Part A
Sibley first bolsters his argument that capitalism and exclusion are intertwined by mentioning Williams, Mumford and Engels and their writings on the topic. He goes on to use the examples of South African apartheid and Nazi Germany to exclude these examples, thereby specifying his argument yet expressing his awareness of its breadth. He mentions that he is using a “cue for analysis” from Paul Rabinow, to emphasize his current point and also to show the origin of his thought, helping the reader to understand his current argument. After further specifying his argument concerning the role of sexism, he gets to examples that directly support his argument, about the Meadowhall Shopping Center and the Gateshead Metro Centre. He supports this example using the quote from Coventry. Finally, he gives a supporting example that also serves to explain and clarify his argument in the Rittenhouse Square example.
This method of using sources differently is done extremely effectively by Sibley. We know, first of all, that he structured his argument first and then bolstered it with quotes, increasing his credibility in the reader’s eyes. Next, we know that he went to find sources that specifically reduce his topic, so he doesn’t only find articles within the breadth of his argument, but also outside. Not only does this engage the reader in its specifics, it also demonstrates that he searched deeply to find these sources, not just the surface arguments. Finally, he finds more abstract and vague sources to limit his breadth, and goes on to very specific sources for explaining and supporting his topic. This makes the essay more readable and easy to follow, and again exhibits his careful selection of which sources were most appropriate.
Part B
Marshall Kilduff. “The worst job in the city. ” San Francisco Chronicle 22 Sep. 2008,ProQuest National Newspapers Premier, ProQuest. Web. 31 Jul. 2009.
Robert Bridge. “Moscow: The Accidental Environmentalist. ” Moscow News (in English) 6 Apr. 2007,Research Library, ProQuest. Web. 31 Jul. 2009.
Rhetorical Analysis done in Freewrite #4.
“According to the Moscow City Administration, there are 96 parks, 18 gardens, and four botanical gardens to accommodate lovebirds who cannot afford Moscow’s exorbitant hotel rates.” (Bridge)
This quote, to me, seems to be an accurate representation of the Moscow Parks System. While it doesn’t provide much rhetorically, it’s a good number to provide a benchmark of what we’re working with in Moscow, which wouldn’t immediately be considered a green paradise. This proves that its park system is comparable to that of San Francisco, and therefore other US cities. I could use this to prove the point of Moscow having an extensive parks system and how it is tied in to how it is maintained during building projects.
“Nevertheless, urban forests, parks and various green zones are still granted a high degree of protection from the developer’s bulldozer…I am inclined to believe this is due to the Russians’ inherent love of nature, combined with a cynical attachment to bureaucracy and a late relationship with the automobile.” (Bridge)
This bit of commentary seems to explain the figure above on the amount of parks and gardens. While it is very editorial and not extremely quotable due to its subjectivity, it provides an explanation for Moscow’s bureaucratic protection of these parks to a seemingly unnecessary degree.
“Each developer is ‘ticketed’ for every tree, bush and shrub that he is forced to remove during a construction project. The money is tallied by a designated city official and the developer pays to have new trees planted elsewhere in the capital (in addition to sometimes paying to replant old tenants from their coveted dwellings)…Developers are charged up to $1,000 for every tree and bush disturbed during construction.” (Bridge)
This quote helps to explain, specifically, the way in which trees and parks are protected by bureaucracy and the government. While this wouldn’t be a model used for my town, I would use it to prove the sometimes accidental nature of being green. This relates to the situation of the turf fields because of their origin. In my interview with the town Parks Supervisor, he mentions that farmland was removed to put in this turf. Although this sounds like a move that may not be “green,” the turf is more sustainable because it doesn’t have to be mowed or watered or irrigated or anything, and can freely sit all year round. While the correlation isn’t very strong, it can be used as a counterpoint to the San Francisco example.
“Now consider another basic city function – the Recreation and Park Department and its constellation of more than 100 plazas, green spaces and ball fields. Chances are nearly every resident from tai chi grannies to pre-dawn joggers visits one regularly. Even coyotes are taking up residence in the trees and shrubs. Yet this world doesn’t rate much official respect. It’s not protected come budget time at City Hall. Major projects like new sprinklers, jungle gyms or field houses are paid for by occasional bond issues. Strange to think this can happen in a city that talks nonstop about greening, obesity and personal fitness.” (Kilduff)
This quote is a good one to explain the issue of parks and their restrictive funding and attention from town councils and state and federal government across the country. While it specifically speaks about the situation in San Francisco, it can be applied to East Brunswick, and relates to why the Turf Field was built and why it was specifically an astro-turf field. It’s more economical yet less green, and helps to avoid child obesity for a town that is full of commuters and their children. It highlights the importance of an issue that may not seem important to the average passer-by.
“As these arguments suggest, the definition of a park is always changing. ‘When I was growing up, nobody played soccer,’ said a middle-aged department hand. ‘Now there are leagues for every age, men and women, you name it.’ Frisbee golf has its own course, and there are cricket fields in the Crocker Amazon playground. Also, the city’s mild weather means there’s a slate of year-round sports that bring out more players and complaints.” (Kilduff)
This quote further elaborates the reasoning for the turf fields to be built: to be a year-round facility for activities that cannot necessarily be accommodated in a normal park area. The lighting and easy-to-maintain fields make it easy to use for leagues and consistent pick-up players alike. The quote maintains that this is a problem that is occurring all over the country, and serves as an argument for the idea of a turf field over a regular one, especially in the 21st century.
“There are even park lovers who are anti-park. A growing contingent in the city wants traditional planted-and-pruned parks turned back to ‘natural areas’ with minimal grooming for the wild touch missing elsewhere.” (Kilduff)
This quote points to the contradictions that some park enthusiasts have, and further bolsters why the turf fields can have both a good and bad reputation in the eyes of park lovers. It’s also situated next to a dog “park,” a highly-fenced and divided turf area in an area as barren as it is dry. While this is a park to some, to others it is an abomination, a glorified parking lot. This brings into the discussion the argument of perspective, and the challenge to the East Brunswick Division of Parks (and that of San Francisco) to creating the right facilities.
Part C
While it seems clear that there was a need for a new set of fields in East Brunswick, the reason for the use of Astroturf rather than traditional grass might not be as clear. The advantages to turf fields, however, are evident when looking at high-traffic city areas with needs for multiple sports. In San Francisco for example, in wake of the recent growing need to accommodate year-round sports, park officials responded by creating specific fields for unique sports, such as frisbee golf courses and cricket fields (Kilduff). Although the turf fields do not need to venture into such specific territory, they are marked for three different sports (soccer, football and lacrosse), and, according to East Brunswick Supervisor of Parks Leigh Gerhart, new lines could easily be added and maintained for years to come if a new sport were in high demand. Other sports, such as ultimate frisbee, do not require specific lines, and instead relish the opportunity of a level, dry terrain that is marked only for distances, something that cannot be found in any other city park. The final, and likely most desirable, quality of the fields is that they are lit at night, something that no other field or park facility within city limits can lay claim to. While the hours of lighting may be restrictive, it stretches their usage time past the traditional “dawn-to-dusk” hours of all other East Brunswick Parks.
Besides the usability advantages, a turf park can be, surprisingly, much more “green” and sustainable than a traditional grass park. Although it required destroying farmland (hence, Heavenly Farms Complex), the turf requires no watering, irrigation or mowing, making it superior to either farmland or a traditional grass soccer field. This concept is difficult to grasp for some, especially those park lovers who are “anti-park,” and would prefer parks to be “natural areas” without need for pruning and planted constantly (Kilduff). Although the turf fields are far from “natural,” they don’t require the gas-guzzling services of lawnmowers, they maintain the forests, grass and farmland around them, and they don’t require the installation of expensive and extensive sprinkler systems. In some places, where the advantages of “unnatural” parkland to replace “natural” areas may not be as clear, they are backed up by the laws themselves. In Moscow, for example, “each developer is ‘ticketed’ for every tree, bush and shrub that he is forced to remove during a construction project” (Bridge). While building a year-round sports facility, builders had to mark down every tree or bush that they had to destroy or relocate, and then either pay fines of up to $1000 per tree or arrange to plant these trees in another Moscow location (ibid). This type of legal support, while extreme, preserves the sanctity of natural green areas while supporting the green initiatives of facilities like turf fields.
