Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was gonna say this^^^. LES, EV, Chelsea, SoHo, Williamsburg, Greenpoint and Bushwick come to mind.
What you're thinking of is gentrified hipster industrial grit. The NYC equivalent of this would be Williamsburg and Bushwick. This is actually my favorite kind of grit, but very different from the upscale, chic, SoHo grit.
SoHo is not like that at all. I really think that SoHo is one of the most unique + distinct urban neighborhoods in the world and I don't think Philly has an equivalent.
I think the closest thing Philly has to something like SoHo would be Walnut St/Rittenhouse area because of rich people and upscale shopping, but the architecture is nothing alike. SoHo has very distinct architecture. Also, Rittenhouse didn't really seem that gritty to me at all.
As someone familiar with both Philly and NYC areas, I guess I would describe SoHo in Philly terms as if you took King of Prussia and turned it into a Manhattan neighborhood, with the upscale shopping and insanely rich people and all, but also added an element of grittiness and streetart to it.
It's hard for me to to think of any of these areas as "gritty" because I remember what they were like before gentrification. They're far glossier than they were even 10 years ago, when they were already gentrified (not Bushwick, though).
It's hard for me to to think of any of these areas as "gritty" because I remember what they were like before gentrification. They're far glossier than they were even 10 years ago, when they were already gentrified (not Bushwick, though).
I'm in my early 20's and from Queens. I'm not old enough to remember Williamsburg, but I remember when Bushwick was dangerous. I wasn't really a fan of Brooklyn growing up, but now I love it.
I'm a huge fan of streetart and graffiti and I think Bushwick is the best place for that, with Williamsburg probably 2nd best.
I'm also familiar with Philly and I know the areas (s)he was describing. They are very similar to present day Williamsburg and Bushwick. Definitely Philly's version of those two neighborhoods.
Northern Liberties = Philly's Williamsburg
And Fishtown = Philly's Bushwick
Also my apartment building in South Williamsburg by the JMZ is really gritty, lol. It's a really old walkup that dates back to the 1800's and not in the best shape and also a bit ugly and covered in graffiti. But I love it and probably pay more for one tiny bedroom out of 3 than most people in other cities do for their own place in a much nicer building. /sigh
Last edited by That_One_Guy; 12-16-2016 at 10:00 AM..
Status:
"See My Blog Entries for my Top 500 Most Important USA Cities"
(set 5 days ago)
Location: Harrisburg, PA
1,051 posts, read 976,625 times
Reputation: 1406
1. Detroit - went through the hardest of times. Once was America's 4th largest urban area in 1950. An icon of the decline in American heavy manufacturing. Fascinating city, this was my pick.
2. Buffalo - went through tough times as well, once being in the top 20 urban areas now barely in top 50. Not bashing any of these cities, they literally are my favorite cities. Grit=struggle/character/respect. Also in Buffalo's case - the cold and very snowy winters further amplifies the gritty feeling. I think people forget Buffalo sometimes, hence no votes in the poll. But in reality Buffalo is up
3. Cleveland-stagnant metro for a long time, not sure if it still is anymore though. Very rust belt. Colder/snowier? than Pittsburgh. Very rust belt.
4. Pittsburgh-once the 8th largest urban area now 26th. Went through some rough times with the virtual complete collapse of the US steel industry in the 70s/80s. Loads of character, and has the bones and infrastructure of a much larger city (like top 10). One of my all-time favorite cities. Might deserve 3rd place on my list here. So many cool neighbs and historical housing stock.
5. St. Louis - ghetto areas, crime problems. Once a much larger city, and I think it was intended to be a much larger city. Metro was stagnant for a long time, I dont think thats the case anymore. It does have some nice colleges and some tourism. It also has a warmer climate, but is subject to cold blasts being in tye midwest and not insulated by mountains (is that a thing idk?)
6. Baltimore - ghetto areas, major crime problems, but located near Washington DC, and in wealthy Maryland, so its grit level is not quite as high. Some parts of the city are downright scary and partially abandoned, but overall it has alot of good suburbs, and the inner harbor and nearby area to the inner harbor is very ritzy/expensive. It feels like a complete city, not lacking anything other than for people to return to the city proper after fleeing to the suburbs. Idk if it is rust belt, or if it ever was though. Also, it has a much warmer climate than the others on this list. Metro never stopped growing, although the city proper did decline. Much respect for Baltimore, also one of my favorite cities.
7. Milwaukee - very rust belt, but coming back. Cold. Metro growing. I just dont know that much about Milwaukee.
8. Philadelphia - certain areas yes would win, but the downtown and some areas are just too robust/yuppie/white collar. The Philly metro never really stopped growing (i.e. never was stagnant). If you are isolating this as city proper it might rank higher. But as a whole, there area some very large, very well-to-do, yuppie areas of the city and the suburbs.
9. Cincinnati - one of the lowest on my list of what is considered rust belt. It has a quasi northern/southern city feel. Warmer than others here. Well diversified city, it seems.
10. Chicago - same for Philadelphia, except downtown and suburbs even larger/more prominent/maybe wealthier idk. Sidenote - has arguably the 2nd best skyline in the US.
11. NYC - maybe the Bronx is gritty, but many parts are so incredibly wealthy, full of tourists, and well-to-do they do not seem like grit at all - Long Island, Manhattan (some sketchy areas). NYC is incredibly diversified, and is seen as a very major world class city, if not the alpha city of the world. NY did have some grit in the 60s-90s when crime was sky high, but it has really been cleaned up and has very low crime rates now from what is being reported.
12. Boston - um cold, some isolated gritty areas. So many major universities. Boston metro never really stopped growing, and Im not sure it is rust belt at all, or ever was. Very wealthy city.
13. San Francisco - not too much grit there at all. If you include SJ in the urban area, which many do not, then it is definitely not gritty at all as a whole.
In that order (greatest to least grit, assuming metro not city proper). Good poll. Much respect for the gritty cities. You should (I might) do a poll of small/midsize metro most gritty cities (250k-1m).
Only other major cities missing from your poll with some grit: New Orleans, Memphis, and Indianapolis.
Personally I really like the feeling of grit in Cleveland. It seems to me the model of the post-industrial city and so much of its muscular industrial past is still on display, along the docks near the flats, the old steel, industrial bridges that cross from the east to west sides by way of downtown, the warehouses near the downtown core. Even a place like Progressive Field whose design was made in reference to Cleveland's steel past. In Cleveland, that grit really stuck. Being a Chicagoan, I know in my city much of the grit has been gentrified almost out of existence. I like the Cleveland look.
I wanted to vote for Cleveland, as I'm biased. But then I settled on Detroit.
New York used to do grit the best, but the city is getting glossier and glossier every year.
This is going to come out very East Coast biased, but I prefer gritty cities, but somehow, LA's grit just depressed me. Maybe it's because it's so different from the fantasy Los Angeles I'd imagined all those years.
I wouldn't say that New York does grit best. But I would say that New York does urban best. Which is are two entirely different things. Though the average poster on C-D feels that urban has an interdependence on grit, but it really doesn't. Or, the average poster on here is in their feelings because the South and the West Coast successfully do urban without grit, meaning that the population is still growing in those areas. Then of course Atlanta and cities like Birmingham are probably underrated, as far as grit, IMHO.
Maybe back in the seventies; I can't think of any situation where the grit is as well documented as NYC back in the seventies, but now, no.
I wouldn't say that grit is primarily a Northern thing. I would say that it is primarily a post-industrial thing. On some level, grit is actually about the environmental uncleanliness of those environments.
A lot of cities have cleaned up. In another 50 years grit may very well be a 20th century construct, as there won't be anyone alive to know what it was like to have gritty cities.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
