Is there such thing as too many street trees? (suburb, freeway, development)
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 have looked at some of your links. I've also been behind buildings in way western Germany. Most of those apartment buildings smack up against the street had a concrete courtyard in back. I will say there were more trees in Germany than the other two (Belgium and the Netherlands).
Hmm. Interesting. I haven't seen much of continental Europe in person. I was judging from a satelittle view that the courtyards must have trees since they were green in the view:
I wouldn't have found apartment buildings smack against the streets in a city noteworthy since that's the norm in much of New York City (see earlier same Brooklyn view). Also found a bit in Boston and often in Philly.
And on residential streets? Check my previous post of the French street view. Look around at the neighboring streets. Some streets have a few trees many do not. You can find that pattern in many European cities. Though a skim of Munich, it looked like except for right by the city center, streets had trees.
There's a pretty stark contrast between old Paris and planned Paris. I don't even care if it's a residential street. Good luck finding a tree in much of Paris that isn't in a park/church/public square or something like that.
Basically, an earlier version of the American freeway cutting through the heart of the city. It faced the same criticisms for just going through and bull dozing anything its way in the 19th century when it, along with many other similar streets, where cut through the middle of Paris like a knife through hot butter. I don't know that I exactly agree with the criticism. It's definitely completely different than the Paris it cut through, however. Whether one likes or dislikes it, I think at least that it's very different isn't controversial.
I said that in some European cities, many more trees are planted in courtyards than on the street. Show me where I said there were no street trees in Europe.
Regardless, as Nei noted, in Europe, street trees are generally found on boulevards or main roads. You're fairly unlikely to find massive amounts of street trees on any residential street in a city core. This is even true in Belgravia in London, which is now the single most expensive neighborhood in the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
I don't think this harrangue is about wealth or social stability. "They make an area look too suburban". And god knows we can't have that.
Could you show me where I said that trees make an urban area look suburban please? All I said was these neighborhoods were often not designed with street trees in mind. There are suburban typologies which are designed to have trees, and ones which are not.
I would say, however, that the push to put street trees into poor neighborhoods because rich people have them is broadly similar to past urban planning ideas which have thought if you transplant elements of the physical environment from socially stable areas to socially unstable ones, it will somehow make them more stable.
Could you show me where I said that trees make an urban area look suburban please? All I said was these neighborhoods were often not designed with street trees in mind. There are suburban typologies which are designed to have trees, and ones which are not.
I would say, however, that the push to put street trees into poor neighborhoods because rich people have them is broadly similar to past urban planning ideas which have thought if you transplant elements of the physical environment from socially stable areas to socially unstable ones, it will somehow make them more stable.
Here's your OP:
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton
I'm sure people have noticed in their own metros there has been an increasing focus on putting street trees in, particularly in neighborhoods which have little to no front yard, to try and make the area look less desolate.
I find in areas where they have grown out, it really obscures the buildings. Many of the rowhouse neighborhoods I like to go on scenic walks in, for example, have trees so grown out that except during the winter houses you cannot see the homes clearly at all. In extreme cases, the roads can become so leafy the street itself becomes dark.
Are street trees everywhere really needed? It's not as if street trees were part of the original typology here, and to some extent it feels like putting a suburban characteristic into an urban area, particularly once the tree gets big enough that it rivals the size of the house. City houses were often meant to be on public display to the street - that's why they aren't recessed far back on properties.
Thoughts?
Who says street trees weren't part of the original typology? I posted several links about the desirability of urban trees.
We know you don't like suburbs. You don't like yards. You don't like grass. Yards, trees, grass, all "suburban".
Who says city houses were often meant to be on public display? Isn't that what the suburbs get criticized for? Too much "conspicuous consumption", etc?
Sewers also generally weren't part of the original typology (at least in cities old enough). I think they're an improvement. I prefer trees to not trees.
Sewers also generally weren't part of the original typology (at least in cities old enough). I think they're an improvement. I prefer trees to not trees.
There's a pretty stark contrast between old Paris and planned Paris. I don't even care if it's a residential street. Good luck finding a tree in much of Paris that isn't in a park/church/public square or something like that.
Basically, an earlier version of the American freeway cutting through the heart of the city. It faced the same criticisms for just going through and bull dozing anything its way in the 19th century when it, along with many other similar streets, where cut through the middle of Paris like a knife through hot butter. I don't know that I exactly agree with the criticism. It's definitely completely different than the Paris it cut through, however. Whether one likes or dislikes it, I think at least that it's very different isn't controversial.
That's an at-grade boulevard that is part of the city grid and does not function anything like a freeway.
There's a pretty stark contrast between old Paris and planned Paris. I don't even care if it's a residential street. Good luck finding a tree in much of Paris that isn't in a park/church/public square or something like that.
Why distinguish between old and new paris - it's all Paris - a big modern metropolis that has layer after layer from very ancient to very modern, all intermixed.
In any case:
It isn't hard to find tree lined urban streets in paris if you have a pair of eyes.
Interconnected streets. As opposed to grade separated freeways.
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.
