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.
"
“The “Significant Natural Resource Areas Management Plan” states that it was “maybe” like San Bruno or the Marin Headlands. Clearly, from what I read of early San Francisco, that is not the case. Sand seemed to permeate everything throughout the city.
“ If ever there were a location to place a grand city and do minor environmental harm,” he concludes, “S.F. was the place. To think that the nativists want to turn back the clock is so laughable that it is shocking that it might be reality.”
“If the plain truth must be told, the cove of Yerba Buena was a dismal thing to look on in those early days. The beach was right enough, but to the westward stretched a wilderness of desolate, forbidding sand dunes, often shifting their positions overnight. When one considers that many of them were 100 or more feet high, one can realize the uncertainties of the landscape. When the trade wind blew in fresh from the ocean, it carried with it an almost incredible burden of both fine and coarse sand that got into clothes, eyes, nose, mouth—anything that was open in short—besides penetrating the innermost recesses of a household. Only sound lungs were proof against the accumulation of sharp, gritty material daily inhaled. In fact the place long had the reputation for unhealthfulness, not entirely undeserved, until the leveling of the dunes and the reclamation of the park tract checked the shifting sands for good."
That is why you don't see all that much treecover, it was poor land to begin with, not redwood forests or anything that is in the rest of the bay area.
The original small settlement around Yerba Buena cove was a small part of what became the modern city of San Francisco--and there was a lot of sand because--wait for it--it was built right on the effin' shoreline. It's not as if the whole city was built amongst sand dunes. The city--just like most cities was built around and adapted to and well as transformed the landscape. You can find cities throughout the country that bear little resemblance to the original environment.
San Francisco has parts of it on the westside similar to the Marin Headlands(which are treeless for the most part by the way)--but right across from there, there's places like the Presidio and Lincoln Park and Golden Gate Park with plenty of tree cover. There's not as much trees in some neighorhoods of SF simply because of the style of urban development--there's usually parks nearby with ample amounts of greenery and trees.
I grew up in Santa Cruz to the south and yes originally there wasn't much tree cover there either along the coastal streches until the cities were developed... It's not that difficult though to find coastal tree varities(like cypreses) or other species that can be planted and will grow along the California Coast. There's cities in the Midwest that were built among fairly treeless prairies that now have plenty of trees as well.
The original small settlement around Yerba Buena cove was a small part of what became the modern city of San Francisco--and there was a lot of sand because--wait for it--it was built right on the effin' shoreline. It's not as if the whole city was built amongst sand dunes. The city--just like most cities was built around and adapted to and well as transformed the landscape. You can find cities throughout the country that bear little resemblance to the original environment.
San Francisco has parts of it on the westside similar to the Marin Headlands(which are treeless for the most part by the way)--but right across from there, there's places like the Presidio and Lincoln Park and Golden Gate Park with plenty of tree cover. There's not as much trees in some neighorhoods of SF simply because of the style of urban development--there's usually parks nearby with ample amounts of greenery and trees.
I grew up in Santa Cruz to the south and yes originally there wasn't much tree cover there either along the coastal streches until the cities were developed... It's not that difficult though to find coastal tree varities(like cypreses) or other species that can be planted and will grow along the California Coast. There's cities in the Midwest that were built among fairly treeless prairies that now have plenty of trees as well.
Quite true. So, maybe there hasn't been an adamant turn for more tree cover in SF? Or maybe trees that will grow fairly fast at a certain height and stay there don't grow well there. They might be either too low, or grow insanely high. The lack of trees does give it a more urban feel though, for what it's worth. It might be hard to go back now, you'd have to tear up a lot of concrete to put the trees there.
Quite true. So, maybe there hasn't been an adamant turn for more tree cover in SF? Or maybe trees that will grow fairly fast at a certain height and stay there don't grow well there. They might be either too low, or grow insanely high. The lack of trees does give it a more urban feel though, for what it's worth. It might be hard to go back now, you'd have to tear up a lot of concrete to put the trees there.
I could see it happen over time, but I think it's space, they'd have to be smallish trees. As far as climate, Any tree will grow there.
For all the people saying front yards are a waste, look again. Those SF houses have front yards too, they are just completely paved over. Those SF houses are set about the same distance back from the street as the house in the first Toronto picture. Only the Toronto house has nice trees and greenery in the front yard. And no driveway so there is no possibility of a car blocking the sidewalk and forcing pedestrians to walk around it. Personally I find those paved front yards to be hideous looking. Looks more like the parking lot of a suburban Wal-Mart than houses in an urban city.
Even those houses look like they have nothing but garage and a door on the ground floor. Is there a reason SF don't have actual living space on the ground floor like all Toronto homes do? Granted, those SF houses are nicer looking than the examples I posted, but they still have garages, driveways, curb cuts, and no apparent ground floor living space. The ground floor is the most important part of any kind of buildings (residential or otherwise), because that is what the pedestrian sees at eye level as they walk past. A structure's ground floor should not be dominated by auto-related uses.
^^yeah, those look just like Wal Mart.
Those houses were obviously built pre-automobile and those are conversions of basement space. They have back yards. Now tell us aboot those To houses, where do they park? Alleys? Street? I still cant get over that "2 face" house its hideous....
^^yeah, those look just like Wal Mart.
Those houses were obviously built pre-automobile and those are conversions of basement space. They have back yards. Now tell us aboot those To houses, where do they park? Alleys? Street? I still cant get over that "2 face" house its hideous....
The way it is setup in Chicago is the alleys go behind through the houses facing the street, and the garages are behind the house so you never see them. Either that or they just don't have them and they park a few blocks down in a private secure garage, or keep their car parked in a garage downtown, etc.The fronts of the streets in general look polished without the driveways (except in a few cases.) That way the pedestrians have full sidewalk access without worrying about cars coming out, and the bike riders coming by don't have to worry about people pulling out randomly either.
Now as for the architecture, I disagree, the architecture of the houses itself look awesome and I actually like some of the uniformity in the neighborhoods, it gives it a nice aesthetic appeal.
But yes, the pedestrian orientation is poor.
Toronto reminds me a bit like Chicago, yes the commercial sectors don't have the tree coverage, but soon as you get off the street there is are a LOT of trees. It lets you go in and out of a cozy feel in the city, quickly to hustle bustle.
You can see how much tree coverage there is and it is generally about a 3-4 story high tree coverage.
Now in the winter it will look more like this, but you can see the much larger trees there. And you can see the walkups w/o garages and full sidewalks.
Even by places like train track, or in general around the buildings, there is a tree barrier
I don't know Toronto well enough to know where to look, but it feels much more like Chicago as they are both on the great lakes, than it does walking around SF which is for sure more concrete everywhere and gives you a different feel. In some cases, having a lush SF in the neighborhoods might be odd, as it would block some of the views through the city (and into other parts of the city and looking at the ocean) if there were trees in the way.
Alleys are a typicall urban pattern, but they can be problematic too. Chicago definitely has trees, but not everywhere. Alot of the older areas more urban areas are not that treed just because of development. SF is denser than Toronto in part and trees are there, but definitely not the coverage you'd see in midwest cities, which Toronto kinda is.
I agree the two have similarities. I'd never say for the sake of street trees that either is prettier than SF, in fact I think the opposite, but theyre all attractive in different ways.
Chicago has the best skyline of the three......
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.
