Is there a name for "Lower 2/3 of Manhattan"

[BlakeJones]

Originally Posted by Grabandgo

This is another BS argument debunked many times,
and that poster knows what he is talking about, Steam makes skycrappers cheaper and help offset the cost of land.

That's very interesting. So had the economics lined up, with 1930's technology could the Empire State Building have been built next to Washington Square park?

[HipHopSays]

Manhattan is New York ... the City is all five boroughs. 'upper' manhattan is a distinction made to signify a 'melanin enriched' purposefully segregated area over the history of the City. There is a 'downtown' - area below 14th street. Surprisingly there is a midtown which makes sense given whether you're uptown or downtown thanks to the grid design of the city.

There is no reason for a moniker for the lower 2/3 of Manhattan ... it makes no sense to lump very different neighborhoods with equally rich history into a geographical name like 'FiDi - aka financial district' or SoBro aka 'South Bronx' or a last 'MiMa - aka midtown manhattan'. OP what's next pondering if we should be pronouncing it Hew-stan instead of HOW-stan St (cause folks know of Houston TX)?

[Grabandgo]

Originally Posted by BlakeJones

That's very interesting. So had the economics lined up, with 1930's technology could the Empire State Building have been built next to Washington Square park?

Sure, they did it in chicago.
Chicago is actually a swamp.


“WHO SHALL RESTRAIN THE GREAT LAYER OF JELLY IN CHICAGO’S CAKE?”

– NEW YORK TIMES, OCTOBER 18, 1891


here is a link explaining what technology was available at the time to built on swampy soils.


https://www.wbez.org/shows/wbez-news...5-56154e9ef0ae

[BlakeJones]

Originally Posted by Grabandgo

lots of people giving uneducated opinions about things they dont know.

oh please get off your high horse, nobody believes you are so much more educated than everyone else

There are countless popular myths that never get challenged until someone does, doesn't make you a fool for going with the popular belief all those years - unless of course you ignore the facts when presented to you.


I don't have a problem with believing that the skyscraper distribution isn't due to the bedrock depth, but some of the arguments in your video are themselves dubious. They tout the benefits of agglomeration yet mysteriously say that skyscrapers went uptown instead of expanding into the tenement & industrial sectors immediately to the north. As if neighborhoods could not be pushed out by growth and expansion! Happens all the time in almost all cities

[Snapshoot]

This is not a debate, or a matter of discussion, the technology to built skyscrapers on swampy soils existed in the 20s and 30s. So the whole soil argument is moot.


As of steam, skyscrapers could be built without being connected to the network, but thats not the issue. On site installation of boilers, cooling, and heating systems increase the construction cost. Also they will have to have a huge chimney like structure on top, decreasing its high allowance.

NYT covers the issue a bit here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAB1gesb8cQ