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

121–130 of 155 posts

Re: Can you see three trees?

#121

Post by sltkr »

bluebarbet wrote: post #81
greatgib wrote: post #69

Totally random numbers picked up to be a catching name for trying to get celebrity. Could have been 200 meters or 500 meters or 4 trees or 2 or flowers. This is the kind of ideology that is ruining public policies instead of being grounded on concrete and scientific facts and goals.

An exaggeration. The numbers just function as a rule of thumb intended to inspire and motivate action.

I agree that that's the best way to take these kind of "rules", but that's the opposite of how the blog author presents it:

> the 3-30-300 test — a standard that has become the go-to for solving a universal urban problem

> 3-30-300 is a catchy, straightforward test that sets a clear benchmark for measuring equal access to nature.

> I found that my closest park isn't 300 metres away, it's 400 metres. That's close, but a fail.

It's a standard. It's a benchmark. And a park at 400 metres is no good; it must be 300 metres or else it may as well be 4 kilometers away. This isn't treating the test as a useful guidance, but as a hard target. As Goodheart's law states: when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.

When you focus exclusively on satisfying such metrics, you can end up with ineffective policy. Missing the forest for the trees, if you will.

Re: Can you see three trees?

#122

Post by phatskat »

mlsu wrote: post #111

I had a moment a few years ago (while on vacation) after a long flight. We set a blanket out under a huge tree and napped in the park all afternoon. I was staring up at a massive tree for probably 3 or 4 hours straight, basically doing nothing else. It is remarkable how calming it is to just sit there and stare at a tree. Now everywhere I live has to have a big tree somewhere nearby. There’s one right outside and I s…

I’ve done this both on and off psychedelics, and both are lovely experiences.

I also dated someone who wasn’t a particularly “crunchy” hippy type, but she did like to randomly hug trees on our walks to show appreciation. I do it now too, there’s something oddly calming and connecting about it - it may look weird, but that’s par for the course for me as it is

Re: Can you see three trees?

#123

Post by thewebguyd »

phatskat wrote: post #122
mlsu wrote: post #111

I had a moment a few years ago (while on vacation) after a long flight. We set a blanket out under a huge tree and napped in the park all afternoon. I was staring up at a massive tree for probably 3 or 4 hours straight, basically doing nothing else. It is remarkable how calming it is to just sit there and stare at a tree. Now everywhere I live has to have a big tree somewhere nearby. There’s one right outside and I s…

I’ve done this both on and off psychedelics, and both are lovely experiences. I also dated someone who wasn’t a particularly “crunchy” hippy type, but she did like to randomly hug trees on our walks to show appreciation. I do it now too, there’s something oddly calming and connecting about it - it may look weird, but that’s par for the course for me as it is

There's actually some research to back that up. (Forest bathing & the effects of phytoncides https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2793341/)

Nature, physical touch (even with non-human objects), and being near or touching a big stationary natural object triggers our parasympathetic nervous system too, helps reduce stress.

Everyone should go hug a tree! It's not completely woo woo, there are real biological benefits.

Re: Can you see three trees?

#124

Post by sandworm101 »

Alternative approach: Screw parks.

Parks are not nature. Parks are a sanitized parody of the natural world. They are a simulation meant to make us humans feel better about ourselves. They are gated grass farms, not wild areas, useful only to a select few animals (nothing bigger than a raccoon). Creating a park inside a urban area diverts land from actual nature. So, rather than build parks inside cities, we should develop that land and make our cities smaller.

We don't have to go all 40k hive world. Rather, if parks are kept at the urban periphery and/or are connected to each other, then they can thrive as actual natural space. We have modern transport technology. We can bring the people to the park rather than construct a park near the people and thereby deprive Bambi and all his friends of yet another acre of true wilderness.

Re: Can you see three trees?

#125

Post by Vivtek »

ruszki wrote: post #109

It’s maybe a good rule of thumb, but as I’m just outside of Helsinki for a while now, I’ve just realized what’s the difference between here and everywhere in central and south Europe: the trees are large and old. Even if there are trees in Vienna, Budapest, Brussels etc they are small, and very young compared to here. Even in the greener small Belgian villages, they are not that green than here, just outside of Helsi…

Depends on what part of Budapest. One of the reasons people like Zugló (14th district) is the many trees. And farther out it's even better, of course.

But a lot of the trees in Hungary just don't grow that big, maybe the most marked difference when I first saw it after growing up in Indiana. When we lived in the 16th district of Budapest, there was one neighborhood I used to walk the dog in that had these massive old American sycamores. Those things were beautiful.

Re: Can you see three trees?

#126

Post by weinzierl »

mlsu wrote: post #111

I had a moment a few years ago (while on vacation) after a long flight. We set a blanket out under a huge tree and napped in the park all afternoon. I was staring up at a massive tree for probably 3 or 4 hours straight, basically doing nothing else. It is remarkable how calming it is to just sit there and stare at a tree. Now everywhere I live has to have a big tree somewhere nearby. There’s one right outside and I s…

Had a class reunion recently and we got a tour through our old school building. Of course everything had changed beyond recognition during the past 30 years, except for one thing:

The old tree right outside the window was still the same. I know because I must have stared into it for hundreds of hours while being bored to no end during class. It probably prevented me from going insane. Thank you old tree.

Re: Can you see three trees?

#127

Post by Vivtek »

I live in a rain forest, so this post confused me for a minute. I was expecting some kind of on-screen optical illusion, but it turned to be asking about actual physical trees outside my window.

Yeah, I can see trees. I can see about fifty trees without standing up from my desk. I cut down more than three trees a month, probably. The weirdest ones are yagrumo - in about five years they can be fifty feet tall and the wood is so soft you can cut them down with a butter knife, just about. Before moving here, I'd never really considered that the Venn circles of "tree" and "weed" can overlap.

Re: Can you see three trees?

#129

Post by zahlman »

> Every home, school and office should have a view of at least three trees, be in a neighbourhood with 30% tree cover, and be within 300 metres of a park.

The middle one seems a lot harder to me than the other two.

Re: Can you see three trees?

#130

Post by lstodd »

qbit42 wrote: post #107
idoubtit wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.). Comp…

I think shade is a big factor here. Trees can really cool down a neighborhood.

Big factor is evapotranspiration. Shade is less useful.
Post reply on HN