Why is it so complicated to fill all the boulevards with trees that will, in the future, provide a thick canopy?
1. This requires planning and change. Tearing up pathways and streets is expensive, takes planning on administrative side and execution on the physical one. Cities and towns have limited money and don't want go through the effort and cost of it. You'll also encounter NIMBYs who are against any change whatsoever.
2. Tree roots in cities generally grow more horizontal and close to the surface. Reason for this is water and air access. If the surrounding area is paved over with concrete or other solid materials and doesn't allow for drainage and airflow, like some light cobbled pathways would, trees will come up and crack the concrete. Since a lot of the underlying structure is compacted soil to allow stable roads and buildings, water won't drain into it and provide less water for soil.
We wanted to revitalize an open empty market space in our small district. Think 200sqm. Total cost for replacing the old concrete tiles with less compacted cobbles and some wildflower beds and trees was 10m Euros.
There is a constant battle where retirees who have moved out here want to cut down all the trees because they are “a nuisance.”
I love the trees in front yards and in some other places, but in back yards where they're in the utility easement and never should've been allowed there in the first place, they _are_ a nuisance. It's important to differentiate the two; if we want the benefits of electricity we have to compromise a little on every-tree-everywhere-no-matter-the-cost.
Unfortunately some dumb bug ate all the old trees so many of the roads are nude now, but they’re slowing building them back up with a tree nursery.
But it takes 20+ years.
As someone from a country where electricity comes from the ground, not the sky: unless you live in a place that also doesn't have sewers or municipal water, no we do not.
Someone at some point made the (at the time perhaps even sensible, but more likely not) choice to run electricity along poles, fully exposed to the environment, instead of using utility pipes buried several feet deep. And you now live with the consequences of that decision.
Plant trees there, and move your utilities underground, geography and climate permitting.
And then keep that electricity above ground for all the parts where people don't (or sparsely) live. They're not the areas that are part of this problem.
In war footage sometimes you see FLIR imagers being used to find tanks hidden under brush and stuff, but this is because the tank has been there long enough for its engine residual warmth to heat up the cover material. And sometimes you can track a moving target through _very thin_ brush because there are gaps between the leaves, in this case it's like visually tracking someone wearing a bright color -- as soon as the cover is thick enough to not have gaps anymore, you lose them.
So, I can't prove a chain of reasoning, but I can say that part of it at least fits with physical reality.
1. The local agency having jurisdiction would assume the risk of having installed hazards within a clear zone. That is the area beyond a curb or shoulder that is recommended to be free of anything an errant vehicle could collide with. A city would probably tolerate this. A state DOT would probably not.
2. Who pays for it? Landscaping is more costly than you think and contractors tend to be specialized. For a significant streetscaping project, you would need someone who has an efficient pipeline for mobilizing migrant labor. Cities and states tend to have massive shortfalls in capital improvement budgets versus what is desired. Example: Little Rock infrastructure CAPEX needs are around $1B. Their 3-yr bond is around $35M. Are you really going to blow it all on trees when you have major life safety improvements to make?
3. Who maintains it? Tree litter has to be swept. Roots destroy the adjacent pavement. They can get old and fall on a motorist if left alone. Your city probably doesn’t have the staff to provide every service every resident wants at all times. How many firefighters are you willing to fire to pick up branches?
Have some empathy for your City Manager or Mayor. These are the decisions they make frequently. Their problems are boring to most and don’t usually make it to HN, but they are hard problems.
But an ever growing problem is the need for fresh water and infrastructure. And I know this always gets push back, but a lot of desert is great for development principally because before modernity no one could live there. Further, the deserts have been expanding on their own so reclamation is a thing.
Having been to Arcosanti, wish there was as some desire to explore alternatives. I have no love of being completely dependent upon vehicles and their huge footprint and risk exposures.
At least here in the UK things like maintenance of trees falls to the most local authority (town/parish councils) that are notoriously underfunded and will cut down a tree is it's cheaper than maintaining it. They are allergic to the risk posed by falling branches too.
There are monthly, local taxes, yes. Payable by all residents.
Are they enough? Nothing is ever enough.
Usually there is not room in the soil (pipes etc), and asphalt/concrete prevent a tree to get water.
Also trees evolved to live in an ecosystem. A city is not an ecosystem.
And there also are roofs and walls and roads, so tree will just mitigate the problem.
It's feasible, but the cost is high, and it also implies giving up car space.
A city is an ecosystem, and we desperately need to treat them as one rather than try an obliterate all signed of none human life.
> not room in the soil
Not true in any sense, yes there are services under the ground but that is a tiny amount of usage. Roots can cause problems for hard surfaces, but the answers to that is more turf and planting, exactly as the article is proposing.
> also implies giving up car space.
Also only a good outcome, we need less cars stationary on streets using up valuable space.
Mature trees are also simply expensive by itself, as they require many years to grow. They are expensive to transport, and the transplant frequently fails to take hold, requiring buying another expensive tree, digging up the previous one and replacing it. This makes planting mature tree cost tens of thousands of dollars, compared to tens of dollars for planting saplings.
Maybe this is the problem. Humans like to pretend we are separate from the environment rather than a part of it, and the consequences of this lunacy are felt in every aspect of our lives, always to the negative.
LA: https://goo.gl/maps/4XzjwTJ3xS438izu5
Sacramento: https://goo.gl/maps/5QVxr3nzwa6cmd5TA
Brooklyn: https://goo.gl/maps/bwqb8ekAiWCsL1Ai6
Washington D.C.: https://goo.gl/maps/AYmNQAErn6h8yKco6
Houston: https://goo.gl/maps/6BMiFgyWv1ZM1HqV9
You just need to do it. Some is better than none and you need some to have more.
The roof over your head now will likely need to be replaced on a more frequent basis than trees will cause maintenance issues.
there are other reasons to put the trees there anyway (physical / mental health, heat, etc) but they are not well appreciated by everyone.. and we as a society have to collectively make a choice between those pros and cons.