BY Led Black (@Led_Black)
Brian Harkin|The Wall Street Journal
The Wall Street Journal recently ran an interesting and fact filled real estate profile on Washington Heights. I did have an issue with the following sentence in the first paragraph: “Today, the northern boundary of Washington Heights is largely considered to be at 181st Street.” This is absolutely not true but the article was solid otherwise and highlighted many of this neighborhood’s outstanding attributes.
Read the entire article: Here
Are you a local business?
yep, i saw that WSJ piece and wrote the reporter a letter pointing out the fallicy of that assertion. alas, i received no response.
here’s the text of the letter:
“No, the northern boundary of Washington Heights is not “largely considered to be at [West] 181st Street.” Or at least not by the people who live here, the Community Board (CB12, Manhattan) or any of the many city agencies responsible for providing services here.
“Yes, Hudson Heights, Fort George and other names have emerged for sections within Washington Heights, but Washington Heights stretches from the southern boundary of CB12 at W. 155thSt. to Dyckman Street, generally considered the southern boundary of Inwood, which extends to the tip of Manhattan. True, some would consider the “Dyckman valley” (i.e., Thayer, Arden, Sickles & Ellwood Streets) to be part of Inwood, thus pushing the northern boundary of WH south to the intersection of Nagle Avenue & Broadway, but there is absolutely no argument that can be made to or by anyone actually familiar with the area for Washington Heights ending at W. 181st Street.
Saw and thought the same thing. Just more of an argument for the value of local reporting.