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, 08:56 AM
 
281 posts, read 633,068 times
Reputation: 364

Advertisements

One thing I notice when driving through less affluent communities is the lack of landscaping in commercial and residential development. When the developer comes in he will clear cut the entire site and just build the buildings without any concern for the beauty of the site. Vs in more well off areas the local officials will require a certain percent of the site be left in it's natural state (tree save areas) and extensive landscaping be performed. I am sure that the developer is not happy with the tree save and landscaping requirements due to cost and not being able to develop the entire site.

What do you think about it as someone interested in urban planning?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-11-2013, 09:00 AM
 
Location: Denver
14,154 posts, read 19,792,852 times
Reputation: 8810
Absolutely. We have no trees on our property.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2013, 09:33 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,448 posts, read 11,955,665 times
Reputation: 10561
In terms of urban areas, I think street trees are essential, and make a huge difference between a place looking "cheap" versus well-maintained.

It's possible to overdo it though. This street in Allegheny West in Pittsburgh has some of the most beautiful Victorian housing in Pittsburgh, but it's so heavily covered in street trees the road is dark except in the winter, and you cannot actually see the houses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2013, 10:42 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 27 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,034 posts, read 102,707,476 times
Reputation: 33083
In regards to the thread topic question, yes. Do you have any evidence that some don't have such requirements?

Add: After reading the OP, I don't get it. I don't know of anywhere in my suburban city that doesn't require some landscaping. I've been to many public hearings, and these projects always include landscaping. Of course, out here in CO it takes a long time for a tree to grow, so they look kind of sparse for a while.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2013, 11:46 AM
 
281 posts, read 633,068 times
Reputation: 364
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
In regards to the thread topic question, yes. Do you have any evidence that some don't have such requirements?

Add: After reading the OP, I don't get it. I don't know of anywhere in my suburban city that doesn't require some landscaping. I've been to many public hearings, and these projects always include landscaping. Of course, out here in CO it takes a long time for a tree to grow, so they look kind of sparse for a while.
Some poor towns, mostly outside of metro areas have little or no requirment for tree save or landscaping but in most areas the battle is how much should be saved. How much land should be saved in trees and or required to be landscaped in commerical development?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2013, 12:11 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 27 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,034 posts, read 102,707,476 times
Reputation: 33083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Tired Man View Post
Some poor towns, mostly outside of metro areas have little or no requirment for tree save or landscaping but in most areas the battle is how much should be saved. How much land should be saved in trees and or required to be landscaped in commerical development?
I can't answer your question about "how much" b/c I am not an architect, planner, etc. I do know in my suburban city 15% of land in housing developments has to be dedicated to open space, which I assume is what you mean by "tree save" land. We don't have a lot of trees to be saved here in eastern Colorado.

I also know that commercial developments are required to have landscaping, but I don't know how much. I remember when our church was remodeling, a sticking point was the landscaping. The pastor didn't want to "hide" the church with trees.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2013, 12:33 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,448 posts, read 11,955,665 times
Reputation: 10561
It's kind of hard to save trees when you do new development as well. Street trees, after all, are supposed to be planted in rows along the street. Even if an occasional tree was in roughly the right place, you need to tear up that area in order to put in utilities which come in off the road.

Really, either you're talking about planting street trees as soon as new development is put in (which IMHO is a good idea, but it will take decades to fill in), or you're talking about leaving totally undeveloped wild parcels of land within the development. The latter would be of course good in terms of amenities, but it won't make a subdivision in general look more attractive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2013, 12:35 PM
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
45,992 posts, read 42,048,502 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
Really, either you're talking about planting street trees as soon as new development is put in (which IMHO is a good idea, but it will take decades to fill in), or you're talking about leaving totally undeveloped wild parcels of land within the development. The latter would be of course good in terms of amenities, but it won't make a subdivision in general look more attractive.
Wouldn't undeveloped wild parcels make it look more attractive? At least if you like a house in the forest look.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2013, 01:07 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,448 posts, read 11,955,665 times
Reputation: 10561
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Wouldn't undeveloped wild parcels make it look more attractive? At least if you like a house in the forest look.
I guess it depends upon how it's done.

A single house developed otherwise undeveloped land pretty quickly fills in. Particularly if there is forested land behind it. Even if the rear yard was cleared, the house itself will block the "bald spot."

On the other hand, if you're assuming a subdivision, with a new property on either side of you, as well as in back, it's difficult to see how you'd make it look filled in. At best you might be able to get a few feet of trees demarcating the property lines in a rough fashion. This will look highly artificial and weird. More likely you'd end up with large undeveloped patches of woods in pockets here and there within the subdivision, which wouldn't improve the general appeal of the neighborhood, only those houses situated immediately nearby.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2013, 01:16 PM
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
45,992 posts, read 42,048,502 times
Reputation: 14811
I was thinking of a subdivision with lots large enough that some old wooded sections remain in between houses. The developer cleared land to build the house and some to give a front and back yard but the rest was left undeveloped. That's true of my parent's house, where I grew up. I saw a copy of the original advertisement by developer, it said it was more tasteful than your usual tract development by leaving some land undisturbed giving it a more "country" appearance. I don't remember which trees predate the development.
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