Canberra is heavenly in terms of number of trees. Acres of parkland, farmland or wild bush near every part of the city. As well as treelined streets.
Cities need more trees
91–100 of 169 posts
Re: Cities need more trees
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Walkable green streets are not a marginal gain in my book. It is time we make our cities pleasant to live in.
Re: Cities need more trees
#93EAB is definitely making sure we cut down more than ever!
Re: Cities need more trees
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Tell you what, you enjoy your Mumbai style wire canopy, I'll pay more to live in a place where they bury the lines and tree branches and sky are the only things over my head.
Re: Cities need more trees
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Root penetration is a minimal problem in most cases, sure it does break things sometimes but its probably not as bad as you're making out.
Re: Cities need more trees
#96Spent 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.
Re: Cities need more trees
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
> 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.
Re: Cities need more trees
#98Spent 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…
Los Angeles is located in semi-arid climate, so there's not going to be a lot of vegetation there.
Re: Cities need more trees
#99Spent 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…
Los Angeles is located in semi-arid climate, so there's not going to be a lot of vegetation there.
The Hollywood Hills show that doesn’t have to be the case.
Re: Cities need more trees
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 d…
Zürich needs Lärmblitzer against pointless revving and honking.