In Sunday's paper, the NYT puffs up a strange "LIC vs. Williamsburg" debate that was being examined at QueensWest.com.

Which is better? Which is cooler? A silly debate! It's like comparing the East Village to Williamsburg. Or, worse: like comparing the Financial District to the Upper West Side. That is, they really are different.

Williamsburg has been happening for quite a long time, in an unstructured and free-wheeling way that the LIC zoning rules and existing building stock never really supported. Back in 1995, there was the L Cafe on Bedford, Domsies under the bridge, and lots of art school kids living in lofts etc.

LIC's path really depends on the big projects that have started going up due to city/state sponsorship. So the generally empty area (save a few patches of Vernon etc) are filling up to meet the needs of the Long Island-transplant, Midtown-office-job types who want to live here.

The kids above in McCarren Pool don't live here.

But there are some virtues that might drive you to LIC today:
* Wide open spaces. It really is pretty empty a lot of the time, while Wburg is crowded
* Better transportation. 7, E, V, G trains
* Close to midtown in case you actually work there instead of downtown or "in your studio"
* Some distance from unpleasant cultures of either Wburg/downtown or stuffy uptown types
* Solid community of shops, bars and restaurants to keep you in the neighborhood

Aside from that, many of its features are similar to Williamsburg
* lower cost than Manhattan
* great skyline views
* choice of new constructions (to buy) or more charming smaller buildings (to rent)
* lots of street parking
* parks and room to walk your dog
* generally quieter and tourist-free than Manhattan

See Gantry culture vs Burg culture for LICNYC's own take on the culture bit.

So it poses the question -- how can the Times even set up the debate this way? Williamsburg (NYC mecca for artists and musicians that has supplanted the East Village) vs. LIC (borderline Battery Park City crossed with west Chelsea).