According to the experts — architects, environmentalists and civil engineers — large-scale projects like underwater gates are expensive, cumbersome and difficult to build. More important, they say, such undertakings are binary projects that work just fine until the moment they do not. — NYT
In light of the recent devastation caused by Hurricane Sandy, Alan Feuer examined three examples of how to protect New York City from future storms. The designs focus on three especially vulnerable New York neighborhoods and plans included: Marshy Edges, Absorptive Streets proposed by Architecture Research Office, and a partner firm, dlandstudio, Oysters to the Rescue proposed by Scape/Landscape Architecture P.L.L.C., and A Bridge in Troubled Waters proposed by Lawrence J. Murphy of global engineering firm CDM Smith.
Meanwhile, over in the Room for Debate blog the NYT hosted a discussion, featuring 6 experts, arguing Should New York Build Sea Gates? I would suggest that the discussion is lacking, since there was not one designer (landscape, architect or urban) involved in the conversation. What do you think?
2 Comments
Cuomo recently approved replacement of Verrazano narrows bridge. Instead of bridge, build a dam there instead. DONE!
There is no realistic defense for either Staten Island or Rockaways though unless you consider both part of the defensive wall.
I don't see how building sea gates could possibly be worth the cost. Although NYC is at risk, it might well be another 50 years before a storm barrels into the city in a fashion similar to Sandy and in the meantime it's likely that politicians will have started skimping on paying for the sea gate maintenance and then they wouldn't work properly anyhow.
Makes far more sense to leave the most vulnerable areas to the poor people, yo!
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.