U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [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 02-11-2013, 08:57 PM
 
Location: OCNJ and or lower Florida keys
776 posts, read 1,647,946 times
Reputation: 789

Advertisements

IMHO No they should not require it. The developer will not make less money if he has to leave undeveloped tree'd land. he will build less building and charge more for the buildings to make his profit. let the land/building owner landscape the property as they see fit to provide value and beautify as required for the neighborhood. If you wanna see trees plant your own in the yard or goto the park or local arboretum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-12-2013, 01:42 AM
 
2,889 posts, read 4,632,704 times
Reputation: 3590
Where I am we have to consider fire season. It rains between December and March but the rest of the year is dry. More rain means more quick growing wild brush that eventually dries and becomes tinder. It's a natural process, but someone's gotta keep that brush clear! Some non-native eucalyptus are particularly flammable. Many invasive non-native wild trees push out native species and are not good native wildlife habitats (though they may look fine enough to human eyes). Others even destroy soil balance and sap the water table.

If it's not homeowners who maintain them then if there's an open lot it's the city's responsibility and ultimately, of course, at our cost. We can't blame them for not allowing wild growth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2013, 07:30 AM
 
Location: Philaburbia
32,475 posts, read 60,078,568 times
Reputation: 54146
I don't know what "tree save" means, but when you're building on a cornfield, there are no trees to save.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2013, 07:43 AM
 
281 posts, read 635,080 times
Reputation: 364
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81 View Post
I don't know what "tree save" means, but when you're building on a cornfield, there are no trees to save.
It is a east coast term because in most cases when someone develops a suburban site they are cutting down a huge forest. Many people who were used to seeing the forest in their neighborhood get angry when developers come in and clear cut the entire site, so to make the neighbors less angry a certain percent of the land is kept in it's natural state. There is lots of controversy in the community how much of the original land should be maintained and how much is can be used for the homes, business or parking. If the land was a farm field many people still like at least part of the land to be kept as open space. Others disagree and want the entire site developed and say that full use of the land is really smart growth, and see no benefit leaving the trees and open space.

Studies have shown that keeping a percent of the land in it's natural state in any development will have an impact on the property values for up to a mile around. If 200 acre Johnson's Woods, that had been full of 100 foot high oak trees for as long as people can remember, is clear cut completely the entire area is affected and people think less of the community and housing values go down. But other people think that the owners of Johnson Woods should be able to clear cut the entire site as long as they own the property and the visual appeal of the neighborhood should not be considered because they don't own the land. And a new strip center with a Whole Foods is far more valuable than Johnson Woods with it's 100 foot tall Oak trees.

Your thoughts?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2013, 07:58 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,124 posts, read 102,928,437 times
Reputation: 33177
Your thoughts?

Thought #1: East coast parochialism

Both Ohiogirl81 and I have said there are places with few to no trees to save.

I do understand the point, and I already posted that my suburban community requires 15% of land in a residential development to be dedicated to open space, regardless of whether that is trees or prairie. Out here open space is considered quite valuable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2013, 08:05 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,993 posts, read 42,201,332 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post

Thought #1: East coast parochialism

Both Ohiogirl81 and I have said there are places with few to no trees to save.
So what? The OP is interested in areas formerly forested areas, is it parochialism to discuss the situation relevant to him?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2013, 08:12 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,124 posts, read 102,928,437 times
Reputation: 33177
You have to live in "flyover" country to understand it!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2013, 08:14 AM
 
Location: Philaburbia
32,475 posts, read 60,078,568 times
Reputation: 54146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Tired Man View Post
It is a east coast term because in most cases when someone develops a suburban site they are cutting down a huge forest.
Say what??? I live on the east coast and I've never heard that term. Perhaps only the town you live in uses that term.

Anyway, most developments around here (suburban Philadelphia) are built on farm fields. Ain't no forests left; ain't no trees to save. The wooded areas that are left are by and large protected land.

Oh, wait, I take that back. In my neighborhood, a former reservoir owned by the local water company had been abandoned for many, many years, and was overgrown. The property was clear cut for a townhouse development, but it's not like there were many trees in there worth saving.

Now if that's the sort of thing you're talking about, I'd hardly call it a "forest".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2013, 08:30 AM
 
281 posts, read 635,080 times
Reputation: 364
Here is an example of what I am talking about:

City revises rules for saving trees during development projects - CapitalGazette.com: Arundel Digest
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2013, 09:19 AM
 
Location: garland
1,595 posts, read 1,724,863 times
Reputation: 1987
should they require? Yes, they should.
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 > General Forums > Urban Planning
Similar Threads
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