New York Is Sinking Under It's Own Weight
The Sinking City Of New York
A recent study has uncovered a concerning issue in New York City: it's sinking due to the immense weight of its towering skyscrapers. This process, known as subsidence, describes the gradual settling or sinking of the Earth's surface, mainly attributed to the shifting of soft sediments and the city's substantial mass. Despite the seemingly minimal sinking rate of 0.04 to 0.07 inches per year, specific areas within the city experience even faster sinking rates. This poses a significant risk for a city already positioned low and accommodating over 8 million residents. Addressing the growing flood risk and sea level rise, local authorities must devise strategies, although erecting extensive seawalls might not be the most effective solution. Geologists emphasize the adverse impact of constructing more highrises near coastlines, rivers, or lakes, exacerbating future flood risks. Scientific calculations of New York City's building mass—over a million structures—amount to an astounding 1.68 trillion pounds, excluding the weight of roads, sidewalks, and other paved areas. Despite these calculations' limitations, researchers effectively considered the intricate geology beneath the city, identifying soil types prone to subsidence, highlighting the stability of Bedrock that anchors the skyscrapers.
Utilizing satellite data and models, researchers generated a sinking map of the city, attributing increased urbanization, groundwater extraction, and drainage practices to worsen the sinking scenario. Similar sinking issues afflict other cities like Jakarta and Venice, each facing unique challenges. Jakarta anticipates partial submersion by 2050, while Venice's foundation on a marshy lagoon, compounded by groundwater extraction, rising sea levels, and tectonic movements, contributes to its slow descent. Venice's sinking rate, matching New York's at 0.04 to 0.07 inches per year, forecasts a significant decline below sea level in the next two decades. Faced with these risks, Venetians are building barriers to thwart encroaching waters, albeit with delays, while the city grapples with building damage due to constant water breaches.
Similarly, New Orleans struggles with sinking issues, initially constructed marginally above sea level but now gradually subsiding. Its flat topography and the lower elevation around the French Quarter exacerbate the problem. Efforts to elevate homes and restrict building heights due to unstable soil have been insufficient, compounded by an ill-suited drainage system installed in the 1900s that exacerbated soil destabilization, leading to sinking areas and increased susceptibility to flooding, notably highlighted during Hurricane Katrina.
Managing water consumption emerges as a key solution for sinking cities, emphasizing the need for innovative approaches like purifying surface water or converting seawater. An example of successful water management lies in Denmark's NY town, employing rainwater collection to supply toilets and washing machines, showcasing resourcefulness in urban water management.
Thus, grappling with these sinking city challenges requires comprehensive strategies, innovative water management, and a concerted effort to sustain these urban centers against the threats of subsidence and rising sea levels.
New York City, famously known as "The Big Apple," stands as one of the world's most iconic and vibrant metropolises. Comprising five boroughs—Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, The Bronx, and Staten Island—it's a bustling hub of culture, commerce, and diversity.
Manhattan, the heart of the city, boasts the awe-inspiring skyline adorned by towering skyscrapers like the Empire State Building, One World Trade Center, and the Chrysler Building. It's a global financial and cultural epicenter, hosting Wall Street, Broadway, and renowned museums like the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Museum of Modern Art.
Brooklyn, known for its distinct neighborhoods like Williamsburg and DUMBO, embodies a creative energy with its art scene, trendy eateries, and the iconic Brooklyn Bridge connecting it to Manhattan.
Queens offers a rich cultural tapestry, home to diverse communities, the sprawling Flushing Meadows-Corona Park, and the renowned USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center.
The Bronx, famed for Yankee Stadium, embraces a vibrant music scene, the Bronx Zoo, and the New York Botanical Garden.
Staten Island, characterized by a more suburban feel, boasts the Staten Island Ferry, offering breathtaking views of the Statue of Liberty and the city skyline.
New York City pulsates with life—its subways, Central Park's green expanse, Times Square's neon lights, and a fusion of cultures evident in its cuisines and neighborhoods—making it a beacon of opportunity and endless exploration.
About the Creator
Cudjoe Justice
A passionate storyteller weaving captivating tales across genres, aiming to transport readers to vivid, uncharted realms through the magic of words.
Keep reading
More stories from Cudjoe Justice and writers in Earth and other communities.
Midnight's Muse: The Enigma of The Cipher Thief
Midnight's Muse: The Enigma of The Cipher Thief In the heart of the city, where shadows whispered secrets and neon lights flickered like hesitant stars, a criminal mastermind emerged from the underworld. Known only as "The Midnight Cipher," this elusive figure orchestrated a symphony of crime that echoed through the labyrinthine alleys and towering skyscrapers.
By Cudjoe Justice2 years ago in Criminal
Inside Trump's $11 Billion Health Plan to Replace “Neo-Colonial” USAID
In the landscape of global health aid, few proposals have stirred as much debate as former President Donald Trump’s ambitious plan to restructure American assistance abroad. Dubbed an $11 billion health initiative aimed at replacing USAID’s current framework, the plan seeks to pivot away from what Trump and his allies have criticized as the “neo-colonial” approach of U.S. foreign aid. While the plan promises greater efficiency and impact, experts are split on whether it is a practical solution or a politically driven gamble. Trump’s Critique of USAID The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been a central pillar of American foreign assistance, distributing billions in aid annually to address health crises, food insecurity, and development challenges worldwide. However, Trump’s administration and its supporters have often described USAID’s approach as bureaucratic, inefficient, and reflective of a “neo-colonial” mindset. In public statements, Trump argued that the U.S. was spending taxpayer dollars on programs that benefited foreign governments or contractors more than the intended local communities. Critics of the plan say that while USAID has flaws—as any large bureaucracy does—its extensive networks and decades of experience provide an unmatched capacity to deliver aid efficiently and safely. The Core of the $11 Billion Proposal At the heart of Trump’s proposal is an $11 billion fund designed to consolidate, modernize, and streamline U.S. health aid. Unlike the traditional USAID model, which relies heavily on long-term partnerships with governments and NGOs, the new plan emphasizes: Direct Impact Funding: Allocating resources to frontline health workers and local initiatives rather than intermediaries. Data-Driven Investments: Using real-time health data to target outbreaks and crises more efficiently. Private Sector Partnerships: Leveraging U.S. pharmaceutical companies, tech firms, and healthcare startups to deliver vaccines, treatments, and medical infrastructure. Shorter Program Cycles: Moving away from multi-year funding commitments in favor of more flexible, results-oriented programs. Proponents argue that this approach could reduce bureaucratic overhead and ensure U.S. aid reaches communities faster. By “cutting out the middlemen,” Trump supporters claim, America can avoid the pitfalls of slow-moving aid programs that sometimes fail to adapt to crises. Reactions from the Global Health Community Global health experts, however, have expressed concern about both the logistics and philosophy of the plan. Dr. Melissa Ortega, a senior researcher at the Global Health Policy Institute, explained, “The idea of bypassing established structures like USAID may sound appealing on paper, but in practice, it risks undermining decades of institutional knowledge. Health systems are complex, and short-term projects cannot replace long-term capacity building.” Some critics have also questioned the characterization of USAID as “neo-colonial.” While U.S. foreign aid has historically been tied to geopolitical interests, many programs today are designed collaboratively with recipient countries and local organizations. Reducing oversight could unintentionally increase the risk of misuse, corruption, or health inequities. On the other hand, supporters of Trump’s plan point to examples of inefficiency in USAID programs, citing cases where aid was delayed or mismanaged. By introducing more direct funding models, they argue, U.S. taxpayer dollars could achieve a higher “return on health outcomes.” Political Implications Trump’s health aid overhaul proposal is not just about international development—it is also deeply political. Framing USAID as a “neo-colonial” institution resonates with a populist narrative that America should prioritize its own citizens and assert greater control over how taxpayer money is spent abroad. Domestically, the $11 billion plan faces scrutiny from Congress. Lawmakers from both parties have questioned whether dismantling USAID’s systems could destabilize ongoing health programs in countries where the U.S. has long-term commitments. The potential impact on global health security—including the fight against pandemics like COVID-19—adds another layer of concern. Internationally, U.S. allies and partner nations are watching closely. Sudden shifts in aid delivery could disrupt health programs in low- and middle-income countries, many of which rely on predictable funding cycles to maintain vaccination campaigns, maternal health services, and disease surveillance. Possible Benefits and Risks If executed carefully, the Trump-backed model could bring several benefits: Faster Response Times: Direct funding could accelerate delivery of vaccines, treatments, and emergency support. Innovation Boost: By partnering with private sector companies, the plan could accelerate development of new health technologies. Accountability: With performance-based metrics, the plan may better measure the impact of U.S. aid. However, the risks are equally significant: Disruption of Existing Programs: Abrupt changes could destabilize ongoing health projects. Loss of Expertise: USAID’s decades of experience in navigating local governance, supply chains, and community engagement may be hard to replace. Geopolitical Fallout: Allies accustomed to collaborating with USAID might see the move as destabilizing, reducing cooperation on global health initiatives. Looking Ahead As Trump and his allies continue to advocate for this $11 billion overhaul, the debate over the future of U.S. health aid is intensifying. Proponents view it as a necessary modernization of an outdated system, while critics fear it could undercut decades of carefully built infrastructure and global partnerships. Ultimately, the success of this plan will hinge on its ability to balance efficiency with stability, innovation with oversight, and political objectives with humanitarian needs. For now, the proposal remains controversial, representing a dramatic departure from traditional approaches to U.S. foreign aid. Whether it will reshape global health for the better—or simply create more uncertainty—remains to be seen. In the end, the Trump health plan is as much about ideology as it is about dollars. It challenges the conventional wisdom of international development and asks whether a more streamlined, results-focused approach can truly replace a system built over decades. As the world watches, the stakes could not be higher: the future of U.S. global health aid—and the lives it touches—hangs in the balance.
By Muhammad Hassan4 days ago in Earth
Nitrogen is necessary for young tropical rain forests to combat climate change.
By absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it in wood, tropical rainforests contribute to the slowing of climate change. Forests that develop quickly are even more important because they absorb carbon more quickly.
By Francis Dami3 days ago in Earth
Comments (2)
Now
Leave the city