The relationship between nature and sustainability is quite apparent. It is clear that without nature, mankind would not be able to sustain itself. Humans require many natural resources in order to operate even the most modern technological inventions: we depend on plants and animals as sources of energy; in order to build new structures, we use raw materials from plants and the earth; for transportation we require rivers and oceans for our ships and crude oil to run our cars; we need either wind, water, and solar energy to power most of our modern day mechanisms. These are only several examples of how mankind relies on nature in order to sustain itself. In truth, every thing us humans use has a natural origin.

Sustainability also calls for the need to ensure that there are enough natural resources for future generations as well. Presently, the rate at which mankind is consuming the planet’s nonrenewable resources is incredibly rapid, endangering the welfare of those yet to be born. It is difficult to be mindful of how gravely the consequences of our actions will affect people in the future, because in reality we have very little incentive to care. After all, we will not be alive long enough to suffer the negative outcome of living so rashly and inconsiderately. We do not spend much time fretting over how our children and grandchildren will get by many decades from now. Yet it is crucial that we spread awareness regarding the importance of preserving nature’s resources, to guarantee that the human race will be able to continue to sustain itself. Nature is the foundation for our entire existence, and without it we would not survive. Surely not even the most superior technological discovery in the world will ever free us from being dependent on raw, natural resources.

It was interesting to read Gandy’s recount of Central Park’s background, which reveals those who originally advocated its creation, their reasons for wanting a grand public space in Manhattan, and how the park was ultimately conceived and constructed. Aside from the aesthetics of a public garden and the desire to emulate Europe’s luxuriant and picturesque nature-filled spaces, people also felt that the park would possess valuable “curative and circulatory powers.” They believed that the massive streak of green would work as “urban lungs” for the City’s working class, on top of serving as “a symbol of both political and aesthetic achievement” for the wealthy.

There is immense truth in the statement that “air is disinfected by sunlight and foliage.” Ultimately, the park’s history clearly ties back to the discussion of the relationship between nature and sustainability, as many saw the creation of a public green as an essential element in maintaining a “healthy functioning” city such as New York.

A final thought that ran through my mind while perusing Concrete and Clay involved the fact that rich Republicans were responsible for the birth of Central Park, meaning many of the poor and working class were displaced due to its formation. It is therefore interesting to contemplate the scenario of the grand park’s creation occurring in present day as opposed to in the mid-1900s, since the City today is indubitably primarily Democratic. Would the wealthy still be able to overpower the will of the masses? Lastly, to what extent has Central Park really helped relieve the high levels of pollution found in NYC today? Were the livelihoods of those who were flushed out by its construction worth it in the end?