After reading “A Walker in the City”, by Alfred Kazin, a question popped into my head: what exactly defines New York City? New York is known for its diversity, its world renowned landmarks, and its never-sleeping residents. New York cannot be defined by any one trait, but, the question is, can the alteration of any of the traits change the definition of what is New York? Alfred Kazin describes the drastic development of his neighborhood over the course of his life. The city, like Kazin’s neighborhood, has gone through intensive development but does this development change the nature of New York or does the nature of New York already account for such a change. In simpler terms, does infrastructural development, or any change of similar nature, alter what people define as New York? If New York City lost its Empire State Building like it lost the Twin Towers, or if the city lost its diversity or its restless inhabitants will New York City still be New York City?
I understand that it takes more than one characteristic to define New York City and so I believe that it takes more than one trait to destroy the definition. Losing the Twin Towers was a tragic and unfortunate lost to the city, however, it did not change what people saw as New York City. I believe it would take more than a landmark to change how I see New York City. However, I do not know to what extent must city change in order for it no longer be considered the New York City as we know it. How much must New York City transform until it is a different city?
