Author: Dzvinka

Looking at the first page of the article, I am reminded of an advertisement for the city – promoting people to come visit it. All jokes aside, I really liked this article and was impressed with the initiatives that the UAE is constantly undertaking. Through this project, Abu Dhabi hopes to expand its economy, expand its position in the global energy markets, position the UAE is a leader of sustainable technologies, and most importantly – “make a meaningful contribution toward solving some of the world’s most pressing problems.” It seems rather ambitious, but it does have good intentions.

A section that I liked most was then the authors were talking about the three E’s, more specifically the part on economics. UAE has identified the potential problem that in the future it will not be able to generate the money that it currently does from oil due to several factors, and is beginning to shift its focus to something else. I think this is a great example of how urban planning should always be perceived – identifying the problem before it happens, unlike all other cities that are now knee-deep with infrastructure problems and resource problems.

I did not like how the article was set up. It had a very good start, explaining the various aspects of Masdar and how it would benefit both the people and the nation as a whole. However, as it went into greater detail for these projects, I began to grow skeptical. The projects that Masdar hopes to undertake are very ambitious and do not seem to be as feasible as described. Although funding may not be a huge problem, as the article describes, only the wealthy would be able to afford to reside in the city and everyone else will be commuting. The authors described Masdar and its projects, and made the reader excited to see the city come to life, but shut that down real quick by explaining how most of this will not be possible given the climate in which the city is situated in.

I agree with the author that it’s difficult to just build a city from scratch like that, and have so many ambitious projects to undertake at once, but urban planners in other cities should use this as a model. I did my term paper on resource management and sustainability, and focused on the conflicts that urban planners have for finding the most effective solutions; and I think that this type of project is something they should consider. Though unlikely anyone will want to tear down a city and start from the beginning, there is always the option of implementing new projects in any city. There is always construction to fix current infrastructure, but how about instead of fixing it, we slowly replace it with something better?

I found this article really interesting, and light pollution wasn’t something I looked into before. I think this article did a great job describing all the aspects of light pollution ranging from its effects on humans to wildlife, despite the lack of solutions that it provided (it was really informative and made me think about solutions instead of just being presented with them). What I found most striking was the effects of light pollution on sea turtles. Never before have I noticed much lighting on beaches, but learned that it disrupts the turtles’ nesting patterns and even discourages them from laying their eggs on the beaches. Another point that was interesting and surprising was the great number of birds and their migratory patterns that are affected because of the city lights. From previous readings, I knew that birds were affected, but the statistics that this article provides are just shocking. “Each year in New York City alone, about 10,000 migratory birds are injured or killed crashing into skyscrapers and high-rise buildings…” 10,000 birds each year! And we’re only talking about one city! Thus, it’s not surprising that so many bird species are close to extinction.

The article then goes on to talk about light pollution and its effects on humans, and opens up with a rather negative statement that “exposure to light during the night can disrupt circadian and neuroendocrine physiology, thereby accelerating tumor growth.” How wonderful – accelerating tumor growth. I find that interesting because on one hand, an adult needs around 7-8 hours of sleep so if you go to bed around midnight (when it’s dark and you obviously use electricity), you’ll be well-rested by early morning. You also see many students pulling all-nighters, or even staying up late utilizing electricity. On the other hand, you have this statistic that says light exposure at night can accelerate tumor growth. Does that mean by sundown we should all go to bed (rhetorical question)?

Furthermore, there are jobs that require night shifts, or working long hours so light exposure during the night is inevitable. Although I am grateful that we have electricity, everything does come at a price. Additionally, I think some of the things that humans should consider is shortening night shifts for workers (not talking about the economic aspect of labor, but purely scientific) and cutting down work hours of certain jobs. Yes, people who work in these areas do know that they will be working during the night, but they should not have to be exposed to more light pollution that could potentially be hazardous to their health. Just as advances in our world create air pollution and water pollution adn people look for ways to find better technology to mitigate those effects, I think more research needs to be put in in finding a way to mitigate light pollution (and not just for people – wildlife as well).

I think that New York City has much potential for being a city that incorporates community gardens well. Unfortunately, there are several obstacles that hinder that progress, the main one being funding. Although there are many projects that attempt to bring as much greenery to the city as possible, these projects are overlooked by the public and not much action is taken. This also correlates to the lack of public interest in these projects – for example, there is an urban farm in Battery Park, which I haven’t even known about until I walked through the park.

Furthermore, there are green areas in the city that are not open to the public such as the private park on Lexington, a block away from Baruch. In terms of community gardens serving a purpose to help the environment, they not only prevent stormwater runoff but contribute to mitigating air pollution. The academic paper states that in New York City the community gardens are known for their “role in food production, environmental education, and youth employment” however, there is not much knowledge beyond that sphere. It is important to stress community efforts in these projects because they are long-term and only through everyone’s participation would they be well-maintained.

I think what makes this article stand out from any other that we have read was that it’s a critique of the program that was implemented after a problem occurred. It was disappointing to read how ineffectively the pollution was handled by the government given that this was one of the greatest catastrophes in the United States. I think that the EPA did expect much debris and pollution, but clearly underestimated those consequences.

I did not know much about the efforts the government undertook to clean Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn until reading this piece, but I was left disappointed with how little the EPA did. Reflecting on what others wrote, I agree that this is the government’s responsibility to address these problems because it is the government’s job to protect the people — which is not limited to only terrorist actions and military acts; it needs to keep the people safe from pollutants and increase awareness for growing scarcities of resources. This also goes to say that the government should do a better job at performing tasks that it’s currently undertaking — such as having done a better job at cleaning the air systems in buildings.

I enjoyed reading this article because it provided some new insight that we’ve never really talked about in class. I liked the opening statements of the article, particularly how green spaces “serve as a place of identity, memory and belonging”. When I first read over that sentence, I thought that it wasn’t really true because New York City does have green spaces (all the parks, etc.) but I’ve never felt them serving as a function of the above quoted text. However, as I continued reading the article, I began to understand how it does serve those functions. Furthermore, I liked how the article pointed out that the value of a city depends on the city’s ability to incorporate other environments (office buildings, other public buildings) into the green spaces, not the other way around. We always talk about adding green spaces into our current environments, but never thought about doing so the other way around. I think that provided a strong point advocating green architecture.

The article then shifted to talking about Baku, examining how this Azerbaijanian city does just that. It is able to build and expand itself around the green spaces instead of tearing everything down and then having to worry about adding greenery. Although this isn’t something that’s feasible for established metropolitan areas such as Manhattan, I think that there is still something that can be done to the outer boroughs that have not yet been occupied with skyscrapers and buildings that are essentially one top of the other. I think something that we can take from Baku’s green architecture is their environmental policy / environmental auditing, as they call it. New York makes effort to become more “green” but I think that there’s more than can be done. Currently, Battery Park has an urban farm that I have seen been tended to by volunteers throughout the summer (I would walk through the park to get to work), and that’s great on one hand. On the other hand, there is so much air pollution from cars in that area that I, for example, wouldn’t want to consume that vegetation (I digress; this raises a different problem, relating to air pollution). The article mentions how Baku has people who regularly check the waters and sand, and I think that’s something we can do here. We discuss how disgusting the Hudson is, or some of the beaches are always in not so pleasant conditions, why don’t we do something like this? I think this is something that the government is responsible for implementing and enforcing, and then the goal should be to spread and notify the people.

I liked reading this article, and also thought that it was a great way to lead noise pollution into scientific facts from the previous article. I’ve never really thought about the various aspects in which noise pollution affects our health, more specifically how it impacts us both physically and mentally. I think that even though we can’t always control how much sound is emitted on the streets, etc. we can control isolated areas. For example, I take the Staten Island Ferry every morning, and there are certain areas on the ferry that are labeled as “Voluntary Quiet Zones”. As the article mentions, noises can contribute to agitation and annoyance (as per section 7), and the ferry attempts to mitigate that by those quiet zones. This is a great idea, I think, because in the mornings and evenings, people are tired and would like some quiet instead of having to share space with someone blasting music, for example. Actually, this morning I was sitting in one of the quiet spaces, and some guy was playing music on his phone without headphones, and the captain and police came and tried to kick him out (which didn’t work, he just stopped playing the music), but Staten Islanders take their silence and quiet zones seriously.

Continuing from what I wrote about in the last post, I think that there will always be a trade off between where we live and the noise levels associated. Since society is becoming more urbanized, attaining quiet will be more and more difficult. However, I think this should provide an incentive for people to get out into nature more. That makes sense, right? As long as people are aware of the negative effects of noise pollution they would be more willing, or at least be somehow encouraged to get out into nature more. But this also goes back to the entire aspect of not having enough time to do these things because many people are aware of air pollution, yet no one makes the effort of getting out of the city to get some fresh air.

I really liked reading this article for two reasons: it wasn’t a bland piece of work, and it gave me a new perspective on noise pollution. After skimming through some of the responses that other classmates wrote, I agree that New Yorkers complain too much and think that everyone wants their surrounds to adapt to THEIR lifestyle, not the other way around. I agree that if you call 311 about a complaint regarding loud music and parties, then you should relocate. (However, given the high demand for living space paired with high rent, this is problematic for many people and the only short-term solution is to just deal with it.) I also think that people also adapt to their environments; I used to live in East Village, and the windows of my apartment would look out to some restaurant’s garden/terrace, and every evening (especially the weekends), the people would be so loud that it was nearly impossible to even hear yourself think. However, over time I grew accustomed to it and that noise wasn’t bothersome.

In my opinion, what accounts for so many noise complaint calls is that overall stress people face. Living in New York City is like living in the fast lane, you don’t really have a chance to slow down and enjoy what’s around you because everyone around is always in a rush to work, etc and you get caught up in it too. So when you come home, the only time you feel like you can relax, you have to put up with all the loud music and partying, and overnight construction etc and that just gets on your nerves. This also goes to say that this is part of the price you have to pay of living in such a large city. However, not all hope is lost for those who want some peace in quiet. Because the article was able to divide the city into various neighborhoods based on their main sources of sound pollution, people can find many ways to address this general problem (fixing one problem at a time). Lastly, although the article did a great job explaining various aspects of sound pollution on people, I think it should’ve also addressed (at least mentioned) the effects of sound pollution on animals in the city.

I agree with everyone that this is an optimistic paper, and do think that the plans proposed in this are very ambitious. However, contrary to what everyone is saying, that this plan is too ambitious, I think it’s actually a good thing. This shows that people are enthusiastic about making change, and even though the plans may seem unrealistic to complete in the short term, they are definitely beneficial in the long-run. After all, we’re always focusing our discussions on making changes that impact not only us, but the generations after us – thus having such ambitious plans is great.

Furthermore, I think this ties into the education aspect of making change. My high school was located right by the Hudson, but we never had any classes that taught us anything about the Hudson River. Any environmental classes were kept general, and I think that should change. For example, when talking about water sources, etc. teachers could make great examples of the Hudson River. I think that it’s great news that so many species are reappearing both in the river, and in the surrounding ecosystems, and if we continue to make effort to change, we will succeed.

I liked reading this article for several reasons. It clearly identified a solution that New York City can implement to improve both the quality of life, in terms of people saving money, and also result in less pollution/be more environmentally-friendly. It does a great job outlining the barriers that prevent the city from switching to the solar thermal systems. The lack of awareness is understandable because there are many people who don’t know about most of the projects the city is undertaking, and there needs to be a way to change that. I think that the benefits provided by this system easily outweigh the costs (for example, it talks about how this creates jobs). However, the lack of financing and lack of incentive are what really contribute to the lack of change. It’s disappointing to read how after conducting these experiments, and having people see significant changes in how the buildings operate and save money, to still have them hesitant to implement the solar thermals. They need to be given economic incentive — as seen from the chart, if they’re given funding they’re more likely to pay back for the systems quicker and to actually install them. Furthermore, it’s also important to note how people may react to having to install the solar panels on their roofs. We have companies promoting the installation of solar panels for energy, and not many people are switching over. Is it because they aren’t aware of the benefits, or is it because they think these solar panels take away from the aesthetics of the city? (Which doesn’t make sense because the panels go on the roof, and you can’t even see the roof unless you have access to — in which case, surround the panels with plants? I digress.) Additionally, the article states that some areas require more of these panels to provide the same amount of energy. However, I think that the buildings that are able to function on the least amount of these panels should be the first ones to install them. As we find new and better ways of improving technology, this goes to say that once we start developing and looking further into how to best maximize the utility of the panels, we’ll be able to alter them in such a way the best suits the area where they need to be installed.

Overall, I think that this idea can provide long-term benefits to New York City, and people need to realize that instead of focusing on installation costs and any other costs associated with this.

Dear all,

Please read the following article for Monday: “Resource management as a key factor for sustainable urban planning” (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030147971100171X)