3 ms·
One phenomenon I heard about recently is that new developments plant smaller trees in order to reduce impacts on power lines. While this achieves the nominal ob
by scythe 3y ago
One phenomenon I heard about recently is that new developments plant smaller trees in order to reduce impacts on power lines. While this achieves the nominal objective, the smaller trees are generally ineffective for shade and general thermal management, provide limited support for squirrels and birds, and generally result in a much inferior aesthetic. According to some models (which are difficult to test), trees improve air quality; smaller trees probably have less effect. But the costs of trees accrue to the developer (who may be a city), while the benefits are diffuse and difficult to measure. Moral hazard, unintended consequences, call it what you will; you have to know about the problem to fix it.
In this article, we hear:
>“The biggest asset for [the county government] in this program is the reduction of maintenance costs,” Maluki says. “It’s a two-way benefit.”
What relates my first paragraph to this article is that I have read dozens of articles touting the benefits of trees in urban design and practically never see much attention paid to the forces in the decision process that keep trees out of cities. Yes, the emerald ash borer and [other story] played a role, but not all villains are so one-dimensionally bad.
This article reads like another puff piece. Insofar as it engages with differing perspectives, they contacted an ecologist who doesn't want to build any roads, and he got two paragraphs. They didn't bother contacting anyone who builds roads and who has doubts about the project, though; their concerns are limited to about half of a sentence:
>but road departments themselves have proved reluctant. “They don’t want the costs associated with designing and implementing [them],” he says.
- CrazyStat 3y agoA new subdivision went in across the major street from my neighborhood recently. The developer clear cut the forest, put in roads and cookie cutter houses, and then planted one small tree in front of each house. Many of the people who live there cross the busy main road to walk/jog/etc. in our older neighborhood, which has many more trees.
- dghlsakjg 3y agoI walk my dog in a section of land that is slowly being converted from second (third?) growth forest to a neighborhood. They are doing the same thing. Cut everything down, reshape the land, build houses, plant a ceremonial sappling. Every time they expand the area that houses are built on, the amount of runoff increases massively. It's very clear that most of the water is coming only from the areas that have been "developed". The unmolested land is very capable of absorbing the amount of water that comes down. This year they had to completely redo their flood/runoff drainage area and ditch system after they cleared another bunch of land and filled it in with a bunch of sandy fill. Must have cost 6-7 figures. No idea why they can't selectively harvest, and work with the existing topsoil.
- stephen_g 3y agoWhy would a new development have power lines? In my country older suburbs have powerlines but everything is underground in new ones. Much more economical to do it in an area before any buildings or roads are built. The newer ones are horrible for other reasons. They do tend to have smaller trees but over here that’s because everything is squeezed in to as little space as possible to maximise developer profit per square meter of land.