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.
It isn't the Hudson that seduced the Dutch; it was the harbor. I don't think New York would be any different if there wasn't a Hudson River, because the harbor made all the difference. (And even if there wasn't a New York Harbor, Jamaica Bay could have taken its place. Let's face it: we've just got too much going for us, geographically speaking!)
Isn't Jamaica Bay harder to navigate though? Also it's a beach which means it's not great for building (also prone to flooding.)
Interesting thought: if the harbors weren't good enough to support a huge city here, would one of the other major cities along the East Coast with harbors have taken our theoretical place and become huge? Boston and Providence come to mind.
Interesting thought: if the harbors weren't good enough to support a huge city here, would one of the other major cities along the East Coast with harbors have taken our theoretical place and become huge? Boston and Providence come to mind.
That has always been my way of thought.
A harbor was a key factor, If not THE factor.
Isn't Jamaica Bay harder to navigate though? Also it's a beach which means it's not great for building (also prone to flooding.)
Actually, at the end of the 19th century there was a proposal to dredge Jamaica Bay and turn it into a huge industrial port. (Something tells me we're better off with the wetlands!)
Jamaica Bay, being a body of water, is at about the same risk for flooding as New York Harbor.
It isn't the Hudson that seduced the Dutch; it was the harbor. I don't think New York would be any different if there wasn't a Hudson River, because the harbor made all the difference. (And even if there wasn't a New York Harbor, Jamaica Bay could have taken its place. Let's face it: we've just got too much going for us, geographically speaking!)
The Hudson is important because without it there would be no Erie Canal. In the early 1800's when land travel was much more difficult, the canal enabled the transport of goods from the great lakes region and the interior of the country to NYC and beyond.
If it wasn't for the river and the canal, New Orleans would have become a much larger city.
The Hudson is important because without it there would be no Erie Canal.
That is true, but New York City was founded almost two centuries before the Erie Canal was built, and so you must remember that in 1624, the Hudson wasn't a concern for the founding Dutch. It was the harbor that excited their interest.
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.
