Would NYC have the status and image it does if Manhattan didn't exist but NYC was only the OTHER 4 present-day boroughs? (New York: real estate, 2015)
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.
A rather interesting question (or at least rather interesting to me) occurred to me while shopping tonight. I asked myself this question:
Would New York City have the national and international status and image it has historically had and presently has if Manhattan didn't exist at all but rather that what is New York City consisted only of what is now entailed by present-day Brooklyn, Queens, The Bronx, and Staten Island and everything that those 4 boroughs have within them and have going for them?
So hence, without all that entails the Borough of Manhattan and everything that it has within it and has going for it, would the New York City which consists of the combined Brooklyn, Queens, The Bronx, and Staten Island be considered "the ultimate", "the best", "the biggest", "the greatest", "the center of the universe", "the most happening place", and all the other superlatives attached to it historically and presently? Or, in the end, would such a New York City be relatively comparable to Chicago, Washington D.C., Boston, Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Denver, Minneapolis, Seattle, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, and other major North American cities? Or internationally, would it even still be in the league of London (UK), Paris, Berlin, Tokyo, Moscow, Rome. Rio Di Janeiro, Sao Paulo, Buenos Aires, and other major world cities?
Nope, Manhattan is the financial center of the entire city and the engine for its growth. Im guessing without Manhattan, Downtown Brooklyn would be the new "Manhattan". Queens would be a lot more suburban and decentralized, with everything revolving around Flushing and Jamaica. Bronx would be too far from Downtown Brooklyn so it would be more suburbia, just like Westchester. Obviously New York City would still be big, but nowhere near its current stage
Nope, Manhattan is the financial center of the entire city and the engine for its growth. Im guessing without Manhattan, Downtown Brooklyn would be the new "Manhattan". Queens would be a lot more suburban and decentralized, with everything revolving around Flushing and Jamaica. Bronx would be too far from Downtown Brooklyn so it would be more suburbia, just like Westchester. Obviously New York City would still be big, but nowhere near its current stage
Would NYC be no better than, say, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver but just more-or-less on their level? Or even somewhat lesser than, say. Los Angeles, Chicago, Toronto, and Montreal in impact and stature?
So do you think that London or Paris or Tokyo would become the new top "world city"?
It's a tough question but in short I'd say yes. NYC would still be top dog.
We'd still have the largest population, largest transit system, most density, most diversity, etc. It's a lot of things the boroughs contribute but (one of) the reason NYC annexed in the first place was for the water and access to the ports of the city of Brooklyn (Queens was Nassau County, the Bronx was Westchester, etc). So if Manhattan never existed Brooklyn would've just took it's place, hence why it could survive on it's own even today. Queens would've been BK as far as trendy/hip-ness is concerned, the Bronx would've been Queens (with more crime?) and Staten wouldn't have made the cut because Brooklyn had enough ports lol. It would've been apart of Jersey, officially. Just kidding.
If we look at what's happening now though with the development of Brooklyn I think we'll really see what Downtown BK would've been if it didn't join the rest of the city. . .
Without Manhattan the remaining 4 would have inevitably became an iconic city. But I wouldn't want to imagine my city without the Empire State Building. I may despise Manhattan at times but. . . . it's Manhattan. It's like the sister you don't like, but you couldn't imagine living without her.
It's a tough question but in short I'd say yes. NYC would still be top dog.
We'd still have the largest population, largest transit system, most density, most diversity, etc. It's a lot of things the boroughs contribute but (one of) the reason NYC annexed in the first place was for the water and access to the ports of the city of Brooklyn (Queens was Nassau County, the Bronx was Westchester, etc). So if Manhattan never existed Brooklyn would've just took it's place, hence why it could survive on it's own even today. Queens would've been BK as far as trendy/hip-ness is concerned, the Bronx would've been Queens (with more crime?) and Staten wouldn't have made the cut because Brooklyn had enough ports lol. It would've been apart of Jersey, officially. Just kidding.
If we look at what's happening now though with the development of Brooklyn I think we'll really see what Downtown BK would've been if it didn't join the rest of the city. . .
Without Manhattan the remaining 4 would have inevitably became an iconic city. But I wouldn't want to imagine my city without the Empire State Building. I may despise Manhattan at times but. . . . it's Manhattan. It's like the sister you don't like, but you couldn't imagine living without her.
I really like your informative and illuminating labeled photos of the skyline and landscape of western Brooklyn/Downtown Brooklyn.
Broolyn has notably more room to spread out its dense development (if the "powers-that-be" chose to pursue that direction) and it could be as dense with skyscrapers and packed as Manhattan yet over an even larger area. For Manhattan has to squeeze everything into a thin cigar-shaped island that is only about 2 miles wide. Or there can prospectively be a combined mass of skyline spreading across western Brooklyn and western Queens.
In place of Manhattan's Madison Square Garden, you have Brooklyn's Barclays Center. In place of Manhattan's Penn Station/Grand Central Station, you have Brooklyn's Atlantic Terminal. And so on and so on with myriad other possibilities for how the lack of a Manhattan can be compensated for or overcompensated for.
1 - Downtown Brooklyn develops to be really dense and has most of NYC's skyline, and most of Western Brooklyn would be dense too. Maybe even a Chicago style skyline that sprawls along the coast
2 - Gowanus would be a Bohemian area historically known for crime and drugs
3 - Prospect Park becomes world famous
4 - Jersey City, Union City and Hoboken evolve as a competing city with Brooklyn, since they also have really good natural harbors, but are too far away to be linked by bridge until the 20th century. There are natural borders to the west, so they develop to be really really dense, although not as much as Manhattan
5 - Queens becomes a true suburb, with the farther parts of it relying on Flushing and Jamaica
5 - North of 161st St West Coast of Bronx is really hilly so I can't imagine a port being there. So the cutoff line between Bronx and the Westchester would be at 161st. It's really far away from Downtown Brooklyn so it becomes an industrial ghetto
6 - Anything around Newtown Creek also turns into the hood
I still think it would be a great city, but obviosuly not as great. Maybe more on the level of Chicago or Buenos Aires, another port city
Not a flying chance. The outer boros have historically been working-class to ghetto areas before the insane real estate boom in Brooklyn and Queens gentrified them a little. Without Manhattan, you are not even close to LA, San Francisco, or even Chicago. You are looking at Cleveland or St. Louis. No one is living in Brooklyn or Queens because they like the area itself. They live in Brooklyn or Queens because it is close to Manhattan.
Brooklyn and Queens were absolute cesspools before NYC got cleaned up and shot up in home value. The Bronx is still a cesspool and Staten is well...Staten.
By the way, the international status and reputation of NYC has changed. Manhattan has not been an upscale wealthy city until fairly recently-it was a gritty slum. LES, Hells Kitchen, Times Square-all ghetto. Little Italy, Chinatown, Koreatown were affordable ethnic ghettos. Manhattan has been a real "look over your shoulder" type of place until Giuliani was mayor.
Would NYC be no better than, say, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver but just more-or-less on their level? Or even somewhat lesser than, say. Los Angeles, Chicago, Toronto, and Montreal in impact and stature?
So do you think that London or Paris or Tokyo would become the new top "world city"?
If Manhattan were to suddenly disappear, it would put New York on the level of Houston or Boston at a rough guess. I doubt the banking sector headquarters would migrate to Brooklyn downtown to begin anew there. I would postulate they'd either move human resources to Chicago, or even London, to utilize the framework of infrastructure and intellectual capital already in place there.
A move to Chicago would mean that it not only dominates in the US futures market but also in the spot market and wealth management. A move to London would make it even more of an unstoppable juggernaut in the world of global finance.
did it takes the us usual and highly unique topography/geography of the island of Manhattan to create what we consider to be NYC? Did the city need that very long, very narrow island to become what it did? manhattan's shape created a city with no traditional core where development spread to the periphery. instead the core itself grew and expanded in only one direction: north; all parts added to it became equally "core" and the democracy of the grid with numbered streets created no center. .the narrowness of the island allowed all to be connected with but a few north/south subway lines. the very narrowness of the island and its inaccessibility is what created the need for height. the city build upward because there simply was no other place to grow. only such a growth pattern could lead to the area of midtown, some 40 blocks up from the lower tip of Manhattan to replace the old downtown as the city's greatest concentration.
Manhattan is unique: the lower 2/3 of this island are the core of the city; nothing in this zone escapes that status. all within it are the real manhattan. contrast that with Chicago or San Francisco, our two other most centralized core cities and you see a different pattern: if you are in Lincoln Park or Hyde Park or Lakeview in Chicago or in Pacific Heights, the Marina, or the Western Addition in San Francisco, you are in highly urbanized, sophisticated settings…..but you're not in the core.
It is inconceivable to me to have had a NYC if the original city had a true hinterland and it could have spread into it. NYC needed the restraints and constraints of a straight jacket hemmed in by the hudson and east rivers to develop the character it did: the density, the height, the very notion of core as linear and core as expandable, the very democracy of the numbered grid system which refused to anoint any location with special status (having a location of 42nd Street and 7th Avenue in and of itself and its name confers no status).
NYC needed Manhattan to be the true "long island" that it is.
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.
