U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-08-2014, 09:56 PM
 
Location: Auburn, New York
1,775 posts, read 2,510,289 times
Reputation: 2935

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Min-Chi-Cbus View Post
Why aren't people looking at the objective scientific data? Is % of tree canopy coverage not a good metric to use? I'm not as familiar with the "we have more trees than you" argument as I should be.
The problem with "object" data is that the definition of tree cover is subjective. This is why the data I posted from the Forest Service on page one of this thread is different from the data from National Geographic on page three.

In cities like Minneapolis, Austin, San Francisco, and Buffalo, there are a lot of trees for sure, but few neighborhoods have a dense, dark canopy. Whereas, in cities like Houston and Baltimore, some neighborhoods look like they're built on the floor of the Amazon, while other neighborhoods have no trees at all.

Striking a balance between quantity of trees, size of trees, shade quality, and number of areas sans trees is messy and complicated, hence the debate you here in this tread.

Overall, I'd say the South beats the North here because the trees are bigger in the South (longer growing season). Washington DC, Chapel Hill, Charlotte, Greenville, Nashville, Atlanta, Richmond, and Birmingham seem equally lush to me.

Last edited by Dawn.Davenport; 12-08-2014 at 10:48 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-08-2014, 10:03 PM
 
Location: District of Columbia
737 posts, read 1,411,572 times
Reputation: 466
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie.e View Post
Atlanta is very forested from what I remember and so is other mid size cities like Charlotte, Columbia, Raleigh, Columbus, Birmingham and pretty much most of the cities along the East Coast and Gulf Coast..
Must not forget Portland and Seattle too since they have plenty of trees everywhere you go...
I grew up in Columbia and it is pretty much a forest with a city glued to the landscape like many southern cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2014, 10:09 PM
 
Location: Who Cares, USA
2,343 posts, read 2,749,988 times
Reputation: 2258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawn.Davenport View Post
In cities like Minneapolis, Austin, San Francisco, and Buffalo, there are a lot of trees for sure, but few neighborhoods have a dense, dark canopy. Whereas, in cities like Houston and Baltimore, some neighborhoods look like they're built on the floor of the Amazon, while other neighborhoods have not trees at all.

Striking a balance between quantity of trees, size of trees, shade quality, and number of areas sans trees is messy and complicated, hence the debate you here in this tread.
Great point. In the case of Austin and Houston (Austin is on the list, Houston isn't), I know for a fact Austin doesn't have any neighborhoods that can even touch the Boulevard Oaks neighborhood in Houston for dense canopy and "green tunnels". However, Austin does have more tree cover overall as a city than Houston does, which is probably why it made the list and Houston didn't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2014, 05:47 AM
 
Location: Northeast Suburbs of PITTSBURGH
3,718 posts, read 3,570,956 times
Reputation: 2331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Min-Chi-Cbus View Post
Why aren't people looking at the objective scientific data? Is % of tree canopy coverage not a good metric to use? I'm not as familiar with the "we have more trees than you" argument as I should be.
Bingo. By stats all I've seen is Atlanta is #1 and Pittsburgh is #2. Nobody else has posted tree cover percentages.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2014, 09:45 AM
 
Location: Austin
596 posts, read 675,696 times
Reputation: 1091
Quote:
Originally Posted by speagles84 View Post
Bingo. By stats all I've seen is Atlanta is #1 and Pittsburgh is #2. Nobody else has posted tree cover percentages.
The link on the first page gave the percentages for urban canopies for ten cities.

Austin 30%
Charlotte 46%
Denver 20%
Milwaukee 22%
Minneapolis 31%
NYC 21%
Portland 30%
Sacramento 17%
Seattle 23%
Washington DC 35%
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2014, 09:59 AM
 
Location: Austin
596 posts, read 675,696 times
Reputation: 1091
Quote:
Originally Posted by paris-on-ponce View Post
Not true. Pittsburgh has a higher percentage than the other 8 cities on that list. But that list you provided wasn't the top 9 cities. It was a random selection.

For instance, Atlanta's tree cover percentage is 53.9, the highest of any major city.

http://www.itreetools.org/Canopy/res...Greenfield.pdf
Are you looking at the tree/shrub category? I see it does list Atlanta as 53.9% but it also lists Albuquerque as 40.8%. I love Albuquerque but it is not a city that comes to mind for urban canopy. It lists it almost equal with Pittsburgh (41.9%).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2014, 01:01 PM
 
Location: San Antonio
5,286 posts, read 4,155,936 times
Reputation: 4349
As green as Houston currently is, it isn't nearly as forested as it once was.

Austin may technically have a large percentage of tree cover, but most of those trees are short and scrubby, and the city can hardly be described as lush.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2014, 01:13 PM
 
Location: 98004 / 30327
561 posts, read 486,497 times
Reputation: 887
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricNorthman View Post
Are you looking at the tree/shrub category? I see it does list Atlanta as 53.9% but it also lists Albuquerque as 40.8%. I love Albuquerque but it is not a city that comes to mind for urban canopy. It lists it almost equal with Pittsburgh (41.9%).
I'm looking at page 23. This paragraph:

Results

Of the 20 cities analyzed, tree cover ranged from 53.9 percent in Atlanta to 9.6 percent in Denver; building impervious cover ranged from 27.1 percent in Chicago to 4.8 percent in Kansas City; road and other impervious cover ranged from 36.2 percent in Miami to 12.3 percent in Nashville; and total impervious cover varied from 61.1 percent in New York City to 17.7 percent in Nashville (Table 2). Two cover classes tree/shrub and bare soil generally exhibited a reduction in percent cover, while the other land classes generally exhibited an increase in cover.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2014, 03:32 PM
 
71 posts, read 105,040 times
Reputation: 67
AUSTIN | Photos & Videos Thread - Page 49 - SkyscraperPage Forum

Some of the pictures in this thread will make some realize how much austin is covered. No they aren't the enormous sized trees you'd find in Atlanta but if your talking about what city has a great deal of tree coverage austin is obviously up there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2014, 05:49 PM
 
175 posts, read 592,276 times
Reputation: 124
Charlotte is well a good one mentioned

http://goo.gl/maps/KAmEy

Austin definetley has its parts
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top