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.
Fair enough. I guess I just don't see a problem with it. IMO that is what I expect in suburbs, strip malls and chain restaurants. If I want something unique or something with character I know I'll find it in the city or the country/small town.
we generally want to visit other places to experience other cultures, why bother travelling hundreds of miles only to find yourself at a mall that looks like the one just down the street from you.
While I do understand some don't like trees, I was born and raised in Illinois so I know, you do have to understand they can be expensive. First, you have to hire city workers to trim them. Second, during a storm they can destroy property and block roads. Third, if not placed correctly, their roots can destroy foundations and piping. I often see cities use elms, ash, maples, etc., but I rarely see cities use evergreen trees which confuses me. Not only would they better sound barriers, they would knock my other three problems down significantly. I also think these trees would help a lot more with flooding and erosion.
While I do understand some don't like trees, I was born and raised in Illinois so I know, you do have to understand they can be expensive. First, you have to hire city workers to trim them. Second, during a storm they can destroy property and block roads. Third, if not placed correctly, their roots can destroy foundations and piping. I often see cities use elms, ash, maples, etc., but I rarely see cities use evergreen trees which confuses me. Not only would they better sound barriers, they would knock my other three problems down significantly. I also think these trees would help a lot more with flooding and erosion.
While I do understand some don't like trees, I was born and raised in Illinois so I know, you do have to understand they can be expensive. First, you have to hire city workers to trim them. Second, during a storm they can destroy property and block roads. Third, if not placed correctly, their roots can destroy foundations and piping. I often see cities use elms, ash, maples, etc., but I rarely see cities use evergreen trees which confuses me. Not only would they better sound barriers, they would knock my other three problems down significantly. I also think these trees would help a lot more with flooding and erosion.
Go drive through any neighborhood that is declining or is of lower socioeconomic status and you will immediately notice the relative lack of trees and vegetation in many areas of the US that aren't in areas that aren't already densely forested. The best sign of a desirable neighborhood for many people is the abundance of trees and landscaping.
Last edited by GraniteStater; 10-11-2016 at 08:21 PM..
......Yes, but that isn't very well thought out. First, where are the trees being planted that the shade is needed. I've seen this used in CA and think it is a good idea in parking lots, other than that I happen to think it's a bad idea. In most cities these are planted next to highways or roads. I find they block the sun light in the winter and therefore we need to spend more on snow removal. In the summer, why do we need the road cool? I can understand in a park or a school area, but not a median. If you want to block glare from the sun I think evergreens would be a better answer.
......I honestly don't think trees are all that efficient at converting CO2 to make a dent in some places like a highway. I think what happens is they provide a wind barrier, making the exhaust blow away rather than blow into the adjacent zone. Again, I think evergreens would help this more than your leaf trees. Not to mention help with the sound more.
Go drive through a neighborhood that is declining or is of lower socioeconomic status and you will immediately notice the relative lack of trees and vegetation in many areas of the US that aren't in areas that aren't already densely forested.
I have to disagree here, there are many reasons for this but I don't think it is direct as you stated. I think it is there, just not as manicured or nourished.
1. Lower income people don't have big yards, high income people with small yards don't have much vegetation either.
2. Hedges are expensive, so you might not see them. I do see a lot of easy or low maintenance plants in their yard.
3. In the low income neighborhoods I lived in, we have people planting trees for shade as that cut a lot from their summer heating bill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraniteStater
The best sign of a desirable neighborhood for many people is the abundance of trees and landscaping.
I wouldn't say the best, but it is very high. It dose cost a lot to do all this and that would explain that. My father has been landscaping about fifty years and I did it myself for seven years so I know the cost. In the city I am from, the city takes care of city property, so there is an abundance of trees in both types of neighborhoods.
I don't think it's urbanists who object to trees, but surprisingly there are people out there who don't want them. The objections I've seen are they leave leaf litter on the sidewalk, (Oh the horror!), their roots can lift sidewalks and create trip and fall hazards, (a real issue but dealt with by choosing a non-shallow rooted tree), and they block storefront signage (deal with it and drive slower).
My neighborhood has planted hundreds and hundreds of street trees. However, getting commercial areas to add them is a tougher sell.
Re: the bold, you could do something else the urbanists don't like-make a certain # of trees per sq ft (or some other metric) a requirement. But hey, that would be. . . zoning! And we don't like zoning here.
Yes, it's one poster you mentioned dozens of times over as evidence of tree hatred on this forum. And he concluded only certain spots did he think trees not make sense (where they interfered with views of the architecture on certain historic streets). I didn't really agree, but I don't think it's a bizarre argument and it's tiring to treat it as ridiculous.
Thank you for not quoting and linking instead.
Quote:
Re: the bold, you could do something else the urbanists don't like-make a certain # of trees per sq ft (or some other metric) a requirement. But hey, that would be. . . zoning! And we don't like zoning here.
If it's on the street, I'd be against zoning. Rather just have a business tax and have the city be responsible for the trees. Pros and cons.
First of all, in an area with few trees, we really value trees here. I can't imagine anyone saying there were *too many* trees, anywhere in the metro area. Once in a rare while a tree gets cut down for development and the public is usually irate. I found that thread shocking.
Re: the zoning thing, I was thinking mostly of parking lots. I think Louisville does have some rules (don't know if it's exactly zoning) about a minimum number of trees in the front yard of residences.
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.
