Until quite recently the terrain where this disaster occurred was an agricultural landscape. Urban sprawl, or if you will, ex- urban sprawl had placed tens of thousands of unfortunate people in the path of destruction. Did they have to live there? Isn't building in the path of killer tornadoes something like building on a sand dune, or a river bottom or the side of a volcano?
I often wonder why we find ourselves in the places where we end up. My moves across this country from Chicago to Iowa to Alaska to San Francisco and finally to Boston were dictated by education, love, and work. Too bad for me I have chosen the most expensive places to live for most of my adult life. This is not necessarily because I have the means to live in San Francisco or Boston. But these places seem like the only reasonable choice. I am a seriously underpaid professor, not rich by any standards considering my level of education, but relatively wealthy compared to many Americans. My guess is that people move to the exurbs for more living space with less of a price tag. We threw out our car several years ago because we can walk pretty much every place we need to go. I know that the people in Moore, Oklahoma have to drive. I know that gas is not cheap anywhere. So maybe what I pay for rent and public transportation and urban crowding is somewhat offset by the expenses people face out there to drive their vehicles.
Is it a question of economics alone? I tend to doubt it. Part of the "American dream" is the pursuit of a lifestyle that you feel comfortable adopting. I might not feel any more comfortable in Moore than those people would feel in Cambridge. But I don't know. Recently, I've been thinking about moving to a warmer climate. Maybe someplace not as prone to rising sea levels as where we live here in Boston. Believe it or not Texas has been high on my list. But wherever I move, I won't choose to live in sprawl. I prefer to have less rather than more dependence on the vehicle. I prefer to live in a more diverse community. And wherever I live, though the museums and libraries may not match Boston, I want to be close to some cultural amenities.
Why this riff on culture? Isn't the most important thing to have a roof over your head? I guess some of my thoughts about sprawl really coalesced after this latest tragedy. As we build communities in far-flung regions at great distances from urban areas, we put ourselves increasingly in the path of destructive storms like a tornado that hit Moore, Oklahoma. It's a known fact that dense urban buildings disrupt the atmospheric flow dynamics that breed tornadoes. Urban heat islands, for better or for worse, also change the heat exchange conditions that bring about tornado activity. But a few subdivisions out on the flat prairie do nothing to block storm dynamics. Like a house on a sand dune, they are right in the line of fire.
As we mourn the dead, comfort the injured, and rebuild communities like Moore, perhaps we should ask the same kinds of questions that followed Hurricane Sandy. Should we continue to build in these high-risk zones? Should we continue to fund private and federal insurance for these places? What are the real but hidden costs of building in places like Moore, in terms of loss of farmland, dependence on fossil fuels, and greenhouse gas emissions? And what are the social costs? Living out in the sprawling exurbs we choke public transportation and other infrastructure amenities that come with denser lifestyles. We "escape" diversity. And we weaken the society as a whole while finding "freedom" in the great but dangerous exurb utopia.
This post corresponds to urban ecological frameworks #s 1,2, and 4. You discuss the rising sea levels in Boston as a factor in your potential move elsewhere, the ability of tall urban buildings to prevent the occurrence of tornadoes, and the unique culture of Boston (museums and libraries) as part of urban ecology.
ReplyDeleteI personally do not think we should continue to build in such high risk environments because it is only putting peoples lives in dangers not to mention all the building and rebuilding that is constantly taking place. It is also better for the environment if we do not continue to expand cities into these certain areas of land.
ReplyDeleteThis article is most closely related to point number three. It discusses time related ecological phenomena such as tornados, the build up of a city, and the destruction of a city. This article discusses the natural life-cycle of Moore, Oklahoma caused by the tornado.
ReplyDeleteThis article echoes the 5th level of Ecology: Response to change and catastrophe. I found your point regarding putting ourselves (knowingly) in the path of destructive events (such as severe storms or tornados), and increasing the chances of them by our own urbanization quite alarming. Living in and building high risk zones only furthers the possibility of catastrophe and astronomically high social and economic relief costs.
ReplyDeleteThis post relates to the third point in which "cities experience time-related ecological phenomena" such as a hurricane that has the chance to ruin an entire city. Like we discussed with the right tidal pressure and a type two hurricane Boston's Back Bay could be entirely eliminated which would affect the city tremendously. We need to look into innovation that can help protect from time-related ecological phenomena.
ReplyDeleteIsabel Vera
ReplyDeleteThe second approach to urban ecology is important in this article in that it discusses the large impact cities have within and outside of its borders. The fact that cities prevent the looming and destruction of tornados with the presence of urban buildings and the urban heat island principle preventing tornado conditions sheds light on the influence cities have inside their borders.
Natural ecological phenomena are bound to occur in any environment, and when they happen in a populated area such as a city, it makes us realize that we live in a world with dangerous weather, natural cycles, and other risks. Birth and death occur simultaneously, and the latter is beyond our control. The third idea you proposed connects well with this blog.
ReplyDeleteThis post relates to the fourth point because you have adapted to the city. Boston is a city which thrives on its successful economy and more importantly the many educational institutions. It creates a place in which everything is easy to get to by walking or biking, and no other transportation device is necessarily needed if you live in the part o the city you most likely spend your days in.
ReplyDeleteThis article relates with the fourth point which deals with the complexity of ecological systems. Oklahoma is a state where people have to adapt to their environment. It is a shame that the city was unable to put in the necessary support systems in place. This is a good example of when nature trumps our city's ecology.
ReplyDeleteThe post relates closely to point 3. The 3rd point describes the life-cycle of a city and the reason for it being built. In Moore, Oklahoma people were attracted by the cheaper cost of living, but eventually had ruins of a town. Because of Moore's location, the city's life cycle was brought to an abrupt stop that may or may not recover.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis post relates to framework number 2, but kind of in the opposite way. Instead of what the impact that humans have on the environment we are considering the way the environment or nature impacts humans and human made environments in terms of natural phenomena like tornadoes. This also relates to framework number 5 because it mentions how natural phenomena can not only have an impact on nature, but also on urban, manmade places and things.
ReplyDeleteI found that this post relates primarily to your second point because it discusses how built environments can affect ecological patterns. While many towns and cities in the midwest are accustomed and somewhat prepared for natural disasters such as tornadoes, they still cause costly destruction. I am from a city in Western Massachusetts, which is by no means prepared for tornadoes, however, we still experienced the destruction of three tornadoes in 2011. As discussed in your second point, built environments also affect the ecological patterns of that area.
ReplyDeleteI don't think houses and communities should be built in high-risk areas especially if the risks or natural disasters are more likely to occur. Also, I believe some people prefer driving as opposed to public transportation (even though it may cost more). Finally, I think the American Dream is an important idea because it incentivizes individuals.
ReplyDeleteThis post definitely relates to the 5th framework of urban ecology. As the population grows, urban sprawl inevitably occurs, and sometimes the urban sprawls are built in places that are prone to the destructive forces of nature. After looking at the pictures of the suburban neighborhood clusters posted above, I thought to myself "I would never live in that type of environment". For some reason, it just looks so "artificial" to me. Its probably near the city, but "surburbia" looks like a place without much diversity. Like you, I need to live somewhere where "culture" exists.
ReplyDeleteFramework number two can relate to this post because it deals with different cities having different environments. Cities such as Boston and Moore use their land differently and have different weather patterns that affect the environment.
ReplyDeleteThis post addresses topics 2 and 4. It is clear from your statement regarding how tornados form, that the Urban ecology does indeed effects other places outside our boarders. It also hits upon the human ecology and how it differs with a small town in Oklahoma. The car example was a great way to visually see the differences of environment and how a car is an inconvenience and expense to one and a necessity to others.
ReplyDeleteThis post is most similar to that of framework #3 of ecology. This is because the article discusses where many people choose to live relative to the natural phenomena that may occur in that location. The culture and ideas of the people living in a particular community are important to them. As stated in the article, the urban settings may tend to have a influence on the changing patterns of natural phenomena, such as tornadoes striking "tornado alley". The people of Moore, OK must now live with a totally different lifestyle and mindset after their own culture had been affected by such a natural disaster. The setting, culture, neighborhoods and lifestyle of individuals living in certain locations are often affected by the high possibility of natural phenomena influence by ecology.
ReplyDeleteI find this very interesting. urban ecology has many components, people are one of them. I always found it interesting that people would build cities, where you, naturally speaking, geologically speaking, you shouldnt. The 9th ward in new orleans should never been inhabited by people. It was under sea level, prone to risk. Yet it was built there to house those who could not afford better areas, safer areas, areas less prone to natural disasters. Cities are just built by happenstance, people dont just live in places just because, its many factors, including socio-economic status. I also found this true when i visited montreal. historically, the street names on the higher parts of the cities are british, and the lower parts, near the water is french. This shows the powerplay in cities, in people, in urban ecologies.
ReplyDeleteAs you inferred, because of a high percentage of low incomes across America, few people have the fortune to be able to live in cities like New York and Boston because of the high expense of living. The high population density created over the years in these areas is mostly a result of their respective good locations. Boston experiences significantly less extreme weather (such as tornadoes) because of its location and infrastructure. People pay a premium for this, so only the people who can afford to pay those prices stay in cities.
ReplyDelete