What do you think?
Rate this book
The Invention of Brownstone Brooklyn: Gentrification and the Search for Authenticity in Postwar New York
Considered one of the city's most notorious industrial slums in the 1940s and 1950s, Brownstone Brooklyn by the 1980s had become a post-industrial landscape of hip bars, yoga studios, and beautifully renovated, wildly expensive townhouses. In The Invention of Brownstone Brooklyn, Suleiman Osman offers a groundbreaking history of this unexpected transformation. Challenging the conventional wisdom that New York City's renaissance started in the 1990s, Osman locates the origins of gentrification in Brooklyn in the cultural upheavals of the 1960s and 1970s. Gentrification began as a grassroots movement led by young and idealistic white college graduates searching for "authenticity" and life outside the burgeoning suburbs. Where postwar city leaders championed slum clearance and modern architecture, "brownstoners" (as they called themselves) fought for a new romantic urban ideal that celebrated historic buildings, industrial lofts and traditional ethnic neighborhoods as a refuge from an increasingly technocratic society. Osman examines the emergence of a "slow-growth" progressive coalition as brownstoners joined with poorer residents to battle city planners and local machine politicians. But as brownstoners migrated into poorer areas, race and class tensions emerged, and by the 1980s, as newspapers parodied yuppies and anti-gentrification activists marched through increasingly expensive neighborhoods, brownstoners debated whether their search for authenticity had been a success or failure.
356 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 25, 2011
53 people are currently reading
1238 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews
August 6, 2013
An incredibly and irritatingly repetitious book. Moreover, Osman fails in his attempt to fuse academic and popular writing. This romanticized account of "middle-class pioneers" who were as inauthentic as the idea they conjured up of Brooklyn could have been accomplished under ten pages.
February 8, 2023
Maybe 2.5 stars? It might just be that I actually needed something more introductory, popular, and easier to read, but I had a very hard time discerning a coherent thesis here.
There are lots of detailed archive citations (many of them interesting) and frequently repeated themes (with their (irritatingly) frequent associated phrases, e.g. "Gold coast," "palimpest," and, of course, "urban pioneer"), but it doesn't feel like these fit into a larger narrative or argumentative structure.
Admittedly, I don't have a clear background on the overall history of mid-20th century NYC politics, which would have been helpful scaffolding for this neighborhood-specific deep dive. Without already having that context, I don't understand exactly what was included or excluded or why. For example, when discussing the BQE construction, why not explain the contrast between the Brooklyn Heights Promenade and the Cobble Hill/Carrol Gardens trench?
It may be my own deficiency, but it's difficult for me to summarize a point beyond "rich white Brooklynites said and did various, often contradictory, things."
There are lots of detailed archive citations (many of them interesting) and frequently repeated themes (with their (irritatingly) frequent associated phrases, e.g. "Gold coast," "palimpest," and, of course, "urban pioneer"), but it doesn't feel like these fit into a larger narrative or argumentative structure.
Admittedly, I don't have a clear background on the overall history of mid-20th century NYC politics, which would have been helpful scaffolding for this neighborhood-specific deep dive. Without already having that context, I don't understand exactly what was included or excluded or why. For example, when discussing the BQE construction, why not explain the contrast between the Brooklyn Heights Promenade and the Cobble Hill/Carrol Gardens trench?
It may be my own deficiency, but it's difficult for me to summarize a point beyond "rich white Brooklynites said and did various, often contradictory, things."
March 19, 2023
None of the members of our New York City book-group-of-nerds was able to finish this book. We agreed that there was enough here for an article, but the writing is wordy and repetitive. This is likely meant for a course reading, but general readers interested in (and living in) Brooklyn will need to be patient.
I did appreciate having my memory jogged. I arrived in the Brooklyn neighborhood of Park Slope in 1980 as a renter in a brownstone; the book covers the immediate post-war period up until about that date.
I did appreciate having my memory jogged. I arrived in the Brooklyn neighborhood of Park Slope in 1980 as a renter in a brownstone; the book covers the immediate post-war period up until about that date.
June 13, 2017
Osman reframed the discussion of the process of gentrification from contemporary to a more historic and generational process, by focusing on the “Brownstoners” who carved out a white professional middle class neighborhood in the midst of urban decline from the late 1940s through the 1960s. Neighborhoods that had sort of generically been called the wider South Brooklyn became more specific Brooklyn Heights, Cobble Hill, and Carroll Gardens. The Brownstoners were early professionals who rejected the sterile suburbs for “authentic” urban life, restoring old Brownstones recently abandoned by ethnic whites, and later flooded with people pushed out of the Manhattan. The Brownstoners resisted two machines: 1) The Manhattanization of birds-eye centralized development, also known as Robert Moses style political planning, and that of working class ethnic ward politics, criminal gangs, and working class businesses, both of which they fiercely opposed. They sometimes formed alliances with working class black, brown, and ethnic whites to oppose Urban Renewal and the destruction of townhouses in order to build high rise apartments, but eventually they themselves displaced their neighbors and were accused of colonizing the neighborhood, which by the 1980s were being called Yuppies.
Key Themes and Concepts
-Manhattanization is where townhouses are cleared to make high rise apartments, which the Brownstoners saw as unauthentic.
-New middle class whites formed a sort of postindustrial creative class, with writers and artists flooding into the early Brooklyn gentrifying neighborhoods. Eventually class politics would push for “greening” neighborhoods by tree planting and gardens, and opposing working class businesses.
-The Brownstoners saw themselves as “pioneers” in an “Urban Wilderness”, which works effectively since they displaced people already living there on the frontier.
-Osman argued that there are positives and negatives to the Brownstoners. On one hand, they did help end the top down Robert Moses urban planning, and built up a neighborhood during the height of urban decline. On the other hand, they helped push out poor people to Long Island suburbs by pushing up rents, and displacing existing institutions with botiques, used bookstores, and cafes. The population became 99% white and largely professional. They started a process by which neighborhoods were simply real estate instead of long standing homes.
-“Middle Scape” authentic city safe from stale suburbs and soulless high rises. In between high rise businesses and sprawling suburbs.
-Brownstoners were generally socially liberal yet frequently came into conflict with Black and Latino neighbors on their own blocks.
-They helped spawn the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard), where slow growth and controlled stability became the middle class urban norm.
-Most of the chapters focus on 1950s-60s, arguing against the notion that gentrification is a new phenomenon.
Key Themes and Concepts
-Manhattanization is where townhouses are cleared to make high rise apartments, which the Brownstoners saw as unauthentic.
-New middle class whites formed a sort of postindustrial creative class, with writers and artists flooding into the early Brooklyn gentrifying neighborhoods. Eventually class politics would push for “greening” neighborhoods by tree planting and gardens, and opposing working class businesses.
-The Brownstoners saw themselves as “pioneers” in an “Urban Wilderness”, which works effectively since they displaced people already living there on the frontier.
-Osman argued that there are positives and negatives to the Brownstoners. On one hand, they did help end the top down Robert Moses urban planning, and built up a neighborhood during the height of urban decline. On the other hand, they helped push out poor people to Long Island suburbs by pushing up rents, and displacing existing institutions with botiques, used bookstores, and cafes. The population became 99% white and largely professional. They started a process by which neighborhoods were simply real estate instead of long standing homes.
-“Middle Scape” authentic city safe from stale suburbs and soulless high rises. In between high rise businesses and sprawling suburbs.
-Brownstoners were generally socially liberal yet frequently came into conflict with Black and Latino neighbors on their own blocks.
-They helped spawn the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard), where slow growth and controlled stability became the middle class urban norm.
-Most of the chapters focus on 1950s-60s, arguing against the notion that gentrification is a new phenomenon.
January 5, 2018
In The Invention of Brownstone Brooklyn, Suleiman Osman complicates the previously accepted narrative of post-war urban decline and white flight by examining the emergence of ‘brownstoners’ and the beginnings of the gentrification movement. Brownstoners, Osman argues, were a young, affluent and liberal demographic (the ‘yuppie’ generation) who fought against the patterns of suburbanization and growing conservatism, choosing instead to seek out ‘authenticity’ in the ‘ghettos’ of the inner city. Using their white middle class privilege, brownstoners were able to effectively challenge the progress of urban renewal and clearance plans in boroughs such as Brooklyn, Boston’s South End and Chicago’s Lincoln Park, acting as a force for historic preservation. These areas then became what Osman describes as ‘post-‘ cities. Post-industrial, post-fordist and post-modern, these new communities were driven by the social forces behind the new left and the fervour of 60s radicalism. In the search for authenticity and gritty reality the new urban generation was born. However, the renovation and revitalization of these areas was often as problematic as urban renewal itself, as local populations, most often non-white and poor, were priced out and further segregated by this wave of gentrification. House prices rose dramatically, local ethnic businesses quickly closed and the affluenza of the city center spread into the boroughs at a rapid pace.
Osman’s book adds a new dimension to the complex story of the post-war city. While previous histories have told of the exodus of the white-middle class and the decline of the inner city, Osman argues that there was at the same time an influx of a new middle class into the city which further divided and segregated the urban space and created a new set of tensions. While on the one hand gentrification acted as a powerful force for historic preservation and the retention of authenticity, it also served to alienate, displace and further impoverish the poorest sections of urban society. The gentrification movement also raises important questions about power, as the battle against clearance and renewal was easily won by white, middle-class populations who sought to move into these areas, while poorer, non-white populations fought seemingly futile war against the bulldozer and the freeway. Osman’s book historicizes a trend that is becoming increasingly relevant today, and adds a new level to post-war urban history.
Osman’s book adds a new dimension to the complex story of the post-war city. While previous histories have told of the exodus of the white-middle class and the decline of the inner city, Osman argues that there was at the same time an influx of a new middle class into the city which further divided and segregated the urban space and created a new set of tensions. While on the one hand gentrification acted as a powerful force for historic preservation and the retention of authenticity, it also served to alienate, displace and further impoverish the poorest sections of urban society. The gentrification movement also raises important questions about power, as the battle against clearance and renewal was easily won by white, middle-class populations who sought to move into these areas, while poorer, non-white populations fought seemingly futile war against the bulldozer and the freeway. Osman’s book historicizes a trend that is becoming increasingly relevant today, and adds a new level to post-war urban history.
May 17, 2022
I got this book originally during a book-buying spree while studying for my comprehensive exams. The idea is you read, or anyway prepare to answer questions about, as many of the major books in your field as you can convince your examiners you looked at. I did pretty good! But never got to this one. I figured I’d give it a listen in my “nonfiction reviews” slot. It’s something of a minor standard, it appears, in the academic history of gentrification.
Historian Suleiman Osman begins the story of gentrification in Brooklyn well before naive “common sense” understandings of these things, in the seventies or nineties. The story here begins in the immediate postwar period, when middle-class New Yorkers, including recently demobilized troops, started looking at Brooklyn as an alternative to expensive Manhattan living. Osman gives us a capsule residential history of the borough, from farm town to poorly-planned real estate speculation to almost-rival, a sort of Oakland to Manhattan’s San Francisco… these new middle class people postwar inserted themselves into the multi-layered history of Brooklyn, and came to use that history for their ends.
These ends were both self-expressive and monetary, as middle-class ends so often are. Brooklyn presented, if not a blank canvas — they didn’t want that — then at least a palimpsest that people looking for a certain kind of “urban experience” could work with. These were people who specifically did not want to live in the utopian (utopia means “no place” in Greek) suburbs or high rises, both of which were designed to warehouse people like them in comfort. They wanted somewhere with a sense of history and, for lack of a better term, that slippery concept of “authenticity.” All because we can’t pin it down, doesn’t mean the feelings surrounding it aren’t real (even if the term is dubious). Symbolic of all this were the brownstone buildings of South Brooklyn. To the Brooklyn settlers, they represented nineteenth century grace and elegance (even if, in fact, they were often cheaply built by low-balling speculative builders), and refurbishing them — often after they had been converted to serve as low-cost rooming houses for decades — gave the settlers a sense of both sweat equity in the neighborhoods and a metaphor- they were going to fix the mistakes of previous generations (you know, with their pesky need to live cheap) and renew an urban dream.
“Inventing Brownstone Brooklyn” lingers mostly on Brooklyn Heights, arguably the beachhead of the gentrification invasion, and on surrounding areas (it doesn’t touch much north of there, like Williamsburg, the gentrification epicenter when I lived there, or Greenpoint, directly north- not a lot of brownstones, for what that’s worth). Osman talks about the different ways gentrifiers understood themselves, and boy, they wrote a lot- pamphlets, novels, memoirs, articles in magazines. They were the ones who were going to make the new urbanism, most notably that version preached by Jane Jacobs in a few chapters of her “The Death and Life of Great American Cities,” (few read that book all the way through, and no one reads her other stuff) a reality. They stood down a number of plans by Robert Moses and other villains in the Jacobs-ite rogues gallery to build superblock construction in Brooklyn Heights. It turned out it was useful to have white middle class people, many of them journalists, architects, and especially lawyers, when you wanted to defend your neighborhood from city hall.
Osman makes much of the confluence of visions between the early gentrifiers and at least some of the people they settled amongst, usually some mixture of working class “white ethnics,” black peoples, and Puerto Ricans. They could work together to save neighborhoods, sometimes, or get improvements. Some of the gentrifiers meant that sixties business. But others either didn’t, or meant it in the bad way. They “meant it” as in they opposed “big government” and “red tape” and anyone getting in the way of their self-fulfillment (which, curiously, usually seemed to coincide with their real estate portfolios). In the end, “saving” a neighborhood from Robert Moses usually meant a stay of execution. Moses wanted to plow highways through neighborhoods and raise brownstones to build superblocks because he thought you needed those to maintain an industrial city (factories need trucks, trucks need big roads). Gentrification went hand in hand with financialization and the service economy, which implied a different spatial order. Neither were great for the working class of late twentieth century Brooklyn.
In keeping with work inflected by “the new cultural history,” Osman soft-pedals the economic factors, especially early in the book. Sure, the settlers of south Brooklyn wanted a good deal, but they also wanted to find themselves, find community, etc etc. He even points out how banks and insurance companies wouldn’t service owner-renovators of brownstones in a lot of neighborhoods, seeing them and the neighborhoods more generally as bad risks! But, even Osman has to admit, eventually, the money was the determinative thing. It didn’t take long for banks and real estate companies to notice what was happening in Brooklyn. These companies seized on the gentrifiers as proof of concept for expanding into “dilapidated” urban real estate. Hell, even a lot of the cultural stuff worked for them, decades before anyone knew what a latte was- the early settlers, looking for “neighborhood” feel where parts of 1960s Brooklyn only offered block or parish or ethnic feel they couldn’t directly accessed, often went deep into the archives of New York history to find some, any, old-timey name to give their neighborhood. This is where “Cobble Hill,” “Carroll Gardens,” “Boerum Hill” (which is flat) come from. Once given a name, these areas could become commodities. Maybe that’s not what the original gentrifiers had in mind (though Osman looked for some who minded and only found a few), but that’s their ultimate importance. ****’
Historian Suleiman Osman begins the story of gentrification in Brooklyn well before naive “common sense” understandings of these things, in the seventies or nineties. The story here begins in the immediate postwar period, when middle-class New Yorkers, including recently demobilized troops, started looking at Brooklyn as an alternative to expensive Manhattan living. Osman gives us a capsule residential history of the borough, from farm town to poorly-planned real estate speculation to almost-rival, a sort of Oakland to Manhattan’s San Francisco… these new middle class people postwar inserted themselves into the multi-layered history of Brooklyn, and came to use that history for their ends.
These ends were both self-expressive and monetary, as middle-class ends so often are. Brooklyn presented, if not a blank canvas — they didn’t want that — then at least a palimpsest that people looking for a certain kind of “urban experience” could work with. These were people who specifically did not want to live in the utopian (utopia means “no place” in Greek) suburbs or high rises, both of which were designed to warehouse people like them in comfort. They wanted somewhere with a sense of history and, for lack of a better term, that slippery concept of “authenticity.” All because we can’t pin it down, doesn’t mean the feelings surrounding it aren’t real (even if the term is dubious). Symbolic of all this were the brownstone buildings of South Brooklyn. To the Brooklyn settlers, they represented nineteenth century grace and elegance (even if, in fact, they were often cheaply built by low-balling speculative builders), and refurbishing them — often after they had been converted to serve as low-cost rooming houses for decades — gave the settlers a sense of both sweat equity in the neighborhoods and a metaphor- they were going to fix the mistakes of previous generations (you know, with their pesky need to live cheap) and renew an urban dream.
“Inventing Brownstone Brooklyn” lingers mostly on Brooklyn Heights, arguably the beachhead of the gentrification invasion, and on surrounding areas (it doesn’t touch much north of there, like Williamsburg, the gentrification epicenter when I lived there, or Greenpoint, directly north- not a lot of brownstones, for what that’s worth). Osman talks about the different ways gentrifiers understood themselves, and boy, they wrote a lot- pamphlets, novels, memoirs, articles in magazines. They were the ones who were going to make the new urbanism, most notably that version preached by Jane Jacobs in a few chapters of her “The Death and Life of Great American Cities,” (few read that book all the way through, and no one reads her other stuff) a reality. They stood down a number of plans by Robert Moses and other villains in the Jacobs-ite rogues gallery to build superblock construction in Brooklyn Heights. It turned out it was useful to have white middle class people, many of them journalists, architects, and especially lawyers, when you wanted to defend your neighborhood from city hall.
Osman makes much of the confluence of visions between the early gentrifiers and at least some of the people they settled amongst, usually some mixture of working class “white ethnics,” black peoples, and Puerto Ricans. They could work together to save neighborhoods, sometimes, or get improvements. Some of the gentrifiers meant that sixties business. But others either didn’t, or meant it in the bad way. They “meant it” as in they opposed “big government” and “red tape” and anyone getting in the way of their self-fulfillment (which, curiously, usually seemed to coincide with their real estate portfolios). In the end, “saving” a neighborhood from Robert Moses usually meant a stay of execution. Moses wanted to plow highways through neighborhoods and raise brownstones to build superblocks because he thought you needed those to maintain an industrial city (factories need trucks, trucks need big roads). Gentrification went hand in hand with financialization and the service economy, which implied a different spatial order. Neither were great for the working class of late twentieth century Brooklyn.
In keeping with work inflected by “the new cultural history,” Osman soft-pedals the economic factors, especially early in the book. Sure, the settlers of south Brooklyn wanted a good deal, but they also wanted to find themselves, find community, etc etc. He even points out how banks and insurance companies wouldn’t service owner-renovators of brownstones in a lot of neighborhoods, seeing them and the neighborhoods more generally as bad risks! But, even Osman has to admit, eventually, the money was the determinative thing. It didn’t take long for banks and real estate companies to notice what was happening in Brooklyn. These companies seized on the gentrifiers as proof of concept for expanding into “dilapidated” urban real estate. Hell, even a lot of the cultural stuff worked for them, decades before anyone knew what a latte was- the early settlers, looking for “neighborhood” feel where parts of 1960s Brooklyn only offered block or parish or ethnic feel they couldn’t directly accessed, often went deep into the archives of New York history to find some, any, old-timey name to give their neighborhood. This is where “Cobble Hill,” “Carroll Gardens,” “Boerum Hill” (which is flat) come from. Once given a name, these areas could become commodities. Maybe that’s not what the original gentrifiers had in mind (though Osman looked for some who minded and only found a few), but that’s their ultimate importance. ****’
March 23, 2024
Richly researched, balanced, and compellingly narrated, this beautiful book tells the story of the 1960s and 1970s generation of “back to the city” folks whose romantic vision of brownstone and neighborhood restoration laid the foundations for the Brooklyn of today. While deeply critical and insightful, Osman’s book doesn’t throw a lot of punches, delving instead into the complexities and conundrums of multiple, simultaneous Brooklyn inmigrations, the unintended consequences of unselfconscious white liberal politics, and the devotion of a small group of young idealists to a fairytale story of Brooklyn’s past. Disclosure: This is the story of my parents and their generation and of my own childhood; I’m grateful to Osman for giving me a richer sense of the Park Slope in which I grew up and the larger context of its surrounding neighborhoods, history, and political and social context. How uncanny to find a picture of myself in the book as I read!
March 12, 2018
The Invention of Brownstone Brooklyn is extremely well-researched and definitely a well-written book about the modern history of gentrification in New York (specifically Brooklyn).
The author definitely knows their stuff and there is a wealth of knowledge here.
Unfortunately the book is also extremely dry and academic, despite an attempt by the author to avoid both issues. As someone who has a strong interest in urban planning, this book was certainly up my alley and peaked my interest. However, those with a passing interest or most others will quickly grow bored by the way the book was written. I also feel at times the author wrote in a circle and repeated some points.
All of that being said, the book is definitely a must-read for those interested in the area, urban planning, and or the impact of gentrification.
The author definitely knows their stuff and there is a wealth of knowledge here.
Unfortunately the book is also extremely dry and academic, despite an attempt by the author to avoid both issues. As someone who has a strong interest in urban planning, this book was certainly up my alley and peaked my interest. However, those with a passing interest or most others will quickly grow bored by the way the book was written. I also feel at times the author wrote in a circle and repeated some points.
All of that being said, the book is definitely a must-read for those interested in the area, urban planning, and or the impact of gentrification.
February 2, 2024
Inclined to honestly give it 3.5 stars but couldn’t find it in myself to round up. I found the history of brownstone Brooklyn and its gentrification rather interesting but I think I would have appreciated the book more perhaps if it delved deeper into the 80s and 90s. It would have been more relatable for me having grown up in one of the several neighborhoods mentioned.
After reading this book, I’ll likely pick up jane Jacob’s
After reading this book, I’ll likely pick up jane Jacob’s
February 25, 2024
For a brief moment, I was getting a bit bored with the book because it had flashes of repeating very similar arguments multiple times.
But at the end, the analysis and nuance presented here, backed by incredible historical research, were so fresh and thought-provoking that it’s gotta be five stars. This book holds a million little gems and seeds to inform and ground today’s discourses around gentrification, and more generally how neighborhoods and local cultures shift over time.
But at the end, the analysis and nuance presented here, backed by incredible historical research, were so fresh and thought-provoking that it’s gotta be five stars. This book holds a million little gems and seeds to inform and ground today’s discourses around gentrification, and more generally how neighborhoods and local cultures shift over time.
May 18, 2018
A lot of well researched great historical information about demographic shifts throughout the 20th century, but a weird libertarian pro-gentrification slant celebrating the "sweat equity" of "middle class" people who sink thousands of dollars into renovating housing in impoverished areas. Also, published in 2010, but ends research in the 80s, which was really disappointing.
July 20, 2017
Lots of great information and analysis here. But man, an editor really should have obliterated all the horrible academic jargon - and made the book about half as long.
Truman Capote was one of the first to gentrify Brooklyn Heights.
Truman Capote was one of the first to gentrify Brooklyn Heights.
January 3, 2018
Really important and undertold history about the earliest "gentrification" (avant la lettre, as Osman puts it) of Brooklyn, starting with Brooklyn Heights in the 1950s. But this is academic history, so the writing is often circular, repetitive and dry.
July 10, 2021
The first book length (academic) study of gentrification on NY that I've read. A fascinating, well researched, detailed, and nuanced book. It's a little dense and I wish the chapters had been broken up using subheadings but still a terrific book.
October 19, 2023
A truly academic study. Deeper into the sociology of brownstoning and gentrification, rather than the nitty gritty of the renovations or real estate deals and data. For any NYC history or real estate nerd, this is hugely informative. Thoroughly enjoyed.
December 9, 2024
3.5 Stars. Academic book about gentrification in Brooklyn from late 1940s thru about 1980. I would have preferred a history written for the general public but there was still interesting information here within all the theory
September 7, 2025
I generally enjoy studies that go deep into a specific scenario but it simultaneously points to bigger themes and issues. Felt like it was very clear and entertaining with nuanced details and analysis, though sometimes felt a little repetitive.
May 21, 2021
This is a great follow-up to The Power Broker and The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Loved it.
July 21, 2023
One of the best books I've read on New York
Read
February 24, 2025Read a chapter of this alongside D&L for the Jane Jacobs class so this doesn’t really count as read but whatever
October 22, 2014
This book describes the gentrification of northwestern Brooklyn from about the 1950s to the 1970s. Osman devotes less attention than I expected to the last few decades, even though Brooklyn's gentrification got as much publicity in the 1990s and 2000s as before (if not more so). When I interviewed for jobs in Manhattan in the 1990s, I don't remember thinking of anything outside Brooklyn Heights as an upper-middle-class neighborhood. By now, of course, several other neighborhoods have crossed the line from "transitional" into "solidly nice."
But otherwise, I learned a lot from Osman's book. To name
a few examples:
*I had always thought that the current neighborhood designations had existed for a century or more. But in the 1950s, there was no place called Boerum Hill or Cobble Hill. There was an undifferentiated Irish/Italian Catholic industrial working class area in inner Brooklyn, and a few wealthy blocks in what is now Brooklyn Heights. Cobble Hill was born when a few people formed a civic association and, after poring through old maps, discovered a reference to a Cobble Hill Fort existing during the Revolutionary War- so they named the area Cobble Hill. Similarly, Boerum Hill was created when someone discovered that some of the area was owned by the Boerum family in the 1700s- so she called the area Boerum Hill.
*I had always thought that gentrification in Brooklyn pretty much started in the 1980s and 1990s. But Brooklyn Heights started to attract well-off migrants from Manhattan in the 1950s, and other neighborhoods were not far behind.
*Today, we might think of brownstones as upper-class. But when they were built, the sandstone that we now call "brownstone" was a cheap substitute for marble, and was not made solely for the upper classes.
*As early as the 1950s, gentrifiers' desire to avoid being bulldozed by downtown planners degenerated into NIMBYism ("NIMBY" meaning "Not In My Back Yard"). When businesses proposed to revitalize the area's industrial base, local activists persuaded the city to block such plans (or at least got conditions added that impaired industry's ability to function). And like some of today's NIMBYs, gentrifiers tried to block businesses that might appeal to lower-income shoppers (such as chain supermarkets or, worse still, fast-food restaurants).
Osman also describes what motivated the early white-collar gentrifiers to move to and to cherish Brooklyn: partially being priced out of Manhattan, but partially a desire for something less modern and "artificial" seeming than new Manhattan high-rises and equally new suburbia. These gentrifiers (like today's new urbanists) very much liked old low-rise buildings, in the same way that other people really liked new suburban houses. And the gentrifiers also liked the feeling of small-town intimacy that newer areas allegedly lack. It seems that in any moderately healthy American city, there will always be public demand for a "middle landscape" (as Osman calls it) between high-rise business districts and sprawling suburbia.
But otherwise, I learned a lot from Osman's book. To name
a few examples:
*I had always thought that the current neighborhood designations had existed for a century or more. But in the 1950s, there was no place called Boerum Hill or Cobble Hill. There was an undifferentiated Irish/Italian Catholic industrial working class area in inner Brooklyn, and a few wealthy blocks in what is now Brooklyn Heights. Cobble Hill was born when a few people formed a civic association and, after poring through old maps, discovered a reference to a Cobble Hill Fort existing during the Revolutionary War- so they named the area Cobble Hill. Similarly, Boerum Hill was created when someone discovered that some of the area was owned by the Boerum family in the 1700s- so she called the area Boerum Hill.
*I had always thought that gentrification in Brooklyn pretty much started in the 1980s and 1990s. But Brooklyn Heights started to attract well-off migrants from Manhattan in the 1950s, and other neighborhoods were not far behind.
*Today, we might think of brownstones as upper-class. But when they were built, the sandstone that we now call "brownstone" was a cheap substitute for marble, and was not made solely for the upper classes.
*As early as the 1950s, gentrifiers' desire to avoid being bulldozed by downtown planners degenerated into NIMBYism ("NIMBY" meaning "Not In My Back Yard"). When businesses proposed to revitalize the area's industrial base, local activists persuaded the city to block such plans (or at least got conditions added that impaired industry's ability to function). And like some of today's NIMBYs, gentrifiers tried to block businesses that might appeal to lower-income shoppers (such as chain supermarkets or, worse still, fast-food restaurants).
Osman also describes what motivated the early white-collar gentrifiers to move to and to cherish Brooklyn: partially being priced out of Manhattan, but partially a desire for something less modern and "artificial" seeming than new Manhattan high-rises and equally new suburbia. These gentrifiers (like today's new urbanists) very much liked old low-rise buildings, in the same way that other people really liked new suburban houses. And the gentrifiers also liked the feeling of small-town intimacy that newer areas allegedly lack. It seems that in any moderately healthy American city, there will always be public demand for a "middle landscape" (as Osman calls it) between high-rise business districts and sprawling suburbia.
March 24, 2016
The history of Brooklyn Heights and similar parts of New York City, events that played out in many other areas as well within New York and elsewhere, is a complex and fascinating topic. It’s also one that resonates deeply for me since most of my life has occurred against these backdrops, in Brooklyn Heights specifically during the 1970s, in Bedford Stuyvesant/Ft. Greene in the late 1960s, and in the parts of Queens not discussed here but which had their own renewal-development battles in the years before that. To this day, Jane Jacobs’ “Death and Life of Great American Cities,” required reading when I was an architecture student at Pratt in the late ‘60s (a lousy one, but whatever . . . .) and which was discussed extensively by Suleiman, still shapes my instinctive reaction to all things urban. And Suleiman’s discussion of Brooklyn politics, the machine versus the reformers, hit home (it was perfectly accurate) since my first real-jobs while in and immediately after law school (like I said, I sucked at architecture so I moved on) involved trench political warfare via the annual election-law challenges as each side when to court to try to knock one’s opponent off the ballot or at least exhaust their funding on litigation expense (Come to think of it, Suleiman missed this!). There is so, so, so, so much here!
Unfortunately, I’m not sure how much of it came through to those who didn’t have first-hand experience with all this. I admire his effort to try to give popular appeal to an academic dissertation. But I don’t think he succeeded. It feels as if he was getting paid an extra bonus by the publisher based on the number of times he could say “authentic” or “authenticity,” and the narrative seemed to meander aimlessly often circling back to topics I thought were long ago completed. Many times I paused the reading to wonder how the heck we got to the topic he was discussing, how we wandered there from the way the chapter started.
I enjoyed the book a lot, but I’m reluctant to go higher than three stars because I suspect that much of what I appreciated came from my direct understanding of the topic, as prompted by Suleiman, rather than what I got the book itself.
Unfortunately, I’m not sure how much of it came through to those who didn’t have first-hand experience with all this. I admire his effort to try to give popular appeal to an academic dissertation. But I don’t think he succeeded. It feels as if he was getting paid an extra bonus by the publisher based on the number of times he could say “authentic” or “authenticity,” and the narrative seemed to meander aimlessly often circling back to topics I thought were long ago completed. Many times I paused the reading to wonder how the heck we got to the topic he was discussing, how we wandered there from the way the chapter started.
I enjoyed the book a lot, but I’m reluctant to go higher than three stars because I suspect that much of what I appreciated came from my direct understanding of the topic, as prompted by Suleiman, rather than what I got the book itself.
March 25, 2012
I had the privilege of reading this when it was a draft of Osman's dissertation (having been put in contact with him through my faculty advisor) and was immediately struck by it eminent readability despite being a meticulously researched and cited academic work. I feel like I can open the book to any section and find something to draw me in, teach me something about the economic and racial restructuring of south Brooklyn and provide a crucial context for what is too often oversimplified as a simple us/them dichotomy. Foremost of interest to me, is how he explains how the typical narrative of white flight to the suburbs in reaction to (or in cause of) urban blight overlooks the heterogeneous shifts in the diverse regions of Brooklyn in the post-war years.
I cannot begin to explain how useful Osman's book has been to my own work and I look forward to returning to it repeatedly.
I cannot begin to explain how useful Osman's book has been to my own work and I look forward to returning to it repeatedly.
February 22, 2012
I'm reading this for my book group, but don't know why we picked it. It's more of a grad school thesis that a layperson's history of the Brownstoner movement, and the level of detail is more than I care about. If you are an urban planner, or maybe an architect or city historian interested in redevelopment, gentrification and its unintended consequences, maybe you'll care. Or perhaps if you live in one of the Brooklyn neighborhoods discussed -- Boerum Hill, Carroll Gardens, Park Slope, etc. -- this will fascinate you. It's certainly a lot of scholarship, but I'm not that interested, and have decided to read Caro's history of Robert Moses, The Power Broker, instead, as it has a broader focus on all of New York and more meat.
April 10, 2011
I would recommend this book to anyone living in Brownstone Brooklyn. It tells the story of the area's gentrification during the period 1945-1980, when the cosmopolitan middle class staked out a middle ground between white flight and urban renewal. The book avoids partisan moralizing and presents a ton of fascinating research. Unfortunately, the prose leaves something to be desired. See this good Bookforum review for more info: http://www.bookforum.com/review/7416
May 1, 2015
Very well researched book on the events and trends of the early "brownstoning" movement. If I could give it 4.5 stars I would. A lot of interesting insights, although I think the author occasionally overreaches when he tries to interpret the history. But overall, very enjoyable and highly recommended to anyone interested in cities, especially Brooklyn and NYC. The book provides excellent context for understanding current and historic trends in urban development.
June 22, 2011
Great history of how Brooklyn Heights, Cobble Hill, Boerum Hill and other "Brownstone Brooklyn" neighborhoods developed in the face of modernist expansion on one side and expanding poverty on the other. I would have liked to know more about how these neighborhoods changed through the 80's and 90's but maybe that's for another book. Highly recommended for anyone living in these neighborhoods.
August 7, 2011
Great research going way back into the neighborhood's history. The wording is a bit more academic than many mainstream books, but it's to be pushed every now and then.
The book cuts off in the 1980's, I would have liked to have more about the 90's and 2000's included.
Ultimately it's a good read on a somewhat controversial topic that avoids playing the blame game.
The book cuts off in the 1980's, I would have liked to have more about the 90's and 2000's included.
Ultimately it's a good read on a somewhat controversial topic that avoids playing the blame game.
May 11, 2012
I love this subject but might be too dry for some. Thought there was a wealth of well-researched information that provided a great narrative for the history of brownstone Brooklyn. Overall it could have been a bit more cohesive and focused. Regardless, would read again since it is so chock full of fascinating Brooklyn history.
April 12, 2014
As a student of urban history with a long-standing New York love affair, I was excited for this book. It was totally fine. Interesting, well researched--but my expectations were high for what should have been a spectacular historical work. Adequate, but uninspiring.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews