Today, Times Square is a forest of flashing neon superscreens on the facades of high-rise buildings frequented by tourists and theatergoers. But 400 years ago, this Manhattan area supported a diverse population of plant and animal life.
I was attracted to the cover story, “Before New York”, of the latest National Geographic magazine which features a split photograph: the modern day cityscape on one side and the 1609 rendering of the same region to its left. I spent a month living on the Upper West Side earlier this summer and even more recently I finished reading The Last of the Mohicans, a wilderness survival tale about the clash between tribal communities and European colonists that takes place in (upstate) New York in 1757.
The article introduces the Mannahatta Project, an effort to uncover Manhattan’s original landscape and ecology, which was envisioned by Eric Sanderson of the Wildlife Conservation Society. Ten years later, an interactive map is up and running on the project’s website. Users can type in their addresses or NYC landmarks to learn the details of the region's ecology in 1609.
This map reveals that the site of Times Square once contained a red maple swamp, and I learned that the area surrounding the Manhattan School of Music residence hall where I stayed this summer provided multiple kinds of berries and may have been a lucrative hunting location for the Lenape people.
Today Central Park may be the only place in Manhattan where it is possible to escape from the concrete and bustle of the city. Thank goodness for that.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Sunday, August 2, 2009
*Records achieved wearing performance enhancing bodysuits*
Suit breaks the man from The San Diego Union-Tribune on July 29, 2009
Posted using ShareThis
This will be old news by the time this is posted (I am vacationing in SD, and have had terrible luck with the Wi-Fi at coffee shops over the past two days), but I wanted to weigh in on how swim apparel is currently scandalizing the integrity of the sport. Since reading this article this morning about Michael Phelps’ loss to German swimmer Paul Biedermann in the 200m free at the world swimming championships in Rome, I heard on the radio that Phelps has won and set a new world record in the 200 fly (Update 8/2/09: Phelps finished with five golds, one silver, and two individual world records). What I did not learn was if he had exchanged his Speedo LZR Racer for the Arena X-Glide, which Biedermann wore during his world-record breaking performance and which he acknowledges aided him in his effort. (I learned that of course he did not, but Dara Torres did!)
Phelps’ own suit, the LZR Racer, will be illegal in competition by next May, along with all other high-tech bodysuits. But this ban comes too late. High-performance suits were worn in last summer’s Beijing Olympics, and now this week’s world championships. Dozens of world records have fallen and will continue to fall between now and May 2010. We’ve heard the debate about whether MLB records achieved by steroid users should be identified as such. It makes perfect sense that swimming records earned by wearing state-of-the-art suits should also be asterisked. It will be interesting to see how long it takes for swimmers wearing pre-2008 swimwear to break the records set this week.
But should these suits really be banned? Unlike steroids users, users of high-tech swimsuits are not trying to conceal their performance enhancing equipment. It is worth pointing out that improvements in technology have been accepted in many other sports. Not all golf clubs or baseball bats are made equal. There’s no question that world records have fallen in track and field over the years due in part (mostly?) to improved footwear. And I doubt those have been designated with asterisks in the record books.
The best equipment comes at a greater cost. Sponsorships also interfere with some elite athletes’ choice of competitive gear. Last summer in Beijing athletes jeopardized their endorsement contracts by wearing the new and fast Speedo LZR despite which product they were supposed to be wearing. How embarrassing! And even more so now, since Phelps is the one whining even though this is the very suit he still wears. But if sponsorships were no issue, and the top-of-the-line swimsuit was available to all competitors, then how is this actually unfair?
Without fancy aquatic wear the records will continue to fall. When the results of competitive swimming were first recorded, athletes had day jobs. Now that the professional athlete is a full-time occupation, men and women devote their lives almost entirely to their chosen sport. They train harder than ever and maintain a healthy diet. But it is undeniable that the effect of these swimsuits casts a shadow over the purity of a sport that once was dominated by the strongest and hardest-working athlete and not by the athlete aided by the best technology.
Posted using ShareThis
This will be old news by the time this is posted (I am vacationing in SD, and have had terrible luck with the Wi-Fi at coffee shops over the past two days), but I wanted to weigh in on how swim apparel is currently scandalizing the integrity of the sport. Since reading this article this morning about Michael Phelps’ loss to German swimmer Paul Biedermann in the 200m free at the world swimming championships in Rome, I heard on the radio that Phelps has won and set a new world record in the 200 fly (Update 8/2/09: Phelps finished with five golds, one silver, and two individual world records). What I did not learn was if he had exchanged his Speedo LZR Racer for the Arena X-Glide, which Biedermann wore during his world-record breaking performance and which he acknowledges aided him in his effort. (I learned that of course he did not, but Dara Torres did!)
Phelps’ own suit, the LZR Racer, will be illegal in competition by next May, along with all other high-tech bodysuits. But this ban comes too late. High-performance suits were worn in last summer’s Beijing Olympics, and now this week’s world championships. Dozens of world records have fallen and will continue to fall between now and May 2010. We’ve heard the debate about whether MLB records achieved by steroid users should be identified as such. It makes perfect sense that swimming records earned by wearing state-of-the-art suits should also be asterisked. It will be interesting to see how long it takes for swimmers wearing pre-2008 swimwear to break the records set this week.
But should these suits really be banned? Unlike steroids users, users of high-tech swimsuits are not trying to conceal their performance enhancing equipment. It is worth pointing out that improvements in technology have been accepted in many other sports. Not all golf clubs or baseball bats are made equal. There’s no question that world records have fallen in track and field over the years due in part (mostly?) to improved footwear. And I doubt those have been designated with asterisks in the record books.
The best equipment comes at a greater cost. Sponsorships also interfere with some elite athletes’ choice of competitive gear. Last summer in Beijing athletes jeopardized their endorsement contracts by wearing the new and fast Speedo LZR despite which product they were supposed to be wearing. How embarrassing! And even more so now, since Phelps is the one whining even though this is the very suit he still wears. But if sponsorships were no issue, and the top-of-the-line swimsuit was available to all competitors, then how is this actually unfair?
Without fancy aquatic wear the records will continue to fall. When the results of competitive swimming were first recorded, athletes had day jobs. Now that the professional athlete is a full-time occupation, men and women devote their lives almost entirely to their chosen sport. They train harder than ever and maintain a healthy diet. But it is undeniable that the effect of these swimsuits casts a shadow over the purity of a sport that once was dominated by the strongest and hardest-working athlete and not by the athlete aided by the best technology.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
"Figaro" a community attraction in Berkeley
The Berkeleyites were out in full force Sunday at John Hinkel Park to see Open Opera’s production of "Le nozze di Figaro". Men, women, children, and senior citizens alike scaled the hillside, braving poison oak exposure and landslides, to secure the best remaining view of the stage (a small plot of asphalt at level with the first row of seating) as the amphitheatre’s great stone seats had filled long before the opera was to begin.
Unfortunately, the amusing antics of the crowd dominated my attention. This was fine, though, since I’ve already seen this Mozart opera multiple times. But oh boy, do I wish I had my camera with me! My mom, our friends, and I claimed our makeshift spot on a side staircase, behind a woman showing off her yoga Zen balance. She stood for the 30 minutes before the show and well into the first act with her leg propped on the banister as if it was a ballet studio barre. Light hairs sprouted from her tan bony shin. My mom, seated, viewed the first act peering through the patient yogi’s legs. Leaves and dirt showered my friend Jess and me from above, as the spectators on the hillside scooted up in order to see over our seatmate’s extended leg. But balancing on one leg while watching opera was not enough for her, so she reached for a sketchbook and ink and later her knitting needles and yarn to prove her superior multi-tasking ability.
People-watching was an unexpected amusement at the opera. We had gone to see a high school friend, Julian Arsenault, play the role of Figaro. We hadn’t heard him sing in three years, and it was a pleasure to watch him claim the stage. His characterization of the Pirate King in "Pirates of Penzance" five years earlier persisted in his portrayal of the Count’s playful and sly servant. His performance was the highlight for me, but Adrien Roberts as the Countess stood out as possessing the strongest voice in the cast and as an elegant presence. However, singing in the open air does nobody’s voice justice. Director Olivia Stapp took advantage of the unique outdoor setting in the staging of a hilarious scene in which Figaro hid behind a live oak among the audience while Susanna, played by Aimee Puentes, lured her lover to the garden (“Deh vieni, non tardar”).
I know "Le nozze di Figaro" better than any other opera. I have seen the full-length production several times, I have sung at least five of its scenes, and I studied the opera extensively in Professor Davies’ class on Opera and Reason. But despite my familiarity with the music and the series of events, I never expect the tears that well up in my eyes when I watch and listen as the Countess immediately forgives the Count for his infidelity during the finale. The Countess’ soaring lyrical line here can only be described as poignant. She claims that she forgives him because she has a bigger heart than her husband, but I ache for her and all women because I want her to be stronger. We have spent a full three hours watching Count Almaviva devise a plan so he can sleep with Susanna before her marriage to Figaro. The Countess finally catches him, and we expect consequences and retribution. But all we get is a lousy (and too quickly accepted) apology. Even Mozart writes off this monumental moment by jumping into an allegro jubilant chorus performed by the entire cast in which all celebrate the union of Susanna and Figaro, and the reunion of the noble pair.
Unfortunately, the amusing antics of the crowd dominated my attention. This was fine, though, since I’ve already seen this Mozart opera multiple times. But oh boy, do I wish I had my camera with me! My mom, our friends, and I claimed our makeshift spot on a side staircase, behind a woman showing off her yoga Zen balance. She stood for the 30 minutes before the show and well into the first act with her leg propped on the banister as if it was a ballet studio barre. Light hairs sprouted from her tan bony shin. My mom, seated, viewed the first act peering through the patient yogi’s legs. Leaves and dirt showered my friend Jess and me from above, as the spectators on the hillside scooted up in order to see over our seatmate’s extended leg. But balancing on one leg while watching opera was not enough for her, so she reached for a sketchbook and ink and later her knitting needles and yarn to prove her superior multi-tasking ability.
People-watching was an unexpected amusement at the opera. We had gone to see a high school friend, Julian Arsenault, play the role of Figaro. We hadn’t heard him sing in three years, and it was a pleasure to watch him claim the stage. His characterization of the Pirate King in "Pirates of Penzance" five years earlier persisted in his portrayal of the Count’s playful and sly servant. His performance was the highlight for me, but Adrien Roberts as the Countess stood out as possessing the strongest voice in the cast and as an elegant presence. However, singing in the open air does nobody’s voice justice. Director Olivia Stapp took advantage of the unique outdoor setting in the staging of a hilarious scene in which Figaro hid behind a live oak among the audience while Susanna, played by Aimee Puentes, lured her lover to the garden (“Deh vieni, non tardar”).
I know "Le nozze di Figaro" better than any other opera. I have seen the full-length production several times, I have sung at least five of its scenes, and I studied the opera extensively in Professor Davies’ class on Opera and Reason. But despite my familiarity with the music and the series of events, I never expect the tears that well up in my eyes when I watch and listen as the Countess immediately forgives the Count for his infidelity during the finale. The Countess’ soaring lyrical line here can only be described as poignant. She claims that she forgives him because she has a bigger heart than her husband, but I ache for her and all women because I want her to be stronger. We have spent a full three hours watching Count Almaviva devise a plan so he can sleep with Susanna before her marriage to Figaro. The Countess finally catches him, and we expect consequences and retribution. But all we get is a lousy (and too quickly accepted) apology. Even Mozart writes off this monumental moment by jumping into an allegro jubilant chorus performed by the entire cast in which all celebrate the union of Susanna and Figaro, and the reunion of the noble pair.
Almost as distressing as the opera’s ending, is that the Open Opera cast members poured their entire beings into putting on the show but it was not fully appreciated by its unruly audience. Myself included, since I allowed myself to be distracted by my surroundings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)