The premise is simple: the founders of New Amsterdam, later NYC, decide to buy a peninsula sticking out into the water on the west side of the Hudson (that is, they buy OTL Bayonne and Jersey City) rather than Manhattan itself, reasoning that colonies can be developed better with easily accessible roads both north AND west. (There are ideas afoot of turning the Meadowlands of NJ, a swamp and an enormous barrier to the west, into a bunch of polders a la the Netherlands, and/or canal building, and/or other Dutch water-shuffling activities.) What they have is a nice set of islands nearby, a good harbor, and a set of cliffs (the Palisades) to the North.
So what happens next? Well, New Jersey, if it is founded at all, would have borders further to the south and west of OTL, unless the founders of NJ would rather go for the islands (in which case NY and NJ get reversed geographically!). While trade up the Hudson would still result in the building of the Erie Canal (presumably), there would be less of an incentive to build bridges and tunnels across the Hudson River. The Meadowlands, however, would be much more severely impacted than OTL in the (relatively) short run, with Dutch polders and dams and all cropping up. The Palisades might be turned into a park. Staten Island is closer to the city proper in ATL, leading to early suburbanization and city formation on Staten Island (which is perhaps ATL's Brooklyn). It would likely be a city more known for hills than OTL, with posh suburbs accessible by ferries across the Hudson and New York Harbor (perhaps giving way to ports in some areas later on as people seek to develop the docklands further). I suspect OTL Manhattan/Brooklyn/Queens would be more bucolic and countrified in ATL at present, although I'm not sure about this. What does Alt Hist Disc Boa think about this?
So what happens next? Well, New Jersey, if it is founded at all, would have borders further to the south and west of OTL, unless the founders of NJ would rather go for the islands (in which case NY and NJ get reversed geographically!). While trade up the Hudson would still result in the building of the Erie Canal (presumably), there would be less of an incentive to build bridges and tunnels across the Hudson River. The Meadowlands, however, would be much more severely impacted than OTL in the (relatively) short run, with Dutch polders and dams and all cropping up. The Palisades might be turned into a park. Staten Island is closer to the city proper in ATL, leading to early suburbanization and city formation on Staten Island (which is perhaps ATL's Brooklyn). It would likely be a city more known for hills than OTL, with posh suburbs accessible by ferries across the Hudson and New York Harbor (perhaps giving way to ports in some areas later on as people seek to develop the docklands further). I suspect OTL Manhattan/Brooklyn/Queens would be more bucolic and countrified in ATL at present, although I'm not sure about this. What does Alt Hist Disc Boa think about this?