assuming NYC didn't have Manhattan, what's left? (New York, Newark: trip , work)

[SouthCali4LifeSD]

what would NYC without Manhattan be like to you? the more detailed the better. take into account the remaining 4 boroughs, this should be interesting

[john_starks]

it can't be defined w/o manhattan. b/c its like the true downtown (but huge) and all the sorrounding boroughs feed off that energy/commerce, etc..

i've been told that it is similar to london town and everything that developed around it. making london and its surrounding suburbs one big city.

[CHIP72]

New York's growth owes a lot to A) a great natural harbor, B) a deep, navigable river into the interior of New York state, and C) the Mohawk Valley (where I-90/NY State Thruway is located) cutting east-west through upstate NY to provide an easy connection to the Great Lakes and the rest of the U.S. back in the canal and early railroad days. Because of that, New York still would likely be the United States' most important city today even if Manhattan Island didn't exist.

More specific to the question, downtown Brooklyn would be much larger and a lot more like what lower or midtown Manhattan actually are, most likely a combination of both. Brooklyn and and to a lesser degree Queens would be generally better off and more built up than they are now, while the Bronx and Staten Island would be unchanged (actually, the portion of Staten Island near the Verrazano Narrows Bridge would probably be a little more built up). The Verrazano Narrows Bridge would likely have been built earlier than 1964.

Jersey City would be much bigger too. In fact, it's possible THE big city in the New York metro area would be Jersey City, not Brooklyn, and correspondingly have the lower/midtown Manhattan type of development.

[SuperMario]

Wow......take away the heart of any city and see whats left. The difference is take out Manhattan from NYC and you got the other 4 boroughs. Do it to any other city and you got nothing left.

[neonwattagelimit]

Originally Posted by CHIP72

New York's growth owes a lot to A) a great natural harbor, B) a deep, navigable river into the interior of New York state, and C) the Mohawk Valley (where I-90/NY State Thruway is located) cutting east-west through upstate NY to provide an easy connection to the Great Lakes and the rest of the U.S. back in the canal and early railroad days. Because of that, New York still would likely be the United States' most important city today even if Manhattan Island didn't exist.

More specific to the question, downtown Brooklyn would be much larger and a lot more like what lower or midtown Manhattan actually are, most likely a combination of both. Brooklyn and and to a lesser degree Queens would be generally better off and more built up than they are now, while the Bronx and Staten Island would be unchanged (actually, the portion of Staten Island near the Verrazano Narrows Bridge would probably be a little more built up). The Verrazano Narrows Bridge would likely have been built earlier than 1964.

Jersey City would be much bigger too. In fact, it's possible THE big city in the New York metro area would be Jersey City, not Brooklyn, and correspondingly have the lower/midtown Manhattan type of development.

I pretty much agree with this. As a native of the outer boroughs, though I'd like to add more to the thought "what is New York outside Manhattan." And I'll tell you - it's the real city. Manhattan is fantastic, but it always struck me as a bit transient. The outer boroughs are more livable. Queens is the most diverse place on earth. Brooklyn is where alot of the things you associate with "New York"- the accent, ethnic eateries, old-school Italians and Jews - originally came from. The Bronx is the home of the Yankees and hip-hop. Staten Island (my home borough), while admittedly far less important, is home to many of the people that make the city work - cops, firemen, teachers.

Manhattan is the pulsing center of the city. But if you don't know the outer boroughs, you don't know New York.

[FutureCop]

It would still be the largest city in America, but with a higher crime rate.

[CHIP72]

Even though I'm not a native New Yorker, I have to agree that if you want to get a true sense of what NYC is about, you need to check out all 5 boroughs, particularly the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens, and not just Manhattan below 110th Street. When I take day trips to NYC, I try to make a point of it to check out some of the outer boroughs and/or parts of New Jersey near the PATH and/or Hudson-Bergen Light Rail lines. (I also go to Yankees and/or Mets games at least once per season, and I can see what going on in SW Bronx and in Queens along the 7 Line, in addition to seeing the kind of people getting on and off and riding the subways. The 7 Train truly is the international express.) Just an example, the last day trip I took to New York (12/28/07), I took the Staten Island Ferry for the first time, went to the Atlantic Avenue/Flatbush LIRR/subway station and walked around outside a bit (which I had done once previously), took two of the IND Division subway lines out to/back from Coney Island (I think it was the Q train going out and the F train coming back), and took a ride on the semi-infamous G crosstown line (which I didn't realize had only 4 car consists, but I digress into train geek talk). I wanted to see the views from Staten Island; the view there on a clear day (which I was fortunate enough to have the day I was there) are spectacular, as you can see lower Manhattan, downtown Brooklyn, downtown Jersey City, the Port of Bayonne, and even downtown Newark off in the distance to the west. I also wanted to see what Coney Island was like; what I saw was pretty depressing. It definitely wasn't the New York people who haven't been there think of when they envision the Big Apple, though its location means it is likely prime redevelopment territory. I've checked out other, off the beaten path places in the city in previous day trips, like Harlem on 125th Street and Jamaica Station in Queens. Those places are rough and gritty, but real too. I've also checked out some of the areas between midtown and lower Manhattan, which tend to be overshadowed by the two CBD's, but are doing pretty well right now and are nice, attractive but not flashy areas from what I saw. All of these things are what New York is about, not just the narrow sliver often focused on by the media.

Incidentally, one of these days I hope to be able to take a ride on the Staten Island Railway just to get a better flavor of New York's most suburban-like borough.

[jluke65780]

Originally Posted by SuperMario

Wow......take away the heart of any city and see whats left. The difference is take out Manhattan from NYC and you got the other 4 boroughs. Do it to any other city and you got nothing left.

Take out Downtown Houston and you still got Uptown/TMC/Greenway Plaza/etc.lol.....jk.

If you took out Manhattan;NYC would still be the greatest city in america,than agian Chicago probably would.

[SuperMario]

Originally Posted by FutureCop

It would still be the largest city in America, but with a higher crime rate.

I disagree. It would be the same. Manhattan was home to 3 of the 4 highest crime neighborhoods in the city according to the 2007 crime map.

East Harlem, Lower East Side and Midtown south all had crime rates of 1600+ per 100,000. West Harlem and Central Harlem were a notch below but were still 1200-1400 range. Also dont bank on Washington Heights/Inwood to maintain that low crime rate. Neighborhoods with their history dont just become the Upper West Side overnight. So bank on them returning to there normal high crime self.

But you also lose the safe neighborhoods Midtown north, Upper East Side, Upper West Side, etc that is why it will even out in all probability.

I think if you were to remove Queens or Staten Island then you would have more crime.