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.
I see many things wrong with this statement. And I agree with some.
First, Jersey City/ Hoboken will never be considered a borough nor part of New York City not because of NYer's but because the New Jerseyans won't have it. I doubt anyone from New Jersey or New York would acknowledge any place in New Jersey to be a part of New York. If anything, Jersey City/ Hoboken is considered a satellite city in the New York metro area. Northern New Jersey is full of NYC overflow, it's been that way for decades. If any place is to take the 6th borough title, it'll have to be in New York and most likely border the original 5.
The only thing I agree with is that Jersey City/ Hoboken is more a part of the city than Staten Island. Staten Island's more a part of New Jersey
I believe we are speaking hypothetically and unofficially. I doubt New York will ever get a 6th borough and certainly not in another state but my post was that Hoboken/JC are undoubtedly "unofficially" New York City's 6th borough. They are also much more citified than New York's suburban neighbors in Westchester and Long Island which are of course the suburbs.
Hoboken/JC are urban landscapes similar to Brooklyn and closer in proximity to Manhattan. They also have the Path train (at the end of the day an independent subway line) to them.
For me honestly Hoboken/JC are as much a part of NYC. as Brooklyn is.
Location: Concrete jungle where dreams are made of.
8,900 posts, read 15,926,305 times
Reputation: 1819
I think if anything it would be a city that borders the Bronx. Those areas are way more commercial than western Nassau. I drove into Mt.Vernon when I got lost around Wakefield. There was really no difference at all. As soon as you hit Long Island, you automatically know you're in the suburbs. Not really so in southern Westchester.
I meant I wonder what other subway lines would of been built.
I think if Hudson country were part of the city it would of encouraged alot more subway construction connecting Manhattan and Jersey other than PATH.
Nassau is in the same state but isn't as urban as Hudson country. Nassau is larger and more suburban.
Nassau is a positive addition to the tax base. Middle class, good schools, and low crime. Who knows what you're getting with Hudson Co. Yes, Hoboken and the waterfront are all pretty and whatnot, but start to go into West NY, Union City, Inland parts of JC and whatnot, and the sparkle fades fast. Not anything near what you'll find in Newark, mind you, but still adds more "hood". But heck, maybe if it became a part of NYC, the gentrification would expand rapidly and it'd become another Brooklyn.
Nassau is a positive addition to the tax base. Middle class, good schools, and low crime. Who knows what you're getting with Hudson Co. Yes, Hoboken and the waterfront are all pretty and whatnot, but start to go into West NY, Union City, Inland parts of JC and whatnot, and the sparkle fades fast. Not anything near what you'll find in Newark, mind you, but still adds more "hood". But heck, maybe if it became a part of NYC, the gentrification would expand rapidly and it'd become another Brooklyn.
The Bronx has no skyline, no downtown, no class-A skyscrapers. Brooklyn has a few, Jersey City has a handful, and even Queens has one. When will the Bronx get the attention it deserves?
If the Bronx doesn't work out for me for the next 2 years im moving to Honolulu
Nassau is a positive addition to the tax base. Middle class, good schools, and low crime. Who knows what you're getting with Hudson Co. Yes, Hoboken and the waterfront are all pretty and whatnot, but start to go into West NY, Union City, Inland parts of JC and whatnot, and the sparkle fades fast. Not anything near what you'll find in Newark, mind you, but still adds more "hood". But heck, maybe if it became a part of NYC, the gentrification would expand rapidly and it'd become another Brooklyn.
Were using different criteria i think.
Im going by most urban area and your going by wealthiest / most appealing.
Nassau is a positive addition to the tax base. Middle class, good schools, and low crime.
Which is exactly why Nassau county will never submit to annexation. Keep in mind, all of the 5 boroughs voluntarily voted to become a part of NYC. I vote Yonkers/ Mt. Vernon
Expansion west of Manhattan is unavoidable, but the Hudson River is a major urban transportation hurdle, with Lincoln & Holland tunnels (etc) becoming hellish bottlenecks for growth. Numerous new tunnels and/or bridges would have to be built, surpassing for example the 27 bridges that the Seoul metro area, in spite of having 1/5th the GDP, has across the Han river, which is of comparable width. The NYC metro area only has 6 bridges / tunnels across the Hudson to NJ and 6 more stretching upstate (counting all the way to the Kingston-Rhinecliff Bridge) - definitely not enough for a city trying to be the world's greatest!
In the long long term, NYC would need all sorts of transportation mega-projects to integrate with the outer reaches of its metro area and stay ahead of Tokyo and other metro areas that could surpass its total GDP by 2050, including the Yangtze and the Pearl River deltas. It would need maglev trains, subway projects stretching way into what now are suburbs, and mega-tunnels / mega-bridges (perhaps with some artificial islands) connecting across the Upper and Lower bays (all the way to Sandy Hook) and secondly across the L.I. Sound.
A city is (only) as big as its transportation infrastructure, and it's a safety measure as well: if Manhattan / the Bronx gets (mini)nuked, the 7+ million people in Long Island would be cut off from the mainland and evacuation would take way too long.
Last edited by Alex Libman; 12-23-2008 at 09:04 AM..
I meant I wonder what other subway lines would of been built.
That's a very interesting notion, for the following reason:
There have been proposals to extend the subway across the Hudson for quite a few years now. It is not going to happen, because if you cross a state line, what is now officially designated as an "urban mass transit system" suddenly becomes a "railroad," and would be subject to Federal guidelines. You can bet the last cent in your bank account that MTA doesn't want any part of having to conform to Federal guidelines with respect to the New York City Transit system (and its workers, who would automatically obtain benefits not currently available).
However, if some city on the other side of the Hudson was to be annexed by NYC, there would no longer be a state line to cross, and any line with east-west trackage in Manhattan could conceivably be extended across the river. The #7 and L lines would become prime candidates, and there could also be an extension of the E or V from the tracks along 53 Street.
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.
