Tremont, the Bronx

    I've noticed a consistent hierarchy of the boroughs, both in conversation and in writing.  Manhattan is, of course, Manhattan.  Brooklyn is typically associated with brownstones and pre-WWII ethnic enclaves, however false they may be, not to mention recent gentrification across a rash of neighborhoods.  It was also a functioning independent city for a time, earning it a distinct downtown, intense pride, and the rank of borough #2. 

    Queens is by and large considered a significant drop from Brooklyn.  A smattering of townships and unincorporated neighborhoods upon being annexed into the city, Queens is essentially a postwar-borough, largely an early, ugly attempt at suburbia.  A handful of attractive gentrifying neighborhoods, easy subway access to midtown and the heart of New York's "melting pot" keep it a step above the remaining boroughs.

    Staten Island and the Bronx, for their own reasons, tie for last. 

    Staten Island was mostly rural before the Federal Highway Act.  Aside from a handful of Victorian homes and some farm houses, it's suburban.  It's so disconnected from the rest of the city, both mentally and physically, that the "forgotten borough" is typically not included on maps. 

    The Bronx, to it's credit, has great subway access.  Home to a massive art deco building stock and some of the city's only hills, the Bronx isn't physically lacking.  But it can't shake it's rough history, and the young gentrifiers have generally steered clear.  Everybody I talk to always suggests the same two or three destinations (including the zoo).  I'm skeptical that a borough of New York City that has so much history and is home to over a million people can have so little to offer.

    And yet, thus far that's been my experience.