# Should NYC become an independent nation?



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

Here's an article about this issue:

"The Independent Republic of New York"
As New York—a city that often has more in common with Europe than with the United States—prepares to be invaded by the red-state hordes during an election that has much of the city fearing the prospect of four more years, a persistent fantasy resurfaces—should New York secede? 

By Jennifer Senior



“Don’t you see? The rest of the country looks upon New York like we’re left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers. I think of us that way sometimes and I live here.” —Woody Allen, Annie Hall 











With the Republican Convention a mere three weeks away, it’s hard not to contemplate how different we New Yorkers must seem, and what the delegates will be thinking as they pull into town. Their cabs will be driven by “Pakis,” as Bush once accidentally referred to Pakistanis at a news conference, and the reception desks at their hotels will be piled high with stacks of the New York Times, a paper that the party faithful often refer to as “Pravda.” They’ll be politely shown to their suites by bellhops, likely gay. Then they’ll shower, have a meal, and begin a four-day cocktail surf that Tom DeLay once suggested be confined to a luxury ship on the Hudson. One can only hope that these men and women will be spared an encounter with the secular, pro-choice mayor of this city, a loyal Republican if an unconvincing one, whom, in spite of the millions he has raised, in spite of the hospitality he has shown, the party has managed, with smiling consistency, to financially screw.


New York has always felt like a nation apart. In a country that grows ever redder, it is the bluest of blue cities in one of the bluest of blue states, with the eccentrics to match. Eric Bogosian, with those three cubic feet of curls and black-leather car coat; Harvey Weinstein, with his public tantrums and highfalutin taste; Ed Koch; Lou Reed and Laurie Anderson; the Black Israelites preaching in Times Square; Mexican kitchen workers preparing sushi in Korean delis—could any of them find a home anywhere but New York? Even the New York Post: Where else could a right-wing Australian media mogul win over a left-wing, multiethnic cosmopolis with a toothsome rag of boldface names, sports scores, political scandals, tearjerkers, hectoring editorials, and front-page oopsie-daisies announcing the anointment of Dick Gephardt as John Kerry’s running mate? Only in New York, kids. Only in New York. 

Psychically, then, New York already seems headed out of the union—so why not go all the way? If we’re so blue, perhaps it’s time to choose another color entirely. (Maybe black.) 

How cool our currency, the york, would be. Vera Wang could design our flags. Groucho Marx would be on our stamps. Bill Clinton could be president again.

Consider: If New York were its own country, its army, the New York City Police Department, would be the twentieth-best-funded army in the world, just behind Greece and just ahead of North Korea. Its GDP, $413.9 billion, would be the seventeenth largest, just behind the Russian Federation and just ahead of Switzerland. With more than 8 million residents, it would be more populous than Ireland, Switzerland, or New Zealand; roughly half the countries in the Middle East (including Israel); most of the former republics of the Soviet Union; and all the Scandinavian countries besides Sweden. 


New York is already an island off the coast of the United States. And its mayors already act like heads of state. When terrorists first tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993, David Dinkins was in Osaka. When Rudolph Giuliani was in Gracie Mansion, he entertained Tony Blair and threw Yasser Arafat out of Avery Fisher Hall. “Every time a leader came to City Hall,” says Jerome Hauer, the former director of the Office of Emergency Management, “people at the State Department started taking Maalox.”


The idea of secession has been suggested before, and it has always been dismissed as patently inane. (So now we need passports to go to the Hamptons? How would we get our water, our electricity, our Social Security? Are we supposed to form a navy?) What is interesting, though, is how persistent the fantasy of secession remains in the New York imagination—how intuitively logical it seems, how tantalizing and how real, and how quickly everyone grasps the concept. “It’s impossible, but it’s not crazy to think about,” says Leslie H. Gelb, the former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, “especially given that the city is chronically shortchanged by Washington and Albany and yet still retains financial strength and the great creativity of its citizens.” 


After contemptuously dismissing the idea, even the crustiest, crankiest city officials will say that, yes, the Democratic Republic of New York is a very interesting place to contemplate. How fabulous our national anthem would be. How cool our currency, the york, would look. Vera Wang could design our flags, Groucho Marx would be on our stamps; we’d all agree not to have a national bird (sorry, pigeon). Bill Clinton could be president again—assuming, after eight years of presiding over the Free World, he has the patience to worry about potholes—though Ed Koch jokes he’d volunteer for the job, adding he’d name an international airport after himself and call it EIK. 


We’d be a great trading hub, the city Hong Kong was before it was handed back to China; an international capital of media and entertainment where news, books, and watchable films were peddled and made; and a diplomatic outpost, mediating between that lone superpower the United States and the rest of the globe. But best of all, we’d be able to define ourselves. Gone would be the days as a neglected appendage to an indifferent nation; instead, we’d be “an antenna to the world,” as Shashi Tharoor, an undersecretary-general at the United Nations, once gorgeously described us. And New York City—home to 600,000 Muslims, cauldron of more than 160 foreign languages, birthplace of Jonas Salk, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, the brothers Gershwin, the telegraph machine, the hot dog—would no longer be identified with a country the rest of the planet hates, fears, and cannot understand. 

Unlike most great cultures and civilizations, which have defined themselves by their cities—Athens, Rome—the United States has long viewed its cities with suspicion. With the exceptions of Boston, Austin, and Santa Fe, American capitals are seldom located in the most interesting cities in any given state, and the United States may be the only industrialized nation in the world whose capital is not its finest city. (“Well, you have Canberra and Sydney,” says Gelb, trying to be helpful. “But so what?”) Three years ago, New York City residents were made painfully aware of the consequences of this schism. “If 9/11 had happened in Paris,” asks Larian Angelo, director of the finance division of the New York City Council, “do you think the city would have had to cut its budget and raise taxes?” 


George Wallace was always decrying New York liberals who wanted to meddle in the affairs of the South. In 1969, when outrage over the Vietnam War was starting to peak, Spiro Agnew gave a famous speech in Des Moines denouncing the liberal bias of the New York and Washington media; Nixon obsessively complained in private of a “terrible liberal Jewish clique” that ran the news. In 1975, when a near-bankrupt New York City limped to Washington, hat in hand, it was bluntly rebuffed, prompting the famous Daily News headline: FORD TO CITY: DROP DEAD. “Back then, there was a debate about whether the U.S. should walk away from its cities,” recalls Judy Chesser, Mayor Bloomberg’s lobbyist in Washington. “No one suggests that today.” 

Unlike most great cultures and civilizations, which have defined themselves by their cities—Athens, Rome—the United States has long viewed its cities with suspicion. With the exceptions of Boston, Austin, and Santa Fe, American capitals are seldom located in the most interesting cities in any given state, and the United States may be the only industrialized nation in the world whose capital is not its finest city. (“Well, you have Canberra and Sydney,” says Gelb, trying to be helpful. “But so what?”) Three years ago, New York City residents were made painfully aware of the consequences of this schism. “If 9/11 had happened in Paris,” asks Larian Angelo, director of the finance division of the New York City Council, “do you think the city would have had to cut its budget and raise taxes?” 


George Wallace was always decrying New York liberals who wanted to meddle in the affairs of the South. In 1969, when outrage over the Vietnam War was starting to peak, Spiro Agnew gave a famous speech in Des Moines denouncing the liberal bias of the New York and Washington media; Nixon obsessively complained in private of a “terrible liberal Jewish clique” that ran the news. *In 1975, when a near-bankrupt New York City limped to Washington, hat in hand, it was bluntly rebuffed, prompting the famous Daily News headline: FORD TO CITY: DROP DEAD.* “Back then, there was a debate about whether the U.S. should walk away from its cities,” recalls Judy Chesser, Mayor Bloomberg’s lobbyist in Washington. “No one suggests that today.” 

It’s true: They do not. Back in those days, hostility to cities was driven by resentment toward minorities and the poor. Today, with the slow erosion of the welfare state, that anger has been redirected at tastemakers, intellectuals, the cosmopolitan elite—somehow, in the GOP imagination, city dwellers have become pointless self-loathers who eat takeout Thai and watch Lars von Trier films. Thomas Frank, author of What’s the Matter With Kansas?, argues that this impression has its roots in the populist movements of the 1890s, when New Yorkers were regarded as twee, good-for-nothing parasites. The difference, though, is that this cultural disdain was merely a by-product of class anger; it wasn’t central to it. “Today,” says Frank, “the people who speak this language the most bluntly don’t have a problem with capitalism. They just have a problem with the culture and intellectuals. It’s gone from being a legitimate protest movement to where the ugly side is all that’s left.” 


In many practical ways, secession is nowhere near as crazy as it sounds. New York already buys much of its power from outside the state, and the city can, if necessary, generate 80 percent of its own electricity, because it’s required by law to have the capacity to do so. Since the closing of Fresh Kills, we’ve shipped all of our garbage out anyway, and the city owns the 120,000 acres of land upstate containing our reservoirs, plus the pipelines; the trick would be protecting them (though the city has its own police force up there, about 220 officers) and making agreements with the authorities that control the Delaware River. 


But, as any New Yorker can appreciate, space would be an issue. We’d need to build prisons, for instance, and it’s hard enough to find transfer stations for our sanitation. The city would be more reliant on tourism than ever, which might mean subordinating the needs of its resident population to those of its transient guests, as in (ulp) Las Vegas. Because islands depend heavily on the places that supply them with goods, we’d be vulnerable in times of crisis, and as it is, we probably wouldn’t have enough shipping capacity or container space. 


Then there are the diplomatic and trade questions to sort out. Would NAFTA apply? Would extradition? Do all Wall Street trades involve a tariff? “You’d need new treaties relating to commerce,” says Jeffrey Leeds, the principal of Leeds Weld & Co., a private-equity firm. “Our Wall Street salesman would no longer automatically just pick up the phone and cold-call Nebraskans. If you think NAFTA was controversial, can you imagine the fights over WAFTA—the Wall Street Free Trade Agreement?”


There is the small matter of writing a constitution (gay marriage would be legal, of course, and shrieking car alarms would command a stiffer penalty than drug possession). We’d also have to establish a more substantial government (headquartered, with snarling defiance, in Libeskind’s new building). And New York would be a Jewish nation, a Jerusalem-on-the-sea, which would doubtless make us extra-vulnerable. But even given the corkscrew politics of New York Jewry, would we really produce a president who outflanked Bush in his support of Ariel Sharon? And who, like Bush, wouldn’t make the slightest effort to broker a new peace?


If New Yorkers didn’t support the rest of the country with their tax dollars, perhaps they’d feel less insulted by outsiders’ contempt. But at the moment, depending on whose figures you choose to believe, the city sends between $6.5 billion (City Council estimate) and $11.4 billion (the mayor’s office) more to the federal government than it receives in services, making the snubs we regularly get from Congress feel uncomfortably reminiscent of taxation without representation, a condition that has had ominous consequences before. (How gratifying it would have been if New York’s senators, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer, had taken the opportunity to make this point last week by throwing a few crates of tea into Boston Harbor.) 


According to the Government Accountability Office, an agency that tallies all manner of policy-related facts and figures, the federal formula for allocating Medicaid payments is particularly punishing to New York, matching the state’s load with only 50 percent of the money it needs. This may be how a federal system is supposed to work—the rich states give more, the poor states give less—but it’s a harder system to tolerate if you have no faith in the president and congressmen who are redistributing your income, if you believe this money is in fact being spent on the very worst kinds of priorities (most New Yorkers had grave reservations about the Iraq War), and if, worst of all, you realize one day that your home state will never, no matter how dire the circumstance, be on the receiving end of the same largesse it provides the rest of the nation. 

*After September 11, New York badly needed money. Our leaders extracted a promise, ultimately, for $20 billion, and Bush has earned himself plaudits for more or less producing it. But the city got it slowly, imperfectly, and it has really had to beg, and in fact it could have used a lot more (initial estimates from the state comptroller’s office ran toward $105 billion). If some Republicans had had their way, the city would not have received even $20 billion. Shortly after the attack, Don Nickles, the then–assistant majority leader of the Senate, quietly tried to stop this single emergency appropriation, complaining to colleagues that his home state, Oklahoma, never received such generous assistance after the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building.  * 

Today, New York still surfaces in intelligence chatter with ritualistic eeriness, but on a per capita basis, it receives a mere pittance for its first-responders—$5.47 for each resident, as opposed to $38.31 for each person in Wyoming. (As a result of this homeland-security-funding formula, Grand Forks, North Dakota, now has more biochemical suits than there are cops to wear them, according to a story in the Daily News this winter; meanwhile, the FDNY has only one “fully deployable” hazardous-materials unit for the whole city.) Just over a month ago, the House of Representatives voted down an amendment, proposed by the upstate Republican John Sweeney, that would have given New York and other urban areas an extra infusion of cash. Shortly after, David Hobson, an Ohio Republican, explained to one of the Capitol’s newspapers, The Hill, “Some people feel that there’s never enough money for New York. No matter what we’d have put in, a lot of people think, New York would ask for more.” 






Before that vote, when the bill was still languishing in the House Appropriations Committee, Jose Serrano, our congressman from the Bronx, tried to make an impassioned case for it. But the subcommittee chairman, Harold Rogers, was prepared for Serrano’s charges. He responded with a series of statistics specifically compiled by his staff to show that mile for square mile, New York City comes out quite well. Serrano answered that, well, sure, but his whole district (more than half a million people, same as all the others in Congress) could pretty nearly fit into a square mile—he could walk across it in an hour. And I’d like to add: If Mr. Rogers, who comes from rural Kentucky, wants to calculate our homeland-security funding per square mile, I hope he recommends to colleagues that they calculate our taxes that way, too. 


One could very reasonably point out, at this juncture, that New Yorkers hardly understand the rest of the United States any better than the rest of the United States understands New Yorkers. But if New Yorkers wanted to secede, it would not be for the same reasons that, say, people from the San Francisco Bay Area or other liberal enclaves would want to secede. New Yorkers may live in isolation from the rest of the United States, but not the world. We would never think, for example, to refer to multinational corporations as “greedy motherfuckers” (this city loves and lionizes no one if not its greedy motherfuckers); we’re resolutely nonprotectionist, passionately for free trade. Because so many of us are rich and crime-fearing, or immigrants craving unconstrained capitalism, we also have a much finer appreciation of Republican politics than do other liberal enclaves. Thirty-seven percent of us supported our Republican governor in the last election, and in 1993, we chose a Republican mayor who helped transform this city from a jungle into a manicured suburb—and then showed us what real leaders are made of at a time it counted most. New Yorkers also have an appreciation of Realpolitik. After September 11, there were few people in this city who didn’t seem to believe, at least for a time, in the fundamental trade-offs of the Patriot Act—privacy for personal security, civil liberties for public safety—and who weren’t desperately, hungrily eager to bomb the Taliban to high hell. 


The question of New York secession first came up in 1861, under circumstances that showed just this kind of ruthless pragmatism, when Mayor Fernando Wood hoped to preserve the right to trade with both the North and the South. Most other New York City secession proposals have focused on becoming a separate state. In 1788, Alexander Hamilton warned that the city’s secession was “inevitable” if the state failed to ratify the Constitution. In 1969, Norman Mailer and Jimmy Breslin ran on a mayoral platform arguing that the city, needing local control of its services and finances, should become the 51st state. The most inspired part of their proposal contended that the city had dibs on the name “New York.” The rest of the state, they suggested, should be renamed “Buffalo.”


Times haven’t changed much. Queens councilman Peter Vallone Jr., son of the former City Council speaker, has revived the 51st-state movement—a gesture that, while quixotic, isn’t entirely insane. The city’s relationship with the state is as galling as its relationship with the country, if not more so. Of course, subordination to the state is a fundamental part of the urban condition, an inherent structural flaw—“The word ‘city’ does not once appear in the Constitution,” notes Thomas Bender, author of The Unfinished City: New York and the Metropolitan Idea—but New York is especially challenged in this way. Other than messing with property-tax rates, there’s almost nothing the city can do to control or reorganize its own finances. It’s a supplicant, one that must beg permission from Albany to do everything. 


Which brings us back to Vallone. According to his office, Albany shortchanges the city by $3.5 billion every year. He contends that our schools get $900 less per pupil than schools upstate, that we receive only 63 percent of transit money while moving 84 percent of riders, that only a fraction of funds from the Environmental Bond Act go to the city, even though nearly half its revenue comes from here. Most egregiously, though, the state makes cities pay 25 percent of their Medicaid costs, a crushing burden, one without parallel anywhere else. 


Nor did this state respond with particular generosity in the aftermath of September 11. When California had its huge earthquake in 1989, the legislature in Sacramento immediately raised the state sales tax by a quarter percent, in order to provide $800,000 of emergency funding to San Francisco and the surrounding areas. “And what did Albany give us?” asks Vallone. “Nothing.” 


But if the city seceded, Vallone believes it’d be springtime for technocrats. “We could roll back the entire property tax,” he says. “We could cut back the personal income tax and still have a billion-dollar surplus. And there’d be no love lost. Upstate, they think they’re supporting us.” 


Vallone’s plan, for now, is simply to put the question of secession to voters in the form of a ballot initiative, asking whether they’d like to form a commission to study the issue. But even if city residents vote overwhelmingly in favor of it, it’s hard to imagine the plan going much further. If the city genuinely wanted to part ways with the state, the State Legislature would have to approve it, and then Congress. If the Legislature knows what’s good for it, the plan would never leave Albany. “All we have upstate,” says Mitchell Moss, the urban-planning-and-policy expert at NYU, “is penitentiaries and college campuses. In twenty years, the remake of Deliverance can be filmed up there.” 
Now is a wonderful time in New York’s history, in spite of orange alerts, million-dollar co-ops, and $2 subway rides. It’s clean, it’s safe; there’s a real swing to the city’s stride. The food’s probably never been better, our bars are smoke-free, and the mayor, for the first time in decades, has a shot at turning around our public schools. Every kid who watched Friends wants to go to college here. Every foreign somebody who’s anybody wants an apartment here. Why secede?


That’s exactly why. The city is no longer the land of Taxi Driver; it’s the land of the Today show and You’ve Got Mail. We no longer fear other New Yorkers. What we fear are more attacks from terrorists, and it’s hard to escape the suspicion that our prolonged association with the United States, at least this United States, does not make us safer. From a political perspective, it seems legitimate to ask whether this city still shares the DNA of its parent country, or whether, at this point, we’ve mutated into something else—something closer to Europe in values and aesthetics and philosophy, or perhaps something entirely different. With globalization, our physical place is becoming incidental. The whole world over seems to be fragmenting as it’s connecting: In Italy, the Northern League is contemplating breaking away; Scotland again has its own Parliament; Paris seems to be moving in a different direction from the rest of France, perhaps because it’s diversifying; and the same appears to be true of London. 






Following September 11, the conventional wisdom was that New York officially became a part of America. The nation swept us in: We got fire trucks from Louisiana and rescue workers from Texas; visitors from around the country opened their wallets, their minds, their hearts. But we’ll never be a red state. New York is the spiritual home and cash machine of the modern Democratic Party, the party that believes in nuance and nation-building. It’s the city of the United Nations. (From diplomats, one often hears that whenever a discussion about moving the U.N. arises, the same objection always comes up: No one wants to leave New York.) Most New Yorkers wouldn’t own guns even if they were allowed, and tens of thousands of them protested the Iraq War. We’re from Venus. It’s the rest of the country that’s from Mars. 


“I knew I couldn’t live in America and I wasn’t ready to move to Europe, so I moved to an island off the coast of America—New York City,” said the late Spalding Gray, the quintessential New Yorker. “It was a place that tolerated differences and could incorporate them and embrace them, which was what America was supposed to be about and wasn’t. So it was the melting pot that was a purée rather than individual vegetables. I think of New York as a purée and the rest of the United States as vegetable soup.” 


In the ideal secession fantasy, New York would keep the extra billions it sends to Washington and Albany and instead spend it on the things that are dearest to us: education, housing, health care, more cops, inspections of our ports. But since we’re losing the economies of scale, we’d have to scale back our own demands somewhat: health care, yes, but single-payer. Social Security, but it might have to be privatized. It’d be both liberal and libertarian. Sweden crossed with Argentina, with a shot of Bermuda (do your offshore banking here!). Vermont crossed with Texas, with a shot of Delaware (make us your out-of-state corporate headquarters!). Part red, part blue: not a bad flag.




The financial snubs the city regularly gets from Congress feel uncomfortably like taxation without representation—a condition that has had ominous consequences before.



But let’s face it: Secession is pretty much impossible, and any clear-thinking semi-sentient person who knows anything about New York would say so. It’s how civil wars get started, for one thing. Even the comparatively benign custody battles involving the Port Authority are enough to put anyone off the task—Who gets control of the GW and the Goethals, and who gets the toll booty? Are we supposed to establish border patrols at the Holland and Lincoln tunnels, when truckers already bitch about how hard it is to get into Manhattan? Is JFK now a white elephant on the sea? But still, let’s say we try. Elizabeth Economy, the C.V. Starr senior fellow in Asia studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, is an expert on Singapore, one of the world’s few city-states, and therefore a potential model for an independent New York (minus the authoritarianism, of course, and minus the caning). Its primary challenges, she says, are creating an economic niche in a global economy and protecting itself. 


Certainly, this city already has an economic niche: Wall Street. The problem is that we depend rather heavily on it. As Wall Street’s fortunes go, so go the city’s. Would an independent New York be enough to survive a downturn in the global economy? Worse, if New York City seceded, would the financial center of the United States find its way elsewhere? 


Defending ourselves would be even harder. It’s true that on September 11, New York’s first-responders were its own army. But New York did (eventually) get plenty of national assistance. FEMA came in, as did the National Guard, as did the Army Corps of Engineers and the Fire Department from the Department of the Interior. Washington sent stockpiles of drugs. It also retaliated against Afghanistan for harboring Osama bin Laden. But if New York, the independent nation, were attacked again, it’s highly likely that we’d depend on international assistance—not just from the United States but perhaps even from Old Europe, the same way small countries get aid from large ones now. (“What are we going to do?” asks Mitchell Moss. “Contract the Israeli Army to respond?”)


One possible way around this issue would be for New York to become a territory or commonwealth, like Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands or Guam or Samoa. We’d be extended American military protection; we wouldn’t need new passports to visit our friends in the suburbs; we’d collect Social Security; our commerce could continue, uninterrupted and duty-free. But of course, the United States would need to agree to this arrangement. “Most territories and commonwealths,” notes Felix Mathos Rodriguez, director of the Center for Puerto Rican Studies at Hunter College, “are totally ad hoc. They’re a marriage of convenience in history.”


At any rate, defending New York wouldn’t be impossible. “The NYPD’s intelligence unit is better than the FBI by far,” says Gelb. Presumably, we’d get intelligence from our allies. And as we recently learned, the State Department’s intelligence bureau, which has barely any infrastructure or budget, read the tea leaves on Iraq better than anyone else. Perhaps, in the end, what we New Yorkers would have to do is redefine our conception of defense. Our primary mission would be to defend ourselves and only ourselves, just like the Swiss: There’d be no training to fight in deserts or the Arctic, no heavy equipment devoted to razing jungles and boring into caves. Install a couple of surface-to-air missiles under the Brooklyn Heights promenade and call it a day. Or better yet, let Donald Trump build a fortress on the West Side, paint it gold, and crown it with his name in four-story neon lights. That would scare off any barbarians at the gate, sure as a Scud.


All that’d be left would be normalizing relations with the United States. It’d be ugly at first, but eventually we’d find that special someone, that perfect ambassador who both speaks the red-state language but still unambiguously represents New York. Again, I’m thinking the Donald. I have two words for you, Mr. Trump: You’re hired.


----------



## Compaq (Mar 5, 2005)

pfft lol what a load of bull, NYC is no way more like europe than usa, i men hey, where in europe can u see a city with a gazilion skyscrapers, nyc is all about usa, the flag etc, load of bull i tell u! plus no f**ing way would it be as prosperous if it was to seperate.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

Unlike the US, residents of NYC are pro-choice, anti-death penalty, pro-gay rights, etc. Also, in NYC, unlike the rest of the US (excluding pockets like Boston, Philadelphia and SF), Evagelicalism, the Nascar/Walmart culture, etc, do not exist.


----------



## Accura4Matalan (Jan 7, 2004)

Absolutely not. NYC is a big symbol of America.


----------



## United-States-of-America (Jul 19, 2005)

Sure, I won't mind as long as it's a Communist country.


----------



## streetscapeer (Apr 30, 2004)

yeah, this is a pretty unbelievable article. New York just holds One facet of the diverse American culture. And contrary to what the article says there are plenty of Republicans on the super-rich Upper-East side of Manhattan, and New York is certainly not the bluest of cities. California is blue, and has a greater GDP, police force, population, etc than NYC, but does tha mean it should secede from the Union too. HEll No!. It just adds to the complexity of the US!


----------



## sfenn1117 (Apr 9, 2005)

MikeHunt said:


> Unlike the US, residents of NYC are pro-choice, anti-death penalty, pro-gay rights, etc. Also, in NYC, unlike the rest of the US (excluding pockets like Boston, Philadelphia and SF), Evagelicalism, the Nascar/Walmart culture, etc, do not exist.


Don't generalize. I'm politically conservative. And you would be surprised how many conservatives exist outside Manhattan. 

What a foolish idea. You expect people from CT, NJ, Westchester, and LI to deal with the hassles of working in a different COUNTRY?

As if I needed another reason to hate Liberals.


----------



## Compaq (Mar 5, 2005)

Silly, so once a city, state etc gets prosperous and succesfull you wanna seperate... stupid.. its USA that got you there in the 1st place, where's the country partiotism? Seperation has prroved to have bad results, and comming together good results, usa became what it is from colonies joining, australia the same, canada too ...


----------



## streetscapeer (Apr 30, 2004)

MikeHunt said:


> Unlike the US, residents of NYC are pro-choice, anti-death penalty, pro-gay rights, etc. Also, in NYC, unlike the rest of the US (excluding pockets like Boston, Philadelphia and SF), Evagelicalism, the Nascar/Walmart culture, etc, do not exist.



bs...then should Manhattan furthermore secede from The Republic of New York, cause that's where most of all the liberal activism and GDP comes from. Every region of the country has its liberal pockets just like the Northeast.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

Compaq said:


> Silly, so once a city, state etc gets prosperous and succesfull you wanna seperate... stupid.. its USA that got you there in the 1st place, where's the country partiotism? Seperation has prroved to have bad results, and comming together good results, usa became what it is from colonies joining, australia the same, canada too ...



PS: Where are you from and how many times have you been to NY and to the rest of the US?


----------



## Effer (Jun 9, 2005)

yes


----------



## Compaq (Mar 5, 2005)

MikeHunt said:


> PS: Where are you from and how many times have you been to NY and to the rest of the US?


PS: those things have nothing to do with what i just said


----------



## streetscapeer (Apr 30, 2004)

And it's a ridiculous notion to think that New Yorkers feel less American than the rest of the country, nowhere in the country were there more American Flags after 9/11 than in NY. This article is Ludacris!!


----------



## Compaq (Mar 5, 2005)

Also, NYC cant just be a nation of its own, its just a city, what about agriculture, where will food come from? natural resources etc ... a city alone cannot be a country, just cant be sustained.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

Compaq said:


> Also, NYC cant just be a nation of its own, its just a city, what about agriculture, where will food come from? natural resources etc ... a city alone cannot be a country, just cant be sustained.


What about Singapore?

Also, I asked where you're from and how many times you've been to NY and to the US, as I am curious about your insight, if any, into cultural differences between NYC and the rest of the country.


----------



## Renkinjutsushi (Dec 4, 2004)

Even me, an alternate history fanatic who loves to mess with nations, I can't see an independent NYC. Besides, NYC is the reason why the U.S. is not run by the rural populations, without NY and its large electorates (most of which are in NYC alone), the president will always be a conservative.


----------



## Effer (Jun 9, 2005)

Renkinjutsushi said:


> Even me, an alternate history fanatic who loves to mess with nations, I can't see an independent NYC. Besides, NYC is the reason why the U.S. is not run by the rural populations, without NY and its large electorates (most of which are in NYC alone), the president will always be a conservative.


The president will not be conservative ,it'll be communist!


----------



## Renkinjutsushi (Dec 4, 2004)

^Im talking about the U.S.


----------



## Dreamliner (Jul 18, 2005)

Helllllllllll NO! What utter bullsh*t! It never ceases to amaze me that it's always some OUTSIDER who comes up with this garbage. We're like EUROPE? What are you on, CRACK? I was BORN HERE, AND I am 110% AMERICAN. Like my fellow true New Yorkers, we LOVE our nation from Maine to the U.S. Virgin Islands to Hawaii to Alaska and back.


----------



## bnmaddict (Jan 6, 2005)

NYC would be an awesome nation!

Seriously, I went to New-York, Boston, Philadelphia, Whashington, I also visited Florida, Louisiana, Texas, California and many other places. And I can't help thinking that NYC, Boston and Philadelphia are different of the rest of the USA.


----------



## DarkFenX (Jan 8, 2005)

Hah. What a load of crap. There are many cities that are prospering like New York as well as a big influence to the world. Take London, Hong Kong, and Tokyo for example. Big cities with good economy and large population. You don't see them splitting up to be a different country. Whoever thought of is as braindead as a dead person.


----------



## MainDiish (Jul 11, 2005)

MikeHunt said:


> New York gets no help from the taxpayers of the USA, and, in fact, NY, NJ and CT subsidize the rest of America, as they send billions more to Washington than they get back from the federal government.


wat im saying is New York would be soo crappy by now if werent for the government.. Besides, NY needed help from the government in the 9/11 attacks..


----------



## MainDiish (Jul 11, 2005)

DarkFenX said:


> Hah. What a load of crap. There are many cities that are prospering like New York as well as a big influence to the world. Take London, Hong Kong, and Tokyo for example. Big cities with good economy and large population. You don't see them splitting up to be a different country. Whoever thought of is as braindead as a dead person.


London and Tokyo are the capital cities of their own countries.. OF COURSE they wouldnt split up from their country... Hong Kong has a very big potential to be an indepent country just like Singapore since HK is the Business Hub of Asia..


----------



## Automatic Lover (Nov 25, 2004)

Dreamliner61 said:


> Helllllllllll NO! What utter bullsh*t! It never ceases to amaze me that it's always some OUTSIDER who comes up with this garbage. We're like EUROPE? What are you on, CRACK? I was BORN HERE, AND I am 110% AMERICAN. Like my fellow true New Yorkers, we LOVE our nation from Maine to the U.S. Virgin Islands to Hawaii to Alaska and back.


Yippeeeee yeaaah! :horse: :horse: :horse: :hahaha: :hahaha: :hahaha:

That's what Europeans mock about some Americans. Such a ridiculous attitude.


----------



## Automatic Lover (Nov 25, 2004)

pacyderm said:


> Mainly because it's a major financial cener, if new york even tried to suceed from the nation, the U.S. military would bring it down in a matter of weeks if that.


huh! Another one! :uh:


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

Automatic Lover said:


> Yippeeeee yeaaah! :horse: :horse: :horse: :hahaha: :hahaha: :hahaha:
> 
> That's what Europeans mock about some Americans. Such a ridiculous attitude.


Hey it's not our fault Europe used to be the most important part of the world and is now sliding toward irrelevancy. Stagnant economies and soon to be declining populations. So stop being a backseat driver, as we say in the US. Either do something or shut up.


----------



## Justadude (Jul 15, 2004)

Ok, NOW can we safely call New Yorkers the most provincial cosmopolitan people in the world?


----------



## skyscraper_1 (May 30, 2004)

pacyderm said:


> Well, whatever you all think. It'll never happen.
> 
> Mainly because it's a major financial cener, if new york even tried to suceed from the nation, the U.S. military would bring it down in a matter of weeks if that.


If the US military destroyed it why would you want it back? NYC would'nt be a major financal center if it was leveled!

But a serious question for everyone. What would happen if the people of NYC decided to become an independent nation?


----------



## djm19 (Jan 3, 2005)

Just because NYC is unique means it should be a new country? NYC isnt like Alabama, but neither is Los Angeles, or Seattle, or Boston.


----------



## Renkinjutsushi (Dec 4, 2004)

It is more possible for Hawaii to secede than Florida, only the extreme southeastern part of it is not that American.


----------



## zulu69 (Sep 5, 2003)

brooklynprospect said:


> Hey it's not our fault Europe used to be the most important part of the world and is now sliding toward irrelevancy. Stagnant economies and soon to be declining populations. So stop being a backseat driver, as we say in the US. Either do something or shut up.


The EU is still one (just like Japan too) of the most important places in the world. Don't be so arrogant- last time i checked it is still outperforming the US dollar, is the largest in the world (pop) and there is something called the deficit in the US no? Besides the article clearly makes NYC connections more to Europe so by your logic is NYC a backseat driver or sliding toward irrelevancy??

Back to the topic, i think the article is just a very sad one. It clearly isn't meant to be taken seriously, rather it's meant to show the great divide between ideologies in the US. People are feeling almost scared at how different the country is being run- almost as if it's hijacked (or not depending on your thoughts of course). Some people therefore see no way out and therefore feel foreign. I honestly think it will become a greater issue in the future and it has only begun...


----------



## streetscapeer (Apr 30, 2004)

MikeHunt said:


> It's not an analogy, amigo. It's my observation.




Do you know what an analogy is??

You must compare "like with like!"

You can't compare Indiana or Ohio to freakin' London, just like you can't compare a whole region of the UK countryside to New York!.... besides, Ohio has cities like Cincinatti that are totally different from other American cities like Seattle or New Orleans. Should one of those cities secede cause they fit some pre-conceived notion of an American city. why are you the only one that doesn't realize the diversity of American cities and that there is no rule in (or if there is one, it is a very, very loose one!)

Remember...like with like...that's the only way to make a *logical* comparison!


Don't you realize that no one agrees with you. I know it's your opinion, but it just doesn't make sense.


----------



## Automatic Lover (Nov 25, 2004)

brooklynprospect said:


> Hey it's not our fault Europe used to be the most important part of the world and is now sliding toward irrelevancy. Stagnant economies and soon to be declining populations. So stop being a backseat driver, as we say in the US. Either do something or shut up.


I can't help it mate! That type of people is pathetic! I know not all Americans are like that, mainly the ones who visit other countries, but there're a lot. The more *******, the more patriot. I mean that patriotic 'thrust your chest out to the flag' attitude. Many people in Europe don't understand why this oversized cult to a flag and a nation.

Stagnant economies? The fact that France and Germany had stagnant economies lately doesn't mean the other countries in the EU behaved the same. Declining population? Europe is having nowadays the most important immigration flows.


----------



## streetscapeer (Apr 30, 2004)

djm19 said:


> Just because NYC is unique means it should be a new country? NYC isnt like Alabama, but neither is Los Angeles, or Seattle, or Boston.



This is what my ramblings and rantings are trying to convey!


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

zulu69 said:


> The EU is still one (just like Japan too) of the most important places in the world. Don't be so arrogant- last time i checked it is still outperforming the US dollar, is the largest in the world (pop) and there is something called the deficit in the US no?


The EU is not a country. It's not even much of a coherent entity going forward, as the recent French vote proved. On top of it, the EU is stagnating. And it's population is forecast to shrink.


----------



## streetscapeer (Apr 30, 2004)

Automatic Lover said:


> I can't help it mate! That type of people is pathetic! I know not all Americans are like that, mainly the ones who visit other countries, but there're a lot. The more *******, the more patriot. I mean that patriotic 'thrust your chest out to the flag' attitude. Many people in Europe don't understand why this oversized cult to a flag and a nation.
> 
> Stagnant economies? The fact that France and Germany had stagnant economies lately doesn't mean the other countries in the EU behaved the same. Declining population? Europe is having nowadays the most important immigration flows.



yeah I don't where that comment came from, that was very out of character of brooklynprospect (or so I thought)!


anyway, let's try to stay on topic


----------



## zulu69 (Sep 5, 2003)

a 'place' doesn't have to be a country  Still be omitting most of my other points, i'll take it you agree with me..


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

Automatic Lover said:


> I can't help it mate! That type of people is pathetic! I know not all Americans are like that, mainly the ones who visit other countries, but there're a lot. The more *******, the more patriot. I mean that patriotic 'thrust your chest out to the flag' attitude. Many people in Europe don't understand why this oversized cult to a flag and a nation.
> 
> Stagnant economies? The fact that France and Germany had stagnant economies lately doesn't mean the other countries in the EU behaved the same. Declining population? Europe is having nowadays the most important immigration flows.


There are a lot of problems with the US, but whining Europeans explaining how much we resemble cowboys are not going to help solve them. They just make themselves look like irrelevant pussies. And the EU overall, if you average out all the countries growth rates, is stagnating. And even given its immigration inflows, is still forecast to shrink. Fix your own problems before partonizing us.


----------



## zulu69 (Sep 5, 2003)

I love the irony... You throw a fit when someone tells you that you are all cowboys (i don't agree with that to an extent btw) but you insist on the often tried and true stereotype (mind you it is 250+yrs still in use) of 'whining Europeans'. Again you only make the case of a cowboy stronger with your replies..

Anyway lets stay on topic. I think the article highlights a very serious issue in the future direction of the US.


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

zulu69 said:


> I love the irony... You throw a fit when someone tells you that you are all cowboys (i don't agree with that to an extent btw) but you insist on the often tried and true stereotype (mind you it is 250+yrs still in use) of 'whining Europeans'. Again you only make the case of a cowboy stronger with your replies..


I'm not saying all Europeans are whiners, or pussies or whatever. Just that guy I was replying to.


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

Justadude said:


> especially in light of the fact that American culture is practically defined by diversity.


Just to play the devil's advocate, we're talking about the same country, right? A country where two strip malls, or two housing developments, or two sets of TV listings, separated by 5000km, can look identical? Give or take red tiles or grey shingles on the roofs, desert mountains or alluvial plains in the background?

I sometimes wonder how much cultural diversity there really is any more. Are lifestyles in Houston subdivisions very different from those in Detriot, Pheonix, or Atlanta subdivisions?

I once had a Dutch guy tell me that what makes America unique is not how diverse it is, but how damn uniform we've made an entire continent.


----------



## skyscraper_1 (May 30, 2004)

States and cities with distinct cultures wanting to seperate? Why not go ahead and change the name of the USA to Canada! :laugh:


----------



## LA1 (Sep 12, 2002)

brooklynprospect said:


> For what it's worth, NY does feel different from most of America. And not just because of all the shiny tall buildings and density. I once told a blond friend of mine from Nebraska that my South Asian immigrant uncle fits in better in NY than he would. And if you knew my friend, you'd agree. Manhattan is actually arguably the most "American" part of NY (not including Staten Island, which feels more like NJ than NY). Go to Queens, Brooklyn or most of the Bronx, and you'll be hard pressed to find the kind of Americans you see on TV - white, middle class, with long roots in this country. Those places are overwhelmingly immigrant or 2nd or 3rd generation minority Americans. Even lots of the African Americans are really West Indian, African or their children.
> 
> So progressive, hip, professional Manhattan, and overwhelmingly foreign feeling boroughs. Only LA has a somewhat similar demographic profile, with the Westside as Manhattan and the rest of LA county as the boroughs. SF and the Bay Area have the diversity, but to me feel more middle-class and mainstream (despite the gays and aging hippies).


So does alot of the northside of Chicago. North of the Wrigleyville, that part of Chicago can hold its own against any city neighborhood in the U.S.


----------



## streetscapeer (Apr 30, 2004)

Justadude said:


> ^ I didn't say it felt like "most of America". Nothing feels like most of America. There aren't many shared qualities between Harlem, a Kansas cornfield, Mount Saint Helens and a Louisiana bayou. So no city I know of could be rightfully said to feel like most of America.
> 
> I said NYC most certainly "feels American". There's no question about that. How much more American could a city possibly be? Times Square is so American that American-friendly cities abroad have tried to copy it. Broadway? Ridiculously American. Yankee Stadium? C'mon.
> 
> What makes NYC different is simply that it's a very cosmopolitan place, so it starts to have a weird culture-neutral vibe sometimes. But that doesn't mean it's "less American", unless you sincerely believe that "American" is an actual exclusive culture that is defined by WASPy people. I think it's absurd to say that because NYC is diverse, it no longer feels American... especially in light of the fact that American culture is practically defined by diversity.


Great Post!!


----------



## Justadude (Jul 15, 2004)

brooklynprospect said:


> Just to play the devil's advocate, we're talking about the same country, right? A country where two strip malls, or two housing developments, or two sets of TV listings, separated by 5000km, can look identical? Give or take red tiles or grey shingles on the roofs, desert mountains or alluvial plains in the background?


Take two houses of the same style, time period, and economic stratum in _any_ country and you're likely to have the same effect. British rowhouses aren't exactly the realm of architectural creativity, y'know. How many houses in Greece are single-story white boxes with red-tile roofs? You get the idea. Housing architecture from a specific time and place will be relatively uniform no matter where you go. The same principle applies to a lot of indicators, especially things like TV listings which are by their nature uniform across large spaces. 

But if you look at American architecture closely, there's a pretty dazzling diversity among regions. You don't see many adobe houses in Pennsylvania, or wraparound screen porches in California, or Georgian homes in Florida. And even things as trite as strip malls can show a lot of regional difference if you look closely. Usually there's a difference in materials and design to accomodate local climate and styles. 



> I sometimes wonder how much cultural diversity there really is any more. Are lifestyles in Houston subdivisions very different from those in Detriot, Pheonix, or Atlanta subdivisions?


You're focusing on subdivisions. What about lifestyles in downtown Phoenix vs. downtown Detroit? I'm willing to bet that they differ more than Luxembourg does from Belgium. 

And then there's the obvious: foods, accents, clothing, political views, religions, traditions, skin colors, cultures of origin, even languages. Anyone who's traveled the States can see the differences quite clearly from region to region, even state to state... could West Virginia be any more different from Northern Virginia?



> I once had a Dutch guy tell me that what makes America unique is not how diverse it is, but how damn uniform we've made an entire continent.


It's true that increasing media connections are making American culture more uniform over time, but we're a _long_ way from being a unicultural nation. In any given city, you can cross a set of railroad tracks and be in a very different culture just like that. We have threads devoted to this already so I won't go on at anymore length, but suffice it to say that defining American culture by what you see on "Desperate Housewives" is like defining British culture by what you see on "Austin Powers".


----------



## ReddAlert (Nov 4, 2004)

Justadude is making good points here. Just because suburban lifestyle is pretty much the same...doesnt mean the cities are all the same. For a European to say the U.S. is not unique is laughable. We all love to look at the pretty pictures of their density...but do you notice anything? Most of the buildings look pretty damn similar. Ever see a photo above Athens or Barcelona?


----------



## *Sweetkisses* (Dec 26, 2004)

NO.


----------



## Talbot (Jul 13, 2004)

I have an idea, MikeHunt, if you, the crackhead journalist who wrote the article or any other New Yorker that feels superior to the rest of the country(of course not all new Yorkers are this way), than why don't you guys go find some deserted island in the middle of nowhere and start your new Republic Nation and leave the rest of us alone.


----------



## djm19 (Jan 3, 2005)

Who is to say what is American. Maybe voting against gay marriage is against what America stands for. Maybe liberals are the ones most concerned for America.


----------



## streetscapeer (Apr 30, 2004)

Justadude assesed the situation excellently!


----------



## NovaWolverine (Dec 28, 2004)

People like Mike Hunt that feel more at home in London or whatever, I mean, I don't want to knock their opinion, but that just seems so elitist and arrogant. I mean the reasons why, being lifestyle, political views, they're all made to sound more superior to those in other parts of the country. There are probably a few other parts of the country that are much more different from the rest of the country than NYC. 

And again, when we say NYC, all that's though about is Midtown and Downtown Manhattan. Besides all the yuppies and transients that have taken over parts of Manhattan, no one is going to tell me or anyone I grew up with, real new yorkers that it's more like europe, please just leave manhattan and you'll agree. 

Even looking at what's not shown on tv all the time, even NJ and Long Island are much more American than they are European.


----------



## ReddAlert (Nov 4, 2004)

djm19 said:


> Who is to say what is American. Maybe voting against gay marriage is against what America stands for. Maybe liberals are the ones most concerned for America.


what does gay marriage have anything to do with this thread? Why does everything have to turn into a red state/blue state, liberal/conservative, Bush hating argument. 


As far as Im concerned...feeling NYC is somehow above the rest of the U.S. is downright arrogant. Im positive that the majority of New Yorkers love America, love being apart of it...and probally would get pissed at this discussion. You would have to think that after seeing the amount of flags and patriotism after the 9/11 attacks.


----------



## LA1 (Sep 12, 2002)

Mike Hunt continues to think NYC is all Manhattan and ignores the regular residents that make up most of Queens, Bronx and Brooklyn. They aren't rich, just average people no different then people anywhere else. I know people in Brooklyn, and they don't talk this mess about "We are different than the rest of the country" bullshit. Thats what these NYC threads are...complete bullshit.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

You're quite comical, LA21st. You regularly bash NY and show nothing but antipathy for it, and yet, you get unnerved when someone points out the undisputed fact that NY (along with Boston and other areas) are culturally different from the rest of the US. I'm not saying that American liestyle and culture are bad. I am saying that that culture and lifestyle is very, very different from New York City's.


----------



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

djm19 said:


> Who is to say what is American. Maybe voting against gay marriage is against what America stands for. Maybe liberals are the ones most concerned for America.


damned right! And who is to say that those who hold those liberal perspectives aren't every bit as large (if not larger) group than those of a more conservative point of view.

All that the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections have shown me is that the GOP has managed to drag every evangelical Christian to polls, has whipped up these folks, playing on their religious fervor, to show up enmass at election time. Carl Rove is a genius (and a fucking asshole)....he does know how to get the vote out. 

But success in getting their candidates into the White House and Congress does not project a conservative nation, although it does show the conservative movement, exemplified by the GOP, know how to get out the vote far better than the Democrats....and are willing to do so with an ends-justify-the-means philosophy.

If the world is listening, please don't be fooled: there are still huge, huge numbers of Americans who are tollerant of others and who have maintained a level of rationality even during insane times in our nation.


----------



## LA1 (Sep 12, 2002)

MikeHunt said:


> You're quite comical, LA21st. You regularly bash NY and show nothing but antipathy for it, and yet, you get unnerved when someone points out the undisputed fact that NY (along with Boston and other areas) are culturally different from the rest of the US. I'm not saying that American liestyle and culture are bad. I am saying that that culture and lifestyle is very, very different from New York City's.


I dont care about NYC one way or the other. I only call bullshit when I see it.
You think I bash NYC. I don't. I get tired of these bullshit threads that try to make NYC something that its not. How I am bashing NYC simply because I point out the fact its per capita is $38,000 after you claim that the entire city is so damn expensive. Worse, you grab some article about select neighborhoods and try to pass it off that area representing all of NYC.

Most big cities culture and lifestyle are different from the U.S. because most Americans live a suburban lifestyle. NYC ISNT ALONE, yet you try to make it out to be. That is comical.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

Phoenix, Atlanta, Orlando, Denver, Jacksonville, Chicago, San Diego, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Milwaukee, etc. are spread out over thousands of miles, amigo, and yet, they are uniform culturally and all embrace the same homogenous American lifestyle.

Your inferiority complex vis-a-vis NYC is quite humorous.


----------



## LA1 (Sep 12, 2002)

Yea, Chicago is like those other cities you listed. :bash: 

Chicago has more culture, diversity and transit options than Philly, Boston, Baltimore, DC, etc.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

You're inferiority complex re: Chicago is quite sad.

By the way, if you're allegedly from Fairfax County, why do you have LA in your screen name, and why are you so enthralled with Chicago? DC is a much better city than Chicago is. Also, most people from DC who wanted a bigger city would go to NY -- not Chicago, as there is a lot of cross-over between NY and DC.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

This whole thread is so stupid. :lol: New York's sort of different(like a dozen other cities throughout the country), but you can still tell it's American--take it from a Midwesterner who has visited the city several times: *You aren't that special.*


----------



## LA1 (Sep 12, 2002)

Im from Fairfax, and live next to the JHC. Nothing outside of a few select areas of Manhattan and SF can compare to that area of Chicago. 

I dont think Chicago cares if DC people move there or not although they do.
DC schools SUCK, and alot of DC residents are in poverty. If they are leaving for NYC, that isn't good. As far as DC being a much better city, that is laughable. Chicago makes DC look boring. There are only a few interesting areas of DC and I would embarrass you with a comparisons between the 2 as far as crime and murder rates are concerned. In fact, outside of Boston and NYC, your favorite American cities are among the most dangerous in the U.S. Newark, DC, Baltimore, Philly. This isn't going to change anytime soon.


----------



## Tom_Green (Sep 4, 2004)

I don`t know if it would be better for the city.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

^This is just a theoretical question, Tom_Green. It's not actually being considered by people in power.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

LA1 said:


> Im from Fairfax, and live next to the JHC. Nothing outside of a few select areas of Manhattan and SF can compare to that area of Chicago.
> 
> I dont think Chicago cares if DC people move there or not although they do.
> DC schools SUCK, and alot of DC residents are in poverty. If they are leaving for NYC, that isn't good. As far as DC being a much better city, that is laughable. Chicago makes DC look boring. There are only a few interesting areas of DC and I would embarrass you with a comparisons between the 2 as far as crime and murder rates are concerned. In fact, outside of Boston and NYC, your favorite American cities are among the most dangerous in the U.S. Newark, DC, Baltimore, Philly. This isn't going to change anytime soon.


Please... Boston is far better than the "Magnificent Mile" in Chicago. Structures that are hundreds of years old and existed when this country was a colony are more interesting than vertical shopping malls, Niketown and that retarded popcorn shop on Michigan Avenue that idiotic tourists from Indiana and Iowa (who are visiting their kids who moved to Chicago) line up for!

Also, the areas of DC that normal people spend time in are perfectly, and certainly are no less safe than Chicago. The same holds true for Philly. Moreover, if you're obsessed with safety, you should have moved to NY, as it's safer than Chicago is.


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

MikeHunt said:


> Please... Boston is far better than the "Magnificent Mile" in Chicago. Structures that are hundreds of years old and existed when this country was a colony are more interesting than vertical shopping malls, Niketown and that retarded popcorn shop on Michigan Avenue that idiotic tourists from Indiana and Iowa (who are visiting their kids who moved to Chicago) line up for!


I think we have that popcorn shop in Times Square. Is it called Popcorn Indiana? Anyway Times Square retail is probably the most bland in the city. The neon's cool, but the shops are the same as you could get in any large mall, and I suppose are there on the principle that tourists from the US and from the rest of the world will respond more to brands than to idiosyncratic shops.


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

LA1 said:


> Im from Fairfax, and live next to the JHC. Nothing outside of a few select areas of Manhattan and SF can compare to that area of Chicago.
> 
> I dont think Chicago cares if DC people move there or not although they do.
> DC schools SUCK, and alot of DC residents are in poverty. If they are leaving for NYC, that isn't good. As far as DC being a much better city, that is laughable. Chicago makes DC look boring. There are only a few interesting areas of DC and I would embarrass you with a comparisons between the 2 as far as crime and murder rates are concerned. In fact, outside of Boston and NYC, your favorite American cities are among the most dangerous in the U.S. Newark, DC, Baltimore, Philly. This isn't going to change anytime soon.


I grew up in the northeast (NJ), went to a good northeastern university, and now live in manhattan. For what it's worth, from my own experience, Boston and DC get way more attention here than Chicago. It's not that anyone puts down Chicago; people just don't think about it at all, like they don't think about St. Louis, Minneapolis, Houston, Tampa, etc. Actually I take that back. I've met some people who want to move to the sunbelt for the cheaper housing. But never heard anything about Chicago from a northeasterner. Maybe you don't care about the NE. Whatever. Just my experience with people here.


----------



## LA1 (Sep 12, 2002)

And? I dont hear shit about Boston, Philly, Baltimore (some people here have don't know anything about it) and DC in Chicago. The cities you named SHOULD get more attention being they are closer to NY. 
NYC is barely mentioned and most of the time it isn't good either.

BTW, the Mag Mile shits on every shopping street in America. There is nothing in DC or Baltimore that compare even to State Street, forget the Mag Mile. I can only think of a couple shopping streets in DC that draw crowds and their lone department store (Hechts) is a joke.


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

LA1 said:


> And? I dont hear shit about Boston, Philly, Baltimore (some people here have no absoultely nothing about it) and DC in Chicago. The cities you named SHOULD get more attention being they are closer to NY.
> NYC is barely mentioned and most of the time it isn't good either.
> 
> BTW, the Mag Mile shits on every shopping street in America. There is nothing in DC or Baltimore that compare even to State Street, forget the Mag Mile.


The lady doth protest too much, methinks


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

LA1 said:


> ... The cities you named SHOULD get more attention being they are closer to NY.


The cities that were mentioned (St. Louis, Minneapolis, Houston, Tampa, etc.) are nowhere near NY. Boston, DC and Philly are. 




LA1 said:


> ... BTW, the Mag Mile shits on every shopping street in America....


You're not particularly sophisticated. I can see you fitting in quite well on Rush Street drinking Old Milwaukee out of a can.

PS: If you think that the "Mag Mile" is akin to 5th Ave. and Madison, you're more deranged than I thought. There are stores on those streets in which NY is the only US branch! Moreover, they're housed in beautiful old buildings -- not in vertical malls that were constructed in 1985!


----------



## LA1 (Sep 12, 2002)

I think its funny you think people in the rest of the U.S. gives a shit about the NYC or the Northeast.


----------



## LA1 (Sep 12, 2002)

MikeHunt said:


> The cities that were mentioned (St. Louis, Minneapolis, Houston, Tampa, etc.) are nowhere near NY. Boston, DC and Philly are.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Read his post again Londonlunatic. He said Chicago is mentioned about the same those other cities are.


----------



## Effer (Jun 9, 2005)

LA1 said:


> I think its funny you think people in the rest of the U.S. gives a shit about the NYC or the Northeast.


why?


----------



## LA1 (Sep 12, 2002)

MikeHunt said:


> The cities that were mentioned (St. Louis, Minneapolis, Houston, Tampa, etc.) are nowhere near NY. Boston, DC and Philly are.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think you would fit in with those tourist hicks in Times Square.
Lets not forget the sophisticated Queens and Brooklyn residents who are dying for their new Wal Mart. Wal Mart would probably be considered upscale for Queens.


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

LA1 said:


> I think you would fit in with those tourist hicks in Times Square.
> Lets not forget the sophisticated Queens and Brooklyn residents who are dying for their new Wal Mart. Wal Mart would probably be considered upscale for Queens.


What's with the anger? Queens is actually the most diverse county in the entire USA. 90% of it is certainly not wealthy or sophisticated, but it's interesting. And Brooklyn is turning into NY's left bank. A large portion of artists, writers and other creative types priced out of Manhattan have moved to Brooklyn.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

LA1 said:


> Read his post again Londonlunatic. He said Chicago is mentioned about the same those other cities are.


LA21st,

I don't mean to exacerbate your mental wounds in connection with your inferiority re: NY, but take a look at this:

NEW YORK, April 1 (Reuters) - The average sale price for a Manhattan apartment topped $1.2 million in the first quarter, a new record, as the supply of properties for sale shrunk, according to the Prudential Douglas Elliman Manhattan Market Overview.

The average sale price rose to $1.21 million -- up 23 percent from the final quarter of 2004 and up 26 percent from a year ago.

In the condominium sector, the average sale price jumped to $1.55 million -- exceeding $1.5 million for the first time -- and surging 34 percent from 2004's fourth quarter, the report said. The average condo sale price went up 22 percent from the year-ago first quarter.

For Manhattan's entire apartment market, the average price per square foot climbed to $910 -- topping $900 a square foot for the first time. That's up 16.7 percent from the fourth quarter of 2004. It's a gain of 28 percent from a year earlier.

"Improving economic conditions, a tight housing supply, rising incomes and the widely held expectation of rising mortgage rates in the near future, caused housing prices to surge this quarter," the report said.

It was the first time the quarterly report included Manhattan markets above 116th Street on the West Side and above 96th Street on the East Side.

The median sale price -- the point where half the sales are higher and half are lower -- climbed to $705,000. That's up 16.5 percent from the previous quarter and up 18.5 percent from a year ago.

The volume of apartment sales fell to 2,028 units -- down 6.2 percent from the previous quarter and down 5.8 percent from a year ago, according to the report.

Limited supply kept sales volume in check.

The average sale price of a cooperative apartment, where an owner holds shares in the building and does not own the individual unit, rose to $988,746. That's up 15.5 percent from the previous quarter.

The average co-op sale price went up average sale price of a cooperative apartment, where an owner holds shares in the building and does not own the individual unit, rose to $988,746. That's up 15.5 percent from the previous quarter.

The average co-op sale price went up 25 percent from the first quarter of 2004.

04/01/05 02:22 ET

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL


----------



## LA1 (Sep 12, 2002)

Londonlunatic attacked Chicago first. 
What anger? Queens and Brookyln do want their Wal Mart. Read those articles. He pretends the whole city of NYC is wealthy and sophisticated and its not. Not even close.


----------



## LA1 (Sep 12, 2002)

MikeHunt said:


> LA21st,
> 
> I don't mean to exacerbate your mental wounds in connection with your inferiority re: NY, but take a look at this:
> 
> ...


And? NYC's per capita income is a measley $38,000.


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

LA1 said:


> Londonlunatic attacked Chicago first.
> What anger? Queens and Brookyln do want their Wal Mart. Read those articles. He pretends the whole city of NYC is wealthy and sophisticated and its not. Not even close.


Most of NYC comes across as quite poor. Almost 3rd world, if you include the boroughs. But frankly so do most American inner-city neighborhoods, in Chicago, DC, LA, wherever. 

On the other hand, NYC does have the largest concetration of wealthy people (in absolute numbers) of any place in the country. It is after all America's foremost business and financial center.


----------



## LA1 (Sep 12, 2002)

^
That exactly what it is. But Hunt tries (and fails) to convice these forums NYC is nothing but rich people. I having nothing against NYC until these claims are made because they are complete bullshit.


----------



## Justadude (Jul 15, 2004)

MikeHunt said:


> I'm not saying that American liestyle and culture are bad. I am saying that that culture and lifestyle is very, very different from New York City's.


As far as I can tell, nobody's arguing against that. Of course life in Manhattan is only like that of the interiors of nearby cities (such as Boston, as you suggested). 

But what you're not responding to is the fact that there is nothing "special" about that fact. The culture and lifestyle in New Orleans is "very, very different" from the rest of America, but you don't see their columnists suggesting (however facetiously) that they form their own country. Life in Honolulu is very, very different too. So is life in Walla Walla. So what? 

The point people are making is not that New York is "like" any other place in America, but that it's not unique in being its own little world. Once again we're seeing the famous Manhattan provincialism that portrays the United States outside as NYC as one giant cornfield full of subdivisions.


----------



## schreiwalker (May 13, 2005)

man, manhattanites are infuriating. 

new york consists of three groups...
1. immigrants who, if history continues as it always has, will leave new york soon, to create the america that manhattanites think they're different from. New york loses much of its native population each year, as they move to the burbs. obviously they don't feel like separating from the country. 
2. a small percentage who have been there for generations, and an even smaller percentage who both grew up and live in manhattan. 
3. domestic migrants who moved there to get away from whereever they're from, for whatever reason. maybe for money, maybe because they feel alienated due to their sexuality. but they, by definition, can't be considered of the new york nation, can they? 

that last group includes a subgroup, the idiots who move to new york from middle america, forget where they're really from so that they feel cooler, decide they are in fact 'real' new yorkers and then go on lamenting how different new york is from the rest of the country.

which, now that I think of it, is a very american thing to do.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

LA1 said:


> Londonlunatic attacked Chicago first.
> What anger? Queens and Brookyln do want their Wal Mart. Read those articles. He pretends the whole city of NYC is wealthy and sophisticated and its not. Not even close.


I have two words for you, my boy: (1) inferiority; and (2) complex. See below:

*4 entries found for inferiority.*in·fe·ri·or ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-fîr-r)
adj. 
Low or lower in order, degree, or rank: Captain is an inferior rank to major. 

Low or lower in quality, value, or estimation: inferior craft; felt inferior to his older sibling. 
Second-rate; poor: an inferior translation. 
Situated under or beneath. 
Botany. Located below the perianth and other floral parts. Used of an ovary. 
Anatomy. Located beneath or directed downward. 
Printing. Set below the normal line of type; subscript. 
Astronomy. 
Orbiting between Earth and the sun: Mercury is an inferior planet. 
Lying below the horizon. 

n. 
A person lower in rank, status, or accomplishment than another. 
Printing. An inferior character, such as the number 2 in CO2. 

[Middle English, from Latin nferior, comparative of nferus, low. See dher- in Indo-European Roots.]

in·feri·ori·ty (-ôr-t, -r-) n. 
in·feri·or·ly adv. 

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. 


Main Entry: in·fe·ri·or·i·ty
Pronunciation: (")in-"fir-E-'or-&t-E, -'är-
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -ties
: a condition or state of being or having a sense of being inferior or inadequate especially with respect to one's apparent equals or to the world at large 

*8 entries found for complex.
com·plex ( P ) Pronunciation Key (km-plks, kmplks)
adj. * 
Consisting of interconnected or interwoven parts; composite. 
Composed of two or more units: a complex carbohydrate. 
Involved or intricate, as in structure; complicated. 
Grammar. 
Consisting of at least one bound form. Used of a word. 
Consisting of an independent clause and at least one other independent or dependent clause. Used of a sentence. 

n. (kmplks)
A whole composed of interconnected or interwoven parts: a complex of cities and suburbs; the military-industrial complex. 
In psychology, a group of related, often repressed ideas and impulses that compel characteristic or habitual patterns of thought, feelings, and behavior. No longer in scientific use. 
An exaggerated or obsessive concern or fear. 
Medicine. The combination of factors, symptoms, or signs of a disease or disorder that forms a syndrome. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Latin complexus, past participle of complect, to entwine. See complect.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
com·plexly adv. 
com·plexness n. 
Synonyms: complex, complicated, intricate, involved, tangled, knotty
These adjectives mean having parts so interconnected as to make the whole perplexing. Complex implies a combination of many associated parts: The composer transformed a simple folk tune into a complex set of variations. Complicated stresses elaborate relationship of parts: The party's complicated platform confused many voters. Intricate refers to a pattern of intertwining parts that is difficult to follow or analyze: “No one could soar into a more intricate labyrinth of refined phraseology” (Anthony Trollope). Involved stresses confusion arising from the commingling of parts and the consequent difficulty of separating them: The movie's plot was criticized as being too involved. Tangled strongly suggests the random twisting of many parts: “Oh, what a tangled web we weave,/When first we practice to deceive!” (Sir Walter Scott). Knotty stresses intellectual complexity leading to difficulty of solution or comprehension: Even the professor couldn't clarify the knotty point. 

[Download Now or Buy the Book] 
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. 


com·plex (kmplks)
n. 

A group of related, often repressed memories, thoughts, and impulses that compel characteristic or habitual patterns of feelings, thought, and behavior. 
The relatively stable combination of two or more ions or compounds into a larger structure without covalent binding. 
A composite of chemical or immunological structures. 
An entity made up of three or more interrelated components. 
A group of individual structures known or believed to be anatomically, embryologically, or physiologically related. 
The combination of factors, symptoms, or signs that forms a syndrome.
adj. (km-plks, kmplks)
Consisting of interconnected or interwoven parts; composite. 
Composed of two or more units. 
Relating to a group of individual structures known or considered to be anatomically, embryologically, or physiologically related.


Source: The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. 


Main Entry: 3com·plex
Pronunciation: käm-'pleks, k&m-', 'käm-"
Function: transitive verb
1 : to form into a complex <RNA complexed with protein> 
2 : CHELATE complex intransitive senses
: to form a complex <hormones which must complex with specific receptors> 


Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc. 


Main Entry: 1com·plex
Pronunciation: käm-'pleks, k&m-', 'käm-"
Function: adjective
1 : having many varied interrelated parts, patterns, or elements and consequently hard to understand <complex behavior> <a complex personality> <complex plants and animals> 
2 : formed by the union of simpler chemical substances <complex proteins> 


Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc. 


Main Entry: 2com·plex
Pronunciation: 'käm-"pleks
Function: noun
1 : a group of repressed memories, desires, and ideas that exert a dominant influence on the personality and behavior <a guilt complex> —see CASTRATION COMPLEX, ELECTRA COMPLEX, INFERIORITY COMPLEX, OEDIPUS COMPLEX, PERSECUTION COMPLEX, SUPERIORITY COMPLEX 
2 : a group of chromosomes arranged or behaving in a particular way —see GENE COMPLEX 
3 : a chemical association of two or more species (as ions or molecules) joined usually by weak electrostatic bonds rather than by covalent bonds 
4 : the sum of the factors (as symptoms and lesions) characterizing a disease <primary tuberculous complex> 


Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc. 


complex

adj : complicated in structure; consisting of interconnected parts; "a complex set of variations based on a simple folk melody"; "a complex mass of diverse laws and customs" [ant: simple] n 1: a conceptual whole made up of complicated and related parts; "the complex of shopping malls, houses, and roads created a new town" [syn: composite] 2: a compound described in terms of the central atom to which other atoms are bound or coordinated [syn: coordination compound] 3: (psychoanalysis) a combination of emotions and impulses that have been rejected from awareness but still influence a person's behavior 4: a whole structure (as a building) made up of interconnected or related structures [syn: building complex]


Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University 


complex

COMPLEX: in Acronym Finder


Source: Acronym Finder, © 1988-2004 Mountain Data Systems 


complex

complex: in CancerWEB's On-line Medical Dictionary


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

Justadude said:


> As far as I can tell, nobody's arguing against that. Of course life in Manhattan is only like that of the interiors of nearby cities (such as Boston, as you suggested).
> 
> But what you're not responding to is the fact that there is nothing "special" about that fact. The culture and lifestyle in New Orleans is "very, very different" from the rest of America, but you don't see their columnists suggesting (however facetiously) that they form their own country. Life in Honolulu is very, very different too. So is life in Walla Walla. So what?
> 
> The point people are making is not that New York is "like" any other place in America, but that it's not unique in being its own little world. Once again we're seeing the famous Manhattan provincialism that portrays the United States outside as NYC as one giant cornfield full of subdivisions.


I think the truth is somewhere in between. There are unique places like Las Vegas, New Orleans, Miami, SF, but this country is far more homogenized than say 60 years ago. Yes America is more diverse than France, the UK, Germany, or Greece. But given it's size and population, that's not saying much. It is certainly FAR less diverse than the EU, with a similar level of development and a somewhat similar population. 

On a metropolitan or state level, there's a lot of diversity, with a suburban subculture, African-American subculture, urban hipster subculture, evangelical subculture, goth, etc. But if you go from state to state and from metro to metro, you find by and large the same options. Just like if you go down a suburb's main strip, you'll find lots of different restuarants serving lots of different cuisines - Chili's, Friday's, McDonalds, Taco Bell, Olive Garden, Red Lobster etc. But if you go a town 1000 miles away, you'll find the same things. Within a place there's plenty of diversity. But between places there's not much.


Imagine travelling from Detroit to Chicago. And then from London to the South of France. Which will offer you the more diverse trip?


----------



## streetscapeer (Apr 30, 2004)

Let's not go that far, Europe has the same city offerings from place to place too, IMO. Let's not make Europe to be this place full of quaint stores that offer a great retail diversity. In my many tours of Europe, I end up somewhat bored by the end of the tour because every city you go to has the same stores lining the streets. It's part of the capitalistic environment we live in today, and Europe is certainly not exempt. 

But it's true traveling from London to the south of France (for example) will offer you a more diverse trip in *lifestyle*, but traveling from Venice to Verona to Naples won't, nor will Zurich to Frankfurt to Munich, nor Seville to Lisbon.


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

streetscapeer said:


> London and the South of France (and most of Europe) have the same city offerings from place to place too. Let's not make Europe to be this place full of quaint stores that offer a great retail diversity. In my many tours of Europe, I end up somewhat bored by the end of the tour because every city you go to has the same stores lining the streets. It's part of the capitalistic environment we live in today, and Europe is certainly not exempt.
> 
> But it's true traveling from London to the south of France (for example) will offer you a more diverse trip, but traveling from Venice to Verona to Naples won't, nor will Hamburg to Frankfurt to Munich.


Yes within individual countries in Europe, there's less diversity than within America. But between countries there's more. Obviously. I even feel like it's kind of a facetious point. But European countries are physically small. The practical affect is that for someone in Paris, there's far more diversity to be had in a short plane trip than for someone in Chicago. For me, that's one of the coolest things about Europe. It's so easy to go on short inexpensive trips to Greece, Italy, Sweden, Turkey, Morrocco, Germany, Spain etc.


----------



## streetscapeer (Apr 30, 2004)

^oh ok yeah...I see what you mean. While the US is surely not as diverse as Europe (obviously since the are different countries) it is most assuredly not a homogenized country in many different aspects (aspects other than retail, I mean)


----------



## philadweller (Oct 30, 2003)

LA1 you are a very simple person.

"There are only a few interesting areas of DC and I would embarrass you with a comparisons between the 2 as far as crime and murder rates are concerned. In fact, outside of Boston and NYC, your favorite American cities are among the most dangerous in the U.S. Newark, DC, Baltimore, Philly. This isn't going to change anytime soon."

I wouldn't live here if it was dangerous. The only time I was ever mugged in a city happened right in Boston while living there. You are more likely to get smeared in your auto on the San Diego Freeway sweetie.


----------



## LA1 (Sep 12, 2002)

Sweetie? Im not a girl.

Anyway, I have nothing against Philly. But its crime and murder rates are high.


----------



## philadweller (Oct 30, 2003)

I chose to move here from Boston and don't find it any more dangerous. If anything it is an absolute bargain with better weather.


----------



## Justadude (Jul 15, 2004)

brooklynprospect said:


> Yes within individual countries in Europe, there's less diversity than within America. But between countries there's more. Obviously. I even feel like it's kind of a facetious point. But European countries are physically small. The practical affect is that for someone in Paris, there's far more diversity to be had in a short plane trip than for someone in Chicago. For me, that's one of the coolest things about Europe. It's so easy to go on short inexpensive trips to Greece, Italy, Sweden, Turkey, Morrocco, Germany, Spain etc.


I will agree on that point. But bringing this back to the original discussion, it's still ridiculous for someone to say that Manhattan is "not American", in the same way that one would find it absurd to say that Paris is "not French" because it doesn't resemble a quaint French village.


----------



## ReddAlert (Nov 4, 2004)

brooklynprospect said:


> I think the truth is somewhere in between. There are unique places like Las Vegas, New Orleans, Miami, SF, but this country is far more homogenized than say 60 years ago. Yes America is more diverse than France, the UK, Germany, or Greece. But given it's size and population, that's not saying much. It is certainly FAR less diverse than the EU, with a similar level of development and a somewhat similar population.
> 
> On a metropolitan or state level, there's a lot of diversity, with a suburban subculture, African-American subculture, urban hipster subculture, evangelical subculture, goth, etc. But if you go from state to state and from metro to metro, you find by and large the same options. Just like if you go down a suburb's main strip, you'll find lots of different restuarants serving lots of different cuisines - Chili's, Friday's, McDonalds, Taco Bell, Olive Garden, Red Lobster etc. But if you go a town 1000 miles away, you'll find the same things. Within a place there's plenty of diversity. But between places there's not much.
> 
> ...


but the EU isnt just one nation...its a collection of them. Its not fair comparing one country to numerous nations. You cant keep listing off fast food resturants and suburbs as an argument. London, Tokyo, NYC, Paris, and Hong Kong all have a wealth of these places...many more of them than they do genuine resturants I would think. Go to Tokyo...everything is the same there. The food, the culture, the architecture...even the way people act...however its just much, much, much, much more urban. This doesnt take away from people perception of the city.


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

ReddAlert said:


> but the EU isnt just one nation...its a collection of them. Its not fair comparing one country to numerous nations. You cant keep listing off fast food resturants and suburbs as an argument. London, Tokyo, NYC, Paris, and Hong Kong all have a wealth of these places...many more of them than they do genuine resturants I would think. Go to Tokyo...everything is the same there. The food, the culture, the architecture...even the way people act...however its just much, much, much, much more urban. This doesnt take away from people perception of the city.


My original point was in response to someone saying that America stood for diversity. How can a country stand for diversity when it homogenized a continent-sized area? How is that diversity? Forget about political boundaries for a second. For an a population of 300 million and a land area of over 3 million square miles, this place is incredibly un-diverse.

And the fast food thing was meant as an analogy. Meant to show the difference between diversity within one place and diversity between places.


----------



## streetscapeer (Apr 30, 2004)

^yeah but there are many different aspects of diversity, not confined to the general retail companies that occupy a country. I think Justadude was talking about lifstyle, political and social attitude, demographic, cityscape, architecture, landscape....(the colors of a city), I think he meant that these things vary alot in the US and that's why NY and the Northeast isn't special in being different from the rest of the US! 
Of course when you focus on what retail stores each city has there's gonna be alot of homogeneity. Even still, there is *some* regional diversity, when you get pass all the damn global and national chains..lol

And I would venture to say that China with freakin 1.3 billion people is even more homogenized than the US (I could be wrong)...maybe the population amount doesn't matter when considering these issues. Is there some sort of rule that the more populous a country is the more diverse it should be? Why should the European Continent be the standard on diversity? perhaps _it_ is the exception to the rule!

I'm just rambling, and throwing out some thoughts!


----------



## skyscraper_1 (May 30, 2004)

China is quite diverse compared to Canada or the US. Of course i've only seen pictures and read articles but they have Tibet, Inner Mongolia, Southern China(cantonese), Hong Kong, etc


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

streetscapeer said:


> ^yeah but there are many different aspects of diversity, not confined to the general retail companies that occupy a country. I think Justadude was talking about lifstyle, political and social attitude, demographic, cityscape, architecture, landscape....(the colors of a city), I think he meant that these things vary alot in the US and that's why NY and the Northeast isn't special in being different from the rest of the US!
> Of course when you focus on what retail stores each city has there's gonna be alot of homogeneity. Even still, there is *some* regional diversity, when you get pass all the damn global and national chains..lol
> 
> And I would venture to say that China with freakin 1.3 billion people is even more homogenized than the US (I could be wrong)...maybe the population amount doesn't matter when considering these issues. Is there some sort of rule that the more populous a country is the more diverse it should be? Why should the European Continent be the standard on diversity? perhaps _it_ is the exception to the rule!
> ...


When I talk about diversity, I'm talking about culture, broadly defined. The US is a culturally diverse country, but when you look past political boundaries and see the US as a part of the world, with 3 1/2 million square miles and 300 million people, it's actually one of the less culturally diverse sections.

I also agree that China as a culture has gone a great way toward homogenizing 1.3 billion people, but because it's still less developed, and contains numerous geographically based linguistic zones, I think there's significantly more regional diversity there than in America.


----------



## Jayayess1190 (Feb 6, 2005)

This needs a poll


----------



## *Sweetkisses* (Dec 26, 2004)

LA1 said:


> Sweetie? Im not a girl.
> 
> Anyway, I have nothing against Philly. But its crime and murder rates are high.


And you got that from......


----------



## eweezerinc (Jul 24, 2005)

This... is... the most ridiculous arguement I have ever read. NYC would succeed over America's dead lifeless body. (land? ah well) 
We have seen it in this country before CIVIL WAR=BAD NEWS
This DOES NOT need a poll. 
Geez, have we gone so mad as to even consider something this ludacris? 
Bunch of nutters...


----------



## mdude (Jul 8, 2005)

could NYC citizens be any more self-righteous? I can't believe the guy that said, "I could stand to live in America, so I moved to New York City." LOL! Has he ever been overseas? Whenever you say "America" they think "New York City."


----------



## EtherealMist (Jul 26, 2005)

LA1 is such a pro-Chicago zealot that its sickening


----------



## EtherealMist (Jul 26, 2005)

mdude said:


> could NYC citizens be any more self-righteous? I can't believe the guy that said, "I could stand to live in America, so I moved to New York City." LOL! Has he ever been overseas? Whenever you say "America" they think "New York City."


When he said "I could not stand to live in America, so i moved to New York City" I think he was referring to Red State America.


----------



## oshkeoto (Sep 21, 2004)

"Phoenix, Atlanta, Orlando, Denver, Jacksonville, Chicago, San Diego, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Milwaukee, etc. are spread out over thousands of miles, amigo, and yet, they are uniform culturally and all embrace the same homogenous American lifestyle."

Whenever we need to remind ourselves that provincial people can exist anywhere, even in the great city that is New York, all we have to do is drag out MikeHunt.


----------



## oshkeoto (Sep 21, 2004)

"Imagine travelling from Detroit to Chicago. And then from London to the South of France. Which will offer you the more diverse trip?"

I think if you picked practically any city in Europe other than London, your answer would be Detroit to Chicago. Or New York to DC. Or whatever.


----------



## Handsome (May 2, 2005)

yes


----------



## XiaoBai (Dec 10, 2002)

Typical Nonsense to come out of New York. I remember after the 2004 elections there was a large article in the Times saying that New York was out of step with the rest of the US because it didn't vote for Bush--failing to mention that every major US city didn't vote for Bush. NYC DOES feel like a different place from the rest of the country, as does nearly every other major city--Boston, SF, Chicago, LA, Seattle, Philadelphia, DC etc etc--all completely different from each other, all very diverse cities all have things that other cities don't offer (including New York) AND none of them can be considered "typically american" in my opinion. They're all important economic/cultural strongholds in the US and the world. The point, the US is diverse and each place is different fom one another, and New York only makes up a small portion of it, thus whoever wrote this has probably never left manhattan.


----------



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

XiaoBai said:


> Typical Nonsense to come out of New York. I remember after the 2004 elections there was a large article in the Times saying that New York was out of step with the rest of the US because it didn't vote for Bush--failing to mention that every major US city didn't vote for Bush. NYC DOES feel like a different place from the rest of the country, as does nearly every other major city--Boston, SF, Chicago, LA, Seattle, Philadelphia, DC etc etc--all completely different from each other, all very diverse cities all have things that other cities don't offer (including New York) AND none of them can be considered "typically american" in my opinion. They're all important economic/cultural strongholds in the US and the world. The point, the US is diverse and each place is different fom one another, and New York only makes up a small portion of it, thus whoever wrote this has probably never left manhattan.


so, ego wise, perhaps NYC would be better off not being its own nation, but being its own planet. or maybe the sun. That way, the rest of us can continue to revolve around it.


----------



## Harkeb (Oct 12, 2004)

Sounds cool, but it cannot be feasible. The city needs a hinterland. What would be more interesting, and a possible solution to a devided America:- Florida could be made an independent Hispanic state; Alabama-Georgia-South Carolina could be combined to form an independent black state.


----------



## reluminate (Aug 3, 2004)

harkerb said:


> Sounds cool, but it cannot be feasible. The city needs a hinterland. What would be more interesting, and a possible solution to a devided America:- Florida could be made an independent Hispanic state;


The only hispanic part of Florida is the extreme southeastern part



> Alabama-Georgia-South Carolina could be combined to form an independent black state.


That doesn't even merit a response


----------



## jmancuso (Jan 9, 2003)

this has to be one of the stupidest threads yet. no offense to the thread starter but the mere subject of this is asinine. 

new york as an independent country? :laugh: i love NYC and all (i'm from NYS) but a lot of NY'ers need to come down to planet earth and realize that they really arn't _that_ special.


----------



## streetscapeer (Apr 30, 2004)

asohn said:


> The only hispanic part of Florida is the extreme southeastern part



not true anymore...for the past decade Hispanics have made their way north of South Florida. Metro Orlando, for instance, must be at least 30 percent Hispanic, if not more!

But you're right about South Florida. I came back to Miami after 6 months of being in school, and I completely forgot how Hispanic-centric this city was. At the airport, 90 percent of the people I passed were speaking Spanish, and over the telecom system for the whole airport, the speakers only spoke spanish most ofthe time....it's quite amazing (even after living here for 8 years), it's like going to nother country, *seriously*


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

streetscapeer said:


> not true anymore...for the past decade Hispanics have made their way north of South Florida. Metro Orlando, for instance, must be at least 30 percent Hispanic, if not more!
> 
> But you're right about South Florida. I came back to Miami after 6 months of being in school, and I completely forgot how Hispanic-centric this city was. At the airport, 90 percent of the people I passed were speaking Spanish, and over the telecom system for the whole airport, the speakers only spoke spanish most ofthe time....it's quite amazing (even after living here for 8 years), it's like going to nother country, *seriously*


I'm kind of curious about Miami. I've only been there once, for a very short time. Will a monolingual English speaker (or say someone who speaks English and another non-Spanish language) have trouble living there? Has Spanish overtaken English is usage/importance?

Is the Spanish-dominant area limited to certain neighborhoods, or is the whole metro (including Ft Lauderdale etc) strongly influenced by Spanish?


----------



## parallax (Feb 25, 2004)

Here's a proposition for you lot:

We Dutchies are willing to trade NY for Suriname and 60 bucks, we can always use some more liberals, and some new pubs. How about it?


----------



## streetscapeer (Apr 30, 2004)

brooklynprospect said:


> I'm kind of curious about Miami. I've only been there once, for a very short time. Will a monolingual English speaker (or say someone who speaks English and another non-Spanish language) have trouble living there? Has Spanish overtaken English is usage/importance?
> 
> Is the Spanish-dominant area limited to certain neighborhoods, or is the whole metro (including Ft Lauderdale etc) strongly influenced by Spanish?



well someone who doesn't speak spanish can get along just fine in the Miami metro. Many of the older generation of Hispanic immigrants have not learned a lick of English because of the massive enclave Miami has. But the adults and children of today are mostly bilingual though. What has happened, however, is that the language spoken "at home" is at the forefront of Miami society, and many of the children born here grow up speaking english with an accent.

Of course there are neighborhood differences as well. When speaking about Miami-Dade alone (2.3mill), there's pretty much no such thing as an all-white neighborhood. There are many neihborhoods that are very white, but only relative to the rest of the county. The *white* neighborhoods are very mixed with hispanic families that have totally assimilated into "American culture," and although they speak English perfectly fine(without an accent even), they still speak Spanish to a great extent with friends and families. This has been a point of contention in Miami society. As many know, in South Florida hispanics infiltrate all aspects of American society: the snobby rich are the hispanics, the vast middle class are the hispanics, and the dirt poor are the hispanics, the punk rock kids are the hispanics, and the ghetto-rap enthusiasts are the hispanics. And hispanics come in all colors too. From the blacks from the Dominican Republic and Cuba, to the Ameri-Indians from Peru, to the blonde hair, blue eyes from Argintina. But getting back to your question: I live in the suburbs, and I don't speak spanish, and I get along just fine, even though I'm surrounded by it (many peoeple speak English as well). There are only a few neighborhoods where you really couldn't survive without Spanish, like the notorious Little Havana or the lessor known Lake Worth in Palm Beach County.



Ft-Lauderdale (Broward County- 1.7 mill) is very different. It's alot more white, with only some Hispanic influences (relative to Miami of course) and English is still dominant there, and the same goes for Palm Beach County (1.3 mill) 

to put it all together, South Florida is more of a hodge-podge. There are a spectrum of neighorhoods, from those that are exclusively Spanish, to those that are bilingual, to the many that are just "heavily-influenced," to the many that are exclusively English.


----------



## streetscapeer (Apr 30, 2004)

oh and don't forget about the massive amount of Haitians in South Florida. Haitian- Creole (50% of the vocab is similar to French, and grammar from African languages) is the second most prevalent non-English language in Miami-Dade County. 

All county documents (including letters that students bring home to their parentsand such) are written in three lanuages: English, Spanish, and Creole (I speak Creole)


----------



## GGG (Aug 1, 2005)

MikeHunt said:


> Should NYC become an independent nation?


No, but my mansausage should.

_______________


----------



## Third of a kind (Jun 20, 2004)

I don't feel new york should be its own state or nation, I would rather see some sort of consolidation for the tri-state area.

I'm a college student, at a cuny school and its really awkward that jersey or ct cats have to pay higher tuition than cats who live all the way up in buffalo and come down here for school. There are alot of similar issues like that that kind of irk me, but they are what they are.

its simply retarded to say that new york isn't american, thats a ridiculous statement, this is city is just as American as richmond etc.

one thing that irks me i've noticed on this site is that it seems alot of opinions of new york are simply always based on manhattan (or specific pts of manhattan). There's a whole lot more to it than that.

Wal-mart will be here sooner than you think, there's already a target thats "technically" in manhattan on 225th in the bx


----------



## LA1 (Sep 12, 2002)

EtherealMist said:


> LA1 is such a pro-Chicago zealot that its sickening


Please, look at some of your fellow NY formers. Billyblanco, Crawford...and lets not forget the all mighty king of NYC bullshit..Mike Hunt aka Londonlunatic. The "NYC is king of the world" or "only in NYC" babble is the most pathetic laughable shit I have ever read.


----------



## Klas (May 16, 2005)

MikeHunt said:


> Here's an article about this issue:
> 
> "The Independent Republic of New York"
> As New York—a city that often has more in common with Europe than with the United States—prepares to be invaded by the red-state hordes during an election that has much of the city fearing the prospect of four more years, a persistent fantasy resurfaces—should New York secede?
> ...


 :drunk: :drunk: :deadthrea :skull: :booze: :moods: :crazy: :tongue4: :lock: :banned: :rant: :righton: :angel: :hi: :spam1: :hm: :fart: :naughty: :llama: :fiddle: :master: :rofl: :wtf: :wallbash: :toilet:


----------



## Justadude (Jul 15, 2004)

^ Worst post ever?


----------

