Why is there more pine, fir and cedar trees in Seattle than Portland? (Lake Oswego: license plate)

[Weekend Traveler]

I recently returned from my first trip to the Pacific Northwest in 25 years. had remembered most of the trees (that were not planted) in Portland to be some type of Pine. I was shocked to see so many trees that lost there leaves in Portland. Seattle on the other hand was like 80% evergreen (Pines). Anyone know why?

[vette-dude]

Without doing extensive research, I would think it has something to do with polution and logging in and around the city Portland. Seattle receives an awful lot of rain throughout the year, which surely helps the firs and pines to grow for generations to enjoy. I used to visit the rain forest in western washington, if you get a chance go there, it's just beautiful..

[roneb]

Pine trees actually require a drier climate and aren't really native to areas west of the Cascades. So any pine trees you see in Portland or Seattle are planted (though some very long ago). Cedars might be more common in Seattle for the reasons stated above; and perhaps because Cedars are much more common on the Olympic Peninsula. Firs are everywhere in both Portland and Seattle.

[Weekend Traveler]

Originally Posted by roneb

Pine trees actually require a drier climate and aren't really native to areas west of the Cascades. So any pine trees you see in Portland or Seattle are planted (though some very long ago). Cedars might be more common in Seattle for the reasons stated above; and perhaps because Cedars are much more common on the Olympic Peninsula. Firs are everywhere in both Portland and Seattle.

There is a share of Douglas Fir and Sitka Spruce in Porland but there is lots more trees that lose their leaves in Portland than in Seattle, why?

[PNW-type-gal]

Originally Posted by Weekend Traveler

There is a share of Douglas Fir and Sitka Spruce in Porland but there is lots more trees that lose their leaves in Portland than in Seattle, why?

Because they've been planted by a garden-crazy city.

[Todd.LA]

Originally Posted by Weekend Traveler

I recently returned from my first trip to the Pacific Northwest in 25 years. had remembered most of the trees (that were not planted) in Portland to be some type of Pine. I was shocked to see so many trees that lost there leaves in Portland. Seattle on the other hand was like 80% evergreen (Pines). Anyone know why?

One way you can tell if someone is from the Pacific Northwest or not is how they refer to the evergreens. Pacific Northwesterns almost never call them pine trees (as a generic term), because west of the Cascades, most of the evergreen trees are Doug Firs, not pines. Most of the actual pine trees grow east of the Cascades where they do better in the dryer climate.

[pw72]

Originally Posted by Todd.LA

One way you can tell if someone is from the Pacific Northwest or not is how they refer to the evergreens. Pacific Northwesterns almost never call them pine trees (as a generic term), because west of the Cascades, most of the evergreen trees are Doug Firs, not pines. Most of the actual pine trees grow east of the Cascades where they do better in the dryer climate.

Very true. Even the Washington license plate has the word "Evergreen" on it!

[juggler]

I dispute your premise that there is a higher percentage of deciduous trees in Portland than in Seattle.

Both cities have lots of evergreen and deciduous trees, and the type of tree you see will vary depending upon terrain and the level of development in any given area.

[backdrifter]

I think in the urbanized areas of metro Portland there are less native evergreens and more transplanted deciduous trees than in metro Seattle, with exception to much of Lake Oswego.

Why? I don't know and I wonder myself... It's unfortunate really, in my opinion.