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.
Manhattan below 23rd street. From StuyTown, to West Village, to SoHo, to Financial District, to Tribeca, to Chinatown, to Battery Park City, to the Lower East Side. All so distinct! Different demographics, architecture, street layouts (from grids to medieval Euro style mazes), it’s an incredible urban area. Midtown et al are far more homogeneous with the rigid street layout.
It’s a gradual transition though. While 99th St. is technically East Harlem, it’s virtually indistinguishable from UES. I do agree, however that New York has the greatest variation between neighborhoods… Sometimes even WITHIN a neighborhood. Forest Hills is a great example of a neighborhood with great variation.
I think it kind of depends where in NYC. I don’t think every part of the city has a huge amount of variation, but there definitely is a lot. I think Lower Manhattan has the greatest variation between neighborhoods in NYC, and maybe in all of America, both with how sudden and extreme changes are between neighborhoods. Uptown to me OTOH I’ve always felt was much more uniform. Midtown definitely has some variation, most notably between the West Side and the East Side, but IMO it still keeps a little bit of uniformity with street layout and overall “Midtown” vibe. Although Midtown is filled with different famous landmarks + tourist sites everywhere that in a different kind of way add distinctness.
Queens IMO is up there with Lower Manhattan with variety in neighborhoods. Every Queens hood started out as it’s own individual city, town, or village before becoming Queens, so that seems obvious. Forest Hills is weird and is a very mixed bag. You can live in Forest Hills and live in a big SFH on a quiet street, a rowhome, a bungalow, a lowrise, midrise, or even a highrise apartment with a Manhattan view.
The Bronx is probably more uniform than other boroughs. And Brooklyn I just spoke about in my last post.
EDIT:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mraza9
Manhattan below 23rd street. From StuyTown, to West Village, to SoHo, to Financial District, to Tribeca, to Chinatown, to Battery Park City, to the Lower East Side. All so distinct! Different demographics, architecture, street layouts (from grids to medieval Euro style mazes), it’s an incredible urban area. Midtown et al are far more homogeneous with the rigid street layout.
basically this, but I think Uptown is more homogeneous than Midtown!
Last edited by That_One_Guy; 04-20-2018 at 08:47 PM..
There are basically four things which lead to distinct "neighborhood vibes" as opposed to a city seeming like one giant morass.
Distinct architecture: Older cities get points here, because building styles changed dramatically through the 19th and 20th centuries, and in general the older a neighborhood is the more likely it represents a distinctive local vernacular rather than just what was in fashion at the time. In contrast, starting in the streetcar era neighborhoods became a lot more samey, both nationally and within cities. Sometimes individual cities had dramatic shifts in architecture which can still be seen, such as when Boston shifted from building mostly brick to mostly wood-frame during the late 19th century.
Neighborhood business districts: It's hard for a neighborhood to have a distinct "sense of place" if it's just a collection of houses. Neighborhoods with strong identities have some sort of commercial business district which serves as the community focal point.
Topographic Barriers: Flat, sprawling cities don't really have clear boundaries to delineate where one neighborhood starts and another ends. Things like elevation changes, railroad tracks, rivers, and (unfortunately) major highways tend to cut off individual neighborhoods from their neighbors, making them feel more like tucked-away mini cities rather than just another part of a greater whole.
Demographic diversity: Even if neighborhoods are otherwise different, if they're all occupied by the same yuppies with the same yuppie stores, they don't seem as distinct. Divisions of people, rather than natural barriers, are in large part why distinct neighborhoods developed in say New York City, which has relatively few natural barriers.
Awesome analysis! Not all of those points are needed for a neighborhood to feel different from another, though. Say you have your business district and unique architecture, that can be enough, even if demographics are same.
Agreed. I used to live in Carroll Gardens, which the above poster mentioned. Now I’m in Williamsburg. Outside of sharing a Brooklyn address, they have absolutely nothing in common! They don’t even look anything alike.
Going back to Carroll Gardens, it does blend into Cobble Hill to the North, which kind of blends with Boerum Hill, and to a lesser extent Brooklyn Heights (IMO Brooklyn Heights is very distinct from the others even though there are similarities).
But if you go East immediately from Carroll Gardens you get indistrial Gowanus which might just be the grittiest place in all of NYC and is like night/day from Carroll Gardens. Immediately West/South brings you to Red Hook, which is also very a big change.
Speaking of historic Brooklyn Heights, it’s a pretty big difference crossing from there over to modernized DUMBO and busting Downtown Brooklyn with all the new skyscrapers and high rises. And then there’s whatever you call that area between DUMBO and Hasidic South Williamsburg.
I think BK hoods are best viewed in groups: Sunset Park + Bay Ridge share similarities but are very different from Park Slope and Boerum Hill. East Williamsburg/Bushwick are nothing like Coney Island/Brighton Beach etc.
Are we talking from a purely structural standpoint? If not, then I think Bay Ridge and Sunset Park are pretty different even though they have similarities. And Williamsburg/Bushwick too. Despite Bushwick turning into Williamsburg 2.0, I still think it's a much different neighborhood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by That_One_Guy
I think it kind of depends where in NYC. I don’t think every part of the city has a huge amount of variation, but there definitely is a lot. I think Lower Manhattan has the greatest variation between neighborhoods in NYC, and maybe in all of America, both with how sudden and extreme changes are between neighborhoods. Uptown to me OTOH I’ve always felt was much more uniform. Midtown definitely has some variation, most notably between the West Side and the East Side, but IMO it still keeps a little bit of uniformity with street layout and overall “Midtown” vibe. Although Midtown is filled with different famous landmarks + tourist sites everywhere that in a different kind of way add distinctness.
Queens IMO is up there with Lower Manhattan with variety in neighborhoods. Every Queens hood started out as it’s own individual city, town, or village before becoming Queens, so that seems obvious. Forest Hills is weird and is a very mixed bag. You can live in Forest Hills and live in a big SFH on a quiet street, a rowhome, a bungalow, a lowrise, midrise, or even a highrise apartment with a Manhattan view.
The Bronx is probably more uniform than other boroughs. And Brooklyn I just spoke about in my last post.
EDIT:
basically this, but I think Uptown is more homogeneous than Midtown!
But I think you can say the same thing about Queens neighborhoods being viewed in "groups". For instance,
Laurelton, Rosedale, St. Albans, and Cambria Heights
Are we talking from a purely structural standpoint? If not, then I think Bay Ridge and Sunset Park are pretty different even though they have similarities. And Williamsburg/Bushwick too. Despite Bushwick turning into Williamsburg 2.0, I still think it's a much different neighborhood.
But I think you can say the same thing about Queens neighborhoods being viewed in "groups". For instance,
Laurelton, Rosedale, St. Albans, and Cambria Heights
Maspeth, Ridgewood, Glendale
Sunnyside and Woodside
I don't find to be that different from each other
I guess I was speaking from a very broad general sense including everything from structural differences, maybe demographics, and just any overall general differences. Carroll Gardens is a very quiet, primarily residential, peaceful, quaint neighborhood with many 3 story brownstones, lots of greenery, kids, families, clean + polished, etc.
Williamsburg is a destination neighborhood for NYers, tourists, and others in the Tri-State. It’s made of mostly older 6 story apartment buildings and newer highrises. It’s very loud, gritty, artsy, and hipstery (but not as much as it used to be). A post-indistrial neighborhood with not a lot of greenery but a huge nightlife/party scene and a big food scene as well. It’s mostly made of people in their 20s and 30s outside of a large historic Hasidic Jewish enclave and another large + historic Puerto Rican enclave.
Williamsburg is definitely distinct from Bushwick in built form, but I said East Williamsburg which I think pretty much everyone in 2018 would consider a separate neighborhood from regular Williamsburg. Think of Grand, Montrose, and Morgan stops on the L train and that area with all the bars and warehouses, and street art how if you cross over to Jefferson L (first official L train stop in Bushwick) the areas blend together. I think East Williamsburg is more similar to Bushwick than it is to Williamsburg. Ex: Ichiran, the shops at The Loom, Bushwick Food co-op, Roberta’s, and (the main) L train Vintage are actually in East Williamsburg even though most people would probably associate those places with Bushwick. Some are just right past the border though so it’s understandable. Actually I think Bushwick used to be considered East Williamsburg back in the day up until the 90s or so. But I’m not sure since I was very young at the time.
When I lived in Philly, I would get asked what street I live on. People would say "oh that's a great street", not "oh that's a great neighborhood." Philly can literally change block to block, street to street. Therefore, my votes for Philly. You can live on a beautiful street, but one tiny Philly size block away can get bad.
My vote would also go for Philadelphia. Neighborhoods and blocks can change so fast for things other than crime (i assume that is what you mean by "great"). Philadelphia has alway been an immigrant city and the immigrants usually stayed within a certain neighborhood for at least a generation or two. If you walk from Aramingo Ave and Allegheny to Allegheny and say Witte Street a grand total of 0.2 miles you go from a lower middle class white (mainly polish) neighborhood to a Low income Puerto Rican neighborhood.
The changes can happen even faster. Crossing Front Street from Fishtown to Norris Square you go from a typical hipster and popping neighborhood to a very tight knit neighborhood. Personally on a neighborhood level I have yet to see a neighborhood as unique as Norris Square. What I find most interesting is that statistics such as its very high poverty rate in a post industrial area would suggest high crime yet crime is low even though to the north and west are high crime areas and I think that has a lot to do with how connected that neighborhood is.
It is so true about asking what street someone is from. My dad even though he immigrated from Poland (at 8 tho) when I was a kid and met someone new he would ask me what street he/she was from and for better or worse made a judgement based on that.
Don't get me started about South Philly. I've heard stories of people who would live on say 2nd street and not go west of 5th in years. Thats very old school and doesn't really occur today but it shows how fast a neighborhood can change.
As far as architecture maybe it is because I have lived in Philadelphia for most of my life in various neighborhoods and in the suburbs but I can tell roughly where a neighborhood is by the style of rowhome, or lack of rowhomes (Far northeast and some NW neighborhoods)
Pittsburgh where I live now also has this but I feel it is changing very fast. First of all the city is not diverse at all outside of white and black people and the european immigration is really diminishing. Geography really plays a role here which makes some neighborhoods extremely unique and awesome like Mt. Washington but overall it feels like neighborhoods either cater to the university/tech community or don't.
I feel Boston has the most neighborhood distinction
North End- Super Italian American
West End- Super Upcoming/Sporty/Good Bar Scene
Downtown- Fnauil Hall/Businessy
Seaport- Future Mega Business Mecca
Back Bay- Old Money
South End- Brownstowns, distinct neighborhood
South Bay- CHinatown/Asian
Downtown Xing- Formerly Seleazy, Now Unique Theatre District
Roxbury- Diverse African American Neighborhood
Dorchester- Formerly Irish, Newly African American/Hispanic
ALlston- Upcoming Foodie Hub, College Kid Capital
Charlestown- Crazy Irish/Historical area
East Boston- Italians + Hispanics + Airport
Mattapan- Murderpan (jk)
Just Outside Boston
Revere, Quincy, Lynn, Nahant, Milton, Braintree, Wellesley, Newton, Brookline, Somerville, Medford, Randolph, Cambridge are all extremely distinct and differ by the town line.
I guess I was speaking from a very broad general sense including everything from structural differences, maybe demographics, and just any overall general differences. Carroll Gardens is a very quiet, primarily residential, peaceful, quaint neighborhood with many 3 story brownstones, lots of greenery, kids, families, clean + polished, etc.
Williamsburg is a destination neighborhood for NYers, tourists, and others in the Tri-State. It’s made of mostly older 6 story apartment buildings and newer highrises. It’s very loud, gritty, artsy, and hipstery (but not as much as it used to be). A post-indistrial neighborhood with not a lot of greenery but a huge nightlife/party scene and a big food scene as well. It’s mostly made of people in their 20s and 30s outside of a large historic Hasidic Jewish enclave and another large + historic Puerto Rican enclave.
Williamsburg is definitely distinct from Bushwick in built form, but I said East Williamsburg which I think pretty much everyone in 2018 would consider a separate neighborhood from regular Williamsburg. Think of Grand, Montrose, and Morgan stops on the L train and that area with all the bars and warehouses, and street art how if you cross over to Jefferson L (first official L train stop in Bushwick) the areas blend together. I think East Williamsburg is more similar to Bushwick than it is to Williamsburg. Ex: Ichiran, the shops at The Loom, Bushwick Food co-op, Roberta’s, and (the main) L train Vintage are actually in East Williamsburg even though most people would probably associate those places with Bushwick. Some are just right past the border though so it’s understandable. Actually I think Bushwick used to be considered East Williamsburg back in the day up until the 90s or so. But I’m not sure since I was very young at the time.
Oops I didn't catch the "East". In that case I agree that it blends into the Jefferson St area. But Bushwick as a whole seems way more ethnic and less gentrified compared to even East Williamsburg. Would you agree that is loses the extreme hipster vibe by the time you reach the Dekalb Ave stop?
Apparently a lot of people consider the entirety of East Williamsburg to be Bushwick. East Williamsburg is a real name, but I guess it never caught on with some people.
Boston certainly has distinct neighborhood so much so that it detracts from people feeling connection to the city as a whole. There are people from the outer regions that will say I'm going to Boston" if they are going to a destination between the South End/Backbay and the North End, and their definition of Boston excluded their own neighborhood that is within the political entity of Boston
I don't know any other city like that other than NYC that people will say "I'm going to the city" when they technically live in that same city they are referring to.
I would say a trip in LA from the valley (no one considers it the city) to the basin (definitely the city) certainly parralels NYC in going from, say, Queens, into Manhattan is considered a trip to rhe city.
Conceptually, Los Angeles comes across stranglely to me. West Holllywood, Beverley Hills and Santa Monica are all favorably located in the basin, making them quintessentially LA.."...despite (a big despite) the fact that none are a part of the city of Los Angeles.
Yet all three feel and function as part of the real LA, more so than places like Encino or Northridge in the valley or San Pedro in the harbor, all three municipally a part of LA, but conceptually nothing very LA.about them
I would say a trip in LA from the valley (no one considers it the city) to the basin (definitely the city) certainly parralels NYC in going from, say, Queens, into Manhattan is considered a trip to rhe city.
Conceptually, Los Angeles comes across stranglely to me. West Holllywood, Beverley Hills and Santa Monica are all favorably located in the basin, making them quintessentially LA.."...despite (a big despite) the fact that none are a part of the city of Los Angeles.
Yet all three feel and function as part of the real LA, more so than places like Encino or Northridge in the valley or San Pedro in the harbor, all three municipally a part of LA, but conceptually nothing very LA.about them
Even though people refer to Manhattan as "the city", that does not mean people don't think of the outer boroughs as being part of NYC.
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.
