Talk:Bushwick, Brooklyn

Stupid New Netherland Template

this new netherland template is total crap. it makes the article look like crap. 2 questions: how come brooklyn lacks an ugly template like this, and how come manhattan lacks an ugly template like this?

this template is further example of rich white people trying to keep a community blighted.

I don't think I see the template as "crap", but I may not agree with the current format/layout. If someone wants to research the history of New Netherland, Bushwick would be relevant. It is supposed to "float" to the right, so whitespace to the left should be avoided if possible. In my browser, whenever I click on a link in the template, the template "moves", and that may be why it's "ugly." But if it is converted to a template in the footer, the moving would probably be eliminated. Also, playing with the placement of images and the template may be helpful.

Brooklyn has this template. Since there is no link in the template to Manhattan, the template is not included in that article.

If you want to see a page that I think has a bad layout, see Gravesend, Brooklyn. Tinlinkin 13:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No Murders in Bushwick?!?

Ok...here's a good one, I know for a fact that there are more than NO murders in bushwick. Some guy got shot in the face and killed last year. Oh I think the theft is off a bit as well, my roommate and myself we're both mugged here. 24.189.7.86 06:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Seamus

Assault In Precinct 83

So a couple weeks ago I moved the New Netherlands box down to the History section where it seems happier. Brooklyn has a whole History article, so that's where the NN box is.

Anyway, what's with this "eight more assaults" than another precinct, and similar numbers? This kind of annual comparison is microscopic; the numbers are bound to fluctuate by half a dozen or more from year to year for reasons that little do do with whether a place has become safer or more perilous. An overall comparison of crime numbers for all parts of northern Brooklyn coving a few years might bring out information of statistical signficance, but the "New Bushwick" statistical presentation is pretty much useless as it stands. Jim.henderson 16:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

the point is to illustrate that Bushwick is comparable to Williamsburg. If you want to get rid of it, or perhaps just make a reference to that weekly numbers are similiar and avaibale on the compstat sight then feel free. Noremacmada

Most of the violent crime in the 90th Precinct occurs in the South Side and East Williamsburg sections. Not safe areas. Bushwick has a high violent crime rate, higher then Williamsburg.

Nightlife for WHITES?

"Nightlife for white residents remains a problem, and they will need to commute to Williamsburg or Manhattan for their own brand of excitement."

This is such a racist statement, and stupid besides. I'm Puerto Rican (that's right- FROM Puerto Rico) and just moved into the neighborhood, and while my crowd is the hipster and artist set, I am very much not white. Ignorant hateful punks.

-Gaby from Guaynabo City and now Bushwick!

Okay then, if you know of nightlife spots, for hipsters, families, or whatevers, please include them. I'd love to know where to go locally. I think its wrong to sayt nightlife for whites as well, and I have no idea who added that word. noremacmada

The Strand(ed)

I added the (ed) as a translation as a translation fro colonial english to modern american english. While in colonial times, the humor in and the root of strand appeared clear to Bushwick residents, who must have found this region surrounded by bog and swamp inaccessable to be "stranded" from the rest of bushwick, no one today will ever feel that williamsburg is geographically stranded from the rest of mainland brooklyn. The articles cited call the land "the strand," 310 years later, I think its safe to say that if they spoke todays english they'd call it the stranded. noremacmada

Eh? Today "strand" has been verbed, but was this already true 300 years ago? Alas, I'm not near my books, but "strand" is Old English for "river bank" or "beach". Eventually it came to be used nautically as "beached" meaning run aground upon a strand, but I thought in Shakespeare's time this hadn't happened yet. Lacking direct evidence, isn't it more likely the term "Bushwick Strand" referred to mudflats along the Left Bank of Newtown Creek? Jim.henderson 01:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Article Reads Like An Advertisement

Such as the Neighborhood section needs a reworking, it definitely is not objective in the least. That the "adventurous sort can cross Flushing Avenue, stroll down Knickerbocker Avenue" is not only a terrible way to put it but offensive as well. "The New Bushwick" section is also terrible, seeming like its just an advertisment for real estate agents trying to sell apartments to young "hip" kids in Bushwick. --Vsthesquares 17:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Racism

This article is written largely subjectively and has areas of blantant racism. "African Americans and Puerto Rican migrants, who were poorer and had a lower social class than their white counterparts," for example. Saying they were both poorer and of a lower social class is redundant for one, but what it the need for "than their white counterparts"? "The neighborhood's character becomes less like Williamsburg and more similar to that of neighboring Bed-Stuy and Brownsville, Brooklyn once crossing Gates Ave" is also really offensive. Is it because there are a lot less "white people"? The neighborhoods each have different very distinct characters to them. For example, Bed-Stuy is largely an african-american neighborhood with a long history of being a very afro-centric arts and cultural center. While Bushwick has a very different history with once being a area plagued by the mafia, which caused a flight of people. afterwards the area of the world immigrants moved in from was more Caribbean and Latin American countries, largely Dominican and Puerto Rican. Saying they have similar character is untrue and straight out racist. --Vsthesquares 17:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with you about the "adventurous" and other strange descriptions here, you're revising history quite a bit in the second part of your comment. Bushwick plagued by the mafia, which caused a flight of people? Uh, no. Knife fights and robberies by Puerto Ricans and blacks starting in the 60s is what chased out tens of thousands of Italians and Germans. Same as in the Bronx, same as in Harlem -- yes, Harlem! East Harlem was solidly Italian until just the 1950s. Be wishy-washy and overly-sensitive and deny and obfuscate and accuse me of vicious racism, but the fact is, blockbusting would not have worked if the newbies hadn't lived up to their reputations. Your reading of the Gates Avenue comment shows you don't even know anything about Bushwick, you're likely some activist outsider defending the poor dumb darkies from evil whitey. How insulting for them. If you knew anything about or spent some real time in Bushwick, you'd know south of Gates Bushwick gets blacker. That's why the comment about Bed-Stuy and Brownsville (which I think is stupid only because it's so passive -- just say it gets more African-American!) is there. My Italian grandparents were born and raised in Bushwick - there was mafia, duh, and it was always a rough neighborhood as most middle-class areas of NYC were, but don't try to change history and pretend there was anything near the level of random, violent crime, decay, filth, and fire as there was after the Italians LEFT.

funny, because actually i spend almost all day every day in Bushwich since i work there at a community organization called Make The Road By Walking. I think I know the neighborhood pretty damn well. (Vsthesquares 21:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC))

I think what people need to realize is this. Crime has nothing to do with color. It is true when the Puerto Ricans and African Americans arrived violent crime (especially robberies for example) did rise. However Puerto Ricans and African Americans are not programmed to commit crimes. It has to do with the economic situation these newcomers were in. Middle class replaced by lower income. Those social problems that come with poverty only got worse as more and more lower income people moved into Bushwick. It effected everyone in the community so those who could leave, left. Those who could not stayed. Not everyone in Bushwick today is a criminal. Unfortunately there are a lot of criminals. Both petty and more serious due to the economic situation in the area. You have kids running around today in Bushwick doing whatever the hell they want. I would go as far as saying most kids. That's becuase their parents or mother which is more likely in Bushwick had them as a child herself and could not provide for them. If they are now not working multiple jobs to try and get out that hell they are strung out on liqour, drugs, or sex. Either way the kids do not get the guidance they need. As a result they are raised on the streets and in Bushwick there is nothing but negativity on the streets. For some kids they don't even get a break at home. So less to do with color, more to do with economic situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwiki718 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Demographic History of Bushwick

This has always seemed a little hazy to me. The 1939 WPA Guide to New York City says that the neighborhood was still mostly German-American at that point. If African Americans and Puerto Ricans started moving in "after WWII" then did they arrive at the same time as the Italians? It seems like the Italians came and went pretty fast. Sylvain1972 14:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It was Italian and German, but it was German long before it was Italian so maybe they were sticking with historical facts. African-Americans started moving in after WWII in limited numbers, and Puerto Ricans didn't come until the 1950s, again in limited numbers until the 1960s, when the remaining Germans and all the Italians started leaving in droves.

It seems you are right, and that Italian immigration began after WWI and continued steadily until the early 1950s.Sylvain1972 20:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

"Hipsters" are invading this page and it should be locked and revised. THe section of neighborhood starts out by saying adventurous hipsters.. what the fuck is that. I guess the invasion is begging.

I agree a lot of people with obvious real estate interest have been looking to Wikipedia to try and advertise neighborhoods. Usually stretching the truth, or in other words lieing. Bushwick is a low income Puerto Rican community with significant numbers of African Americans and now Mexicans and Dominicans. The community is of the lower income strata, a high poverty neighborhood, and there are many social problems. Only recently has the community been expierencing renewal (well rebuilding) and honestly it has been at the expense of the residents. Since many hipsters can't afford to live in Manhattan real estate agents have been trying to generate hype and convince people to move to Bushwick due to it's proximity to the island and mass transit options. Of course they do not want people to see the scope of the community's problems. They hope for displacement through gentrification. As a result there is a severe low income housing shortage in the area and an unnecessary abundance of luxury condo and co-op units, specifically aimed at "hipsters". Most of which is unaffordable to local residents. Now no one knows for sure if Bushwick will ever gentrify. The area is home to a significant permanent low income population which resides in public housing provided by the NYCHA and other programs. Also the real estate market in NYC is changing and expected to slow overall. That means while places like the Upper East Side may see a slight decline in property values, places like Bushwick may see disinvestment. So basically this is supposed to be factual not an advertisement. The real issues in the community should be stated. "Hype" and advertisements should not be tolerated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwiki718 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand the situation in terms of real estate and housing but thats not the point. MANY parts of this article are biased and it tries to de-humanize its current residents (puerto rican,black ...everything except hipter) and simply makes them less of people compared to the hipsters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.75.233 (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Let the hipster propaganda begin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.75.233 (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

So feel free to edit as you seem fit. The first paragraph "Neighborhood" is the only one in the article that seems to try a little too hard to push the area. I also dispute the last statement in the last paragraph "Community Organizing in Bushwick". Make The Road By Walking is still making plenty noise in Bushwick. Educating the locals on the exploitation of the community.

The first paragraph "Neighborhood" should be deleted and replaced with "Demographics" and "Land Use" sections. "Historical Bushwick" is fine. "Decline" is fine. "New Bushwick" is weird, what does it have to do with a new Bushwick? It discusses East Williamsburg and Ridgewood, Queens. Should be replaced with a small paragraph describing gentrification and it's effects on the community. Transportation is fine. Parks, transportation, are fine. "Community Organizing" should be expanded and again the last statement about being pushed aside is disputed. Maybe make it a subsection of a gentrification section? Notable residents is fine. I will give it a try later.

Okay I added some useful information and eliminated the last of the advertisements/hype. Added "Signs of Gentrification And It's Effects On The Community", "Demographics", and "Land Use" sections. Reorganized too.

BTW, here is a video of an anti-gentrification protest in Bushwick. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmZHl5vvVYc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwiki718 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

=Neutrality is a huge issue

It seems as if this page is being invaded by activist whack jobs. Why on earth would you not want new people with money and stable lifestyles to move into your neighborhood. The article needs to recognize the fact there are indeed two Bushwicks, the old Bushwick made up of those unfortunate souls who've lived there all their life, through the riots and the gang wars, and new Bushwick, a safe, cheap place for twentysomethings to live. I can understand providing the negative light on the area, but you must shine the positive light on it as well for it to be neutral —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noremacmada (talk • contribs) 03:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is supposed to be factual and show the current state of the area. Not advertise. Statements like:

"It is fifteen minutes from Manhattan by either of the two subway lines serving it."

"Cheap Space for Hipsters"

These statements are just bull and again, trying to make the area appealing to White hispsters:

"Residents of the former artists colony in Gowanus are already making plans for moving to Bushwick"

What does this matter? Who cares?

"The neighboorhood is 25-50% white"

Yeah right.

Also, two Bushwicks? Spanish Barrio? Look, enough with the racism. The problems effect everyone in the community. From the Puerto Rican kid raised up by his mother living below poverty to the hipster living in some loft blogging on the net all day across the street. When you live in the ghetto you deal with the ghetto problems. You might not be starving, but you have to live among your neighbors. Bushwick has a lot of problems with violent crime, there are a lot of robberies in the area and that effects hipsters. Vandalism is a problem. GLA, larceny from vehicles and homes, burglaries. Neglect from the city which still exist.

Bushwick as it is now is poor as hell, poor then I have personally ever seen it and I have been in Bushwick height of the crack epidemic. What is going on now is a rebuilding, nothing much has changed at longstanding residents. Only now the rent burden is at an all time high.

It's obvious you personally want to keep the page an advertising piece, however the facts are the facts. It is fair to mention gentrification, but you take it too far, to the point of hype. One paragraph for each category is great. The decline history is historical, minus the last paragraph which describes social problems in the area currently.

Your argument for neutrality is ridicules considering Bushwick is a low income community that in recent years has been experiencing increased gentrification after neglect for decades. There is much more to Bushwick then cheap rents for hipsters. Gentrification is a small part of what the neighborhood is about.