Today, though, I came across a National Geographic article about an infinitely bigger (and certainly worthier) project (thanks, mom!). The Manhattana Project is the largest, coolest science fair project ever. Taking maps and historic records from the seventeenth century, Eric Sanderson and the Wildlife Conservation Society have used GIS data to build up image upon image of what Manhattan looked like long, long before Europeans arrived. Sure, my project addresses a hundred years and a whole borough, but this project? Four hundred years, plus all of New York City. There's no contest here.
The images are pretty astonishing for a bunch of reasons. First, there's just the technical aspect. I was once a real, live scientist (and, actually, my undergrad thesis dealt a lot with GIS analysis), and it's shocking how painstaking they were. Just the process of pinning down the coordinates of location upon location, then matching those po
ints up with observations and maps is amazing.Even more, though, is the series of then-and-now pictures. Looking at the aerial images of Manhattan is almost like seeing inside someone's Batman/Blade Runner nightmare. It's hard to look at just how dramatic the changes have been without wondering what's coming next.
Then again, should it be all bad? It's a much more complex question than just my gut reaction might make it. When we moved to New York, my husband and I both sold our cars, and the same number of people live in our apartment buliding as lived on half of our block in New Jersey, or as lived on my entire road as a child. There's a lot to be said for that kind of compression -- after all, when we cuddle up into a big, urban area, how much more open space does that preserve? Is the best environmental decision, really, to sacrifice some area (Manhattan, for example), and to simply build up up up and to be close close close until we're ready to burst?
What quality of life does that preserve? What can we afford to give up?
Nice post. Brings up some good question. I've only ever known living in a city, with the exception of Williams. I hated living someplace that rural. I'm infinitely happier in a city than in "nature." So if you ask (and countless others) we would say our quality of life is great in a city.
ReplyDeleteNot that I'm suggesting their mutually exclusive based on my personal preference. Rather, I think we can have both as your piece suggests towards the end. Neither is "better" they're just different and valid in their own ways.
The one big plus I see about city living comes from the cuddling up. There's a reason the cities are notoriously more progressive, especially when it comes to things like ethnicity, culture and recently sexuality. Since you can't help but interact with so many kinds of people, you get to know them. And knowledge cures ignorance and intolerance.
As a side note the ideas of a city being less "natural" has always been a weird distinction for me. Are humans not "natural?" If we are then isn't anything we make "natural?" It occurs in nature, after all. Much like a beaver's dam only much more complex. It must come from a Puritan believe that humans are inherently flawed/bad so anything we create is flawed/bad. Thus only that which is untouched by us is good. This city boy doesn't buy it!
Excuse my god awful grammar. I'm watching the Yankee game and didn't feel the need to proofread.
ReplyDeleteI think your point about culture/progressiveness is an interesting one, and one I hadn't thought about at all, ever. I should have, though.
ReplyDeleteThe natural/unnatural distinction is absolutely a weird one, and one of the hardest things about it is a total lack of an agreed-upon definition of "unnatural." (After all, if we agree, which might be valid, that ANYTHING any organism ever does is natural, then the word becomes kind of meaningless, right?) I might suggest (and I have no expertise on the subject) that an action or an object is natural or unnatural depending on its influence on the continued survival of the ecosystem on the whole. (While the presence of a beaver dam, say, or a termite mound doesn't pose much of a threat, it would be difficult to argue the same for Chernobyl.) That may be an overly catastrophic view, sure, but I'm not sure where else to draw the line.
Wow I'm so behind on reading, and then obsessively commenting on, your blog.
ReplyDeleteBut I wanted to say the Manahatta project is awesome, and I met that guy because he was at H2O9 forum and presented a bunch of his stuff. Awesome!
And weird. You posted this on Sept 5, and H2O9 was Sept 9-10. WAAAACKYYY!