Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
 [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 07-07-2008, 03:58 PM
 
Location: Alexandria, VA
148 posts, read 643,686 times
Reputation: 120

Advertisements

Every time I fly into Atlanta I am shocked at how many areas of forest have been completely clear-cut to make way for cookie cutter development and strip centers. Sure there are still alot of trees in the greater Atlanta area but each year there is less and less. Some day it will reach a crisis and people will ask why government did not do something about the loss of trees back in 2008.

You have been put in charge of the urban forestry program for greater Atlanta. Your job is to see that trees are saved but with an understanding that 2 million more people will move to the area in the next 20 years. What can be done?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-07-2008, 04:19 PM
 
5 posts, read 19,975 times
Reputation: 12
Move the state lines back to the 1700's. That will also solve the water issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2008, 04:55 PM
 
525 posts, read 1,849,086 times
Reputation: 281
Well, with the housing bubble and the economy not doing too well these greedy developers are not building anymore I hope!


I also think with gas prices getting higher each day developers may not be so eager to build in surburbia...not sure what the future holds but I hate to see how the govt does not care how trees are bulldozed because it is cheaper and easier (I guess) to build homes.

The economy is taking care of this...for now

IMHO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2008, 05:00 PM
 
9,124 posts, read 36,319,571 times
Reputation: 3630
I have to laugh at threads like this, because they make is sound like the only people who have ever cut trees down to make way for housing are the developers of the last decade. Do you think all of the large trees that line the streets in places like Inman Park, Candler Park, etc., were conveniently lined up in nice orderly rows and they just built the streets and sidewalks along side them? No- just like the developers of today, the builders back then striped an area clean, built their homes and then planted small trees which have since grown into what you see today. If anything, if you look at some of the master-planned communities of today, you'll find that there's probably more trees and natural space being preserved now than there was back then. I don't recall Levitt setting aside 100 acres of woodlands, trails, and lakes when Levittown was built......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2008, 12:10 AM
 
16,651 posts, read 29,400,141 times
Reputation: 7593
Default Look deeper...

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobKovacs View Post
I have to laugh at threads like this, because they make is sound like the only people who have ever cut trees down to make way for housing are the developers of the last decade. Do you think all of the large trees that line the streets in places like Inman Park, Candler Park, etc., were conveniently lined up in nice orderly rows and they just built the streets and sidewalks along side them? No- just like the developers of today, the builders back then striped an area clean, built their homes and then planted small trees which have since grown into what you see today. If anything, if you look at some of the master-planned communities of today, you'll find that there's probably more trees and natural space being preserved now than there was back then. I don't recall Levitt setting aside 100 acres of woodlands, trails, and lakes when Levittown was built......
Actually Bob, if you look at suburban development up throught the late 1980's (in Metro Atlanta) you will see that developers in suburban Atlanta built around the trees. This all stopped around 1988/1989. Why? Because before this, the technology and cost made clear cutting more expensive. After the late 80's (and "improved" technology) it became more economically feasible (and easier) for developers to clear cut.

Take a look at all of the tree-filled suburbs of East Cobb, Dunwoody, parts of North DeKalb, Sandy Springs, Roswell, Vinings, Stone Mountain, Redan, Lithonia, Parkview/Brookwood/Shiloh Area of Gwinnett, Peachtree Corners, Jonesboro, Lake Spivey, older Peachtree City, West Buckhead, and far southwest Atlanta, (suburbs that largely developed from the 1960's to the 1980's). You will see that almost all of the "tree canopy" was not planted. Houses, streets, driveways, and sidewalks were plopped in the middle of woods/forests.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2008, 12:17 AM
 
16,651 posts, read 29,400,141 times
Reputation: 7593
Default Atlanta's Signature Feature

Quote:
Originally Posted by total_genius View Post
Every time I fly into Atlanta I am shocked at how many areas of forest have been completely clear-cut to make way for cookie cutter development and strip centers. Sure there are still alot of trees in the greater Atlanta area but each year there is less and less. Some day it will reach a crisis and people will ask why government did not do something about the loss of trees back in 2008.

You have been put in charge of the urban forestry program for greater Atlanta. Your job is to see that trees are saved but with an understanding that 2 million more people will move to the area in the next 20 years. What can be done?
Make very strict laws/ordinances that protect our natural asset and signature feature. Make it so normal that developers wouldn't ever dream of clear-cutting.

It can be done. An example, in Metro Phoenix it is illegal to cut down cacti. It is also illegal to build on the various "rock mountains" throughout the metro area (any buildings you see on the "rock mountains" are from the 1960's or before). Phoenix does this because they know it is important to protect and promote its signature feature...which is its "desert-ness."

The cool thing is that average citizen (and newcomer) in Phoenix knows about these rules/laws.

The same respect and zeal should be given to Atlanta's trees. It is not too late...yet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2008, 04:23 AM
 
9,124 posts, read 36,319,571 times
Reputation: 3630
Quote:
Originally Posted by aries4118 View Post
Actually Bob, if you look at suburban development up throught the late 1980's (in Metro Atlanta) you will see that developers in suburban Atlanta built around the trees. This all stopped around 1988/1989. Why? Because before this, the technology and cost made clear cutting more expensive. After the late 80's (and "improved" technology) it became more economically feasible (and easier) for developers to clear cut.
Hmmm...you must work in a different construction industry than I do, because I can't recall any "improved technology" that suddenly made clear cutting more cost effective and easier than weaving a subdivision around trees.........
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2008, 04:48 AM
 
Location: East Cobb
2,206 posts, read 6,878,759 times
Reputation: 924
Quote:
Originally Posted by aries4118 View Post
Take a look at all of the tree-filled suburbs of East Cobb, Dunwoody, parts of North DeKalb, Sandy Springs, Roswell, Vinings, Stone Mountain, Redan, Lithonia, Parkview/Brookwood/Shiloh Area of Gwinnett, Peachtree Corners, Jonesboro, Lake Spivey, older Peachtree City, West Buckhead, and far southwest Atlanta, (suburbs that largely developed from the 1960's to the 1980's). You will see that almost all of the "tree canopy" was not planted. Houses, streets, driveways, and sidewalks were plopped in the middle of woods/forests.
Whatever the reason that construction practices changed, I can see that aries' statement is true of my area in NE Cobb. My 1980s subdivision is full of huge trees that plainly predate the subdivision. In fact, I have a wooded back yard. The adjacent subdivision that's newer (late 90s, I guess) and much more upscale (house prices about double ours) always strikes me as very barren looking. The land must have been razed before those houses were built, and it hasn't been replanted with large tree species.

I really love the big trees, although they aren't without cost. We lost a big one to hurricane Ivan and some others to drought/disease. The amount we've had to spend on tree removal in the last few years isn't too pretty.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2008, 05:50 AM
 
9,124 posts, read 36,319,571 times
Reputation: 3630
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainyRainyDay View Post
Whatever the reason that construction practices changed, I can see that aries' statement is true of my area in NE Cobb. My 1980s subdivision is full of huge trees that plainly predate the subdivision. In fact, I have a wooded back yard. The adjacent subdivision that's newer (late 90s, I guess) and much more upscale (house prices about double ours) always strikes me as very barren looking. The land must have been razed before those houses were built, and it hasn't been replanted with large tree species.
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2008, 06:58 AM
 
269 posts, read 1,068,498 times
Reputation: 94
There actually are very strict limits on tree-cutting in the City of Atlanta now, as well as some other jurisdictions: DeKalb County, Cobb County, College Park/East Point. In Atlanta, healthy trees over 6" in diameter that are cut down require a permit; if the cut is allowed, the person is generally required to plant another tree of the same general type or pay a large amount of money into a replanting fund. Specimen trees, usually 27" in diameter or larger, are especially well protected.
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:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

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 > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top