Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.