I was waiting for the train at Columbus Circle the other day, when this old metal box on wheels rattled up. I was shocked, partly because I had never seen a train car this old before, and partly because I immediately thought of how long the C line is, running all the way from Washington Heights to East New York (that’s a very long trip). I was convinced this had to be some sort of promotional stunt by the NYC Transit museum, similar to the way the MTA sometimes runs really old-timey subway cars to let people experience what it would have been like to live in old New York. But after a quick google, I came upon this article, which explains that these train cars are in fact standard for the C line, never mind the fact that the model is over fifty years old! Some quick highlights from the article:

• The C train cars are the oldest in continuous daily operation in the world (though I don’t know that this is something to brag about).
• The cars, known as or Brightliners or R32, were the city’s first stainless steel cars when they hit the tracks in 1965.
• They break down a lot more than other cars in the system, “averaging just 33,527 miles between failures. The average subway car can travel 400,000 miles before breaking down. And the newest cars in the fleet average more than 750,000 miles.”

I also started to think about the massive carbon footprint of running trains this old, so often and over such long distances. I mean, I’m no expert but these really can’t be that good for the environment, and I’m just basing this assumption on the awful noise they made as the clattered into the station. It’s kind of unsettling to think that the very same cars in the attached a picture, taken when they were bright and shiny and new in the 1960s, are still running up and down the tracks, and that we are trusting them to get us from place to place in safely and in one piece.

 ” Nature must not win the game, but she cannot lose” – Carl G. Jung.

This quote (which is cut off in the picture) is  inscribed on a mural adorning a wall in the 42nd Street – Bryant Park subway station. It is part of a greater art installation running along all the walls in the station hallways connecting the B,D,F,M with the 7 train. This artwork, one of the largest in the MTA system, shows “rock outcroppings, tree roots, pipes, and animal burrows”. It sits underneath Bryant Park and the beautiful Main New York Public Library Building. It made me think of the way cities in general and New York city in particular seek to or fail to balance their infrastructure with the nature around them. In many ways, nature is currently losing. To me this quote means that we must make deliberate choices to protect and preserve nature as we continue to build. Natural resources are not infinite. As more people move to cities, seeking to balance the natural environment with the built environment will become one of our most pressing challenges.

 I don’t usually creepily take photos of people walking down the street, but the contrast of this person’s jacket and water bottle made it a really good opportunity to capture a photo of something I’ve been thinking a lot about recently. Reusable metal water bottles have, I feel like, really exploded in popularity. On most accounts, this is a great thing. It means less plastic waste from single-use water bottles, and less carbon emissions from the mass production and distribution of this water to vendors.

Yet I keep returning to the often high price tag of these metal bottles, which doesn’t sit right with me. These metal bottles are far greener, healthier, and more durable alternatives to even reusable plastic bottles. But a standard Swell bottle costs thirty five dollars, and can be difficult to find in stores. In fact, most goods that are made with sustainable technology often cost a lot more than similar alternatives. Ethical consumption is often inaccessible to lower income individuals. Goods that are made using “green technology” are viewed as a luxury instead of a standard. This makes living a greener life substantially more difficult for very large segments of our population.

In our consumer economy, we often believe that the onus of creating a more eco-friendly world falls on us, to tell producers we demand goods that are sustainably made and good for the environment, and to do so through our purchasing power and choices we make in the global marketplace. But, what if you have no purchasing power, and green living is not a financial reality for you? Are you still at fault for your non-environmentally sound “decisions”, like drinking Poland Spring from a plastic bottle? Or are manufacturers equally responsible for striving toward sustainability, regardless of whether this “green label” adds to the sale value of their product? Is it time to focus less on ethical consumption and more on ethical production?

 I am currently taking a history class about cities and suburbs in the 20th century, and one of the earliest time periods we covered was the reform minded era of the early 1900s. At the time, cities were experiencing massive growth, both in population, but also in height. New buildings were larger than ever and towered over the streets below. The financial district downtown was of particular concern for New York City’s urban planning officials, who saw massive structures rise so far that they would block out any sunlight, leaving the streets in total darkness. This posed many problems, from danger for people on the streets, to financial burden for the city in having to light streets for almost twenty four hours a day. Business owners next to these towering constructions were particularly distraught, as the lack of light repelled patrons and increased the costs necessary to maintain constant indoor lighting where before they were able to rely on natural sunlight. To resolve this issue, the city passed the 1916 Zoning Resolution, and this article talks more in-depth about the architectural consequences of the policy. In short, it mandated that all building of certain height have “setbacks”, meaning they do not rise straight up, to provide for light access to areas below. This is why so many skyscrapers stand in front of plazas or detract like pyramids as they rise.

What struck me most was that even over a hundred years ago we recognized the need for natural lighting to be accessible indoors. Not only does it provide for more pleasant working environments, as we all know having spent our fair share of hours sitting in Baruch’s windowless classrooms, but it also alleviates the need for constant and in my opinion quite annoying fluorescent lighting. Indoor lighting, no matter how many times we upgrade to more energy efficient light bulbs, is still less efficient than natural light, and we have it on all the time. I understand that the advent of electricity during the industrial revolution forever changed our lifestyles and societies, but perhaps it is time to re-evaluate our reliance on this technology. Though reducing this energy consumption is a substantial challenge, it may be worth consideration.

This image of the skyline surrounding central park as you look south really struck me because of the nickname given to all of the new construction going on in this area right now. “Billionaires Row” as it has become known is an area of rapidly developing sky scraping towers, most of which are zoned as residential or mixed use space. The prospect of adding this many new and very expensive housing units to the city’s already expensive real estate market has far reaching consequences not just for consumers of New York City’s real estate, but also on the infrastructure and resources needed to manage the ever increasing number of people these units will attract. As this growth alters New York’s social, financial, and physical terrain, it can strain our infrastructure with changing energy demands. In weighing the pluses and minuses of this change, we must consider the environmental impacts of this growth, and how sustainable it can be.

NYC Storm Sewer

I’m not sure how many of you had seen that video online recently of the surfer swimming through the ocean collecting trash and plastic, but after I saw it I was reminded of something I learned in my last IDC seminar. The NYC sewer system is designed to reroute all contaminated street water run-off and waste-water from homes to waste-water treatment plants. After the water is treated it is then released into larger bodies of water such as the East River. However, during particularly heavy torrential rain, as had happened shortly before I took this photo, the waste water system becomes inundated to capacity. To keep the water flowing, all of that excess un-treated  water is re-routed directly out of an out-fall or tide gate, which is basically an exit connecting the sewer system to a water body. There are 490 such outfalls around New York City, all of which dump this polluted and un-treated water into rivers and inlets that connect to the ocean. The smaller and lighter pieces of plastic you don’t see in this photo were likely already washed down this grate and on their way to the ocean. This NYTimes diagram from 2007 shows this process more clearly. When I saw this trash I immediately thought back to that lesson and the video I had seen. I had always blamed large corporation’s irresponsible waste dumping for the plastic in our oceans, and while they are most certainly not blameless, neither is the person who throws their plastic wrapper on the street instead of in a trash can.