Author: nehamehta

The NYC air quality report was an interesting read because I think it highlighted a few key points that must be taken into consideration when assessing air quality in the city. I liked the focus on air pollution because I believe people too often forget that air pollution is an concern that directly affects our well-being. We have to breathe in air as humans and if our air is polluted, we are subject to a plethora of health concerns and issues. The text does a wonderful, although frightening, job of emphasizing these exact problems, stating that “current levels” of PM 2.5 result in or can contribute to cardiovascular and respiratory disease amongst other health emergencies. However (and thankfully) the text also explains how PlaNYC aims to alleviate, if not solve, these dilemmas. It was quite exciting to see how beneficial some of these efforts have been, especially in terms of health consequences. It was crazy to see how in Table 1, which estimated the annual health problems prevented due to air-quality improvements was around 25% across the board, the result of just a few years of action.

At first I thought it was surprising and honestly a bit funny/ridiculous that the goal of PlaNYC was to make NYC’s air quality the cleanest of any big cities. This seemed incredibly ambitious and almost impossible because we’ve read countless articles reinforcing the idea that NYC is the epitome of environmental degradation and has a host of issues that require immediate solutions.  However, what resonated with me was how efficient PlaNYC was. City-wide initiatives are complemented with local action to improve air quality; this enabled action to be both comprehensive, as well as localized. The text also stated how the city worked with state officials, specifically to reduce the sulfur content in oil by an astounding 99%. I think this goes to show if people really do care about an issue, action can be taken that will result in extensive benefits. We always talk about how the government does not take solidified and consistent steps to counteract environmental degradation and this was a great example to contrast this mindset. Even in terms of monitoring air-quality, the public was very involved in allowing PlaNYC to succeed.

Lastly, I was glad to see that the report addressed existing challenges that remain. Even though changes have been notable and should be celebrated, there is much to do in terms of reducing NOx emissions. A lot of this has to do with traffic congestion and population, which means that maybe PlaNYC could team up with the MTA or another organization to work with. These partnerships are crucial to implementing change and solving these residual problems. If there were more intiatives being made, I’m sure NYC would move from being the 7th cleanest city with air-quality to the first in no time.

This chapter not only scared the bejesus out of me but it also got me thinking because some of the problems, concerns, questions that McCully raises are not answered completely in the text. The main question was now that we have indeed “speeded up nature’s clock” how do we take preventive measures to ensure that these changes do not put our lives at risk? Can these changes be stopped or are they all inevitable? Is there a way to alleviate the chaos? I thought it was interesting how although our human instinct is now to fight nature with technology, something we have even mentioned in our classroom discussions, the real solution lies with nature. We can combat the rising sea levels with wetlands and marshes that absorb this water. Technology does not actually solve problems but just shirks them or relocates the true problem to other places. The different examples of technology making other environments or landscapes (especially the island that was torn in two and sunk after a storm) worse really sold me on the idea that inventing walls or building groins would not reap any benefit for us or the environment.

What I liked was how McCully highlighted the difference between knowing of natural changes and experiencing these subtle shifts ourselves. We are aware that change is an inherent component of nature. However, dynamic shifts of nature do not align with our idea of time. Change in nature occurs at a pace that transcends our existence on earth and it is this that causes us to be unfazed by our knowledge and even indirect experience. For example, we all understand that global warming is a phenomenon that impacts the entire world but we do not experience the full wrath because the changes that accompany this process are so gradual. However, the statistics that depict the true implications of global warming go to show just how abnormal and ridiculously fast our natural environment is changing. Over the past century, sea levels rose 10 inches surrounding NYC but in the next century it is predicted that water levels will continue to rise by over 22 inches, an increase of 120%!! Just about half of me would’ve been underwater by now! McCully explains that the difference between changes that the natural “is the human factor.” She remarks that human progress and change is happening at too quick a rate for natural climate change; we are aggregating and exacerbating these natural changes by forcing them to speed up, which leads to deadlier consequences.

Also, Storms, hurricanes, and other natural disasters have become almost normalized incidents as we see them occur, albeit sporadically in geographical location, more frequently in amount. However, the problem may be that these catastrophes tend to be more localized in nature rather than widespread in wreaking havoc. For example, the drought that California has been suffering is far in proximity, so although us NYers wholeheartedly sympathize we’re less likely to rally together and be proactive in lending a helping hand. Similarly the although the US mobilized support after Hurricane Ike, which truly devastated South Central United States in 2008, those in other parts of the world weren’t as active. Even if we look at the earthquake that shook Nepal in April 2015, efforts initially made to help alleviate the plight of those affected ended almost as quickly as they started. Of course natural disasters occur all the time but it is well worth noting how incredibly frequent they have become in the past century, and more critically the last decade.

Green Roofs are like a superhero in the world of environmental degradation, the Batman to our Gotham City. All I kept thinking when I was reading the paper was, “How does my apartment building charge $987654321 for rent but they cant afford to put a green roof on top of the building?” But honestly though, green roofs are an almost too good to be true answer to the environmental dilemmas that seem to be plaguing our urban landscape. We, as a class and a city, recognize that the lack of space is a growing concern because there is literally nowhere left to add green space or natural ecosystems. The text stated that, “in the mid-Manhattan west section of New York, 94% of the land is covered with impervious surfaces…which leaves little room for plating trees at ground level.” However, if we were to raise the height at which we could construct natural landscapes or grow vegetation we would have access to around 40-50% more space! I think what the text did best was highlight the benefits of having green roofs. The most incredible were that green roofs could dramatically reduce air pollution or reduce the amount of energy used for both heating and cooling. In terms of water quality and storm water runoff, the text stated if 20% of Washington DC buildings had green roofs, the city could store more than 958 million liters of rainwater, preventing the combined sewage overflow. We mentioned this past class that NYC doesn’t take enough care of its untreated wastewater, but green roofs would directly mitigate the effect of this problem.

The last page/section highlight(s) a number of interesting issues that need to be taken into consideration! Cost is a huge issue that must be addressed when building green roofs because the short-term expense might be daunting. I think the text cites that creating a green roof could cost around 35.2 billion dollars but it’s so imperative that we think of the long-term benefits that the text addresses, because there is no shortage of them. I think it’s really crucial that studies be conducted that provide a cost-benefit analysis comparing expenditure costs with operation, installation, maintenance, etc. to the overall benefits of both intensive and extensive green roofs. If these cost benefit analyses were able to highlight how great green roofs were, it would be far easier to change the tide in terms of public policy and legislation. However, cost-benefit analyses won’t be enough because journals and research can’t truly inform people about how cool green roofs are and how incredibly helpful they can be. You need a holistic approach and “interdisciplinary team” to achieve that end. Emphasizing the efficiency of green roofs would not only lead to better initiatives and programs but would also eventually drive down the costs of adopting green roofs. Once something becomes more common, prices to supply or produce something decline tremendously (I think that’s how money works). Furthermore, I like what Aaron said regarding tenants pressuring landlords or the government pressuring companies. If we were to enforce certain rules on landowners, I think that would be the most advantageous.

I decided to look up “green roofs in NYC” to do some research about how NYC is or could be implementing this idea. Certain websites say that some results with NYC green roofs have been unimpressive because the right plants aren’t being used to maximize environmental benefit; others say they need to be more diverse (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-manhattans-green-roofs-dont-work-how-to-fix-them/). Also, something cool I found out when reading was that apparently, if you use 50% or more of your rooftop to create green roofs, you can get a massive tax cut/credit for up to 100,000$.

Surprisingly, or strangely enough, I thought Chapter 6 was the most optimistic and least critical chapter we’ve read from City at the Water’s Edge. Despite the scattered discussion regarding how many of our estuaries, marshes and other bodies of water have been extensively damaged due to overharvesting and pollution, I think much of this chapter focuses on the varied efforts to restore, preserve, and cleanup our wetlands.

To begin, I thought it was interesting how McCully explained how the Europeans equated undomesticated land to wasteland, as something that needed to be fixed and transformed. As we know the Europeans could never leave anything they “discovered” in America as they had found it; thus, they used wipmoleans or wind-powered mills to drain water from wetland and marshes to make the land usable. This type of attitude eventually translated into other harmful practices as the city began to industrialize rapidly. Eventually, as companies began to appear more frequently, massive amounts of sewage and waste were being dumped in our water. Honestly, I didn’t know how many different types of waste actually existed. I thought all waste was essentially the same in composition but was just dumped from different sources or places. However, what was even more appalling was how companies dealt with/handled this junk.  She discusses how at one time a total of 50 million gallons of untreated waste were dumped into the Hudson River daily, an effect which could be felt all throughout New York. Or in another instance, she explains how companies, like GE, attested to dumping as much as 90 pounds of PCBs a day into the Hudson for decades. When reading, my main question was in the present-day how do we plan or take action so that companies can no longer break the law and dump chemicals or waste into bodies of water?  With a growing population that is going to produce more waste, how are we going to accommodate for increased garbage? The real answer is getting environmentalists in charge of big companies and corporations so they can undoubtedly implement better ways to manage our waste. However, the issue lies in how we get businesses to want to abide by the law; maybe the answer is fines or penalties. This way we can continue to develop and urbanize but be more conscious of our environmental footprint, setting a good example for the populous.

McCall also provides an in-depth analysis of the protective measures taken over time to combat the problem with a growing amount of waste and sewage. She succinctly noted, “Government regulation alone can not remedy conditions unless public sentiment is ready to demand a strict enforcement of the necessary laws.” There is an existing cleavage between the formation of laws and how they are implemented. The text discusses an environmental coalition created, River Keeper, that had massive success in legal cases taken against GE and Coned. The great thing was this group recognized that the Hudson River and other waterways were a public resource and had to be protected as such. It was the public support and drive that enabled laws and policies to be executed to their fullest potential.

As a final note, I thought it was interesting to see how various facilities and plants were constructed to cleanup NY’s waterways and sewage systems. I think the effects of creating sewage treatments plants were incredibly drastic as the number of invertebrate species increased from 6-20 in NJ’s Raritan Bay. If only there were more in Astoria/LIC to lessen the nasty stench that is emitted from some of the chemical plants in the neighborhood.

 

Chapter 7 in City at the Water’s Edge not only focuses on the prairie grasses and fields that used to grow all over NYC, but also takes a look at the dual nature weeds have played throughout history. I liked how McCully was able to depict the conflict and disharmony present within nature, where invasive species competed with and often overtook native species. Caused by the Europeans, of course, exploitation had enormous ramifications for the environment. She cites the “single-crop” farming system as burdening and devastating the land, however I think to some degree this is a natural process. We can’t just expect all land to remain intact. I agree with Chris that some of the harm led to the Europeans discovering weeds with overarching benefits that served to advance medicine and saved lives. Although often right when pointing the finger at the colonizers for disrupting the ecosystem, part of me thinks McCully is a little idealistic and too critical about certain things where she shouldn’t be. This might be because I don’t share her passion though.

What was interesting to me was the process that McCully outlined regarding how to restore grasslands in NYC. Preservation entails planting species of plants that we desire and then involves removing all the invasive species of weeds present in the area. At first when she called it a Herculean task, I thought it was a little ridiculous and hyperbolic but reading about the work of Handel and Clemants changed my mind. The two ecologists worked on the Hackensack Meadowlands in order to restore the landfill sites. They had to survey the ground, assess possible risks (such as the highways which would obstruct birds from being able to access the landfill), complete more research, brainstorm solutions, and more. The way the land was divided made the task even harder however, “enriching” the soil with compost and adding a scrub habitat proved to be enormously successful! This inspired other ecologists and scientists to restore a similar site, Fresh Kills landfill.

Lastly, I decided to do some research about the medicinal benefits that certain species of weed bring. I mean because Indians have always been very into eastern medicine with plants and herbs I know that weeds have a lot of advantages but not the ones specific plants species have.For example, I didn’t know that dandelions served as a tonic for kidnys, possessing other detoxifying qualities for various organs. In addition, chickweed is a powerful antioxidant that helps to relieve or resolve cysts. That’s pretty cool.

Right off the bat, what I found refreshing about this article was how it oscillated between a general discussion of the different ecosystems & varying ecosystem services and then a specific discussion of certain services in Stockholm and other cities used as paradigms. The paper was meant to depict how certain ecosystem services function to alleviate or offset specific environmental problems and the ecosystems involved in producing that service. What I found nice was that the text did not call for general, widespread, action but rather advocated for local solutions to local problems. Obviously, it is common knowledge that environmental degradation is pervasive and global, however concentrating on smaller solutions seemed more appropriate to me. We always talk about “instant gratification” in class but yet we keep trying to come up with solutions that are far or ridiculously too complex and nitty-gritty. This text was able to show how simple things like adding more mixed-species trees could effectively filter our air.

The authors broke up the city as an ecological setting into seven different ecosystems that all seem to contribute to the six varying ecosystem services: these services were all applicable to our lives and depicted what local problems we ought to put our energy into. The table near the end of the text was really helpful to me because it outlined what ecosystems generate what services. Wetlands seemed to be of utmost importance because they helped to produce all six services across the board. The authors also continuously mentioned the importance of vegetation in city environments because vegetation has far-reaching impacts on seemingly everything. More vegetation entails less noise, increasing rainwater damage, cleaner air, better quality of life, etc.

The two services I found most interesting were: air filtering and microclimate regulation. In terms of air filtering, I didn’t know a tree that is filled with trees may reduce air pollution by 70%! That’s incredible! If any business or corporations cut down trees to create building space (within all the boroughs excluding Manhattan), they should have to plant that many more in the local vicinity to equalize the loss. Additionally, programs could be started where kids scout and determine where trees could be planted in their neighborhood for volunteer work. In terms of microclimate regulation, because cities suffer from the “urban heat island effect”, global warming is of even more concern in highly urbanized area. With that being said, I didn’t know tree cover could reduce total energy costs by an average of 70$. There are about 3.4 million housing units in NYC, which means the city as a whole could save more than 230 million dollars!

Finally, I liked that the author conceded that it was difficult to generalize information about ecosystem services because these amenities greatly differ from one location to the next. NYC, albeit a coastal city like Stockholm, seemed very different. Stockholm appears to not only appreciate nature and green space more but also takes more initiative in trying to preserve the environment. For example, more than “90% visit parks at least once during the year”, which is far more than I assume NYC residents visit parks. Like Dzvinka said, this might be a reflection of cultural values and mindsets that the two cities have internalized.

 

While reading Chapter 9 of City at the Water’s Edge, I was initially shocked to discover exactly how many bird species actually existed in New York. As someone who’s not a huge fan of pigeons (meaning I really don’t like them), I was surprised to learn that there were so many other types of birds that inhabited New York because often times they’re all I ever encounter. Besides pigeons, the little brown sparrows and certain seagulls, I didn’t know New York City was also home to owls, hawks, and eagles! However, reading the text (like Dzvinka said) made me far more sympathetic to pigeons and birds in general!

Much like the last chapter, McCully highlights the difference in values between the Native Americans and the Europeans. I found the Iroquois myth about the hunter and Mother of all Eagles quite endearing because it highlighted the idea of peaceful coexistence between birds and humans. It revealed how Native American tribes thought of animals and humans as equals, where it did not seem right for one species to dominate the other. On the other hand, Europeans dedicated their time to decimating bird populations for three main reasons: to reap economic profit, for fun/sports, and for fashion. For example, McCully remarks that Europeans killed passenger pigeons by the thousands for economic gain, leading to their ultimate extinction in 1914 (a phenomenon also experienced by the heath hen). Wild turkeys, that became locally extinct, had to be reintroduced into NYC because of the Europeans’ selfish and inhumane practices! The one statistic that really captured how cruel the Europeans were is how they shipped 130,000 scalps of the snowy heron//egret; the colonists always attempted to make nature, which is readily available to everyone, a luxury and commodity; the Europeans were solely interested in their lucrative business practices.

Something I found ridiculous was that the Audubon Society, whose goal was to protect bird species, was shut down for a while because supporters were murdered for attempting to conserve different birds. The effect of this was that other potential movements for conservation were quelled due to the deadly conflict. We can even see this in the modern-day where prospective movements that actively fight to better the environment are suppressed and subjugated by big corporations. After a quick Google search, I found out that there are a number of multinational oil companies who us the military to harass, attack and kill people who are protesting harmful environmental practices in countries (i.e. in Nigeria & Canada). How do we expect people to save the environment when their lives are in danger, similar to the lives of the animals they aim to save?

I was even more shocked at the US legislation passed that allowed the killing of ten-thousand nesting cormorants near the Great lakes to curb the finally increasing population! Ethically, to me, I thought these “extermination programs” were unfair and worked to provoke the type of attitude and mindset that we should actively be working against. Can we morally interfere and kill cormorants to preserve our local ecosystem even when we participate in unethical environmental practices? Furthermore, when McCully transitioned to the part about pesticides, it made me feel like we were passive accessories to environmental degradation. We use pesticides to enhance our lawns, outdoor gardens and more are not fully aware of the dangerous repercussions; thus, we not only inflict risks on various species of animals but also ourselves.

Lastly, it is important to recognize that even though birds may be plentiful now but any state is a fragile state because they can always easily become extinct due to human influence and neglect. Like McCully says, “what has been destroyed can never be created again.”

 

 

Overall, out of the four texts we’ve read thus far, I think the handbook was not only the most comprehensible but also the most thought provoking and compelling. I thought that it was quite easy to digest for someone not yet completely familiar with urban ecology and biodiversity conservation; it was informative and helpful rather than technical and boring. I don’t think it was aimed at a particular audience but rather for common folk to better understand the ecological makeup of the city they live in. The structure even facilitated my understanding because it seemed to follow my own thought process beginning with why biodiversity was important, and how NY retains its biodiversity to how biodiversity is threatened in the city and how to develop a plan for biodiversity conservation.

Firstly, what was really interesting to me was the section that spoke about the value of biodiversity specifically all the economic benefits we reap from having rich landscapes/wildlife. We save TRILLIONS of dollars just by effectively using natural service. For example I didn’t know that the 2005 Jamaica Bay Watershed Protection Plan saved more the city more than 8 billion dollars in terms of building and maintenance costs for a water treatment plant. If this type of information were publicized more, I think everyone would be campaigning for biodiversity. Furthermore, the author made a great point by remarking that green spaces and natural habitats drive up property values and work to push the economy. Besides the financial reasons which illustrate biodiversity’s overarching benefits in NYC, I didn’t really know that biodiversity could be a “natural insurance policy” protecting the land and making it more sustainable and supportive to life. In addition, I was fully unaware plants and the soil absorbed that storm water, preventing water pollution, something that plagues NYC!

Although the section dedicated to outlining NY as an ecological setting was a little technical and boring, some of the information really took me by surprise. The biggest shocker was that the Bronx River is currently the only extensive freshwater ecosystem left in the five boroughs. NYC has lost an overwhelming majority of its wetlands and its marshes, which acutely affects both animal and plant species. What I really liked about this text was it showed the high level and complexity of interdependence amongst factors of an ecosystem. It broke down biodiversity down into more than just plants and different animals, allowing for the reader to better visualize how intertwined and linked nature is. For example, the Rockaways, due to certain geological factors, foster the growth of the Diamond Back Terrapins and various bird species. Our problem is we see the ecosystem not as a united entity but rather as separate and independent.

Introducing the threats to biodiversity provided a nice segue for an in-depth discussion of how biodiversity can be protected in the city. Although the authors commended NYC for making important strides to offset the loss of biodiversity, this section gets more accusatory. For example, the authors say that our green space is adversely affected by human activity. We have to connect with nature but not excessively? How do they suppose we balance experience and conservation? The authors attempt to answer some of these questions in the following portion of the text. Personally, the role and prevalence of law in environmental conservation efforts is pretty fascinating. I wholeheartedly agree that certain policies in effect need to be adapted and changed to fit the current ecological makeup of NYC and that new regulations should be created. What I found even more noteworthy was how the authors remarked that our legal jargon was not yet adequate to describe biodiversity because important distinctions need to be made to effectively tackle problems that could not only be implemented throughout the five boroughs but in specific areas. There are a plethora of very specific solutions provided in the handbook, however the authors’ ambitions seem a little idealistic to me. We have to fill out habitat assessments for each area, collaborate with agencies, etc. The problem is how do we get people to care! Do the people that already care fulfill their part and by completing some of these things (ie passing new legislation) do we get people to take action or do we need people to be aware for them to do these things? Where do we get the initiative/manpower?

Throughout Chapter 8, Betsy McCully provides an in-depth analysis of not only the ecological significance of trees but also the personal and emotional importance they have for humans. She succinctly remarks, “We see permanence in the hills we get to know…they connect us to the future and to the places where they grow” (113). Although we might not all consciously be aware of it, trees transcend the lives of humans but keep us connected to our surroundings. They offer a sense of harmony, that unites us with nature and provide for a collective identity. Reading the beginning of the chapter instantly made me recall a moment in which I would have empathized with the old man passionately fighting for the Bunker Hill forest. Post Hurricane Sandy one of the main parks in my neighborhood, McArthur Park, had been completely decimated of its trees; with it went a part of my town’s spirit. The park had been so crucial to the day-by-day routine of many Forest Hills residents that once it was gone, it seemed as though something crucial was missing.

The middle portion of Chapter 8 mirrored part of our in-class discussion today about the start contrast in values between the European colonizers and Native Americans. It’s interesting and quite unfortunate to see how the European settlers wholly molded our present-day outlook towards nature, specifically towards trees. The Dutch and English were naturally disposed to exploiting land for economic benefit. Trees were immediately cut to offset fuel shortages, to build ships, and more. This disregard for conservation and preservation quickly followed Europeans to America. After their homeland had been stripped of its woodland, they came to the States eager and greedy, ready to use whatever resources they could find. This is exactly what they ended up doing. On the other hand, the Native Americans were raised with and had internalized a love for trees. They undoubtedly used them to provided food, shelter, and tools amongst other things but they had discovered ways to preserve forests. Due to their sacred relationship with the natural surroundings, they saw the intrinsic value trees held. However, I can not help but wonder why the European settlers felt the need to devastate forests in the name of urbanization whereas Native Americans felt he need to conserve what was around them! Where did the differences in values come from? Also, why had the Europeans not figured out ways to renew their land//the threes?

What was even more interesting was how people back then knew that forest degradation was detrimental to society. Although it may have been a few people that were more knowledgeable, there was still a sense that the mass-killing of trees was immoral. The text states that there were even laws that attempted to curb deforestation, such as the 1543 Act for the Preservation of Woods or the 1711 Act for the Preservation of White and Other Pine Trees. However, these were all futile endeavors because no one truly cared enough to take initiative. (There were/are still trees to cut!) This makes me ponder the sensibility of new laws and policies that would attempt to preserve forests and trees. Would these bills be more successful in the modern-day society?

Lastly I think Betsy McCully ends on an important note. She stresses that we are not losing a few mere trees here and there but a whole ecosystem, one that we are fully dependent on. In the long-term we must have a strong commitment to conserving land and forests, a value that we must instill in ourselves and the generations to come. We must be better connected to our roots, possibly basing our morality more on the environment.

Sanderson and Brown’s report was an unusual read. Similar to what Jess commented, the way that this article was written and composed sharply contrasted Miller’s text on biodiversity conservation although both had similar objectives in terms of fostering interest and awareness towards conservation. Sanderson and Brown’s study contained a lot of ecological jargon, such as “sphagnous peatlands”, “palustrine ecosystems”, “first-order rectification process” and more. To a relatively uninformed reader like me, the foreign terminology interfered with meaning and sometimes clouded my understanding. Had I grown up learning some of this stuff, I think I would have seen greater value in the project. Furthermore, this article seemed to be exclusively aimed at those who had a prior understanding of material rather than the public who as Jess stated may not share the authors’ passion about the topic.

However, there were a few things about this article that I truly appreciated. I thought the sections, which outlined both the goals of the Manhatta project and the process in which the researchers went through was helpful in understanding methodology; it was cool to see how the authors went from wanting to understand the ecological community in 1609 NYC to the results they found about how the land had changed. What was especially interesting, was how by using a map, current information about the geological breakdown of NYC, and more the researchers were able to paint a picture of how NYC looked in 1609, a time period that contains NO pictures, maps, records, etc. They literally started from the bottom//ground, in terms of dealing with soil & water, transitioning to ponds & swamps, and then moving up to studying information about plants and animals. Then from this data, Sanderson and Brown were able to draw conclusions about the non-living and living physical environments, marking trends and patterns in ecological neighborhoods.

Moreover, the tables, maps, and historical accounts were great sources of and acted as supplementary evidence to prove the author’s point; they were really easy to digest and helped to highlight/emphasize the types of changes that NYC had undergone in the past 400 years. For example, while I was reading, I took a look at Data Table #2, and saw how human-dedicated areas went from being .1% of NYC in 1609 to a stunning 97% in 2004. The maps were also a nice visual addition because you could clearly see how any hilltops, wetlands, and streams were in NYC, a sight that would be very hard for us modern-day New Yorkers to imagine.

Reading this study/article evoked two different experiences I have had. As mentioned by Dzvinka in her response, our first IDC seminar class took a trip to the New York Historical Society where we were able to see various historical artifacts that illuminated what early NYC looked like before and after Dutch settlement. The second experience that this article reminded me of was my visit to the Queens Museum, specifically a look at the “Panorama of the City of New York” exhibit; this exhibition shows NYC as a scale model with all of its buildings, parks, bodies of water, wildlife and more. For me, it was like the article as trying to bridge the gap between both of these experiences. By attempting to construct a ecological picture of 1609 NYC, the article incorporated some of the NYC that we saw in the NYHS and also the ecological and architectural breakdown of present-day NYC as seen in the Queens Museum.

Finally, to end, I think the goal of the entire Manhatta project is not so much to try and return NYC to the way it was in 1609 and critique the developments we’ve made in the modern age but rather to better understand our roots as a city. Although the authors do seem to romanticize the way NY was in 1609, I think their objective was to just have readers discover what their “homeland” was like 400 years ago. Inevitably, a community must develop and grow but I think Sanderson and Brown want us to be more knowledgeable and aware of the past…maybe so we can appreciate what we have right now even more rather than continuing to take our space for granted.