 |
|
|
|||||
Twice a year, New Yorkers and visitors are treated to a phenomenon known as Manhattanhenge, when the setting sun aligns with the Manhattan street grid and sinks below the horizon framed in a canyon of skyscrapers. The event is a favorite of photographers and often brings people out onto sidewalks on spring and summer evenings to watch this unique sunset. The first Manhattanhenge of the year takes place Wednesday at 8:13 p.m., with a slight variation happening again Thursday at 8:12 p.m. It will occur again on July 11 and 12. Some background on the phenomenon: Where does the name Manhattanhenge come from? Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson coined the term in a 1997 article in the magazine Natural History. Tyson, the director of the Hayden Planetarium at New York’s American Museum of Natural History, said he was inspired by a visit to Stonehenge as a teenager. The future host of TV shows such as PBSs Nova ScienceNow was part of an expedition led by Gerald Hawkins, the scientist who first theorized that Stonehenge’s mysterious megaliths were an ancient astronomical observatory. It struck Tyson, a native New Yorker, that the setting sun framed by Manhattan’s high-rises could be compared to the sun’s rays striking the center of the Stonehenge circle on the solstice. Unlike the Neolithic Stonehenge builders, the planners who laid out Manhattan did not mean to channel the sun. It just worked out that way. When is Manhattanhenge? Manhattanhenge does not take place on the summer solstice itself, which is June 20 this year. Instead, it happens about three weeks before and after the solstice. That’s when the sun aligns itself perfectly with the Manhattan grid’s east-west streets. Viewers get two different versions of the phenomenon to choose from. On May 28 and July 12, half the sun will be above the horizon and half below it at the moment of alignment with Manhattan’s streets, according to the Hayden Planetarium. On May 29 and July 11, the whole sun will appear to hover between buildings just before sinking into the New Jersey horizon across the Hudson River. Where can you see Manhattanhenge? The traditional viewing spots are along the city’s broad east-west thoroughfares: 14th Street, 23rd Street, 34th Street, 42nd Street, and 57th Street. The farther east you go, the more dramatic the vista as the sun’s rays hit building facades on either side. It is also possible to see Manhattanhenge across the East River in the Long Island City section of Queens. Is Manhattanhenge an organized event? Manhattanhenge viewing parties are not unknown, but it is mostly a DIY affair. People gather on east-west streets a half-hour or so before sunset and snap photo after photo as dusk approaches. That’s if the weather is fine. There’s no visible Manhattanhenge on rainy or cloudy days, and both are unfortunately in the forecast this week. Do other cities have henges? Similar effects occur in other cities with uniform street grids. Chicagohenge and Baltimorehenge happen when the setting sun lines up with the grid systems in those cities in March and September, around the spring and fall equinoxes. Torontohenge occurs in February and October. But Manhattanhenge is particularly striking because of the height of the buildings and the unobstructed path to the Hudson.
Category:
E-Commerce
In cities across the U.S., the housing crisis has reached a breaking point. Rents are skyrocketing, homelessness is rising and working-class neighborhoods are threatened by displacement. These challenges might feel unprecedented. But they echo a moment more than half a century ago. In the 1950s and 1960s, housing and urban inequality were at the center of national politics. American cities were grappling with rapid urban decline, segregated and substandard housing, and the fallout of highway construction and urban renewal projects that displaced hundreds of thousands of disproportionately low-income and Black residents. The federal government decided to try to do something about it. President Lyndon B. Johnson launched one of the most ambitious experiments in urban policy: the Model Cities Program. As a scholar of housing justice and urban planning, Ive studied how this short-lived initiative aimed to move beyond patchwork fixes to poverty and instead tackle its structural causes by empowering communities to shape their own futures. Building a great society The Model Cities Program emerged in 1966 as part of Johnsons Great Society agenda, a sweeping effort to eliminate poverty, reduce racial injustice and expand social welfare programs in the United States. Earlier urban renewal programs had been roundly criticized for displacing communities of color. Much of this displacement occurred through federally funded highway and slum clearance projects that demolished entire neighborhoods and often left residents without decent options for new housing. So the Johnson administration sought a more holistic approach. The Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act established a federal framework for cities to coordinate housing, education, employment, health care and social services at the neighborhood level. To qualify for the program, cities had to apply for planning grants by submitting a detailed proposal that included an analysis of neighborhood conditions, long-term goals and strategies for addressing problems. New York City neighborhoods designated for revitalization with funding from the Model Cities Program. [Map: The City of New York, Community Development Program: A Progress Report, December 1968] Federal funds went directly to city governments, which then distributed them to local agencies and community organizations through contracts. These funds were relatively flexible but had to be tied to locally tailored plans. For example, Kansas City, Missouri, used Model Cities funding to support a loan program that expanded access to capital for local small businesses, helping them secure financing that might otherwise have been out of reach. Unlike previous programs, Model Cities emphasized what Johnson described as comprehensive and concentrated efforts. It wasnt just about rebuilding streets or erecting public housing. It was about creating new ways for government to work in partnership with the people most affected by poverty and racism. A revolutionary approach to poverty What made Model Cities unique wasnt just its scale but its philosophy. At the heart of the program was an insistence on widespread citizen participation, which required cities that received funding to include residents in the planning and oversight of local programs. The program also drew inspiration from civil rights leaders. One of its early architects, Whitney M. Young Jr., had called for a Domestic Marshall Plan a reference to the federal governments efforts to rebuild Europe after World War II to redress centuries of racial inequality. Civil rights activist Whitney M. Young Jr. helped shape the vision of the Model Cities Pogram. [Photo: Bettmann/Getty Images] Youngs vision helped shape the Model Cities framework, which proposed targeted systemic investments in housing, health, education, employment and civic leadership in minority communities. In Atlanta, for example, the Model Cities Program helped fund neighborhood health clinics and job training programs. But the program also funded leadership councils that for the first time gave local low-income residents a direct voice in how city funds were spent. In other words, neighborhood residents werent just beneficiaries. They were planners, advisers and, in some cases, staffers. This commitment to community participation gave rise to a new kind of public servant what sociologists Martin and Carolyn Needleman famously called guerrillas in the bureaucracy. A Model Cities staffer discusses the program to a group of students gathered at Denvers Metropolitan Youth Education Center in 1970. [Photo: Bill Wunsch/The Denver Post via Getty Images] These were radical plannersoften young, idealistic and deeply embedded in the neighborhoods they served. Many were recruited and hired through new Model Cities funding that allowed local governments to expand their staff with community workers aligned with the programs goals. Working from within city agencies, these new planners used their positions to challenge top-down decision-making and push for community-driven planning. Their work was revolutionary not because they dismantled institutions but because they reimagined how institutions could function, prioritizing the voices of residents long excluded from power. Strengthening community ties In cities across the country, planners fought to redirect public resources toward locally defined priorities. In some cities, such as Tucson, the program funded education initiatives such as bilingual cultural programming and college scholarships for local students. In Baltimore, it funded mobile health services and youth sports programs. A mobile dentist office in Baltimore. [Photo: Robert Breck Chapman Collection, Langsdale Library Special Collections, University of Baltimore] In New York City, the program supported new kinds of housing projects called vest-pocket developments, which got their name from their smaller scale: midsize buildings or complexes built on vacant lots or underutilized land. New housing such as the Betances Houses in the South Bronx were designed to add density without major redevelopment taking placea direct response to midcentury urban renewal projects, which had destroyed and displaced entire neighborhoods populated by the citys poorest residents. Meanwhile, cities such as Seattle used the funds to renovate older apartment buildings instead of tearing them down, which helped preserve the character of local neighborhoods. The goal was to create affordable housing while keeping communities intact. An Atlanta neighborhood identified as a candidate for street paving and home rehabilitation as part of the Model Cities Program. [Photo: Georgia State University Special Collections] What went wrong? Despite its ambitious vision, Model Cities faced resistance almost from the start. The program was underfunded and politically fragile. While some officials had hoped for US$2 billion in annual funding, the actual allocation was closer to $500 million to $600 million, spread across more than 60 cities. Then the political winds shifted. Though designed during the optimism of the mid-1960s, the program started being implemented under President Richard Nixon in 1969. His administration pivoted away from people programs and toward capital investment and physical development. Requirements for resident participation were weakened, and local officials often maintained control over the process, effectively marginalizing the everyday citizens the program was meant to empower. In cities such as San Francisco and Chicago, residents clashed with bureaucrats over control, transparency and decision-making. In some places, participation was reduced to token advisory roles. In others, internal conflict and political pressure made sustained community governance nearly impossible. Critics, including Black community workers and civil rights activists, warned that the program risked becoming a new form of neocolonialism, one that used the language of empowerment while concentrating control in the hands of white elected officials and federal administrators. A legacy worth revisiting Although the program was phased out by 1974, its legacy lived on. In cities across the country, Model Cities trained a generation of Black and brown civic leaders in what community development leaders and policy advocates John A. Sasso and Priscilla Foley called a little noticed revolution. In their book of the same name, they describe how those involved in the program went on to serve in local government, start nonprofits and advocate for community development. It also left an imprint on later policies. Efforts such as participatory budgeting, community land trusts and neighborhood planning initiatives owe a debt to Model Cities insistence that residents should help shape the future of their communities. And even as some criticized the program for failing to meet its lofty goals, others saw its value in creating space for democratic experimentation. A housing meeting takes place at a local Model Cities field office in Baltimore in 1972. [Photo: Robert Breck Chapman Collection, Langsdale Library Special Collections, University of Baltimore] Todays housing crisis demands structural solutions to structural problems. The affordable housing crisis is deeply connected to other intersecting crises, such as climate change, environmental injustice and health disparities, creating compounding risks for the most vulnerable communities. Addressing these issues through a fragmented social safety netwhether through housing vouchers or narrowly targeted benefit programshas proven ineffective. Today, as policymakers once again debate how to respond to deepening inequality and a lack of affordable housing, the lost promise of Model Cities offers vital lessons. Model Cities was far from perfect. But it offered a vision of how democratic, local planning could promote health, security and community. Deyanira Nevárez Martínez is an assistant professor of urban and regional planning at Michigan State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
The days are getting longer, sunnier, and warmer in the western hemisphere. Those bright summer days have a bigger impact on the workforce and the physical office than you may think. The obvious ones are longer lunches and fewer people in the office due to vacations. Yet when everybody is in the office, there is one common human habit happening during the summer that is often overlooked. One that undermines employee productivity and increases a buildings carbon emissions. The productivity killer? Sunshine. Not that anybody is against it, but when the sun is at its highest and hottest, sun glare and heat penetrating the glass panes in office buildings prompts employees to leave their desks. They either spill over into another area of the office, disrupting colleagues, or they leave. Meanwhile, the air conditioning continues to blast, cooling unoccupied areas, wasting energy, increasing operational costs, and elevating the buildings CO2 emissions. Office insight reduces carbon emissions Since buildings account for almost 40% of the worlds carbon emissions, with heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems being among the largest contributors, having insight into human behavior in the office can help reduce those emissions. This issue is not new, but the data to prove its impact on the workforce and planet has only been recently uncovered. For example, a global, well known Silicon Valley tech company took a closer look at how their workforce is using the office. Their goals were to improve collaboration, productivity, and energy efficiency. The company installed sensors that combine AI and body heat sensing technology to understand anonymous human movements in the office. At the large tech company, they aggregated 3-months worth of office data and identified human occupancy patterns. The analysis led to specific recommendations to improve the companys office energy efficiency. Below are actual recommendations from the report: Weekday early mornings and evenings: Reduce HVAC setpoints before 8:00 a.m. and after 6:00 p.m., when saturation rates are consistently low. Midweek daytime control: Reduce airflow to 50% capacity outside of the following high-demand periods: Monday at 11:00 a.m., Tuesday and Wednesday between 1:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m., and Thursday between 9:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. This data can also be used to make decisions about window shades, insulation, and lighting. Office layout impacts productivity Going beyond an understanding of how employees move around the office, the tech company was also able to infer actions and interactions among employees. Being able to visually depict human movements without identifying individuals provides genuine data into corporate culture and employee engagement. The actions are far more insightful than any feedback an employee survey could offer. For example, the frequency of impromptu meetings based on chair rollbacks. Also, seeing a cluster of humans congregating in the hallway for a short period of time, especially when the gathering is not held at the top of the hour or at the half hour. From a workforce perspective, office layouts also impact productivity and energy efficiency. This reality is not lost on employers and property managers as the latest JLL Global Office Fit Out Cost Guide 2025 reveals. The report cites an increased focus on in-office attendance, employee experience, and sustainability performance on investing in high quality workspaces. This explains why the average global office fit-out cost is increasing. Understand the workforce needs However, the latest design trends may not align with the workforce needs and/or reflect the corporate culture. For example, another insight the tech company gained from the sensors was that individuals were reserving conference rooms for themselves. This ties up meeting space for others and puts unnecessary demands on the HVAC system that is set to accommodate large groups. It is also an indicator that the open office layout increases noise levels and is not conducive to supporting focused work. You can gain a better understanding of how the workforce uses the office without compromising privacy. Aggregated data on occupancy, foot traffic, human interactions, and their impact on energy consumption can lead to more comfortable, productive, and energy-efficient offices. And having that knowledge before undertaking a costly office renovation can make a big difference in ensuring the building aligns with the needs of the workforce as opposed to making employees adjust to the confines of the office. Honghao Deng is CEO and cofounder of Butlr.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||