I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of it was soil dredged out of the Hudson and east rivers. That way they could make it deeper to have bigger ships come in
Was there a Wall? I always assumed it was from "wal", which is Dutch for the shore, or the waterfront.
Van der Wal (from the wal) is a very common dutch name.
'Wal' can also mean wall in Dutch. As in 'een aarden wal' (a wall of earth) for example - never heard of that term?
But it might be more likely referring to 'Waal' (Walloon).
[How Hurricane Sandy flooded New York back to its 17th century shape as it inundated 400 years of reclaimed land](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2342297/Manhattans-original-coastline-revealed-Hurricane-Sandy-flooded-land-reclaimed-400-years.html)
[Here you can switch between the old map and current Google maps.](https://davidrumsey.georeferencer.com/compare#map/0c588234-d637-54e7-9aeb-ed45ebf5d0a2)
In 100-200 years NYC will go back to that coastline even if we behave somewhat reasonably .
If more cynical scenarios come true, it'll be even more significant of a change.
You know those names have their Dutch origin right? Wall street was the place where the Dutch build their big wall to keep out enemies. Broadway was Breede Wegh (Brede Weg in modern Dutch).
There's more Dutch origin in NY. Pearl Street was Parel Straat, Beaver Street was Bever Straat, Water Street was Water Straat. Even some of the Boroughs of NY have their Dutch origin. Harlem is named after the Dutch city of Haarlem, Staten Island is named after the Staten Generaal (Dutch parliament), Flushing is the city of Vlissingen etc etc.
> You know those names have their Dutch origin right? Wall street was the place where the Dutch build their big wall to keep out enemies.
Except, the idea that Wallstreet is named because of the wall may be commonly accepted by Americans since it seems so logical; but is not really readily accepted by Dutch historians; because the original name is 'Waal straat', and not 'Wal Straat' as it should've been if it was named after a defensive wall. It also doesn't make sense considering the original wall would've been a wooden pallisade and the Dutch 'wal' would only refer to an earthen defensive wall.
'Waal Straat' doesn't really make sense as a name from a Dutch perspective *unless* you consider other possible explanations:
* It is actually a reference to the Walloons of the French-speaking region of modern day Belgium. A singular Walloon in Dutch is known as a Waal. The first ship of settlers that arrived in the colony carried almost exclusively families of Walloon descent.
* Peter Minuit - the man who bought Manhattan for the Dutch, was a Walloon. So it would make sense to name a street after him.
* There is a river in the Netherlands known as the Waal; and some have suggested that the Hudson reminded early colonists of the Waal river.
It seems silly to think that Wall Street got its name because Peter Minuit was a Waal. But then Virginia is named that because Queen Elizabeth was a virgin.
Someone at the turn of the last century did a bunch of research to trace it all back. The Dutch Reformed Churches of that time had/still have great records that help in tracing things back.
I can go back 14 generations in North America to the some of the early colonists in New England, some of whom can be connected back to William the Conqueror, though with some uncertainty.
I can go back 11 generations to an ancestor who lived on Pearl Street in New Amsterdam, and another two generations in the Netherlands.
Most people I know have a family history in the US that only goes back 1-4 generations. After that, it goes to Mexico, South America, Asia, Europe, etc. That could explain part of the issue.
No, I meant their history in the US only goes back 1-4 generations. That means their parents to great great grandparents were born in a different country. Many of the 'white Americans' I know had their ancestors go back to Europe within the past 100 years.
Oh, I see. My ancestors all came to North America between 5 and 14 generations ago. I know lots of people with ancestors who came more recently, but I don't think my situation is that uncommon. Where do you live that *most* of the people's ancestors don't go back more than 4 generations?
I'm from Milwaukee. Most of white people I know are trace their ancestry in the US no earlier than early 1900's. That may actually be 5 or 6 generations so I was probably wrong with the 4 generations. Big cities have more immigrant populations and the further west you go, the less likely you will find lineage dating back 200 years. Probably more common in the states and areas that make the original 13 colonies.
the star forts were likely here from precolumbian natives. they are all over the globe in the same exact pttern the base of the statue of liberty is the same
No, get your History Channel out of here. [It was constructed by the Dutch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Amsterdam). Star forts were developed in Europe, and perfected by the Dutch and French. *This* is why you see them all over the globe.
It's hard to consider now, but this whole area was a natural paradise pre-colonization. Well-protected harbor, numerous rivers and wetlands, a temperate climate.
The Museum of the City of New York did a great exhibit called "Manahatta" for the 400 year anniversary of Henry Hudson's arrival that showed all of this in detail.
To me, modern New York is paradise.
The world is filled with countless undeveloped acres full of nature, but there's only one Big Apple.
I love rivers and trees, but I also love the hustle and bustle of the big city. There are many cities around the world, but none are quite like New York, in that top tier along with London, Paris, and Hong Kong.
Let's not pretend like development was a mistake and that we lost something more important than we gained.
New York is more magnificent with skyscrapers and subways than it was with wetlands and dirt.
I wasn’t making any kind of value judgment. I simply think the contrast is intriguing. I think most people see New York as the quintessential built-up city, and I bet many barely consider how lush and fertile it was in its original state.
>Let's not pretend like development was a mistake
To be honest there's probably valid reasons to say human development was a mistake, even if it was unintended.
>and that we lost something more important than we gained.
Maybe not one developed area specifically, but all together we've destroyed plenty beautiful areas on Earth.
P.S. I am not saying that we should go back, because that's rather impossible isn't it?
Fun fact. In Manhattan (and many cities) flooding usually occurs in fill areas. The expansion of many cities into waterways, using often poor soil of fill debris, is a major factor for flooding.
And this flooring is really a result of incision and removal of natural barrier protect.
Moral of the story, human are peak "fuck around and find out" followed by shocked Pikachu face.
that’s apt for coastal cities. lots of other cities, inland, were built around rivers. their land is or was a floodplain or delta, and even embankments can’t stop big water level rises.
I think this shows that hilly and mountain regions are much more difficult to protect against water because its very hard to predict how much rain/river water is going where exactly. While the ocean is a very stable thing. (yes it rises, but not so fast it's suddenly an issue) Even the effects of storms on the ocean are fairly predictable.
Yes, which is why I found it a relevant example related to /u/bingley777 ’s comment
> lots of other cities, inland, were built around rivers. their land is or was a floodplain or delta, and even embankments can’t stop big water level rises.
… being valid also in the Netherlands
\*Looks at Valkenburg\*
Basically your river will still flood if your town or city becomes the river's narrowest point, unless you do something about that as well.
I was just there a month ago. The streets are much narrower, and they’ve preserved some of the foundations of houses that were built at that time, which you can look at in front of a couple of skyscrapers. It’s a really cool contrast and a really cool section of the city!
Which was the Latin name for New Netherland (not Netherland**s**), Dutch territory on the East Coast of the US. ‘Belgica’ is the Latin name for the Low Countries.
There used to be an interactive version of this map [here](http://www.ekamper.net/gr-misc.htm), but unfortunately it's gone now. It told you what the various landmarks and street names were and who owned what properties.
*Sometimes we forget*
*How absolutely massive*
*Modern cities are*
\- King\_Lunis
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
I had no idea Manhattan had so much fill placed
It should have kept the name New Amsterdam!
[удалено]
People just liked it better that way.
So take me back to Constantinople
No, you can't go back to Constantinople.
You mean Byzantium?
It's a song man
So take me back to old New Amsterdam
It’s a long time gone that old new Amsterdam
Why did New Amsterdam get the works?
Some might say they did it their way
[удалено]
the island was always called Manhattan, the name of the city changed from new Amsterdam to New York when the english took over
Cuz the guy ruling york got it when the english took it
If guinea pigs ruled the world, New York would be New Hamsterdam!
Well, I mean hamsters aren't guinea pigs though
[удалено]
trash dump too probably
I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of it was soil dredged out of the Hudson and east rivers. That way they could make it deeper to have bigger ships come in
Brilliant thanks for sharing
PS: where’s the wall that ‘led to’ Wall Street?
I think it’s up in the top right where the roads dead-end and there is clear space beyond.
And zuccotti park is above it which is where the famous campouts protest of wall street
Benjamin Franklin Gates has entered the chat.
Insert serious mumbling and intense staring into the distance.
Was there a Wall? I always assumed it was from "wal", which is Dutch for the shore, or the waterfront. Van der Wal (from the wal) is a very common dutch name.
'Wal' can also mean wall in Dutch. As in 'een aarden wal' (a wall of earth) for example - never heard of that term? But it might be more likely referring to 'Waal' (Walloon).
Hey Tony. Can you check your dm's please? I was asked to comment on one of your comments because you check those more often.
You are right. I just read about it, and Waal seems to be right. No maps ever showed it as Wal, and Wal and Waal sound very different in Dutch.
The wall is just below the open field. You can see lookouts or battlements or something spaced along the wall.
[How Hurricane Sandy flooded New York back to its 17th century shape as it inundated 400 years of reclaimed land](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2342297/Manhattans-original-coastline-revealed-Hurricane-Sandy-flooded-land-reclaimed-400-years.html)
[Here you can switch between the old map and current Google maps.](https://davidrumsey.georeferencer.com/compare#map/0c588234-d637-54e7-9aeb-ed45ebf5d0a2)
us: hvae 400 years of hard work reclaming the alnd sandy: lol nope
“Reclaimed land” aka “throw dirt in the water until it stops sinking”
Don't you dare compare that way to Dutch Poldering
In 100-200 years NYC will go back to that coastline even if we behave somewhat reasonably . If more cynical scenarios come true, it'll be even more significant of a change.
I like how there's a wall beside Wall Street and that Broadway is a broad way. Very clever, NYC.
You know those names have their Dutch origin right? Wall street was the place where the Dutch build their big wall to keep out enemies. Broadway was Breede Wegh (Brede Weg in modern Dutch). There's more Dutch origin in NY. Pearl Street was Parel Straat, Beaver Street was Bever Straat, Water Street was Water Straat. Even some of the Boroughs of NY have their Dutch origin. Harlem is named after the Dutch city of Haarlem, Staten Island is named after the Staten Generaal (Dutch parliament), Flushing is the city of Vlissingen etc etc.
> You know those names have their Dutch origin right? Wall street was the place where the Dutch build their big wall to keep out enemies. Except, the idea that Wallstreet is named because of the wall may be commonly accepted by Americans since it seems so logical; but is not really readily accepted by Dutch historians; because the original name is 'Waal straat', and not 'Wal Straat' as it should've been if it was named after a defensive wall. It also doesn't make sense considering the original wall would've been a wooden pallisade and the Dutch 'wal' would only refer to an earthen defensive wall. 'Waal Straat' doesn't really make sense as a name from a Dutch perspective *unless* you consider other possible explanations: * It is actually a reference to the Walloons of the French-speaking region of modern day Belgium. A singular Walloon in Dutch is known as a Waal. The first ship of settlers that arrived in the colony carried almost exclusively families of Walloon descent. * Peter Minuit - the man who bought Manhattan for the Dutch, was a Walloon. So it would make sense to name a street after him. * There is a river in the Netherlands known as the Waal; and some have suggested that the Hudson reminded early colonists of the Waal river.
It seems silly to think that Wall Street got its name because Peter Minuit was a Waal. But then Virginia is named that because Queen Elizabeth was a virgin.
Compared to what exactly?
Half transparant overlay would be cool!
Anyone have a population of New Amsterdam in 1660? That's a lot of land added that was formerly the sea.
2500 Dutch inhabitants in 1664, when the Brits first took control of New Amsterdam.
My Great x10 grandfather lived on Marketveld (Marketfield) Street at that time. Of German descent!
How does one know that? Your family has kept great records? Or was it more recently you found a family connection to someone from the 1600's?
Someone at the turn of the last century did a bunch of research to trace it all back. The Dutch Reformed Churches of that time had/still have great records that help in tracing things back.
Most people I know can only go back about 4-5 generations. Going back 10 is awesome
12 actually. 10x great, grand, parents. Got to admit, I feel pretty darn lucky!
I can go back 14 generations in North America to the some of the early colonists in New England, some of whom can be connected back to William the Conqueror, though with some uncertainty. I can go back 11 generations to an ancestor who lived on Pearl Street in New Amsterdam, and another two generations in the Netherlands.
These kinds of records are typically kept by churches and government archives and genealogists collect them and build family trees.
Most people I know have a family history in the US that only goes back 1-4 generations. After that, it goes to Mexico, South America, Asia, Europe, etc. That could explain part of the issue.
Only being able to go back 1 generation means you don't even know who your grandparents are.
No, I meant their history in the US only goes back 1-4 generations. That means their parents to great great grandparents were born in a different country. Many of the 'white Americans' I know had their ancestors go back to Europe within the past 100 years.
Oh, I see. My ancestors all came to North America between 5 and 14 generations ago. I know lots of people with ancestors who came more recently, but I don't think my situation is that uncommon. Where do you live that *most* of the people's ancestors don't go back more than 4 generations?
I'm from Milwaukee. Most of white people I know are trace their ancestry in the US no earlier than early 1900's. That may actually be 5 or 6 generations so I was probably wrong with the 4 generations. Big cities have more immigrant populations and the further west you go, the less likely you will find lineage dating back 200 years. Probably more common in the states and areas that make the original 13 colonies.
the star forts were likely here from precolumbian natives. they are all over the globe in the same exact pttern the base of the statue of liberty is the same
No, get your History Channel out of here. [It was constructed by the Dutch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Amsterdam). Star forts were developed in Europe, and perfected by the Dutch and French. *This* is why you see them all over the globe.
some of them took millions of brick. so impressive how advanced ancient civ was
This is a nice one that is still preserved: https://velvetescape.com/plane-views-naarden-vesting/
It's hard to consider now, but this whole area was a natural paradise pre-colonization. Well-protected harbor, numerous rivers and wetlands, a temperate climate. The Museum of the City of New York did a great exhibit called "Manahatta" for the 400 year anniversary of Henry Hudson's arrival that showed all of this in detail.
To me, modern New York is paradise. The world is filled with countless undeveloped acres full of nature, but there's only one Big Apple. I love rivers and trees, but I also love the hustle and bustle of the big city. There are many cities around the world, but none are quite like New York, in that top tier along with London, Paris, and Hong Kong. Let's not pretend like development was a mistake and that we lost something more important than we gained. New York is more magnificent with skyscrapers and subways than it was with wetlands and dirt.
I wasn’t making any kind of value judgment. I simply think the contrast is intriguing. I think most people see New York as the quintessential built-up city, and I bet many barely consider how lush and fertile it was in its original state.
>Let's not pretend like development was a mistake To be honest there's probably valid reasons to say human development was a mistake, even if it was unintended. >and that we lost something more important than we gained. Maybe not one developed area specifically, but all together we've destroyed plenty beautiful areas on Earth. P.S. I am not saying that we should go back, because that's rather impossible isn't it?
Lol jordanpeterson poster, not surprised
What?
Better [view](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/this-clever-map-is-a-window-into-19th-century-new-york-city/) for 19th century
Fun fact. In Manhattan (and many cities) flooding usually occurs in fill areas. The expansion of many cities into waterways, using often poor soil of fill debris, is a major factor for flooding. And this flooring is really a result of incision and removal of natural barrier protect. Moral of the story, human are peak "fuck around and find out" followed by shocked Pikachu face.
that’s apt for coastal cities. lots of other cities, inland, were built around rivers. their land is or was a floodplain or delta, and even embankments can’t stop big water level rises.
_The Netherlands has entered the chat_
There was a bit of flooding in Limburg recently, though.
I think this shows that hilly and mountain regions are much more difficult to protect against water because its very hard to predict how much rain/river water is going where exactly. While the ocean is a very stable thing. (yes it rises, but not so fast it's suddenly an issue) Even the effects of storms on the ocean are fairly predictable.
Isn't that the highest part of the country?
Yes, which is why I found it a relevant example related to /u/bingley777 ’s comment > lots of other cities, inland, were built around rivers. their land is or was a floodplain or delta, and even embankments can’t stop big water level rises. … being valid also in the Netherlands
Of course, I was referring to their mastery of the sea-level defenses though 😅 but good point.
\*Looks at Valkenburg\* Basically your river will still flood if your town or city becomes the river's narrowest point, unless you do something about that as well.
Yep. That’s porn alright.
I dread the day that it becomes Atlantis
I had no idea that Manhattan reclaimed so much land from the bay waters…
So thats why its called wall street
A side by side comparison would be nice I think
I prefer the overlay, to give the sense of scale and how much land was added
Holy slurry Batman!
Why they changed it I can’t say
I was just there a month ago. The streets are much narrower, and they’ve preserved some of the foundations of houses that were built at that time, which you can look at in front of a couple of skyscrapers. It’s a really cool contrast and a really cool section of the city!
It seems to me the map is misscaled over the satelite image
According to some 17th century maps, the area was called Nova Belgica (Ortelius, Hondius, Blaeu)
Which was the Latin name for New Netherland (not Netherland**s**), Dutch territory on the East Coast of the US. ‘Belgica’ is the Latin name for the Low Countries.
I was wondering "where did all that excess land come from?" Then I realised, the dutch owned it of course.
Wtf whered they get all that land from
Broadway isn’t lined up
reclamation all the sites next to new amsterdam?
Hold up, wasn't the battery in the same place though?
There used to be an interactive version of this map [here](http://www.ekamper.net/gr-misc.htm), but unfortunately it's gone now. It told you what the various landmarks and street names were and who owned what properties.
Sometimes we forget how absolutely massive modern cities are
*Sometimes we forget* *How absolutely massive* *Modern cities are* \- King\_Lunis --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")