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.
It would be hard to believe there would be rolling hills on the land, considering that NYC seems so flat as a city. Besides North Jersey, parts of Upstate NY, and parts of Connecticut being affected, then it would make somewhat sense for eastern PA to be affected.
You don't have to believe, you can just go and see. Parts of upper Manhattan and the Bronx are still hilly.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,129 posts, read 7,568,606 times
Reputation: 5786
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwguy2
There was a documentary about NYC and what it looked liked 300-400+ years ago. I don't know which channel covered it, but it was fascinating. I want to say Discover, but I'm not sure.
Fact of the matter is, Manhattan was once a natural place with hills, wildlife, and an aquatic feature that in some cases still exist today, despite the major population incursion. I don't see any effort to try and revert back to this as problematic, however the odds are against it. In other words, there is no reason to not try and get back to the natural state of the Island, with the idea that the end result wlll not reach anywhere that goal. The process and goal are important, IMO. End result: perhaps a more green and environmental city at the end of the day. We see this in NYC governmental policy today. There is no question, NYC can still be the most important city in the u.s. and (maybe) the world, but they can also offer alternatives to what we have always considered mega-cities in terms of high cost of living, pollution, and general lower quality of life. Perhaps NYC can change that equation. Time will tell.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,129 posts, read 7,568,606 times
Reputation: 5786
For some reason I firmly believe the 7 cities aka Hampton Roads/ VA Beach area would have been a MAJOR city and port on the East Coast. Like 7 or 8 million big.
It's completely impossible to imagine no city where NYC is today with the U.S. being recognizable. As was mentioned, it's a great natural harbor, at the mouth of a major river system. In addition, the city predates the founding of the U.S. by a great deal.
The best way to make NYC much smaller, however, would be to get rid of the Erie Canal. The easiest way to do that is a scenario where as part of the Revolutionary War, the U.S. wins Upper/Lower Canada (modern Quebec and Ontario. With the U.S. owning the area, the U.S. focuses instead on an earlier St. Lawrence Seaway, allowing for colonization of the Upper Midwest via Quebec rather than Upstate NY. As a result, trade from the Midwest floods into Montreal, which becomes much larger (and more English speaking). NYC would still be an important city, but more similar in size to Philadelphia and Boston rather than the megacity we know - likely mostly dominated by rowhouses.
I actually think North Jersey would be far more densely populated than it already is. Jersey City and Bayonne make really good sense for a major city. Easy land access to the entire US, while still being on the same harbor as NYC. The natural harbor of New York Bay is far too perfect; it would inevitably be a major trade area, but maybe not on Manhattan. There was an article I read a few months ago that a developer (or something), who contributed a lot to Jersey City's success when it first was built, firmly believed Jersey City would be what NYC is today. It turned out, however, that Manhattan is what it is BECAUSE it's an island. It had to build up and build subways, whereas so many other cities could build out. Jersey City/Bayonne's geographic location does make more sense. It's literally across the river from Manhattan and has Newark bay behind it with several rivers in the area. But turns out the geographic constraints of Manhattan led to what it is today.
That said, if Manhattan didn't be come Manhattan, I think Jersey City/Bayonne and possibly Hoboken and Newark would have take on that role. So North Jersey would be even denser and more powerful. Staten Island would have been Brooklyn being so close to Bayonne's peninsula. Manhattan would have been Brooklyn probably. But JC, Bayonne, Hoboken, and Newark would be the hub of the region with access on the Hudson River, New York Bay, and Newark Bay. They'd likely form an entire urban core surrounding Newark Bay. Today, that bay would be lined with highrises completely all the way around it, and the entire Bayonne/JC/Hoboken area would be highrises as well on both the Newark Bay and New York Bay sides.
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.
