AHC: Make NYC look like Detroit

[Swan Station]

Inspired by this thread.

Between 1950-2010, Detroit went from 1.8 million people to about .7 million. During that same period, New York went from 7.8 million to 8.2 million.

The Challenge: With a POD no earlier than 1950, make the 2010 population of the New York City, or rather the area which the OTL city covers, around 3 million. The primary cause of this depopulation must not be death and destruction, although a little death and destruction is allowed during the process[1]. You can change borders, but at least part of the original city must still be called New York City in 2010, and all of the people in the OTL boundaries are counted towards the population goal [2].

Please, also list the three to five largest cities in the U.S. in 2010 (inc. New York as applicable), and give a good estimate of their populations and what they're like.

It is not necessary to reverse Detroit, you can do anything you want to any other place in the world. You are also welcome to keep the population of the New York metro area the same as OTL, meaning everyone just moved to the suburbs.

---

[1] In other words, no nuclear attacks, massive hurricanes, floods, foreign invasions, epidemics, etc. But, if a riot or two or more happens during the process, that probably can't be avoided.

[2] In other words, you can't make the population of NYC 3 million just by having Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island secede in 2009.

 

[Bulletsfromthegrassyknoll]

That's going to be tough. Detroit had the motor industry break down, maybe NY's tourist industry breaks down? Or the socialists come into power, getting rid of business?

 

[Bulletsfromthegrassyknoll]

Maybe if Giuliani isn't elected and the crack epidemic worsened...

 

[iori]

To be blunt, it's ASB without some horrible disaster or occupation.

New York City is and has been so populous and strong because it sits on a very important and strategic location to the whole of the country and has been around for centuries.

Detroit on the other hand only became important and really started growing in the second half of the 19th century (though it has existed since 1701) and frankly was realy nothing more than a Boom Town that, as a result of being focused on Industrial jobs collapsed with the advent of the decline of American Industrial growth.

 

[danderson]

I think the only way for this to really happen would be for the financial sector to disperse, a lot. Maybe a combo of really high city taxes and an early internet.

 

[Revolutionary Avocado]

What if New York City isn't bailed out as early or as significantly in 1975, which accelerates the city's decline. With that, and increasing strength of the poorest boroughs politically, populist fiscal policies are enacted, which increase taxes on the rich and add a small municipal corporate tax. With that, Wall Street never revives, as the rich flee the city. Corporate and banking headquarters begin to migrate away, with most of the larger banks going to Chicago, which has made an effort to poach their business away from New York. With the wealthy tax base fleeing and with crumbling infrastructure, city deficits and unemployment soar, and the working poor also begin to flee the city. That could reduce the city to half its OTL population easily.

 

[lloyd007]

Maybe if you have something similar to what James M. Curley did to Boston in really concentrating political power in certain poorer ethnicities / groups and ramping up the cronyism and corruption to 11... eventually implementing a 'nuclear option' of some sort on Wall Street that truly acts to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs whether that is a stock transaction tax or something else that just targets Wall Street. Also have the corruption take over the civil servants of the city such that you have mass transit strikes and other huge 'disasters' of that sort.

At the same time you avoid that in other Northeastern cities like Boston, Newark, Trenton, Philly, Baltimore and etc. so they all start to poach and encroach on NYC's businesses. Lessen the MLK riots in some or all of those cities and increase it in NYC...

Basically you get a continual cycle of decay similar to what has infected Detroit, Baltimore, Camden and other cities, people don't want to live there, they don't want to go into work there, they certainly aren't going to be buying products and services there. Sure NYC is a huge city and it will have many bright spots and shining areas, but as a whole the city looks like a dump...

Thus you'd have something like this...

9/11/01... two planes brought down the World Trade Center today. Less than 500 people were killed and injured on the ground due to the fact that the top 60 floors of both towers remain vacant thanks to the continuing morass that envelops the City's economy. The Towers, once considered a shining beacon when constructed, had turned into a financial nightmare for the string of owners that followed after Larry Silverstein filed for bankruptcy in 1993 when the first WTC attack occurred...

 

[The Kiat]

Considering that New York is a major port, I'm not sure it could get as bad as Detroit (not sure how much shipping they do). Maybe if the money centers upped and moved, but where to? Chicago? San Fran?

 

[mowque]

If Spiderman didn't show up...

 

[Cathcon1]

Yessss! ;D being from Michigan, I find this thread interesting.

 

[Mako-Chan]

Not as hard as it sounds. You could have something like the 1973 crash be worse for example, and have the city have a string of particularly incompetent mayors and successive bail outs that gradually destroy confidence and make the city ever more reliant on federal subsidization to survive (or no bail out at all and the above). There's also the possibility of climatic changes, like say the 1970s "global cooling" concerns having more merit for whatever reason. There's also the possibility of a partial nuclear meltdown at Indian Point or contagions or some other disaster too, although that's pushing it.

 

[Swan Station]

Considering that New York is a major port, I'm not sure it could get as bad as Detroit (not sure how much shipping they do). Maybe if the money centers upped and moved, but where to? Chicago? San Fran?

This was the primary thing I was thinking would prevent this.

In a quick search through this list of major ports, however, I don't see New York, Manhattan, Brooklyn or anything else I can think of mentioned. What does make the list at #3 (by cargo volume, after Houston and South Louisiana), is Port Newark. So, the fact that New York is a major port means little, since that port can be easily moved to a nearby city, and was OTL.

Though I agree that the tough problem is the diversity of the New York economy, compared to a rather singular source in Detroit. But then, I understand the decline of Detroit is often blamed more on politics and "white flight" than their economy.

 

[JoeMulk]

What if New York City isn't bailed out as early or as significantly in 1975, which accelerates the city's decline. With that, and increasing strength of the poorest boroughs politically, populist fiscal policies are enacted, which increase taxes on the rich and add a small municipal corporate tax. With that, Wall Street never revives, as the rich flee the city. Corporate and banking headquarters begin to migrate away, with most of the larger banks going to Chicago, which has made an effort to poach their business away from New York. With the wealthy tax base fleeing and with crumbling infrastructure, city deficits and unemployment soar, and the working poor also begin to flee the city. That could reduce the city to half its OTL population easily.

Manhattan might be slightly more affordable ITTL

 

[King Gorilla]

Detroit in spite of everything, is still relevant as the center for the American automotive industry. New York can keep Wall Street, and Manhattan can continue to bask in its wealth and splendor. The key is to make everything else terrible.

For some more ideas.

Robert Moses invites Le Corbusier to collaborate with him on the future of urban planning in america. Even more of the city is bulldozed, tenements blocks are larger and more numerous, and highways strangle out of much of the city's life.

The Mafia stays powerful, continues to consolidate its power, and avoids the harsh eye of the justice department. New York becomes increasingly corrupt and much worse turf-wars emerge during the crack and heroine epidemics.

 

[Electric Monk]

Robert Moses invites Le Corbusier to collaborate with him on the future of urban planning in america. Even more of the city is bulldozed, tenements blocks are larger and more numerous, and highways strangle out of much of the city's life.

Moses was my first thought as well, but that's much earlier than 1950. Well, I mean in that after WWII he got pretty much all he wanted anyway, pre WWII was when he could really have destroyed NYC instead of just badly screwing it up as he did OTL.

But yeah, Moses even 1950 onward is a solid start. That plus a city default of some kind, perhaps selling off the MTA and having some private companies run it into the ground. Toll bridges/tunnels to raise money but that makes people less likely to go to Manhattan especially with the MTA ruined. (Incidentally torching NYC probably takes down much of New Jersey as well.)

Neighbourhoods and the livable city have been demolished. High-rises are war zones. No cheap transit makes it hard to live in and around the city. The expensive highways have tolls and are unused. Shipping begins shifting south to Baltimore and north to Boston with the rail links out of NYC & NJ in poor repair. Etc….