I grew up in Park Slope, Brooklyn, so a headline on The New Yorker’s homepage Monday, declaring “Park Slope is Dead,” piqued my interest. Alas, the story contained no new information, only inaccurate riffing on something I already knew about: that Southpaw—a live-music club around the corner from my parents’ house, where it replaced a 99 cent store in 2002—had just closed. In a development that is apparently too deliciously symbolic for any writer to ignore, Southpaw is being replaced by a firm called New York City Kids, a business offering academic tutoring and activities such as rock climbing for children.
The New Yorker ran a Talk of the Town-esque dispatch on Southpaw’s last night by a young staffer named Andrew Marantz. (I don’t know Marantz, but I’m friends with his cousin, a former colleague of mine.) Marantz is clearly a talented writer: his lead artfully ties this minor event to the sea changes that have swept neighborhoods across New York City: “CBGB gives rise, inexorably, to DBGB. Just as a red giant becomes a white dwarf, an edgy block must lose its edge.” But the story he tells is an inaccurate one. To read The New Yorker you’d think that Park Slope went straight from grimy to trendy, and it is only now settling into adulthood and having children. In fact, yuppies bearing children were in the Slope long before Southpaw, and it was the arrival of venues like Southpaw that removed the edge years ago.
At least Marantz has the defense that he is writing for a national publication and the precise details of the history of one neighborhood isn’t supposed to be his area of expertise. The Brooklyn Paper has no such excuse. The paper that seeks to be the borough’s weekly paper of record made the same errors, minus the entertaining references. “A long-standing Park Slope concert hall will close and become a tutoring school now that the hood caters more to kiddies than roadies,” read its lead. Give the writer, Natalie O’Neill, credit for trying to write a cute lead. Then deduct far more for the fact that what she says makes no sense if you know the neighborhood at all: The Slope has always catered more to kiddies than roadies. Park Slope was never the East Village. Nor does nine years make a business an especially long-standing one. There are stores across the street from Southpaw that have been there four times as long.
These articles get the neighborhood’s evolution precisely backwards. Park Slope was initially gentrified in the 1970s and ’80s by families like mine that moved there for more space than they could afford in Manhattan or Brooklyn Heights, often to raise children. There were stores selling toys and books for children and babies long before there were trendy bars, clubs or restaurants.
Marantz quotes a banker lamenting to New York in 1985 that people such as himself moving to the Upper West Side were killing exactly what he liked about it. Marantz equates that to what is happening Park Slope today, without pausing to ask what exact quality he is writing about. The answer on the Upper West Side in 1985 was probably diversity. Diversity defined the Park Slope I grew up in. That’s been disappearing rapidly in the last ten years, since a bunch of recent college graduates from the suburbs started pouring in. They’ve displaced much of the Latino population, along with the original babies in strollers, like me. If “the Slope is dead,” it died around 2002 when places like Southpaw replaced the bodegas and it stopped being racially and socioeconomically diverse. In fact, Southpaw replacing the 99 cent store around that time is the far better encapsulation of Park Slope’s essential changes than one yuppie business closing to be replaced by another.

Great piece. But to say that the Brooklyn Paper purports to be the borough's paper of record is a bit off. Read any piece by Natalie O'Neill and you'll find that she's more interested in controversy than history. Sadly, as your piece to artfully points out, that's increasingly common among mainstream journalists these days.
#1 Posted by Steve, CJR on Wed 8 Feb 2012 at 02:05 PM
An excellent piece. Ben Adler does a good job of correcting the record.
#2 Posted by Adriel, CJR on Wed 8 Feb 2012 at 02:25 PM
Speaking as both a journo and a Brooklyn native (Bay Ridge; parents Bay Ridge; grandparents Red Hook), bravo.
#3 Posted by Maryn, CJR on Wed 8 Feb 2012 at 03:24 PM
I'm not sure I get what your point is? That because Southpaw is not the oldest business in Park Slope, it is somehow invalid to think that it's closure reflects another trend of changes in the neighborhood? Neighborhoods in NYC are evolving constantly.
I've lived in the neighborhood my entire life, so trust me, my instinct is to take part in your pissing contest of "who was here first" - but while you are correct in citing that Southpaw loosely marks the start of a significant era of changes (late 90s - early 2000s), i think it is clear that the neighborhood (as well as surrounding areas like Cobble Hill and Carroll Gardens) have been gentrified even further since then (specifically the past 5 years). It is valid for newcomers (and people who have made there home here, for say, the past 7 years ) to be disappointed by these changes... even if they didn't grow up in Park Slope
Shit, I wish the neighborhood were more like it was in the early 2000s too...
#4 Posted by anon, CJR on Wed 8 Feb 2012 at 03:38 PM
Hi Ben —
Interesting analysis. Thanks for a good read.
Just wanted to note that The Brooklyn Paper line quoted above is attributed to the owner of Southpaw, who has lived in the neighborhood for over a decade.
Your article doesn't mention that, which makes it sound like BK paper is editorializing. We're not.
http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/35/4/dtg_southpaw_2012_02_04_bk.html
But yeah. We're probably guilty on the cutesy charge. (Among other things.)
Best,
Natalie O'Neill
Reporter
The Brooklyn Paper
718-260-4505
#5 Posted by Natalie O'Neill, CJR on Wed 8 Feb 2012 at 05:45 PM
Interesting piece.
I bought a house on 12th Street in 1979. There were no certainly no trendy bars - Snooky's, favored by cops and firemen, who were gentlemen, was the most congenial to female patrons. There were, and always had been - see Hamil - not-particularly-gritty or -edgy traditional dive bars.
That said, old-style sweat-equity gentrification - which is no longer possible in Brownstone Brooklyn - took off and was ubiquitous in the eighties. Perhaps ironically, it was when gentrification was complete, at least in the central Slope, in the nineties, that Seventh Avenue sidewalks became congested with double-strollers, pushed by folks who had deferred having children to make the money to afford the real estate, and their imagined small village-style fake authenticity, that they thought they wanted..
So places like Southpaw came and went after all that already occurred.
Twenty-something offspring of the original gentrifiers, many of your peers, went to the fringe to set their own scene away from the succeeding younger generation and their more affluent parents, establishing their clubhouses at places like Freddy's.
Amy Sohn accurately parodized the superficiality of the post-gentrifiers. The second generation of gentrification actually had a challenging task, and succeeded in creating places like Freddy's. The third generation is a vapid group in simply another upscale district of the city no different than several others.
#6 Posted by Jackie Najalack, CJR on Thu 9 Feb 2012 at 08:20 AM
I think it's important to note that everybody who weighs in on the issue here, including Mr. Adler, has her/his own biases, generally based on which group they identify with - original 70's Park Slope brownstone renovators such as those he refers to (I own a book called "You Don't Have to be Rich to Own a Brownstone" published in 1973 by a couple who renovated one in Park Slope, btw the complaints about gentrification were THE SAME back then), real estate speculators, hipsters, yuppies, current stroller parents, artists (of which I am one, I moved to the Slope in 1995, and just moved out a year ago), gays, etc. Some folks hate the strollers, some parents with strollers hate the people who don't want them in bars, etc. Almost everyone sees the later arrivals as less knowledgeable, but I don't think anyone can truly declare themselves to be the supreme arbiter; there will always be someone before us who thinks WE don't get it. I grew up in Manhattan so I understand that feeling. To me, what is truly unfortunate is the amount of animosity/conflict that has been present for years now - from people fighting over bike lanes, to baby bar issues, to my own dismay at what I saw as a homogenizing, suburbanizing, wealthy demographic that made me feel as if I had somehow moved to Larchmont. One thing, though - you can't deny there are a FUCK OF A LOT OF STROLLERS and kids now, WAY more than there were even say, six or seven years ago.
#7 Posted by Silver, CJR on Wed 20 Feb 2013 at 11:00 PM