The New York Times has discovered that Soho is not “nearly as eccentric as it used to be”

After realizing the hard truth that Tribeca is “not for starving artists” anymore, The New York Times Real Estate section is back with more truth bombs. In an article published today in their “Living In” column, they finally noticed that Soho — which was included in Forbes’ priciest zip codes in the country this year— “isn’t nearly as eccentric as it used to be.”

To be fair, they are right. Though the neighborhood, like Tribeca, used to be filled with quirky artists paying tiny rents to live in giant lofts, the Times is correct that it is not like that anymore. It hasn’t been like that for twenty years.

As one resident, Lynne Kanter, who bought her studio apartment in 1989 for $36,000, puts it, back in the day “there were dancers on fire escapes and performances in the street.” Now, she finds the area “crazy” because of crowds of tourists and boutiques. Sorry, Lynne, literally no one feels bad for you.

The only way to handle living in the craziness, according to the Times, is to also have a country house outside of the city where you can escape the crowds. Lynne runs away to Bethel, upstate, while another couple featured in the piece has a house in Southampton. Thank goodness!

Still, there are some advantages to living in the neighborhood, as another longtime resident put it. “The old buildings have thick walls, there’s no crime and no problems. It’s a lovely place to live, really.”

Just don’t call it eccentric.