November 3, 2014 at 7:49 pm #152307
Apparently the feeling of being green and supporting the greening of cities is more attractive than doing the real work.
The energy requirement and resource use to create a temporary woodland in Times Square is ignored. The claim to support wildlife by creating a temporary forest island in the city and then remove it flies in the face of research on wildlife in urban areas.
And, of course, this installation is about 1 mile from the Mother of all urban green spaces, Central Park.
Can anyone see a positive side to this?November 4, 2014 at 9:08 pm #152314
Andrew Garulay, RLAParticipant
Pop-Up job where there isn’t one.
“…a local politician’s solution to saving a globally-rare wildflower is “I need a plant in my office. Put it in a jar and bring it to me, and I will water it every day.” Such attitudes must be changed for our urban nature to have a chance.” … and a temporary Pop-Up Park differs from this mentality how?November 6, 2014 at 11:45 am #152313
Interesting post, Rob, thank you. The photos of the forest in the video, with that lovely mature forest floor, big roots, the feeling of layers of organic material hardened by weathering, pretty funny to try to recreate that in a week. Plus, New yorkers don’t appreciate the green spaces? i don’ t think so. new yorkers love their green spaces, can’t live without them.
I agree, silly idea. Production costs would far outweigh forest value for green credits, seems like. Provide wildlife habitat? Really? that is a pretty silly claim.
But she seems sincere. Shows how green credits have to be really thought through – but now, in the new politics, we won’t have to worry about non-existent climate change! Yay! problem solved! like ye old frogs sitting in gradually boiling water.November 6, 2014 at 11:48 am #152312
I have been corresponding with the person behind this. After years of work to get legal protections for biodiversity in the City she is frustrated, This is indeed her P.R. effort to take her advocacy work to another level. I expect that it would send the wrong message (much as Andrew suggests)November 6, 2014 at 12:34 pm #152311
oh, that is interesting. Legal protections for biodiversity is not what she presents in this piece.
Starting with that thought, i can imagine an artwork comparing new York (a bio-diverse population of humans if there ever was one!) to the teeming masses in a native ‘scape.. Or something like that..Can go anywhere from ‘it’s political art’ starting point..
🙂November 6, 2014 at 4:41 pm #152310
I would think Central Park, Hudson River Park, the High Line, etc is getting at the intent of this project (site appropriateness may be an issue…)
If biodiversity is a hot topic, her efforts may be best channeled to assist in the outreach of some of the efforts that scientists at BBG, etc are working on?November 6, 2014 at 5:04 pm #152309
I agree on all counts.
Of course BBG has essentially gutted their research department in the past few years.November 6, 2014 at 6:42 pm #152308
They had a native plants exhibit a few years back with studies on plant diversity and distribution – it was well presented, though in a limited format. I’m assuming someone at one of the academic institutions in the area is still pursuing the research and public outreach (through installation art -ala West8’s inflatable cows- and more run of the mill methods) could really push it to the next level toward policy change.
Tying it into the economy would probably be the smartest thing, though that seems to be more effective for aquaculture…
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.