Hartsdale Highlighted In Wall Street Journal Article

  • Comments (5)
Hartsdale was given recognition by The Wall Street Journal on Friday for its convenient location to urban areas, moderate housing prices and nightlife.
Hartsdale was given recognition by The Wall Street Journal on Friday for its convenient location to urban areas, moderate housing prices and nightlife. Photo Credit: Samantha Kramer

HARTSDALE, N.Y. ‒ Hartsdale has received kudos from The Wall Street Journal, which describes the village's downtown as "quaint and pedestrian-friendly."

Hartsdale's location, entertainment and housing were among the features highlighted in an article on the paper's Friday real estate page.

According to the article, Hartsdale's location attracts young professionals looking for nightlife and urban families looking for more space. It's an easy commute to New York City from a nearby Metro-North station and is just a few minute's drive to White Plains.

A Hartsdale resident and Houlihan Lawrence broker told the The Journal why Hartsdale's real estate has become increasingly attractive.

"It has an ideal location," Marilyn Krizansky said. "You don't have the taxes of Scarsdale, but you have the advantages of being close to a metropolitan area of White Plains for shopping and restaurants."

While Hartsdale's median home listing price of $469,000 represents a 10 percent increase from last year, it's still well below White Plains median of $579,000 and Scarsdale's $1.5 million, according to Zillow.com. That gives Hartsdale residents the ability to take advantage of White Plains' city atmosphere while paying cheaper rents, according to the article

The Journal also gave a nod to the Hartsdale's historic sites, such as the famous Hartsdale Pet Cemetery, which was added to the National Register of Historic Places in September, and the Hart's Brook Nature Preserve.

Hartsdale isn't the only area town to be nationally recognized in the past few years. In April, Forbes Magazine ranked Tarrytown as one of America's prettiest communities. And CNN ranked Greenburgh 80th out of its 100 best places to live in the country.

  • 5
    Comments

Comments (5)

"Apparently Hartsdale is really a halfway house for those who have neither achieved the wealth of Scarsdale or the desire to pursue a more urban lifestyle which might be the subject of another article: White Plains is neither New York City nor New Rochelle"

Hal, aren't you a renter ?

Loser!!!!

Having no financial ties to Greenburgh is winning.

That's not nice Greenburger. Renters bring income into Greenburgh and their rents pay toward taxes as well.

Overall, Hartsdale is not Scarsdale nor is it Edgemont or Fairview. All three unincorporated places (Hartsdale, Edgemont and Fairview) are uniquely distinct and deserve their own recognition for 'excellence'. No one is ever sure if referring to 'Greenburgh' is a reference to one or more of the three unincorporated places, one or more of th six villages or some combination of such. Reporters should be clear about their geographical reference when reporting. This article was clear that it was about unincorporated Hartsdale.

Wow, that's a lot of words.

For those who argue half full vs half empty, either position acknowledges that there is still a half container left to fill.

Thus presenting this sample from the Wall Street Journal without explaining that this paper, like others including the NY Times, runs a regular real estate section that manages to "discover" over time every community in its market and portray each in the best of terms. Newspapers, hard copy and online, depend on advertising and obliterating the (once even viewed as a fine) line between "news" and promotion is no longer part of their genetic makeup. The editorial climate is to encourage advertisers (in this case real estate salespersons) to advertise their wares. No one is going advertise listings for homes located in slums or war zones so it becomes the goal of the "copy" to portray each and every community in the best light possible.

What I react to here is The Daily Voice adding their two cents worth to the WSJ's puff piece by "Hartsdale has received kudos..." and the more subtle in being technically correct but still judgmental "Hartsdale has been given RECOGNITION by the WSJ..."

Am I quibbling? Am I acting out half empty vs half full? Consider that the WSJ, the original source, really satisfied their weekly assignment by saying that Hartsdale is not Scarsdale and it is not White Plains. Duh. Nor is it any of the six incorporated villages or a lot of other nearby communities. Apparently Hartsdale is really a halfway house for those who have neither achieved the wealth of Scarsdale or the desire to pursue a more urban lifestyle which might be the subject of another article: White Plains is neither New York City nor New Rochelle.
What does Hartsdale uniquely have? A dogs-only cemetery? Is this a reason to move or stay here? Certainly many home buyers are interested in the school system and while the WSJ article mentioned but obscured the reality of Hartsdale's (instead coding the problem by citing the private schools) low standing, this was left out of The Daily Voice's recap.

Instead, The Daily Voice has latched onto what Feiner still promotes on the Town Board Meeting Agenda and the Town website: an 80th best place to live mention. What would be responsible for both (should the truth of the matter be allowed to intervene) would be to qualify (or disqualify) this regurgitation because it never was accurate from the beginning and raises the legitimate question of why this 2008 pronouncement (as if 80 was admirable) was longer earned in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012? Perhaps because in 2008, the poll was done with the same lack of research as we still see done by reporters in 2013 when they just print without vetting. In 2008, the 100 best places compared CITIES and erroneously included the Town of Greenburgh with better ranked local "places": Stamford and White Plains. Were they to have compared Towns with Towns, who knows what would be the result albeit an accurate competition. But it is irresponsible to report on something from 2008 without identifying the year of "recognition" and then to ignore the obvious question arising from that knowledge: why is Greenburgh no longer on the list?

Then too, why does an article about an article solely on Hartsdale manage to sign off with a comment (false) about Greenburgh?

Hal Samis