How should Government save trees in Atlanta area development? (Kennesaw: renting, transfer)

[plessthanpointohfive]

I can verify Bob on the Candler Park thing. From the photos I see they did do a lot of clear cutting to build the area. It just wasn't on a mass scale like you see now. What gives Candler Park the feeling that there is no cookie cutter-ness is because the entire area was built by many, many builders. Each builder would build 3 or 4 houses that were essentially identical, with small changes, much like now-a-days. Often these houses were 3 in a row but sometimes not. Some builders did more clear cutting than others.

Fast-forward 100 years later and now the houses by the same builder don't look the same at all because of a 100 years of uniquifying by various owners. Also, 100 years of tree growth has occured.

However, much of the area wasn't built on straight grids. While plats show a grid-like systems old photos show that roads waved in an out. Later the roads were straightened and that resulted in roads that dog-legged (like Candler Park drive and Oakdale Rd) and other strange stuff (like Arizona Ave existing on each side of Dekalb Ave but you can't get to one side from the other).

My house in Gwinnett was built in the 80s and it's pretty clear the tree cover in that neighborhood predates the hood. Someone out there told me that there used ot be stricter laws protecting trees but this being a pro-business/pro-development state...those laws went by the wayside. But I don't know how much truth there is to that. I can believe it, though.

I do wish they'd put some laws into effect to protect all trees that are not dangerous to a house, etc. Whenever I take a flight to DC, as the plane is taking off, I look out the window and I can see miles and miles of brand new streets. It looks like miles of zippers because of the long lines with short driveways coming off the sides and there's no trees so the sun actually shines off the roofs like their mirrors.

I don't like that.

Then, as you pass over the older parts of the city you can't even see the roads in some places for the tree cover.

I do like that...

[RainyRainyDay]

Originally Posted by BobKovacs

The difference is likely in the density of the development, and not necessarily due to its age or any technological changes. As land prices have increased, lots have gotten smaller and houses have gotten larger- this leaves less land between houses, and hence less trees. As land gets snapped up, the more challenging pieces are left, which often require drastic elevation/grading changes as well, which again makes it difficult to save trees- when you're building lots up 10', the trees can't remain, regardless of whether the builders would like to leave them or not.

Thanks, Bob, that was very informative.

I guess the present-day requirement for subdivisions to have self-contained storm drainage (that's my ignorant impression, anyway) probably requires more grading than in the past, too. My subdivision doesn't have a catchment pond, and in an exceptionally heavy rainfall a pretty good torrent gets to flowing down a street and across portions of several yards (including ours) on its way to Willeo Creek.

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by BobKovacs

The difference is likely in the density of the development, and not necessarily due to its age or any technological changes. As land prices have increased, lots have gotten smaller and houses have gotten larger- this leaves less land between houses, and hence less trees. As land gets snapped up, the more challenging pieces are left, which often require drastic elevation/grading changes as well, which again makes it difficult to save trees- when you're building lots up 10', the trees can't remain, regardless of whether the builders would like to leave them or not.

Trust me- clear cutting a densely wooded piece of property is not cheap, and isn't something a builder does just for ha-has. If the topography allows the development to be constructed without major grade changes, it's far cheaper to selectively remove trees that it is to just blow out the whole place. Unfortunately, that's not often the case, especially with infill developments.

Uh...no...this does not totally explain the difference. In the outer suburban areas with "less challenging pieces" and "less density", clear-cutting is still taking place. It is rare to see a neighborhood built now that builds around trees. If it is, it is advertised as a "tree-save community." Wow, what a unique jewel!


We need to pass laws like Metro Phoenix!!! (Valley of the Sun)

[BobKovacs]

Originally Posted by aries4118

Uh...no...this does not totally explain the difference. In the outer suburban areas with "less challenging pieces" and "less density", clear-cutting is still taking place. It is rare to see a neighborhood built now that builds around trees. If it is, it is advertised as a "tree-save community." Wow, what a unique jewel!


We need to pass laws like Metro Phoenix!!! (Valley of the Sun)

OK, if you say so. I just work in the industry, but what do I know, right?

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by BobKovacs

OK, if you say so. I just work in the industry, but what do I know, right?

Bobby, my information and sources are not made up or pulled out of my *****. However, I'm not going to sit here and scour the internet in order to prove a point to you.

Whatever the case (technology, economic feasibility, lax enforcement...really a combination of all three), there is marked difference in development and "tree saving" that happened in suburban Atlanta after the late 1980's. Take it from a native who knows (and cares) about these things.

Also, travel through East Cobb (fairly close to your central Cherokee abode) and you will see the difference. The density or "challenge" of the developments does not apply.

[gt6974a]

City of Atlanta already has strict ordinances on cutting down trees.

As for the other areas, I'm not happy with the concrete jungles and clear cut, but I also know I don't want 'Government' telling me what I can and can't do with the trees on my land, or the water, or the dirt, etc.

Plus there's supposed to be more trees today than the last century, Georgia Power supposidly plants a tree for every tree it takes down.

[Arbor girl]

Trees are Atlanta's most beautiful asset. Unfortunately, most people only consider their value when a loss occurs. So many trees can be saved by simple and affordable measures. There are products that can amend the soil and booster a tree's root system to help combat the effects of a prolonged drought. Regular pruning both adds to the health of a tree and to the safety of those around the tree. An established tree service employs certified arborists who can develop a maintenance program specific to tree species.
It is in all of our interest to preserve and protect the canopy that sequesters carbon out of our air, helps to cool down the environment, and aids in storm water runoff. Some cities, such as Decatur, have annual tree maintenance programs in place. You need only to drive through the downtown streets to appreciate the health and beauty that such a program affords. Let's hope other towns follow suit and all of our precious trees are cared for.

[johnatl]

Take a spin out to outer Gwinnett around Snellville and Loganville, and you will see nothing but clear cutting going on for all the new "affordable" neighborhoods. Gwinnett looks the other way, the developers just pay the fines and consider it a part of doing business. I think the newer areas of Gwinnett are the absolute worst examples of wholesale clear cutting you will find in the region.

[GF72]

this is a very simple solution....


DON'T CLEAR AN AREA

Simple. Find a lot, figure out where the house is going to be, and then ONLY chop down houses on that site, and build the house under the rest of the forest.

This is how it was done in most of Buckhead, Sandy Springs, East Cobb, Dunwoody, etc. Take a drive down West Paces Ferry in Buckhead, Riverside Drive in Sandy Springs, Paper Mill Road in East Cobb, or Womack Road in Dunwoody. No one for a second could possibly believe that 30 years ago the whole neighborhood was cleared and then trees were planted after construction. Driving down these roads is driving through a dense 100ft. forest canopy that covers the road and the houses. That's how it should be done, problem is developers nowadays must be forced to do it like that.

There are 21 full sized trees on my lot in East Cobb (I counted) and they clearly predate (and are over twice as tall as) the house and the whole neighborhood.

Here's a shot of residential Buckhead and Sandy Springs.... this is a fully developed area and obviously, these aren't planted trees but the same ancient forest that has always been here:



Let's do a quick comparison......


Atlanta:



Gwinnett County:

http://www.dreamstreet.org/STONEBRIER/STONEBRIER%20AT%20SUGARLOAF%2003.jpg (broken link)

You can barely see the roofs of the houses in the first shot. Looking from one to the other, it's like a "now you see it, now you don't" sort of thing...

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by GF72

this is a very simple solution....


DON'T CLEAR AN AREA

Simple. Find a lot, figure out where the house is going to be, and then ONLY chop down houses on that site, and build the house under the rest of the forest.

This is how it was done in most of Buckhead, Sandy Springs, East Cobb, Dunwoody, etc. Take a drive down West Paces Ferry in Buckhead, Riverside Drive in Sandy Springs, Paper Mill Road in East Cobb, or Womack Road in Dunwoody. No one for a second could possibly believe that 30 years ago the whole neighborhood was cleared and then trees were planted after construction. Driving down these roads is driving through a dense 100ft. forest canopy that covers the road and the houses. That's how it should be done, problem is developers nowadays must be forced to do it like that.

There are 21 full sized trees on my lot in East Cobb (I counted) and they clearly predate (and are over twice as tall as) the house and the whole neighborhood.

Here's a shot of residential Buckhead and Sandy Springs.... this is a fully developed area and obviously, these aren't planted trees but the same ancient forest that has always been here:

I totally agree...