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.
I do not mean most urban forest or parkland with trees. But within its neighborhoods themselves. I believe trees and greenery in neighborhoods themselves. Is just as important or more so, then having the most parkland?
I have seen cities with a built of less trees and green fronts and cities with neighborhoods tree-lined. But if you go by the title of TREE-CANOPY. Cities I expect to have a high % tree-canopy are sometimes those cities I saw as having less within neighborhoods themselves? What gives? Must be more forested Parkland boost a cities Tree-Canopy % over tree-lined neighborhoods?
I thought I'd make it a Poll thread. But feel free to vote but also list another major city that has a Tree Canopy that shows in its neighborhoods too.
The old East Coast cities have the most established neighborhoods/urban environments, and thus, end up having many neighborhoods with well grown trees. The same applies (to a lesser extent) for Chicago. These cities went through strong periods of beautification, allowing trees to gradually fill many neighborhoods.
Houston has Sunbelt sprawl, which gives an illusion of more concrete/less trees. However, it has the best overall growing climate out of all these cities for lush/tree lined neighborhoods; it has the highest annual precipitation, and stays relatively mild in winter (unlike all these cities except LA). The the flora resembles that of the classic coastal Deep South (magnolias, live oaks, spanish moss, etc).
Los Angeles has the driest climate out of all these cities, so it has the hardest time getting tree-lined neighborhoods. This handicap is overcome, though, through irrigation, as well as use of drought-hardy trees (i.e. eucalyptus). The winters in LA are very mild, which allows for many tropical plants to be integrated into the arboriculture.
The old East Coast cities have the most established neighborhoods/urban environments, and thus, end up having many neighborhoods with well grown trees. The same applies (to a lesser extent) for Chicago.
Houston has Sunbelt sprawl, which gives an illusion of more concrete/less trees. However, it has the highest precipitation out of all these cities, meaning it has the best growing climate for trees/lush vegetation. The the flora resembles that of the classic coastal Deep South (magnolias, live oaks, spanish moss, etc).
Los Angeles has the driest climate out of all these cities, so it has the hardest time getting tree-lined neighborhoods. This handicap is overcome, though, through irrigation, as well as use of drought-hardy trees (i.e. eucalyptus).
The old rust belt cities i would say do better than most of these options. Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, and Rochester all have old tree lined streets dating to the 19th century, even in parts of the suburbs. Unfortunately, a freak 24" snowstorm destroyed many of Buffalo's trees in mid October ten years ago.
Raleigh. Not one of the top cities in America you think of, but they don't call it the City of Oaks for nothing.
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.
What gives? Must be more forested Parkland boost a cities Tree-Canopy % over tree-lined neighborhoods? 
