East River

Please tell me that you're an advanced AI bot. That would explain so many odd and extremely random questions that you personally have percolated over the years.

The East River is not a river but an estuary. Damming this salt water tidal estuary would likely flood a fair bit of lower Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn already at or below the flood plain level.

Plus the multibillion dollar real estate management corps would be severely pissed to lose much of their premium view related riverfront property.

Not failing to mention the environmental cleanup needed to turn the once very polluted riverbed into land that could be considered for residential buildings.

I think you are onto something, here. Let's just use rivers and rising sea levels to get our pollution safely out of sight.

The East River (is an estuary and as the wiki states... estuaries by large populated cities have natural difficulties dealing with sediment build up) has been dredged many times over the past decades. But the river has been a dumping ground for unsavory manufacturing companies for a very long time.

Recent catastrophes like the Con Edison 2017 oil spill can't help but keep the river in nightmare territory (environmentally wise).

Let me take this opportunity to express my pleasure with and my admiration for your contributions here.

tsarstepan-

Thank you for your (un)kind reply.

I acknowledge that which I have broached may be impracticable.

I admit I am not an engineer and there there may be technical difficulties or even impossible hurdles that I am not aware of.

I think the Netherlands and possibly other countries have dredged bod(ies) of water and then used the dry land. Possibly the East River is dissimilar to their situation.

I accept that the East River is actually an estuary.

I think one dam could be built to wall off New York Bay and another to wall off Long Island Sound.

You state that damming the estuary would likely flood part of lower Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn already at or below the flood plain level.

I guess you may be correct. I think that New York Bay is part of the Atlantic Ocean. My proposed dam would reduce the area of the ocean by such a small percentage that I would not guess that it would cause the water level to significantly rise.

I acknowledge that existing owners of land might oppose my proposal because it might harm the view from land that they own or that it would increase the supply of land and thereby reduce the price of land.

P.S. - Henry George wrote about taxing land to address societal problems. He then ran for Mayor of New York City. He came in second behind the Tammany Hall candidate but Theodore Roosevelt (the future President of the United States) came in third.

Another Opinion:

Dam the East River.

First, a northern dam would span Horns Hook at 90th Street in Manhattan to Hallets Point in Astoria, Queens. The southern counterpart could stretch from Battery Park in southern Manhattan to Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn.
Continue reading the main story

The flow of water from Long Island Sound and the Harlem River would thus be harmlessly rerouted into the Hudson, while a vast dry valley would be created by draining off the waters between Manhattan and Brooklyn. Then it should be filled in. The reclaimed area, perhaps 2,000 acres of newfound land, could be called - what else? - Brookhattan.

Consider the advantages. Traffic congestion caused by the failure of the major East River bridges could be eased by extending Manhattan's grid across the reclaimed Brookhattan territory. Hundreds of new cross streets could be named after prominent local politicians. Parking space could be ''condoed'' to help pay for the road construction.

Half of Brookhattan's acreage could be signed over tax-free to real estate developers who promise to build unaffordable luxury housing, a dearth of which is apparently impending in Manhattan.

Simultaneously, the other half of the reclaimed territory could be given over to low-rise tent cities - no, to tin and cardboard shanty cities. Here drug dealers recently evicted from substandard New York-owned buildings could live, properly policed from both ''shores.''

Because of the increased access to Manhattan via Brookhattan, subway service to Brooklyn and Queens could be allowed to further deteriorate, saving the Metropolitan Transporation Authority untold millions of dollars in repair and replacement costs.

Quaint footpaths could be built around the sides of Roosevelt ex-Island and lined with shops displaced by unregulated commercial rents. This development, not far from Bloomingdale's and Alexander's, could be renamed Mount Roosevelt Mall and serve as a mecca for shopping pilgrims from all over the world.

The Williamsburg Bridge (along with the controversial Pepsi-Cola sign in Long Island City) could be granted landmark status and, as a pile of abstractly fallen girders, could be left as a monument to foresight and effective management.

As for the maintenance of the dams, these simple earthern structures could easily be maintained by using New York's increasing volume of trash as landfill. In fact, they could be entirely constructed of garbage, and tamped into place by 18-wheel trucks unable to use city bridges.

It's not hard to see how this fertile crescent would be financed. As it did with the Polo Grounds and the old Yankee Stadium, the city could sell off parts of the old bridges. Surely, retiring commuters would want souvenirs of the places where they spent half their lives.

See: https://www.nytimes.com/1988/04/26/opinion/fill-in-the-east-river.html

One of the difficulties of damming the East River is that it has a changing flow. Sometimes northward, sometimes heading south.

As to the landfill idea (filling up the space with soil), and the idea of lower costs for property, not too likely. Filled in space in NYC run at premium rates. Think Battery Park City and a large portion of the Wall Street area. Both rest atop land which was once water.

Sturgis-

Thank you.

I accept that the East River's flow changes direction with the tide.

I don't think that landfill would be needed. Once the water is drained off, the land (i.e., the river bed) would be right there under our feet.

You indicate that Battery Park City "runs" at premium rates (i.e., the land sells at premium rates). My understanding is that the land is owned by the Hugh L. Carey Battery Park City Authority, a Class A New York State public-benefit corporation Therefore since the creation of the BPCA none of its land has sold at any price.

There are several high rise apartment buildings which have been built on the site. Similar to many trailer parks, land is owned by one entity but leased to and has occupied by others. The buildings have rental rates which in general exceed the amounts found elsewhere in the city. Due to the high rent, it would not be beneficial to moderate or low income individuals. My guess is that the same would happen if the land between Manhattan and Brooklyn were to be filled in.

Sturgis-

Thank you.

You may be right. I was thinking that the aggregate additional area of land (i.e., the supply) created would be so large that the price to buy or rent it would go down.

What prevents them from flooding right now?

I'm going to guess 'flood plain level is above the normal high water mark.

Emphasize the word 'guess'.

Filling in the land would likely be a bit safer. Otherwise, people who lived in this artificially-dry valley would be one dam-break away from drowning.

Exquisite sarcasm.

Have you ever visited the Netherlands? If you do you'll notice a range of dykes and canals criss crossing the country. These are essential to stop flooding, it's not just about holding the sea back.

Any land reclamation would involve making new waterways, and I would imagine in NYC that would involve some prime real estate.

I've changed my mind, any scheme that necessitates the demolition of Trump Towers can't be all bad.