BY Led Black (@Led_Black)
(Photo: Briana E. Heard)
Don’t get me wrong I LOVE the NY Times but I am just not rocking with the Hudson Heights moniker for the more affluent parts of Washington Heights. Just from the title of the piece I knew I would not be a happy camper. Titled Hudson Heights: A Hidden Gem, Gaining Popularity, the article is a pretty standard neighborhood real estate piece in that these missives never seem to take note of the long time residents of the neighborhood. First of all, hidden? Hidden from whom?
Simply stated Hudson Heights doesn’t exist. It was created to appeal to non-locals because Washington Heights had a certain stigma to it. While I will admit that the Broadway divide is definitely real. There is definitely a palpable difference between both sides of the diving line that is Broadway. Trust me, I was born and raised East of Broadway and I now reside in the more upscale area west of Broadway and it does feel like two distinct neighborhoods in a number of ways. But both sides are and will forever be Washington Heights.
Also, on another note, the so-called “Hudson Heights” part of the neighborhood is nowhere near affordable any more. $2300 for a two-bedroom apartment is not affordable. The article also mentions a couple that bought a two-bedroom for $775,000. That is just shy of a cool million bucks and decidedly NOT affordable for most people that have made this neighborhood home for so many years. Click below for an otherwise great article by Aileen Jacobson.
Check out: Hudson Heights: A Hidden Gem, Gaining Popularity
Related:
Fort George, Manhattan: Nosebleed Heights and Down-to-Earth Prices | NY Times
Affordable Manhattan in Hudson Heights | NY Times
Inwood: Always on the Brink of Coolness | NY Times
We invite you to subscribe to the weekly Uptown Love newsletter, like our Facebook page and follow us on Twitter & Instagram or e-mail us at [email protected].
