Are they leaving ANY TREES in the new Atlanta developments? (house, neighborhoods)

[winkergior]

Sorry to butt in but one of the things that attract me to Atlanta are the green scenes. Almost extinct here in Ca. I though Peach Tree was one of the best cities I have ever been too.. Only complaint I had was finding stores in the brushes..

[Prichard]

I used to love Atlanta - there was a time you could drive on 75, 85 and even 285 and, other than right downtown, you couldn't even see the houses because there were so many trees.

Now, the entire north side of Atlanta looks just like where I come from FLORIDA!!!! Yes, your developers have really screwed up, clear cutting beautiful forests to put mile after mile of cookie cutter house farms. UGLY

I'm glad someone brought this up.

[gt6974a]

This is true outside of Atlanta, but there is an ordinance inside the city that prevents cutting down trees w/o approval. Big time fines.

However, outside the city, yeah they just cut them down b/c it's cheaper.

If you ever get off of the main streets inside the perimeter, there's actually mature trees everywhere. In fact you feel like you're driving through a forest alot of the time.

But where they've been putting up houses on < 1/4 acre lots, they plant back like one tree in the front.

There's a site, called atlanta timeline or something that shows pictures of houses 50 years ago in Atlanta. You can see the before and after and most of the before there doesn't look like many trees. It's amazing how much a tree can grow in 20-50 years.

[kayrob]

Originally Posted by BobKovacs

But compared to some areas of the country, 1/3 of an acre is a lot. In central NJ, where we just moved from, the 50x100 lot was standard- that's just over 1/10 of an acre. If you were really lucky, you had 100x100, which is slightly less than 1/4 of an acre.

Who wants to spend the whole weekend maintaining a huge lot anyway?

Bob

I'm from NJ also and the house that my parents purchased back in the late 60's in Union County certainly has a back yard. Not an acre or anything but certainly big enough that it's hosted scores of cookouts and that I and my 6 siblings used to play back there regularly. You make it sound like I'm talking about the proverbial 40 acres and a mule. I'm talking about space to entertain not have an NFL game.

[BobKovacs]

Originally Posted by kayrob

I'm from NJ also and the house that my parents purchased back in the late 60's in Union County certainly has a back yard. Not an acre or anything but certainly big enough that it's hosted scores of cookouts and that I and my 6 siblings used to play back there regularly. You make it sound like I'm talking about the proverbial 40 acres and a mule. I'm talking about space to entertain not have an NFL game.

For all I know, your lot could have been 50x100 and the house sat toward the front, which left enough yard to play in. We had the same thing on a 50x100 lot. What I'm saying is that people often don't realize how much area a 1/3 acre lot is, until they have to maintain it every weekend.

Bob

[JPD]

Originally Posted by gt6974a

There's a site, called atlanta timeline or something that shows pictures of houses 50 years ago in Atlanta. You can see the before and after and most of the before there doesn't look like many trees. It's amazing how much a tree can grow in 20-50 years.

ATLANTA TIME MACHINE

[JPD]

Originally Posted by xxman777

Pre 1900 American’s gave very little thought to the environment. Issues such as clear cutting or forest conservation didn’t really exist. By 1900 much of the eastern part of the US had been turned into farmland, lumber companies would just clear cut without any thought of how they were damaging the land, there wasn’t a system in place to protect forests. Post 1900 (this really started with Teddy Roosevelt who became president in 1901) National Forest began to be established (protecting the forests), reforestation occurred with government programs to buy back land, lumber companies became more aware of the problems with clear cutting and started reforesting their lands, etc.

That makes sense. My questioning of that comes from hearing people (who are parroting what Rush Limbaugh has said) say there are more trees in the US now than when Colombus "discovered" America. There's a big difference between late 1800s and late 1400s.

[xxman777]

Originally Posted by JPD

That makes sense. My questioning of that comes from hearing people (who are parroting what Rush Limbaugh has said) say there are more trees in the US now than when Colombus "discovered" America. There's a big difference between late 1800s and late 1400s.

Absolutely. Between 1492 and 1900 a lot of trees disappeared, post 1900 a lot of trees have been planted. Of course in some places he is correct. For example I grew up in Denver where trees don't grow naturally so all the trees there are because we planted them. But I seriously doubt the few areas like that make up for all the trees which would be here but aren't because of crop land or developed areas in the east.

[kayrob]

Originally Posted by BobKovacs

For all I know, your lot could have been 50x100 and the house sat toward the front, which left enough yard to play in. We had the same thing on a 50x100 lot. What I'm saying is that people often don't realize how much area a 1/3 acre lot is, until they have to maintain it every weekend.

Bob

They have both a front lawn and a backyard. And If I ever got too lazy to push a lawn mower(God forbid) I do have a son who is 14 months old who will be able to step in.

[JPD]

14 months? He should be ready for duty in another month or two.