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)
 
Old 04-06-2013, 02:41 PM
 
Location: Windsor, Ontario, Canada
11,265 posts, read 13,150,322 times
Reputation: 13459

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
Can you help me find a treeless suburb in Toronto? The place has to be at least a couple years old though, obviously since greenfield development is on farmland, there won't be trees until they get planted shortly after the subdivision is built.

You know, I really, really thought I would be able to find one. I could not. Even brand new, the developers have young trees planted.

Well done, Toronto!


I LOVE the look of tree lined streets. If it makes a tunnel, even better.

These are a few streets in my city, Windsor Ontario. I still had Toronto in the search bar lol.

toronto - Google Maps

toronto - Google Maps

toronto - Google Maps

toronto - Google Maps

Windsor, ON - Google Maps

Windsor, ON - Google Maps

Windsor, ON - Google Maps
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-06-2013, 05:00 PM
 
Location: Coos Bay, Oregon
7,142 posts, read 8,874,211 times
Reputation: 7732
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
Hyperbole much?


WHY ARE YOUR TREES SO IMPORTANT?

1. Good healthy shade or ornamental trees add value to your home and property.
2. Trees also cool your home and property during summer.
3. Trees block the harsh winter winds that rob your home of heat in winter.
4. Trees block noise from cars, aircraft, trains and other noise pollution.
5. Trees provide privacy from neighbors.
6. Trees block the view of ugly situations, such as utility poles or overhead wires.
7. Trees filter out pollution and protect delicate plants underneath them.
8. Trees make wonderful homes for birds to live in or for animals such as deer to live under to protect 9. them from the harsh winter cold or the extreme summer heat.
9. Trees cool the water along rivers, lakes and ponds. This helps control algae and gives fish and other aquatic life a place to hide in the shadows.
10. Trees provide food for a variety of animals because of the seeds, berry’s, fruit, nuts, leaves, limbs, wood, bark, sap and pollen they produce. Think about how each of these items can be used as food and think of the types of animals or insects that depend on these deferent items so that they can survive.
11. Trees provide camouflage for all different types of wildlife to hide in.
12. Large trees actually protect one another during high winds. Trees block the wind from one another and rest against one another as they move back and forth. That’s why trees tend to blow over after clearing a wooded lot and only leave a few trees to remain.
13. When trees die they slowly dissolve to make soil loamy and provide important and much needed nutrients to the soil and microorganisms.
14. Trees produce oxygen so we can breathe.


WHY ARE YOUR TREES SO IMPORTANT? - Urban Forestry, Inc.

Ten Top Reasons Why Trees Are Important - Non-harvest Values of Tree

Importance and Uses of Trees | Learn Value and Benefit of Trees at SavATree
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2013, 07:37 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,416 posts, read 11,913,851 times
Reputation: 10533
Oops on not remembering I wrote that street trees = suburban on the first post. I don't know if I really associate trees with suburbanity. They are common in a certain type of established, wealthy suburb, but pretty rare in modern subdivisions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
That's an at-grade boulevard that is part of the city grid and does not function anything like a freeway.
FWIW, Paris was arguably the first modern case of urban renewal. They demolished many old, heterogeneous streets full of "tenements" in the early 19th century to make those big clean boulevards which were rationally planned out. The comparison to the modern era is quite clear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
Also in neighbourhoods with buildings in the 2-3 storey range, if you have a big street tree, you should be able to see most of the building since the street canopy would be high enough that it would mostly just block the view of the sky.
This is a good point. When I was discussing this with my wife, she also brought up that due to concerns about power lines, many modern street trees are small and bushy species which won't need trimming, thus will never grow as tall as houses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom View Post
WHY ARE YOUR TREES SO IMPORTANT?
I don't understand why you keep making these absolutist arguments. Am I for more street trees in 95% of cases? Yes. But all I'm saying is from a form-based argument there are places they just don't work as well. Would a tree-lined alley make sense? Look at this historic street in Philadelphia, for example. It's pedestrian-only, and street trees would leave no room to walk. Less picturesque is this street I used to live on. It's in a neighborhood which is functional, but ugly. The street has enough room to park on one side if you put your wheels on the curb, and the street operates as two-way, but you need to get out of the way if another car comes. There is literally no room for street trees either, although admittedly it wouldn't be bad to hide these houses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2013, 07:50 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 16 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,988 posts, read 102,540,351 times
Reputation: 33050
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
Oops on not remembering I wrote that street trees = suburban on the first post. I don't know if I really associate trees with suburbanity. They are common in a certain type of established, wealthy suburb, but pretty rare in modern subdivisions.



FWIW, Paris was arguably the first modern case of urban renewal. They demolished many old, heterogeneous streets full of "tenements" in the early 19th century to make those big clean boulevards which were rationally planned out. The comparison to the modern era is quite clear.



This is a good point. When I was discussing this with my wife, she also brought up that due to concerns about power lines, many modern street trees are small and bushy species which won't need trimming, thus will never grow as tall as houses.



I don't understand why you keep making these absolutist arguments. Am I for more street trees in 95% of cases? Yes. But all I'm saying is from a form-based argument there are places they just don't work as well. Would a tree-lined alley make sense? Look at this historic street in Philadelphia, for example. It's pedestrian-only, and street trees would leave no room to walk. Less picturesque is this street I used to live on. It's in a neighborhood which is functional, but ugly. The street has enough room to park on one side if you put your wheels on the curb, and the street operates as two-way, but you need to get out of the way if another car comes. There is literally no room for street trees either, although admittedly it wouldn't be bad to hide these houses.
While I posted that stuff about treeless suburbs, it's generally not true; it's more "anti-suburban rant". The city of Louisville gives every owner of a newly-built house certificates for trees.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=louis...ed=0CAsQ_AUoAg

Take a look at the neighborhoods. Mind you, this is a place where few trees grow naturally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2013, 08:21 PM
 
Location: Coos Bay, Oregon
7,142 posts, read 8,874,211 times
Reputation: 7732
I think Tokyo does a pretty good job with street trees. Japanese seem to understand the importance of trees a little bit better then Americans do.










Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2013, 11:39 AM
 
239 posts, read 474,789 times
Reputation: 253
Seems most people like trees until the first major storm causes limb/tree damage

Then they are more careful.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2013, 11:52 AM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,816,131 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
Oops on not remembering I wrote that street trees = suburban on the first post. I don't know if I really associate trees with suburbanity. They are common in a certain type of established, wealthy suburb, but pretty rare in modern subdivisions.
We've been through this before. Mature trees are rare in NEW modern subdivisions, for two reasons. One, trees tend to be removed in the process of building a subdivision. Two, many subdivisions are built on former farmland, which had the trees cleared already.

Here is the view from my back window in my modern-style subdivision:


The larger trees are probably 50 years old or so, planted when the subdivision was built. There are a few large pines and maples, smaller boxwoods, and a bunch of younger trees of various sorts. In the front there's a walnut of a similar age. No oaks, I'm not sure why not; there are some on other streets. Note also the grey in the left background. That's the next ridge over, it's all subdivisions too, you can see some of the houses. The grey is tree branches.

Note that sometimes a builder will build a subdivision in forested land without tearing most of the trees down; these tend to be more expensive with larger lots and larger houses.
Attached Thumbnails
Is there such thing as too many street trees?-subdivtrees.jpg  
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2013, 12:05 PM
 
10,630 posts, read 23,408,176 times
Reputation: 6702
I remember being at the open house for a new home in a modern subdivision in the Twin Cities. It was striking just how empty of any natural features the land looked. The new owners did say that they were required to put in at least one tree on their lot (I remember this because they were really grumpy about it, which surprised me since it seems like most people love trees!). It wouldn't be fair to describe that subdivision as "treeless," even though it certainly FELT that way. Give it another 20 years and I'm sure it will feel like a totally different place. Even 10 years should start to make a difference. I don't know what the official stats show, but I'm assuming that, generally speaking, the more expensive the subdivision, the more trees (or at least the more mature the trees), while in the cheapest subdivisions fewer, or younger, trees is perhaps a way to keep landscaping costs down.

Back to the original question, I love street trees. I think they make a street much more enjoyable. But I'm sure that, as in everything, there are circumstances where it's possible to have "too many" street trees. In general, though, I think street trees are a highly desirable addition to many streets, both those streets residential and commercial in nature.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2013, 12:52 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
45,985 posts, read 41,929,314 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
Note that sometimes a builder will build a subdivision in forested land without tearing most of the trees down; these tend to be more expensive with larger lots and larger houses.
That's my parent's current neighborhood, though its lots are very large. My parents have a clip somewhere of the developer's advertisement for the neighborhood in the late 50s boosting that they kept the trees as a selling point. I'll dig it up the next time I go to my parent's and I remember. Post-hurricane Sandy the area was a nasty mess. Took forever for power to come back and for at least a month or two the street was half its usual width from all the fallen trees. Which says how wide the street was built*. Here are some photos (taken Nov 12):





Enough trees for ya?

*The street I live it's difficult for two cars going opposite directions to pass each other without one pulling over. Street parking is only allowed on one side of the street. I like that, keeps traffic light and slow.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2013, 01:00 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 16 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,988 posts, read 102,540,351 times
Reputation: 33050
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom View Post
I think Tokyo does a pretty good job with street trees. Japanese seem to understand the importance of trees a little bit better then Americans do.
There are only a couple of Americans on this forum who appear to not understand the importance of trees.

Quote:
Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist View Post
I remember being at the open house for a new home in a modern subdivision in the Twin Cities. It was striking just how empty of any natural features the land looked. The new owners did say that they were required to put in at least one tree on their lot (I remember this because they were really grumpy about it, which surprised me since it seems like most people love trees!). It wouldn't be fair to describe that subdivision as "treeless," even though it certainly FELT that way. Give it another 20 years and I'm sure it will feel like a totally different place. Even 10 years should start to make a difference. I don't know what the official stats show, but I'm assuming that, generally speaking, the more expensive the subdivision, the more trees (or at least the more mature the trees), while in the cheapest subdivisions fewer, or younger, trees is perhaps a way to keep landscaping costs down.

Back to the original question, I love street trees. I think they make a street much more enjoyable. But I'm sure that, as in everything, there are circumstances where it's possible to have "too many" street trees. In general, though, I think street trees are a highly desirable addition to many streets, both those streets residential and commercial in nature.
Yes. I believe most municipalities, be they townships, county, city, whatever, require some landscaping w/trees on residential lots.
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