What's Your City's Staten Island?

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by mhays

West Seattle feels like a temporary Staten Island...for the 2.5 years while the West Seattle Bridge is in emergency closure due to its potential to fail. A small parallel bridge is mostly limited to buses, trucks, and bikes. Cars have to go a few extra miles to the next bridge.

I've only been here for about a year, so I guess that explains my errant perspective.

[mhays]

It's normally a kinda Staten Island in my opinion (I should have said that), but for a while it's a definite Staten Island.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Originally Posted by edale

Cincinnati has a number of similar streets, especially on the west side, where the hills tend to be steeper, and the neighborhoods a bit grittier. It's not uncommon to find yourself driving a curvy, rural stretch of road not even a mile removed from old city neighborhoods or inner burbs.

This: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1003...7i16384!8i8192

is like 800 feet away from this: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1028...7i16384!8i8192

For some reason I was thinking/expecting that stretch of River Road west of Elberon/State Avenue (Sedamsville). My uncle used to live in an older (civil war era?) house in that part of town that always, for whatever, reason, felt super rural despite Queensgate and Downtown right around the other side of Mt. Echo.

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by mhays

It's normally a kinda Staten Island in my opinion

I knew it!

[JManc]

For Houston, it would be Kingwood. It's isolated from the rest of the city although still physically conterminous with the rest of Houston. It's very white, conservative and has a small town vibe despite being a part of a city of ~2.4 million.


#43 on this map. #44 is a lake

[proghousehead]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

The area called Oakland Hills in this map...


Most people even in the Bay Area would never think this was Oakland.

Politically tho, it's hyper liberal which SI is not.

Given its “hyper liberal” bent, guess it’s nothing at all like SI? Eh Montclair?

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

The area called Oakland Hills in this map...


Politically tho, it's hyper liberal which SI is not.

Your map is good but you’ve got the wrong part of it. SF’s “State Island” is Alameda, not the Oakland hills. The defining characteristic of State Island isn’t affluent woodsiness. It low density middle class SFH neighborhoods that are somewhat self-protective.

[isaidso]

For Toronto it has to be Scarborough. It's way out in the east end, more low brow, less densely populated, forgotten, ignored, and looked down upon.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Your map is good but you’ve got the wrong part of it. SF’s “State Island” is Alameda, not the Oakland hills. The defining characteristic of State Island isn’t affluent woodsiness. It low density middle class SFH neighborhoods that are somewhat self-protective.

I was talking about the Hills being Oakland's Staten Island as far as being removed from the rest of the city and generally looking and feeling different.

For SF proper, Idk, maybe the Outer Sunset?

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by proghousehead

Given its “hyper liberal” bent, guess it’s nothing at all like SI? Eh Montclair?

Well, Staten Island went for Trump, the Oakland Hills would swalllow rusty nails, whole.

[Crawford]

The SI of SF would be Daly City, South SF and the like, IMO. Maybe some fringe parts of SF proper like Excelsior, and those areas near the city line. Kinda insular, enclave-y, middle class but not fancy. The defining feature isn't really conservatism; more a populist streak and faux-grievance.

The SI of Toronto would be parts of Etobicoke, IMO. Scarborough is too working class, new and immigrant-oriented. SI has relatively high incomes and isn't really considered low class or undesirable, just weird and inscrutable to outsiders.

[kcexpress69]

For Kansas City, I'd almost have to say it's the "Northland" which is basically everything north of the Missouri River. I'm not sure if that's fitting your description of a Staten Island or not, but it's nearly its own enclave once you cross that bridge. It's all suburban, once you leave the city of North Kansas City, and it mainly comprises of cookie cutter subdivisions with little or no personality. Great place to live though, if you like suburban life.

If I really wanted to get technical though, it would have to be Kansas City in the 64139 zip code.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The SI of SF would be Daly City, South SF and the like, IMO. Maybe some fringe parts of SF proper like Excelsior, and those areas near the city line. Kinda insular, enclave-y, middle class but not fancy. The defining feature isn't really conservatism; more a populist streak and faux-grievance.

The SI of Toronto would be parts of Etobicoke, IMO. Scarborough is too working class, new and immigrant-oriented. SI has relatively high incomes and isn't really considered low class or undesirable, just weird and inscrutable to outsiders.

I think Staten Island is such an anomaly in part because the city is so goddamned big you can have entire neighborhoods dominated by cops, fireman, contractors, etc. Basically residual non-manufacturing blue-collar jobs which pay very well (due to being unionized, public-sector, or both).

[niwell]

Originally Posted by softee

I'd say the Southern Etobicoke former "Lakeshore Towns" of Long Branch, New Toronto and Mimico are Toronto's Staten Island.

They're close to the water with views of the skyline across Humber Bay, they have an old school feeling that seems like things haven't changed that much since the 90s, the streets are numbered unlike in the rest of the city, a mix of small detached wood frame and brick houses dating from the 1920s-1940s, and lots of low rise apartment buildings. Also, it's still a largely white, working class area.

Lake Shore Blvd W in New Toronto
https://goo.gl/maps/xT9UCn8WMGN9PKqL6

Eleventh St
https://goo.gl/maps/6YKBFyuqm1cmt6jT7

That's what I was thinking as well - older bones but with an eclectic mix of newer infill from a wide range of time periods. The area feels fairly insular too, and despite it's age is arguably less accessible by transit than many newer, further flung neighbourhoods.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I think SI is more distinct culturally, than physically. NE Philly, to me, is an almost perfect analogy.

Also, SI is steadily growing less distinct. The northern half of SI is pretty much indistinguishable from the Outer Boroughs. Majority nonwhite, fairly dense, culturally urban, transit oriented.

The southern half is really what we're talking about. White ethnic, tribal, reactionary, fairly high income, lots of tradespeople, weird land use patterns that don't look typically urban or suburban.

Culturally NE Philly I would say used to be analogous to Staten Island.

But today, NE Philly is way more diverse than Staten Island. It's more like Philly's version of Queens at this point more than anything else.

Philly's Staten Island at this point, I would argue, is Gloucester County NJ, and particularly Washington Township, NJ.

[KB0679]

I suppose the neighborhood in DC that comes closest might be Georgetown but it's also the most historic part of the city, predating the establishment of the District itself.

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The SI of SF would be Daly City, South SF and the like, IMO. Maybe some fringe parts of SF proper like Excelsior, and those areas near the city line. Kinda insular, enclave-y, middle class but not fancy.

As somebody who grew up in Daly City, I have to wholeheartedly disagree.

Daly City is primarily working class, or immigrant professional. Many people don't speak English. In fact, I frequently lobbied my parents as a kid to move to SF, as our neighborhood in Daly City didn't feel like a match for our upper-middle class WASP family. /soapbox

I'm not sure that there is an analogy for Staten Island in SF. Maybe TI, but TI is largely poor, so I don't think it quite counts.

Pacifica is kind of like a Staten Island, but it is not part of the city of SF at all, so I don't think it really counts either.

Edit: I do realize that Daly City has two halves to it. Maybe the "little boxes" half, closer to the Ocean, is kind of like a Staten Island, although I think that it still is largely immigrant, just upper class immigrant.

[Docere]

Vaughan is the Staten Island of the Greater Toronto Area.

[Crawford]

I got vague SI vibes in Daly City/Colma/South SF area, and maybe somewhat into SF proper. Ticky-tack homes, middle class banality, lots of modified street racing cars, weird lawn ornaments, not really urban but not exactly suburban.

I get that it's more Filipinos than Italians, but both groups are somewhat culturally conservative and insular. And the West Coast doesn't really do the white ethnic thing, so the parallels aren't great.

[Docere]

San Francisco did have a large Italian population at one time but once they left the urban enclaves like the North Beach Little Italy they didn't form new enclaves in suburbs, like in the Northeast.