Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-16-2020, 11:11 PM
 
Location: Charleston, SC
846 posts, read 1,798,332 times
Reputation: 401

Advertisements

Bergen, Hudson and Passaic counties alone have over 2 million people. Add in Essex, Morris and Union and you’re nearing 4 million. You’d have a NFL, NBA, NHL, and probably an MLB team, but no second or third team.

North Jersey on its own supports Devils hockey and MLS soccer with the Red Bulls, but lost the Nets, and the 2 New York NFL teams have a large percentage of their fan base there.

Even with being just a part of the New York metro area, Newark/North Jersey would probably be the best place for an expansion baseball team, but the Yankees and Mets would never allow it.

Double the population of Charlotte or Nashville, with very high income, a rabid fan base, and corporate support.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-16-2020, 11:27 PM
 
613 posts, read 328,147 times
Reputation: 448
Jersey City, Newark, inland Brooklyn, Queens, Westchester get more skyscrapers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2020, 08:17 AM
 
1,264 posts, read 2,439,363 times
Reputation: 585
SO basically the urbanization of North Jersey is NOT just a spillover of being suburban NY, it would have been it's own major market even without NY?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2020, 08:26 AM
 
Location: Bergen County, New Jersey
12,169 posts, read 8,021,713 times
Reputation: 10139
I have a feeling that the current day Bronx would be the "Manhattan".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2020, 09:48 AM
 
14,022 posts, read 15,028,594 times
Reputation: 10466
North Jersey would be less populated because the Bronx would be Manhattan and the area directly across from the Bronx has poor access to the Hudson River. and Queens and Brooklyn would be flipped in how dense/urban they are
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2020, 11:10 AM
 
3,715 posts, read 3,703,367 times
Reputation: 6484
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudlander View Post
SO basically the urbanization of North Jersey is NOT just a spillover of being suburban NY, it would have been it's own major market even without NY?
I believe so. It was settled early, it's on the ocean so would have likely been a large port despite NYC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2020, 11:50 AM
 
Location: On the Waterfront
1,676 posts, read 1,088,935 times
Reputation: 2507
North Jersey has always had its own identity as the bastion of never ending suburbs combined with urban grittiness. So to answer the original question yes it would still be a large Metro area without Manhattan but with more high rises and more mid size cities similar to a Northern VA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2020, 04:21 PM
 
Location: C.R. K-T
6,202 posts, read 11,454,719 times
Reputation: 3809
North Jersey would be similar in stature with Baltimore if NYC did not exist. The area would be centered around Newark, the regional seaport. If Bergen would have taken off, it would be the center instead. Perhaps Newark might be a second city to the metro (unless Bergen is very dominant).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2020, 04:27 PM
 
613 posts, read 328,147 times
Reputation: 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by masssachoicetts View Post
I have a feeling that the current day Bronx would be the "Manhattan".
I forgot to mention Da Bronx in my original post, they would definitely be a lot more people. Rangers and Knicks would make their home in the Bronx, and the Nets possibly stay in a more Manhattanized NJ.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2020, 04:54 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
7,582 posts, read 10,775,179 times
Reputation: 6572
NYC is what it is, because it was the early immigrant arrival spot due to its shorter proximity to ships bound to/from Europe that poured in there, compared to other colonial cities. Without the right advantages in place, it is possible another large colonial city could have captured that growth.

If Manhattan never existed, the growth, attention, and people would have still gone somewhere.

During earlier colonial times, most large cities formed on the seaboard near rivers and large inlets where there was a large island or peninsula that would be easy to protect. They looked from protection from other colonial powers and natives from both land and sea. They looked for areas where the water inlets could be fortied from multiple sides and for areas where land connections could be controlled and more easily fortified at choke points.

That is the issue with New Jersey. Historically, it would have never had these advantages when the original city centers and economic trade was established. It would have always been easier to protect the island and spread eastward and northward from the perceived threats during settlement and establishment.

Without Manhattan, and assumming the New York area still was successful in establishing well enough to stay the European immigrant hub, I would expect earlier settlers to consider the lower Bronx or parts of Long island to have been the better protected area to establish. My guess would be somewhere near Astoria or Mott Haven.

They would still have the same natural advantages protecting the water inlet, been further up river, and both locations over some sort of geographic advantage to start a city center that could be protected on land. Long Island would be attractive being a narrow island and South Bronx being attractive as a Peninsula that could be fortified more easily in one direction. At least that is my outlook on how colonial settlers would have started the city off differently in the absence of Manhattan. If that happened, I don't see what would make New Jersey much different than today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:14 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top