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.
Perhaps you are right about Astoria and Long Island City becoming what they are because of being right across the East River from Manhattan. But certainly the combined areas which constitute Forest Hills/Rego Park/Kew Gardens are important hubs and concentrations of activity in their own right that holds its own in comparison with Flushing and Jamaica.
I'm not saying they wouldnt be urban, it just depends on how good the geography would be for ports. It could end up being a Chicago-style situation in which the entire length of the coast is dense and built up
Some of the frustration in this thread could have been avoided by a more clearly worded OP.
Among the three or more possible ways the OP could have been interpreted, it's been clarified that scenario 2 below is what he meant:
1. Historic neglect/absence of Manhattan with the remaining 4 boroughs developing to their current state.
2. Historic neglect/absence of Manhattan with another district receiving the attention that Manhattan would otherwise have received.
3. An attempt to reconcile the two scenarios above (what if Manhattan with NYC in its current state were to suddenly not exist, in some ontological sense).
The answer to that would be yes, as far as power and influence are concerned. All other factors and historical circumstances remaining constant, the historic and strategic importance of New York would mean that NYC would still be the greatest in the USA. There are cities around the world that either match (or surpass) New York in various measures of importance, prestige or functional role, yet have very different cityscape forms in wildly different geographic locations.
With that in mind, there doesn't seem to be anything particularly significant about being stuck at the tip of 2 mile wide bog that would help catapult a city to future greatness, unless you're talking militarily, and the only major role it played in a military sense, as far as I know, is as a British loyalist outpost during the War of Independence.
New York with a different form factor may or may not become as iconic as NYC today, but predicting things like this is pointless given the countless ways in which Brooklyn or the other boroughs may develop in Manhattan's absence, as well as the multitude of social and cultural factors that would be displaced from the historic timeline.
Last edited by Hightower72; 10-17-2015 at 12:24 AM..
A rather interesting question (or at least rather interesting to me) occurred to me while shopping tonight. I asked myself this question:
[indent][b]Would New York City have the national and international status and image it has historically had and presently has if Manhattan didn't exist at all but rather that what is New York City consisted only of what is now entailed by present-day Brooklyn, Queens, The Bronx, and Staten Island and everything that those 4 boroughs have within them and have going for them?
Nope. And anybody who pretends otherwise is delusional.
(Not to sh*t on the boroughs. Hell, I even like SI. The whole North-East is awesome. But Manhattan is the global metropolis.)
Brooklyn is strong enough to stand as a city in its own right, but definitely not the other 3 boroughs.
Then again, Brooklyn would likely still be mostly crime ridden if it wasn't for Manhattan.
How do I interpret the bolded statement of yours? That is, how does the existence or phenomenon which is Manhattan keep Brooklyn from "still being mostly crime-ridden"?
Not a flying chance. The outer boros have historically been working-class to ghetto areas before the insane real estate boom in Brooklyn and Queens gentrified them a little. Without Manhattan, you are not even close to LA, San Francisco, or even Chicago. You are looking at Cleveland or St. Louis. No one is living in Brooklyn or Queens because they like the area itself. They live in Brooklyn or Queens because it is close to Manhattan.
Brooklyn and Queens were absolute cesspools before NYC got cleaned up and shot up in home value. The Bronx is still a cesspool and Staten is well...Staten.
By the way, the international status and reputation of NYC has changed. Manhattan has not been an upscale wealthy city until fairly recently-it was a gritty slum. LES, Hells Kitchen, Times Square-all ghetto. Little Italy, Chinatown, Koreatown were affordable ethnic ghettos. Manhattan has been a real "look over your shoulder" type of place until Giuliani was mayor.
You said " No one is living in Brooklyn or Queens because they like the area itself. " Really???? How did you come up with that? How do you feel justified in making such a blanket statement like this . . . proclaiming "No one ..."? You think that all of the residents or would-be residents of New York City engage in monolithic groupthink (i.e., they ALL think alike)?
There are many many many many many people who would not choose to live in Manhattan (even some who say you couldn't pay them to live in Manhattan) and would much rather choose Queens (e.g., Forest Hills, Rego Park, Kew Gardens, Middle Village, Bayside, varied parts of greater Jamaica, Auburndale, Douglaston, Little Neck, select parts of greater Flushing, et al) or Brooklyn (e.g., Park Slope, Bay Ridge, Bensonhurst, Sheepshead Bay, varied parts of Flatbush, Williamsburg, et al) or The Bronx (e.g., Pelham Bay, Pelham Parkway, Morris Park, Woodlawn, RIverdale/Fieldston/South Riverdale, Parkchester, et al) or varied parts of Staten Island.
For instance, a person or family intent on having a single-family detached home with a yard around it and parking on their properthy for their two or three automobiles are not going to be living in Manhattan. They would choose other places in Queens or Brooklyn The Bronx or Staten Island or even outside New York City altogether (i.e., Long Island, New Jersey, Westchester or Rockland County, southwestern Connecticut).
Without Manhattan we'd still have the NY harbor and the Hudson river feeding the same commerce into the region. Those other cities were great when we had to secure ourselves from ship attacks from either the British or pirates, but once we gained some sense of security, nothing was more efficient to flow goods in to and out of this country than a nice open harbor. So we'd still have the same location ideal for trading. Downtown Brooklyn would be the Finacial District, Williamsburg the Village, and LIC...Midtown.
A rather interesting question (or at least rather interesting to me) occurred to me while shopping tonight. I asked myself this question:
Would New York City have the national and international status and image it has historically had and presently has if Manhattan didn't exist at all but rather that what is New York City consisted only of what is now entailed by present-day Brooklyn, Queens, The Bronx, and Staten Island and everything that those 4 boroughs have within them and have going for them?
So hence, without all that entails the Borough of Manhattan and everything that it has within it and has going for it, would the New York City which consists of the combined Brooklyn, Queens, The Bronx, and Staten Island be considered "the ultimate", "the best", "the biggest", "the greatest", "the center of the universe", "the most happening place", and all the other superlatives attached to it historically and presently? Or, in the end, would such a New York City be relatively comparable to Chicago, Washington D.C., Boston, Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Denver, Minneapolis, Seattle, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, and other major North American cities? Or internationally, would it even still be in the league of London (UK), Paris, Berlin, Tokyo, Moscow, Rome. Rio Di Janeiro, Sao Paulo, Buenos Aires, and other major world cities?
Perhaps as a tourist destination since Queens has been voted as the best tourist destination in the USA.
A rather interesting question (or at least rather interesting to me) occurred to me while shopping tonight. I asked myself this question:
[indent][b]Would New York City have the national and international status and image it has historically had and presently has if Manhattan didn't exist at all but rather that what is New York City consisted only of what is now entailed by present-day Brooklyn, Queens, The Bronx, and Staten Island and everything that those 4 boroughs have within them and have going for them?
manhattan defines nyc. without manhattan, nyc would be boston. lol.
Would the outer boroughs have the skyline that they have without Manhattan? I'm thinking that Brooklyn would, out of necessity; if anything it may have an even higher skyline than it does now. Also, without Manhattan, as we know it now, would the county still represent a highly urbanized area?
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.
