Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And most damningly, if the construction of this new city in upstate NY 8 hours away doesn't affect NYC to your own admission, then how would it drive down the cost of living in the city. There are already tons of other small, growing cities in the rest of the country, but again, this has nothing to do with NYC itself. If anything, the migrants to these growing cities are from the nearby suburbs within that region. If anything, the current trend are that people are congregating towards a city, not moving away from it.
There are plenty of areas around upstate NY that are undeveloped (no significant population base) and that do not take 8 hours to get to. Exactly we are talking about development......new companies, new housing and really no need for people to feel they have to come into the 5 boroughs unless they just feel like visiting for whatever reason. In other words we would be creating a new Manhattan on a smaller scale.
No, NYC is what it is today because when it was founded it was an extremely attractive trade port. The east river isn't a river, it's actually an extension of the atlantic ocean as well as the Long Island Sound, so you could just drive a ship into port very easily anywhere in the city. It remained populated up until the middle of the last century because it was the main immigration port on the US east coast, then airplanes showed up and change all of that, though the metro area airports are still the most important airports on the east coast.
The main problem with your strategy is that there's really no reason to want to build this thing upstate. If you want to make people move farther out into the metro area, whatever, but why would a business build something in say Poughkeepsie rather than NYC? Hedgefunds are moving to CT because that's where the managers live for example. Is it cheaper to operate upstate? Does upstate provide more infrastructure for businesses to operate on?
Upstate in the buffalo region and in Western NY, and pretty much anywhere north of Albany is cheaply priced already. In fact, people are leaving in droves from these regions, not for NYC, but for an entirely different state all together, largely because these regions relied heavily on manufacturing to support their economies, and that business has gone abroad. Even if your plan wants to turn buffalo into a financial district, they still don't have the appropriate infrastructure to support such a business. The financial industry gravitates to NYC simply because that's where the country's major stock exchanges are, and the congregation of their field in one area aids in the facilitation of business.
Not to mention that there are various issues you run into with telecommunications upstate which would hamper any sort of revitalization, not to mention tons of infrastructure rebuilding and repurposing which would cost into the billions, if not trillions of dollars.
But you know, ignoring all of that, what you've failed to establish is why would the middle class gravitate to this new metro area, or metro area extension. Just because an area is cheap doesn't mean that people will run to fill it up. Not to mention your silly comparison of MTA fares to the operation of a car. Gas in Manhattan is averaging $3.99 a gallon for regular. An average car gets 21mpg. The direct distance between the middle of brooklyn and midtown is about 7.5 miles, however, since we're driving by car, it's far more likely that the route we'll take will be ~9.5 miles, which means that roundtrip we'll be traveling 19 miles. Now presuming that the MPG is accurate, in gas we're slightly under the cost of riding MTA, however then we must consider the cost of parking the vehicle for the day, the insurance for the vehicle, the cost of maintenance, etc, all of which will drive the cost of ownership and operation of the vehicle higher than the metrocard fare.
The middle class would gravitate to that area because there would be an attractive incentive. New affordable housing and new companies with jobs. As the word spreads more people would head there instead of piling up in the 5 boroughs. There is nothing silly about someone's opinion....opened this dialogue for people to share possibilities.....not to trade insults!
As I stated in the opening of the thread.....we are talking about solutions to the high cost of living problem that most New Yorkers constantly complain about. Your harping on transportation from Buffalo when again we are talking about creating a small scale Manhattan in upstate NY. There is more to upstate NY than just Buffalo.
There will be no reason for people to have a daily commute to the 5 boroughs because everything they need would be in upstate NY. Restaurants, Shopping, companies providing jobs, new affordable housing. The only time they may go to Manhattan lets say is for a broadway show just because they feel like going....not because they have to for work. We are talking about changing perceptions.....and opening minds.
I am a born and raised New Yorker who was born in Brooklyn. So I understand that many cannot fathom anything but living in the 5 boroughs. For those that think this way that is fine. Currently there are no options here. Either people live in a crowded expensive 5 boroughs just to be close to jobs or nothing.
Talking about creating more than one region (options) for people to have choices. If I have a choice of new housing at affordable prices for the average family, in a newly created area where I do not have to leave NY or commute to Manhattan everyday for work.....I would be crazy not to take it. Again people will go where the jobs are. Thus eliminating the demand to live in the 5 boroughs. Meaning that there will be more empty apartments and the cost of living in NYC will have no choice but to go down. In essence those that would still live in NYC would not have so many people traveling on trains, buses and streets during rush hour making their commute a lot more pleasant. We are talking about a more even distribution of population. In other words there is currently a very uneven distribution of people here.
If you want to make it more affordable to live in NYC, make it easier to zone and to build in the city and the nearby neighborhoods. Singapore has done this successfully. Outside of their city proper, high rise residential and commercial buildings are built near light rail lines. Apartments are affordable to middle class families, as are the cost of necessary goods and services. Density is never a problem as there is enough space set aside for parks and green spaces.
Unfortunately, if you try to do the same thing here, you run up against too much opposition from the community that it drives up the cost of development.
It seems that quite often the topic about the high cost of living in NYC comes up. Some wanting to move here and trying to figure out if they can afford it. Others who already live here and complain about the high cost of living.
Just to add some dimension to this thread I will mention that over 8 million people live in the 5 boroughs of NYC with over 11 million living around other areas of NY state outside the 5 boroughs. This leaves an entire area of the state undeveloped.
The question is: How many New Yorkers would move to upstate NY if it were developed? Do you think that development of the upstate NY region would make it a more attractive place to live and put an end to the high cost of living in the 5 boroughs?
By developed I mean:
Instead of companies locating their offices in Manhattan they could place those offices in upstate NY. Providing jobs in that region that would make it an attractive place to live and where people would not need to worry about long commutes into the 5 boroughs everyday for work.
Affordable real estate development targeting the middle class.
Looking for ideas and solutions to the current overcrowding, high cost of living and decisions that many are making to flee NYC for living in other states.
Your question is really moot.
Development as you describe it has existed throughtout the tri-state area since the 50s when the first post war suburbs were built.
There was a great excelleration of development during the 60s and 70s when due to the deteriorating city and suburban trends there was a great exodus of businesses and population. This tide of exodus did not stem and begin to reverse until the Guiliani administration.
Stamford and Greenwhich, CT; Jersey City/New Port and Hoboken, NJ; as well as other suburban surrounds of both states, and additionally Long Island and Westchester county, NY. In recent decades, much of back office Wall Street has relocated to New Jersey and more than half of high end money management firms to Connecticut.
There are already thousands of major companies and firm located outside the city.
So, I, for one, am at a lost to comprehend your post. Perhaps you should spend more time discovering the tri-state area and researching its history.
Little of the tri-state area is "undeveloped". NYC is surrounded by a rustbelt of old decaying cities. All of NJ's old manufacturing cities from Newark to Patterson. Same with CT, from Stamford to Greenwich; as well as NY's own, from Buffalo to Poughkeepsie. NYS has maybe a dozen "upstate" cities and developed regions which are old, dying and there are real questions whether theses cities and regions are stilll viable in a post-industrial world.
Addtionally, there are many searching for affordability who commute from as far way as the Poconos, Stroudsberg, PA and its surrounds, and Orange County NY.
Exactly! That is the point. People are moving to other states searching for affordable living when there would be no need for that if we would develop what we have in this state. People are fleeing to other states because they feel they have no other options.
Wow, you didn't even bother to click the link before assuming that the post supports your opinion/obsession. The link is of a small group of university students who are on a paleontology expedition out in the middle of nowhere. Paleontology roughly means the study of fossils/prehistoric life forms. They are not developing or constructing anything, and at night will just take the bus back to their dorm rooms.
Development as you describe it has existed throughtout the tri-state area since the 50s when the first post war suburbs were built.
There was a great excelleration of development during the 60s and 70s when due to the deteriorating city and suburban trends there was a great exodus of businesses and population. This tide of exodus did not stem and begin to reverse until the Guiliani administration.
Stamford and Greenwhich, CT; Jersey City/New Port and Hoboken, NJ; as well as other suburban surrounds of both states, and additionally Long Island and Westchester county, NY. In recent decades, much of back office Wall Street has relocated to New Jersey and more than half of high end money management firms to Connecticut.
There are already thousands of major companies and firm located outside the city.
So, I, for one, am at a lost to comprehend your post. Perhaps you should spend more time discovering the tri-state area and researching its history.
Little of the tri-state area is "undeveloped". NYC is surrounded by a rustbelt of old decaying cities. All of NJ's old manufacturing cities from Newark to Patterson. Same with CT, from Stamford to Greenwich; as well as NY's own, from Buffalo to Poughkeepsie. NYS has maybe a dozen "upstate" cities and developed regions which are old, dying and there are real questions whether theses cities and regions are stilll viable in a post-industrial world.
Addtionally, there are many searching for affordability who commute from as far way as the Poconos, Stroudsberg, PA and its surrounds, and Orange County NY.
That is the point.....there would be no need for commutes because the upstate NY region would be developed similar to the conveniences that are enjoyed today in the 5 boroughs. In other words people would be living in the same place that they work.
The only reason these places that you mention in upstate NY are dying is because most of the development over the years has been concentrated in the 5 boroughs and not in upstate NY. Had it been the other way around and some serious development was done in upstate NY those areas would not be dying today. In other words reversing the trend. Anything is viable if people begin living there and companies begin putting their operations there. If you neglect an area for years of course the area begins to die because no one see's its potential.
As you mentioned there are already people commuting from PA and Orange County NY. Why? Because there are no jobs in the upstate region so they have no choice but to live in the upstate and commute into Manhattan everyday. If there were jobs created in the upstate region they would have no reason to commute to Manhattan everyday.
I understand your skepticism.....but if the region is developed in an attractive way.....there is no reason that people would not want to live there.
For example:
Bring new companies to the region
Build new affordable housing that would target the middle class.
New restaurants and shopping
Bus service that would connect the towns in upstate NY
We are talking about future possibilities for that region where many, many, many people could benefit from it. All about choices and quality of life.
Wow, you didn't even bother to click the link before assuming that the post supports your opinion/obsession. The link is of a small group of university students who are on a paleontology expedition out in the middle of nowhere. Paleontology roughly means the study of fossils/prehistoric life forms. They are not developing or constructing anything, and at night will just take the bus back to their dorm rooms.
Party Pooper!
Henna, you presume too much. What if he did click on it?
jcoltrane's point is that underdevelopment/decline has really been the fundamental problem upstate (Buffalo, Rochester, etc.), whether or not you take NYC into account.
It has nothing to do with what happens to NYC and more to do with the fact that those places are simply no longer attractive places to do business out of their own doing. Traditional NYC financial companies will not move there because these companies tend to concentrate regionally where their biggest clients are located, like Charlotte, London and Philly. If you want Buffalo to become a financial center, it would have to become one in its own right and not an extension of NYC finance companies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
