Question on how to make a smaller New York City

JJohnson

Banned
I've been watching Turn on TV, and it's interesting there were still farms on Long Island. I'm researching a fuller timeline, where South America is a bit more multicultural (British, Dutch, French make gains), and coinciding with that, I was wondering, how could we make New York City less of a megapolis than in our timeline?

My base here is that "Canada" (Nova Scotia and Quebec) joins the revolution of their own volition. Rupert's Land isn't taken though, but is eventually sold to the US. Let's say we make 3 or 4 states out of it: Quebec east of Ottawa River, the Toronto peninsula as "Ottawa," Nova Scotia, and an Indian territory for northern Indians west of that. Maybe St John Island will be split off too. But, the main question is, with those lands now in the US from the start - would New York be less of a draw and can other cities be made bigger as a result, for industry, finance, and immigration?

I'm trying to make sure to flesh out other areas of the country so that the changes do have some interesting ripples across the succeeding two and a half centuries. What would become of places like Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec, Toronto, Halifax, Mississauga, Hamilton, and London, Ontario? Some where founded for Loyalists, sure, and changed names. But would some be bigger, more important in a larger US?
 
Have the US control and utilize the St Lawrence watershed. Then they could use that instead of the Hudson-Erie Canal route to access the Great Lakes. The St Lawrence River does need some locks to bypass major falls but it still requires less investment than a major canal and can potentially carry more traffic too. NY would still be a major city but Montreal might take over NY's role as America's export hub.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Is imply not annexing the outer boroughs enough?

... how could we make New York City less of a megapolis than in our timeline?

Remember, New York City is a result of the annexation/consolidation of five counties/cities/both in the Nineteenth Century:

New York County (Manhattan);
Kings County (Brooklyn);
Queens County (Queensborough);
Bronx County (the Bronx/Bronxborough);
Richmond County (Staten Island);

That gives you a smaller "New York City" (essentially Manhattan) although the metropolitan area is still quite large.

Best,
 
Unfortuately, geographically New York is about the best place in North America to place a city. Better than even New Orleans (below or at sea level in an area infested with Hurricanes and tropical ilness) or San Fransisco (too far from Europe, Earthquakes, yes a city on the bay, but not necessarily at San Fransisco).

A series of POD can make NYC less important. No Eire Canal etc. Basically you can get Philly and NYC to switch places, with Philly being the leading city in North America. So NYC (including Brooklyn which in OTL was once the 4th biggest city in the USA by itself) would be still be one of the top 5 cities just not top dog. Perhaps like a giant Baltimore.
 
1. The United States manages to include Canada from the start, increasing the importance of Montreal and Quebec City as ports.

2. The Federalists are stronger, and manage to secure the effective permanence of the Bank of the United States, headquartered in Philadelphia. The city becomes a major financial center drawing away much of the financial sector from New York.

3. Federalist/Whig plans for internal improvements (coupled with the Bank) are tempered by political requirements to be widely distributed among the states and territories. The Erie Canal may be built, but it competes with the St. Lawrence route and with other Mid-Atlantic canals, and as such struggles to maintain profitability.

New York City after this still becomes a large city, but fails to dominate like it did IOTL.
 
IIRC, Boston (maybe it was Philly, but definitely not NYC) was the largest city in the colonies at the time of the Revolution; is there any way to keep/put Boston into that position through the modern day? If you annex Canada, maybe the additional northern lands make it seem more central than OTL, and it serves as a temporary capital? Not sure how the limited population in that direction would impact things, though.
 
Is there any possibility to keep NYC in British hands? The comparisan with Hong Kong is not really good, but if the UK never gives up the mouth of the Hudson River (as a naval base?) than the city will certainly stay much smaller.
 

The Sandman

Banned
IIRC, Boston (maybe it was Philly, but definitely not NYC) was the largest city in the colonies at the time of the Revolution; is there any way to keep/put Boston into that position through the modern day? If you annex Canada, maybe the additional northern lands make it seem more central than OTL, and it serves as a temporary capital? Not sure how the limited population in that direction would impact things, though.

It was Philly.

Which was not only the largest city in the colonies, but one of the largest in the British Empire.
 
There are several ways to make NYC smaller:

1. Have Philly be the capital.

2. Have the US include OTL Quebec, making Montreal and Quebec City potential competitors with NYC.

3. Have NYC not annex Brooklyn, Staten Island, and Queens. That alone would cut the city's population in half.
 
http://io9.com/342531/five-alternate-histories-of-new-york

The Blasting of Flood Rock (1885). In the nineteenth century, a section of the East River from 90th street to around 100th street, near the Harlem River was known as "Hell Gate" because it was so difficult for sea-faring vessels to navigate. It had a giant whirlpool (because of currents from Long Island Sound) and huge jagged rocks. A thousand ships ran aground every year. The Harbor Master of New York begged the federal government for help. So the U.S. Army destroyed the biggest rock, Flood Rock, by detonating 285,000 pounds of an explosive mixture called "Rack-A-Rock," plus 5,000 pounds of dynamite. It may have been the largest civil detonation up to that point. Here's a photo which 12-year-old Mary Newton took:

What if the Army had turned down the gig, or been unable to pull it off? Private efforts had already blasted some of the smaller rocks in Hell Gate. But without the destruction of Flood Rock, New York would have been unable to reach its full potential as a port city. Just 40 years after this blast, New York overtook London as the largest city in the world.
 
One change that would probably make it smaller would be to move the main immigrant processing center from Ellis Island to a different Atlantic city, like Boston or Philadelphia. In OTL, many immigrants arrived at Ellis Island and simply decided to stay in the New York area.
 
It was Philly.

Which was not only the largest city in the colonies, but one of the largest in the British Empire.
Yup. One of the problems with Philadelphia is that there was a yellow fever epidemic. If that hit NYC instead, then Philadelphia would do better than OTL vis a vis NYC.

Have the US control and utilize the St Lawrence watershed. Then they could use that instead of the Hudson-Erie Canal route to access the Great Lakes. The St Lawrence River does need some locks to bypass major falls but it still requires less investment than a major canal and can potentially carry more traffic too. NY would still be a major city but Montreal might take over NY's role as America's export hub.
This. Really. This.
NYC grew so huge largely because of the Erie Canal. If a proto-Seaway goes in, you can ship from Buffalo, Rochester, Chicago, etc. in sea going vessels, the Erie Canal, which only carries barge traffic, will be uneconomical, and is unlikely to be built.

Remember, New York City is a result of the annexation/consolidation of five counties/cities/both in the Nineteenth Century:

New York County (Manhattan);
Kings County (Brooklyn);
Queens County (Queensborough);
Bronx County (the Bronx/Bronxborough);
Richmond County (Staten Island);

That gives you a smaller "New York City" (essentially Manhattan) although the metropolitan area is still quite large.

Best,

This, too.
 
Yup. One of the problems with Philadelphia is that there was a yellow fever epidemic. If that hit NYC instead, then Philadelphia would do better than OTL vis a vis NYC.

Just a question- as of the late 18th/early 19th C, weren't most cities south of New Jersey in a relatively unhealthy (for Northern European immigrants) zone subject to malaria and yellow fever?
 
It's certainly possible to reduce New York's importance with the right point of departure early enough. Some valid ideas have been floated already.

But it will be hard to keep NY from becoming a major city. It's geographic advantages are too powerful: 1) it has the best harbor on the East Coast; and 2) through the Hudson and Erie valleys it has a natural access to the American interior that is hard to match by any other American port, even without the Erie Canal. (This will be especially true with the advent of the railroad.)

And yes, it has advantages over its principal rivals with the best alternate access routes to the interior: it doesn't suffer from disease and hurricanes like New Orleans does, and it doesn't face ice issues like any entrepôt on the St Lawrence would.

I do cotton to the idea of moving immigrant processing to Boston or Philly or Baltimore - that would slow NY's growth somewhat.

Otherwise, you may need some major long term political division or border around the Hudson if you really want to overcome New York's natural geographic advantages. Say an independent American republic wins control of one side of the harbor, but not the other.
 
Top