San Francisco of the East Coast
That’s what New York magazine is calling Ditmas Park, “the Victorian-packed enclave south of Prospect Park.” Its resemblance to the foggy city is listed as reason #39 to love New York, and it’s not just the “painted ladies,” those houses now fetching as much as $1.8 million, that bear a resemblance to San Fran. “You…
That’s what New York magazine is calling Ditmas Park, “the Victorian-packed enclave south of Prospect Park.” Its resemblance to the foggy city is listed as reason #39 to love New York, and it’s not just the “painted ladies,” those houses now fetching as much as $1.8 million, that bear a resemblance to San Fran. “You can also see similarities in the restaurant scene: The reigning culinary draw, the Farm on Adderley, references Chez Panisse (okay, that’s in Berkeley, not Frisco) in its strident locavorism and mismatched plates. And Ditmas’s tiny, cozy Cinco de Mayo can hold its own in the Mexican brunch department against the Mission District’s Pancho Villa Taqueria (although the latter’s burritos are admittedly better).” Perhaps most San Francisco-ish is the Ciy LIghts of the East Coast, Vox Pop, with its socialist literature and cappuccinos, “where, on a recent Sunday, you could order a Cesar Chavez personal pizza, buy lefty tracts, and listen to a live drum circle from a group called Manhattan Samba.” Still, a look at political contributions belies the neighborhood’s true colors: it actually leans toward the red.
Because Ditmas Park Is the New San Francisco [New York]
Photo by nicknormal.
As a long-term ex-SF-an (19 yrs) I can say that DP bears little resemblance to SF (though that house pictured makes me drool…why can’t we have a little color in these drab brownstone rows, maybe I’ll paint mine (flame suit on)).
To answer some comments: restaurants in SF are fabulous, plentiful and cheaper than NYC; food is typically fresher and the coffee nothing like the muck you get here even in “good” restaurants.
Fewer people on the street, one thing that makes it less pleasant to walk around (many more use cars); transport is iffy after commute hours. Fewer kids.
Yes, many more “street people” but only in certain areas, rare in residential areas. I think people are superficially much more pleasant (especially service people) but more mobile and harder to make friends. People more “real” here, I think.
Quality of life? Well, much better weather, less hassle day-to-day, less crowded than Manhattan but otherwise? I love Brooklyn now.
Never met a communist in SF. SF is probably no more liberal on average, but has more extremes, than NYC. Gay scene, of course, stronger but mainly because the city is small and gays very organized and politically savvy.
Oh, I do hope Poley is typing – this is going to be good! I wonder if he has the cure for alcoholism and cancer, too?
Type away Poley, type away!
My favorite painted ladies’ sisters are the cottages in the Campground area of Oak Bluffs on Martha’s Vineyard.
Here are some Flickr pics in someone’s album there:
http://flickr.com/photos/rmislevy/2806678729/
As for this NY Magazine piece, that’s just embarrassing. Comparing the two places is way off. Let Ditmas stand on its own as unique.
When I first moed to brooklyun I fell in love with the brownstones and townhouses. One day we were out exploring and stumbled over Ditmas Park- at which point I then stumbled over my bottom jaw which hit the ground. It was the most incredible neighborhood- i had no idea something like that existed in NYC. Everytime I go back, I fall in love with it all over again.
I agree with BRG- Ditmas Park doesn’t need to be anything but Ditmas Park.
Polemicist did you say easy problem? Care to elaborate on solutions? Can’t wait to hear this one.
Not in this environment polemicist. There are far more people willing to work who cannot, including illegal immigrants.
Really Poley? Do tell…share your wisdom. Cities all over the country are waiting…
Homeless: the most underutilized labor force in the nation.
So much work to be done, yet these people don’t seem to do any. An easy problem to solve.
San Francisco and Brooklyn are very different. Not only physically and topographically and architecturally but also culturally. They are both expensive, but I think SF has the clear lead in terms of quality of life. I mean, far and away. New York has the lead in quality of work. Ours is a city devoted exclusively to work. San Francisco has a sensual side that I think is nurtured by its beautiful climate and incredibly scenic geography.