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.
What would be the consequence of Manhattan's finite real estate becoming so overbuilt and so unable to accomadate any more reasonable growth?
It's a legitimate question. Density increases constantly in Manhattan and the demand for this special global location knows no bounds.
So what is the upshot of further centralization around the core of NYC?
Could we possibly be reaching a time when the concept of Manhattan as a core is replaced with the notion of a Greater Manhattan, as New York spreads its city center into the outer boroughs?
It is hard to argue that the portions of Brooklyn closest to Lower Manhattan are "hot". Proximity is there; they are virtually in Manhattan. And Brooklyn, like Manhattan itself, differs from its long history and status as a city that has built within a unique urban character.
That character is not there in Queens, the parts across the East River from Midtown. But than Queens itself carries an advantage that Brooklyn does not:
lower density and lower priced real estate that would be not only lucrative to develop as an extension of Manhattan, but also offer the large sized tracts that could be developed into massive, unified projects...think some future type of Rock Center. And likely with a dramatic waterfront setting, something unheard of when Rock Center was built and Manhattan looked inland, away form its rivers.
The Manhattan of not so long contained within its lower 2/3's the heartbeat of a nation and a planet. But Bill Clinton and others have realized that demand for quality real estate made that upper 1/3 increasingly attractive and thus produced a modern, albeit less dramatic, Harlem Renaissance.
Assuming that the upper portions of the island will be viewed as the "real Manhattan", doesn't that also affect the borough physically closest to Manhattan, a mere few steps across the Harlem River, the Bronx?
Could a new Yankee Stadium and a reinvigorated Harlem bring the southern reaches of the Bronx? Though more distant from Downtown and Midtown, the Bronx offers something else besides the virtual attachment to upper Manhattan: it alone of the boroughs was part of the story of the original city of New York, the Bronx being the result of the northern migration of Manhattan and the only borough which was part of NYC when the consolidation took place.
Might we see these shore areas of Bkyn, Quns,& Bronx become a virtual part of Manhattan (with Roosevelt and Governors islands part of the mix)?. Subways are the real veins and arteries of Manhattan and these don't skip a beat when they cross the East or Harlem rivers. These are all special spots. There is nothing like them anywhere. The closest part of Staten Island is well out of Manhattan's orbit and Jersey City lies across the wide Hudson in another city.
But a future Manhattan in need of space could, IMHO, be viewed functionally as a whole borough...and the adjoining parts of three others.
Am I nuts on this one, or could such a thing happen?
What are you trying to say? Your post is very confusing (and in error in a number of ways).
ITA...... and how can you "spread" Manhattan into Bklyn & Qns? Brooklyn is Brooklyn, Queens is Queens, The Bronx is The Bronx. Yes, places in close proximity to Manhattan are "hot" (and have been for several years, nothing new) but they're not going to be "Manhattan".
If you mean, "will parts of the outer boroughs form larger business districts", then yes it is happening as we speak. It is happening in the boroughs, in the edge cities, and anywhere in the whole metro area that the NIMBY-minded citizens lose.
Your grand plan of an interconnected NYC can be accomplished with the use of modern escalators. BIG ONES! Or maybe not. Perhaps, people movers can be used.
What are you trying to say? Your post is very confusing (and in error in a number of ways).
sorry. i thought i was being clear. obviously not.
i was just asking if the role that Manhattan plays in NYC and, for that matter, as it presents itself to the world...could it be altered in how we perceive the place with areas adjacent to it being considered virtually a part of Manhattan.
I'm not sure I was in error in how I saw Manhattan since it is preceived in many different ways.
This may be a poor example in comparison, but here in Chicago, the Loop was once "Downtown", one and the same. But the downtown district bursted out of the confines of the Loop, crammed it as it is my water on three sides, and a Super Loop changed how Chicagoans see the core of their city.
I realize that NYC is vastly different from Chicago, that Manhattan is not a "downtown" but a borough with actual borders. But that is not to say that Manhattan doesn't serve a role (obviously it does). My querry here was simply this:
could areas in Brooklyn, Queens, and perhaps even the Bronx be drawn into how we see Manhattan functioning?
If I'm way off on this one, a simple "you're not really seeing it the way it is" will gladly shut me up on the issue and this thread can die an merry death.
Jersey City already functions as an extension of Manhattan. This is land that was former industrial use upon which a collection of large office buildings was built. This is a bit rare, however, because neighborhoods in Brooklyn, for example that are very close-in have many brownstones, and would never be demolished in favor of extensions of Manhattan. The scope would not be the same because of the NIMBYism that was spoken of in an earlier post -- the neighborhood action groups are VERY powerful in many areas of Manhattan even now, and have successfully blocked projects.
White Plains, Stamford, and Greenwich are edge cities that have employment centers that would have traditionally been associated with Manhattan, and are linked via rail service, and roads.
There would have to be spill-over in Manhattan, since major employment centers are not located on the north end of the island, but this is largely a residential area, which is the same with adjacent areas of The Bronx.
__________________
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts, his acts being seven ages.
~William Shakespeare (As You Like It Act II, Scene VII)
There would have to be spill-over in Manhattan, since major employment centers are not located on the north end of the island, but this is largely a residential area, which is the same with adjacent areas of The Bronx.
Actually there is a ton of job growth in Upper Manhattan. A lot of this is because the big institutions (including Columbia and the hospitals) have grown consistently and continue to hire more staff. Check out this study that Center for an Urban Future did... 3 of the 5 biggest growing zip codes for jobs were Harlem:
Top 5
11245 (Downtown Brooklyn): 253%
10041 (55 Water Street): 237%
10027 (West Harlem/Morningside Heights): 187%
10030 (Harlem): 106%
10026 (Harlem): 99%
And when you consider the downtown Brooklyn shuffling and the fact that 10041 is a weird zip code for one huge office building, basically Upper Manhattan posted some of the most significant job growth during the period.
But yeah, this goes even further to prove that the entire city is being "Manhattanized" -- a process that has been going on forever and will continue to do so.
That's true that there's job growth in Upper Manhattan, but it's of a different nature than businesses in traditional commercial areas of Midtown, Lower Manhattan, which would spur associated development. For example, I don't foresee Upper Broadway turning into the next Water Street.
And, areas in The Bronx, namely Riverdale, have enacted restrictions on building height precisely because there were several Manhattan-sized condominiums built in the last few years that were felt to be a blight on the character of much of the neighborhood -- blocking sight lines to the river and Palidades, or blocking natural light from existing structures.
__________________
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts, his acts being seven ages.
~William Shakespeare (As You Like It Act II, Scene VII)
sorry. i thought i was being clear. obviously not.
i was just asking if the role that Manhattan plays in NYC and, for that matter, as it presents itself to the world...could it be altered in how we perceive the place with areas adjacent to it being considered virtually a part of Manhattan.
I'm not sure I was in error in how I saw Manhattan since it is preceived in many different ways.
This may be a poor example in comparison, but here in Chicago, the Loop was once "Downtown", one and the same. But the downtown district bursted out of the confines of the Loop, crammed it as it is my water on three sides, and a Super Loop changed how Chicagoans see the core of their city.
I realize that NYC is vastly different from Chicago, that Manhattan is not a "downtown" but a borough with actual borders. But that is not to say that Manhattan doesn't serve a role (obviously it does). My querry here was simply this:
could areas in Brooklyn, Queens, and perhaps even the Bronx be drawn into how we see Manhattan functioning?
If I'm way off on this one, a simple "you're not really seeing it the way it is" will gladly shut me up on the issue and this thread can die an merry death.
The fact that Manhattan is an island makes a huge difference and a barrier to the kind of perception shift you are envisioning.The best example of the kind of growth you are talking about would be Jersey City, where there are in fact a lot of skyscrapers just across the river and there is a subway connection( PATH).But no matter how big or tall or important Jersey City might become it will never,ever be considered part of a "greater Manhattan" as you put it.It's New Jersey,it's across the river and it's another state.
Fort Lee,NJ has also become quite built up in the last 20 or 30 years and despite the fact that it's just on the other side of the GW Bridge it's still New Jersey.New Jersey will always be another place,as will Brooklyn,Queens and The Bronx.
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.
