The Brooklyn Factor

[samne]

Originally Posted by softee

dc denizen posted this great Toronto Westside pic in the aerial photos thread. Lots of dense, highly walkable neighbourhoods in this part of the city.

The Toronto Westside by Andrew Cowan, on Flickr

Toronto vernacular is mainly peaked roof and alot of variation in height and housing type. The opposite if whats in those Brooklyn aerial images.

For Brooklyn "spirit" of urbanity Id say the areas west of downtown Toronto or Queen East of the Don River.

[samne]

Originally Posted by craigs

Brooklyn:


source

Thats impressive sense of urbanity....but is it ideal?

[jd3189]

^^^ I think it's ideal. Brooklyn is very down to earth in urbanity that resembles the low-rise neighborhoods of Manhattan very well. No matter where you go, there are people in the street, nice continuous architectural walls, and no short supply of commercial streets with mom and pop shops, local and chain retail, restaurants, and bodegas. It's mainly cozy and calm but yet filled with energy.

If you don't like the urban intensity of Manhattan but still desire a walkable, urban experience, much of Brooklyn will give you that. Same with Queens. New York is just fucking big as a urbanized giant. You got the large skyline but also even more of the dense and walkable environment that categorizes the 3 closest outer boroughs ( Staten Island is more suburban). Hudson County should also be included into that group.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by samne

Thats impressive sense of urbanity....but is it ideal?

Have you ever experienced Brooklyn in person?

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Fresh

Alternative answer

Brooklyn, New South Wales

https://www.google.com/maps/@-33.545...7i13312!8i6656

Brooklyn, Victoria

https://www.google.com/maps/@-37.817...7i16384!8i8192

Not quite as vibrant (thought there's some great oysters at the restaurant in that first link)

Brooklyn, IL (mentioned in another thread) is the anti-Brooklyn NY:

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6571...7i13312!8i6656

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by jd3189

^^^ I think it's ideal. Brooklyn is very down to earth in urbanity that resembles the low-rise neighborhoods of Manhattan very well. No matter where you go, there are people in the street, nice continuous architectural walls, and no short supply of commercial streets with mom and pop shops, local and chain retail, restaurants, and bodegas. It's mainly cozy and calm but yet filled with energy.

If you don't like the urban intensity of Manhattan but still desire a walkable, urban experience, much of Brooklyn will give you that. Same with Queens. New York is just fucking big as a urbanized giant. You got the large skyline but also even more of the dense and walkable environment that categorizes the 3 closest outer boroughs ( Staten Island is more suburban). Hudson County should also be included into that group.

Exactly. As a place to live, I prefer the urban scale of Brooklyn far more than Manhattan.

[Acajack]

Brookl(i)n, Ontario - an outer suburb of Toronto.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.9571...7i13312!8i6656

This is the main drag, but most of Brooklin is modern-day suburban subdivisions.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by jd3189

^^^ I think it's ideal. Brooklyn is very down to earth in urbanity that resembles the low-rise neighborhoods of Manhattan very well. No matter where you go, there are people in the street, nice continuous architectural walls, and no short supply of commercial streets with mom and pop shops, local and chain retail, restaurants, and bodegas. It's mainly cozy and calm but yet filled with energy.

I like Brooklyn a lot, but I wouldn’t say it’s the best urban environment on earth.

For one, there are better urban street layouts than a grid. A grid is kind of monotonous, encourages fast car travel (either because you can go straight or because the traffic department can convert any street into an arterial), you have to be vigilant when you cross at any intersection because traffic comes from all 4 corners, rather than just 3, and it doesn’t allow for things like view termini or buildings at the foot of a T intersection that hem the neighbourhood in (I think that’s a good thing). A grid also means that a pedestrian necessarily has to travel at right angles to get to a destination rather than finding a shorter, diagonal path.

I’d say that a non-grid pre-modern pattern like a European city or Boston’s North End is better, all else being equal.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I like Brooklyn a lot, but I wouldn’t say it’s the best urban environment on earth.

For one, there are better urban street layouts than a grid. A grid is kind of monotonous, encourages fast car travel (either because you can go straight or because the traffic department can convert any street into an arterial), you have to be vigilant when you cross at any intersection because traffic comes from all 4 corners, rather than just 3, and it doesn’t allow for things like view termini or buildings at the foot of a T intersection that hem the neighbourhood in (I think that’s a good thing). A grid also means that a pedestrian necessarily has to travel at right angles to get to a destination rather than finding a shorter, diagonal path.

I’d say that a non-grid pre-modern pattern like a European city or Boston’s North End is better, all else being equal.

Probably 80% of the streets in Brooklyn are one-way.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Probably 80% of the streets in Brooklyn are one-way.

Ok, then drivers just floor it, since there’s no oncoming traffic and a string of green lights for the next 4 blocks. My argument is that a grid is not the best for walkability.

On a walkability scale of 0-10, where 0 is an exurban cul de sac and 10 is a pedestrianized medieval city centre, I’d say most of Brooklyn is a 7.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Ok, then drivers just floor it, since there’s no oncoming traffic and a string of green lights for the next 4 blocks. My argument is that a grid is not the best for walkability.

Very impractical. Even if a driver is lucky enough to hit a string of green lights (most roads are timed so that a car stops about every 4 lights), the streets aren't conducive to excessive speeds since they are narrow. And if that's not enough, many have speed bumps.

Originally Posted by hipster duck

On a walkability scale of 0-10, where 0 is an exurban cul de sac and 10 is a pedestrianized medieval city centre, I’d say most of Brooklyn is a 7.

Brooklyn is about the best experience in North America. And... It's better than London.

[samne]

I also really like Brooklyn. To be honest didnt spend as much time there as I wouldve liked last time in NYC a couple years ago.

The biggest thing that stands out for me when I see that aerial is....wheres the green space?

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Very impractical. Even if a driver is lucky enough to hit a string of green lights (most roads are timed so that a car stops about every 4 lights), the streets aren't conducive to excessive speeds since they are narrow. And if that's not enough, many have speed bumps.

Also bikes and buses.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by edale

Yeah, well, you posted in a thread about neighborhood analogues to Brooklyn. And it was a bad suggestion because Glendale has absolutely nothing comparable to the neighborhoods being discussed in MTL, SF, Philly, DC, etc.

If LA doesn't really have neighborhoods that fit the thread criteria, Glendale sure as hell doesn't. Really, outside of a few blocks of Brand (Downtown), I wouldn't say too much of Glendale is really even urban. It's pretty suburban and auto-centric. Single-use zoning everywhere. Even a massive corridor with dozens of car dealerships.

Being laid out on a grid shouldn't really be seen as special at all.

Originally Posted by LA21st

its not a bad excursion to fit in Glendale with a Pasadena or Highland Park visit. also close by to Griffith Park-which is also underrated on these kinds of forums.
Glendale has alot of Armenians/Persians, so it's a different vibe if you want to see something new. The Americana is somewhat touristy, like a version of the Grove.

Oh mah gah Glendale has good food. You can get totally esoteric Armenian food there. Their bakeries alone... And the lavash. I totally take out-of-town visiting relatives and friends to Glendale.

Glendale may appear to be "suburban" by some, but it has a significant downtown... and why wouldn't it? The population is over 200,000, and it often ranks as one of the safest cities (for its size) in the US with Irvine, CA, and I consider that to be notable, because I don't consider Irvine to be a "real" city (to me it's more of a master-planned extremely bland exurb).

And every time I'm in Glendale, you see many people taking public transportation; the buses are often crowded (at least pre-pandemic they were)... which often makes me wonder why Glendale hasn't been pushing for extensions of Metro Rail into their city.

[Martin Mtl]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

On a walkability scale of 0-10, where 0 is an exurban cul de sac and 10 is a pedestrianized medieval city centre, I’d say most of Brooklyn is a 7.

Then pretty much everything else in NA (except Le Plateau in Montreal) is 5 or below. Come on.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Oh mah gah Glendale has good food. You can get totally esoteric Armenian food there. Their bakeries alone... And the lavash. I totally take out-of-town visiting relatives and friends to Glendale.

Glendale may appear to be "suburban" by some, but it has a significant downtown... and why wouldn't it? The population is over 200,000, and it often ranks as one of the safest cities (for its size) in the US with Irvine, CA, and I consider that to be notable, because I don't consider Irvine to be a "real" city (to me it's more of a master-planned extremely bland exurb).

And every time I'm in Glendale, you see many people taking public transportation; the buses are often crowded (at least pre-pandemic they were)... which often makes me wonder why Glendale hasn't been pushing for extensions of Metro Rail into their city.

I love the food, it's actually underrated as well lol. I go to Mini Kabob near the Americana usually, which I was told is very popular among Disney employees.

Glendale does seem more alive than most suburbs. Some Angelenos I know dont even call it a suburb, they call it a city.
It's clean as well, the community is proud of it, and they also discourage homeless taking advantage of their town.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by samne

Thats impressive sense of urbanity....but is it ideal?

Originally Posted by samne

The biggest thing that stands out for me when I see that aerial is....wheres the green space?

I thought these exact same things.

In fact, that aerial reminded me of that classic post-war image of Daly City, CA, which inspired the song "Little Boxes," which criticizes the blandness and conformity of post-war suburbia (ironically enough).

Life Magazine



Link to lyrics: https://www.google.com/search?q=Litt...hrome&ie=UTF-8

[JManc]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Ok, then drivers just floor it, since there’s no oncoming traffic and a string of green lights for the next 4 blocks. My argument is that a grid is not the best for walkability.

On a walkability scale of 0-10, where 0 is an exurban cul de sac and 10 is a pedestrianized medieval city centre, I’d say most of Brooklyn is a 7.

I feel attacked.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Glendale does seem more alive than most suburbs. Some Angelenos I know dont even call it a suburb, they call it a city.

I don't generally consider Glendale to be a suburb either; it's LA County's 3rd largest city (after Long Beach and LA). Glendale, Long Beach, Pasadena... though smaller in population and not part of the City of LA, historically, they started out as cities independent of each other with their own economies, and then just became part of greater LA. They didn't start out as "bedroom communities." And I don't generally consider Long Beach or Pasadena to be "suburbs" in that sense either.

[Segun]

Originally Posted by samne

Toronto vernacular is mainly peaked roof and alot of variation in height and housing type. The opposite if whats in those Brooklyn aerial images.

For Brooklyn "spirit" of urbanity Id say the areas west of downtown Toronto or Queen East of the Don River.

This to me is an ideal urban environment. You can live a house with a yard and have everything within a walk.

I don't get the infatuation with needing to walk by continuous street walls of buildings if amenities are concentrated enough.

It looks good, but so does landscaping if done right.