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.
And yeah, I gotta give this to Washington too on the same grounds. The one part of Philadelphia that I would say is an exception to this largely tree-free rule is our Northwest, especially the neighborhoods above the Wissahickon Valley. That's also the part of the city that's on the Piedmont side of the fall line. Coincidence?
Thanks for sharing your article! Personally I don’t find Philadelphia ugly at all even on the street level but tree cover and foliage is pronounced throughout DC. Maybe it’s by design?
I refer Philly because it has more real historical buildings, and real history, where DC has government constructed monuments, and other nice things, but they aren't nearly as historical. Plus more historic events took place in Philly.
Thanks for sharing your article! Personally I don’t find Philadelphia ugly at all even on the street level but tree cover and foliage is pronounced throughout DC. Maybe it’s by design?
I read somewhere that DC’s tree coverage is about 38%....
By comparison Philadelphia is at 16%
Where I live in Chicago 11%
Other notable cities
New York 24%
Los Angeles 18%
Atlanta 37%
Houston (metro) 30%
Boston 29%
Baltimore 25%
Seattle 21%
San Francisco 12%
Miami 10% (Dade county)
I refer Philly because it has more real historical buildings, and real history, where DC has government constructed monuments, and other nice things, but they aren't nearly as historical. Plus more historic events took place in Philly.
Agreed on this - Washington is a "manufactured" city that grew to swallow up a couple of organic towns (and spit one of them back out), while Philadelphia's built environment evolved organically, in spite of its founder's original plan and vision.
But the OP had specifically asked about "better natural setting," so IMO the quality of our built environment takes a back seat here to the natural one against which it plays. And pace Fairmount Park - which was created to protect the water supply, remember - we have tended to ignore or run roughshod over nature here (all those channeled and buried streams), while in Washington, they give it some breathing room.
I read somewhere that DC’s tree coverage is about 38%....
By comparison Philadelphia is at 16%
Where I live in Chicago 11%
Other notable cities
New York 24%
Los Angeles 18%
Atlanta 37%
Houston (metro) 30%
Boston 29%
Baltimore 25%
Seattle 21%
San Francisco 12%
Miami 10% (Dade county)
National average 27%
*as of 2010
Those numbers back up the argument I made in that essay, but I find the figures for LA and SF interesting.
Especially those for San Francisco, which it seems to me all who gaze upon it say is a beautiful city. Must be the topography, then.
Chicago's is also surprisingly low, especially in light of that city's motto: "Urbs in horto" - "the city in the garden."
Interesting comparison. I think these cities/regions actually have a lot of natural similarities, but of course how they're conveyed are distinctly different.
DC certainly does have a much better tree canopy overall, that much is obvious. It's one aspect about DC that I hope Philly would emulate much more. DC has a better head start on its waterfront, too, although Philly arguably has greater waterfront potential.
I will say, however, that the notable exception in cities proper is Philly's combo of Fairmount Park + Wissahickon Valley is much grander/impressive in scale than DC's Rock Creek Park.
Kelly Drive (Philly) and the Tidal Basin (DC) are both gems.
Extending this to the broader region, interestingly, suburban Philly actually comes off as much more naturally-oriented than suburban DC. Both have the pleasant, lush "Piedmont feel" for sure, but the Philly suburbs are tops for permanently preserved open spaces, river towns, stricter conservation/zoning practices, active farmland, and numerous public gardens--all within a major metropolitan area. Suburban DC feels much more "paved over" by comparison.
Those numbers back up the argument I made in that essay, but I find the figures for LA and SF interesting.
Especially those for San Francisco, which it seems to me all who gaze upon it say is a beautiful city. Must be the topography, then.
Chicago's is also surprisingly low, especially in light of that city's motto: "Urbs in horto" - "the city in the garden."
Agreed the numbers for Chicago is lower than what I expected because it seems pretty green to me especially in the residential areas, but Chicago does have large swaths of vacant lots and industrial areas that obviously don’t have tree coverage. I think Philly maybe similar to Chicago in that regard while DC is a much smaller city (area) more compact.
In my visits to Atlanta, Houston, and New Orleans I noticed those cities have an incredible amount of coverage as well. I’m sure for most cities trees or the lack thereof have more to do about climate and topography than the cities themselves.
I read somewhere that DC’s tree coverage is about 38%....
By comparison Philadelphia is at 16%
Where I live in Chicago 11%
Other notable cities
New York 24%
Los Angeles 18%
Atlanta 37%
Houston (metro) 30%
Boston 29%
Baltimore 25%
Seattle 21%
San Francisco 12%
Miami 10% (Dade county)
National average 27%
*as of 2010
Not to derail this thread but Miami Dade County is mostly the Everglades. No way does L.A or San Francisco have more tree coverage than the actual city of Miami.
Not to derail this thread but Miami Dade County is mostly the Everglades. No way does L.A or San Francisco have more tree coverage than the actual city of Miami.
Yeah I’m not sure why it was based off the county, Miami did seem more green to me than LA but I could be wrong.
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.
