wanted to create a place that would be “a symbol of our cultural maturity”
to show off to other countries, namely the Soviet Union (Zipp 412). In essence, while the Cold
War and competition with the Soviet Union may have been a valid reason for the widespread
urban renewal in New York, Moses and his sponsors also used that reason as a front to cover up
his ulterior motive of replacing the racial composition of the city. Over the first half of the 1950s,
more than 750,000 white middle class residents had moved to the suburbs, while around 650,000
black and Puerto Rican residents had replaced them (“Slum to the Center”). In the study
conducted by the Committee on Slum Clearance, an organization led by Moses, they claimed
that 24% of the families in the neighborhood were minorities—18% were Puerto Rican, 4% were
African-American, and 2% were listed as other (Zipp 418). By getting rid of the slums that
housed these minorities, Moses and his sponsors would not only be able to make space for the
cultural centers but also make space for the white residents that they would hopefully attract.
What needs to be noted is the fact that the cultural center would be replacing the
immigrants that had already fought so hard to get to the city in the first place, and they would not
simply let someone else take their home away. Led by Harris Present, residents and local
businessmen valiantly and immediately opposed the project. Their message was clear:
“preserving that particular neighbourhood culture was as important to city life as promoting the
version of culture offered by the vision of Lincoln Center” (Zipp 421). At first, Present and the
protesters simply wanted to either delay the project or accept it with terms more favorable to
them. In order to do so they did whatever they could, including pickets and protests around City
Hall, appearances at public hearings, and countless mailed letters and postcards to public
officials, urging them to at least bring revision to the table. The protesters adhered to the
emotions of the bystanders by highlighting the fact that it wouldn’t just be buildings that were
going to be destroyed, but families as well. Eventually, the media caught on to the mass
resistance, and soon enough, the cause was a legitimate concern for Moses and his sponsors. By
1957, Present’s movement had enough clout for them to attempt to get rid of the plan altogether,
and they even took to the courts (Zipp 422). In the end, while there have been countless
resistance movements that did succeed (See: the origin of our country), there have been countless
more that did not. The City Planning Commission, the authority that had the final say in the
approval of the project, ultimately agreed to the plan, provided that the people of the
neighborhood would be successfully relocated. The idea behind their acceptance was simply the
fact that the city needed to be improved and urbanized, and the antiquated tenements and
warehouses stood in the way of that (Zipp 429). The combination of Moses, Rockefeller, and
numerous organizations including other areas of the government had too much influence to be
stopped by the residents and protesters. As for the thousands of families who had lost their
homes to Lincoln Square Title I, the majority were forced to relocate to other crowded areas,
while others were assigned apartments or public housing (“Slum to the Center”). While there
was a housing cooperative built due to the plan, none of the original residents chose to live there.
So the late 1950s and 1960s were dedicated to the demolition of the Columbus Circle and
Lincoln to make way for the grand cultural institutions that Moses had planned. The tenements
and warehouses were replaced by the likes of the Philharmonic Hall, now known as Avery Fisher
Hall, in 1962 and The Metropolitan Opera in 1966 (“History of Lincoln Center;” “Our Story”).
The history of Columbus Circle area shows that the neighborhood itself is a microcosm of the
city as a whole, as the challenges faced in the past were similar to the challenges we are facing
now. Similar to how Columbus Circle first gained attention with new means of public
transportation, so did the outer lying boroughs, and just as the outer lying boroughs are
beginning to attract wealthy tenants and in the process of gentrifying, the Columbus Circle area
had done the same in the late 1800s. In addition, the social and racial issues that the
neighborhood faced in the mid-1950s are similar to the issues that we have today. The entire
mayoral campaign of Bill de Blasio was based on the fact that he believed the story of New York
was the “Tale of Two Cities,” which basically described the 1955 battle of Lincoln Square on
two fronts. The first is the battle of the socioeconomic classes, as the wealthy business owners
fought to improve the image of their city, while the residents simply fought for a place to live.
The second is the battle of the races, and while racism is not as blatant or unaccepting as it was
in 1955, the issues of racial discrimination are still incredibly relevant in our world today.
Speaking of today, at the present time it seems as if the plan of Moses and his sponsors
was successful. When stepping out of the train station and walking around the neighborhood, we
really only had two main observations. The first is that the area has become incredibly popular
internationally. With the aforementioned cultural attractions as well as newer buildings like the
Time Warner Center, there is a plethora of sights to absorb, and vacationers flock from all
around the world to experience them. In response to the tourists, there is a huge, even imposing,
tourism business in the area that was created, similar to how the entertainment business was
created in the beginning of the 1900s from the incoming wave of residents. So the streets in the
immediate vicinity of Columbus Circle are not only filled with people with cameras and maps,
but those selling bike tours as well.
But away from the bustling tourist scene there is another aspect to the Columbus Circle
area, one that satisfies the second part to Moses’s plan. With Lincoln Center he had succeeded in
flaunting the greatness of New York City and America to the world, and he was able to use the
project to transform the demographics and socioeconomics of the area as well. According to the
Center of Urban Research, white non-Hispanics accounted for 76.4% of the total population in
the Lincoln Square area (NTA MN14) in 2000, while they accounted for 73.4% of the total
population in 2010. In terms of socioeconomics, it is estimated that 72.2% of families had an
annual income of over $100,000 (“Selected Economic Characteristics”). In their image of what
they wanted the center of New York to look like, Moses and his sponsors envisioned the ideal
American: white and rich. However, the majority of the population in the Columbus Circle area
is not just white and wealthy; they are elderly as well. According to the 2010 Census, the largest
age group in the Lincoln Square area were those aged 65 and above, accounting for 16.5% of the
population (“Population by 5 Year Age Groups”). Those aged 45 and above, who are usually
considered in the latter half of their careers, account for 41.4% of the population, while those
aged 25-44, considered the main working class, account for 38.1% of the population. Those aged
24 and below account for 20.5% of the population. The data shows exactly what Moses and his
sponsors intended to happen; they hoped that the creation of the cultural centers will bring back
the wealthy, white residents, and generally those who have the luxury to appreciate the arts are in
the older age range. Not only does the data support this claim, but so do oral accounts as well.
After walking around the neighborhood looking for residents to speak to, we actually
realized that the only people that we were able to interview were white and elderly. Out of the
six interviews we conducted, four of them spoke about how the luxurious aspects of the
neighborhood attracted them to move to the Columbus Circle area. A man learning Chinese on a
park bench named Bill Thompson, as well as a couple strolling through the park named Jan and
Arthur talked about how they had moved to the neighborhood because of the fact that it provided
easy access to the concert halls and opera houses in the theater. They had said that they simply
wanted the convenience of being near the places that they loved to visit, and that there were
many others in the area who also valued the same thing. When asked about their opinion on the
demographics of the area, they basically confirmed the belief that the elderly made up the
majority because they could afford to live there. They said that when they were young, they
didn’t focus on the opera or the arts, they focused on work; and even if they did want to
appreciate the arts back then, there was no way that they could have been able to pay for an
apartment. Those who we interviewed told us that they had only been in the neighborhood for
around 10-15 years at most, meaning that they had probably moved when they were at least in
their 50s. As for what they believe the future of the neighborhood entails, Jerry in the sandwich
shop believes that this area will only get wealthier and wealthier. Over the past ten years he’s
noticed more and more tourists prevalent in the neighborhood, which is a trend that he does not
necessarily support. The increased business, such as the Shops at Columbus Circle, features
luxury brands like Stuart Weitzman and L.K. Bennett, which only adds to the wealth of the
neighborhood. Combine that with the Mandarin Oriental Hotel on 60th Street, which is one of
the most expensive hotels in the world, and you have an immense concentration of wealth and
diversity in a single area. Along with the increasing wealth, the strong international influence in
the area relates to another trend as well.
While international visitors obviously don’t count towards the census data, it most
certainly relates to the racial trends that the Columbus Circle area is currently following. Robert
Moses and his sponsors were visionaries, but they were also racists that did not appreciate the
benefits that cultural diversity had to offer. What they failed to see is that although the operas
and shows are American in culture, the definition of an American nowadays is no longer
someone who is white. According to the United States Census Bureau, although the white
population still made up the majority from 2000-2010, the percentage out of the total population
actually decreased. What replaced the concentration of white residents was actually an increase
in the Asian population, which grew 62.3% within the ten-year period. The racial composition of
the neighborhood is slowly beginning to balance out.
Similar to how the history of the Columbus Circle area was representative of the city as a
whole, present observations and future trends do so as well. As mentioned earlier, the popularity
of the Columbus Circle area followed an exponential trend; when it hit the threshold of wealth,
prospective residents flocked to the area, and eventually tourists as well. This is similar to the
total population trend of the city; there were only 33,131 residents in 1790, which grew to
312,710 half a century later. Fifty years after that, the population was 1.52 million, and fifty
years after that, in 1940, the population was 7.45 million (“Total and Foreign-born Population”).
The growth has stagnated in recent decades, as the current population is estimated to be around
8.41 million, so maybe that will be the trend for the Columbus Circle area too.
When highlighting the things that stand out in the neighborhood, I noticed that these
same things could be applied to the city too. For example, the huge tourism business that was
usually limited to Manhattan is spreading to the outer lying boroughs as well, and the prevalence
of wealth is also something that gentrifying neighborhoods are experiencing. One thing to note is
that it is tough to determine if the city’s trends were a cause or an effect of the Columbus Circle
area’s trends. In a “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” type of way, Columbus Circle
could be the way it is simply because that’s how the city was developing as well. But no matter
which came first, it is clear that the two are related.
My first impression of the Columbus Circle area was an area that was too rich for its own
good; it was where the upper class collected multi-million dollar apartments like they collected
signed baseballs. But what I failed to realize is that like everything else, the things that are great
had humble beginnings, and the Columbus Circle area is no different. What was once an area
reserved solely for storage purposes has transformed into the beacon of luxury and the arts that
Robert Moses and his sponsors envisioned, and the neighborhood’s prominence is still trending
upwards. With a global population that is becoming wealthier and wealthier, the cultural centers
have attracted more and more visitors. The Columbus Circle area is a symbol of the city in both
its rise to stardom and its path to the future, in its conflicts and its prosperity. There is no other
city like New York, and there is no place like Columbus Circle.
Works Cited
Davidson, Justin. "The Glass Stampede." New York Magazine, 7 Sept. 2008. Web. 19 May
2015.
"From the Slum to the Center: Robert Moses and the Creation of Lincoln Center." American
Civilization. 25 Apr. 2011. Web. 19 May 2015.
Gardner, Todd. "New York (Manhattan) Wards: Population & Density 1800-1910."
Demographia. Web. 19 May 2015.
"History of Lincoln Center: The 1960s." About Lincoln Center. Lincoln Center for the
Performing Arts. Web. 20 May 2015.
"Housing Act of 1949." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation. Web. 19 May 2015.
"New York City Demographic Shifts, 2000 to 2010." NYC Population Change. Center for Urban
Research, 2011. Web. 20 May 2015.
"Our Story." About the Met. The Metropolitan Opera. Web. 20 May 2015.
“Selected Economic Characteristics, 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates,
Community Districts and Neighborhood Tabulation Areas (NTAs).” U.S. Census Bureau,
2008-2012 American Community Survey. Web. 20 May 2015.
Sider, West. "14 AMAZING HISTORICAL IMAGES OF COLUMBUS CIRCLE." West Side
Rag. 10 Nov. 2013. Web. 19 May 2015.
Shaw, William. "New York City History - Columbus Circle." NYC Tourist. Web. 9 May 2015.
"The Dakota." A View on Cities. Web. 19 May 2015.
“Total and Foreign-born Population, New York City, 1790 – 2000.” New York City Department
of City Planning, Population Division. Web. 20 May 2015.
United States Census Bureau. "Total Population by Mutually Exclusive Race and Hispanic
Origin, New York City Neighborhood Tabulation Areas, 2010." nyc.gov. 20 May 2011.
Web. 20 May 2015.
United States Census Bureau. "Total Population by 5 Year Age Groups, New York City
Neighborhood Tabulation Areas, 2010." nyc.gov. 14 Jul. 2011. Web. 20 May 2015.
Zipp, Samuel. "The Battle of Lincoln Square: Neighbourhood Culture and the Rise of Resistance
to Urban Renewal." Planning Perspectives 24.4 (2009): 409-33. Web. 18 May 2015.