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.
"Nuanced approach" does not mean "no trees". But I will admit that my "trees are not always good" view is often seen as radical (for some odd reason). In fact I'm actually surprised at the number of posters here that have expressed a similar view.
Although I have seen some front yard vegetable gardens here, that's really not the point. Rather, it's about the ability of a homeowner to have some control over the conditions in his or her front yard. My preference is no city planting strips on residential streets (not all of the old ideas were good ones) although I think they serve a purpose on busy streets (mostly to create a safer and more pleasant environment for pedestrians).
The "odd reason" is that trees provide needed cooling, and a softening of the concrete/brick environment. As I said earlier in this thread, one of the criticisms of suburbs, though mostly w/o merit, is that they are "treeless".
The "odd reason" is that trees provide needed cooling, and a softening of the concrete/brick environment.
But always? Are street trees a good thing everywhere?
I also mentioned earlier that in a prior location I lived in having a big tree close to my room would have prevented it from being bathed in sunlight, which I rather enjoyed.
"Nuanced approach" does not mean "no trees". But I will admit that my "trees are not always good" view is often seen as radical (for some odd reason). In fact I'm actually surprised at the number of posters here that have expressed a similar view.
Although I have seen some front yard vegetable gardens here, that's really not the point. Rather, it's about the ability of a homeowner to have some control over the conditions in his or her front yard. My preference is no city planting strips on residential streets (not all of the old ideas were good ones) although I think they serve a purpose on busy streets (mostly to create a safer and more pleasant environment for pedestrians).
I hate the experience (and aesthetics) of walking on sidewalks with no strip of planting between sidewalk and street, but beyond that, in locations with snow they serve an additional purposes -- somewhere to put the snow. If you had sidewalks directly adjacent to the street there would be nowhere -- other than the sidewalks -- for the plowed snow to go.
But always? Are street trees a good thing everywhere?
I also mentioned earlier that in a prior location I lived in having a big tree close to my room would have prevented it from being bathed in sunlight, which I rather enjoyed.
This thread has taken a strange turn, from being "pro-tree" to "anti-tree" (to simplify). Ever since a poster posted his 8 point anti-tree manifesto, most have joined the "trees are bad" bandwagon. Since there was no tree in front of your window in that other apt, what is the issue?
This thread has taken a strange turn, from being "pro-tree" to "anti-tree" (to simplify).
The original thread was is it possible to have too many street trees? rather than just street trees: good or bad.
Quote:
Since there was no tree in front of your window in that other apt, what is the issue?
There is no issue, I was trying to come up with an example of when a tree might be unwanted.
Actually, there was a tree. Small tree the landlord planted that is too small to block any light anytime soon. But it would when it did big, besides with the small space between the house and tree, there might be issues in the future.
More trees the better. In Toronto most of our older streets are tree lined with great old mature varieties of hardwood trees. Even if a tree is on your property you can not cut it down..with out a permit and a damned good reason. There was a time when Britain had lots of trees- Look at their towns now....Nothing...most of their towns appear treeless and depressing.
There aren't many garages in my neighborhood. My neighbors on either side are serious car guys - one for sports cars, other for trucks - and have always coped with the debris by using car covers. I think with or without the trees they'd still spend their weekends washing and polishing their "babies." But I know for certain they love the trees in our neighborhood, especially this time of year. A few cherries, forsythia, and weeping willows.
Sometimes trees that were planted years ago along the sidewalk start to break up the walkway. I'm a firm believer in ADA compliance so replacing these trees with something more appropriate - I'm fine with that.
I hate mowing the lawn. It takes all of 20 minutes but I'm waiting for some enterprising kid to offer to do it for me for $20. They are missing out.
I guess that the rates have gone up considerably since I was a kid....that was decades ago, though..
The original thread was is it possible to have too many street trees? rather than just street trees: good or bad.
There is no issue, I was trying to come up with an example of when a tree might be unwanted.
Actually, there was a tree. Small tree the landlord planted that is too small to block any light anytime soon. But it would when it did big, besides with the small space between the house and tree, there might be issues in the future.
Yes, that was the OP. However, ever since post 84 (below), the forum has taken a decided anti-tree turn. We had to go through all that "garden" nonsense (note: I was a contributor), and some solar foolishness that showed that some people really don't understand the basics of solar energy, active or passive. (I was a contributor to that, too, and take responsibility for my part in it.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by xeric
I have to defend the OP here. He/she didn't say that trees are bad, but rather asked if they are always appropriate or desirable. In my area it's common to throw a tree in any open space in the yard without thinking. But there are a number of potential disadvantages to this practice which may apply depending on placement, quantity, or species.
1. Trees can block the viewshed. Important to those of us who have chosen to live in a part of the country with mountain views and open spaces.
2. Evergreen trees in front of the south side of your residence can limit your passive solar potential in the winter (and your natural light all year).
3. Too much shade can adversely impact your ability to grow xeric plants or sun-loving vegetables.
4. Trees that are planted too close to a structure can damage it when the trees grow out.
5. Almost none of the trees planted in the arid and semi-arid West can survive on natural precipitation.
6. Deciduous trees from places with well-defined seasons are frequently damaged by early and late snowfalls in higher elevation temperate zone locations. This damage extends to vehicles and houses that are in the way of the falling limbs. The cleanup required for a larger tree in his sort of situation is substantial.
7. Untrimmed trees in a parkway or right next to the street can interfere with traffic visibility.
8. Autumn leaf cleanup in heavily-treed (with deciduous species) parts of cities is labor intensive and a lot of the leaves end up in the nearby landfill.
Yes, that was the OP. However, ever since post 84 (below), the forum has taken a decided anti-tree turn. We had to go through all that "garden" nonsense (note: I was a contributor), and some solar foolishness that showed that some people really don't understand the basics of solar energy, active or passive. (I was a contributor to that, too, and take responsibility for my part in it.)
Note my statement: "I have to defend the OP here. He/she didn't say that trees are bad, but rather asked if they are always appropriate or desirable." I then gave 8 examples (apparently an anti-tree manifesto in your view) of why a tree might not be appropriate or desirable. I'm flattered that you think I am influential enough to turn the thread around, but I really think you are being over-sensitive to what should be a friendly debate.
I hate the experience (and aesthetics) of walking on sidewalks with no strip of planting between sidewalk and street, but beyond that, in locations with snow they serve an additional purposes -- somewhere to put the snow. If you had sidewalks directly adjacent to the street there would be nowhere -- other than the sidewalks -- for the plowed snow to go.
This is way off-topic so I'll simply say that there are conflicts inherent in a system of this sort where the city owns (and in some cases regulates what can go in) these strips but requires the adjacent property owner to maintain the plants in the strip. If a city is going to intentionally create potential conflict areas like this then there should be a good reason for them. In my view, a residential street with little traffic does not meet this standard, although an arterial or main street certainly may.
Even more off-topic: my city doesn't plow residential streets at all unless the snow is on the ground for over a week (which it usually isn't). This is common along the CO Front Range (we call it the solar snow removal system).
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.
