8 ms·

This is something that cities the world over should be doing, both from a bee and a people perspective. Density is a lot more nice if greenery is nearby. Does

This is something that cities the world over should be doing, both from a bee and a people perspective. Density is a lot more nice if greenery is nearby. Doesn't really matter if it's a park or an allotment or a library with a wide area. Just plenty of "something" with a large "big something" every so often. In most cities I have experience with, high quality outdoor space is largely reserved for the parts of town populated by people living in detached, one-family dwellings. The more dense parts of town are clustered next to noisy streets or with pollution. Not much greenspace. The cities that have gotten it more right than wrong are usually in western Europe and parts of Asia. > Christian Schmid-Egger, who coordinates Berlin’s wildflower meadows on behalf of the German Wildlife Foundation, said any conservation effort would ultimate require broader changes in agricultural practices: “If we are going to save the bees, we won’t be doing it in cities.” He's not wrong, but he's also not fully right either. One of the biggest damages we've done to our biome is to pave so much of it, largely to make space for automobiles. Animals and insects need places to thrive all over and setting aside more space among our population for both people and insects makes for a better environment.

rapnie 5y ago
I do some "guerilla seeding" now and then where I live, scattering seeds in abandoned city spots that are waiting for new housing to be build (which can take years). It is so beautiful what flowers emerge, and when I see how both residents and tourists enjoy them, taking pictures and such, I felt it should be common practice to sow such spaces with flowers. Suggested it to our municipality, but after a "Maybe, we'll consider it" nothing happened. It is such low effort, low cost though.. it has a good ROI in terms of well-being for bees and humans alike :)
- TaylorAlexander 5y ago
  I’ve been doing something similar. Collecting native seeds from plants that grow well here after they bloom, and distributing them to barren spots that need more growth and color. I just started but hopefully next year there will be more Echium and Lupine around here.
  - distances 5y ago
    Small warning for Europeans: here Lupine is a introduced species that displaces endemic plants. It probably should be removed if it's growing in your lands.
    - Rochus 5y ago
      Don't remove it; better a few foreign lupines than no more bumble or solitary bees.
      - developer93 5y ago
        *replace it with native species
        Rochus 5y ago
        Well, what is native? The Lupinus polyphyllus is the most common lupine species in Central Europe and has been present here for more than a hundred years. It is also one of the better bumblebee plants. When farmers mow the meadows (cutting down most of the native bumblebee plants) the bumblebees can't find anything there and are grateful for any garden.
    - _Microft 5y ago
      I know that nature conservation authorities had to do that here in Germany when these plants spread from people's gardens into natural reserves. Please use local species instead of invasive ones.
    - developer93 5y ago
      I believe it's also poisonous
    - jabl 5y ago
      Where I live garden lupine is classified as an invasive species, and purposefully spreading it is criminalized.
- Sharlin 5y ago
  In my city, a grassroots organization that started as a bunch of "guerrilla gardeners" now has their urban meadow projects sanctioned by the city, more meadows are being created, and they do paid consulting for the city as well on the topic of biodiversity and various restoration projects. Very nice.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Rochus 5y ago
  That's a good approach; I looked around what to sow or plant; here is a site with useful information: http://hummelgarten.ch/dokumente/ http://hummelgarten.ch/dokumente/ (mostly German, but there are also a few English documents).
- matkoniecz 5y ago
  Cities in Poland started doing this. One of motivations was that seeding wild flowers gives reason to cut grass less often, allowing to save money and noise. Maybe the same applies in USA and cost cutting could be used as an argument? Other motivations were biodiversity and that it is less ugly (though not everyone is fan of them). From city official website: https://www.krakow.pl/aktualnosci/237069,1926,komunikat,zdecyduj__gdzie_powstana_nowe_laki_kwietne.html https://www.krakow.pl/aktualnosci/237069,1926,komunikat,zdec... https://zzm.krakow.pl/dzialania-antysmogowe/393-sianie-lak-kwietnych.html https://zzm.krakow.pl/dzialania-antysmogowe/393-sianie-lak-k... https://www.krakow.pl/aktualnosci/247208,29,komunikat,nowe_laki_kwietne_w_twoich_rekach.html https://www.krakow.pl/aktualnosci/247208,29,komunikat,nowe_l...
Mediterraneo10 5y ago
In highly litigious cultures like the USA, wouldn’t a city be wary of attracting lawsuits from people with bee-sting allergies for putting them at supposed risk?
- dan-robertson 5y ago
  The US may be litigious but judges and lawyers aren’t stupid. The key issue is that it would generally be pretty hard to find someone sufficiently culpable. Many cities plant lots of male dioecious trees (ie some individuals of the species only have staminate (“male”) flowers and others individuals only have pistillate (“female”) flowers, the city plants only the trees that produce staminate flowers) which produce twice as much pollen as they would if trees were selected more randomly. This is because they drop less litter. But it is bad for people with allergies. I don’t think any such people have had success suing their cities for this practice.
  - nullc 5y ago
    > which produce twice as much pollen as they would if trees were selected more randomly. My understanding is that it's even worse than twice, because the female flowers of some species actually filter the pollen out of the air.
- croon 5y ago
  I know I'm not arguing the merits of this specific case, but a world with no bees is a world where basically everyone is dead. Living can be hazardous, but some (very slight) dangers are necessary in a world that makes living possible.
  - hulitu 5y ago
    There are also other insects beside bees. A world only with bees is also a dead world.
    - croon 5y ago
      It wasn't meant to be an either/or.
dan-robertson 5y ago
It sounds like the “high quality outdoor space” you are referring to is something to be found in typical North American suburbia, but I would argue that this is typically a bleak crabgrass hell and not much higher quality or more alive than the road/parking-lot hell that surrounds it. But maybe you are instead imagining streets lined with elm trees (well elm was traditional but most died of Dutch elm disease—other species are used now). Occasionally one may find an undeveloped lot which has more native species growing there, but perhaps we just disagree on what a high-quality outdoor space is, and you have something much more human-focused than natural in mind. I would argue that these do exist in the dense parts of big American cities (think Central Park in New York, which has a lot of space but also serves a dense population and so can afford more gardeners, flower beds, and varied features in general; New York also manages to sustain two botanical gardens which have reasonable examples of natural habitat too.) Though I would imagine the typical US city with a hollowed-out downtown mightn’t have good parks or shared spaces.
- techsupporter 5y ago
  My view of a high-quality outdoor space is one where humans can be without the need to pay, with the ability to sit, and some space for play or leisure. We should also plan for pets being present because no matter how many signs you put asking people to not bring their dogs, cats, turtles, or ferrets, people will bring them. So let's not assume otherwise. A water fountain would be great, a public restroom (like a Portland Loo) even moreso in larger areas. This same space should also have as much of its volume as possible given over to natural surfaces. Grasses and hardy flowers, in particular. We don't need a rose garden. Most plant species native to an area look quite nice if not mowed down or stunted with pesticides. We should encourage property owners to give over some of the massive amounts of space currently used for automobile operation and storage to these public spaces. Eliminate parking minimums so that grocery and other big box stores in urban areas are able to rip up the artificial paving and return that space to natural use, for example. Make more planter box seating in movement rights-of-way. Unused parcels owned by governments should not be fenced off but have some furniture plopped down and an "everyone welcome" sign placed here. I also want people and their cities to think about more than just downtown. Comparatively few people live in "actual" downtowns. We need to deal with that, too, so that downtowns are not just clusters of tall office buildings that empty out at the end of a workday. Nothing says that Downtown cannot be a vibrant neighborhood of its own, arguably even easier than trying to kickstart other neighborhoods. But just saying "putting green space in downtown is difficult" misses the many, many other areas of most cities and towns. (I'm sure someone will come along and say "but you can't possibly do this because the homeless" so yes, this does mean we are addressing environmental concerns at the same time we are addressing human concerns.)

rapnie 5y ago

I do some "guerilla seeding" now and then where I live, scattering seeds in abandoned city spots that are waiting for new housing to be build (which can take years). It is so beautiful what flowers emerge, and when I see how both residents and tourists enjoy them, taking pictures and such, I felt it should be common practice to sow such spaces with flowers. Suggested it to our municipality, but after a "Maybe, we'll consider it" nothing happened. It is such low effort, low cost though.. it has a good ROI in terms of well-being for bees and humans alike :)

TaylorAlexander 5y ago
I’ve been doing something similar. Collecting native seeds from plants that grow well here after they bloom, and distributing them to barren spots that need more growth and color. I just started but hopefully next year there will be more Echium and Lupine around here.
- distances 5y ago
  Small warning for Europeans: here Lupine is a introduced species that displaces endemic plants. It probably should be removed if it's growing in your lands.
  - Rochus 5y ago
    Don't remove it; better a few foreign lupines than no more bumble or solitary bees.
    - developer93 5y ago
      *replace it with native species
      - Rochus 5y ago
        Well, what is native? The Lupinus polyphyllus is the most common lupine species in Central Europe and has been present here for more than a hundred years. It is also one of the better bumblebee plants. When farmers mow the meadows (cutting down most of the native bumblebee plants) the bumblebees can't find anything there and are grateful for any garden.
  - _Microft 5y ago
    I know that nature conservation authorities had to do that here in Germany when these plants spread from people's gardens into natural reserves. Please use local species instead of invasive ones.
  - developer93 5y ago
    I believe it's also poisonous
  - jabl 5y ago
    Where I live garden lupine is classified as an invasive species, and purposefully spreading it is criminalized.
Sharlin 5y ago
In my city, a grassroots organization that started as a bunch of "guerrilla gardeners" now has their urban meadow projects sanctioned by the city, more meadows are being created, and they do paid consulting for the city as well on the topic of biodiversity and various restoration projects. Very nice.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Rochus 5y ago
That's a good approach; I looked around what to sow or plant; here is a site with useful information: http://hummelgarten.ch/dokumente/ http://hummelgarten.ch/dokumente/ (mostly German, but there are also a few English documents).
matkoniecz 5y ago
Cities in Poland started doing this. One of motivations was that seeding wild flowers gives reason to cut grass less often, allowing to save money and noise. Maybe the same applies in USA and cost cutting could be used as an argument? Other motivations were biodiversity and that it is less ugly (though not everyone is fan of them). From city official website: https://www.krakow.pl/aktualnosci/237069,1926,komunikat,zdecyduj__gdzie_powstana_nowe_laki_kwietne.html https://www.krakow.pl/aktualnosci/237069,1926,komunikat,zdec... https://zzm.krakow.pl/dzialania-antysmogowe/393-sianie-lak-kwietnych.html https://zzm.krakow.pl/dzialania-antysmogowe/393-sianie-lak-k... https://www.krakow.pl/aktualnosci/247208,29,komunikat,nowe_laki_kwietne_w_twoich_rekach.html https://www.krakow.pl/aktualnosci/247208,29,komunikat,nowe_l...

Mediterraneo10 5y ago

In highly litigious cultures like the USA, wouldn’t a city be wary of attracting lawsuits from people with bee-sting allergies for putting them at supposed risk?

dan-robertson 5y ago
The US may be litigious but judges and lawyers aren’t stupid. The key issue is that it would generally be pretty hard to find someone sufficiently culpable. Many cities plant lots of male dioecious trees (ie some individuals of the species only have staminate (“male”) flowers and others individuals only have pistillate (“female”) flowers, the city plants only the trees that produce staminate flowers) which produce twice as much pollen as they would if trees were selected more randomly. This is because they drop less litter. But it is bad for people with allergies. I don’t think any such people have had success suing their cities for this practice.
- nullc 5y ago
  > which produce twice as much pollen as they would if trees were selected more randomly. My understanding is that it's even worse than twice, because the female flowers of some species actually filter the pollen out of the air.
croon 5y ago
I know I'm not arguing the merits of this specific case, but a world with no bees is a world where basically everyone is dead. Living can be hazardous, but some (very slight) dangers are necessary in a world that makes living possible.
- hulitu 5y ago
  There are also other insects beside bees. A world only with bees is also a dead world.
  - croon 5y ago
    It wasn't meant to be an either/or.

dan-robertson 5y ago

It sounds like the “high quality outdoor space” you are referring to is something to be found in typical North American suburbia, but I would argue that this is typically a bleak crabgrass hell and not much higher quality or more alive than the road/parking-lot hell that surrounds it. But maybe you are instead imagining streets lined with elm trees (well elm was traditional but most died of Dutch elm disease—other species are used now). Occasionally one may find an undeveloped lot which has more native species growing there, but perhaps we just disagree on what a high-quality outdoor space is, and you have something much more human-focused than natural in mind. I would argue that these do exist in the dense parts of big American cities (think Central Park in New York, which has a lot of space but also serves a dense population and so can afford more gardeners, flower beds, and varied features in general; New York also manages to sustain two botanical gardens which have reasonable examples of natural habitat too.) Though I would imagine the typical US city with a hollowed-out downtown mightn’t have good parks or shared spaces.

techsupporter 5y ago
My view of a high-quality outdoor space is one where humans can be without the need to pay, with the ability to sit, and some space for play or leisure. We should also plan for pets being present because no matter how many signs you put asking people to not bring their dogs, cats, turtles, or ferrets, people will bring them. So let's not assume otherwise. A water fountain would be great, a public restroom (like a Portland Loo) even moreso in larger areas. This same space should also have as much of its volume as possible given over to natural surfaces. Grasses and hardy flowers, in particular. We don't need a rose garden. Most plant species native to an area look quite nice if not mowed down or stunted with pesticides. We should encourage property owners to give over some of the massive amounts of space currently used for automobile operation and storage to these public spaces. Eliminate parking minimums so that grocery and other big box stores in urban areas are able to rip up the artificial paving and return that space to natural use, for example. Make more planter box seating in movement rights-of-way. Unused parcels owned by governments should not be fenced off but have some furniture plopped down and an "everyone welcome" sign placed here. I also want people and their cities to think about more than just downtown. Comparatively few people live in "actual" downtowns. We need to deal with that, too, so that downtowns are not just clusters of tall office buildings that empty out at the end of a workday. Nothing says that Downtown cannot be a vibrant neighborhood of its own, arguably even easier than trying to kickstart other neighborhoods. But just saying "putting green space in downtown is difficult" misses the many, many other areas of most cities and towns. (I'm sure someone will come along and say "but you can't possibly do this because the homeless" so yes, this does mean we are addressing environmental concerns at the same time we are addressing human concerns.)