Hacker News Reader

Comment by yen223 | Hacker News Reader

> You can still see a stark difference between rich and poor neighbourhoods to this day based purely on tree cover.

You can see that here in Sydney. The poorer Western Sydney suburbs have a noticeable lack of tree coverage when compared with the richer inner west, northern, and eastern suburbs.

I don't know which direction cause and effect goes. It is plausible that affluent suburbs can afford to plant trees, but it is also plausible, especially here in Australia, that trees lead to nicer climates that are more appealing to folks who can afford it.

View on HN

This is such a long-standing difference that Sydney newspapers will use the word 'leafy' to describe a suburb as having significant social capital. The local governments in the 'leafy' areas are extremely protective of their trees, for example, have a look at Hornsby Shire Council's regulations on trees[0]. They will fine you significant amounts of money if you kill or significantly prune a tree on your own property without permission.

[0] https://www.hornsby.nsw.gov.au/environment/flora-and-fauna/t...

West Sydney was rural fields until it was developed during the later half of the 20th century

I’m fairly sure the issue stems from insanely dense urban packing with a refusal to develop almost anything other than single family homes

They try to maximise house size on small blocks leading to an almost impossible block to plant a tree on

———

Also pointing out Greater Western Sydney is one of the worst urban places in the world for tree cover given the climate

I could never afford to live in Sydney, but my late father’s upbringing in the then “poor” North Sydney is starkly different to the quality of life available to the youth in “poor” areas of 21st century Sydney

But it’s not just the block sizes, it’s also the streets. Often Western Sydney streets have no trees at all (and even no footpaths)

Agreed, although I still don't get the fact we continually plant trees that grow taller than the overhead power lines and then the council has to continually prune them into weird shapes to prevent interference.

e.g. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-18/pruning-street-trees-...

A lesson on how not to do things. I'm all for appropriate trees though.

Mostly urban density ideas were incompatible with green space in the decades prior. The more you want to fit people to "lower" rent, the less you can allocate for grass or trees.

I don't know. When thinking about "urban density in decades prior" the first thing that comes to my mind are the "commie blocks" of the 50s-80s. The thinking of those often explicitly included green space: put people in denser higher buildings and you have space for green spaces in between. The execution wasn't always stellar, but it was in no way incompatible with trees.

There were a lot of open spaces in the 60s and 70s, but over the years, "every" space has been converted into utility or new buildings.

I think you misunderstand the commie block. The entire greenspace is part of the property as well. See peter cooper village in nyc.

Things like Cooper village seems to be the exception where I live.

Those projects are common all over the eastern US at least. Western US made them more squat generally a couple stories, but about as much green space surrounding the property. Not often as many trees but the children play outside and leave bikes and toys across the property.

During summers, old commieblocks in my neighborhood look like ships in a sea of trees. High density and lots of greenery can coexist.

Would you mind sharing your location (even vaguely) ? or maybe another place with similar architecture if you prefer.

Feel free to check out the whole neighborhood and courtyards between the buildings: https://www.google.com/maps/@56.0184683,92.8469346,3a,75y,17...

I'd guess both. Rich places have the money and influence to improve their area, leading to increased property value, in a cycle.

Its super expensive to put in trees and maintain them. Most slumlords cut the trees down and do things like pave the entire plot. Rich people don’t move for trees. They create rich neighborhoods where there aren’t any trees all the time, then they bring in trees from nurseries and hire landscapers.

Visit Canberra! We have a remarkable amount of trees, it’s beautiful.

https://www.nca.gov.au/education/canberras-history/charles-w...

The ACT is full of really thoughtful planning in general. A reminder that experiment and sanity coexisting sometimes prevails when planning in the very long term for development :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com