What Was NYC Before?

Factual Questions
1

Over in the de-annexation thread, someone brought up that New York ?City is now composed of five boroughs coterminous with five New York State counties. This arrangement dates from 1898-99, when the former City of New York, on Manhattan Island, was replaced with a “Greater New York” that included the other four counties. This led to an exchange between Stuyguy and Sir Ray on Queens County formerly having included both what is now Queens Borough and Nassau County.

I know that at the time Greater New York was created, Brooklyn was something like the fourth largest city in the U.S. And Stuyguy mentions the definition of Queens Borough as including the City of Long Island City and a list of several towns.

This leads me to wonder what was there, in terms of local government, elsewhere. Were there Rye and New Rochelle sized cities in the ?Bronx? What was on ?Staten Island? Proportionately (by population) how much did the various constituent parts add to the new larger city?

Has this sort of unification of neighboring cities and towns been done on anything like this scale elsewhere in the U.S.? (I know Toronto, Montreal, and London certainly did.) Would this help to explain why New York City remains viable while places like Detroit and St. Louis encounter urban blight?

2

It does seem like there are some problems that can arise when you have a lot of little independent jurisdictions in an economic area. For example, I understand that the local government of the city of Washington, DC (devolved from the Federal Government), has perennial problems related to the fact that people who live within the city limits are disproportionately poor compared to people who live in the DC metro area but outside the DC city limits proper in Maryland or Virginia, pay less in taxes, and consume more in welfare. (of course, there are rich people in DC too, and poor people outside it, but we are talking about trends here).

3

In 1853, Philadelphia was two square miles, the size of Penn’s original tract, and held about 120,000 people. In 1854, it annexed the surrounding 128 sq. mi. and had a population of over 400,000. That was the largest pre-Brooklyn.

While most large cities don’t annex huge areas at once, the pattern in every large city in the northeast was similar. The tiny settlement absorbed the pieces adjacent as the population grew to make them indistinguishable.

That pattern halted in the early 20th century. Cities had changed so that they were no longer the desirable living area. Almost every city had wealthy suburbs (long before the 1950s) who didn’t want to pay taxes to support poor and immigrant populations and their needs, or to go to the inevitably corrupt bosses. They went to state legislatures and passed laws requiring that both sides have a vote in any annexation. In New York state that virtually stopped all annexation. The story is pretty much the same throughout the rest belt, with individual variations due to state law.

The Sun Belt didn’t have this culture, because it didn’t really start to grow with the speed of the 19th century cities until after WWII. So cities there can still annex with relative freedom. And, until recently, consolidations of cities and suburbs into a county-wide government were fashionable, as in Jacksonville and Indianapolis. (These seemed to have halted, for various reasons.)

The consolidation of Brooklyn and New York is still the record holder. Most annexations have been of much smaller places. Los Angeles is a city that is studied for its complex annexation history.

4

Chicago’s 1889 annexation of four surrounding towns, the villages of Lake View, Jefferson, and Hyde Park, as well as the Town of Lake, trebled the city’s land area. This, and Chicago’s astronomical population growth, worried New York so much that consolidation discussions finally got serious.

5

Here’s a great Bronx Chronology direct from the Bronx County Historical Society. Basically, the various towns that now make up the Bronx were annexed by NYC throughout the latter half of the 19th century and then taken up in two wards in 1898. My area, Woodlawn, was a part of Yonkers that was re-made by a real estate developer around 1896. The 150-foot tall trees he planted along Van Cortlandt Park are just reaching the end of their natural lives at the ages of 110 or so, and we still have the Vermont blue slate sidewalks in places and a few old farmhouses.

6

This is getting in IMHO territory, but here goes. In answer to the last question, I grew up in Philadelphia and the first time I was in Boston, I said to myself, this is what Philly would be like if it hadn’t consolidated. Now which of those two cities is more successful. People spend some time in Boston and don’t want to leave and it is a hotbed of innovation. Of Philly they joke about the contest whose first prize is a week in Philadelphia and second prize is two weeks.

I now live in Montreal and, let me tell you, the consolidation has been a financial disaster, just adding one level of costly administration and making it harder to fight city hall. My suburb was one of a handful that was able to withdraw and it is a pleasure. Yes, we still pay taxes to the city, but I could call the mayor and talk to him personally if I wanted to. The previous mayor, who died last fall, I knew quite well. I do not mind the taxes (although the city administration is as corrupt as it is possible to be), it is the lack of any voice.

7

robert_columbia writes:

> For example, I understand that the local government of the city of Washington,
> DC (devolved from the Federal Government), has perennial problems related to
> the fact that people who live within the city limits are disproportionately poor
> compared to people who live in the DC metro area but outside the DC city limits
> proper in Maryland or Virginia, pay less in taxes, and consume more in welfare.
> (of course, there are rich people in DC too, and poor people outside it, but we
> are talking about trends here).

According to the Wikipedia entry on Washington:

> In 2006, D.C. residents had a personal income per capita of $55,755, higher
> than any of the 50 U.S. states.[110] However, 19% of residents were below
> the poverty level in 2005, higher than any state except Mississippi, which
> highlights the economic disparities in the city’s population.

So it’s not true that residents of D.C. tend to be poorer. It’s more a matter of them being both richer and poorer.

8

I have no idea what you’re saying. Boston has a long and extensive history of annexation.

It’s now about 90 sq. mi., not much smaller than Philadelphia.

9

All 5 counties that became boroughs had towns all over them - some dating back to the earliest settlements - like New Utrecht, for instance. People who are from “Queens” still list their residence for mailing purposes and legal purposes as the town before annexation - for instance a driver’s license may have a listed address as “Astoria, NY”

I don’t want to get involved with some Wikijerk over whether any city was “Rye-sized” or “New Rochelle-sized”, but it’s pretty safe to say that Williamsburgh was a pretty important city.

10

Okay, here goes. Hold on tight, though, this gets a little complicated.

Immediately before the great consolidation of 1898 NYC consisted of Manhattan Island and what we now call the Bronx. Manhattan Island was always NYC, since colonial days. The Bronx was added to NYC by taking two bites out of lower Westchester County: the area west of the Bronx River joined NYC in 1874, and the area east of the river joined in 1895. The Bronx did not get its present name until the borough system went into effect in 1898. Before that, that piece of NYC was called the “Annexed District” or the “North Side.”

(It is worth noting that when those two pieces of the Bronx / Annexed District / North Side were added to NYC, they were also added to New York County. When the boroughs were created in 1898 *they stayed part of New York County! *It wasn’t until the 19-teens that Bronx County was created. Bronx residents were tired of heading all the way to Downtown Manhattan to serve jury duty, etc.)

Brooklyn was the only neighboring municipality that could compete with NYC in terms of population and prestige in 1898. It was the third or fourth largest city in the country at the time. It itself had grown in stages through the 19th century, annexing the nearby towns of Kings County. It annexed its last town around 1896 (?). By attaching that last town, the City of Brooklyn became coterminus with Kings County. When the borough system came into effect, the City of Brooklyn became the Borough of Brooklyn.

In 1898 Staten Island consisted of a patchwork of towns and villages. All the municipalities on SI, taken together, comprised Richmond County. When the borough system went into effect, the municipalities on Staten Island were joined to became the Borough of Richmond. The borough would be renamed “Staten Island” in the 1970s; but the county retained the name “Richmond” – as it does to this day.

Queens, as the discussion in the previous thread indicates, was the the messiest area. In the late 19th century Queens County stretched from the East River to the Suffolk County line. The county contained Long Island City (yes, a fully chartered city) and a patchwork of towns and villages stretching to the east. The consolidation of 1898 created Queens Borough from the westernmost third (roughly) of the county. This nutty arrangement – having part of Queens County in NYC and part of it outside – only lasted a year. In 1899 Queens County was reduced to the area of Queens Borough, and Nassau County was created to contain the territory between the Queens County and Suffolk County lines.

Got it? Good!

BTW, discussions of the consolidation of 1898 will often ignore or diminish the significance of the three “minor” boroughs – the Bronx, Staten Island, and Queens – in the process. This is not for reasons of outer-borough prejudice or elitism as is often presumed. If you look at population numbers of those three districts in the late 19th century you’ll see that they were severely underpopulated and undeveloped, at least compared to Manhattan and Brooklyn. Their lack of influence was just a reflection of their small populations.

11

Despite all the turn of the century annexation, no place I can think of experienced urban blight and depopulation on the scale of New York City… certainly not at such a dramatic pace where neighborhoods simply seemed to be turned over to the rats.

12

I can only speak about St. Louis, but it is unique among many. Unlike Chicago, which can expand further into Cook County, St. Louis is not part of St. Louis County, and can never expand by annexation. Its size and shape was frozen in the Missouri constitution – the constitution refers to the various counties and St. Louis City, which has the government powers of both a city and a county. It would take a constitutional amendment to change that, and that ain’t gonna happen any time soon.

It was probably a good idea at the time. Whether this contributes to or alleviates urban blight, I don’t know.

13

I recall reading an analysis somewhere in which the author asserted that at least one major motivation for the consolidation was to ensure that white Anglo-Saxon and old New York Dutch continued to hold significant voting power in the city. In other words, that the consolidation was, in part at least, an attempted gerrymander to dilute minority and immigrant votes.

14

Of all the major rust belt cities, NY has seen the ***least ***depopulation.

1930 6,930,446

1940 7,454,995

1950 7,891,957

1960 7,781,984

1970 7,894,862

1980 7,071,639

1990 7,322,564

2000 8,008,288

2010 8,175,133

Yes, it went down from 1970-1980, but only by 10% and then went back up higher. Any other city in the Northeast would sacrifice its mayor to a volcano for those numbers.

Whether New York’s urban blight was worse than other cities is a matter of opinion. But try telling Detroiters about New York’s problems. They’d laugh.

15

Actually Chicago has been blocked for decades and decades by other incorporated places. It cannot expand. Illinois has more incorporated places than any other state except Texas. This actually hurts the city, as a lot of business is simply lost to the suburbs.

16

When did New York City (or the city of Manhattan) encompass the entire island of Manhattan? I know that 250 years ago, the city of Manhattan was on the southern tip of the island (the border at one point was Wall Street) and the rest of the island presumably had a separate county-level government.

17

New York City (there was never a city of Manhattan) grew steadily northward over the centuries. By the time it was annexing half of the Bronx from Westchester in 1874, it covered all of Manhattan Island as well as several little surrounding islands, which remain part of New York County and the Borough of Manhattan to this day.

18

OK, but it could expand (early 1900’s?) until it hit the limit of available land. St. Louis could not expand since the Missouri constitution was ratified in 18-something. Its boundaries were frozen in that document. It is separate from a county. Chicago is part of Cook County. Most cities are part of or inside of their surrounding counties. But St. Louis is not part of or inside of any county.

It’s one of the US’s political oddities.

19

Someone else might jump in. I speculate. I don’t know that the English ever didn’t claim all of the island of New York as their own. I don’t know that they ever drew a line and said - "this belongs to someone else and we may make know claim to it. New York City as such certainly predates New York county as an entity. It’s easy to find maps of New York and New Amsterdam and New Orange that don’t show any streets above about Wall Street - but does that mean there were no territorial claims beyond?

20

St. Louis is one of three independent cities outside of Virginia, so it’s unusual in that respect. (The other two are Baltimore and Carson City, NV.)

But if Wikipedia is correct it was self-imposed.

I’d like more info on the why. But the 1876 date is correct and the vote happened. St. Louis is 66 sq. mi., which is fairly small for major cities, but certainly far larger than it was originally. So annexation took place until 1876. That’s early to stop annexation but later than Philadelphia’s last big grab so it’s not completely out of line.