|
green cities exist The New Yorker had an article arguing that Manhattan is more "green" than other cities in the United States and that other cities should follow its example. Several reasons as to why Manhattan is more friendly to the environment than other cities were given. I can't summarize the entire article here, but I do want to mention some of the points that stayed with me. One of the leading points in the argument had to do with transportation and the ease of getting around a city. Since the packed city streets in Manhattan make travel by car so slow people are far more inclined to use mass transportation that generates less air pollution than cars do. Plus with the buildings so close a person can easily walk from place to place. Chores such as grocery shopping and or laundry can be done on foot. Another major point in the argument was where people lived in Manhattan and how the compact space is better for the environment than suburban houses. With people living in apartment buildings less electricity is used per person than if each family had their own house. Heat from one apartment heats the surround apartments rather than being lost through the roof of a house. I agree that less cars is a good thing for the environment, but mass transportation is not something that the average American enjoys. People like the article acknowledges love the independence that their car gives them and very few people are willing to sacrifice that freedom. The only reason that people in Manhattan use the subway, because it is faster than a car. If cars were able to move more freely then I suspect that use of the subway would decrease. People aren't given much of an option there. For me the weakest point in the article had to do with the concept of living space. It was mentioned a couple of times, but minimized to make the argument of the article stronger. Most people do not want to live in a cramped apartment building, which is what people in Manhattan are forced to do. A single person may find that tolerable, but people trying to raise a family have a tendency to want something more spacious. In fact the writer of the article was no exception. When his wife and him had their first child they abandoned the city for a house in the suburbs. Of course he then goes on to point out the inefficiency of commuting to the city and the need to own more than one car that comes with making said trips. Los Angles is used as an example of the worst case of sprawl and that makes sense to me. A subway will probably never happen there. It is contrary to the attitude of life there. Los Angeles is all about cruising with the top down not about traveling underground unseen. I found the article to be very interesting, but in the end I wasn't convinced that more cities need to be like Manhattan. It doesn't matter to me if people can function without a car. What matters to me is not living inside a man made hive where each person is allotted a cubical of space. For me that is inhuman and far from healthy. I have never lived in an apartment. As close as I came to that kind of living condition was dorm life in college, which I loathed. Hearing the people next to me at all times of the day, doors slamming, poor ventilation and no privacy made me hate that style of life. Personally I see Manhattan as a giant dorm full of people not willing to grow up. Now maybe if everyone wanted to be a struggling actor for the rest of their lives then Manhattan would be ideal. Of course that isn't the way that people want to lead their lives. The writer concluded the article by saying that Thomas Jefferson gave America the idea that cities were bad and that still holds true today. People want to have their own space and so do I. |