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

Can you see three trees?

not-ship.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 155 posts

Re: Can you see three trees?

#91

Post by watwut »

xondono wrote: post #90

I think these simplifications end up hurting more than helping. 30% tree cover looks very different depending on the trees your municipality chooses. For example, Barcelona covers everything with a variety of Platanus, which is easier to keep than other trees, but it’s quite dirty and produces A LOT of pollen. For me, that I’m allergic to it, it just makes the city unavailable for 2-4 weeks every year. Having smaller…

> Having smaller plants, with more variety also feels much better than just sprinkling the right amount of massive trees with equal spacing.

The thing people want from trees is shading and general cooling of the environment. Small plants provide much less of that and the summers are increasingly hot.

Re: Can you see three trees?

#92

Post by tamimio »

Well, I live up high in a penthouse with an amazing river view and hundreds of maple trees that also change colors throughout the seasons. I wish I could share it but I am certain some of you might geolocate it.

Edit: for canada map since the article ignores the country entirely, check https://www.globalforestwatch.org/map/country/CAN/

Re: Can you see three trees?

#93

Post by sudosteph »

A few years ago, I spent a summer renting a 1 bedroom new build apartment in the south part of Seattle. The only outside light or fresh air came from a sliding door that overlooked an interior parking garage. It always smelled like fumes. Couldn't even see the sky from most angles. I was convinced after that that living conditions without access to fresh air and nature are probably one of the more potent causes of neuroticism in city-dwellers. Lack of AC didn't help either when it was hitting the 90s at multiple points that summer.

This is probably the one area that most cities in North Carolina excel at. We don't have great sidewalks or transit, but we have a ton a trees. Less than we used to though. But from my current apartment, I'm closer to seeing 300 trees than 3. The post-hurricane-Hugo effort to buy out houses in flood prone zones and turn them into greenways was probably the single smartest thing Charlotte and the surrounding towns have done (though I'm glad we got our light rail too - too bad for Raleigh). It's a good pattern - protects the natural watershed, gives wildlife a safe place to live, makes flooding less impactful, and creates pleasant away-from-road paths for walking and biking.

Re: Can you see three trees?

#94

Post by idoubtit »

xondono wrote: post #90

I think these simplifications end up hurting more than helping. 30% tree cover looks very different depending on the trees your municipality chooses. For example, Barcelona covers everything with a variety of Platanus, which is easier to keep than other trees, but it’s quite dirty and produces A LOT of pollen. For me, that I’m allergic to it, it just makes the city unavailable for 2-4 weeks every year. Having smaller…

I also think these are harmful simplifications, for several reasons.

First of all, I'm skeptical about the study that proves that people seeing three trees have better mental health. There are so many factors that it's hard to separate one. A solid study would compare families living in the same building, roughly at the same floor, and with similar parameters (family size, income, education, street noise, etc.). Comparisons from different buildings induce too many side factors. I think that collecting this sample would be very hard. I can't access the full-text behind the paywall, so I don't know their methodology, and their abstract is vague, so I fear the paper is meaningless.

Then do people really watch that much through their windows? I'd be surprised that having a glimpse of a few trees at home once a day could change anyone's life.

Even if trees did has a positive impact on mental health, I suppose inciting people to bike or walk (at least partly) to workplaces and stores would dwarf that impact, for mental and physical health.

Lastly, the 30% of tree cover seems arbitrary. For the same percentage, would covering every street with trees have the same impact as keeping trees inside parks? I think the goal to provide places where people go for a walk requires different solutions than the goal to reduce the heat in a concrete jungle.

Re: Can you see three trees?

#95

Post by [deleted] »

pm215 wrote: post #20
luuundonjk wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm talking about trees on sidewalks and streets, not about parks.

The city government tracks data on public realm trees, and has a nice map based visualization of it: https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-and-strategies/environm... and if you zoom in you'll see that many of these are streetside trees. Personally I have always felt that most Japanese cities are very devoid of urban greenery compared to UK towns and cities.

[deleted]

Re: Can you see three trees?

#96

Post by oasisbob »

qrios wrote: post #86

Thanks for sharing! I had no idea about the “3-30-300 test,” even though I always pay attention to city trees. I can, however, easily explain the division in Europe: In Italy (for example, in Palermo), the vigorous growth of many species very often leads to significant damage to infrastructure. Here in Vienna, there’s a directory of trees[1] where you can see, among other things, the species and age. [1] https://baum…

As Alex Shigo likes to point out, it's too easy to try and explain infrastructure damage in terms of trees, while giving expansive soils a free pass.

That's like explaining frost-jacking of a wall in terms of temperature instead of hydrology.

Re: Can you see three trees?

#97

Post by pvaldes »

mcdonje wrote: post #52

I read Don Quixote and thought it might be fun to visit some parts of Spain mentioned in the books. Then after looking at some maps and seeing a stark lack of trees, I decided I wouldn't enjoy the trip.

We don't have the spectacular red Maple or Ponderosa pine forests that America has, this is true, but if this helps, some places in the North and Center of Spain (and many more in the rest of Europe) still look pretty much like Lothlorien. You just need to know where to go. Check Muniellos (oak), Tejera de Tosande (ancient yews and beech) or Irati forest (beech) for example.

The inner center and hot south can be more dusty and discouraging, but you can still be surprised by a few, not well known, jewels like Cabañeros, Valsain's pine forest, Alto Tajo, or Grazalema and the last relict Mediterranean -humid- forests in Cadiz. Plenty also of lagoons, marshes and aquatic ecosystems to visit, like Doñana or Daimiel. The biosphere reserve Hayedo de Montejo is located in Don Quixote's land.

Re: Can you see three trees?

#100

Post by projektfu »

mcdonje wrote: post #52

I read Don Quixote and thought it might be fun to visit some parts of Spain mentioned in the books. Then after looking at some maps and seeing a stark lack of trees, I decided I wouldn't enjoy the trip.

It didn't help that the King used them all up in the war with England a couple hundred years after Cervantes. A lot of Europe is trying to reforest now and hopefully that process continues.
Post reply on HN