I don't know if this is supposed to be a propaganda piece, but nothing about that dump is an "oasis". If you've driven by there, and I have many times, it smells so awful you have to close your car windows and turn off the car ventilation. It smells absolutely rotten and toxic. I worry for people who live and grow up in the vicinity.<p>Underneath the soil, everything there is toxic, a mix of whatever people put in landfills. Of course it will seep liquids into the ground eventually, despite the waterproof layer underneath, it's only a matter of time.<p>I acknowledge and appreciate the positive intentions, but we should not fool ourselves into viewing this a success. To do so would be an act of denial, and would be dangerous for our planet's health.
This approach was taken with the Mountain View dump next to Google (and Palo Alto’s next door). Shoreline amphitheater And the nearly Park/lake (next to where Google is now) was built on it; I went to the first few shows when it opened and remember smoky emissions from the seating area — not from the audience I mean.<p>The flat area where the office buildings are was a bean field. When shoreline opened. I used to walk from my office, cutting through years farm, to go to shoreline. Then SGI and J&J built buildings there (which later became the Google campus) and the park and amphitheater just seem to most people to be part of the landscape. Which is great!
Interesting. How are they managing the continued break-down of the garbage that's still buried a few (dozen?) feet below?<p>The article doesn't convince me that this dump is totally reformed, just that life has developed on top. This also isn't a "sustainable" solution as we will continue to need dumps for the foreseeable future...
That dump used to stink somewhere between pine sol (I think they used to try and cover up the smell with something?) and rotting trash. And it is right in the middle of the island so any time you had to drive anywhere on the highway you passed it and got to enjoy the smell.<p>I would never set foot on that land, god only knows what horrible toxic stuff has been dumped there.
"Imagine Central Park with trash mounds 20 stories high. Now imagine that times three."<p>Are there no old photos?<p>Or would that be too evocative of what lies below?
Tangentially: Is heat threatment at all a thing in the US? With articles like this about landfills it never seems to be mentioned much while its the norm, i think even required by law (before dumping), here in europe.
Today's garbage dumps will be tomorrow's resource deposits. I suspect the concentration of many raw materials is greater in the dump than it is in many active mines.
If you leave something 20 years, trees will start growing pretty rapidly. They even mention deliberate tree planting, but in the pics there are few trees and those present look like they're struggling. Looks like it's mainly grass because that's what can cope, not because it's a plant eden of any sort.<p>Arborists please chip in.
Contradicting lie #142 from the environmental movement.<p>The worse you make land for humans the better it is for the environment. See... anything radioactive.
I'm a little confused. I'm pretty sure they kept this dump open specifically so they could dispose of the Sept 11 attack detritus. How could the NYT miss that detail so completely?<p>Edit: It's even in fucking wikipedia: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresh_Kills_Landfill#September_11,_2001_and_aftermath" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresh_Kills_Landfill#September...</a><p>Boy I really hope somebody got fired for that blunder...