 |
TODAY Tuesday 22 April 1997 Each weekday. Conn Nugent on what's new in the world, on the site. |
newsroom
|
TODAY Tuesday 22 April 1997 Each weekday. Conn Nugent on what's new in the world, on the site. |
TODAY IN THE WORLD: Doorman Ecology
The big news in this town is that the doorman strike was averted. Three thousand buildings with thirty thousand guys who sort mail, haul garbage, hail cabs, and screen riff-raff will now operate under the status quo. This is also an environment story, as I'll try to explain.
The papers -- both Times and tabs -- treated the strike threat as front-page material. The Times was especially intense and dramatic, reasonably enough, since so many of their readers, writers, and editors tend to live in doorman buildings. The more proletarian Daily News had a better sense of perspective. You couldn't miss the eye-rolling behind a report that "tenants said they dreaded the prospect of handling security, lifting and hauling incoming deliveries and outgoing trash, and other chores." Not exactly Dante's fifth circle of hell.
I've lived in seven apartments in this town, only one of them in a doorman building, and I didn't like the experience. I tired quickly of the lobby chatter and the sheer relentlessness of the guy-to-guy stuff (babes, Knicks, wheels). Not to mention the requirement of interacting with fellow tenants, many of them determined to strictly enforce the world's broadest definition of individual rights. I prefer living in 19th Century walk-ups with strong locks on the door.
But as an environmentalist (here we go), I'm glad for the doormen. Without doormen and porters, large 20th Century apartment buildings can become very difficult places, as anybody who's lived in a public housing tower can tell you. Middle class people probably just wouldn't live in such buildings without the stability and buffering that doormen provide. And if those middle class people aren't in those large 20th Century buildings in New York City, then they're going to be in unattached dwellings in the suburbs which, from the point of view of ecological preservation, is where we don't want them. From the earth's perspective, as long as it has to put up with humans, cities are good and dense cities are better.
An average New Yorker consumes half the energy of an average American. This is primarily because New Yorkers don't drive cars nearly so much and because they occupy far fewer square feet of dwelling space inside buildings which take up far fewer square feet of land. New Yorkers don't fill in wetlands, don't cut down forests, and don't throw tons of chemicals on their lawns (except in parts of Queens). Of course, there wouldn't be a New York if our predecessors hadn't filled in, cut down, and polluted, but that's another question. And our consumer appetites impel bad things happening to environments in faraway places, but that too is another question. We use fewer materials per capita than other Americans, we produce less waste, and our excellent municipal water ensures that we require far fewer chemicals. The rest of you should be glad for us. Where else are you going to put us?
TODAY ON THE SITE
As of today we have received 55 entries from 65 contributors to our High Fives feature. It is our proudest accomplishment.
Topics posted over the last few days include Architecture, Art, Grassroots Groups, Ozone Depletion, Solar Energy, Wind Power, and Women's Health. There's no other place -- as far as we know -- where a user can find such a combination of breadth and the personal touch. Ideas for other topics and additional contributors would be welcome. Write one yourself.
-- New York, 22 April 97, 09:15
4/16: Coca-Cola and the Merrit Parkway
4/17: Our White Guy Problem
4/18: Victims of Extremism
4/21: Toyota Steps Out