Your city's Brooklyn

[Docere]

Yes, very much so. Montreal is quite similar to Brooklyn in urban form - lowrise apartment cities. Both the "hip" Plateau and the ethnically diverse sections have a Brooklyn feel. Somewhat similar ethnic mix: Jewish, Italian, Haitian, Arab. Montreal is the only place in North America besides Brooklyn where you'll find lots of Hasidic Jews and Haitians. Interestingly, even the Jewish and Italian Montrealers have somewhat similar "ethnic" accents to their NYC counterparts.

One throwoff is Westmount - most similar place I can think of is probably Brookline, Mass. Or the Yonge-St. Clair and Rosedale areas of Toronto.

[fflint]

I think functionally and socially, San Francisco's "Brooklyn" is really Oakland. Across the water (and an easy subway ride) from SF's Financial District, it's a place apart that has been for quite some time now attracting hipsters, artists and makers, as well as regular working joes priced out of San Francisco just like Brooklyn has from Manhattan. Like Brooklyn, Oakland has excellent public transit, good biking and walking infrastructure, is extremely racially/ethnically diverse, culturally vibrant (with an especially ascendant restaurant and bar scene), and has lots of young people from all over the place making a go of it right alongside born-and-bred Oaklanders.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by mello

Holy crap Miami is looking Chunky Monkey. Is the downtown getting mad vibrant yet?

Its been mad vibrant. Its beyond mad vibrant. THere isn't a word yet invented to describe the magnitude of vibrant. Be sure to check out the threads on Miami developments. City is very underrated on SSP, but I can assure you that there is too much stuff going up.

[dc_denizen]

Beautiful northwestern Brooklyn:



link

[chris08876]

^^^

Just noticed your signature. Bet your very happy.

[streetscaper]

Foreground: Prospect Heights and Clinton Hill in Brooklyn


[/url]Untitled by semitone, on Flickr

[Xing]

Probably Chicagos northwest side, from West Town to Logan Square.

[MonkeyRonin]

These 15 wards are the most logical ~184 sqkm/71 sqmi I can come up with for Toronto (population is 823,140).



http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/co...0071d60f89RCRD


It includes the established hipster neighbourhoods along Queen West and College; current trendy spots of Parkdale, the Junction, Brockton Village, and Bloordale; revitalized warehouse districts; working class/ethnic urban hoods yet to be touched by gentrification like Weston, Mimico, and the areas along the St. Clair and Eglinton corridors; it's got an Eastern European enclave on the water; there are large Italian & black populations throughout, and Jews along Bathurst; some of the city's most deprived sections at its edge; and a generally dense, mostly low-rise housing stock in the older parts. Unlike Brooklyn however, about half the area is post-war development, including sprawling industrial zones. It's also completely different in just about every other meaningful way.

This thread just doesn't work quite as well or as equally across cities as the "Manhattan" one (inner-most 23 sqmi) does.

[McBane]

Brooklyn is WAY to varied to be pegged like this. First off, w/ more than 2.5m people, it really doesn't have any peers except Chicago and LA and I suppose Queens. Second, there's much more to Brooklyn than hipster neighborhoods. There are many solidly middle to upper middle class family neighborhoods throughout Brooklyn that get zero national attention (not saying they should, just saying they exist). And you have areas like Mill Basin in Southern Brooklyn, which has been home to millionaires long before Park Slope and adjacent neighborhoods became desirable. And of course there are still parts of Brooklyn that - believe it or not - have not gentrified and are still full or poor minorities (gasp!). Hipsters make up a tiny fraction of Brooklyn's population and yet the national press would make you believe that the entire borough is a hipster's paradise.

So when we try to compare our city's version of Brooklyn, what part of Brooklyn are we supposed to be comparing? This is not much different than me starting a thread called, "Your City's Philadelphia."

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by chris08876

^^^

Just noticed your signature. Bet your very happy.

Very Much

Philadelphia's Brooklyn, North Philly:





link

[Docere]

Originally Posted by McBane

And of course there are still parts of Brooklyn that - believe it or not - have not gentrified and are still full or poor minorities (gasp!). Hipsters make up a tiny fraction of Brooklyn's population and yet the national press would make you believe that the entire borough is a hipster's paradise.

Yes. Contrary to the hype, Brooklyn is much more demographically similar to Queens than it is to Manhattan. Yet it isn't uncommon for affluent people to say "I can't afford to live in Brooklyn."

[Docere]

College degree:

Manhattan 58.1%
Queens 29.9%
Brooklyn 29.8%

Median HH income:

Manhattan $68,370
Queens $56,780
Brooklyn $45,215

$100K+ households:

Manhattan 38.3%
Queens 24.1%
Brooklyn 19.9%

[hipster duck]

Vancouver doesn't have much in common with New York, but it does have a very clear Manhattan-Brooklyn distinction going on.

"Manhattan" is the downtown peninsula (population 150,000) which is small enough to have even contained the downtown and most central residential districts early on in the city's history, and so the city grew up, rather than out, and most Vancouverites have to get there by bridge, tunnel or ferry. Actually, parts of downtown Vancouver have sort of a Upper West Side vibe to them. For example, people who live in the West End shop for their groceries in Greek-owned delis that haven't been renovated since the 1970s and are open until midnight and the area has a lot of extremely left wing senior citizens living in rent-controlled apartments who never fail to make it to a community meeting to protest against the impending gentrification of new condo developments.

"Brooklyn" is the much larger remainder of the City of Vancouver on the Burrard Peninsula (pop. 450,000). It's not remotely as dense as Brooklyn, nor nearly as old, but it does have the same density gradient: the northern sections across False Creek from downtown are mostly lowrise apartments and townhomes and it peters out into reasonably dense single family home neighborhoods further south.

There is also a certain Brooklyn element to the remainder of the Burrard Peninsula too. Kitsilano reminds me of Park Slope and Carroll Gardens. It's full of yoga moms drinking expensive juices and if French people live in Vancouver, they tend to live here too. Also, the vast institutional dullness of downtown Brooklyn between Atlantic Yards and the foot of the Brooklyn bridge is sort of replicated in the area of Vancouver around the General Hospital.

[Mikemike]

Edmonton's Brooklyn is Strathcona, which has recent college grads with beards and/or moustaches, a landmark bridge to downtown, and was a competitive independent city until it was merged with Edmonton about a hundred years ago. Unlike Brooklyn, it had only a few thousand residents at the time.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Chase Unperson

Brooklyn is 71 square land miles and contains 2.6 million people

What is your city's brooklyn population. The constrains are is that it has to be 71 square miles, can not contain the primary or secondary financial districts but had to contain at least 2-3 cutting edge communities.

For Los Angeles it is the westside. But it only has a population of about 500k. 2 large short of Brooklyn.

Los Ángeles has nothing equivalent to Brooklyn.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

"Manhattan" is the downtown peninsula (population 150,000)

Wikipedia puts it at 99,250 people.

[Jonboy1983]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Very Much

Philadelphia's Brooklyn, North Philly:





link

I was thinking the same thing.

[10023]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Los Ángeles has nothing equivalent to Brooklyn.

Not if you take it too literally (built form, density, etc), but what about Silverlake, Echo Park, Hancock Park, etc?

Or if it has to be geographically distinct from West LA, the neighborhoods south of LAX (Manhattan Beach, etc)? Or even Long Beach?

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by fflint

Wikipedia puts it at 99,250 people.

Yes, you're right. I might have confused the 150k number for another geographical area that includes the downtown peninsula.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Docere

Yes. Contrary to the hype, Brooklyn is much more demographically similar to Queens than it is to Manhattan. Yet it isn't uncommon for affluent people to say "I can't afford to live in Brooklyn."

I think the difference is that "affordable Brooklyn" generally lacks any of the appeal of many neighborhoods that are affordable in Queens.

Also, by the time you get to "affordable Brooklyn", you're a long commute away from Midtown jobs.