CUNY Capstone · Sector 3
A map-centered civic technology product for asking better questions about New York City's climate, vulnerability, and energy context.
"How might we better understand energy-infrastructure vulnerability in New York City?"
A systems question, not a fixed product specification. The map emerged through the work.
One question sits on top of many interacting systems: climate hazards, people and places, energy context, and infrastructure. Public evidence can describe how those systems overlap in geography.
Public evidence supports orientation and screening. It does not support failure prediction or asset-level validation.
Available to the team
Public evidence
NYC datasets · research · public plans · case studies.
Not available to the team
Internal operations
Asset condition · feeder loading · private outages · proprietary models.
01
Open question
02
Public research
03
Analysis
04
Dashboard
05
Feedback + mapping
06
Atlas
Six official capstone days
Jul 06 · 07 · 08 → 13 · 14 · 15
Jul 09–12 · inter-session build
Analyze · prototype · map · implement
01
Atlas
Orientation
Begin with place.
02
Analytical Layer
Investigation
Go deeper into the evidence.
03
Playbook
Project memory
Preserve sources and decisions.
| Source | Unit / grain | Timeframe |
|---|---|---|
| Electric consumption + cost | NYCHA billing record | 2010–Sep 2025* |
| Future floodplain | Polygon geometry | 2050s scenario |
| Flood Vulnerability Index | GEOID / relative quintile | Present–2080s |
| Local Law 84 | Covered property-year | 2022–2024 |
| Coastal exposure forecast | NTA-scenario snapshot | Current + 2050 |
674,985 archived CSV rows describe archive volume. Not unique assets, comparable observations, or coverage of the grid. *2011 and 2018 absent; 2025 partial through September.
100-year coastal exposure · current → 2050
90,605 → 116,305
+28.36% modeled exposed-building count
Not damage, outage probability, or asset impact.
High-tide exposure · current → 2050
932 → 3,400
+264.81% modeled exposed-building count
Scenario totals, not observed annual events.
01
Citywide orientation
02
Local context
03
Evidence + limits
04
Deeper investigation
Technology accelerated
Research + synthesis
Analysis + prototyping
Implementation + documentation
People retained responsibility
Purpose + evidence meaning
Product judgment + boundaries
Accountability + decisions
Generate → test → interpret → decide. A team-produced outcome; technology participation does not establish exact code authorship.
Use the system to
Do not interpret it as
Geographic convergence identifies resilience-relevant conditions. It does not establish infrastructure failure, causality, or where a utility should invest.
01 · Product evaluation
Does the Atlas improve understanding?
Orientation speed · interpretation accuracy · evidence traceability. Also test boundary comprehension and decision usefulness.
Proposed criteria, not completed validation results.
02 · Method evaluation
Does RAS transfer to another setting?
Test the method with a new challenge, team, and evidence environment.
The Resilience Alignment Sprint was formalized after the capstone through reflection.
A strong accomplishment with explicit limits, and an open invitation to make the questions, evidence, and product more useful.