4 ms·

I hope this isn’t a revelation to anyone at this point. Of course greenery reduces heat, but more than anything it means removing concrete, which mitigates the

by zahma 3y ago

I hope this isn’t a revelation to anyone at this point. Of course greenery reduces heat, but more than anything it means removing concrete, which mitigates the urban heat island effect. (Urban heat islands absorb heat energy during the day, amplifying extremes, and release heat at night, making it impossible for effective cooling.) And yet there is still so much resistance or otherwise apathy to the idea of planting more trees and removing space for vehicles — as if it’s merely some hippy-dippy shit only good for gentrification.

vetinari 3y ago
Planting more trees and removing space for vehicles are two different things; it is not necessary to make them dependent. Those who do, usually do it for their anti-vehicle agenda, and planting green is only an excuse / a tool, not the objective or intent to improve the environment. If you want more space for parks and green, you can do it also other way. For example, like Hausmann did in Paris.
- zahma 3y ago
  In a hierarchy of urban planning, I’d favor removing space for cars over demolishing precious space for affordable housing. To that effect, I wouldn’t point to Haussmann who bulldozed plenty of homes and neighborhoods for his unified vision of Paris connected by major thoroughfares. As a result, we have few parks and the city lacks any kind of real arboreal shelter except on some of the boulevards. He was a visionary, but he didn’t have scientific papers or the threat of climate change to contend with. The idea I have in mind is that the control over cities has been wrested from its citizens. A special car commuting class has more comfort moving about a city like Paris than regular inhabitants — but at what cost and borne by whom? Removing space for cars means removing vehicles, which re-empowers city-dwellers, cleans the air, and cools the city.
- woodruffw 3y ago
  In much of the US, the two are interdependent: to plant more trees on streets, for example, many US cities will need to trim the arterial roads that swallowed up neighborhood sidewalks half a century ago.

by zahma 3y ago

vetinari 3y ago

Planting more trees and removing space for vehicles are two different things; it is not necessary to make them dependent. Those who do, usually do it for their anti-vehicle agenda, and planting green is only an excuse / a tool, not the objective or intent to improve the environment. If you want more space for parks and green, you can do it also other way. For example, like Hausmann did in Paris.

zahma 3y ago
In a hierarchy of urban planning, I’d favor removing space for cars over demolishing precious space for affordable housing. To that effect, I wouldn’t point to Haussmann who bulldozed plenty of homes and neighborhoods for his unified vision of Paris connected by major thoroughfares. As a result, we have few parks and the city lacks any kind of real arboreal shelter except on some of the boulevards. He was a visionary, but he didn’t have scientific papers or the threat of climate change to contend with. The idea I have in mind is that the control over cities has been wrested from its citizens. A special car commuting class has more comfort moving about a city like Paris than regular inhabitants — but at what cost and borne by whom? Removing space for cars means removing vehicles, which re-empowers city-dwellers, cleans the air, and cools the city.
woodruffw 3y ago
In much of the US, the two are interdependent: to plant more trees on streets, for example, many US cities will need to trim the arterial roads that swallowed up neighborhood sidewalks half a century ago.