From the Daily News:The Upper East Side of Manhattan, a posh neighborhood famed for luxury buildings and Hizzoner's home, has a high number of dangerous pollutants in the air, the Health Department's New York City Community Air Survey shows.
"There are wealthy neighborhoods where the map is really surprising," Bloomberg told reporters while at a climate summit conference in Copenhagen.
He predicted when New Yorkers see the survey, "They're going to say, 'Wait a second, it's not as clean as we thought.'"
The survey also showed poor air quality in Midtown's business district.
Officials said the congestion of cars in that area was likely to blame and credit the ton of fuel-burning buildings on the Upper East Side for the pollution rates.
So you mean tall buildings do not reduce the carbon footprint and having a small house with green space around it actually is better for the environment? Wow, what a crock of shit we've been fed all these years...
7 comments:
"So you mean tall buildings do not reduce the carbon footprint and having a small house with green space around it actually is better for the environment? Wow, what a crock of shit we've been fed all these years.."
Oh come on, you're not really serious here are you? Cities are the economic engine of any modern society..concomitant with that is density.
If you think the air in Manhattan is bad today, you should have been a child in the 1960s or earlier.
Tons of coal fired heating plants, incinerators, (both existed in bulk out in the boroughs too) And of course all those unfiltered autos and diesel buses and trucks. Those vehicles that were deemed too old to be upgraded to the new environmental standards of the early '70s were sold en masse to places like Mexico City (where I spent the first three months of my life) Back when I was born M.C. had some of the best air in all the Americas, doctors actually recommended vacationing there for people with asthma and other breathing problems. We certainly fixed that.
As for pollution, cities -are- more efficient in that they reduce the need for automobiles by placing daily needs within walking distance and making mass transit practical.
The suburbs and ex-urbs are dying..all over the world cities are the future.
FWIW: The air is better out in Bayside.
Yes, that's the point. The air IS better out in Bayside. Yet we've been fed the line over and over that low density is bad for the environment. And we have a hell of a lot more TRUCKS driving through residential neighborhoods now than we did in the 1960s which is why there are red lines across Queens on that map.
"we have a hell of a lot more TRUCKS driving through residential neighborhoods now than we did in the 1960s'
But, those trucks and buses are a lot cleaner than when you drove behind one and saw your windshield speckled w black spots of uncombusted fuel.
Over the next decade the pollution issues will diminish as both hybrid, electric and CNG vehicles replace the current bunch.
Well, the issue is that if you had NYC's eight million people living in a low density neighborhood, it would spread out into a vast suburb the size of New Jersey and cause a much higher aggregated amount of pollution. NYC is the most efficient city in the country per capita, by a long shot, due to its high density and and people that have learned to live in small spaces without all the amenities folks in the suburbs enjoy. There are pros and cons to every situation, I suppose.
I agree that density is too high in NYC, but the per capita contribution of individuals to pollution goes down in a high density area, assuming they are in relatively efficient buildings.
"So you mean tall buildings do not reduce the carbon footprint and having a small house with green space around it actually is better for the environment?"
Your logic only works if you can fit 100 families into a small house.
You can in Queens. DOB looks the other way.
Low density is bad for the environment when the neighborhoods are non-walkable.
Post a Comment