The Brooklyn Factor

[mrnyc]

the old brooklyn neighborhood in cleveland is indeed a pretty cool neighborhood


below is around the 2min mark on this nice drone view:

https://youtu.be/lXCjIAod7dc

[Segun]

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.

If there was any neighborhood type I'd put in the same category or even above Medieval centers in terms of walkability, most dense in developing nations would fit the bill.

https://goo.gl/maps/mEAnBVKLmqDnN4gS7
https://goo.gl/maps/Yd2JUd5vkxq9fP6q6
https://goo.gl/maps/PzjB5aNKL9yzXBnD7

[MolsonExport]

Cul de sacs are very walkable places for young children. Certainly around my home.

[Docere]

Getting a bit confused with the differing defintions of "Brooklyn."

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by 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?

There are a few major parks in Brooklyn like Prospect Park and Sunset with acres of green space. There are also tons of minor parks here and there. A lot of the streets, especially in the brownstone neighborhoods, are tree-lined. That aerial isn't too far from a park.

I wouldn't say Brooklyn is the world's best urban environment, but it's up there. It appears to be top tier in North America with a few peers. It's probably the best type of urban environment the average American can deal with, as many would not tolerate the intensity of Manhattan.

[streetscaper]

Some more Brooklyn aerials




https://ny.curbed.com/2018/5/7/17326...a-data-dispute



https://ny.curbed.com/2019/9/10/2085...ella-interview


@donjuanfernandez


https://ny.curbed.com/maps/greenpoin...uction-nyc-map

Sony Alpha a7 III ILCE‑7M3 by Emil abu Milad, on Flickr


https://ny.curbed.com/2018/10/2/1792...ghborhoods-map

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by 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?

NYC has the 11th highest park score of any major city in the US. 99% of its residents live within a 10 min walk of a park. 21% of NYC's land is used for green space.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Segun

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.

Obviously for most people (particularly families) a private house with a yard within walking distance of everything would be superior to a walk-up apartment - or even a rowhouse.

But the fact of the matter is, streetcar suburban type neighborhoods simply aren't populated enough these days to keep their business districts going due to the fall in family size and changes in shopping patterns. Their commercial zones are either half-dead and filled with things like realtors offices and hair salons, or they rely upon people driving in from outside of the neighborhood, making them functionally speaking strip malls with scarce parking.

Brooklyn is (mostly) at an ideal density because any commercial district can survive on local foot traffic alone. Hell, Brooklyn levels of density often create more foot traffic than Manhattan, insofar as in elevator building areas a lot of amenities (laundry, gyms, coffee shops, etc) retreat inside the buildings, and away from public view.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by eschaton

But the fact of the matter is, streetcar suburban type neighborhoods simply aren't populated enough these days to keep their business districts going due to the fall in family size and changes in shopping patterns. Their commercial zones are either half-dead and filled with things like realtors offices and hair salons, or they rely upon people driving in from outside of the neighborhood, making them functionally speaking strip malls with scarce parking.

Toronto lucked out in this respect because we never really had the developer led "loss-leader" streetcar suburbs. The TTC was centralized in 1922 and had a mandate to only expand when the expansion would be at the very least revenue neutral. The result was a somewhat similar typology to American streetcar suburbs, but everything packed in a LOT more. Many, if not most, houses were also originally built with the idea of "lodgers" with their own kitchen on the second floor as well, so very little was truly single family.

The end result is our commercial districts remain vibrant in these areas. Truth be told I was a bit weirded out the first time I went to an American city and saw a beautiful old neighbourhood yet the commercial strip was mostly strip malls or vacant.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Segun

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.

Yes, much of older inner Toronto is precisely in that perfect "sweet spot".

A SFH there is pretty much like having your cake and eating it too.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by niwell

Toronto lucked out in this respect because we never really had the developer led "loss-leader" streetcar suburbs. The TTC was centralized in 1922 and had a mandate to only expand when the expansion would be at the very least revenue neutral. The result was a somewhat similar typology to American streetcar suburbs, but everything packed in a LOT more. Many, if not most, houses were also originally built with the idea of "lodgers" with their own kitchen on the second floor as well, so very little was truly single family.

The end result is our commercial districts remain vibrant in these areas. Truth be told I was a bit weirded out the first time I went to an American city and saw a beautiful old neighbourhood yet the commercial strip was mostly strip malls or vacant.

On my trips to Toronto, it seemed like the most vibrant areas had a lot of multifamily - including full-on highrises - on the main streets. There absolutely were SFHs, but they were tucked away on back streets and would presumably comprise only a minority of the population. Plus of course they were all riduculously expensive. What good does it do to have SFHs available in an urban core if the absolute cheapest start at $1 million?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by niwell

Toronto lucked out in this respect because we never really had the developer led "loss-leader" streetcar suburbs.

Pretty much the entire Yonge corridor, north of Bloor, was developed as streetcar suburbs. Same goes for places like the Beaches and the Bloor Village areas. Toronto has a crapload of streetcar suburbs, but has grown much faster than U.S. equivalents, so the streetcar suburbs are practically inner city at this point.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by eschaton

On my trips to Toronto, it seemed like the most vibrant areas had a lot of multifamily - including full-on highrises - on the main streets. There absolutely were SFHs, but they were tucked away on back streets and would presumably comprise only a minority of the population. Plus of course they were all riduculously expensive. What good does it do to have SFHs available in an urban core if the absolute cheapest start at $1 million?

In reality, most of what look like SFHs in central Toronto are multiple apartments. There certainly are proper SFHs, but most are through renovations and even still tend to have basement apartment units to rent out. I actually haven't lived in an apartment here that hasn't been in what's looked like a house, and I've lived in far too many places over the past 13 years! With the exception of one, all of these have had shared backyard access which I've come to value very highly. Right now we are in a 1200 sq ft place that's the 2nd floor of a semi-detached. There are additional apartments on the first and 3rd floor, with shared storage/laundry in the basement and a decent sized backyard. Strangely enough, apartments in houses generally go for less than those in brand new condo towers, though as many here are likely familiar with living in 100+ year old buildings comes with its own set of idiosyncrasies.

There's a whole historical reason for this rooted in Toronto's former puritan heritage where apartment buildings were seen as debaucherous tenements, so everything just had to look like a SFH. Originally there was less separation between apartment areas on different floors but those were walled off over time. Areas like this (my former street) are much more multifamily than they may visually appear: https://goo.gl/maps/cKyfh5fK9cLetCCQ6

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Pretty much the entire Yonge corridor, north of Bloor, was developed as streetcar suburbs. Same goes for places like the Beaches and the Bloor Village areas. Toronto has a crapload of streetcar suburbs, but has grown much faster than U.S. equivalents, so the streetcar suburbs are practically inner city at this point.

The major difference was that the streetcar lines weren't built by developers using the promise of transit to sell land. They were built first by the Toronto Railway Company and later by the TTC, both of which had mandates to not extend until there was the density to justify it. There were also radial rail companies, but this wasn't really sufficient for most commuters.

"Unplanned Suburbs" by Richard Harris and "Toronto Sprawls" by Lawrence Solomon go into this in heavy detail. (I wrote more than one Master's essay on this exact subject as well).

[jd3189]

Haven't seen some of those aerials of Brooklyn before. I always wondered within some of those streets but never saw them frim that perspective. Reminds me that I should consider living there again.

[MolsonExport]

What about Queens? Don't swathes of Queens have "the Brooklyn Factor"? Didn't large parts of the Bronx also have it, before Robert Moses ruined half of it?

[Crawford]

Queens has some similarities with Brooklyn, but the Bronx looks pretty distinct. I don't think there's a good Bronx analogue outside NYC.

Most of the Bronx looks like Upper Manhattan. It's more solid walls of large midrise apartment buildings. Relatively few rowhouse blocks. Definitely much higher weighted density than Brooklyn.

[MolsonExport]

Whatabout Paterson, Passaic?

[mhays]

Originally Posted by eschaton

...streetcar suburban type neighborhoods simply aren't populated enough these days to keep their business districts going due to the fall in family size and changes in shopping patterns. Their commercial zones are either half-dead and filled with things like realtors offices and hair salons, or they rely upon people driving in from outside of the neighborhood, making them functionally speaking strip malls with scarce parking.

Brooklyn is (mostly) at an ideal density because any commercial district can survive on local foot traffic alone. Hell, Brooklyn levels of density often create more foot traffic than Manhattan, insofar as in elevator building areas a lot of amenities (laundry, gyms, coffee shops, etc) retreat inside the buildings, and away from public view.

You make good points.

However any static density, even Brooklyn's, merits far less retail space than it used to. The switch to supermarkets and big boxes was step one. Internet retail pre-Covid was step two. The wreckage of Covid is three, including the sped-up shift to online buying.

If you can add density, you can add retail or at least offset these effects. But it takes a huge increase to do this. If the internet and Covid are cutting long-term neighborhood retail by 25%, then you'd need a 33.3% increase in residents/workers/etc (or spending power) to offset that.

That seems farfetched for most of Brooklyn, so retail dispersed along commercial avenues will continue to thin out....while continuing to remain viable due to density.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Queens has some similarities with Brooklyn, but the Bronx looks pretty distinct. I don't think there's a good Bronx analogue outside NYC.

Most of the Bronx looks like Upper Manhattan. It's more solid walls of large midrise apartment buildings. Relatively few rowhouse blocks. Definitely much higher weighted density than Brooklyn.

The Bronx very much developed as an extension of Manhattan, while Brooklyn was an independent city.