I found this reading to be drastically different from the Miller reading. Unlike that one, I felt that this was not really written to raise people’s awareness of the nature around them or to try to persuade them to get involved in conservation efforts. Dana likened it to a eulogy in her response, and, building a bit off that, I find it to be sort of like a love letter to the Manhattan of old, the Manhattan before 97% of the land was being used by us. It is written by someone who seems pretty passionate about this topic and it is is written for people who share that passion.
This is not to say I didn’t find it interesting, even though it’s not something I would usually read through. The technical terms and scientific words proved confusing, but after consulting the trusty internet, a few things became clear: Manhattan used to be full of so much life – hardwood and softwood trees mixed together; over 66 different water networks; even grasslands that stretched between forests. These things were erased though by disturbances both of the natural and human variety.
It’s cool to see that there are some people out there who want us to know Manhattan for more than just what it is today by using the British Headquarters Map, more math than I can comprehend , GPS and other technological advances to accomplish what I see as a Herculean task.
It spurred me to do some research of what my own neighborhood looked like in the past. Fresh Pond Road, the main street, is actually named for a freshwater pond that was later filled in and there used to be many of these ponds in the area. The water in these lower ponds came from Newtown Creek, an estuary I bike over on my way to Brooklyn. So the article inspired me to look to the past to see where everything I know came from. And if anyone ever passes through the Grand Avenue – Newtown train station on the M, R, F, or E, now you know what it’s named after.
