5 ms·
Why is it so complicated to fill all the boulevards with trees that will, in the future, provide a thick canopy?
by voisin 3y ago
Why is it so complicated to fill all the boulevards with trees that will, in the future, provide a thick canopy?
- mschild 3y agoI've involved myself in local effort to achieve this. 2 main problems we always encounter. 1. This requires planning and change. Tearing up pathways and streets is expensive, takes planning on administrative side and execution on the physical one. Cities and towns have limited money and don't want go through the effort and cost of it. You'll also encounter NIMBYs who are against any change whatsoever. 2. Tree roots in cities generally grow more horizontal and close to the surface. Reason for this is water and air access. If the surrounding area is paved over with concrete or other solid materials and doesn't allow for drainage and airflow, like some light cobbled pathways would, trees will come up and crack the concrete. Since a lot of the underlying structure is compacted soil to allow stable roads and buildings, water won't drain into it and provide less water for soil. We wanted to revitalize an open empty market space in our small district. Think 200sqm. Total cost for replacing the old concrete tiles with less compacted cobbles and some wildflower beds and trees was 10m Euros.
- networkchad 3y ago[dead]
- shiftpgdn 3y agoI live in a bedroom suburb that is known for its thick tree cover. It was one of the driving factors for me to move here, as well as the fact our area is significantly cooler than the nearby city. There is a constant battle where retirees who have moved out here want to cut down all the trees because they are “a nuisance.”
- myself248 3y agoI'm in a thickly wooded suburb, which has absolutely terrible power reliability. I've been on generator 9 days in the last 7 months: Two four-day outages and a one-day. On the other hand, the trees provide shade and quiet and beauty. I love the trees in front yards and in some other places, but in back yards where they're in the utility easement and never should've been allowed there in the first place, they _are_ a nuisance. It's important to differentiate the two; if we want the benefits of electricity we have to compromise a little on every-tree-everywhere-no-matter-the-cost.
- bombcar 3y agoOur little town has been burying power lines for years (because of snow load) and it’s been very nice for the trees. Unfortunately some dumb bug ate all the old trees so many of the roads are nude now, but they’re slowing building them back up with a tree nursery. But it takes 20+ years.
- TheRealPomax 3y ago> if we want the benefits of electricity we have to compromise a little As someone from a country where electricity comes from the ground, not the sky: unless you live in a place that also doesn't have sewers or municipal water, no we do not. Someone at some point made the (at the time perhaps even sensible, but more likely not) choice to run electricity along poles, fully exposed to the environment, instead of using utility pipes buried several feet deep. And you now live with the consequences of that decision.
- tstrimple 3y agoAs an example, during the Iowa derecho which tore up much of the state, our neighborhood was only out of power for about three hours thanks to the buried lines. Other parts of town didn't get power back for over two weeks. Buried power lines is going to be on my list of desired features in any new property I buy.
- myself248 3y agoAs someone from a country where our population density is probably a tiny fraction of yours, yes that decision is often sensible. The cost of underground installation, especially for things with voltage clearance requirements, is absolutely staggering.
- TheRealPomax 3y agoHow about we start with all the places that have huge asphalt and concrete slabs? Because that's what we're talking about. These are not middle-of-nowhere places, these are where people congregate and/or live in high enough density to justify the cost. Plant trees there, and move your utilities underground, geography and climate permitting. And then keep that electricity above ground for all the parts where people don't (or sparsely) live. They're not the areas that are part of this problem.
- kouru225 3y ago“A nuisance” ??? Do they have any reason for saying that? Seems like crazy talk to me.
- shiftpgdn 3y agoCleaning up leaves, roots, etc
- samwillis 3y agoMaintenance costs. At least here in the UK things like maintenance of trees falls to the most local authority (town/parish councils) that are notoriously underfunded and will cut down a tree is it's cheaper than maintaining it. They are allergic to the risk posed by falling branches too.
- consp 3y agoAre there no local taxes which can cover this? I'm definately paying for "green" maintenance by my local taxes and not via income or other nation wide ones (but not in UK).
- automatic6131 3y ago>Are there no local taxes which can cover this? There are monthly, local taxes, yes. Payable by all residents. Are they enough? Nothing is ever enough.
- samwillis 3y agoOh there absolutely are local taxes, and they only increase. Here in the UK it's "council tax", and often paid to the authority one higher up than the one responsible for trees and green spaces. A relatively small amount then trickle down to the local town and parish councils for them to spend.
- odiroot 3y agoCouncil taxes are mostly spent on social services. Councils can barely fund garbage collection, schools, and road maintenence on top of that. Probably not much left for all the nice things.
- voisin 3y agoAs I responded elsewhere: Someone needs to pay for roads and ongoing maintenance and yet there always seems to be money for new roads.
- kjkjadksj 3y agoSomeone needs to pay for the tree and its ongoing maintenance. Thats why many studies note a great temperature and foliage difference between rich and poor areas.
- voisin 3y agoSomeone needs to pay for roads and ongoing maintenance and yet there always seems to be money for new roads.
- kjkjadksj 3y agoThats a little different because the roads are owned by the public. The property where the tree might go adjacent to the road is often privately owned.
- ajmurmann 3y agoLots of places have the trees on the sidewalk. We could also get rid of the ridiculous street parking and put trees there.
- kjkjadksj 3y agoDepending on the place, the little strip of dirt between the street and sidewalk is actually on the property owner to maintain.
- distances 3y agoIn cities the trees are usually between the road and the sidewalk. Seems like a good arrangement.
- kjkjadksj 3y agoUsually thats a sort of easement situation where the property owner maintains that strip vs the actual city.
- ianai 3y agoClearly many places do. But an ever growing problem is the need for fresh water and infrastructure. And I know this always gets push back, but a lot of desert is great for development principally because before modernity no one could live there. Further, the deserts have been expanding on their own so reclamation is a thing. Having been to Arcosanti, wish there was as some desire to explore alternatives. I have no love of being completely dependent upon vehicles and their huge footprint and risk exposures.
- ShadowBanThis01 3y agoBecause, if you're Comcast/Universal, those trees (publicly-owned, by the way) might provide shade to picketers who are fighting for their jobs: https://deadline.com/2023/07/writers-strike-wga-files-federal-complaint-nbcuniversal-construction-1235441167/ https://deadline.com/2023/07/writers-strike-wga-files-federa...
- jokoon 3y agoBecause trees need time to grow and take roots. It's possible to plant big trees but it requires heavy machinery as root are large. Usually there is not room in the soil (pipes etc), and asphalt/concrete prevent a tree to get water. Also trees evolved to live in an ecosystem. A city is not an ecosystem. And there also are roofs and walls and roads, so tree will just mitigate the problem. It's feasible, but the cost is high, and it also implies giving up car space.
- samwillis 3y ago> A city is not an ecosystem. A city is an ecosystem, and we desperately need to treat them as one rather than try an obliterate all signed of none human life. > not room in the soil Not true in any sense, yes there are services under the ground but that is a tiny amount of usage. Roots can cause problems for hard surfaces, but the answers to that is more turf and planting, exactly as the article is proposing. > also implies giving up car space. Also only a good outcome, we need less cars stationary on streets using up valuable space.
- HPsquared 3y agoA city is a techno-socio-economic +(ecological) system
- dumpsterlid 3y ago[dead]
- xyzzyz 3y ago> It's possible to plant big trees but it requires heavy machinery as root are large. Mature trees are also simply expensive by itself, as they require many years to grow. They are expensive to transport, and the transplant frequently fails to take hold, requiring buying another expensive tree, digging up the previous one and replacing it. This makes planting mature tree cost tens of thousands of dollars, compared to tens of dollars for planting saplings.
- voisin 3y ago
- CodeWriter23 3y agoJust watched Ice Cube in a video cruising through South Central LA where he grew up. There were no trees along any of the streets. He said the city cut them all down because the Police Helicopters couldn't see through them. I guess FLIR doesn't penetrate trees.
- vladvasiliu 3y agoLast year I visited LA over a couple days. I remember walking from downtown to Hollywood, I barely saw any trees. Just concrete with the occasional lawn in front of a house. I don't know if that's supposed to be a "rough area"; I didn't feel particularly unsafe.
- slater 3y ago[flagged]
- zeroonetwothree 3y agoI tried searching but I couldn’t find any evidence to support this.
- myself248 3y agoNo evidence to support the cutting-down, but I can personally confirm that FLIR doesn't see through foliage. Each pixel takes the temperature of the nearest surface, which is a leaf, instead of whatever's behind it. In war footage sometimes you see FLIR imagers being used to find tanks hidden under brush and stuff, but this is because the tank has been there long enough for its engine residual warmth to heat up the cover material. And sometimes you can track a moving target through _very thin_ brush because there are gaps between the leaves, in this case it's like visually tracking someone wearing a bright color -- as soon as the cover is thick enough to not have gaps anymore, you lose them. So, I can't prove a chain of reasoning, but I can say that part of it at least fits with physical reality.
- voisin 3y ago
- chongli 3y agoThat’s setting up some maintenance nightmares down the road. Tree roots can break into sewage lines and water mains. I would not want to be around when that happens!
- voisin 3y agoSo to avoid maintenance every 40 or 50 years everyone should bake in the heat annually? The roof over your head now will likely need to be replaced on a more frequent basis than trees will cause maintenance issues.
- HPsquared 3y agoRandom failures, not planned maintenance. There are other ways to stay cool. How about a metal canopy?
- ajmurmann 3y agoNo place in the world has solved this
- ArnoVW 3y agothe take space that is already taken, cost money to install, and cost money to maintain. there are other reasons to put the trees there anyway (physical / mental health, heat, etc) but they are not well appreciated by everyone.. and we as a society have to collectively make a choice between those pros and cons.
- sourcecodeplz 3y agoAnother reason is police helicopters can not see suspects hiding under the trees. No joke, look it up.
- TheRealPomax 3y agoAnd yet, still not worth boiling the planet over. Plant trees.
- Sharlin 3y agoThis is, however, not an issue in the large majority of the civilized world where the police typically don’t even have helicopters, never mind having the problem of suspects hiding under urban trees!!
- LRCivil 3y agoCivil engineer 7 years in public works and transportation. 1. The local agency having jurisdiction would assume the risk of having installed hazards within a clear zone. That is the area beyond a curb or shoulder that is recommended to be free of anything an errant vehicle could collide with. A city would probably tolerate this. A state DOT would probably not. 2. Who pays for it? Landscaping is more costly than you think and contractors tend to be specialized. For a significant streetscaping project, you would need someone who has an efficient pipeline for mobilizing migrant labor. Cities and states tend to have massive shortfalls in capital improvement budgets versus what is desired. Example: Little Rock infrastructure CAPEX needs are around $1B. Their 3-yr bond is around $35M. Are you really going to blow it all on trees when you have major life safety improvements to make? 3. Who maintains it? Tree litter has to be swept. Roots destroy the adjacent pavement. They can get old and fall on a motorist if left alone. Your city probably doesn’t have the staff to provide every service every resident wants at all times. How many firefighters are you willing to fire to pick up branches? Have some empathy for your City Manager or Mayor. These are the decisions they make frequently. Their problems are boring to most and don’t usually make it to HN, but they are hard problems.