| Trees
in Cities |
Robert
Leverett |
|
Aug
18, 2005 05:36 PDT |
Jess,
Good report. I certainly read it with
interest, as I do all your
reports. However, I shudder when I think about measuring trees
inside a
large city, and since its ascendency, Atlanta, the location of
my
undergraduate alma mater, has absolutely no appeal for me. Thank
God,
you documented the trees in Storza Woods for us.
When I lived in Atlanta, in the early
1960s, it was a laid back
southern city with considerable charm. It was liveable. The
tallest
structure was 31 stories and the next tallest 20. Both building
were
built while I was at Georgia Tech. The Atlanta of the 1960s had
an
openness to it. That was then. In the 1960s, the good citizens
of
Atlanta dreamed of big city status, of becoming a Philadelphia,
a
Boston, or a Cleveland. Well, they got their wish, but from my
perspective, at a heck of a price. Atlanta lost its soul, but it
wasn't
alone.
During the 1960s, Atlanta, Memphis, and
Denver were all up and
coming modest-sized cities in the 350,000 to 450,000 population
range.
Each had inspirations to achieve truly big city status. Today
they are
all choked with traffic. Each is proud of its skyscrapers and
upperclass
neighborhoods and ignore its endless suburban sprawl, and
depressing
slums. Each floats on a lifeless sea of asphalt and concrete and
dreams
of further growth.
For me, it is hard to assess the value
of tree-covered parks in
these three cities. No querstion that big trees inside city
parks are
appreciated by a small percentage of local residents, but for
most city
dwellers, trees in parks are merely a backdrop, green fixtures.
I'm still trying to work up
enthusiasm to visit Fairmout Park in
Philadelphia.
Bob
|
| RE:
Atlanta Trees |
Lee
E. Frelich |
|
Aug
18, 2005 08:50 PDT |
Bob:
Good points about Atlanta. Its an example of what happens when
people
mistakenly believe that a big city is a large collection of big
buildings
and people. Actually, a big city is a tightly woven fabric of
interactions
among people with many different interests and backgrounds, its
a whole
bunch of small villages that happen to be concentrated in one
area. The
social interactions among people aren't any different than in a
small rural
village. If the buildings and other infrastructure aren't built
in an
organic fashion to facilitate these layers of villages, then it
becomes a
collection of buildings and people, which in government
statistics may
still be a city, but is not a city functionally. The buildings
can be big
or small, tall or short, ugly or beautiful, and in any of these
cases it is
possible to build a functional or dysfunctional city, since its
the context
of the buildings and how they relate to one another that
determine the
function of a city.
Trees need to be part of the fabric of any big city (perhaps
excepting
those cities in desert areas), as Atlanta is now discovering
with their
recent program to increase tree cover. Trees in the big city are
a valuable
part of the infrastructure, since they moderate the climate, air
pollution,
heavy rainfall events, and increase property values. Here in
Minneapolis,
we have a very high level of tree cover, and people coming in by
plane
often remark how the downtown skyscrapers appear to rise right
out of a
forest. As a result, our night time urban heat island is only
4-5 degrees
F, compared to up to 10 or 12 degrees in some other cities. I
have a
feeling that with emerald ash borer, sudden oak death, Asian
long-horned
beetle and other imported pests coming, and the frequency of
derechos, its
going to be tough to maintain our urban forest in the next few
decades, but
we have our basswoods, hackberries, and new disease resistant
elms that are
popping up all over town. And, we can always use more cottonwood
on city
streets, and extend the 'snow' season through the end of June.
Lee
|
| RE:
Atlanta Trees |
Robert
Leverett |
|
Aug
18, 2005 10:24 PDT |
Lee:
I am glad that Atlanta is seeing the light.
About time.
From a city planning perspective, how would
you rate the cities you
visit, both here and abroad? From discussions we've had in the
past, I
seem to recall that Seattle, Minneapolis, and Chicago are ahead
of the
game in your experience.
Bob
|
| RE:
Atlanta Trees |
Lee
Frelich |
|
Aug
18, 2005 18:08 PDT |
Bob:
Seattle, Minneapolis and Chicago have wildly successful inner
cities, more
so than the often cited Portland OR. The same can be said of
Vancouver BC,
Toronto,and Montreal. Good architecture, green roofs, lots of
walking and
biking trails, and trees also seem to be correlated with their
success. Its hard to say whether these environmental features
are the
cause of or result of their success.
There are a lot of cities like the ones you mentioned earlier,
and San
Antonio, with its riverwalk, Kansas City, and Indianapolis, etc.
The
problem in these cases is there is a small island which is made
nice for
tourists, usually around the convention center, and the rest of
the city is
different, so there is not much depth to the city.
Lee
|
|