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.
The only casual observers who would think that would be casual observers in New Jersey. And that's virtually no one since few tourists will ever bother going there.
I don’t know if I’d go that far? One could easily mistake it for part of NYC (proper) flying in. Even on the ground it has a similar effect, albeit smaller, that Brooklyn has looking across the water. Many tourists don’t ever bother going there as well, but they still would consider it an extension of the city’s core. I could very easily see a casual observer not to familiar with NYC’s boundaries seeing Jersey City as an extension.
I don’t know if I’d go that far? One could easily mistake it for part of NYC (proper) flying in. Even on the ground it has a similar effect, albeit smaller, that Brooklyn has looking across the water. Many tourists don’t ever bother going there as well, but they still would consider it an extension of the city’s core. I could very easily see a casual observer not to familiar with NYC’s boundaries seeing Jersey City as an extension.
From a plane, yes. From the ground, no. Pointing out that most tourists won't make it to Brooklyn is a bit irrelevant. Most tourists won't make it to Harlem either, yet it's a rather prominent tourist destination these days with double decker buses running all up and down FDB and Lenox and foreigners seated in the balcony at Abyssinian Baptist Church. The point is that Brooklyn (and Harlem) will be on the radar for a non-insubstantial number of tourists visiting NYC whereas that's not the case for anywhere in New Jersey.
From a plane, yes. From the ground, no. Pointing out that most tourists won't make it to Brooklyn is a bit irrelevant. Most tourists won't make it to Harlem either, yet it's a rather prominent tourist destination these days with double decker buses running all up and down FDB and Lenox and foreigners seated in the balcony at Abyssinian Baptist Church. The point is that Brooklyn (and Harlem) will be on the radar for a non-insubstantial number of tourists visiting NYC whereas that's not the case for anywhere in New Jersey.
Ok, so what's your core?
"On the radar for a non-insubstantial number of tourists" is an important consideration but it's not a deal breaker. For me it's a holistic assessment. LIC and Greenpoint are also not on the radar for most tourists but I think they are part of the core (incidentally, they are also not easy to reach by foot, especially Greenpoint).
The fact is that pretty much everything outside of Manhattan is peripheral for most tourists (with the sole exception possibly Dumbo and Brooklyn Heights). If that's a key metric for you then your core should be Manhattan only. Which I've got no problem with -- as I said, this is not exact science.
The fact is that pretty much everything outside of Manhattan is peripheral for most tourists (with the sole exception possibly Dumbo and Brooklyn Heights). If that's a key metric for you then your core should be Manhattan only. Which I've got no problem with -- as I said, this is not exact science.
Then that would meet your more expansive definition of "core." That sounds about right to me if we're not confining this to strict CBD definitions. An argument could made for Williamsburg, Downtown, Ft. Greene and Park Slope if we're accounting for places that will draw a significant number of locals from Manhattan (i.e., BAM, Barclays, Prospect Park, Brooklyn Bowl, etc.) and even Jersey judging from the number of license plates.
"On the radar for a non-insubstantial number of tourists" is an important consideration but it's not a deal breaker. For me it's a holistic assessment. LIC and Greenpoint are also not on the radar for most tourists but I think they are part of the core (incidentally, they are also not easy to reach by foot, especially Greenpoint).
The fact is that pretty much everything outside of Manhattan is peripheral for most tourists (with the sole exception possibly Dumbo and Brooklyn Heights). If that's a key metric for you then your core should be Manhattan only. Which I've got no problem with -- as I said, this is not exact science.
If NYC’s core is limited to only Manhattan, then that simply means we are pulling punches to make the core appear smaller than it actually is.
I mean, what other U.S. city is going to exclude downtown areas with 700+ feet skyscrapers from its core? LOL, nobody is going to be that generous.
If NYC’s core is limited to only Manhattan, then that simply means we are pulling punches to make the core appear smaller than it actually is.
I mean, what other U.S. city is going to exclude downtown areas with 700+ feet skyscrapers from its core? LOL, nobody is going to be that generous.
Jersey City has an employment base of around 44K (according to Demographia) and no cultural sites or institutions that are worth seeing for the average tourist. I don't think it really moves the needle one way or the other.
The only casual observers who would think that would be casual observers in New Jersey. And that's virtually no one since few tourists will ever bother going there.
New Jersians comprise a significant part of metropolitan population of New York, that is why New York core is shifted. I don't understand why opinion of residents in NYC forum would even be relevant, since most NYC residents have no concept of metropolitan New York, have never been to most parts of metro New York, and think Upstate starts right as you cross north of the Bronx.
And you still didn't answer my question. If tomorrow deBlasio administration bans pedestrian crossing of the Brooklyn bridge, as they are about to introduce tolls/congestion pricing for cars over the bridge, would that make downtown Brooklyn magically not part of the greater New York metropolitan core? Does downtown Brooklyn seize to be part of the greater core in the winter, when pedestrian traffic over the bridge dies down? You do realize this is a purely subjective discussion and there is no right or wrong answer. You don't consider JC waterfront as part of greater NY metropolitan core, great! But this is your... opinion.
New Jersians comprise a significant part of metropolitan population of New York, that is why New York core is shifted. I don't understand why opinion of residents in NYC forum would even be relevant, since most NYC residents have no concept of metropolitan New York, have never been to most parts of metro New York, and think Upstate starts right as you cross north of the Bronx.
And you still didn't answer my question. If tomorrow deBlasio administration bans pedestrian crossing of the Brooklyn bridge, as they are about to introduce tolls/congestion pricing for cars over the bridge, would that make downtown Brooklyn magically not part of the greater New York metropolitan core?
We're having two different conversations. You're talking about the core of the city, and you're talking about the core of the metro. There are a handful of cities where the "city" core extends outside of municipal limits...where there's a even flow of people in and out of the city. Boston/Cambridge, for example. If city residents rarely venture into an area, can it really be said to be part of the city's core?
We're having two different conversations. You're talking about the core of the city, and you're talking about the core of the metro. There are a handful of cities where the "city" core extends outside of municipal limits...where there's a even flow of people in and out of the city. Boston/Cambridge, for example. If city residents rarely venture into an area, can it really be said to be part of the city's core?
Way to cut to the heart of the issue. Does any other city have a core that residents of the city, or even the metro at large, rarely ever venture to?
Now understand that the VERY predictable response to this is going to be "Well, there are people from the city who rarely, if ever, go to Brooklyn." And that's true. I rarely ever go to Times Square. Yet we all recognize it's a place that draws people from all over the region. The same could be said for parts of Brooklyn only to a much, much lesser extent. Places like Jersey City, on the other hand, might be a slightly larger regional draw than Staten Island. And even then it's close.
Edit: Now that I think about it, S.I. is definitely a bigger draw than JC/Hoboken because of the ferry, which is free (and somewhat iconic) and beloved by tourists.
Last edited by BajanYankee; 06-21-2019 at 11:57 AM..
We're having two different conversations. You're talking about the core of the city, and you're talking about the core of the metro. There are a handful of cities where the "city" core extends outside of municipal limits...where there's a even flow of people in and out of the city. Boston/Cambridge, for example. If city residents rarely venture into an area, can it really be said to be part of the city's core?
I also think a lack of familiarity leads to a tendency to downplay tourism in Brooklyn. Of course, it's not Little Italy or the Village, but we get a lot of tourists nonetheless.
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.
