Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's all about Nashville for this one. The city's area is almost that of LA, but the part of it that actually constitutes a city is small, more resembling little midsize towns like Boston and Atlanta (no, not Cleveland, sorry).
Also, those dismissing cities west of the Mississippi need to pull their heads out of wherever they left them. I'm sorry, but if deciduous, seasonal, common leaf-bearing tree's are the only trees some of you will acknowledge, than there's no point in this debate. The fact that I've heard Seattle mentioned less than Cleveland on this thread is laughable.
Many people who have never been to Atlanta have it pictured incorrectly, including myself. Looking at the map of the US, I thought it was another Southern city on about the 34th parallel, so it ought to look like Dallas East. Hence, I wasn't looking to be impressed. When I first went there, drove around 285 (the Perimeter - belt road) and arbitrarily picked LaVista Rd. (because it sounded Californian) to drive into town, the aesthetics of that drive caused my jaw to drop. Beautiful.
Lol @ you saying it's not Atlanta. According to Wikipedia, Atlanta wins by far with the second contender being HOUSTON. Portland doesn't even make the list. Boston is on there, and Seattle doesn't even make the national average.
To be fair, you didn't read wiki's source very carefully (if you read the same one I did...). It was *not* ranking every US city....it simply listed a few that it had its own sources (studies by US Forestry and whatnot), and that didn't include all of them....
But yes, I think Atlanta wins this one (maybe not by the wide margin that some seem to think, though).
Also surprised by that source from Wiki that Milwaukee ranked so low (11% tree coverage). I guess maybe I haven't paid that much attention to it in Milwaukee....most Midwestern cities, I'll bet, are higher than that, though, so I just assume Milwaukee too....
Lol @ you saying it's not Atlanta. According to Wikipedia, Atlanta wins by far with the second contender being HOUSTON. Portland doesn't even make the list. Boston is on there, and Seattle doesn't even make the national average.
So looks like it's Atlanta case closed. Just because there's a mountain covered in trees doesn't mean there's more trees everywhere. Atlanta is a city built in low mountains. Drive on I-20: it feels like you are in the countryside, then downtown ,and then back in the countryside. Not a real suburban feel.
True about 1-20 in Atlanta. On either side of 285, the feeling of being in a forest, right around the city, is very accurate. Surprised, and not so surprised, about Houston being #2. That's probably why I like it much more than Dallas.
Boston does as well but there are not as many trees within the city limits as the city's far denser than Atlanta. Streets are generally tree lined outside the center.
I would suspect that most cities in the East have a large amount of tree cover
though the more densly developed ones have removed them but basically all of the esat coast would be naturally tree lush
Yes the eastern forest is similar though out, I'm not sure is the southeastern canopy is taller or not but that's irrelevant what matter is preservation. Really environment + preservation + Urban forestry
This is why first few pic were dense. The northeast is really an exception, most American large cities cores are develop with tight detach houses. So that's what I posted then the later pics that were less dense. Atlanta was largely develop with the ideals of the garden city movement these neighborhoods were planned to be green as heck. Different factors can happen over time but the founding plan is important. Density is partly a factor but in most places no, rather they just weren't planned to be heavily forested. The founders did not leave a lot trees or didn't planted enough of them this makes a big difference 50 to 100 years later.
Sweet Auburn and Old 4th ward are some of the less greener nighborhoods in Atlanta, they wasn't planned to be extra leafy. This how most American urban cores are developed
Inman Park and Grant Park have a completely vibe they was planned to be leafy, but large parts of them are develop just as dense as above. In the below pic there's basically no yards, I was trying to show how forested a neighborhoods can be with little space to grow.
When I went to Orlando, there were soooo many trees. And it was so lush and one of the most underrated cities for beauty.
For some reason, I did't know that there were an abundance of pine trees in Florida.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
