8 ms·
Given the conditions around the Mediterranean in recent weeks I'm not sure citing Barcelona as an example of why cities don't need trees to be walkable will be
by Silhouette 3y ago
Given the conditions around the Mediterranean in recent weeks I'm not sure citing Barcelona as an example of why cities don't need trees to be walkable will be a convincing argument. Barcelona is a great place but it's also horrible to walk around at lunchtime on a hot summer day.
- TulliusCicero 3y agoAnd yet, there's way more walking going on there on average than in typical US cities. That's my point. Just like snow can be an impediment for biking, and yet Oulu Finland has way more biking than US cities with much milder climates.
- Silhouette 3y agoAnd yet, there's way more walking going on there on average than in typical US cities. As far as I can tell there's probably also more walking going on on the dark side of the moon on average than in typical US cities so I'm not sure that's a great argument either. Trees provide both natural shade and natural greenery. Both are well established as creating more pleasant environments for people. Barcelona is a wonderful city and it's very walkable but it would be much more pleasant to walk around it between late morning and mid-afternoon for half of the year if the main pedestrian areas and connecting corridors had better coverage. I don't understand how this claim is controversial. If you want to encourage people to walk more in places that have a firmly entrenched prejudice against it and a similarly passionate obsession with motor vehicles then you are going to need all the advantages you can get. Trees are a win in multiple ways and if properly planned they cost very little in either installation or maintenance compared to the value they bring. Again I don't understand how this claim is controversial.