New York

When Harlem Was ‘as Gay as It Was Black’

Published

1 month ago

October 9, 2024

When Harlem Was ‘as Gay as It Was Black’

Two Black men, in tuxedos, clasp hands and dance in a smoky foreground in a scene from “Looking for Langston,” the 1989 film that reevaluated gay and lesbian contributions to the Harlem Renaissance.

A map of Manhattan with a boundary drawn around Harlem, just north of Central Park.

A map shows the borders of Harlem, which, south to north, extends from the top of Central Park to the area above 145th Street, and, west to east, from St. Nicholas Park to Fifth Avenue.

A black-and-white photograph of Ma Rainey’s Georgia Jazz Band. Ma Rainey, in a dress and headband, is surrounded by five Black male musicians playing, from left, trombone and trumpet.

JP Jazz Archives/Redferns

On Stage and Off

Many L.B.G.T. performers and entertainers of the Renaissance used their artistry to express their sexuality. Others went to great lengths to keep their private lives hidden. Only recently have scholars been able to unpack their complicated lives, providing a brighter, clearer vision of who they were.

A map highlighting various points in Harlem.

A map of Harlem with a location labeled “Ma Rainey at the Lincoln Theater” near 135th Street and Lenox Avenue.

Map with location labeled “Gladys Bentley at the Clam House” near 135th Street.

Map with location labeled “Bessie Smith at Hotel Olga” in the northernmost part of Harlem.

Map with a location labeled “Jimmie Daniels” on 116th Street, and a photograph of Jimmie Daniels Restaurant.

Map with a location labeled “Ethel Waters” near Colonial Park in northwest Harlem, and a photograph of 580 St. Nicholas Avenue, where she lived for a time.

Map with a location labeled “Edna Thomas” in south Harlem, and a photograph of 1890 Seventh Avenue, where she lived.

Map with a location labeled “Georgette Harvey” south of 116th Street.

Map with a location labeled “Alberta Hunter” north of 135th Street, and a photograph of 133 West 138th Street, where she lived.

Patrons of the Savoy Ballroom dancing the Lindy Hop and other dances.

Out and About

As the period flourished, so did the number of public and semi-public spaces for L.G.B.T. life — theaters, lodges, cabarets, salons, nightclubs, parks, bathhouses, streets — developed, said Shane Vogel, a professor of English and African American Studies at Yale University and the author of “The Scene of Harlem Cabaret: Race, Sexuality, Performance.”

Each location “created spaces for people in Harlem to experience new kinds of social contacts and erotic possibilities that weren’t as widely available in the decades before the Harlem Renaissance,” he said.

Patrons of the

Map with a location labeled “Hamilton Lodge at Rockland Palace” at the very top of Harlem, and a photograph of 280 West 155th Street, where the venue was located.

Map with a location labeled “Ubangi Club” at 131st Street and Seventh Avenue, and a photograph of the building where the venue was located.

Map with a location labeled “Swing Street” at West 133rd Street, running between Lenox and Seventh Avenue, and a photograph of The Nest, one of the nightlife venues on that block.

Map with a location labeled “The Cotton Club” at 142nd Street and Lenox Avenue, and a photograph of the exterior of the club, with a large marquee and cars in the foreground.

Map with a location labeled “Clam House” at West 133rd Street, near Seventh Avenue, and a photograph of the exterior of the club, with an awning, flanked by two cars.

Map with a location labeled “Savoy Ballroom” on Lenox Avenue, between 140th and 141st Streets, and a photograph of the exterior of the club, with a large marque that reads “SAVOY.” Pedestrians walk in the foreground.

Map with a location labeled “Mount Morris Bathhouse” at 28 East 125th Street, just outside the east parameter of Harlem, and a photograph of the building, with a man crossing the street in the foreground.

Map with a location labeled “Harlem Y.M.C.A.” at 180 West 135th Street, near Seventh Avenue, and an illustration of the building, which rises high above its neighbors.

Map with a location labeled “Hotel Olga” at Lenox Avenue and 145th Street, and a photo of the building.

Map with a location labeled “Lafayette Theater” at 2247 Seventh Avenue, and a photo of the exterior of the theater, with a marquee, arched windows and a sign or flag hanging above them.

Robert W Kelley/The LIFE Picture Collection, via Shutterstock

The Smart Set

While race was commonly explored among the artists, thinkers and writers of the Renaissance, some openly broached the subject of sexuality, which was viewed as scandalous. For others, any references may have been carefully coded and more difficult to detect.

Map with a location at the far bottom of the map labeled “Alain Locke,” “Washington D.C.” and an icon pointing down.

Map with a location labeled “Nella Larsen” at 236 West 135th Street, near Eighth Avenue.

Map with a location labeled “Langston Hughes” at 20 East 127th Street, north of Mount Morris Park, just outside the parameters of Harlem.

Map with a location labeled “Countee Cullen” at 104 West 136th Street, near Lenox Avenue.

Map with a location labeled “Richard Bruce Nugent” at 267 West 136th Street, near Eighth Avenue.

Map with a location at the far bottom of the map labeled “Carl Van Vechten,” “150 West 55th Street” and an icon pointing down.

Map with a location labeled “Harold Jackman” at 7 West 134th Street, just outside the east perimeter of Harlem.

Map with a location labeled “Maurice Hunter” at 254 West 135th Street, between Seventh and Eighth Avenues.

Map with a location labeled “Claude McKay” at 147 West 142nd Street, between Seventh and Lenox Avenues, and a photograph of the exterior of the building.

A photograph of the Alexander Gumby Book Studio, with a semi-circle of people sitting and chatting or reading.

Alexander Gumby collection, Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Columbia University

Behind Closed Doors

Private spaces in Harlem — mainly homes and apartments — opened doors to the kind of intimate socializing and sexual experimentation that could not exist at large nightclubs or segregated venues. Away from the public eye, these spaces held invite-only soirees or rent parties that were primarily spread through word of mouth.

Map with a location labeled “A’Leila Walker and the Dark Tower” at 108 West 136th Street, on the far east side of Harlem, and a photograph of the exterior of the building.

Map with a location labeled “Wallace Thurman” at 267 West 136th Street, near Eighth Avenue, and a photograph of the block, with a car coming toward the camera.

Map with a location labeled “Iolanthe Sydney” at 267 West 136th Street, near Eighth Avenue.

Map with a location labeled “Alexander Gumby Book Studio” at 2144 Fifth Avenue, on the far east side of Harlem.

Map with a location labeled “409 Edgecombe Avenue” at the far north section of Harlem, and a photograph of a cluster of three high-rise buildings.

Harlem in 1938.

Looking Back, Through a Fresh Lens

Efforts to reexamine Harlem’s queer history have helped audiences reimagine Renaissance-era spaces and celebrate aspects of its everyday life that were underground.

New York

Map: 2.3-Magnitude Earthquake Strikes Connecticut

Published

3 hours ago

November 21, 2024

Press Room

Map: 2.3-Magnitude Earthquake Strikes Connecticut

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown. The New York Times

A minor, 2.3-magnitude earthquake struck in Connecticut on Wednesday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 7:33 p.m. Eastern about 1 mile northwest of Moodus, Conn., data from the agency shows.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Aftershocks in the region

An aftershock is usually a smaller earthquake that follows a larger one in the same general area. Aftershocks are typically minor adjustments along the portion of a fault that slipped at the time of the initial earthquake.

Quakes and aftershocks within 100 miles

Aftershocks can occur days, weeks or even years after the first earthquake. These events can be of equal or larger magnitude to the initial earthquake, and they can continue to affect already damaged locations.

Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Eastern. Shake data is as of Wednesday, Nov. 20 at 7:41 p.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Wednesday, Nov. 20 at 11:34 p.m. Eastern.

New York

Two Affordable Housing Buildings Were Planned. Only One Went Up. What Happened?

Published

1 day ago

November 19, 2024

Press Room

Two Affordable Housing Buildings Were Planned. Only One Went Up. What Happened?

It is an idea that many point to as a solution for New York City’s worst housing shortage in over 50 years: Build more homes.

More people keep deciding they want to live in the city — and the number of new homes hasn’t kept pace. Residents compete over the limited number of apartments, which pushes rents up to stratospheric levels. Many people then choose to leave instead of pay those prices.

So why is it so hard to build more housing?

The answer involves a tangled set of financial challenges and bitter political fights.

We looked at two developments that provided a unique window into the crisis across the city, and the United States, where there aren’t enough homes people can actually afford.

Both developments — 962 Pacific Street in Crown Heights in Brooklyn, and 145 West 108th Street on the Upper West Side in Manhattan — might have appeared similar. Both were more than eight stories, with plans for dozens of units of affordable housing. And each had a viable chance of being built.

But only one was.

Here’s how their fates diverged, from the zoning to the money and the politics.

The Neighborhood

The lack of housing options across the region makes high-demand areas particularly expensive.

Homes are built in Westchester County and the Long Island suburbs, for example, at some of the slowest rates in the country. In New York City, only 1.4 percent of apartments were available to rent in 2023, according to a key city survey.

And median rent in the city has risen significantly over the past few decades.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

That leaves neighborhoods like the Upper West Side and Crown Heights sought after by people of all income levels. Both neighborhoods have good access to parks, subways and job centers in Brooklyn and Manhattan.

The pressures are immense, even as each neighborhood has added some new housing to try to match the demand, though at different rates.

Crown Heights has become one of the most striking emblems of gentrification in the city, with new residents, who tend to be white and wealthy, pushing out people who can no longer afford to live there. Low-rise rowhouses line many streets, just blocks from Prospect Park. But there are also shiny new high-rises.

There were more than 50,000 housing units in the Crown Heights area, according to a 2022 U.S. Census Bureau estimate, a roughly 13 percent jump over the past decade.

The Upper West Side has long been one of the city’s more exclusive enclaves with many brownstone homes. Next to Central Park and Riverside Park, with easy access to downtown, the neighborhood is home to many of the city’s affluent residents.

There were 129,000 housing units on the Upper West Side according to the 2022 Census Bureau data, an increase of roughly 5 percent over the same time period.

The Lot

There isn’t as much empty land left in New York City compared with places like Phoenix or Atlanta, which can expand outward. City developers have to look hard to find properties with potential, and then they have to acquire the money to buy them.

The empty lot in May 2021.

Google Street View

Between the two proposals, the Crown Heights site seemed to be more promising at first glance. Until 2018, it was just vacant land that local businesses sometimes used as a parking lot. The developer, Nadine Oelsner, already owned it, removing a potential roadblock that can often tie up projects or make them financially unworkable.

One of three aging parking garages in September 2015.

Google Street View

On the Upper West Side, though, the site was already occupied by three aging parking garages with a shelter and a playground in between. The garages would need to be demolished if the developer, a nonprofit known as the West Side Federation for Senior and Supportive Housing that operated the shelter, succeeded in its plan to build apartments on either side of the playground.

The new development, which was floated to the community in 2015, would also include a renovated and expanded shelter. And the nonprofit did not own the garages or the land — the city did.

One thing working in the group’s favor, though, was that the city had wanted to build housing on the site since at least the mid-2000s, according to planning documents.

Source: West Side Federation for Senior and Supportive Housing

The Zoning

But something invisible can matter more than a plot’s physical characteristics: zoning.

That governs how every piece of land in New York City can be used. Zoning determines, for example, whether homes or warehouses are allowed in a particular area, how much parking is needed and how tall a building can be.

It also aims to prevent growth in haphazard ways, with schools next to factories next to office buildings.

The city’s modern zoning code does not leave much room for growth, which means that a bigger building often requires a zoning change. One 2020 study by the nonprofit Citizens Budget Commission found that only about one residentially zoned plot in five would allow for that kind of additional housing. A zoning change triggers a lengthy, unpredictable bureaucratic process.

The site Ms. Oelsner owned was zoned for industrial, not residential use, a throwback to a time when that part of Brooklyn was dominated by businesses supported by the nearby railroad line.

Community leaders were frustrated by one-off changes to individual lots — there had been at least five zoning changes within a two-block radius of Ms. Oelsner’s site in recent years. To counter the trend, the community decided to come up with a bigger rezoning plan for the area. Ms. Oelsner saw an opportunity for her lot in that idea.

But she would need a zoning change, too.

Sources: OpenStreetMap, New York City Department of City Planning

The site on the Upper West Side had a slight edge: It was zoned for residential use.

As the project began to move forward, the city also sought a slight zoning change to allow for a bigger structure with more homes.

Sources: OpenStreetMap, New York City Department of City Planning

The Proposal

U.S. housing is mostly built and run by the private sector. If developers and owners can’t cover their costs with income from rents and sales — and make a profit — they most likely won’t build.

This can make it hard to keep rents affordable to potential tenants without big subsidies from the government, such as money a developer receives directly or tax breaks in exchange for making some units affordable for people at specified income levels.

Here are more details of what the two developers planned.

The proposal for the Crown Heights lot was by Ms. Oelsner and her company, HSN Realty, who were private developers working without city support.

Ms. Oelsner also made the case that her family had been part of the community for years, operating a Pontiac dealership.

Most of the apartments she proposed would rent at market rates, meaning the rents could be set as high as the landlord thought tenants could pay. This was similar to other new buildings in the area.

In Ms. Oelsner’s case, a government subsidy would likely come in the form of a decades-long property tax exemption.

In exchange, several apartments would be made “affordable” — in this case, rents would be capped at a certain percentage of gross household income for particular groups.

Under one plan, for example, 38 units would be restricted in this way. Of those, 15 might rent for around $1,165 for a one-bedroom apartment, or $1,398 for a two-bedroom.

Source: West Side Federation for Senior and Supportive Housing

The proposal from the West Side Federation had a much stronger case because of the city’s support. The group wanted to construct a building where all the apartments would rent below market rates and be targeted to some of the city’s poorest residents.

Most units would rent to people who were formerly homeless, often referred from shelters and typically relying on government-funded voucher programs to pay almost all of their rent. The remaining apartments would rent for between $865 and $1,321.

The West Side Federation said it had slowly built trust in the community over decades, in part because of the shelter it already operated on the street and was now expanding, as well as two dozen other area buildings it ran.

Because of that track record, and the need for affordable housing, the city decided to do several things. It essentially gave the developer the land — appraised at about $55 million — for free, a typical government practice in such a scenario.

It also chipped in $9 million to help pay for construction and another $33 million through a federal tax credit program. The West Side Federation would not have to pay property taxes on the development.

The Politics

Both projects met immediate opposition as they began to wade through a bureaucratic city process in which housing proposals often run into challenges from community members and politicians. It’s not unusual for this process to be costly and time-consuming, often taking more than two years.

In fact, this is where Ms. Oelsner’s project in Crown Heights met its end.

In Crown Heights, neighbors wanted more apartments to be available at lower rents and were concerned about parking. Ms. Oelsner worried the bigger rezoning plan of the area would take too long and, if she waited, would run up the costs of her project, which she said she had designed to be consistent with the broader efforts.

In the end, Crystal Hudson, who held the power to approve or reject the development as the local council member, voted against Ms. Oelsner’s proposal last year, effectively killing the project. Ms. Hudson said she would not back individual developments until the bigger neighborhood rezoning was finished.

On the Upper West Side, a vocal resident group had several complaints: that the loss of the parking garages could lead to an uptick in traffic, greenhouse gas emissions and accidents; that the development could disturb students at a nearby middle school; and that it could reduce the amount of sunlight in nearby parks.

The councilman who represented the neighborhood at the time, Mark Levine, initially said he would hold off on supporting the plan until he better understood the effects of more cars on the street.

Eventually, though, the project gave the community enough of what it wanted, the group behind the project said, and government officials came around. The project was split into two phases, keeping one garage running for a few years after the first two were demolished.

The Results

One key to successful development is buy-in from the government and local politicians. The Upper West Side plan had that, despite the opposition it faced, while the Crown Heights project did not.

That’s in part because the Upper West Side lots were owned by the city, which was ready and willing to chip in lots of money to create a deeply needed housing project in the area that would most likely not have been built otherwise. The Crown Heights lot, on the other hand, is privately owned and mostly out of the city’s control — which made the project potentially very lucrative for the owners, even if it added some benefit to the community.

Hiroko Masuike/The New York Times

The dirt lot in Crown Heights remains a dirt lot. The broader plan Ms. Hudson pushed is underway, set to be completed next year.

Ms. Oelsner, however, has said that she’s not sure whether it still makes financial sense to build her project, so its fate remains uncertain.

Hiroko Masuike/The New York Times

The Upper West Side building has been open for about two years. It is full and has a long waiting list.

And the amount tenants pay in rent remains low. That’s because the government sends the West Side Federation about $1 million annually to help cover the rent.

New York

Read the Trump Assassination Plot Criminal Complaint

Published

2 weeks ago

November 9, 2024

Press Room

Read the Trump Assassination Plot Criminal Complaint

and committed out of the jurisdiction of any particular State or district of the United States,
FARHAD SHAKERI, CARLISLE RIVERA, a/k/a “Pop,” and JONATHAN LOADHOLT, the
defendants, and others known and unknown, at least one of whom is expected to be first brought
to and arrested in the Southern District of New York, knowingly and willfully did combine,
conspire, confederate, and agree together and with each other to commit murder-for-hire, in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1958.
6. It was a part and an object of the conspiracy that FARHAD SHAKERI,
CARLISLE RIVERA, a/k/a “Pop,” and JONATHAN LOADHOLT, and others known and
unknown, would and did knowingly travel in and cause others to travel in interstate and foreign
commerce, and would and did use and cause another to use a facility of interstate and foreign
commerce, with intent that a murder be committed in violation of the laws of the State of New
York or the United States as consideration for the receipt of and as consideration for a promise or
agreement to pay anything of pecuniary value, to wit, SHAKERI, RIVERA, and LOADHOLT
participated in an agreement whereby RIVERA and LOADHOLT would kill Victim-1 in exchange
for payment, and used cellphones and electronic messaging applications to communicate in
furtherance of the scheme.
(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1958 and 3238.)
COUNT FIVE
(MONEY LAUNDERING CONSPIRACY)
7. From at least in or about December 2023, up to and including the date of
this Complaint, in Iran, the Southern District of New York, and elsewhere, and in an offense begun
and committed out of the jurisdiction of any particular State or district of the United States,
FARHAD SHAKERI, CARLISLE RIVERA, a/k/a “Pop,” and JONATHAN LOADHOLT, the
defendants, and others known and unknown, at least one of whom is expected to be first brought
to and arrested in the Southern District of New York, knowingly and willfully did combine,
conspire, confederate, and agree together and with each other to commit money laundering, in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956.
8. It was further a part and an object of the conspiracy that FARHAD
SHAKERI, CARLISLE RIVERA, a/k/a “Pop,” and JONATHAN LOADHOLT, the defendants,
and others known and unknown, in an offense involving and affecting interstate and foreign
commerce, knowing that the property involved in certain financial transactions represented the
proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, would and did conduct and attempt to conduct such
financial transactions which in fact involved the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, to wit,
the proceeds of the murder-for-hire offenses charged in Counts Three and Four of this Complaint,
knowing that the transactions were designed in whole and in part to conceal and disguise the
nature, location, source, ownership, and control of the proceeds of said specified unlawful activity,
in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(1)(B)(i).
9. It was further a part and an object of the conspiracy that FARHAD
SHAKERI, CARLISLE RIVERA, a/k/a “Pop,” and JONATHAN LOADHOLT, the defendants,
and others known and unknown, would and did transport, transmit, and transfer, and attempt to
transport, transmit, and transfer, monetary instruments and funds to a place in the United States
3