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'd say this rule generally holds true better when comparing detached single family home neighbourhoods to each other, and works a little less well with urban and multifamily developments.
I'd say this rule generally holds true better when comparing detached single family home neighbourhoods to each other, and works a little less well with urban and multifamily developments.
Eh. Won't single detached home neighborhoods all have trees, if the climate supports it and the neighborhood is old enough, I don't see why there should be a dfference.
Eh. Won't single detached home neighborhoods all have trees, if the climate supports it and the neighborhood is old enough, I don't see why there should be a dfference.
I agree, it is misleading as an indicator of better/worse off neighborhoods.
Poorer neighborhoods in Philly look greener from satellite photography because of all the overgrown vegetation and vacant lots. More well off areas will look less green because they're fully built out.
Eh. Won't single detached home neighborhoods all have trees, if the climate supports it and the neighborhood is old enough, I don't see why there should be a dfference.
In my neck of the woods, it seems like trees are cut down more frequently in poorer neighborhoods and aren't as often replanted. Whereas more affluent neighborhoods replace them much more quickly and in numbers. While it doesn't really look it, both of these neighborhoods are roughly the same age.
Of course there are exceptions (like near parks or civic buildings), but in general I haven't seen rows of trees planted like that in the less affluent areas. I'm sure there's a certain amount of a city's budget allocated to beautification, right? So in that way, it sorta makes sense that more affluent areas would spend more to plant many more trees, right? I'm guessing it wouldn't typically apply to east coast cities.
The less wealthier one for sure was built around the 1960s. The other one is actually a bit older, but the housing varies by age (some are from the 1920s while some were built as recently as the 90s). I'm pretty sure the infrastructure was first set up in the 20s and 30s though.
Also I shouldn't say less wealthy...it's pretty much middle class but I didn't want it sound like it's an impoverished neighborhood by calling it poorer.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,047,835 times
Reputation: 11862
Older suburbs tend to have more established trees, and are often pricier. Many newer areas seem to have a dearth of vegetation, and just look bleak and ugly.
I just know that when we had lower income residents we had more trees. The first thing the rural pioneers who discovered us did was cut down the trees, some 200 years old that shaded the streets. My lot, and my neighbor's, are the only houses on our street that still have trees in the front yards, the rest have been cut down. So, the street that was stereotype tree shaded cool 25 years ago is now frying pan hot asphalt in the summer.
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.
