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

151–160 of 169 posts

Re: Cities need more trees

#151

Post by sillyfluke »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #96
PaulRobinson wrote: post #81

Spent last week in South California, visiting family. Flying into LAX made me feel like I was flying into a hell scape. From the air, no green was visible for miles. Compared to my home (London, originally Manchester), I thought it not just odd but barely liveable. You could almost the heat off the concrete by looking at it from the air. Driving around as far south as Orange County for the next week I was happily sur…

Next time you visit family get them to rent a house in Santa Barbara. Technically it's "central" California but it's only 90 minutes from LA and it's probably the coolest and most livable place in the whole state.

The change of landscape from Los Angeles to Santa Barbara always gives me prehistoric or jurassic vibes for some reason.

Flying into LA from Europe and seeing slabs of reflecting concrete and buildings strech out for miles into the horizon from the desert really does give you the feeling that you are seeing the future of the climate apocalpyse in the present. As Gibson says, the future is already here it's just unevenly distributed.

And then you drive north and you run into vegetation that wouldn't be out of place in a dinosaur movie.

In that sense, Santa Barbara is nice but what exactly is "cool" sbout it? Americans awkward relationship with class is kind of in full view there frankly. There is almost no normal social interaction between the residents and the Latino blue collar community that prop up everyone's gardens and landscapes.

Have you ever taken a bus around town in Santa Barbara? It's like, "Oh, so this is where the real people are." Don't get me wrong, there's lots of interesting and nice people that live in Santa Barbara but the lack of cross-over is a little depressing. In Europe, you can be living in an nice expensive place in the city and run into the guy that cuts your hair at the corner barbershop at a music festival and hang out together with their friends the rest of the day.

Also with the exception of downtown Santa Barbara, like most of the US, it's incredibly anti-pedestrian. Make the mistake of google mapping a spot 20 min walk away and you'll find yourself on the highway walking for half an hour cause all the residents take short cuts through private property.

Re: Cities need more trees

#152

Post by eddd-ddde »

seoulmetro wrote: post #149
michael_vo wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You cannot see the wood for trees" I'd argue there is so much good that the tradeoff of trees killing a few humans is worth it. The biological diversity that returns - birds, carbon soil. The air quality. Less chance that the heat will kill our senior citizens. Trees prevent floods. From NotJustBikes channel, trees and bushes can be used to obscure road visibility, which naturally forces drivers to slow down at a cu…

>From NotJustBikes channel, trees and bushes can be used to obscure road visibility, which naturally forces drivers to slow down at a curve, which makes streets safer for pedestrians This is dumb. The same way wrapping cars in bubble wrap would be dumb but also make the cars safer. Most of the ideas in that channel are just insane emotional propaganda that make everyones lives worse because people don't understand ge…

American suburban streets are built like literal highways and then people are surprised people don't respect the speed limit.

It's not dumb, the easier to drive fast, the more people will do.

Re: Cities need more trees

#153

Post by Yawrehto »

I read somewhere that trees help seed clouds, thus causing rain (or maybe just moisture in the air? I forget), though it seems like it's also a vicious cycle - the areas not in drought continue to not be in drought, whereas areas that are lose trees that could've seeded clouds, and thus rain. That said, I agree with the points made in the article. "Trees are good" is a pretty uncontroversial stance. Should be, anyway. I do wonder, if the biophilia thing is real, and it seems reasonable that it is - are some trees better at creating this effect than others, even if the same size? If so, does it vary by region, cultural/ethnic background, etc., and what do those trees that are unusually biophilia-inducing have in common? I have no idea what the answers to those questions are, and there's a lot of speculation before you need to ask it, but it seems like some university or government or something should be researching those questions right now, what with all the plans to make cities greener.

Re: Cities need more trees

#154

Post by michael_vo »

seoulmetro wrote: post #149
michael_vo wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You cannot see the wood for trees" I'd argue there is so much good that the tradeoff of trees killing a few humans is worth it. The biological diversity that returns - birds, carbon soil. The air quality. Less chance that the heat will kill our senior citizens. Trees prevent floods. From NotJustBikes channel, trees and bushes can be used to obscure road visibility, which naturally forces drivers to slow down at a cu…

>From NotJustBikes channel, trees and bushes can be used to obscure road visibility, which naturally forces drivers to slow down at a curve, which makes streets safer for pedestrians This is dumb. The same way wrapping cars in bubble wrap would be dumb but also make the cars safer. Most of the ideas in that channel are just insane emotional propaganda that make everyones lives worse because people don't understand ge…

What do you propose for reducing car fatalities and accidents?

Re: Cities need more trees

#155

Post by Klaster_1 »

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.

During summers, old commieblocks in my neighborhood look like ships in a sea of trees. High density and lots of greenery can coexist.

Re: Cities need more trees

#156

Post by t0bia_s »

I live in big historocal city in Czechia. Trees are rare here. Those few trees have trimmed crowns regularly, every spring they left only trunk with some shot cuted branches. It looks terrible and makes trees weaker.

Arguments are that trees are dangerous and could fall on property or peopel walking under and that it not fits in historical concept of city.

It is impossible to stay on main square during summer and overall aesthetic of treeless streets is sad. It's actually biggest downside of my city.

Every time I visit Germany or Austria, I envy those green cities.

Re: Cities need more trees

#157

Post by helsinkiandrew »

riknox wrote: post #97
helsinkiandrew wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and the general public has the right to roam on it 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-...

That applies outside of Scotland as far as I'm aware, whereas in Scotland there is a right to roam on all land as long as you're not disturbing housing/farm activities etc.

Good point

Re: Cities need more trees

#158

Post by agumonkey »

jajko wrote: post #146
agumonkey wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> katabatic wind I've noticed this while doing evening walk, I didn't know it was a named phenomenon.

Paragliders like me (or similar sports) have to be very familiar with meteorology and wind, its the most important but largely invisible force that can literally make you or break you. I love that overreach expected by a passion like that, meteorology is fascinating to engineer in me and its effects are very much visible every day and affect us all.

Since I've been bike commuting I've become more in touch with climate. For the simple need of avoiding rain. You start to pay attention to wind, direction, clouds .. it's strange cause you have to think more but it's also funny because you're sharper and smarter in a way. And that's just noob / surface level :)

Re: Cities need more trees

#159

Post by infecto »

tomjakubowski wrote: post #130
infecto wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Hollywood Hills are pretty barren no? There are trees but still very arid and not lush forest.

Griffith Park is full of trees.

There are trees in Griffith Park but it is still a fairly arid terrain compared to other regions. You just have to look at some of the surrounding untouched areas around Hollywood Hills to see how its mostly shrubs with very few trees and grasses.

Re: Cities need more trees

#160

Post by CuriouslyC »

sillyfluke wrote: post #151
CuriouslyC wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Next time you visit family get them to rent a house in Santa Barbara. Technically it's "central" California but it's only 90 minutes from LA and it's probably the coolest and most livable place in the whole state.

The change of landscape from Los Angeles to Santa Barbara always gives me prehistoric or jurassic vibes for some reason. Flying into LA from Europe and seeing slabs of reflecting concrete and buildings strech out for miles into the horizon from the desert really does give you the feeling that you are seeing the future of the climate apocalpyse in the present. As Gibson says, the future is already here it's just uneve…

I lived in Santa Barbara for 10 years. There's a thriving counterculture and a vibrant art and music community. The richie riches have their Montecito/Hope Ranch/etc supermansions, but the spirit of the place is bohemian.

As for transit, I can tell you from personal experience that it's a biking city. Busses have front and back bike racks and since the whole city is on a slope you can coast from uptown to downtown easily with the expectation that you'll be able to ride a bus back up.

Post reply on HN