"... although Goldman Sachs equity traders revolted in 2002 when the investment bank tried to relocate them to an expensive new tower in Jersey City, a mere mile from its Lower Manhattan headquarters."
Location still matters.
Location still matters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway
Subway extensions are notoriously difficult to pull off in NYC. NYC, in specific, and the USA, in general, have become woefully inadequate in their ability to pull of Major infrastructure projects. The list of overbudget and behind schedule projects in the last few decades is a mile long. I won't hold my breath waiting for the day I can take the 7 from Flushing (where I grew up) to Jersey.
Seriously, are our troubles building things like the Big Dig really because of Unions, as Free Marketeers have laid blame? Or, is it because the Chinese government can plow through any problem because they're communists and not "inefficient democracy"? Or, is it because of their "monoculture" (I've always hated that argument; I mean, what does culture or cultural mix have to do with getting something built or accomplished?). Or, maybe it's the almighty dollar/yen/yuan (and lack thereof).
Whatever it is, it's really depressing.
At least what I can gather talking to people working in those fields. We used to sublet out of an architects office, and it was fascinating listening to them deal with all of the regulatory insanity.
A lot of the remaining neighborhoods in New York City were nearly destroyed by the Lower Manhattan Expressway in the 1960's.[1] Most American cities were well on their way to being modern Detroit thanks to planners like NY's Robert Moses and his traffic engineers. They wanted to rebuild America to be easy driving dystopias with free flowing traffic and no space for community and walking lifestyles. They did succeed in the outer parts of NYC and put freeways down both Manhattan waterfronts.
There used to be freeways down the Embarcadero and through the central parts of San Francisco.[2] Tens of thousands of citizens were driven out to build them. Their entire neighborhoods were razed and traditional walkable living was on its way to eradication in America.
Freeway protests started with Jane Jacobs in the 1960's, won against the freeway plans of San Francisco, and resulted in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.[3]
NEPA is the model for analysis paralysis and regulations and safety procedures that block infrastructure projects across America. It continues to be necessary as you can see in most any urban freeway expansion project or wetlands infill development in America today.
The Big Dig in particular proves that even NEPA isn't enough to block idiocy. The best thing for the Central Artery would have been just like the Embarcadero Freeway; tear it down and replace it with nothing. That is, replace it with a regular city street, a couple small parks, and new buildings continuing the urbanism of the North End. The evidence is overwhelming that the traffic situation in Boston would have improved everywhere and the Central Artery (and its underground replacement) actually make things worse.[4][5]
The real insanity isn't that it took 20 years to do the Big Dig but that it wasn't simply a three week demolition project recognizing that the Central Artery was lunacy in the first place.
For now, however, what NEPA can do is slow down the stupidity until we can grow a planning and engineering culture that respects traditional urban form, liveable and walkable communities, and a less motor-oriented way of life.[6]
[1] http://newurbannetwork.com/article/wrestling-moses-how-jane-...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_480
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Environmental_Policy_A...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess_paradox
[5] http://www.infrastructurist.com/2011/06/06/why-building-road...
Removing the Central Artery and replacing it with nothing only makes sense if the purpose of the new Artery was to move local traffic. It isn't, the primary purpose of I-93 is moving traffic from NY to CT to RI, through Boston up into NH and ME. Part of the traffic tie-ups on the old Artery were caused by locals using the highway as s shortcut to get from the North End to the South End, so in a sense the Big Dig did do as you suggest in that they removed a bunch of on/off ramps that make it difficult for local users to use, and replaced them with lower capacity surface roads (as well as green space + walkways). The Big Dig also included a bunch of transit improvements (some of which are why the MBTA is in a big hole right now, but that's another post).
As for making traffic worse, 10 years after the opening, traveling from Woburn to Braintree is now a 20 minute trip during peak hour where it used to be 90 minutes in off-hours. Of course transit should be factored into roadway expansion, and in the case of the Big Dig, it was.
The city should give up wasting time on banks and bankers and focus more on growing it's tech sector. Otherwise you're never going to find a Google, FB or Apple HQ in Manhattan.
"Stop wasting money on the industry I'm not in, and start focusing on me!"
http://mashable.com/2010/12/03/google-manhattan-1-9-billion/
Granted, it's not the headquarters, but still.
"The city should give up wasting time on banks and bankers"
These two sentences do not jive.
Why would they want one?
I know we think that the tech sector is the be-all and end-all of everything on HN, but it ain't. It's one sector among many. It's one of the most lucrative sectors, it's true... but then again so is finance, and finance is what NYC happens to already be good at.
The big danger to NYC's economy is that it's too concentrated on a couple of sectors -- but the solution is more of everything, not just more of one thing. On the other hand, the financial sector has already crashed, and it didn't turn New York into Detroit, so I guess that's not too dangerous after all.
Ultimately I don't think New York City is a particularly good place for an Apple/Google HQ. These companies have big open-space office parks, rather than monolithic skyscrapers, for a reason. Several reasons, probably, including ease of extension, the tastes of their employees, the need to get a lot of stuff in and out, et cetera.