Minneapolis: 'City of Shade' new nickname? (St. Paul, Woodbury: neighborhoods, suburbs, farm)

[knke0204]

Apparently 1/3 of the City of Minneapolis is covered in trees. The only problem is that they may never bloom with this extended winter we've had.

According to the Star Tribune article, Mpls falls a bit behind Washington DC but comes in ahead of Boston.

New motto? 'Minneapolis, city of shade' | StarTribune.com

Do you find this to be true?
What is the city doing to ensure mature tree quality?

[MplsTodd]

It doesn't surprise me at all. Minneapolis has often been characterized as a lower density city with extensive canopies of trees shading most streets. The Dutch Elm disease of the '70s-'80s and, more recently, the Ash Borer have certainly damaged the extent of our tree coverage. I think the City has been reasonably proactive in promoting more trees--not on as high profile as former Richard Daily of Chicago though. I know they've been promoting a greater diversity of trees so we're not likely to experience the swaths of devastation we had from Dutch Elm Disease.

I'd like to see the whole list of shadiest towns. I'd think San Fran, Phoenix and NYC would be least shady. Maybe Atlanta would have the most shade.

[knke0204]

Minneapolis: 31.5% tree coverage
St. Paul: 32.5% tree coverage

New York City comes in at 24% and I was a bit surprised at Baltimore at 49%

[northsub]

Originally Posted by knke0204

Minneapolis: 31.5% tree coverage
St. Paul: 32.5% tree coverage

New York City comes in at 24% and I was a bit surprised at Baltimore at 49%

It sounds like this study only did St. Paul, Minneapolis, and Woodbury. Comparison to other cities are using other studies that are "similar". I'm skeptical how useful they are. For instance, the Baltimore study looks to be for Baltimore County (not including the city).

[golfgal]

I am surprised that Washington DC is "shadier" than Minneapolis. I don't recall there being THAT many trees there-certainly not the extensive parks we have here either. I didn't look at the study-did the DC area include the DC metro area or just DC proper?

[uptown_urbanist]

My out-of-state friends and relatives always comment on how tree-filled it is here. It's quite dramatic, at least in the summer. We've definitely taken a major hit from disease, though, and many Minneapolis streets today feel a lot different than they did when I was younger. They city seems to be fairly proactive on planting new trees, however (they were out planting new boulevard trees in Uptown last week, replacing some of the ones that were hit with disease and removed last year), and there are also programs to give people free or cheap trees for their yards.

I don't know about shade, but I do think that DC can hold its own against Minneapolis as far as trees. They're a different type of tree, though; lots of smaller flowering trees, not as many large elms, so I am surprised that they did so well in this particular study (since this looked at shade cover). My guess is that the presence of Rock Creek Park probably skewed the results, as its much bigger than Wirth Park, so it's a very large, very dense mass of heavily wooded land covering a significant percentage of the city's land. I think Minneapolis certainly feels more tree-filled (outside of Rock Creek Park), as the trees out on the streets here are generally bigger and seem to be more evenly dispersed throughout the city.

[Mr Maps]

Just look at this, this, and this. I never doubted that Minneapolis was a very green city.

[northsub]

The D.C. study was for the city (or district or whatever it's actually called), and not for the metro. They did have 42% of their canopy in parks, with one large park in the north. That study was done by different people, so the results may not be completely comparable.

Overall, I'm not sure how useful these comparisons are from city to city. My concern is that city borders do not respect the natural boundaries of a city. I mean, the urban/suburban/exurban divides are in different places with respect to city/county borders. Maybe one city is like downtown Minneapolis with a few of the bordering neighborhoods thrown in. Another may be like Minneapolis plus all the first ring suburbs. Or, in the case of Woodbury, maybe a city has a bunch of farm fields with no trees. But, we do this kind of comparison all the time for other things...

I'd be interested in more granularity. Maybe a neighborhood-level breakdown I saw this for Minneapolis in one of the slide shows by the folks at the U, but I can't find the actual study. In particular, I'm curious about the difference (or lack thereof?) between residential areas in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Woodbury.

[xandrex]

Originally Posted by Mr Maps

Just look at this, this, and this. I never doubted that Minneapolis was a very green city.

Thanks for posting these pictures. They really give an interesting look of the city!

The amount of tree cover that Minneapolis is quite impressive. I know the Strib article about this had some other interesting facts about Minneapolis too - I believe 20 percent of the city's land is impervious surfaces such as road. Perhaps not particularly surprising, but I was a little taken aback as that's 1/5 of the city!

[knke0204]

I love the GREEN trees cramming a dense urban area. A definite asset to MPLS