21–30 of 169 posts
Trees are nothing but obstacles to traffic. If you take a good look at cities, you will see that they were built for cars, and cars alone. Anything that's not a car has no place in a city.
Erm, I thought cities are for people, not for cars
I understand that tall trees a threat to capital and maybe also to human life when one falls over near a house, but do we really need to chop them down? Can we not add metal struts between a house and a tall tree, to reinforce its strength, rather than preemptively cut it every time?
We have many cherry trees that form a pink-petal snow every year, that were planted after hostilities ceased with Japan in WWII:
Accolade, Afterglow, Akebono, Ama-no-gawa, Atsumori, Autumnalis Rosea, Avium Plena, Beni-shidare, Birch Bark Cherry, Choshu-hizakura, Fudan-zakura, Gyoiko, Hosokawa-nioi, Ichihara-tora-no-o, Ichiyo, Ito-kukuri, Ito-zakura, Jo-nioi, Jugatsu-zakura, Kanzan, Kiku-shidare-zakura, Kiku-zakura, Korean Hill Cherry, Mikuruma-gaeshi, O-yama-zakura, Ojochin, Okame, Oshima-zakura, Pandora, Pink Perfection, Rancho, Sargent Hybrid Cherry, Schmitt Cherry, Sendai-shidare, Shiro-fugen, Shirotae, Shogetsu, Shosar, Shujaku, Snofozam, Snow Goose, Somei-yoshino, Spire, Star Cherry, Tai-haku, Takasago, Taki-nioi, Ukon, Umineko, Washi-no-o, Whitcomb, Yae-beni-shidare, Yama-zakura, Yokihi
Fruit trees consume a lot of water, thus many cities should consider drought resistant options to reduce sun baked roads.
Some don't like the trees due to superstitions, but most enjoy the reminder Spring has arrived. =3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheffield_tree_felling_protest...
What I found incredibly uncomfortable when moving from Eastern to Western Europe is a lack of shade in residential areas. Yes, there’re parks, but the buildings often don’t have enough shade (anecdotal evidence). With the rising temperatures, many homes are exposed to sun whole day. I live in a city that’s been growing really fast and none of the newer residential houses have any trees around them. Mind you it takes…
In SF, the city went in a rampage to prune and tear down trees (mostly ficus) because of the risk of the branches falling. There are lots of rules for where you can and can't plant trees based on road visibility, signage, electric cables etc. Result is that you have a lot of tree-less spaces in a city where basically anything grows.
In contrast, Mexico City has an almost anarchist version of urban greenery. Trees overflow streets and side walks. Yes, there are issues from dealing with the urban greenery, but the city is incredibly pleasant to walk in. Also, despite being an incredibly noisy city, trees and buildings mute out a lot of the noise.
> You can still see a stark difference between rich and poor neighbourhoods to this day based purely on tree cover. You can see that here in Sydney. The poorer Western Sydney suburbs have a noticeable lack of tree coverage when compared with the richer inner west, northern, and eastern suburbs. I don't know which direction cause and effect goes. It is plausible that affluent suburbs can afford to plant trees, but it…
[0] https://www.hornsby.nsw.gov.au/environment/flora-and-fauna/t...
Trees are nothing but obstacles to traffic. If you take a good look at cities, you will see that they were built for cars, and cars alone. Anything that's not a car has no place in a city.
Americans are making many of their roads and towns/cities hell just to penny pinch.
The photo in the article looks amazing! You basically don't see a city, you see a vast woodland! An occasional rooftop peeking through here and there are the only signs of civilization. I'd love to live in a place like that. London is a very green city by many standards, but it is nowhere close to appearing like the unbroken forest in the article. In fact, the thing I miss the most after having moved to the UK are th…
Huh? I've read multiple times that in the UK, private land can't be "fenced off" and the general public has the right to roam on it, as long as they aren't causing a nuisance or getting too close to peoples' homes. Is that only for pastures or something?
There's no right to freely roam in the UK unlike Finland and other countries [1], although there are public footpaths/rights of way that cross private land [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam
[2] https://www.gov.uk/right-of-way-open-access-land/use-public-...
The photo in the article looks amazing! You basically don't see a city, you see a vast woodland! An occasional rooftop peeking through here and there are the only signs of civilization. I'd love to live in a place like that. London is a very green city by many standards, but it is nowhere close to appearing like the unbroken forest in the article. In fact, the thing I miss the most after having moved to the UK are th…
Huh? I've read multiple times that in the UK, private land can't be "fenced off" and the general public has the right to roam on it, as long as they aren't causing a nuisance or getting too close to peoples' homes. Is that only for pastures or something?
There is much more expansive freedom to roam in Scotland, but then most of the land there is undeveloped anyway.