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.
Even if you want trees for all the reasons others have listed, you could do like many European cities, and put them in central courtyards, instead of out on the street.
Humans evolved in a forest-savanna mosaic environment in East Africa. There's some evidence to suggest that small children, before they are inoculated to think whatever the local environment is, find grassland with a spattering of trees most attractive. And indeed, that does seem to be the sort of environment that humans create when we can - we plant trees where it's too dry, and cut them down where they'd otherwise grow densely.
Regardless, algae in the oceans contribute the vast majority of oxygen to the atmosphere. One genus of blue-green algae contributes 50% alone.
Even if you want trees for all the reasons others have listed, you could do like many European cities, and put them in central courtyards, instead of out on the street. There are other alternative ways to get green next to the street too - from tall, ornamental grasses to (hopefully shortish) hedges.
That is something I didn't like about European cities. I'm just not getting this anti-tree screed at all! I never, ever heard of anyone hating on trees so much!
You don't like yards, you don't like grass, now it turns out you don't like trees, what gives? Where do you want to live? On a concrete block surround by gravel? Maybe a little asphalt for the kids to play on?
“If you plant a tree today on the west side of your home, in 5 years your energy bills should be 3% less. In 15 years the savings will be nearly 12%.” —Dr. E. Greg McPherson, Center for Urban Forest Research
“One acre of forest absorbs six tons of carbon dioxide and puts out four tons of oxygen. This is enough to meet the annual needs of 18 people.” —U.S. Department of Agriculture
“There are about 60– to 200-million spaces along our city streets where trees could be planted. This translates to the potential to absorb 33 million more tons of CO2 every year, and saving $4 billion in energy costs.” —National Wildlife Federation
MillionTreesNYC - Benefits of NYC's Urban Forest
**Slowing Global Climate Change - Urban trees help offset climate change by capturing atmospheric carbon dioxide in their tissue, reducing energy used by buildings, and reducing carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel based power plants. Our City’s trees store about 1.35 million tons of carbon valued at $24.9 million. In addition, our trees remove over 42,000 tons of carbon each year.
Recently, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development cited a study by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) which advocates planting trees and increasing topsoil as preferable methods of combating global climate change. Since soil and trees effectively store carbon dioxide and other pollutants, ecosystems have been proven to play an essential role in climate mitigation.
Western European cities have these big cathedrals (where no one worships) surrounded by brick courtyards, that take up what would be blocks and blocks of US cities. There are about two trees per courtyard, poking up out of the bricks. Kind of stark, IMO. I'm talking cities in Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands. (In case you've never been there.)
There's some evidence to suggest that small children, before they are inoculated to think whatever the local environment is, find grassland with a spattering of trees most attractive.
Nei has posted tons of overheads of European cities in the past, and it's a common form. Look at Prague, for an extreme example. Or Budapest, Vienna, Berlin, Paris, Zurich, etc.
The common European urban typology is to often have complete buildings which occupy the street wall on all sides, but to have a "hollow block" with a central courtyard. Often some, or quite a lot, of greenery is tucked in the middle.
That is something I didn't like about European cities. I'm just not getting this anti-tree screed at all! I never, ever heard of anyone hating on trees so much!
I don't understand why you and others keep misinterpreting what I'm saying. I like trees a lot. I grew up in an area which was covered in forest. Most cities and neighborhoods could do better with a lot more trees. I just don't think they complement every single style of architecture and every urban typology.
Hell, in parts of the world which are arid, and street trees would require extensive watering (Arizona for example) all of the environmental arguments about them kinda go out the window.
The modern focus on street trees making everything better, regardless of context in some ways reminds me of some of the urban renewal ideas from the mid 20th century. Street trees are considered desirable in part because they've become an indicator of wealthy, long-stable or recently gentrified urban areas, and there is a strong correlation between overall wealth and number of street trees. While they can beautify blighted neighborhoods, I'm not sure they will have any more luck with social stability than either "tear down the tenements and build modern towers" or "tear down the towers and build suburban housing" did.
Western European cities have these big cathedrals (where no one worships) surrounded by brick courtyards, that take up what would be blocks and blocks of US cities. There are about two trees per courtyard, poking up out of the bricks. Kind of stark, IMO. I'm talking cities in Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands. (In case you've never been there.)
Except eschaton was not mentioning center city courtyards, really "center city squares" but residential ones. I think they are a nice design, I've discussed them up numerous times, you didn't read my posts on them? I haven't been seen them but I've read about them and seen them on street view. Unless you knew someone who lived in an apartment building with a courtyard, you'd never see them anymore they'd see someone's backyard. European cities tend to be less greenery on the street and save them for behind the buildings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
That is something I didn't like about European cities. I'm just not getting this anti-tree screed at all! I never, ever heard of anyone hating on trees so much!
You don't like yards, you don't like grass, now it turns out you don't like trees, what gives? Where do you want to live? On a concrete block surround by gravel? Maybe a little asphalt for the kids to play on?
The courtyards add space for children to play on. I posted the link on Copenhagen a few times previous, once in response to a post of yours:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
One downside of East Village for a child is there isn't a whole park space. Urban neighborhoods in parts of Europe built to the same structural density — blocks of 5 story apartments often have courtyards between the apartment buildings. There isn't really space in Manhattan for a layout like that, but further out in the city or in other cities there would have been but it seems American development tends towards more private space. This American mother living for a years in Copenhagen found courtyards in a big plus:
But I discovered that Copenhagen, though far denser than Seattle, is also dramatically more friendly to children. Like much urban housing in the City of Cyclists, our apartment overlooked a green and spacious courtyard. Gated where it met the sidewalk and shared only with others in our building and adjacent buildings on our block, it had play equipment, benches, chairs, and barbeques set amid gardens, lawns, and full-grown trees.
So, which has more greenery? Brooklyn one? Ha! A bird's eye view of the Brooklyn one shows much less greenery but the French one shows quite a bit more greenery tucked behind the houses. Instead of trees on the street, they're behind the street as eschaton said in his post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton
Even if you want trees for all the reasons others have listed, you could do like many European cities, and put them in central courtyards, instead of out on the street.
Here's a courtyard in Hamburg, though the streets have a couple trees:
Power lines need to be buried like they are in most of the developed world. As long as power lines are above ground, there will be issues with weather. Using power lines as an excuse to cut down or not plant trees, is perverse. Most utility companies spend more money cutting trees on their easements, then they would in the long run to just bury the lines. The customers pay the price. Not only with unsightly wires, but with unreliable utility service.
woulda, coulda,shoulda
There are areas where electric lines are still above ground and ignorant people should not be planting trees that interfere with the powerlines when mature.
For a city or private citizen to plant them and say-----------" they should have buried those power lines in the first place "---is arrogant and ignorant !
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.
I haven't been seen them but I've read about them and seen them on street view. Unless you knew someone who lived in an apartment building with a courtyard, you'd never see them anymore they'd see someone's backyard. European cities tend to be less greenery on the street and save them for behind the buildings.
A bird's eye view of the Brooklyn one shows 
