This is the Williamsburg of Your City: A Map of Hip America

[memph]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Anecdotal, again: several of my Pilsen neighbors moved here after being prices out of Humboldt Park. It's still not expensive, but it is no longer dirt-cheap anymore unless you're west of Humboldt Blvd and miles from the L. Pilsen has always offered more bang for the buck in terms of neighborhood retail/services and proximity to downtown I think, and it's cheaper on an absolute basis too.

New Orleans' neighborhoods are pretty spot on to the Brooklyn ones IMO.

Isn't East of Humboldt Blvd considered West Town? Anyways, that area is definitely improving. Census maps show West Town as tied with Bronzeville and the areas between Lincoln and Milwaukee Ave around Bucktown for the biggest increases in income.

[memph]

Originally Posted by awholeparade

Denver, Colo. Highlands Baker, Capitol Hill (tie)

Weird, that's actually 3 different neighborhoods: Highlands, Baker and Capitol Hill

The notation is weird and confusing. They should have put a semi colon or something between the "Williamsburgs" and "Bushwicks", instead they just put a space making it seem like it's a single neighbourhood. So what they're saying is that Highlands = Williamsburg and Baker and Capitol Hill = Bushwick.

[Hed Kandi]

To this list I would also add:

Stockholm, Sweden - Sodermalm
Tokyo, Japan - Shimokitazawa

[brickell]

Miami probably true.
Orlando... I thought Thorton Park was mostly rich Yuppies

[Leo the Dog]

Disagree with San Diego's City Heights. That would be probably the complete opposite of hip. Urban blight, African immigrants, high crime.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by brickell

Miami probably true.
Orlando... I thought Thorton Park was mostly rich Yuppies

The same will be true very soon for Wynwood and Little Haiti... condo developers smell blood.

Can't wait to see these areas become Miami fabulous!!!!!!

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by 10023

Also, this is anecdotal but when I was working for a Chicago financial services firm circa 2004, one of the VPs lived in Logan Square. It's the next stop and it's full of cool places to eat and drink, but I'm not sure it's ever been edgy to the point of being borderline dangerous.

logan square was never an englewood or lawndale, but it used to be a lot more "gangy" 15 years ago when it was way more working class latino.

this is anecotal, but i'll retell it anyway. i had several friends who lived in logan back in the 90s/early 00s as 1st wave gentrifiers (artsy types). one of my friend's girlfriends got caught in gang cross fire one evening walking from her car to their apartment. she dove between some parked cars and was luckily not hit (they moved back to lakeview later that month). another friend living in logan at that time had a window in his apartment shot out from a stray bullet from a gang shootout in his alley. it was definitely an "edgier" hood to live in 15 years ago, but it was never ghetto shithole "edgy".

[10023]

^ Fair enough. I guess the question is, when is our cut off for when a place stopped being dangerous? At some point, the East Village had gang violence.

And also, did it go directly from being dangerous to being an "it" neighborhood, or did it get safe (and become more of a working class family hood) before it got cool.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

from the article:

Hunters Point for SF? I think they're jumping the gun there a bit.

Despite changes for the better, it's still a pretty poor, high crime neighborhood, that includes industrial zones and is heavily polluted in parts. It's kind of isolated from the rest of the city too, and it's only 5-10% white right now, which doesn't seem common for a "williamsburg". It's overwhelmingly working/middle class, with a sizable amount of impoverished people living in some of the most dilapidated public housing in the nation. The black population has been shrinking, and the area has been getting less impoverished and less dangerous, like other versions of Williamsburg or proto-Williamsburg or whatever, but it's not white yuppies or hipsters that are replacing them for the most part, but rather middle and working class Asians and Latinos. And for those reasons I don't see HP getting trendy with the right crowd any time soon, in order to become some kind of Williamsburg-esque hipster paradise. I guess it has shifted in that direction to some small extent...it is a cheaper neighborhood in SF after all. It's just nothing like what you see in the Mission district, and I think there are other areas on the "wiliamsburg-style hipster gentrification list" before HP.

I think SF's "next williamsburg" has already happened actually, and is pretty well established at this point: the Panhandle/Divisadero corridor (or as transplants and real estate agents say: "NOPA" ). It began transforming into prime hipster land years ago, a bit after the mission did. It is kind of a small area though.

If there's going to be another Williamsburg in SF, I'd put the odds on the Excelsior district before Hunters Point/the Bayview, due to it's larger amount of amenities, lower crime rates compared to Hunters Point, better connectivity to the rest of the city, and proximity to the mission district (not to mention its near BART, and closer to City College and SFSU).

Maybe it'll happen to HP too, but not too soon, IMO.

[Xelebes]

Edmonton is on a list but Calgary isn't? *fistpump*

[Nineties Flava]

Originally Posted by tech12

Hunters Point for SF? I think they're jumping the gun there a bit.

Despite changes for the better, it's still a pretty poor, high crime neighborhood, that includes industrial zones and is heavily polluted in parts. It's kind of isolated from the rest of the city too, and it's only 5-10% white right now, which doesn't seem common for a "williamsburg". It's overwhelmingly working/middle class, with a sizable amount of impoverished people living in some of the most dilapidated public housing in the nation. The black population has been shrinking, and the area has been getting less impoverished and less dangerous, like other versions of Williamsburg or proto-Williamsburg or whatever, but it's not white yuppies or hipsters that are replacing them for the most part, but rather middle and working class Asians and Latinos. And for those reasons I don't see HP getting trendy with the right crowd any time soon, in order to become some kind of Williamsburg-esque hipster paradise. I guess it has shifted in that direction to some small extent...it is a cheaper neighborhood in SF after all. It's just nothing like what you see in the Mission district, and I think there are other areas on the "wiliamsburg-style hipster gentrification list" before HP.

I think SF's "next williamsburg" has already happened actually, and is pretty well established at this point: the Panhandle/Divisadero corridor (or as transplants and real estate agents say: "NOPA" ). It began transforming into prime hipster land years ago, a bit after the mission did. It is kind of a small area though.

If there's going to be another Williamsburg in SF, I'd put the odds on the Excelsior district before Hunters Point/the Bayview, due to it's larger amount of amenities, lower crime rates compared to Hunters Point, better connectivity to the rest of the city, and proximity to the mission district (not to mention its near BART, and closer to City College and SFSU).

Maybe it'll happen to HP too, but not too soon, IMO.

They said Hunters Point would be SF's "Bushwick" which is still a bad comparison. They also said Oakland is SF's Bushwick and Piedmont/San Francisco are Oakland's "Williamsburg"... Pretty much all the Bay Area comparisons are off the mark lol.

[ue]

Their Vancouver example of the current "Williamsburg" is silly. Yaletown? Gastown?? Their "Bushwick" example, The Drive, is more the current Williamsburg of Vancouver. The Bushwick would be other East Van neighbourhoods, I guess, like Strathcona.

Originally Posted by kool maudit

mile end isn't also the bushwick of montreal. that would be centre-sud, st-henri or probably "mile ex"

Yes.

Originally Posted by Xelebes

Edmonton is on a list but Calgary isn't? *fistpump*

But they don't have a "Bushwick" equivalent listed, which would probably be Alberta Ave.

[brickell]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

The same will be true very soon for Wynwood and Little Haiti... condo developers smell blood.

Can't wait to see these areas become Miami fabulous!!!!!!

sad but true.
I have my doubts about Little Haiti, but fail to see a better alternative.

[ColDayMan]

Cincinnati, Ohio Northside, Over-the-Rhine (tie) Clifton, Northside (tie)

The Williamsburg one, they got. Clifton and Northside as Bushwick? No. Walnut Hills and East Price Hill would be the Bushwicks of the city.

Columbus, Ohio Clintonville, German Village (tie) Olde Towne East

Opposite for Columbus. They got the Bushwick right but Clintonville (a yuppie family paradise with no hipsters) and German Village (an unaffordable mansion district prentending to be quaint?). No. Columbus' Williamsburgs are Merion Village and Harrison West.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by brickell

sad but true.
I have my doubts about Little Haiti, but fail to see a better alternative.

Close to Morningside/upper east side areas though... so maybe some potential there? Love those old neighborhoods close to the water up there.

I'm not sure what to make of the whole Wynwood neighborhood really. I like the idea of it (especially in Miami), but at the same time, I don't really enjoy going there. I don't find anything that attractive about it. I guess it's the low-slung concrete blocks that I'm not a big fan of, even though the murals are cool.

[atlantaguy]

Originally Posted by brickell

Miami probably true.
Orlando... I thought Thorton Park was mostly rich Yuppies

Pretty much re: Thornton Park, but they're still there.

I would say it's a swath just above there around ViMi (Virginia & Mills), Colonialtown, Little Saigon and perhaps Audubon Park.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by Nineties Flava

They said Hunters Point would be SF's "Bushwick" which is still a bad comparison. They also said Oakland is SF's Bushwick and Piedmont/San Francisco are Oakland's "Williamsburg"... Pretty much all the Bay Area comparisons are off the mark lol.

I thought the idea was that Bushwick is going to be the next Williamsburg, so any neighborhood on the list under Bushwick is supposedly going to be the next Williamsburg of its city?

But yeah the list for the bay seems wrong regardless. Piedmont as williamsburg? Haha

[Nineties Flava]

Originally Posted by tech12

I thought the idea was that Bushwick is going to be the next Williamsburg, so any neighborhood on the list under Bushwick is supposedly going to be the next Williamsburg of its city?

But yeah the list for the bay seems wrong regardless. Piedmont as williamsburg? Haha

If by "williamsburg" they mean "big white population" then Piedmont is definitely Oakland's Williamsburg (and has been for over a century) haha. Really though I was pretty surprised they didn't name Temescal since all the national papers have had a hard-on for it for years.

I actually do somewhat agree with Fruitvale being next though... a lot of people from SF are moving into the Jingletown area. Fruitvale itself definitely has a bigger profile than it used to,

[hudkina]

The funny thing about Hamtramck for Detroit is that it is a completely different city. Granted, there are some neighborhoods in Detroit that are adjacent to Hamtramck that I guess could be considered the Bushwick. The neighborhood just north of Hamtramck, I like to call Norham.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by tech12

Hunters Point for SF? I think they're jumping the gun there a bit....I think SF's "next williamsburg" has already happened actually, and is pretty well established at this point: the Panhandle/Divisadero corridor (or as transplants and real estate agents say: "NOPA" ). It began transforming into prime hipster land years ago, a bit after the mission did. It is kind of a small area though.

Agreed on all points. The Panhandle/Western Addition has already happened. It's less commercial than the Mission but features all the bike traffic, hip restaurants, and high rents. It doesn't have the best transit, but it arguably has one of the best bike connections to downtown and the Mission via the Panhandle path, the Wiggle, Market and Valencia.

If there's going to be another Williamsburg in SF, I'd put the odds on the Excelsior district before Hunters Point/the Bayview, due to it's larger amount of amenities, lower crime rates compared to Hunters Point, better connectivity to the rest of the city, and proximity to the mission district (not to mention its near BART, and closer to City College and SFSU).

Yes, I completely agree about the Excelsior--and I'd add the adjacent Portola, which also benefits greatly from frequent 24/7 service into the Mission and downtown (via the 9 San Bruno). And I think the hipsterization process in both has already begun, although clearly it will take a long time.

Hunters Point is so much more isolated, and has pretty bad transit and bike connections. As a result, it's one of the most car-centric of the city's neighborhoods. HP will gentrify a lot with the huge new housing developments already u/c out that way, but I don't think it will shift from gritty to hip--I think it will likely become the kind of bland, family-oriented, owner-occupied district that hipsters don't generally inhabit.

Also, I think the Inner Sunset (spreading westward from 9th and Irving) could be a strong candidate for a next hip neighborhood, as it has good transit via the N Judah and great bike connections via the Panhandle to downtown and the Mission. It's also close to the already-hipstery Western Addition.

Originally Posted by tech12

I thought the idea was that Bushwick is going to be the next Williamsburg, so any neighborhood on the list under Bushwick is supposedly going to be the next Williamsburg of its city?

But yeah the list for the bay seems wrong regardless. Piedmont as williamsburg? Haha

I wonder if they meant Piedmont Avenue? I mean, I think it's more yuppie than hipster, but there's just no way the city of Piedmont is what they really mean, right?

Originally Posted by Nineties Flava

If by "williamsburg" they mean "big white population" then Piedmont is definitely Oakland's Williamsburg (and has been for over a century) haha. Really though I was pretty surprised they didn't name Temescal since all the national papers have had a hard-on for it for years.

I actually do somewhat agree with Fruitvale being next though... a lot of people from SF are moving into the Jingletown area. Fruitvale itself definitely has a bigger profile than it used to,

Temescal is already hip--and it's only going to get hipper. It might just be the true 'Williamsburg' of Oakland, if there is one. Fruitvale, on the other hand, is probably the true Bushwick. It's got everything everyone loves--great transit, decent biking, proximity to everything, a strong retail core, density, good bones. There's little chance it will remain a poor Latino neighborhood in 10, 15 years.

Also, for Oakland, let's not forget Chinatown. It's not that I think it's in the sights of hipster-gentrifiers, but if there were any neighborhood that looked on paper like the most likely to become a hip urban enclave, it would be Oakland Chinatown. Outside of SF and maybe downtown Berkeley, neighborhoods don't get more traditionally urban, dense, mixed-use, well-served by transit, and good for walking and biking. It's literally in the middle of everything.