London’s trees are saving the city billions
citylab.com
citylab.com
Cutting down London’s Trees Costs the City Billions
You can define normal how you want, but my way comes from seeing trees as normal. The old headline seems to treat lack of trees as normal.
Instead of cutting down trees and putting up buildings, how about cutting down buildings and putting up trees?
I sweated through my shirts immediately going outside. But my home state in the winter ranges between 0C and 15C in October.
I work near the new building at 1550 mission and they've put trees down in front of that building and the street is instantly nicer.
Secondly, this attitude about not cutting trees is causing many trees from not getting planted. Because there are utilities that lie underneath and if they need to be repaired 15 years later, trees are in the way.
Yes, please. Living in NYC I have seen so many trees disappear. Every single remodel or development cuts down every green thing and paves over anything which can spawn life. It makes the neighborhood look bare revealing all the dirt and grime.
The natural vegetation in many parts of the highveld here naturally had almost no trees. (Pretoria does have a lot of trees naturally.)
Berlin is the only city in the world with more trees today than Johannesburg.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7e/5e/70/7e5e7045c4443f645731...
when I think of Toronto I think more of this:
In German cities in my experience treets often seem more imposing or covering more space, maybe that's the difference as North American streets are much wider.
I bought this house 4 years ago and have since planted 5 trees on my property alone. And have convinced two neighbours to plant at least one.
Have you spoken to him about this?
Also, one of the most rewarding things you can do is volunteer to plant trees in your city. At least in the US, cities often partner with local organizations for the manpower to plant and care for new trees. When I lived in San Jose, CA, my wife and I planted 3 trees one weekend along with a group who planted over 20 on 2 streets. The city provided the trees and fertilizer, the group provided the tools, and the volunteers did the digging and planting. We lived several blocks away and would go water the trees every week during the first few months to get them rooted. Almost 20 years later, we still go out of our way to visit “our” trees whenever we’re in the area.
But what do you say? "Um. You shouldn't do that." Why? Because it's bad for the tree? "Have some respect for nature?" It's a difficult argument to support.
"Don't be stupid, ya moron." is really what I'd like to say.
Just ask him to come over here and look at something, then standing together on a 15 meter distance of the tree ask him wether his decorations add a useful element to the scenery.
Unbox the most ugly Christmas decorations you find on ebay. And supply the man an additional set of extras so from now on he can go ahead with a more professional gear set.
The machiavellian would record and post the prince glitter show on instagram and then burn $200 on instagram ad boost to a selective postal code area.
Next time your British nod will have super powers.
If that question gets you angry, maybe you shouldn't talk to him.
But if you were more willing to INFORM than Correct, you'd be more gentle.
Since the vast majority of buildings in London do not have AC, the savings are more theoretical than real.
There are also the thousands of people employed full time in the autumn to pick up leaves, and the people employed all winter to unblock drains blocked with tree detritus, and the springtime cutting of every tree and the associated road blockages and slowdowns... Those are very real costs.
Add to that the misery that tree pollen causes ~half the population... Having a headache, painful eyes, and blocked nose from april to july has got to hit productivity pretty badly!
I'd say the benefits on purely economic grounds aren't as clearcut as this article suggests.
And if the trees weren't there, how many buildings that currently don't have AC would need it?
Not necessarily so theoretical a saving.
Plus anti-histamine tablets are super-effective and cost literally a couple of pence per tablet from generics so you could spend perhaps £5 (1) to have enough hay fever tablets to last the entire summer and beyond (and probably free on the NHS if you can't afford £5) so I don't think it is quite such misery.
1 - https://smile.amazon.co.uk/240-Loratadine-Allergy-Relief-Tab...
And even if trees are not there won't grass/dust/pollen from plant flowers cause the allergy problem.
It's true other plants make pollen, but trees form by far the majority of the pollen issue [1]. Different types of tree produce pollen in different months, making a pretty consistent problem. Grasses on the other hand nearly all make pollen the same week. There aren't many other plants in London...
[1]: https://www.avogel.co.uk/health/hayfever/pollen-forecast/lon...
So grow pines and other evergreens they don't drop their leaves all at once like deciduous trees do in the fall.
https://www.surreycomet.co.uk/news/11855411.greener-pastures...
They spent a huge amount to install a non-native tree that is effectifly a stick and they died, replaced them again and they also died, finally replaced them with something that would last and they are just saplings. The greenway was effectively getting the middle of a busy road and putting in some concrete pathing which they painted green, few flower boxes that are mostly showing off soil and that cost millions.
So call me a cynical about some initiatives, but I've seen, experienced as thanks to my local council - paid for so many failed ones that to teh common lay person - lacked common sense, that when I see such reports, I just know they are not seeing the whole picture and are only used to push more expensive, ill-thought vanity projects by certain types of councils.
Same council who ignores flooding in some area's and would be best solved by planting some trees, yet they refuse as they are worried about additional leaf little that may clog up the roads. For those wondering - Kingston-Upon-Thames is the area's I'm referring about.
But if a council can cut down a large tree for dubious reasons and replace it with a couple of saplings that take decades to reach the same potential and in many cases, poorly chosen tree's that will die, they can trumpet their ego and say they have more trees than they cut down, yet reality shows that is far from the truth in results.
... and is a low risk operation. More profitable than robbing a bank, for sure. You chop a tree at 5am, put it in a truck, and ka-ching. You can tell later that the tree fell ill suddenly, was dying, was a danger, or tell similar excuses. Nobody will battle an eye. Cash and profit.
..................
The second part is the good one. Cities need to make gardens for their citizens. If you can afford it there are good reasons to start with the biggest tree available
For seller is good, the more expensive the tree, the more money that you can bill to the city.
For the buyer is good also. When spending public money, having instant results is a must. Valuable brownie points for the politicians in charge.
Moreover, you can't just put any tree in any location.
Cypress are survivors. Fit in narrow spaces and stand polluted areas and dry spells. Even if non native, are known not to be invasive, soft, non thorns at eye level, toxicity is not a problem, littering is not a big trouble, and are relatively cheap to buy and maintain. I would prefer to see a row of Amanogawa japanese cherries instead, but Cupressus is a reasonable choice for a city.
> Replaced third time by saplings.
No politician would plant a sapling for helping their successor in power ten years later. Not if can try with a big tree instead. But, after two fails, this is also a reasonable change of mind. Saplings stablish better in difficult places, specially when vandalism is not severe.
Well, that seems like a problem to me.
Everywhere they have been planted the roots have torn up the pavements sometimes causing them to mound over the roots which looks really unsightly and is often a trip hazard. Also on some pavements the trees cause bottlenecks because its too narrow for two people to pass eachother.
When there's multiple trees along most blocks, and something like a 25% chance the sidewalk will be buckled next to the tree, you get used to it and habitually scan the sidewalk every time you pass under a tree.
Passing them in a wheelchair is probably a bit more of a problem though; it's not uncommon to see people in powered wheelchairs/scooters going down a side street instead of an oak-lined boulevard's sidewalks.
Brickwork sidewalk might bend a bit more smoothly than asphalt or concrete slabs... or at least it should be more repairable without tearing everything out.
> Also on some pavements the trees cause bottlenecks because its too narrow for two people to pass eachother.
This indicates that there's simply too little space allocated to the sidewalk + trees.
Looks great in my head!
Had they just said, cyclists can use pavements period - but pedestrians have priority - it would of been far better for all and way safer and cheaper than what we actually got.
Indeed, I grow my own trees from seeds collected locally and ninja plant them out in the area - not done many, but way better than buying some expensive tree sapling that's imported. I've suggested to my local MP about schools collecting seeds and doing the same, but alas it did not tick any PR box's for the MP who in question is busy banging on about brexit, same MP who I suggested a health service conscription service to tackle shortages and more so, educate people about health service - even if was two week placement of high-school students as they do with work placement. Shame that suggestion got ignored as well given hindsight of today's times.
What I have learned, if you really care and want to get something done, just do it as the time to fight bureaucracy will take longer and still be stuck at the starting line.
[EDIT ADD Spelling and sorry I sound a bit sour, but the angst is strong with hindsight]
I also educated a guy with a textile factory that has large western windows to plant some native fast growing deciduous trees (ash is my favourite due to good wind resistance) in front of them in orderto block the summer sun and install a white PU panel roof instead of spending a large sum of money on A/C. He only installed mechanical ventilation as it was sufficient.
The local council plants plane trees now instead of tilia but I don't like them that much after I was in London because of the irritating fluff that they shed around in May. We used to have a lot of chestnut, tilia, acer and some ash.
depends, some you have to pop into the freezer for a bit to kick them into earlier cycle, indeed, many need a frost to kick their biological clock into action. But yes, takes time, grow inside window ledge, repot, as they grow and after few years get to put into larger pot outside and climatise them for a year or two and then plant out when good size. It's a slow process and can't do huge amount, but every little helps and local seeds so used to conditions and by that, soil types and climate. I tend to focus on nut trees, ideally want to get some walnuts, but few hazelnuts, apples easy, same with cherry. Trees that also produce food and add to rummaging experience on walks.
But utter lack of walnut trees around my area, as all over the decades got turned into wood for use/abuse. Actually, lots of acorns/Oaks but few hazelnuts and the like, fair few apple and some pear tree's about, but general lack of all those really.
I also like to plant out sunflowers, chives, other herbs randomly here and there, though not done any mint, probably be irresponsible with that as the way it spreads, though i'd take mint of nettles and who wouldn't.
Yesterday I biked over to a friend and back, different routes except the first/last 200m, both routes as green-ish as possible in the city. Say 10km along tree-lined streets, through parks, etc, and a few km elsewhere. I don't think I passed even a single of those annoying root bumps, and from this I infer that whatever city department is responsible for planting the trees knows how to do it well.
It can be done, some cities succeed almost perfectly, "everywhere" isn't.
I am not sure what would be the solution to this, apart from demolishing the old buildings and build new ones up that satisfy modern standards.
You only report "one" hell of a draught coming from somewhere. There will be lots of draughts!
University of West England seems to disagree: https://fet.uwe.ac.uk/conweb/house_ages/elements/print.htm
> Many local authorities were slow in adopting Model Bye-laws; even where they did, building control was fairly lax. This meant that the nature and quality of foundations varied considerably. The graphics below show typical foundations at the end of the 1800s. The depths varied according to circumstances but generally they were shallower than their modern counterparts.
This means, they are shallower than other parts of the world of the same era.
Also: https://newmanbuildingsolutions.com/bowing-walls/residential...
> The Victorians often didn’t use this method of construction for foundations and instead used to build shallow footings out of a course of 5-6 bricks in a ‘pyramid’ shape spreading the load across the ground and in some cases the footings are no more than 200mm’s deep.
> [...] The problems with the shallow foundations arise due to the shrinkage and heave of the clay soils that are found across London and the South East
So the roots. Energy-wise the lack of insulation on the foundation is also an issue. Heat can escape downwards as well. (And slugs, rats, spiders up, but that's an other story.)
Back on topic, we have a 50' walnut tree in our garden that we tend to. It gets a feed every other year. Next door is a 100+ acre park, mostly woodland: oak, ash, beech, horse chestnut etc. It is really starting to look lovely after a 10 year plan to get rid of the laurels, which were planted about 150 odd years back but have turned out to be invasive, poisonous and left unchecked nearly took over completely.
On https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... , on page 13 you can find the distribution of EPC ratings by age.
Generally you pay in productivity loss XOR the AC costs, right?
Trees are not free, but even taking in mind the need to remove litter and manage it, they will improve the economy in a city. At least as long you choose wisely the right species.
Highly, highly recommend the book The Hidden Life of Trees
Trees become mature at different rates, which also depends on climate. In temperate climate with sub-zero winter, a fast growing species, like poplar trees and spruces, will take 10 years to start producing flower.
And while a yellow poplar lives on average 250 years, the hybrid poplar live 50 years. White spruce easily live pass 300 years, while black spruce seldom reach 300 years.
Edit: network effect has nothing to do with a tree maturation or lifespan, but everything to do with creating an ecosystem. A single row of trees in the city creates an local ecosystem. The Houston medical area is a good example of that: https://news.rice.edu/2019/09/06/pain-in-the-asp-rice-ecolog...
It saves them a few hours of labor to pick up leaves.
I think we get a Good Deal.
We'd also be free of some racists, a sex abuser, and a meddling old man, who claim to represent the people of a democracy but have never stood for election.