Like Queens, Brooklyn is a complex quilt of dozens of neighborhoods, each with its own unique housing stock, businesses, community organizations, and local culture. And also like Queens, many Brooklyn neighborhoods have experienced major demographic changes during the past decade.
In Brooklyn, these changes are most often described by the term “gentrification.” Gentrification is generally defined as a process involving the influx of a middle-class or affluent population into traditionally working-class or low-income area and the corresponding displacement of lower-income populations. Many people perceive gentrification as a change in the neighborhood’s “character” — the community organizations, the shops, the street life, and the many other factors that form the local economy and culture.
Areas of Brooklyn that have been discussed as “gentrifying” include a belt of neighborhoods in the north half of the borough from Greenpoint, Williamsburg and Bushwick to Clinton Hill, Fort Greene, Bedford-Stuyvesant, and Prospect Heights. Neighborhoods considered further along in the process and already “gentrified” include DUMBO, Brooklyn Heights, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens, and Park Slope.
Comparing data from Census 2000 and Census 2010 allows us to measure the actual objective impact of the gentrification that has taken place under the Bloomberg administration and uncover the reality behind the perceptions of demographic change in Brooklyn.
Beginning by looking at total population change, the maps indicate that the changes in Brooklyn are not just about new people coming in. The overall population of the borough was almost flat – an increase of just 39,374, or 1.6%. While some of this population increase can be found in gentrifying neighborhoods like Williamsburg where many new residential buildings have been built, there is no overall correlation with areas of gentrification.
Part of the reason behind this may be that singles and couples without children are replacing large families – the percentage of children (under 18) in Brooklyn’s population declined from 26.9% in 2000 to 23.7% in 2010.
But when one looks at the change in the non-Hispanic white population, the effects of gentrification are crystal clear.
In the north half of the borough (defined as north of the south ends of Prospect Park and Green-Wood Cemetery, and north of East New York Avenue), the non-Hispanic white voting age population has grown by over 73,000 individuals, or almost 45%. This growth is concentrated in the gentrifying neighborhoods of Williamsburg, Bushwick, Clinton Hill, Fort Greene, Prospect Heights, and South Park Slope.
On the other hand, neighborhoods in South Brooklyn are showing the same trend we’ve seen in Queens and the Bronx – white population decline in traditionally white working-class outer-borough neighborhoods. In the south half of Brooklyn the white population declined by 47,000 (-9%), offsetting most of the gain in the north half.
While the gentrifying neighborhoods in North Brooklyn are increasingly trending towards white-majority populations, the neighborhoods of South Brooklyn are starting to move in the opposite direction.
Looking at a map of changes in the non-Hispanic black population of Brooklyn also brings this trend to life. While the overall black population of Brooklyn increased by 2.3%, the black population of the north half of the borough decreased by more than 18,000 individuals (-7%). With the decrease concentrated in Fort Green, Clinton Hill, and Prospect Heights, the rising housing costs and other effects associated with gentrification look to be the likely culprit. Indeed, the maps reveal a pattern of the black population being pushed out to more distant neighborhoods like Brownsville, East New York, and Canarsie.
While changes associated with gentrification have had significant effects on the distribution of the black population in Brooklyn, the overall numbers are not yet shifting in a way that will have a major impact on legislative redistricting. Non-Hispanic blacks account for 31.8% of Brooklyn’s total population in 2010 compared to 32.9% in 2000. The shift of the black population further to the east and south may affect where some district lines are drawn but will not yet affect the number of black-majority legislative seats that must be drawn to comply with the Voting Rights Act.
Changes in the Hispanic population of Brooklyn also reveal the impact of gentrification as a clear decline has taken place in the heavily gentrifying areas of Williamsburg, Greenpoint, and Park Slope. The Hispanic population of Williamsburg-Greenpoint has been particularly hard hit, declining by over 14% since 2000.
Overall in the northern half of Brooklyn, Hispanic population change during the last 10 years is essentially flat – an increase of 1.5%. This a remarkably low figure in the context of a citywide boom in the Hispanic voting age population, which has grown by over 21% in New York City as a whole. Again there appear to be patterns of a “pushing out” – from Williamsburg to Bushwick for example – which are consistent with media reports and the views of local activists.
In the south half of Brooklyn, the Hispanic voting age population increased by almost 15%, a marked contrast to the impact of gentrification in the north. Hispanic populations are growing substantially in traditionally white neighborhoods like Bay Ridge, Dyker Heights, and Bath Beach.
As with the black population, the trends in Brooklyn’s Hispanic population as a whole are not significant enough to yet produce major changes for redistricting, though the boundaries of Hispanic-majority districts in the Williamsburg-Greenpoint area may shift to the east. In south Brooklyn, western Sunset Park remains a strong Hispanic majority community.
With all the media attention centered on gentrification, the tremendous growth of the Asian community in South Brooklyn has gone under the radar. The overall Asian voting age population of Brooklyn grew by almost 46% from 2000 to 2010, with Asians now accounting for 10.6% of the electorate vs. only 7.7% in 2000. This growth largely took place in the burgeoning Chinatown of Sunset Park as well as nearby South Brooklyn neighborhoods.
With growing areas of South Brooklyn approaching Asian majorities, it is now possible to drawn an Asian voting age majority Assembly seat based in Sunset Park.
Before moving on to look at the current district lines, let’s go over some additional socio-economic demographics that are highly relevant to redistricting.
Looking at the percentage of foreign born residents, we also see a contrast between the north half of Brooklyn and the south, where far larger numbers of immigrants live. Neighborhoods like Sunset Park with growing Asian and Hispanic populations, and Sheepshead Bay and Brighton Beach with a large population of Eastern European immigrants stand out.
But it’s also important to point out the concentration of foreign-born residents in East Flatbush and Canarsie which indicate Brooklyn’s substantial community of Carribean immigrants. The Census does not distinguish between Carribean and African immigrants and native-born African-Americans when counting the black population, so this distinction sometimes gets lost.
Despite all the changes of the last decade, Brooklyn remains a mostly middle density borough of tenements, row houses, and duplexes, although there are some areas with higher density concentrations and some outer neighborhoods of single-family homes. South Brooklyn is generally less dense than the northern half.
Homeownership is a key factor in examining the character of a community and it has major implications for political representation. Communities composed mostly of renters have very different needs than communities of homeowners when it comes time to vote on housing policy issues in Albany.
In the north half of Brooklyn, only a few small pockets like Brooklyn Heights and Prospect Park West are majority-homeowner. South Brooklyn is a different story however, where neighborhoods like Canarsie, East Flatbush, and Marine Park are mostly comprised of single-family homes.
Brooklyn is home to the highest density of transit commuters in the city, with much better subway access than Queens. But again there is a contrast between the north half of Brooklyn and the south where transit users are a minority in some outer areas. Not surprisingly these are the farthest neighborhoods from Manhattan like Canarsie and Mill Basin where subway access is poor.
It’s also interesting to point out that public transit commuting is much lower in the Hasidic Jewish enclaves of South Williamsburg and Borough Park where most residents walk to work.
Median household income is a hugely important indicator of communities of interest. The “brownstone Brooklyn” neighborhoods of Brooklyn Heights, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens, and Park Slope–neighborhoods that have undergone decades of gentrification–are clearly higher-income than the rest of the borough. The Mill Basin and Marine Park neighborhoods in the south and Bay Ridge in the southwest are also relatively high-income.
In contrast, a large swath of central Brooklyn from Sunset Park to Crown Heights to East New York and Bushwick is made up of working-class and low-income households with the majority making less than $40,000 a year and many making less than $25,000 a year. And despite its growing cachet for high-rise luxury condos, Williamsburg-Greenpoint remains, for now, a mostly middle-income community.
As it almost always does, concentrations of residents with college degrees closely correlate with higher-income neighborhoods.
Concentrations of residents with “white collar” jobs in management or professions also follow this pattern. Looking at this map side by side with the racial data also reveals the continuing gap between whites and minorities when it comes to employment in this sector.
“Blue collar” jobs in industry, transportation, and construction are especially important to the Hispanic and Asian communities, with concentrations of blue collar workers in Sunset Park and Bushwick. Blue collar employment is at its lowest in the gentrified brownstone areas of Brooklyn Heights, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens, and Park Slope.
Employment in service sector industries like retail and hospitality is also concentrated in minority communities, particularly in the black and Latino communities of Central Brooklyn as well as Sunset Park.
One more interesting piece of demographic information to look at is the relative concentration of children and senior citizens.
As we also saw with the map of public transit commuters, the unique lifestyles of the Hasidic Jewish populations of Brooklyn are revealed in data on the concentration of children. The Hasidic populations in South Williamsburg and Borough Park clearly stand out from the surrounding neighborhoods due to their extremely high birth rates, with many families having five or more children in the household.
And despite their reputation for being crowded with $700 strollers, the brownstone Brooklyn neighborhoods have fewer children than anywhere else in Brooklyn save Williamsburg-Greenpoint.
Looking at concentrations of senior citizens, the contrast between north and south Brooklyn is again apparent with higher numbers of seniors living in the south, especially in Brighton Beach and Manhattan Beach.
In an objective redistricting process, those who draw the lines would pay close attention to all of these demographic factors as well as basic neighborhood geography. Unfortunately as we’ve seen elsewhere in the state, that was not always the case when LATFOR drew the last set of district lines.
The borough of Brooklyn is currently divided between seven Congressional districts, with only two of those districts based entirely within its borders.
With Brooklyn falling under the jurisdiction of the Voting Rights Act’s preclearance process, the options for drawing Congressional districts are constrained. Two black-majority districts must be drawn, as currently represented by District 10 (Towns-D) and District 11 (Clarke-D). According to the 2010 Census, the black population in Brooklyn is still large enough to draw two majority-black Congressional seats and there are only so many ways that this can be done. Keeping the compact form of District 11 but shifting it to the southeast makes sense in following the changes in the black population.
However, the imperative to draw two majority-black districts is only partially to blame for the current mess of district lines in the brownstone area of North Brooklyn, where one crosses four districts in the short distance between Red Hook and Fort Greene.
District 12 (Velasquez-D) was drawn as a Hispanic district, uniting Sunset Park with the Hispanic areas of Williamsburg and Bushwick, while also uniting the Manhattan and Sunset Park Chinatowns. But District 12 as currently drawn is not majority voting-age Hispanic—it only reaches 41%. An alternate option for making District 12 a majority Hispanic district without drawing such a gerrymandered shape may be to add Corona in Queens to the district instead of the much more distant Sunset Park.
District 8 (Nadler-D) appears to lack any such justification for being one of the most bizarrely gerrymandered districts in the state. Running from the Upper West Side all the way to Coney Island, District 8 unites areas are not only physically distant but also very different in terms of the socio-economic demographics displayed above. It is difficult to justify this neighborhood-dividing, gerrymandered district on any objective basis.
In the State Senate, district lines are also heavily influenced by the Voting Rights Act as one must draw four majority-black seats–currently Districts 18 (Montgomery-D), 19 (Sampson-D), 20 (Adams-D), and 21 (Parker-D), and one majority-Hispanic seat, the current District 17 (Malave-Dilan-D).
But with the smaller sizes of State Senate districts (c. 312,000), there’s considerably more flexibility in drawing their shapes than with the Congressional districts. For instance, there’s no reason why District 20 should extend into Park Slope and divide that neighborhood in two, and extend into Sunset Park and contribute to that neighborhood being divided between four different Senate districts.
And there’s definitely no objective explanation for the notorious gerrymanders of District 22 (Golden-R) and District 27 (Kruger-D). In half a dozen neighborhoods in South Brooklyn one can be within District 22 and have their neighbor across the street in another district for no apparent rational reason. As numerous community activists have testified at LATFOR hearings thus far, dividing neighborhoods in this manner is a major barrier to effective local community representation in Albany.
District 23 (Savino-D) also stands for improvement regarding the division of neighborhoods, but the presence of a district that crosses into Staten Island is an unfortunate necessity due to the population math.
In the State Assembly, the small size of the districts (c. 128,000) and the density of Brooklyn make it much more straightforward to draw districts based on neighborhood geography. However, there are some districts that again contribute to the unnecessary division of neighborhoods.
Park Slope and Sunset Park are once again victims of this pattern, with Park Slope divided between Districts 52 (Millman-D) and 44 (Jeffries-D)
The Asian community in Sunset Park is cracked between Districts 51 (Ortiz-D), 48 (Hikind-D), and 44 (Brennan-D). The major change possible here is the drawing of a majority-Asian district, which may actually be legally compelled under the Voting Rights Act. This district could be drawn without having negative effects on the adjacent Hispanic district or the representation of the Jewish community in Borough Park.
Like Queens, Brooklyn is an incredibly complex demographic mix, but if those who draw the districts pay close attention to communities of interest and allowing all groups an equal shot at fair representation, the borough’s district lines could be much improved
Brian Paul
September 21, 2011
Burgeoning Voting Rights Attorney
September 21, 2011