« Morris Manor Opens Today Sales Begin at Sheepshead Bay's Bay Breeze »

October 2, 2008

Brooklyn Manhattan's St. Paul, Not Compton

st-paul-MN-1008.jpg
In a lengthy article in New York Magazine's 40th Anniversary issue in which he points out, among other things, that economic downturns in New York City have had silver linings in the past, Kurt Andersen reflects on the changes in Carroll Gardens over the last two decades.

The progress of gentrification wasn’t only a result of the precinct-by-precinct diminution of crime. My bit of Brooklyn, Carroll Gardens, was a very safe (and almost entirely white) working- and middle-class quarter when I arrived in 1990 with my wife and baby daughters. Nor were we exactly pioneers; a couple of editors had already renovated our brownstone. But at some moment between the eighties, when I knew exactly two people in Brooklyn, and the end of the century, when at least half the younger people of my acquaintance were living there, the borough not only lost most of its stigma but acquired an unprecedented aura of stylishness. It was an emergent rebranding as alt-NYC, driven first by the invisible hand (cut-rate real estate just across the river) and then by the self- propelling presence of more and more People Like Oneself. I can peg the tipping-point moment fairly precisely in my neighborhood: As I waited to vote in 1992, I was the demographic outlier in the polling-place crowd of retired longshoremen and their relatives; when I returned in 1996, almost every voter in the place, I swear, was some kind of writer or graphic designer or MTV producer a decade or two my junior. And the following year, all at once, Smith Street changed from a dreary Poughkeepsiesque stretch where we went only to catch the F train to—abracadabra!—a groovy restaurant row thick with recently expatriated young Manhattanites. Manhattan is not over, certainly, but for the city’s “creative class” New York is no longer a one-borough town. Brooklyn has become St. Paul, maybe, to Manhattan’s Minneapolis, rather than Compton and Glendale to its Hollywood and Beverly Hills.

We prefer the analogy to London, but then again, we've never been to St. Paul.
Boom-Bust-Boom Town [New York Magazine]
Photo by MNkiteman




Posted by Brownstoner at 10:51 AM | Comments (32)
Categories: Brooklyn, Gentrification

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/6498

Comments

St. Paul is very cool, except in the winter when it is downright cold.

Posted by: g man at October 2, 2008 11:10 AM

I really enjoyed this New York Magazine 40th Anniversary edition.

Did anyone see the picture of 7th Avenue in the 80's and then 7th Avenue now? Good article to match it too...

Posted by: 11217 at October 2, 2008 11:12 AM

that was a great article.

in regards to the photos, it seems like they took the most depressing photo they could find to represent the 80's 7th ave and then the opposite for the 00's 7th ave.

also St. Paul is great.

Posted by: Santa at October 2, 2008 11:19 AM

Same old story with limited rewrites they have been publishing in pop magazines and NYTimes for the last 30+ years I've lived in Brooklyn.
and living in Manhattan in shared apts. for few years after college and then moving to a Brooklyn (or wherever) neighborhood does not make one a " Manhattanite" - just a transient young person.

Posted by: Petebklyn at October 2, 2008 11:23 AM

I agree with you Santa...also the 80's was a black and white shot and the present day was all colorful in front of Back to the Land.

Still interesting to see...I couldn't place the 80's photo precisely...

Posted by: 11217 at October 2, 2008 11:23 AM

I moved to Brooklyn in the early 1980s. A lost has changed, but 7th Avenue seems about the same to me. Same with Montague St. in the Heights. The big changes I saw were, Smith St., 5th Avenue and basically all of Williamsburg.

Posted by: Boerum Hill at October 2, 2008 11:38 AM

it seems that places like 7th ave and montague have experienced changes brought on by the fact its no longer the 80's and is now the 00's. Prices have gone way up and theres more mediocre Asian/sushi resturants but thats happened to a degree everywhere. Where I grew up has plenty of "fancy" restaurants and random pan-asian places when it didnt 10 years ago.

Posted by: Santa at October 2, 2008 11:55 AM

it's more like oakland is to SF.

Posted by: i disagree at October 2, 2008 12:04 PM

Oakland to SF? I hope that's a joke. There is no cool part to Oakland. There's barely a cool part in the entire Bay Area. And, BART notwithstanding, Oakland is much more disconnected than Brooklyn to its alter ego.

Posted by: FatLenny at October 2, 2008 12:30 PM

that's so idiotic i won't bother with a substantive response.

Posted by: i disagree at October 2, 2008 12:44 PM

Clearly, you've never been to Oakland. The comparison is asinine.

Posted by: 11217 at October 2, 2008 12:48 PM

I grew up in the Bay Area and lived there for 20 years. I know of what I speak. Oakland has plenty to offer but nothing like Brooklyn. SF has a lot more than Oakland but they still roll up the sidewalks at 11 p.m. in SF. There's a reason that SF is comparing very unfavorably to NYC in the Case-Schiller index.

SF is a beautiful city with a great history that continues to the present day, but I still think its greatest asset is its state (CA) and the surroundings: the weather, Tahoe, Napa, Monterey, Pacific Ocean (notice I don't include proximity to Oakland as an asset). In terms of cultural diversity, it is a dud compared to NYC. It is strangely provincial for a big city, kind of like Boston.

Posted by: FatLenny at October 2, 2008 12:55 PM

I could list ten people I know who moved from New York to San Francisco.

Every last one of them moved back.

With that being said, I think San Francisco is one of the most beautiful cities in the world. I don't think I want to live there, however, and I'd never consider Oakland for many of the same reasons FatLenny highlighted.

Posted by: 11217 at October 2, 2008 1:04 PM

I would just add that SF is my second favorite city in the U.S. It's just a distant second.

Posted by: FatLenny at October 2, 2008 1:17 PM

FatLenny, so did i.

my point is that SF/Oak as a city pair is a closer match to NY/Bklyn than the others. not that SF is better than NY or Oakland is better than Brooklyn. (or didn't you all ever take the SATs?)

i don't disagree with some of what FatLenny says in his 2d post, but it's not relevant. SF to Oakland is a far better city pair comparison to the city pair of NY to Brooklyn than Compton to Hollywood, Beverly Hills to Glendale or Minneapolis to St. Paul.

Posted by: i disagree at October 2, 2008 1:19 PM

Brooklyn to New York is more like Silverlake to Bev Hills, if we must compare to Los Angeles...

San Francisco is my 4th favorite city after NYC, Portland and Seattle...

Posted by: 11217 at October 2, 2008 1:25 PM

The Case-Shiller index shows SF and NYC going up in almost precisely lockstep. Going down, however, SF is well ahead of NYC. The only reason "SF is comparing very unfavorably to NYC in the Case-Schiller index" is that the NYC market is still in dream-land.

Posted by: FinanceGuy at October 2, 2008 1:45 PM

"SF to Oakland is a far better city pair comparison to the city pair of NY to Brooklyn than Compton to Hollywood, Beverly Hills to Glendale or Minneapolis to St. Paul."

Why, exactly? I'm genuinely curious having been to each of these cities.

Posted by: East New York at October 2, 2008 1:46 PM

Well considering San Francisco's population is 764,976 and Oakland's is 420,183, for a grand total of 1,185,159 and Brooklyn alone's is 2,500,000, I think the comparsion is pretty dumb.

Posted by: 11217 at October 2, 2008 1:58 PM

the point i disagree is trying to make is that lots of young creative people got priced out of SF in the past decade and moved to Oakland - instead of the more traditional suburbs - which has seen a revitalization of its downtown and an improvement of its public schools because of the influx of yuppies. So in that way it's very analogous to brooklyn. In fact, last time I was in the bay area, I much preferred Oakland to SF - but granted I'm a bit prejudiced since I went to Berkeley.

Posted by: gkw at October 2, 2008 2:13 PM

Now Berkeley...that's one helluva town!

Still though, nothing compares to NYC's energy for me...

Posted by: 11217 at October 2, 2008 2:17 PM

Boerum Hill I agree but also back then those areas (7th, Montague, etc) were essentially islands; it wasnt that 5th Ave wasnt gentrified - it was that it was unsafe to be there (and b4 all the posts start - I am talking about relative safety). The same for many neighborhoods in NYC (inc in Manhattan) - neighborhoods had definitive lines that you were reluctant to cross - now areas blend much more together and there isnt so much of a dividing lines between nice areas and 'no mans land'

Posted by: fsrg at October 2, 2008 2:17 PM

"the point i disagree is trying to make is that lots of young creative people got priced out of SF in the past decade and moved to Oakland - instead of the more traditional suburbs - which has seen a revitalization of its downtown and an improvement of its public schools because of the influx of yuppies. So in that way it's very analogous to brooklyn."

That makes sense....I'd agree, particularly in the case of Oakland's downtown, which is indeed improved based on my last visit. But, as is also true for Brooklyn, in Oakland yuppies ADDED their contributions to those of longtime, middle-class homeowners who resisted the "call of the suburbs" in earlier years and remained, working behind the scenes to improve their communities.

Posted by: East New York at October 2, 2008 2:40 PM

That article was fascinating, kind of an orgiastic review of all the cliches about New York that get so passionately debated here.

Is it just me or do other people wish they'd moved to New York earlier than they did??

Posted by: infinitejester at October 2, 2008 2:42 PM

11217 - a little dense and crabby are you today? but i'll try again. what's relevant is the comparative ratio between the cities, city A vs city B in the first pair compared to A and B in the second pair. not A to A and B to B. or A + B compared to A + B.

the portion of the article cited discusses cultural and other demographic shifts. not population and certainly not static population numbers. by your (il)logic, a better comparison is the entire city of los angeles to san diego. pretty dumb, indeed.

beyond that, even if you had a good point, you'd need to give me the population references for the other proposed city pairs and show me why they are more relevant.

why are they a more relevant city pair? commerce. social geography. urban landscape. education. class. culture. immigration and emigration. ethnic, racial and class diversity. in the absence of time enough to write my own thesis, for more information, see some previous discussion of the analogues between and among the cities: http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2008/03/the_san_franbro.php
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/fashion/30sanfrooklyn.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.newgeography.com/content/00258-a-new-model-new-york-san-francisco-anyone

Posted by: i disagree at October 2, 2008 2:47 PM

Neither dense nor crabby, I simply don't think Oakland is to San Francisco in the way that Brooklyn is to Manhattan.

If having a difference of opinion from yours makes me dense or crabby, I will put you in the category of using Sarah Palin logic as well.

Posted by: 11217 at October 2, 2008 2:55 PM

and thanks, gkw, that's indeed part of my point in terms of cultural and shifting class/racial demongraphics. other elements of urban geography - the "revitalization" of [oakland/brooklyn] downtowns and waves of gentrification spreading out from pre-existing middle-class nodes like boerum hill and lake merritt, or previously more mixed residential/industrial areas, like williamsburg and the flatlands of west oakland, as money moves across the bridge when the finite space of the [island/peninsula] is maximized. and so on.

Posted by: i disagree at October 2, 2008 3:09 PM

I lived and went to college in St. Paul and know The Cities well. Very apt analogy in my opinion.

Posted by: chrishavens at October 2, 2008 3:14 PM

it's not the difference of opinion, it's using irrelevant (and outdated) statistics as a strawman, declaring your deliberate ignorance of obvious parallels, citing the fact that you don't want to move to SF as some kind of support for your argument, and assuming you know anything about my background that makes you seem dense.

as for crabby, relax: i'm pretty crabby and i can tell you are, too. care to join me for some tea? (shipped from SF, because they have no good tea out here.)

Posted by: i disagree at October 2, 2008 3:21 PM

I don't have any statistics to back it up but my sense is that the Bay cuts off Oakland from SF a lot more than the East River does NYC. Oakland is very far from a borough of SF - compare subway lines extending to Brooklyn compared to BART lines going to Oakland. Or compare how Oakland was once the poorest city in the U.S. while SF was thriving. Brooklyn's fate is much more closely tied to Manhattan than Oakland's is to SF. Oakland is closer to a poor version of Stamford than it is to Brooklyn.

And SF is not nearly as constrained for space as Manhattan. There are plenty of cheap neighborhoods on the outskirts (or south) of SF that are still available to low earners.

I've never been to St. Paul but I think there are probably very few relationships in the world like that between Brooklyn and Manhattan, to say nothing of the cultural diversity that only exists in this city's boroughs.

Posted by: FatLenny at October 2, 2008 3:35 PM

fatlenny - no doubt there aren't many relationships that truly compare. and i absolutely agree - there's not a (surviving) transit system in the country that can match nyc's, and that's one reason you'll never have city pairs that can simultaneously be as distinct but as interdependent as nyc and its boroughs. but i think sf and oakland gets closer than most others.

Posted by: i disagree at October 2, 2008 3:50 PM

A LESSON IN LOGIC
courtesy of your friend z

proposition: A is to B as C is to D

responses that do not undermine the proposition:

A is not like C!

B is not like D!

C sucks!

D sucks!

the person who advanced the proposition sucks!

Posted by: z at October 2, 2008 6:31 PM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions