I commented to someone a while back that improving the ability to replant mid-growth tree (rather than the quasi-saplings that have to be planted) would smooth a lot of the pain of new/re-development. I have no idea what the pathway to that would be though.
The friendly robot (CGPT o3, decently reliable) thinks that there is active research but that replanting more mature trees is far more expensive and in the long run the trees are stunted versus standard young trees, in other words that 5 years out the younger tree plants outgrow the more mature re-plants.
Street trees are required by zoning. I've tried to write the larger trees in, in a few communities. But lost almost every time because the cost is much higher. Elected officials want trees in these projects. They'll stand by that. But they also listen to how more expensive trees result in more expensive housing (and that, is, however minor a factor it may be, inarguably true). Another incredibly important requirement is that they preserve any existing mature trees on the site to the extent possible.
1. One of the (many!) reasons Mexico City is one of my favorite cities in the world is the extraordinarily lush tree canopy both on streets and in many parks. It’s truly phenomenal! e.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/travel/s/V8iOSgvBXi
I find it to be a huge inspiration back here in DC—I think to myself, “Is there a specific reason that this street that appears to have a ‘lot’ of trees couldn’t have 4x as many, like in parts of Mexico City”?!
It’s especially spectacular in March, then the purple jacaranda trees bloom!
2. Singapore has lots of buildings with trees on their balconies and roofs, and (when combined with street trees) it really makes the city feel like a “garden city.” It’s one of the big reasons I liked Singapore a lot more than Hong Kong, which I thought was dominated by giant ugly gray towers everywhere I went (though to be fair, at least they have mountains).
3. I realized a while ago that beautiful architecture has a tricky issue: if we have trees in front of pretty buildings, then it sort of hides the beauty of the building—which is sad because trees and pretty buildings are both great, and I don’t want them to be in tension with each other. It is very interesting how in Europe there are many squares and pedestrian malls with little to no tree coverage, presumably for architectural reasons.
A Spanish friend of mine was complaining to me about how one of the plazas at the center of the city in Madrid was recently renovated with zero trees included in the design… but I think that was kind of the point. And an online search says that apparently the city council wants it to be a walk-through area and not a rest area (which seems a bit short-sighted to me): https://madridsecreto.co/en/puerta-del-sol-trees-en/
4. One great things about trees is that they can do a good job of hiding ugly buildings, and as you noted, can hide how tall a building is—making it easier to have density that goes semi-unnoticed.
5. Another awesome place for trees is indoors! In particular, I recently flew from Singapore to Doha, which is a special route because it connects the two airports that are famous for their indoors forests. Singapore’s, in particular, was truly just spectacular!
Portland does street trees really well - even the densest neighborhoods of the urban core have great tree coverage. San Francisco has a lot of room for improvement, and I think the city would benefit greatly from a mayor or a member of the board of supervisors committing to street trees as a major issue.
I commented to someone a while back that improving the ability to replant mid-growth tree (rather than the quasi-saplings that have to be planted) would smooth a lot of the pain of new/re-development. I have no idea what the pathway to that would be though.
I know even less than you do, it's an important question.
The friendly robot (CGPT o3, decently reliable) thinks that there is active research but that replanting more mature trees is far more expensive and in the long run the trees are stunted versus standard young trees, in other words that 5 years out the younger tree plants outgrow the more mature re-plants.
Street trees are required by zoning. I've tried to write the larger trees in, in a few communities. But lost almost every time because the cost is much higher. Elected officials want trees in these projects. They'll stand by that. But they also listen to how more expensive trees result in more expensive housing (and that, is, however minor a factor it may be, inarguably true). Another incredibly important requirement is that they preserve any existing mature trees on the site to the extent possible.
Lol @ “Big Tree and its shady agenda”
On a more serious note:
1. One of the (many!) reasons Mexico City is one of my favorite cities in the world is the extraordinarily lush tree canopy both on streets and in many parks. It’s truly phenomenal! e.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/travel/s/V8iOSgvBXi
I find it to be a huge inspiration back here in DC—I think to myself, “Is there a specific reason that this street that appears to have a ‘lot’ of trees couldn’t have 4x as many, like in parts of Mexico City”?!
It’s especially spectacular in March, then the purple jacaranda trees bloom!
https://thecreativeadventurer.com/the-ultimate-guide-to-seeing-the-jacaranda-trees-in-mexico-city/amp/
2. Singapore has lots of buildings with trees on their balconies and roofs, and (when combined with street trees) it really makes the city feel like a “garden city.” It’s one of the big reasons I liked Singapore a lot more than Hong Kong, which I thought was dominated by giant ugly gray towers everywhere I went (though to be fair, at least they have mountains).
3. I realized a while ago that beautiful architecture has a tricky issue: if we have trees in front of pretty buildings, then it sort of hides the beauty of the building—which is sad because trees and pretty buildings are both great, and I don’t want them to be in tension with each other. It is very interesting how in Europe there are many squares and pedestrian malls with little to no tree coverage, presumably for architectural reasons.
A Spanish friend of mine was complaining to me about how one of the plazas at the center of the city in Madrid was recently renovated with zero trees included in the design… but I think that was kind of the point. And an online search says that apparently the city council wants it to be a walk-through area and not a rest area (which seems a bit short-sighted to me): https://madridsecreto.co/en/puerta-del-sol-trees-en/
4. One great things about trees is that they can do a good job of hiding ugly buildings, and as you noted, can hide how tall a building is—making it easier to have density that goes semi-unnoticed.
5. Another awesome place for trees is indoors! In particular, I recently flew from Singapore to Doha, which is a special route because it connects the two airports that are famous for their indoors forests. Singapore’s, in particular, was truly just spectacular!
6. Speaking of bringing trees indoors — I’m *super* excited for the future of mass-timber buildings, like the new terminal at Portland airport (PDX): https://www.designboom.com/architecture/zgf-pdx-portland-airport-main-terminal-mass-timber-oregon-08-14-2024/
Thanks for the great start to my day—and now you have me thinking about turning this comment into its own Substack post….
Portland does street trees really well - even the densest neighborhoods of the urban core have great tree coverage. San Francisco has a lot of room for improvement, and I think the city would benefit greatly from a mayor or a member of the board of supervisors committing to street trees as a major issue.