[deleted]
Cities need more trees
121–130 of 169 posts
Re: Cities need more trees
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't worry, newer developments in eastern europe suck at tree coverage too.
Newer Western European developments tend to focus a lot on trees again in my experience. So there’s hope.
Yes, I live in a new apartment in Munich and when I look out of the window, I feel like I'm in nature. Really nice.
Re: Cities need more trees
#123Living in Brooklyn, I always prefer to explore east/west instead of north/south. This is because the streets have trees, while the avenues are exposed. In the hot summer months you’ll have a delightful walk down Bergen, then absolutely bake on Franklin or Nostrand.
Re: Cities need more trees
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
I live at the boundary between city and forests and in summer the temperature drop is really 'incredible'. The amount of energy wasted by urban areas is as much so. But at the same time it's nice because we can restore more trees for shade easily
I live in foothills of a lower range of hills (European Jura), and it has numerous effects. The air is normally blowing down the mountains towards us in the evening (katabatic wind), so it doesn't matter how hot the day was, evenings are pleasantly cool and night gets colder than expected. This wind also cools hot surfaces pretty effectively. Even just entering a dense natural forest during the day, one can sense dro…
Lived in French Jura for 5 years. It is so beautiful. And I am not the only one to have noticed. The Last Man or Frankenstein have also the Jura mountains as landscape.
I miss that place... (except its prices)
Re: Cities need more trees
#125Dense urban-type settlements attracted billions (and continue to do so worldwide) as they offer hard-to-beat advantages. But as these gains are booked and largely taken for granted, people long for the paradise lost, the walkability, the green spaces etc.
Anecdotaly the pandemic may have hastened this realisation, as people resorted to walking in larger numbers. Walking around tree-lined streets with lots of natural looking grass and flower beds certainly beats doing the same in a car infested concrete jungle.
Re: Cities need more trees
#126Trees in cities, just taking up valuable space, handing out shade and oxygen equally and for free, like them there communisms. Their leaves might turn red in autumn, but they are red inside all year, these woody marxist menaces!
Re: Cities need more trees
#127When I tell people I live in Berlin, they often make a face and disparage it for being an "ugly" city - and to a certain extent I agree with them... if they've only visited the tourist heavy central areas (Alexanderplatz, Friedrichstrasse, and much of Mitte), where there is a notable lack of greenery.
What I try to remind them of, is that there are more parks, gardens, and forest here than any other capital city, and that those areas will go toe-to-toe beauty wise with anywhere.
Additionally, as temperatures rise (and there's a lack of indoor refuges due to AC being uncommon), finding respite among the greenery is one of the only foolproof ways to cut the heat here.
Re: Cities need more trees
#128Simply remove cars, 40% more space
Re: Cities need more trees
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm so old I can still remember when Sechseleuten Square was green grass, now replaced with searing heat assemblers of stone....so even the city is working against that sponge thing, but yeah it sounds good from a politician's mouth.
It's a relatively novel concept, though the problems of replacing open surfaces with stone slabs and asphalt could have been obvious decades ago :(
Ah, but you see, stone slabs and asphalt cost nothing to maintain. /s
(...Even this is, of course, untrue, but it seems true when you're only paying attention to the next year or so.)