Cities need more trees • Hacker News Board

Re: Cities need more trees

#51

Post by lukan » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 10:10 AM UTC

short_sells_poo wrote: post #5

tetris11 wrote: post #2

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?

Unfortunately the decision is often made based on costs, and chopping them down is cheaper than employing an arborist (?) to make sure the tree is reinforced properly. Please don't get me wrong, I agree with you. In many historic cities, there are trees that are hundreds of years old. There are trees that have been around since before the invention of the telegraph, lived through 2 world wars and are still going stro…

"There are trees that have been around since before the invention of the telegraph"

There are trees, that are allmost 5000 years old, so around the time humans started building cities.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_trees

The oldest tree in a city might be this one, 2300 years old, living history.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaya_Sri_Maha_Bodhi

Around here, they also plan to chop down a lot of trees that are around 200 years old, because the road repairs are cheaper with them gone. I hope it does not get to it as resistance is forming, but I might consider climbing and sitting there to block it.

Re: Cities need more trees

#52

Post by robcohen » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 10:10 AM UTC

huevosabio wrote: post #26

One of my biggest complains for American cities is the risk adversity with respect to trees. 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…

For an opposing view, look at what happened during the freeze in Austin, Texas for an example of policies that allow for minimal tree pruning.

It was a significant issue that caused the city an incredible amount of damage. Electric was shut down for days, cars were destroyed, houses had trees fall on them, etc.

Might still be worth it, but an interesting data point nonetheless.

Re: Cities need more trees

#53

Post by ctenb » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 10:11 AM UTC

jurmous wrote: post #32

Here in Utrecht the Netherlands they are trying to greenify the city to reduce heat stress during the hot months. They try to plant as much trees and plants as possible, they try not to mow grass often and let it grow, they encourage homes to remove tiled gardens and add green, they have programs to turn roofs into green roofs. I like it, the city feels nicer to life in. https://healthyurbanliving.utrecht.nl/fileadmi…

I live there as well, and while I'm sure it could be worse, it's nothing compared to Johannesburg. I would like to see much more green throughout the city. Hopefully they will keep up the trend.

Re: Cities need more trees

#54

Post by andsoitis » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 10:12 AM UTC

randomcarbloke wrote: post #35

my city is the largest urban forest. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/07/london...

Johannesburg is the largest man-made urban forest and Tijuca forest in Rio is the largest urban forest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_forest

Re: Cities need more trees

#55

Post by wongarsu » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 10:18 AM UTC

agumonkey wrote: post #36

yen223 wrote: post #8

> 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…

Mostly urban density ideas were incompatible with green space in the decades prior. The more you want to fit people to "lower" rent, the less you can allocate for grass or trees.

I don't know. When thinking about "urban density in decades prior" the first thing that comes to my mind are the "commie blocks" of the 50s-80s. The thinking of those often explicitly included green space: put people in denser higher buildings and you have space for green spaces in between. The execution wasn't always stellar, but it was in no way incompatible with trees.

Re: Cities need more trees

#56

Post by z3phyr » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 10:18 AM UTC

When I lived in Delhi, my home was near the ridge area of North Campus. Its a lush forest with shrubs, ferns, and subtropical hard trees with a few lakes. The temperature difference, the coolness in air and the vibe difference from the rest of the city was like night and day.

Re: Cities need more trees

#57

Post by pvaldes » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 10:18 AM UTC

pferde wrote: post #48

stuaxo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, as in Sheffield in the UK misaligned incentives: the company that was paid to manage the trees realised it was cheaper for them to cut them down, so started labelling trees as diseased that weren't.

Doesn't that count as plain old fraud?

And steal of wood.

One cubic meter of Cedrus is like 1000 euro in the market. Most owners don't realize that trees had value, and are often tricked to get rid of their "diseased" old cedars with a convenient "free removal" by part of the company that will chop it. If the owner can't be persuaded, a common trick deployed is some "allergic" woman calling authorities and requiring to chop that tree because it makes her uncomfortable. Then some good Samaritans ring the bell offering their services. Extra bonus if you can made the owner to pay for the operation.

Re: Cities need more trees

#58

Post by wongarsu » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 10:19 AM UTC

lucioperca wrote: post #15

stuaxo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, as in Sheffield in the UK misaligned incentives: the company that was paid to manage the trees realised it was cheaper for them to cut them down, so started labelling trees as diseased that weren't.

Privatisation gone wrong!

Something the UK has a lot of experience with

Re: Cities need more trees

#59

Post by lopis » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 10:23 AM UTC

> However, planting trees in cities is pretty much all upside with almost no downside (except that birds tend to shit on my car).

> So the next time you're enjoying a walk down a lovely shady street, take a look up and appreciate the trees.

Author seems to be contradicting themselves (:

Re: Cities need more trees

#60

Post by pvaldes » Mon, Jul 01, 2024, 10:25 AM UTC

silon42 wrote: post #7

tetris11 wrote: post #2

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?

Simpler/better to plant a new tree.

Plant a new tree and then pay air conditioner for 20 years until the tree grows again. Simpler yes; better not so much, if you take in mind all the hidden costs.

Of course sometimes the tree is rotten or will fall over your home, and it must go before that happens.