Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cities need more trees

herman.bearblog.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 169 posts

Re: Cities need more trees

#61

Post by config_yml »

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…

Same in Zurich, where the city tries to establish a “Schwammstadt”. But the tree growth is actually negative, because on private properties people are chopping down their trees to build lucrative housing.

Re: Cities need more trees

#62

Post by randomcarbloke »

andsoitis wrote: post #54
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

Okay, by some people's argument it is and since this is not an exact science comparing Tijuca's 3,953 hectares to London's 14,000 even with percentage coverage it would suggest otherwise.

That said lots of cities have a claim: Oslo, Joberg(as you indicate), some places in China.

Is it most trees, densest coverage, or simply largest area that still satisfies the definition of Urban Forest? You can pick a different answer for whichever metric qualifies.

Re: Cities need more trees

#63

Post by lopis »

classified wrote: post #9

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.

Even if that was true, sounds like a net gain if trees make cities more inhospitable for cars.

Re: Cities need more trees

#64

Post by globular-toast »

shiroiushi wrote: post #17
short_sells_poo wrote: post #13

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?

Only in Scotland.

Re: Cities need more trees

#65

Post by lopis »

Mordisquitos wrote: post #42
nottorp wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Erm, I think HN could use a "+1, well done sarcasm" upvote.

HN commenters should definitely use the '/s' tag, as it is essential to correctly label the intention of sarcastic comments. /s

Well, this isn't Reddit, so many we could have less sarcasm? Sarcasm isn't accessible even with text tags and doesn't help move the discussion forward.

Re: Cities need more trees

#66

Post by MrGilbert »

robcohen wrote: post #52
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.

Albeit being a valid datapoint, the conclusion could as well be that it might be better to put electric power down in the ground, get better insurance, don't park under a tree, and so on…

Re: Cities need more trees

#67

Post by blackhawkC17 »

lopis wrote: post #59

> 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 (:

I’ll trade a rare chance of bird poop to live in a pleasant leafy area :)

A bird actually once pooped directly on my shirt, and it’s one of the funniest things I can remember.

Re: Cities need more trees

#68

Post by BSDobelix »

config_yml wrote: post #61
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…

Same in Zurich, where the city tries to establish a “Schwammstadt”. But the tree growth is actually negative, because on private properties people are chopping down their trees to build lucrative housing.

If you look at bellevue i personally think it's disgusting, that loveless massive sechseleutenplatz, lot's of cars always using the horn, what a waste of that iconic place constricted between traemli and a always busy street, tbh even Delhi is less stressful, let alone Vienna.

EDIT: Do you mean Schwanstadt right? That lovely smell of birdshit in the sommer plus the massive stink of piss and puke after (and up to 10 days) streetparade is the pure soul of Zurich ;)

Re: Cities need more trees

#69

Post by XorNot »

MrGilbert wrote: post #66
robcohen wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Albeit being a valid datapoint, the conclusion could as well be that it might be better to put electric power down in the ground, get better insurance, don't park under a tree, and so on…

Root penetration of buried services is a serious problem. While roots generally chase water, they will surround and crush any services which get in the way.

Trenching and conduiting is also a lot more expensive. Which is to say: you're looking at a huge amount of cost for what could be described as a very marginal gain because it's already a city.

Post reply on HN