Often people desire housing near a shore because most people find the view pleasant and it offers much different activities that what can be done purely on land. Originally, I felt that putting structures near the waterfront was completely fine. The people who buy it ought to assume that a storm (no matter how likely or unlikely it is to occur) would put them at risk. However, this constant push towards adding more real estate to these shores are creating a much bigger problem. Turning to Melissa Checker’s, Green is the New Brown first – she highlights several instances where the building of pleasing structures took precedent over toxic chemicals. For example, in New Orleans “Research conducted in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina demonstrates that floodwaters dislodged and distributed heavy metals,” and “that storm surges have breached retaining walls and other barriers meant to seal in toxic contaminants” (Checker 171). Despite this, no plans were made to cap the contamination despite comments from the public urging for this action. Private companies get away with not cleaning up toxic waste due to the exemptions that they get. Checker notes, “To attract the business of private developers, these firms tend to emphasize cost-saving measures that provide the minimum necessary environmental solutions” (171).
This becomes even more relevant in light of the devastating storm Hurricane Sandy. Greenberg’s The Disaster Inside the Disaster writes, “Most immediately, the devastation Sandy caused in Lower Manhattan was partly a result of shortsighted, market-oriented, post-9/11 redevelopment” (49). This statement was made because a large amount of federal money was used to make luxury residential and commercial towers near low lying water fronts to boost real estate. The claim was that through technology (which would be built along with the residential and commercial towers) the city would be able to make flood areas less dangerous. Greenberg argues “a technological fix will not build real resilience, as it will not address the broader social and environmental inequalities that increase vulnerability and lay the ground for future crisis” (50). While wealthy areas might be spared from storms, it doesn’t help the low income areas who have been suffering from nature’s fury for years. No one is going to come to these areas and provide these technological barriers without some form of income. If they can grab land and transform it to a new real estate market then the technology will certainly follow. However, this just ends up being a loop where the poor are pushed out and once again at the mercy of violent storms.
So what about the people who already live by the water? It seems from the testimony of Mundy from Murphy’s The Flood Next Time – most people even with the knowledge of the incoming floods would choose to remain where they were. Since the danger is not imminent, but perhaps a few years down the road, they don’t seem to care. It is a fact that water levels will continue to rise in the coming of years. I happen to agree that receding from the shore lines would be much too costly and difficult to pull off. However, that doesn’t mean that we should continue to build MORE structures near the water just because it can make a profit. This is a set up for a huge disaster. If we can’t move people away, we certainly should not be moving more people in. Murphy notes that some places like Chicago manage to lift itself two feet to change the course of its river (16). So using technology and not giving in to nature is very much possible for a place like New York. Yet at the same time there is still the possibility that we will not outsmart the future storms.
I did some research to look at the potential plans of remedying the rising level of water (since nobody seems to want to move away from the water’s edge residents and developers alike) and found an article on the NYTimes. Alan Feuer’s Building For the Next Big Storm seems to have some interesting ideas. There was a mixture of proposals from planting oyster beds to creating levees to protect the island. The most ambitious one that has caught the eyes of many people was and idea proposed called the Big U would defend the coastline of Manhattan and disguise itself as waterfront parks. The idea was for it to fit in with upscale look of New York and be aesthetically pleasing, but also protect Manhattan. I have to admit, it looks cool, but I have to think about what Greenberg said about how this doesn’t address social and environmental inequalities. Such a massive construction would cater to the wealthy who would be able to afford real estate near it. On one hand, I think if technology provides us a way to protect ourselves we should definitely use it. Yet, if it’s not available for everyone, and people become more focused on making pleasing structures rather than getting rid of environmental toxins what’s the point? It seems that there is a trend of saying plans will help an environmental issues when in actuality, it is a real estate, profit making project.
Extra source:
