Author: Jessica Kraker

Masdar Response

“The world’s most sustainable city” is quite the title to hold, if not a bit arrogant for my taste. But in a society where bigger is always better and people always want more, the amount of times the word “zero” is used is pretty refreshing, Zero carbon, zero waste, zero cars. Sounds a bit too much like the perfect world and my dad always taught me not to trust things that look too good. I’m pretty sure he was talking about guys, BUT I still think it’s applicable here. So what is going on???

I agree when the writer said that building a city in the middle of a dessert isn’t exactly the best way to go about things. I read their extensive section on agriculture and green belts, but what happens if those get wiped out in some freak storm? Also, I think it’s much easier to have such an environmentally friendly city when you’re literally building it from scratch. Cities around the world, cities like ours, don’t exactly have that advantage. We can only really improve on the things we have rather than create a new city. I’m a little concerned that Masdar is mostly just going to be a money maker for Abu Dhabi’s economy and if it fails to make them profit, they’ll discard it. But what do I know about business? (ZERO)

On a positive note, I think it’s pretty dope that 100% of it’s energy is renewable! Solar panels were one of my favorite things to implement when I had to plan an environmentally friendly home. Seriously, they may start off being costly but they end up reducing your energy bills so much within the first 10 years. I wish I had money for them. The thing about the mirrors and solar thermal power was also very interesting. With the wind turbines, as long as they don’t get in the way of bird migration patterns, I say go for it. Also, maybe to increase exercise do that thing with stationary bikes to generate electricity. I did that at this energy thing in the city and apparently my 15 minutes of biking generated electricity that went to Long Island City. That would be a fun thing for urbanites to do.

I love how it said the streets were made to “encourage human interaction.” No offense, but if you’ve ever seen me walking around the city, I think you can tell by my face that I do NOT want to “interact” with anyone. But I do see its merits in making the city unified. The light rail proposed sounds a bit like Holden’s trolley car idea too. The PRT reminds me of that shuttle thing from Kingsmen. Great movie. While I don’t think the thing will really work, I do believe that parts of their innovations should be implemented in NYC.

Urban Heat Island Response

Thank God this thing had so many pictures! Just kidding! In all seriousness though, this was an interesting read and the urban heat island effect was something I came across in my own research with air pollution. It’s actually connected because UHI causes more pollutants to be produced and released into the air. Or something like that, I’m no expert. So really it’s kind of in our best interest to know more about UHI. Another correlation I found between the two subjects is that they really hurt low-income Latino and African-American communities such as the Bronx. A lot of the studies I read about concerned that borough. It’s mad true that the South Bronx isn’t getting the TLC it deserves.

So what the heck are urban heat island mitigation techniques? My grandmother likes to yell at me for wearing lighter jackets when I go to school, but she doesn’t believe me when I tell her that it is just hotter in the city. Well this article proves her wrong and she can stop driving me crazy (I love you Oma, disregard that last thought). The city’s buildings have greater heat retention and without lots of trees to help cool the area down, it gets hot in herrrrre (please tell me someone just sang that line when they read it). This is the UHI effect and today I learned how to fight it. Cue superhero theme music.

Okay so first up, increasing urban vegetation such as green roofs, which is a no-brainer because that’s one of the solutions to air pollution. They mentioned planting trees and I’d recommend deciduous trees (an obvious answer). Although coniferous trees have larger filtering capacity, deciduous trees are less sensitive to pollutants so they can keep cooling the area down. They’re also better at absorbing gases. Then we have cool roofs which are coated with SRI that reflects the heat/light. I don’t know if any of you guys have worked on roofs before, but every couple of years my dad and I coat the roofs with an SRI based coat (or something similar to that). It’s silver color/ whatever the heck is in it, reflects the heat and keeps our building cooler in the summer which in turn lowers our AC bills. Cool stuff man, but don’t get it on your jeans. And wear sunglasses (but not at night). The cool pavements thing is kind of similar to thirsty concrete, so maybe we should mix the two ideas?

I don’t know about you guys, but I’m a summer weather type of gal. I like it when it’s 90 out and there’s a breeze. But the UHI effect isn’t fun and games and actually exacerbates a lot of things that already suck: energy usage levels, air pollution, increased ozone levels. These, in turn, make people get sick. It makes even more sense that mortality levels are especially high in hot weather.  Working to reduce UHI is beneficial in reducing so many other types of pollution that I’m surprised the city is still dragging it’s feet about it.

Missing the Dark Response

I guess this brings a whole new meaning to the trope, “Don’t go towards the light.” But dumb jokes aside, this was a good article that hooked me in with a little history on the pros and cons of artificial light since its conception. And I totally dig history. Just like everything else humans create, the concept of everything in moderation applies here as well. Dr. Stevens talked about how light photons can effect us by directly hitting our retinas and that living in a city like ours just increases the amount of times this happens and messes up our circadian rhythm. It’s weird because I don’t think that’s something we’d notice right away or think out of the ordinary. But it is and it’s kind of screwing us over as it messes up our sleep schedules causing insomnia and depression which I’ve been attributing to college stress, but now I’m second-guessing that.

It’s also literally messing up our perception of the world we live in. 2/3 of the US can’t see the Milky Way because of light pollution. I bet kids who’ve grown up in the city have never even seen the Little Dipper. I can remember laying on my stoop and looking up at all the constellations my grandmother taught me when I was little and every year it gets harder and harder to see them. Light pollution is taking that view away from me, away from my neighborhood, away from everyone. It may just be higher on my hit list than air pollution is and you all know how much I harp about that.

We’ve discussed how light pollution hurts the flora and fauna so this part of the article wasn’t too surprising. I usually always think of birds getting messed up by it, so their sea turtle example was pretty cool, or well not cool by the turtles’ standards. The lights mess with their instincts and baby turtles can’t find their way to the ocean. Instead they go towards the lights from roads and cars go all Mufasa on them.

The most alarming finding is that too much light can cause tumors to grow faster and cause cancer. If there is anything we can do to stop the spread of that, sign me up. The article talked about a study done about melatonin and the breast cancer in night-shift workers, but more research needs to be done.

Bike Response

I found this article to be really enlightening, which is no surprise since the highlight of my summer was getting a new bike. Most of my vacations are spent biking around my neighborhood and nearby Brooklyn. These places are full of avid bikers, so sometimes I forget that it isn’t like this everywhere.We see tons of bikers in the city every day so it was crazy to read that only 0.5% of Americans bike to work. Why is it so low? The article proposes that it is because of the lack of good facilities and I am inclined to agree. They gave us the Netherlands and Montreal as examples of working cycle tracks which are backed by extensive rules and guidelines that the citizens there have grew up with – it’s natural to them unlike in the US which seems to shun a lot of the things that are good for us, health-wise.

The study picked a good variety of tracks ranging from warm to moderate to cold which gives us a well rounded number of the people who choose to bike and I actually didn’t think the percentage of crashes was too bad. Of course highly congested cities like NYC have more accidents, but I feel like that has more to do with how useless bike lanes are. I once hit a bus and that had less to do with my bad biking and more to do with traffic problems. Personally, I’d prefer cycling tracks over being on the road in the city, but I don’t mind too much in small neighborhoods. It’d be better for our health and the environment if we had more.

9/11 pollution response

This article was illuminating in quite a few ways. We all know someone who was in some way hurt by the attacks on 9/11, so this whole cover-up is actually pretty angering. If 80% of the EPA’s samples were taken when the residences were professionally cleaned, then how could they even claim them to be accurate? The EPA had an important job to do; their findings effect thousands of people who live in that area. Yet, they totally turned their backs on the people they are supposed to serve. Way to go guys.

The article says that asbestos, lead, glass fibers, and pulverized concrete were exposed in the air when the towers went down and that FEMA and EPA, along with other agencies worked together to monitor these harmful substances. Some residents elected for their homes to be cleaned, but the problem is that they weren’t cleaned in any regulated way – the HVAC systems weren’t checked, obviously something that has to be fixed for future occurrences. This, among other changes, was suggested by the Inspector General.

Yet, the EPA has chosen not to follow them? How can that even happen? They willfully chose to look the other way when it came to expanding the cleanup to north of Canal Street and Brooklyn. It doesn’t seem like a very moral choice. There was also a lack of transparency between what the EPA was doing and what the public knew which makes it hard to get support.

Green Architecture Response

While we have discussed the concept of green spaces many times in this class, I feel like this reading said something we never even managed to hit upon: “The importance of green spaces is that they serve as a place of identity, memory, and belonging.” It’s such a great take on the subject, juxtaposing how we often talk about adding green spaces to the city when in actuality, our city and many cities around the world, were added onto them. They are our basis, our beginning, our starting point. The irony is that when we lose those spaces, we lose our beginnings and without those, we don’t even exist. But enough of my philosophical pondering.

I liked that one of the first things the article mentioned was how sustainable development projects attract economic activity and competition which then catches the attention of people living in the area, allowing them to get involved with their green areas again. Money isn’t everything, in my opinion, but its sure makes a good incentive that, in the long run, gets people involved. For example, I went to this event called Out of the Box which was held on the Boston Commons AKA their Central Park. The event featured live music, comedy acts, and lots of new vendors trying to get their name out there. It also included a planting station where different potted herbs were being given out and children had the opportunity to learn what they all do. This was to encourage more people to start their own gardens. Another goal was to get more people to just go outside and enjoy their parks. And it really worked. I still have the plants I got that day and a lot of people really came to the event, especially kids who’s love of nature got nurtured.

Green architecture has come a long way, though, encompassing topics such as infrastructure, technology, ecology, and art into one vision of what a green city should have. The article is right to say that it has been commercialized as a product, but like I mentioned, I don’t think that’s 100% a terrible thing. It may ruin individuality, but I think it also helps make more businesses willing to financially back the building of green spaces and buildings that pose less of a pollution threat on the environment. The fact that a lot of planners try to preserve the city’s identity, their historical and cultural significance, eases my worry that soon all cities will look the same.

 

Noise Pollution = Plague Response

This was a pretty interesting read for me because it spent a lot of time talking about an issue I am very passionate about – hearing loss. The WHO documents it as the #1 adverse effect of noise pollution on people. I think it’s an issue a lot of people forget about, especially the younger generations. Older people whose hearing has gotten worse have it happening more because of their age, but younger people are losing their hearing way before they should be.

For example, we have Zedd, one of my favorite EDM DJ’s, has been going deaf because of all the loud shows he plays. I’m pretty sure he lost his hearing in his left ear completely. This wasn’t because of heavy traffic exposure or loud machinery, but because of his job. And no way is he going to give up his livelihood. But nobody really cares; nobody thinks about what losing their hearing really means until it happens to them. One of the impairments described is tinnitus. Some victims have it permanently – that means they hear a screaming or buzzing noise 24/7. It leads to depression and when they can’t stand living like that anymore, suicide.  A lot of people around our age are losing their hearing and getting tinnitus because of excessive concerts and listening to loud music (something we are all guilty of).

#5 is, disturbances in mental health, is also something that interested me. It’s something I forgot about. So many people on the autism spectrum suffer from sound sensitivity. One loud or scary noise can ruin their entire day and leave them emotionally traumatized. They’re not the only ones loud noises shake up. I know that when I have a bad day, the sounds of the city just seem to exacerbate it while peace and quiet serves as a comfort. This article did a great job of pointing out how those effects can then go on to hurt our task performance and social behavior.

Benefits of Nature Response

We’ve talked about this often enough in class – nature does something for us that urban surroundings just can’t lay a hand on. Depending on the topic, we’ve discussed how people’s health has benefited from it or how they’ve felt better just by being in nature. And it’s really not surprising because we’ve all had an experience like that; a calming walk through the park after midterms, sitting under a tree in the shade and feeling relaxed. Pretty dope. And this paper just proves all these things by going deeper into nature’s psychological effects on us.

Environmental psychology seems to be a budding, yet necessary field in a world where more than half the world lives in cities. Research showed that by being able to look at nature from office windows, workers had higher degrees of well-being and life satisfaction, which in turn can mean higher productivity and an all-around happier work place. It would be highly beneficial for companies to be located near greenspaces, have greenspaces inside their buildings, or be financially supportive of green initiatives because it would ultimately boost their own profits.

It’s the exact same thing with the situation with the kids. Being outside helped them do better on memory tests, have better coordination and concentration. I feel like this is phenomenally important since we’re in that weird generation that’s had the best of both world. We had the playing outside type of childhood our parents had, but we also had the dawn of the computer age that drew us inside. Playing outside and going to parks helped our mental development and health according to this article. But what about a lot of the kids today who only know sitting inside and playing on their iPad? I think they’re going to have a lot more problems and difficulties than we had at their age.

The experiment, in general was well-thought out with their use of an urban walk v. a nature walk because it allowed for them to have a wealth of information for comparison. Nature walks decreased anxiety and any negative effects while increasing positive ones. They also performed better on cognitive tasks. This reminds me of that saying when it comes to friendships – you can’t hang out with negative people and expect to live a positive life. Well, we can’t live in a negative urban area without nature and expect to have a great life. This article proves that theory is a total bust.

Hudson River Estuary Program

The Hudson River Estuary Program has an approach I can totally get behind. I’m a big believer in getting multiple groups to work together on projects. Especially the community which is why I find the Action Agenda so cool along with the certificates people can study for. That way there is a better variety of input and ideas that can fuel the program. We can’t just rely on scientists. It helps to have support from government agencies and a committee to give guidance. After all, it takes a village, am I right?

Like with many programs, this one seems ambitious – clean water is at the top of the list along with helping the ecosystem and its accompanying wildlife. On page 3, it brought up something I’ve always wondered about – the infrastructure. Exactly how old is our water supply and wastewater infrastructure? Because when I think of it, I think of how it had to have come about when the city was young. I remember discussing in an earlier class that one of the problems with our sewer system was that we haven’t adapted it to hold larger amounts of water during flooding like Sandy.

I, like most New Yorkers, I think, have questioned what exactly is IN the Hudson. Growing up, I was always told that if I swam in it, I’d grow another arm. However, my younger cousins have not grown up with these stories in the papers and gossiped about. Instead, they’re really gung-ho about going out on the water. I’ve gone rowing, fishing, and boating on the river and I feel like the water is a little cleaner than a decade ago. No way am I swimming in it, though.

The cause of this cleanliness? The PCB cleanup that started in 2009 definitely helped. New technology like the HRECOS is an excellent addition to research because its easily accessible data helps scientists see everything that’s going on in the river in one place. That way they have an easier time sifting through data. And once you clean up the water, the rest of the environment seems to perk up, like the bald eagles returning and the fish population being brought back up. Water brings life. This plan seems to embody all that life.

Woodpecker Response

Adams’ article reads like dystopian fiction, making it easy to swallow and interesting to devour. It also connects us to the subject by directly linking it to us. Just the phrase “extinction of relationships” is pretty intense. We often think of extinct creatures in how they were by themselves and we forget that they had impacts and connections to other organisms in their environment. They had predators and prey and mutualistic relationships. And when they went extinct? That’s when it got out of balance.

The ivory-billed woodpecker was thought to be one of those lost links that were done in by what Adams called the “tragic, human-generated mass extinction of species.” But Dr. Jackson searched for it anyways, like the scientists who spent years looking for the missing link or lost civilizations. He was curious, like all scientists should be. And he was so seemingly close to finding one. This is where Adams tried to hit me in the feels – he described how it might have felt for the woodpecker to hear the sounds of its species, after living alone for so long. They’re social creatures and it must have been terrible to be one of none. It must have been heartbreaking to find that it was just an elaborate trap by humans, the harbingers of species extinction. If we put ourselves in the scenarios Adams describes, we’d be just as upset and angry.

But do animals feel like we do? Did the woodpecker really comprehend his/her solitary life at an emotional level? Would it matter to us if it did? I think it would because if we felt what we caused them, we’d be begging for it to stop. Adams writes, “we perpetuate our ecological crisis partly by repressing this reality that feels unbearable,” which is a genuine summation. I also understand the worries of being too anthropomorphic because we’ll never fully 100% understand these creatures. Yet, they would be worse off if we decided they had no feelings and therefore could do whatever we want to them.

We can’t separate ourselves from the rest of nature, nor should we want to. We’re already messed up because most of us lack direct contact with nature. As HSM as this sounds, we’re all in this together, for better or worse. Congrats to the woodpecker for not being as extinct as everyone thought, but there are others that haven’t been so lucky. Adams states that our relationship with nature is influenced by our culture and society, so maybe it’s time we make it a culture and a society that doesn’t take it for granted.